Paul F. Eckstein (#001822)

Paul F. Eckstein (#001822)

Michael S. Mandell (#019193)

Brown & Bain, P.A.

2901 North Central Avenue

Post Office Box 400

Phoenix, Arizona 85001-0400

(602) 351-8000

John P. Frank (#000740)

Richard A. Halloran (#013858)

Joshua Grabel (#018373)

LEWIS AND ROCA, LLP

40 North Central Avenue

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-5529

(602) 262-5311

Aaron Kizer (#004577)

LAW OFFICES OF AARON KIZER, PLC

411 North Central Avenue

Suite 520

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2133

(602) 253-2523

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Arizona superior Court

Maricopa County

ARIZONA MINORITY Coalition for Fair Redistricting, an unincorporated association; State Senator Ramon Valadez;State Senator Peter Rios; State Representative Carlos Avelar; STATE REPRESENTATIVE JAMES SEDILLO; MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERVISOR MARY ROSE GARRIDO WILCOX; ESTHER LUMM; VIRGINIA RIVERA; LOS ABOGADOS, an Arizona corporation,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, a state agency; STEVE LYNN,
in his official capacity as Chairman and a / No. ______
COMPLAINT
(Special Action; Mandamus; Declaratory Relief; Injunctive Relief)
Commissioner of the Independent Redistricting Commission; ANDREA MINKOFF in her official capacity as Vice-Chairman and a Commissioner of the Independent Redistricting Commission; DANIEL ELDER in his official capacity as a Commissioner of the Independent Redistricting Commission; JOSHUA HALL in his official capacity as a Commissioner of the Independent Redistricting Commission; JAMES HUNTWORK in his official capacity as a Commissioner of the Independent Redistricting Commission; BETSEY BAYLESS, in her official capacityas Secretary of State for the State of Arizona,
Defendants.

For their Complaint, the Plaintiffs hereby allege as follows:

1.Plaintiff Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting (“the Coalition”) is an organization of individuals from across the state of Arizona. They share the goal of creating the maximum number of state legislative districts that (1) are politically competitive, and (2) protect the voting rights of minorities.

2.Plaintiff Ramon Valadez is a qualified elector in Arizona, and a State Senator representing current legislative district 10 in Tucson, Arizona.

3.Plaintiff Peter Rios is a qualified elector in Arizona and a State Senator representing current legislative district 7, which encompasses parts of Maricopa, Pinal and Gila Counties.

4.Plaintiff Carlos Avelar is a qualified elector in Arizona and a State Representative representing current legislative district 23 in Phoenix, Arizona.

5.Plaintiff James Sedillo is a qualified elector in Arizona, and a State Representative representing current legislative district 2, which encompasses parts of Coconino, Navajo, Yavapai, and Mohave Counties.

6.Plaintiff Mary Rose Garrido Wilcox is a qualified elector in Arizona, and a County Supervisor in Maricopa County.

7.Plaintiff Esther Lumm is a qualified elector in Arizona,, a resident of Maricopa County and she represents the Arizona Hispanic Community Forum.

8.Plaintiff Virginia Rivera is a qualified elector in Arizona, a resident of Pinal County and she represents the Pinal County Hispanic Community Forum.

9.Plaintiff Los Abogados is an Arizona corporation representing the interests of Hispanic attorneys, judges, law professors, law students and the general Hispanic community throughout Arizona.

10.Defendant Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission is a public body of this State created by the passage of Proposition 106 in the 2000 general election. Defendants Steve Lynn, Andrea Minkoff, Joshua Hall, Daniel Elder and James Huntwork are public officers of this State and are named in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Independent Redistricting Commission. The Commissioners are hereinafter collectively referred to as (“the Commission”). The office of the Commission is located at 1400 West Washington, Suite B10, in Maricopa County, Arizona.

11.Defendant Betsey Bayless is the Arizona Secretary of State (“the Secretary of State”), a public officer of this State and is named as Defendant in this action in her official capacity. The office of the Secretary of State is located at 1700 West Washington, in Maricopa County, Arizona. The Secretary of State is the public officer responsible for the conduct of legislative elections in Arizona.

12.This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to ArticleVI, §14 of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §12123.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

13.In November 2000, Arizona voters approved State Proposition 106, establishing the Independent Redistricting Commission. A copy of the text of the Proposition is attached hereto as Exhibit A..

14.Arizona voters were informed by a number of sources that the passage of Proposition 106 would stop political gerrymandering, create a fairer process of redistricting and significantly increase political party competitiveness among Arizona’s legislative districts. All of the statements advocating for Proposition 106 cited these factors as the reason for their support for the Proposition.

15.As a number of Republican public officials stated at the time: “By transferring redistricting responsibility from self-interested politicians to an independent citizen’s panel, [Proposition 106] will generate more competition, more accountability and better government for all Arizonans.”

16.As a result of the overwhelming support for Proposition 106, Article IV, Part 2, Section 1 was added to the Arizona Constitution (“the Competitive Redistricting Clause”). The Competitive Redistricting Clause required the creation of the Commission and required that the Commission establish new Arizona legislative and congressional district boundaries for elections occurring from November 2002 through 2010 based on the principleals outlined in the Competitive Redistricting Clause.

