Transcript Strategic Telemetry Powerpoint Presentation

Arizona Independent Redistricting
Commission
Analysis of Public Hearings
Round One
Types of Public Input
Public Meetings
• Actual testimony
• Additional material handed in
Public Hearings (Round 1)
• Actual testimony
• Blue Sheets handed in
Additional material handed in
• Web Submissions
• Snail Mail
• Phone
Goal is to ensure everyone who voiced an opinion is heard for the
mapping process.
2
Round One - By the numbers
Dates
Cities Visited
July 21 through August 6
23
(includes 8 satellite locations)
Total attendance
~ 2,250 (1,395 Sign-sheets)
Total comments
595
Unique speakers
~ 531
Total number of comments
1,002
Number of Criteria related
comments
710
Public hearings in minutes
2,085
Average meeting Length
2 hours 19 minutes
Views of the live stream
800+
3
Round One by the Numbers
Breakdown
• By city
• Number of attendees who signed in
• Number of people that requested to speak
• Total number of comments recorded
4
Round One by the Numbers
Location
Date
Sign-in
Sheets
Request
to Speak Total Comments
South Phoenix
21-Jul
131
71
65
Nogales
22-Jul
26
17
16
Yuma (San Luis and Parker)
23-Jul
124
25
24
Mesa
25-Jul
114
50
50
Bullhead City
26-Jul
82
25
25
Casa Grande (Maricopa)
27-Jul
74
32
31
Prescott (Cottonwood)
28-Jul
153
37
33
Window Rock
29-Jul
21
7
7
Hon Dah (Holbrook and Winslow)
30-Jul
81
34
34
5
Round One by the Numbers
Location
Date
Sign-in
Sheets
Request
to Speak Total Comments
Flagstaff (Page and Tuba City)
1-Aug
104
45
41
South Tucson
2-Aug
86
62
59
Glendale
3-Aug
126
54
46
Sierra Vista
4-Aug
49
53
50
Phoenix
5-Aug
84
54
48
Tucson
6-Aug
140
76
66
6
Round One by the Numbers
Sign-in
Sheets
1,395
Requested
Total
to Speak Comments
642
595
93%
of those who
requested to speak,
spoke
7
Comments Based on Criteria
Total summary of the number of times the public
commented on one of the six criteria for
Redistricting
• Voting Rights Act – 49
• Equal Population – 12
• Compactness or Contiguous – 34
• Communities of Interest – 265
• Geographic Features / Political Boundaries – 114
• Competiveness – 236
• Other – 292
8
Round One by the Numbers
Voting Rights
Act
5%
Equal
Population
1%
Other
29%
Compactness
or Contiguous
3%
Communities
of Interest
27%
Competiveness
24%
Geographic
Features /
Political
Boundaries
11%
9
Round One by the Numbers
Voting Rights
Act
7%
Equal
Compactness
Population or Contiguous
2%
5%
Competiveness
33%
Geographic
Features /
Political
Boundaries
16%
Communities
of Interest
37%
10
Competitiveness
236 comments
Important
Lower Priority
• Competitive districts are
important- they get people
involved
• Need more competitive
districts on both sides of aisle.
• Competiveness is the most
important of the criteria
• More competition = better
candidates
• Competitiveness- should only
be used after other criteria
• COIs should be prioritized
before competitiveness
• Current CD and LD are
competitive now.
• Compactness, COI, and
Geographic Boundaries are
more important that
Competitiveness.
11
Competitiveness
Definitions offered by public
• Roughly equal voter registration among Is, Ds, Rs
• Competitiveness means looking at whole district would a qualified candidate have a chance of
winning?
• Either D or R can win an election every 2 or 4
years
• The majority of legislative districts being
competitive in the general election
• Elections not decided in the primary
12
Communities of Interest
265 comments
• Partisanship has no factor in COIs
• People live with likeminded people- should use COIs
as main criteria
• Keep Flagstaff with Prescott as they are a COI and
have geographic similarities
• Don’t keep Flagstaff with Prescott as they are not a
COI with similarities
• Light rail is a tie to a COI
• Oro Valley is a COI—talked about newspaper
13
description and likes it
Recurring Input
Summary of top two to four public comments, by
city, that included specific recommendations
July 21 – South Phoenix
• Support Senator Leah Landrum Taylor’s map – 8
• Make LD 15 competitive – 3
• Ahwatukee as a COI – 3
July 22 – Nogales
• Keep Santa Cruz County in two districts – 2
• Create three border districts – 3
14
Recurring Input
July 26 – Bullhead
• Keep Mohave County together – 13
• Create a rural Congressional District – 10
• Keep Tri-Cities together (Kingman, Bullhead City, Lake
Havasu) – 4
• Create a river district – 4
July 27 – Casa Grande
• Keep Pinal County intact – 5
• Keep Pinal County in one Congressional District – 4
15
15
Recurring Input
July 28 – Prescott
• Create two rural Congressional Districts – 8
• Yavapai County as a COI – 4
• Put Verde Valley with Flagstaff – 4
July 29 – Window Rock
• Don’t split Navajo Nation – 2
• Don’t gerrymander Hopi – 2
16
16
Recurring Input
July 30 – Hon Dah
• Create two rural Congressional Districts – 16
• Keep Legislative District 5 together – 8
• Create eight rural Legislative Districts – 6
August 1 – Flagstaff
• Don’t separate Flagstaff – 13
• Create two rural Congressional Districts – 6
• Don’t include Prescott with Flagstaff COI – 5
17
17
Recurring Input
August 2 – South Tucson
• Keep Congressional District 8 together – 7
• Keep Legislative District 30 together – 6
• Keep Legislative District 26 together – 5
• Move Tucson to Congressional District 7 – 4
August 3 – Glendale
• Support Arizona Minority Coalition maps – 5
• Put Tonopah Valley together – 3
18
18
Recurring Input
August 4 – Sierra Vista
• Create three border districts – 12
• Keep two border districts – 4
August 5 – Phoenix
• Light rail as a COI – 4
August 6 – Tucson
• Keep Legislative District 26 intact – 7
• Keep Legislative District 30 and CD 8 intact – 3
• Discussed how to address prison population– 3
• Oro Valley as a COI – 3
19
19
Types of Public Input
Public Meetings
• Actual testimony
• Additional material handed in
Public Hearings (Round 1)
• Actual testimony
• Blue Sheets handed in
Additional material handed in
• Web Submissions
• Snail Mail
• Phone
Goal is to ensure everyone who voiced an opinion is heard for the
mapping process.
20