The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) adopted two maps on Wednesday that will define the state’s 9 Congressional and 30 Legislative districts for the next decade starting with 2022 elections.
But getting to that final vote involved some of the most contentious negotiations in the months-long redistricting process, and sent the commissioners into an executive session with their legal counsel. It was also marked by the AIRC’s two Democrats voting against ensuring the district numbering system follows state law.
Every decade the state’s congressional and legislative districts have to be redrawn based on the latest census population data and several goals, such as district shape, geographical features, respect for communities of interest, compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act, and potential competitiveness.
The fact Arizona has more registered Republicans than Democrats (and more registered non-party “Independent” voters than Democrats) also comes into play.
Wednesday’s approval of Arizona’s new Congressional District (CD) map -officially known as version 13.9- went smoothly enough in the morning. The map was unanimously approved by the commission’s two Republicans -David Mehl and Douglas York- and the two Democrats -Derrick Watchman and Shereen Lerner -along with Independent Chairwoman Erika Neuberg.
Under Arizona’s current CD map, five districts are represented by Democrats. But historical voting data shows the newly drawn CDs will give Democrats a partisan advantage in only three districts.
Republicans will now have a partisan advantage in four of the new districts and a negligible advantage in a fifth. The other CD is considered a toss-up.
However, once that vote was taken discord took over as the AIRC considered the makeup of the final Legislative District (LD) map.
The census data works out to approximately 238,000 residents for each of the 30 LDs, although state law allows a little give and take. All of the commissioners have proposed various revisions to draft maps since the process started in the spring, and it has not been uncommon for small changes to be proposed to a district boundary.
For example, Mehl and York were willing Wednesday to approve a tweak to the district boundaries of the Flagstaff – White Mountain area at the suggestion of Watchman and the Navajo Nation. Meanwhile, Lerner sought to change LD2, which represents a small portion of Maricopa County.
Lerner, who wanted to reduce the Republican advantage in the LD2, appeared to get frustrated with the lack of progress she was making. At one point she questioned the motives behind her colleagues’ consent to the Flagstaff – White Mountains change, suggesting the Republicans agreed to the revision due to improper partisan interest –to benefit a current lawmaker.
A closed door meeting was called with the AIRC’s attorney, after which the commissioners continued debating Lerner’s various changes for LD2. Then Mehl and York told Neuberg that if LD2 was changed, they wanted to revisit the boundaries of LD13, another district in Maricopa County.
The posturing did not set well with Neuberg. “I don’t have an appetite to go back and reopen each and every deliberative process we’ve done on each side,” the chairwoman said.
Neuberg eventually voted with the two Republicans to approve LD map version 16.1 once she recognized the Democrat commissioners were not going to change their position.
But the disharmony continued, carrying over into what should have been an obvious unanimous vote – to renumber LD5 on the final map to LD1 to comply with a state law which requires the LD representing Prescott to be LD1. Lerner and Watchman inexplicably voted against the motion.
The maps must still be formally certified by Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs. There is also the possibility of legal challenges to one or more of the AIRC maps, particularly the Voting Rights Act considerations for Hispanic / Latinos and Native Americans.
Another concern is whether the various districts adequately match Citizen Voting Age Population by Race and Ethnicity data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Previous legal challenges have led to the narrowing of what a court can consider. A court review can determine whether the AIRC followed the constitutionally mandated procedure and whether the AIRC adopted a final plan that satisfies substantive constitutional requirements.
If a judge were to order any changes to the process or a specific map, such a change could require tweaks to one or more other maps.
Citing the importance of growing Arizona’s international presence, House Speaker Rusty Bowers hopes a new Ad Hoc Committee on International Affairs will enhance trade opportunities while also strengthening border security.
“The world is an ever-changing place, and it’s important that the State of Arizona be proactive to attract more commerce, education and culture to this beautiful state,” Bowers said this week in announcing formation of the ad hoc committee.
The committee co-chaired by Tim Dunn (R-LD13) and Rep. Cesar Chavez (D-LD15) will organize visits and joint events in Arizona with international dignitaries, while identifying and working with outside organizations to strengthen Arizona’s international relationships. Committee members will also conduct hearings related to foreign trade, international affairs, and border security.
“Whether it be trade, border security or tourism, this committee will be a key force in making Arizona safer and more prosperous,” said Dunn, an agri-businessman who chairs the House Committee on Land, Agriculture & Rural Affairs.
According to the Observatory of Economic Complexity, Arizona had $1.9 billion in trade exports and $2.38 billion in trade imports in September 2021. Between September 2020 and September 2021, exports increased by $327 million (20.7 percent) while imports increased by $221 million (10.2 percent).
For Chavez, international relationships are critical for growing the state’s business, trade, and education sectors.
“I’ve always believed that Arizona is the State of Opportunity because of what can be accomplished in a bipartisan manner,” Chavez said. “Through the work of this ad-hoc committee, I’m certain that we’ll give Arizona its well-deserved global presence.”
