ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥

The county’s Redistricting Advisory Committee, consisting of five members appointed by each supervisor to oversee the redrawing of district boundaries, voted unanimously to recommend a new district map for the board to vote on approving at its May 3 meeting.

Overall, the map moves 44,810 registered voters out of their current supervisory districts and switches 21 voter precincts to different districts.

The greatest proposed changes take place along Interstate 10 and River Road, moving most of Marana to District 3.

New district boundaries are drawn every 10 years after the release of census data to balance the variance in population between districts within a 10% threshold. The current maximum population deviation between districts is 15%, and the proposed map drops that figure to less than 2%.

The last redistricting cycle in 2011 drew boundaries for the county’s then-population of more than 980,000. Per the 2020 census population estimate, the county grew by more than 63,000 people as of 2020.

District 1, which currently includes Oro Valley and Marana, and District 4, which covers the eastern portion of the county, have grown the most since 2011. District 5, which covers much of ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥â€™s west side south of Grant Road, was the only district to lose population, according to county data.

Although the next election for the county’s supervisors isn’t until 2024, members of the are elected within the same district lines as the board. Since voters will appoint the members for Districts 2 and 4 in November, county staffers are asking the board to approve the new boundaries by June 1 to leave time to update the voter registration database.

The county’s redistricting process is taking place a year late due to the delayed release of Census data.

Voting rights

The met six times between February and April to discuss new map options, landing on a map the committee’s chairman Steve Lynn called “a pretty good plan for Pima County.�

Lynn previously chaired the ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ Independent Redistricting Commission, a group charged with redrawing state congressional and legislative districts.

“This is far easier than a statewide redistricting, not only because it’s fewer districts, but they really don’t have as many criteria to satisfy in a local redistricting as they do in the statewide,� he said. “In the county, we really only had two (requirements) that had to be done and the others would be considered niceties, not necessities.�

The main task is to equalize each district’s population as much as possible. In the recommended map, the maximum population variation between districts is 1.7%, a difference of 30,886 county residents between the highest and lowest populated districts — 4 and 5, respectively.

The other necessity is ensuring compliance with the Federal Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race for language minority groups. That actualized in a requirement for the county to maintain two district populations where Hispanics are able to elect candidates of their choice and not placed at a disadvantage to participate in the political process.

The proposed map maintains that requirement in Districts 2 and 5 by ensuring the population of Hispanics eligible to vote isn’t reduced by more than 5%. In District 2, the current Hispanic voting-age population would drop by about 3%, while the figure would rise about 2% in District 5.

“We looked at minority voting strength to be sure that we were able to withstand a challenge, if there was one, of the two minority-influenced districts. Both of those districts have a very healthy minority voting population,� Lynn said. “District 5 actually gained percentagewise and District 2, in part because of the Sahuarita location, dropped a couple of points but still has great influence in minority voters.�

While the committee was required to look at election data for Districts 2 and 5 to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, the committee looked at voter performance data for all five districts. Based on that analysis, the proposed map doesn’t change the Democratic or Republican lean of any district, according to the county.

Members of the committee also took into account requests from jurisdictions to be split between as few districts as possible.

Marana asked to be placed in one district instead of its current split between Districts 1 and 3, and the proposed map puts the vast majority of the town in District 3. Marana Mayor Ed Honea said the change would simplify “the chain of dealing with county elected officials.�

The Sahuarita Town Council expressed a similar preference for the town to be consolidated into fewer districts. The redistricting committee’s map places Sahuarita between Districts 2 and 3, as opposed to current district lines that also divide the town’s southern portion into District 4.

“Historically, we’ve been divided amongst three districts, which in some cases can be a good thing. But you really are just a smaller piece of each one of those,� said Sahuarita Mayor Tom Murphy. “Part of the thought process was that if we can be as close to as much in one district as possible, then we can have a positive effect and a positive relationship working with that supervisory district as opposed to being divided.�

Ultimately, Murphy said, “I think it’ll be a line on the map at the end of the day, but I’ll do my best to work with everybody for the benefit of our residents.