Arizona

Overview

  • Redistricting Process

  • Congressional and legislative maps are drawn and adopted by the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, a politically appointed five-member body.

  • 2020 APPORTIONMENT REPORT

  • Arizona’s congressional delegation remained at 9 seats following the 2020 reapportionment.

  • Executive Branch
  • Democrat
    Katie Hobbs
    Governor
  • Democrat
    Adrian Fontes
    Secretary of State
  • Democrat
    Kris Mayes
    Attorney General
  • Supreme Court
  • Nonpartisan
    Robert M. Brutinel
    Chief Justice
  • Nonpartisan
    Bill Montgomery
    Associate Justice
  • Nonpartisan
    Clint Bolick
    Associate Justice
  • Nonpartisan
    James P. Beene
    Associate Justice
  • Nonpartisan
    John Lopez, IV
    Associate Justice
  • Nonpartisan
    Kathryn Hackett King
    Associate Justice
  • Nonpartisan
    Ann Timmer
    Vice Chief Justice
Current Congressional Boundaries
Current State House Boundaries
Current State Senate Boundaries

To view past district shapefiles, see our Map Archive Page.

Useful Links
State Data Resources
Redistricting Resources
Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission Members
  • Erika Neuberg, Chair
  • David Mehl, Republican
  • Douglas York, Republican
  • Shereen Lerner, Democrat
  • Derrick Watchman, Democrat

Arizona Redistricting Process

Congressional & Legislative

Primary Authority: Congressional and legislative plans are drawn and adopted by the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, a politically appointed 5-member body.

  • Members: The State Commission on Appellate Court Nominations nominates 10 Democrats, 10 Republicans, and 5 independent candidates to serve. The Arizona House speaker, Arizona House minority leader, Arizona Senate president, and Arizona Senate minority leader each appoints one nominee to be commissioners. Those four commissioners then select the final fifth commissioner, who must be a member of a different political party than the original four. [Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 2, §§ 1(3) — (8)]
  • Timing: The Commission on Appellate Court Nominations must establish the list of 25 nominees by January 8 of years ending in one. The House Speaker must select their appointee by January 31 of years ending in one, followed by the remaining legislative leaders who each have 7-day periods to make their appointments. Within 15 days, at a meeting called by the Secretary of State, the four commissioners must select by majority vote the fifth commissioner who will serve as chair; otherwise, the Appellate Court Commission appoints the fifth member. The full commission must be established by February 28 of each year ending in one. [Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 2, §§ 1(3) — (8)]
  • Eligibility: Commissioners must be registered Arizona voters who have continuously been registered with the same political party or unaffiliated with a party for three or more years immediately preceding their appointment. No more than two commissioners may be of the same political party and the fifth commissioner may not be the same party as any of the original four commissioners. Of the initial four appointees, no two commissioners may reside in the same county. Commissioners cannot have been appointed to, elected to, or a candidate for any other public office (excluding school board member or officer) or have served as an officer of a political party, a registered paid lobbyist, or an officer of a candidate’s campaign committee within the three years prior to appointment. Commissioners are ineligible for Arizona public office or registration as a paid lobbyist for the duration of their term and for three years thereafter. After being given written notice and an opportunity to respond, commissioners may be removed by the Governor with concurrence from 2/3 of the Arizona Senate for substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office. [Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 2, §§ 1(3) — (8), (10), (13)]
  • Voting: A majority vote of the initial four commissioners is required for selection of the fifth commissioner/chair. Three or more affirmative votes are required for any official action, including the selection of a vice-chair and adoption of draft and final plans. [Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 2, §§ 1(8), (12)]

Mapping Timeline: The Commission begins by creating grid-like districts of equal population across the state which are then adjusted to accommodate the state’s redistricting criteria. The Commission must release at least one draft congressional plan and one draft legislative plan to the public for a comment period of at least 30 days. During this period the Arizona State Legislature can make non-binding recommendations for the Commission’s consideration. After this period, the Commission establishes final congressional and legislative district boundaries and certifies them to the Secretary of State. [Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 2, §§ 1(14), (16), (17)]

Redistricting Criteria: Comply with U.S. Constitution and federal Voting Rights Act; Equal population to extent practicable; geographically compact; contiguous; respect communities of interest to extent practicable; use visible geographic features, city, town and county boundaries, and undivided census tracts to extent practicable; favor competitive districts to extent practicable if no significant detriment caused to other goals.