Dunn and Chavez will be joined on the committee by Reps. Regina Cobb (R-LD5), Diego Espinoza (D-LD19), Alma Hernandez (D-LD3), Steve Kaiser (R-LD15), Lorenzo Sierra (D-LD19), and Justin Wilmeth (R-LD15).
Passengers flying Avelo Airlines in and out of Tucson International Airport via Los Angeles’s Hollywood Burbank Airport can now utilize the TSA PreCheck expedited screening program, the Transportation Security Administration announced Monday.
Avelo Airlines is known for its non-stop flights to smaller airport destinations which support access to wine regions, national parks, and cultural centers. The company describes itself as “the go-to airline for the outdoor purist, wine enthusiast, skier, nature lover, or anyone who wants smoother travel that saves money.”
In addition to Tucson, the airline also offers several flights from Hollywood Burbank Airport to northern California and the northwest U.S. Additional routes fly into Salt Lake City as well as Fort Collins / Loveland in Colorado.
Avelo’s acceptance into the TSA PreCheck program brings the total number of participating domestic and international carriers to more than 80.
TSA PreCheck is an expedited screening program which enables low-risk, eligible U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and U.S. lawful permanent residents departing from a U.S. airport to enjoy an efficient security screening experience. The cost is $85 for five years; TSA PreCheck is available at no cost for U.S. Armed Forces service members, including those serving in the U.S. Coast Guard, Reserves, and National Guard.
Approved TSA PreCheck travelers can avoid removing shoes, belts, liquids, food items, laptops and light jackets. The TSA reports that 94 percent of TSA PreCheck members waited less than five minutes to clear security at more than 200 U.S. airports in November 2021.
Avelo also has a base at southern Connecticut’s Tweed-New Haven Airport which serves several vacation destinations across Florida. More information about Avelo’s flights in and out of Tucson and its other routes can be found on the company’s website https://www.aveloair.com/destinations
Airline passengers who are members of other Department of Homeland Security Trusted Traveler Programs such as Global Entry, NEXUS and SENTRI may be eligible for TSA PreCheck screening. To find the program that best suits your travel needs, use the DHS traveler comparison online tool at https://ttp.dhs.gov/
Federally regulated banks across the United States have about 100 days to get familiar with a new rule that requires the reporting of cyberattacks and other computer security incidents to regulators within 36 hours and “as soon as possible” to customers if the incident might materially affect operations for at least four hours.
The rule announced by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (Fed), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) last month takes effect April 1. It applies to banking organizations such as national banks, federal savings associations, state member banks, U.S. operations of foreign banking organizations, federal branches and agencies of foreign banks, and U.S. bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies.
Under the new rule, reportable cyber incidents are those causing “actual harm” with respect to the availability, confidentiality, or integrity of a banking organization’s information system or the information that the system processes, stores or transmits. As a result, notification will not be required if an incident only threatens to cause a harm.
A banking organization’s service providers are also subject to the rule, which will now require notification by a service provider to the banking organization of incidents which has caused “or is reasonably likely to cause” a service interruption of four or more hours.
Federal banking officials concede the new reporting requirement won’t stop cyberattacks on the nation’s banks. It won’t even serve as a speed bump in such criminal activity.
What it will do, according to industry newsletter Banking Exchange, is give regulators and federal law enforcement officials a better chance of tracking attacks, identifying patterns, and ensuring local bank executives are doing their part to protect customer data and assets.
Some types of computer incidents involve new account or wire fraud, account penetration or takeovers, and malicious attacks such as ransomware. The disruption or degradation of a banking organization’s operations which would pose a threat to the country’s financial stability will also trigger the new reporting regulation.
OneSpan, a cybersecurity company specializing in banking, recently released its Global Financial Regulations Report which notes the main challenges for banking organization are reducing or preventing cyberattacks, safeguarding sensitive internal and customer data, and keeping up with changes in consumer privacy laws and industry rules.
The new banking regulation emphasizes material disruptions such as denial-of-service (DOS) attacks or data hacking incursions which limit or shutdown a banking organization’s operations regardless of whether customer information is compromised. However, some cyberattacks may also be subject to supplementary reporting under other federal or state laws.
Instructions will be sent to all regulated banks in early 2022 on when and how to process a notification.
COVID-19 exhaustion is not a medical term, although what it represents can be as emotionally fatiguing as the virus can be physically draining. It describes the sense of frustration and weariness that comes from reacting 24/7 to a pandemic for the last 20 months.
AZ Free News looks at some of the events which occurred last week in federal courthouses, corporate offices, and the Arizona statehouse which illustrate the confusing regulations, legal rulings, and political posturing commonly found with COVID-19 exhaustion.
Private vs. Public Employees
On Dec. 15, Gov. Doug Ducey issued yet another executive order concerning COVID-19. Among the nine-page order are 19 words which seemingly ensure municipal, county, and state officials cannot impose any COVID-19 vaccination on citizens, businesses, or public employees:
“No person shall be required by this state, or any city, town or county to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine…”
Yet just two days later, Tucson Mayor Regina Romero issued a dismissive response to Ducey’s order as she doubled down on enforcing a city ordinance passed in November that allows for termination of any city employee who did not provide prove of vaccination or had not gone through an exemption process.
