Arizona is gaining a ninth congressional district this year, and it is certain to be based in the Phoenix suburbs where the population has exploded recently. Generally it is believed that the new district will be Republican-leaning as are most of the Phoenix burbs, but it is actually possible to draw a compact new majority-minority district in the Phoenix area.
Phoenix Metro Area:
The new 9th district (light blue) is 39% White and 50% Hispanic. It encompasses east Phoenix areas drawn mainly out of the 2nd and 3rd districts with a little taken out of the 4th and 7th as well. To make up for that population loss in other districts, the 4th has taken on Tempe, which increases the white percentage in the district to 29% but those are mostly liberal white voters so it should be okay. The 3rd takes on some areas that had previously been in the 5th, and the 5th grabs Chandler from the 6th, evening out the population in the Phoenix area. Some other minor changes have taken place across the state to even out population changes, but nothing major that would change the partisan balance of power in these districts.
This new plan actually includes some things that conservatives could like. After losing Tempe and gaining Chandler, the previously swingy 5th district is now probably solidly conservative. The 2nd and 3rd have lost a considerable portion of their Hispanic populations, making them much safer for the GOP (this should help scandal-tainted rep Ben Quayle). And the new 9th is probably competitive for the GOP in a good year. I would consider it slightly leaning D, but with the gap in turnout between white and hispanic voters and the fact that SB 1070 may have changed the racial demographics slightly here since the census was taken mean that in a low-turnout midterm election this district may be close to a tossup. The only reason that the GOP would have reason to fight this district is that there is a possibility Rep Trent Franks has been redistricted into the 9th district under this map. He lives in Glendale, most of which is in this new 9th district. I highly doubt he would want to run in a majority-minority district, so he would probably fight this plan heavily. If this was a VRA-obligation, however, that might not matter.
As to whether the VRA requires this district, it may be open to interpretation. Important to note is that Arizona is one of the states that requires section 5 preclearance by the DOJ, so the Obama admin has a good chance to argue for the creation of a new majority-minority district if they wanted to. This district is pretty compact, but I think that Arizona could still make the case that you have to go out of your way to draw something like this. Overall I’m not sure if the Obama admin wants to challenge this in court, and I’m not sure if the Roberts court would be receptive to arguments for a new VRA district in Arizona, but I hope that the Obama admin at least tries here, because there is a chance they could succeed.
Minor question. Why on this map (and on the current Arizona map) does Trent Frank’s district zigzag into the 1st to take up a portion of that district? I heard it had something to do with Native American Reservation law or something.
I made the 9th a southern/western Phoenix fringe exurban district, and it came out barely majority-minority at 46% white. Your 9th might be more favorable to Dems, although I suspect that exurban Hispanics are more likely to vote than central-city Hispanics are.
1. We had a post earlier this month on CA and yes because many hispanics are not citizens and their registration numbers are lower and their voting numbers are lower you have to account for that. In CA and most states the % of voting in hispanic communities is 50% or lower then white voters.
2. The current seats are CD4 with 58% hispanic and 29% white. Plus CD7 is 50% hispanic and 38% white. Any decrease in those numbers would a retrogression and I might add recent elections show you why. One seat of numbers makes for a safe seat and another seat set of numbers does not. The bar I believe is set higher for a third seat because you need to assure what you have already set aside is not undone.
3. For what is the proper standard for a minority majority hispanic seat. The courts have not made that clear but there are two numbers. The % of hispanic voters and the % of white voters. A third attempt at a minority majority seat in AZ would be a commission or legislative seat creation so their is wide leeway. They can do what they want. A court will not order a 50% hispanic seat because the % of actual voters does not make it a minority/majority seat. So will the commission do it? That’s a different question.
I believe the commission will keep CD4 at 58%hispanic and 29% white. I also believe CD7 will be brought up to that level as its clear Congressman G is not able to lock up his seat. Those two moves preclude the creation of a third minority majority seat in AZ.
But if I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a million times; Section 5 pre-clearance is absolutely and completely irrelevant to redistricting. Section 2 covers redistricting, and every last jurisdiction in the country is subject to Section 2 pre-clearance.
Now, with that in mind, this map is kind of a wet dream for Republicans and almost looks like a Republican gerrymander in a lot of ways. Grijalva’s in a best a 50-50 district for one, and one in which the majority of voters are white. That section of Pinal County you’ve cut through has grown much whiter and heavily Republican, but you cut out his portion of Maricopa County, which is getting more Hispanic. He would have lost to McClung last November in that district. The new district also looks relatively close to 50-50 and cuts through some very conservative swath. Some of that is because there are a lot of somewhat more conservative middle-class Hispanics, so if they were to select, say Republican State Rep. Steve Montenegro as their representative then that’s not as big of a problem as all the gringos in AZ-07 going gaga for McClung and usurping Hispanic choice down there.
Also, do keep an eye on splitting up American Indian reservations, as you cannot do that in Arizona. I only see one problem though (Tohono O’Oodham) and it’s easy to fix.
I do have to say that while I highly doubt the commission will be compelled to create a third Hispanic majority district, You did a pretty good job of keeping communities of interest together and presented a more or less viable way in which the commission could go about that.
These districts actually might not satisfy the VRA. I honestly don’t know. The VRA is keyed off of Voting Citizen Age Population, not Voting Age Population. In other words, you have to look at the potential electorate, not census results. Since Hispanics are younger and less likely to be citizens, you probably have to get up to around 55% Hispanic before they start to make up a majority of the potential electorate.