PROHIBITED: Party registration and voting history data for initial mapping (can be used for testing maps); considering incumbent/candidate residences. [Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 2, §§ 1(14), (15)]

Map Challenges: Venue not specified. The commission is explicitly given standing in legal actions regarding redistricting plans and the commission’s operations. [Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 2, § 1(20)]

Ballot Measure & Referendum Processes

Types of Measures: Direct initiatives and referendums are permitted to amend statutes. Direct initiatives are permitted to amend the state constitution. Legislatively initiated ballot measures may amend both statutes and the state constitution.

Single-Subject Rule: Yes for constitutional amendments; no for statutory initiatives.

Initiative Subject Restrictions: Referendums may not repeal laws “immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or for the support and maintenance of the departments of the State Government and State institutions[.]”

Signature Requirements: Constitutional amendments require signatures equal to 15% of all votes cast for all candidates for governor in the last general election, 10% for all other initiatives, and 5% for a veto referendum. 2,559,485 people voted for a gubernatorial candidate in the 2022 general election in Arizona, so 383,923 signatures are required for constitutional amendments; 255,949 signatures are required for any other initiative, and 127,975 signatures are required for a veto referendum.

Submission Deadlines: Initiative petitions must be submitted at least four months prior to the election in which the petition is to appear on the ballot (July 4, 2024). Referendums must be submitted within 90 days after the adjournment of the legislature.

Circulation Period: The circulation period for initiative petitions is 24 months.

Ballot Title and Summary: Proponents write the caption and the Secretary of State drafts the summary, subject to approval by the Attorney General. Expedited reviews for titles and summaries are not permitted.

Other Requirements: A fiscal impact statement is required. Circulators are required to be qualified to register to vote. There are no supermajority requirements. The legislature can only amend the approved measure if the change is in line with the aim of the measure and approved by a ¾ majority in the legislature. Initiatives are permitted on general election ballots, but not on primary or special election ballots or odd-year ballots.

[Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 1, § 1; Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 19-101 — 19-161; Ariz. Sec. of State Website]

Previous Redistricting Cycles

2020

  • Congressional
    • Commission’s Original Plan
      • Adopted = January 18, 2022
    • Litigation History
      • Fernandez v. Comm’n on Appellate Court Appointments, No. CV2020-095696 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Maricopa Cty. 2020): On October 23, 2020, the Minority Leaders of the Arizona House of Representatives and Senate filed suit against the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments asserting the Commission failed to "nominate qualified persons to the pool of qualified candidates" for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission because certain nominees were allegedly ineligible to serve under the restrictions of art. IV, pt. 2, § 1 of the Arizona Constitution. The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction halting the selection of commissioners on October 29, 2020. No action has been taken since then.
  • Legislative
    • Commission’s Original Plans
      • Adopted = January 21, 2022
    • Litigation History
      • Fernandez v. Comm’n on Appellate Court Appointments, No. CV2020-095696 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Maricopa Cty. 2020): On October 23, 2020, the Minority Leaders of the Arizona House of Representatives and Senate filed suit against the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments asserting the Commission failed to "nominate qualified persons to the pool of qualified candidates" for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission because certain nominees were allegedly ineligible to serve under the restrictions of art. IV, pt. 2, § 1 of the Arizona Constitution. The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction halting the selection of commissioners on October 29, 2020. No action has been taken since then.