Meanwhile, the illnesses and deaths of several public safety workers across Arizona who contracted COVID-19 are being classified as work-related, which allows for various financial benefits for the employee or family. At the same time, a growing number of private companies have discontinued assistance for unvaccinated frontline employees who contact COVID-19.
The latest employer to do so is Kroger Co., which owns 2,700 supermarkets and multi-department stores across the country under several names. In Arizona, Kroger operates the Fry’s Food Stores.
According to Kroger’s announcement, any of the company’s 465,000 employees who are not vaccinated will no longer be eligible for two weeks of paid emergency leave if they fall ill. In addition, a $50 monthly health insurance surcharge will soon be imposed onunvaccinated nonunion employees.
A similar COVID-19 health plan surcharge was implemented by Pima County against several hundred of its employees who have not been vaccinated. The county’s action, which is expected to cost employees $100 a month, is the subject of a federal lawsuit filed last week by the Arizona Conference of Police and Sheriffs (AZCOPS).
Another problem that has developed as a result of various vaccination mandates is the uneven -and potentially discriminatory- decisions by companies and government entities in response to applications for religious and medical exemptions. There are also concerns over employee privacy.
The City of Phoenix issued its own COVID-19 vaccination mandate back in November, citing the city’s status as a federal contractor. The city’s 14,000 or so employees were given a Jan. 18 deadline, along with the option of applying for a medical or religious exemption.
Many employees balked at the exemption process after learning they would have to reveal deeply personal medical and religious information to fellow city employees with the Human Resources, Equal Opportunity, and Law departments.
The Phoenix mandate is on hold while the federal court address challenges to the Biden Administration’s federal contractor vaccination mandate. If reactivated, the city’s mandate allows for termination.
Federal Court Decisions
While a legal challenge or two have been threatened against Ducey’s latest executive order, Arizonans who work for the federal government have not had success challenging President Joe Biden’s executive order that requires federal employees to get the shot.
But for workers of private companies with 100 or more employees, for those who work for a federal contractor, or whose employer receives Medicare & Medicaid funds, things get a whole lot murkier.
A federal appeals court recently put on hold the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services rules which require staff at any facility which participates in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to get the COVID-19 vaccination, regardless of whether that staff member has patient contact.
But even if that rule never goes into effect, healthcare workers in Arizona may not have recourse to challenge any employer mandated vaccination policy, thanks to Ducey’s Dec. 15 executive order. The governor specifically allows “a health care institution licensed pursuant to A.R.S. Title 36, Chapter 4” to require its employees to be vaccinated, although a medical and religious exemption must be offered.
There is also a Biden executive order which requires federal contractors and subcontractors to implement a mandatory employee vaccination policy. A federal court order put that mandate on hold earlier this month, but the U.S. Department of Justice continues to argue the President has authority to impose such a requirement on America’s private businesses.
The Biden Administration mandate with the biggest reach is one issued by OSHA that affects more than 80 million workers. An emergency OSHA rule requires companies with 100 or more employees to implement COVID-19 vaccination protocols or face financial penalties. The OSHA rule also requires unvaccinated workers to undergo frequent testing, and only provides for a medical exemption.
A federal court had put the OSHA rule on hold due to legal challenges from multiple states and employers. However, last Friday a federal appellate court allowed the mandate to go into effect pending any possible action by the U.S. Supreme Court which was asked on Saturday by several parties to get involved sooner than later.
It did not take long for OSHA to react to last week’s lifting of the hold. The agency issued a statement Saturday warning those companies with more than 100 employees to comply by Jan. 10 or face citations and penalties.
The Trauma Surgeon
Mental COVID-19 exhaustion can also be caused by the frustration brought on by inane vaccination mandate protocols. A glaring head-scratcher of such a mandate comes from Phoenix-based Banner Health, Arizona’s largest private employer.
Until recently, Dr. Devin L. Gray held medical privileges at several Banner hospitals, just as he does at many other Maricopa County hospitals. But Gray, a surgeon with 30 years of experience, is no longer allowed to use his specialty skills as a life-saving trauma surgeon at Banner’s facilities.
The reason? A Banner Health administrator did not find Gray’s request for a religious exemption to the company’s vaccination mandate to be sincere. The other hospitals -Arizona General Hospitals, Chandler Regional Medical Center, Mercy Gilbert Medical Center, and Mountain View Medical Center- did.
Gray has asked the Arizona Attorney General’s Office to look into the exemption inconsistencies, as well as the amount of deeply personal information some companies are demanding from employees who apply for a medical or religious exemption.
In the meantime, Gray has been told by a Banner Health executive that he can be treated as a patient at their facilities. He is also free to visit patients at a Banner facility. But he can’t treat those patients’ medical emergencies.
