Constitutional Law

Selection of Ariz. redistricting panel stirs controversy

By By The Associated Press

PHOENIX ? A state panel improperly screened applicants for appointment to the redistricting commission, including a Tucson candidate whose religious activities were called a negative by one of the screeners, critics said yesterday.

House Speaker Kirk Adams and an advocacy group for social conservatives said they were deeply troubled that a nominating commission member said he opposed Tucson businessman Michael Gleason's application because it cited his involvement in a Christian community service group.

The member said appointing Gleason to the Independent Redistricting Commission could blur the separation of church and state.

Adams said he was shocked and alarmed that a nominating commission member "would openly oppose an applicant because his application appeared too religious. It is totally unacceptable to suggest that candidates for public service in Arizona must check their faith at the door."

In a related development, Adams and Senate President-designee Russell Pearce, also R-Mesa, said on Dec. 10 that their appointments to the redistricting commission would be unduly narrowed because the nominating commission failed to provide geographical diversity among its 10 Republican nominees and included three finalists who should have been deemed ineligible for holding public offices that disqualify them.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch responded to the leaders' joint letter by saying the commission takes seriously concerns about its process and decisions. A meeting will be scheduled as soon as possible, she added.

A court spokeswoman said Berch was not immediately available to say whether the meeting also would address the concerns voiced yesterday about the religion issue.

Berch chairs the nominating commission, whose main job is making nominations to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court and the state Court of Appeals.

Republican and Democratic legislative leaders will take turns appointing the redistricting commission's first four members, who then will pick the fifth member from the independents.

The drawing of new congressional and legislative district boundaries for use in the next decade of elections is of great importance for political parties. Where lines are drawn can help or hurt a party candidate?s chances for success.

And it matters who is drawing the lines because each of the five members of the Independent Redistricting Commission members can push their own priorities and viewpoints.

In the redistricting that followed the 2000 Census, for example, the current array of rural legislative districts largely resulted from a push by an eastern Arizona resident serving on the commission to have a district centered on that region.

The comments by Commission on Appellate Court Appointments member Louis Araneta during a Dec. 8 meeting were reported by the Yellow Sheet Report, a subscription newsletter published by the Arizona Capitol Times.

Araneta, an attorney and former Maricopa County Superior Court judge, did not respond to telephone and e-mail requests for comment in time for this story.

Adams called for Araneta to apologize, while the Center for Arizona Policy said he should resign.

"What is perhaps most troubling about the commission's religious bias is that the commission is the same group that nominates judges for Arizona's appellate courts," said Cathi Herrod, CAP president.

Gleason declined to comment on whether Araneta should apologize or resign but said he was concerned that the commission or any of its members "would have a no-faith litmus test."

Gleason, a Republican, was not included among the 10 Republicans chosen as finalists. As required by law, the commission also nominated 10 Democrats and five independents.

Full post as published by First Amendment Center on December 13, 2010 (boomark / email).