2010

  • Congressional
  • Legislative
    • Commission’s Original Plans
      • Passed = January 17, 2012
      • Preclearance = Granted on April 26, 2012
    • Litigation History
      • Harris v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm’n: On April 27, 2012, a group of Arizona voters filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona alleging that the state’s legislative plans contained excessive population variances in violation of the one person, one vote constitutional requirement under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, in addition to claims of impermissible partisan motivations when drawing certain district lines. The federal district court ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that the population deviations were primarily the result of good-faith efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act, which the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed on April 20, 2016.
    • Related Litigation
      • State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis, No. 1 CA-CV 12-0068 (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2012): Arising out of an investigation by the Arizona Attorney General into the Independent Redistricting Commission’s pre-mapping actions, the Commission argued that Arizona’s Open Meeting Laws did not apply to the Commission and that the Commission’s communications sought by the Attorney General were protected by legislative immunity. On December 11, 2012, the Arizona Court of Appeals found that the Open Meetings Laws did apply to the Commission to the extent they did not conflict with the Arizona Constitution’s provisions establishing the commission, but affirmed the trial court’s ruling in favor of the Commission and its injunction against further investigation because the State had not appealed the lower court’s ruling that there was no reasonable cause to support the investigation.
      • Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm’n v. Brewer, 275 P.3d 1267 (Ariz. 2012): After being initiated by the Acting Governor, the Arizona Senate voted to remove Commissioner Colleen Mathis from the Independent Redistricting Commission on the grounds she held closed commission meetings and failed to comply with the constitutional map-adjusting criteria. The Commission challenged the removal as unconstitutional, and on April 20, 2012, the Arizona Supreme Court held that Mathis could retain her position because neither of the stated grounds for removal was sufficient cause under the Arizona Constitution.
      • Leach v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, No. CV-2012-7344 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Maricopa Cty. Mar. 16, 2017): Several individuals filed a state lawsuit against the state’s independent redistricting commission, alleging the commission failed to follow various procedural and open meeting requirements applicable to the redistricting process. In February 2017, the Maricopa County Superior Court granted summary judgment for the commission, and the plaintiffs did not appeal this decision.
      • Arizona State Legis. v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 576 U.S. 787 (2015): In 2000, Arizona voters approved an initiative petition transferring redistricting authority from the State Legislature to an Independent Redistricting Commission. After the Commission adopted final congressional and legislative plans for the state in 2012, the Arizona State Legislature filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona alleging that the initiative’s transfer of redistricting authority and resulting Commission maps were unconstitutional under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution. On June 29, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Commission, finding that the Elections Clause does not prohibit the use of citizen-initiated legislative powers to transfer a state’s redistricting authority from the state’s legislature to an independent redistricting commission.

2000

  • Congressional
  • Legislative
    • Commission’s Original Plans
    • Interim Plans
      • Approved by Federal Court = May 29, 2002
      • Used for 2002 election
    • Commission’s Revised Plans
      • Passed = August 14, 2002
      • Preclearance = Granted on February 10, 2003
    • Litigation History
      • Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 121 P.3d 843 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005): This case involved consolidated challenges to the Commission’s congressional plan and revised legislative plans, with plaintiffs alleging that the plans violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and various provisions of the Arizona Constitution involving competitiveness. On October 21, 2005, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling upholding the congressional districts, reversed its ruling invalidating the legislative districts, and remanded the case for consideration under the proper standards. The legislative plans were upheld on remand.
      • Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm’n II, 208 P.3d 676 (Ariz. 2009): On March 6, 2002, a coalition of voters and organizations filed a state lawsuit challenging the Commission’s adopted legislative plans on the grounds it did not sufficiently favor competitive districts in violation of the Arizona Constitution. The trial court originally invalidated the legislative plans and ordered the Commission to adopt a new one, but on May 20, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court reversed and upheld the legislative plans as lawful.

In The News

Privacy Policy    |     Terms of Service
Copyright ©2024