Thanks to the Independent Redistricting Commission, we might see something done in Congress this year.
Maybe.
The IRC was the subject (and still is, thanks to the state legislative Republicans using our tax money to sue the IRC, already having spent thousands of dollars in so far fruitless suits) of much controversy when it unveiled its new congressional and legislative districts.
They were biased, many claimed, giving the Democrats too much of a fighting chance in too many races.
Turns out that the districts actually created competition.
Something pols, especially incumbent pols, hate.
Which is interesting, given that Republicans always argue that competition is the key to success. Except in politics, apparently.
Nevertheless, while these new competitive districts might be bad for politicians, they might be great for the rest of us.
Just look at the congressional results.
We have nine men and women representing us in the House. Of those nine, six had secure seats: Gosar, Grijalva, Pastor, Salmon, Franks, and Schweikert. All won by at least 30 percent against token opponents, some without even an opponent in the general election.
But in the three “competitive” districts, the winners had incredibly close races, with Barber, Kirkpatrick and Sinema winning by no more than 10,000 votes.
So what does this mean?
For the first six Congressmen above , it means that they are secure in their seats and can stake out the most ideological positions. Unsurprisingly, when you look at the incumbents in that group, you find that they are among the most reliably uncompromising of Representatives, rarely if ever voting with the other party on any issue, let alone those of great import.
In other words, if we’re looking for those six to lead the way in seeking workable solutions for our Big Problems, we’ll be waiting awhile.
But for the other three?
The lesson from their election should be this: In a competitive district, acting as an inflexible ideologue is a ticket to one term.
So why is that great for us?
If we had more representatives -- both in Congress and in our legislature -- who actually had to compete regularly for their seats, we’d see more working together to find solutions rather than dividing along ideological lines to remain “pure” to their bases.
Because in competitive districts, simply getting the “base” to turn out isn’t enough. Which means that to win, politicians must moderate their views.
We’ll see soon enough if I’m right. Let’s keep an eye on Sinema, Kirkpatrick and Barber as they serve us in the House of Representatives. Let’s see if my theory that competition will lead to solutions rather than stalemate proves true.
And if it does, we should thank the IRC for the job it did.
chuckles3 posted at 8:13 am on Wed, Nov 28, 2012.
Sorry Mike, if you think Kristen Sinema is a moderate you have been smoking something.
And I doubt you would be crowing about this had the libertarians not thrown all 3 of these elections to the Dems.
We are a very Red state, despite wishful thinking otherwise. For us to have 5 Ds and 4 Rs representing us in Congress show how great a job the redistricting commission did in Representing the people.
Dale Whiting posted at 9:26 am on Wed, Nov 28, 2012.
I saw Kirkpatrick on TV this am. She's already making a name for herself on the topic of solving the fiscal crisis. So perhaps chuckles3 needs to re-think some of his thoughts. Could Sinema move to the center and help out Kirkpatrick?
downtownresident posted at 12:37 pm on Wed, Nov 28, 2012.
Thanks to the IRC we finally have some parity in even the heavily gerrymandered districts. Much to the chagrin of the radical whackos presently in office.
If any of these people had any ethics, morals or honesty they would welcom a fair and unbiased political election battle, instead of using the Olivia Cortez method of dirty politics.
Now if we could just get rid of Dina "Let's ban fluoride" Higgins we'd be better off here in Mesa, too.
dellett posted at 1:13 pm on Wed, Nov 28, 2012.
Any redistricting that bases decisions on political demographics or affiliations or anything political is to that same extent political, and is therefore gerrymandering regardless of good or evil intent.
We will be forever at the mercy of the personal political opinions of politicians and judges as to what political demographic that THEY think is good or bad when politics should have nothing to do with it.
Elbridge Gerry would be proud.
Cerulean posted at 2:33 pm on Wed, Nov 28, 2012.
I do not believe that seats picked-up for the Arizona Democratic congressional House delegation is going to make much difference in Washington.
Republicans still hold a majority vote and still pledge allegiance to Grover Norquist (whose firm ‘Janus –Merritt Strategies’ lobbied for Pakistan, and Lissouba the corrupt president of the Republic of Congo, et al).
Leon Ceniceros posted at 4:39 pm on Wed, Nov 28, 2012.
Dear Mike,
If you are a retired Mesa High School English teacher as your byline states, why can't you comprehend the simple English words in the United States Constitution. In Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1; it clearly and simply declares that only State Legislatures can "manage" Congressional Elections withing their Borders.
"THE TIMES, PLACES AND MANNER OF HOLDING ELECTIONS FOR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES, SHALL BE PRESCRIBED IN EACH STATE BY THE LEGISLATURE THEREOF.....".
"STATE LEGISLATURES" , MIKE.....NOT BY A REDISTRICTING COMMITTEE APPROVED BY STATE INITIATIVE.......LET ME REPEAT THAT ONE MORE TIME FOR MIKE........"STATE LEGISLATURES".........GET OUT THE OLD WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY MIKE AND LOOK UP THE DEFINITION FOR ...."LEGISLATURE"...NOW TELL ME....DO YOU SEE THE WORD "INITIATIVE" IN THE DEFINITION OF ....."LEGISLATURE".
AND WE BLAME THE STUDENTS AND THE PARENTS FOR OUR ABYSMAL "ENGLISH COMPREHENSION" SCORES IN A.I.M.S. AND S.A.T.....TESTS..............[wink]
Leon Ceniceros posted at 4:42 pm on Wed, Nov 28, 2012.
CORRECTION TO THE ABOVE..."withing"...SHOULD BE ..."with in".
LOL....MY GRASP OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS ALMOST AS BAD AS SOMEONE WHO SHALL REMAIN.....NAMELESS..............[wink]
Accuracy posted at 6:00 pm on Wed, Nov 28, 2012.
Mike McClellan’s commented; “They were biased, many claimed, giving the Democrats too much of a fighting chance in too many races."
Arizona’s senior Democratic congressmen have also said the maps of new congressional districts were drawn in ways that benefited Democrats.
Arizona’s Republicans are challenging that the Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) was rigged to favor Democrats, and there are now three redistricting cases – pending in federal and state courts – challenging the created districts by IRC. The cases continue a legal and political battle, and will go to trial for fact-finding and legal determination of what's permissible.
Cerulean posted at 9:34 am on Thu, Nov 29, 2012.
Always, always our governor claims “we have no money” .
We have no money for education, for health care, for State Parks, etcetera. We have no money - except when our governor and our legislature decide we do have money to file law suits against the Independent Redistricting Committee.
Then the state has an open check book with enough money to spend ,spend and spend at will.
Rich posted at 7:31 pm on Fri, Nov 30, 2012.
Just as an aside, with the debt and the financial cliff, looming, and pressure building to raise the debt ceiling, again, with no prospects of paying it back, isn't stalemate a step in the right direction? It stops government before they can do any more damage, doesn't it?
Cerulean posted at 1:29 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.
Mike,
Thank you for your column on House Speaker Andy Tobin.
http://azcvoices.com/politics/2012/11/30/what-will-the-legislature-be-up-to-come-january/
Very good information about Rep. Tobin’s “real constituents”.
Andy Tobin said “ …the ignorance of citizens initiatives must be stopped.”
He is referring to all of us who voted for the initiative that removed redistricting from the extremely partisan legislature.
pd posted at 7:57 pm on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.
@ Leon Ceniceros -- Your argument had merit until you descended to petty name-calling in the last lines. Disagree with Mike, but do it with a little class. I'm a conservative and disagree with Mike on some key points, but I happen to know he is a fabulous teacher.