17.In establishing these boundaries, the Competitive Redistricting Clause requires the Commission to initially draw proposed districts and equal population “in a grid like pattern across the state.” Ariz. Const. art. IV, part 2, §1(14). It then requires the Commission to adjust the initial grid boundaries to ensure that:

A. Districts shall comply with the United States Constitution and the United States voting rights act;

B. Congressional districts shall have equal population to the extent practicable, and state legislative districts shall have equal population to the extent practicable;

C. Districts shall be geographically compact and contiguous to the extent practicable;

D. District boundaries shall respect communities of interest to the extent practicable;

E. To the extent practicable, district lines shall use visible geographic features, city, town and county boundaries, and undivided census tracts;

F. To the extent practicable, competitive districts should be favored where to do so would create no significant detriment to the other goals.

Id. (emphasis added).

18.The Commission adopted the initial grid maps, based solely on equal population determinations, on June 7, 2001.

19.Over the next two months, the Commission held several public meetings in which the public was invited to comment on the redistricting efforts of the Commission throughout the state of Arizona.

20.After receiving public comment on the initial grid map, the Commission held several meetings from August 7, 2001 through August 17, 2001, to make adjustments to the legislative districts.

21.The Commission adopted a draft final map on August 17, 2001.

22.Between August 7 and August 17, the Commission made substantial changes to the existing legislative districts from the initial grid map. During these meetings, the Commission had very limited data regarding the competitiveness of the potential districts. Upon information and belief, the only data the Commission had was the political party registration in certain districts, even though the Competitive Redistricting Clause specifically required it to consider increasing competitiveness statewide.

23.Further, evenEven though the Commission had the political party registration numbers available, the majority of the Commission rejected a proposal to direct the Commission’s redistricting consultants to consider minimizing party registration differences in adjusting district boundaries to increase competitiveness. While this would not have guaranteed an increase in the competitiveness of the proposed legislative districts, it would have at least allowed the Commission’s redistricting consultants to try and adjust the district boundaries to increase the likelihood of creating more competitive districts without significantly impacting the other redistricting goals. Instead, theThe Commission decided not to take this simple step to fulfill its constitutionally required duties and instead created the draftdistricts in its final draft map without any consideration of competitiveness.

24.The Commission continued to disregard the mandate of the Competitive Redistricting Clause and Arizona’s voters to increase the competitiveness of Arizona’s legislative districts throughout the redistricting process. For example, when the Commission adjusted the district boundaries based on considerations for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 or “Communities of Interest,” it never considered the effect that those changes might have on the competitiveness of each district. In the end, the Commission failed to comply with the constitutional mandate to create competitive legislative districts where it was possible to do so. while those changes were being made. Moreover, the Commission failed to undertake even a cursory analysis regarding the competitiveness of the districts. For example, when the Commission adjusted the district boundaries based on considerations for the Voting Rights Act or “Communities of Interest,” it never considered the effect that the changes might have on the competitiveness of each district while those changes were being made. Moreover, the Commission failed to give even a cursory analysis to considerations regarding competitiveness before adopting significant boundary adjustments or accepting entirely new maps of districts.

25.The Commission approved its final legislative map on October 14, 2001, certified it to the Secretary of State on November 3, 2001, and submitted it to the Department of Justice as required by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 on January 24, 2002.

26.As a result of the Commission’s failure to consider competitiveness in preparing the legislative districts, it ended up decreasing the number of competitive districts within the state. As the legislative districts currently exist, nine (9) of them qualify as competitive for purposes of electing a candidate of either major political party. Under the Commission’s proposed plan, only six (6) are competitive. SeecChart outliningcomparing the competitiveness of each district in the Commission’s Adopted Map, the Coalition II Revised Map and the existing Legislative Districts attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein. In other words, even though it was required by the Competitive Redistricting Clause to increase competitiveness in legislative districts, the Commission decreased the number of competitive legislative districts statewide by thirty-three percent (33%).

27.Further, evenEven when alternative legislative redistricting plans were presented to the Commission that considered all of the constitutional criteria set forth in Proposition 106, including competitiveness, the Commission did not give these plans serious consideration. For example, the legislative redistricting plans submitted by the Coalition (“the Coalition II plan”) accomplishes all of the goals approved by the Arizona voters in November 2000 and codified in the Competitive Redistricting Clause better than the Commission’s plan does but was not given serious consideration.. See Exhibit B (the Coalition II plan) attached hereto and incorporated herein.

28.Further, afterAfter slight modifications, the Coalition II Revised plan (“Coalition II Revised plan”) not only retains the number of competitive districts that exist in Arizona’s current legislative districts, it also significantly lowers the deviation in district population statewide in comparison to the Commission’s plan without creating a significant detriment to the other factors outlinedgoals set forth in the Arizona Constitution. SeeA compact computer disk containing the details of the Coalition II Revised plan is included and incorporated herein as Exhibit C B and will be filed with the Court and served on the parties but not filed with the clerk of the court(the Coalition II Revised plan).

