The Big Story: Appeals court sets high bar on challenges to redistricting map

PHOENIX—A new court ruling that leaves Arizona’s current legislative districts in place sets a high bar for challengers who don’t think the map includes enough districts considered winnable by either major political party.

A state Court of Appeals panel ruled 3-0 Thursday reversed a trial judge’s decision that the state redistricting commission didn’t put enough emphasis on creating districts that were competitive.

The ruling came on an appeal in a suit filed by Democrats, who had argued that the legislative map used in 2002, 2004 and 2006 elections didn’t include enough competitive districts.

Republicans during each of those three elections won majorities in both chambers of the Legislature, though Democrats added seats in 2006.

Election officials already considered it too late to switch to change districts for use in voting this year, but the Court of Appeals ruling effectively cements that, attorneys said.

According to the appeals court, the Arizona Constitution’s voter-approved redistricting criteria only require the commission to consider competitive districts, not necessarily create them or put that goal above others.

Evidence in the case indicates that the commission did consider competitiveness but concluded that drawing maps with more closely balanced districts would have compromised other criteria, the ruling said.

“The court has really nailed down the breath and depth of the discretion that the commission has,” said commission Chairman Steve Lynn, a Tucson utility executive.

The ruling provides important guidance on how the redistricting process approved by voters in 2000 is supposed to work, including the commission’s discretion and any legal reviews of the product, said commission attorney Lisa Hauser. “If there’s evidence in the record to support their decision, their decision really can’t be second-guessed.”

Arizona and other states redraw their internal political boundaries every decade after the U.S. Census records population changes.

The Arizona commission’s five members were appointed after voters approved a constitutional amendment taking legislative and congressional redistricting out of the hands of the Legislature.

The ensuing mapmaking process in 2001 and 2002 saw tugs-of-war between both major political parties as they jockeyed for ballot-box opportunities. Also battling were cities and other jurisdictions that championed or opposed various proposed maps in order to enhance their clout, particularly at the Legislature.

How boundaries are drawn can influence whether a party wins a seat and decide whether an individual can run for office from a particular district.

Lawyers for the challengers haven’t yet consulted their clients about the latest ruling but they likely will ask the state Supreme Court to accept an appeal, said attorney Chuck Blanchard.

“We think it gives undue deference to the commission. It seems to imply that as long as the commission gives lip service to competitiveness, that’s enough,” Blanchard said.

The case has been in the courts for years, with the Democratic challengers now twice having won in the trial court before seeing that victory overturned on appeal.

The state Supreme Court court declined to review an earlier Court of Appeals’ opinion issued in 2005. Like the one issued Thursday, the 2005 opinion said the trial judge held the commission to too strict a standard.

Critics of the commission’s legislative and congressional districts last year began an initiative campaign to amend the Arizona Constitution to require more emphasis on creating competitive districts.

The case is Arizona Minority Coalition vs. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 1 CA-CV 07-0301.