Comments on 'High court grills both sides in Arizona redistricting case'
Sponsored by

Comments on

High court grills both sides in Arizona redistricting case

Supreme Court justices grilled both sides in the Arizona Legislature's challenge of a voter-approved redistricting commission. Opponents say the Constitution give the job of redistricting to lawmakers, but some justices argued that ultimate legislative power belongs to voters.... Read more»

have your say   

4 comments on this story

Mar 2, 2015, 10:30 pm
-0 +0

I have the magical solution, and I’ve been saying it for years…

Have three criteria, and three criteria only, for drawing the maps…
-equal in population
-as geographically rectangular as the first two criteria will allow

If you take out things like outdated, misinterpreted laws, and stop considering things that shouldn’t be considered anyway like skin color and political party, then there is no controversy. You put the census results in a computer once a decade and you have your maps drawn in less than 30 minutes. In this day and age a computer is the only entity that can be trusted to be unbiased, anyway.

Don’t let any of these guys fool you…the “Independent” Redistricting commission is anything but, and both parties are equally scummy when it comes to this issue. Both parties want to gerrymander, they’re just fighting for the control to gerrymander more. There is no good guy in this fight, only villains.

Mar 3, 2015, 12:27 pm
-0 +0

“Magic” isn’t real, Bret, and simple rules aren’t so simple in practice.

The Washington Post had a great piece on gerrymandering recently:

I’d recommend reading it, but this graphic gives a taste:

Mar 3, 2015, 12:43 pm
-0 +0

Dylan, I understand the argument in favor of gerrymandering, I just don’t agree with it. But, that said, I read the article.

Not that this influenced by opinion on this (it didn’t), but I myself am affected by illogical gerrymandering. Despite the fact that I live in what most consider the Tucson Metro area, I am represented by Flagstaff’s Congresswoman. In a state with nine Congressional districts, only one makes their primary offices further away from my home than my own Congresswoman does. How in the world is this fair or even logical to me, the constituent?

In the story you linked, after reading it I clicked a few times out of it and came across a map that was drawn in the manner that I advocate, and I think it turned out pretty well. Here it is…


I oppose the two-party system, which is why I oppose gerrymandering. I don’t care which political party is in power where. I have to believe that the only people who support gerrymandering are people who actually like this two-party system, which is pretty much every politician and, unfortunately, apparently Supreme Court justices like it, too. :(

Mar 3, 2015, 12:45 pm
-0 +0

To be fair, I’ll add that the real villain in this issue is the electorate. If they would stop being so stupid and predictable in their voting behaviors, then gerrymandering becomes impossible.

Sorry, we missed your input...

You must be logged in or register to comment

Click to enlarge

Miranda Leo/Cronkite News

Arizona House Speaker David Gowan, in hat, and former Speaker Andy Tobin answer questions outside the Supreme Court, where lawmakers argued that the state's redistricting commission is unconstitutional.


news, politics & government, local, arizona, nation/world, breaking, Cronkite News
Sponsored by

Top Commenters

  • Bret Linden: 1766
  • Dylan Smith: 541
  • Cactus Dave: 339
  • buddhaboy: 316
  • Roberto De Vido: 270
  • Brittanicus: 176
  • Quietwoman2: 172
  • EllieMae: 153
  • TucsonGirl: 116
  • janamg: 88
Sponsored by


I want to help offer a real news alternative!

We're committed to making quality news accessible; we'll never set up a paywall or charge for our site. But we rely on your support to bring you independent news without the spin. Use our convenient PayPal/credit card donation form below or contact us at today.

Subscribe and stretch your donation over time:

$10/mo. Printer's Devil
$15/mo. Cub Reporter
$20/mo. Stringer
$40/mo. Correspondent
$50/mo. Senior Correspondent
Enter your own monthly amount (number only)

Or give a secure one-time gift with PayPal or your credit card:

$5,000 Newshound
$2,500 Copy desk chief
$1,000 Trusted source
$500 Correspondent
$250 Stringer
$100 Cub reporter
$50 Printer's Devil
$25 Informed Source
$10 Dear Reader
Enter your own amount (below) is an Arizona nonprofit organization fiscally sponsored by, a 501c3 charity. Your contribution is tax-deductible.

User Guidelines

Please be respectful and relevant. Thought-provoking. Or at least funny.

We want comments to advance the discussion and we need your help. Debate, disagree, yell (digitally) or laugh, but do it with respect.

We won't censor your comments if we don't agree with you; we want viewpoints from across the political spectrum. We're dedicated to sparking an open, active discussion. We believe people with differing opinions can spark debate and effect change.

Comments are open to registered users of

Keep in mind:

  • A conversation involves sharing and respect. Support your viewpoint with facts, not attacks.
  • Ask questions. Search out answers.
  • Remember that being part of a community requires tolerance for differing views.
  • We can't ensure that all comments are based in truth. The only comments we endorse are those we write ourselves. does not allow:

  • Hate speech. Blatantly racist, sexist or homophobic slurs or calls for violence against a particular type of person, etc. will be removed.
  • Obscenity & excessive cursing. Sometimes a well-placed curse word - if you're creative enough to get it past our auto-censor - can express your point in just the right way. But we say '%*$& no' to cursing for cursing's sake. And lose the explicit sexually-descriptive language. It doesn't contribute to the debate and there are plenty of other places on the Internet to find it.
  • Flaming. During a heated discussion, unkind words may be spoken. We can live with a certain amount of rudeness in the name of provocative conversation, but a pattern of personal attacks (name-calling, mocking, or baiting) is not acceptable nor are threatening or harassing comments. Show some respect, please.
  • Explicit political endorsements. As a nonprofit we can't allow electioneering. Analysis and explanation of political issues and candidates are encouraged, but specific calls to vote for or against a measure or politician should be done elsewhere.
  • Spam. Solicitation of products or services isn't allowed; contact us about advertising, we'd love to talk to you. Links to off-topic sites may be deleted.
  • Copyright or IP infringement. Lengthy quotes and violations of 'Fair Use' aren't allowed. Anything you post should be your own work.
  • Overposting. Don't bore people and waste electrons with identical comments on multiple stories or repetitive comments that don't advance a conversation.
  • Trolling, sockpuppetry, and other abusive behavior. Please don't feed the trolls and don't pretend to be someone you're not.
  • Gossip. Don't bring up others who can't defend themselves. We don't give out personal information; you shouldn't either.

Comments that violate these guidelines may be removed. We reserve the right to make up the rules as we go along.


Commentors are solely responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. Users who violate these standards may lose their privileges on

Sentinel editors can't read every comment. Trolls, spammers and other troublemakers can slide under the bridge. We rely on you to help maintain a healthy conversation - more than likely, you're reading these comments before the editors.

What if you see something inappropriate? Use the 'Flag' button to send it to a moderation queue. Help us out and tell us why you're reporting it; please don't report someone just because you disagree with them. Boy who cried wolf and all that. We'll take appropriate action on violations.

We will not edit comments to alter their meaning or censor comments because of political content.

We will not remove comments solely because they are heartless, cruel, coarse, foolish or just plain wrong. Your disapproval can maintain a decent signal to noise ratio. Ultimately, however, self-policing is the best method.

Bottom line, don't be a jerk.

Sign up for email newsletters!

find us on facebook
Sponsored by
Sponsored by
Sponsored by