29.The Commission’s failure to consider the Coalition II plan was done despite the fact that evidence provided to the Commission by its own expert, Dr. Michael P. McDonald, showed that the Coalition II plan was far more competitive than the adopted plan. Dr. McDonald’s evidence was based on his use of a sophisticatedsophisticated competitive analysis software entitled “Judge It.”

30.A comparison of the Coalition II revisedRevised plan with the plan adopted by the Commission clearly demonstrates that the Coalition II revisedRevised plan not only creates more competitive legislative districts, but it also protects the voting rights of minorities and complies with all of the requirements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. For example, both plans create nine majority-minority districts, seven of which contain majority voting age minority populations. In addition, the Coalition II revisedRevised plan creates a total of ten districts with an overall minority voting age population of more than forty percent (40%) of the district’s population while the Commission’s plan creates only nine districts with similar voting age population percentages.

31.The Coalition II plan considers all of the redistricting goals set forth in the Arizona Constitution. By failing to adopt the Coalition II plan or a similar plan that at least maintains the current nine competitive legislative districts and comply with all of the other constitutional criteria, the Commission failed to perform its constitutional duties perform its constitutional duties.

32.Had the Commission done the constitutionally required analysis regarding the competitiveness of the legislative map, it could have easily created the districts outlined in the Coalition II revisedRevised plan, which either meet or beat the Commission’s map when considering all of the criteria set forth in the Competitive Redistricting Clause.

COUNT ONE

(Mandamus, Special Action)

33.The Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

34.Pursuant to the Competitive Redistricting Clause, the Commission was required to consider competitiveness in drafting the boundaries for legislative districts.

35.The Commission failed to consider competitiveness in drafting the boundaries for legislative districts, despite the fact that it could do so without causing significant detriment to the other goals set forth in the Competitive Redistricting Clause, as it was required to do by the Arizona Constitution.

36.As a result of the Commission’s failure to properly consider competitiveness, in drafting the boundaries, Arizona’s legislative map will see a decrease from its current composition of nine (9) competitive districts to six (6) competitive districts if the Commission’s map is approved. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate and speedy remedy at law to compelforce the Commission to comply with the Arizona Constitution. Therefore, the Plaintiffs request this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2021 to require the Commission fulfill its constitutionally mandated duties.

37.Further, theThe Plaintiffs request that they be awarded attorneys fees pursuant to A.R.S. §12-2030.

COUNT TWO

(Declaratory Relief)

38.Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

39.Plaintiffs request a declaration that the Commission’s legislative map is in violation of its the Commission’s constitutionally required duties.

40.Plaintiffs further request a declaration that the Commission’s legislative map cannot be certified by the Secretary of State as valid for any elections to the Arizona Legislature.

41.Plaintiffs further request a declaration that the Commission’s legislative map cannot be adopted or enacted for any legislative elections beginning in 2002 because it does not comply with the Competitive Redistricting Clause.

COUNT THREE

(Injunctive Relief)

42.Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

43.The Commission has failed to fulfill its duty to increase the competitiveness of Arizona’s legislative districts as required by the Competitive Redistricting Clause.

1. Plaintiffs request an injunction requiring the Commission to adopt the Coalition II Revised plan as the appropriate map for Arizona’s legislative districts.
2. In the alternative, Plaintiffs request an injunction requiring the Commission to adopt a legislative map that gives appropriate consideration tocompetitiveness and, at a minimum, maintains the status quo with regard to competitive districts.
3. Plaintiffs request an injunction prohibiting the Secretary of State from accepting and approving the Commission’s legislative map and conducting any legislative elections pursuant to that map.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:

A.An order of Mandamus compelling the Commission to adopt a map that conforms with the requirements of the Competitive Redistricting Clause of the Arizona Constitution and increases the competitiveness of Arizona’s legislative districts;

B.A declaration that: (1) the Commission failed to appropriately consider competitiveness, as required by the Competitive Redistricting Clause, in creating its proposed legislative districts; (2) the Commission’s legislative map does not comply with the Competitive Redistricting Clause’s mandate that competitiveness be considered in creating Arizona’s legislative districts; and (3) that the Commission should either adopt the Coalition II Revised plan or fashion a new map after considering allof the factors set forth in the Arizona Constitution;

C.Granting a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the Arizona Secretary of State from implementing the legislative district map created and certified by the Commission for use in the 2002 through 2010 election cycles;

D.Issuing an injunction that orders the Commission to either certify the Coalition II Revised plan or, immediately provide another, more competitive plan, that can be certified to the Secretary of State as the legislative district map to be used in the 2002 through 2010 election cycles;

E.Awarding Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees incurred in this action under A.R.S. 122030;

F.Awarding Plaintiffs such other and further relief as may be appropriate.

Dated: March 6, 2002.

LAW OFFICES OF AARON KIZER, LLP

Aaron Kizer

LEWIS AND ROCA, LLP

John P. Frank

Richard A. Halloran

Joshua Grabel

and

Brown & Bain, P.A.

By ______

Paul F. Eckstein

Michael S. Mandell

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

-1 –

-3_5_02 revised redistricting complaint.DOC