McCauley looks at a proposed map.
The committee took the twelve maps they had accumulated over the short time working together and prioritized four to give to the supervisors. In the committee’s four proposals, Winslow is the only municipality that is split up and the community is split in each of the four.
The County Supervisors will take the map they believe benefits their constituents to public meetings across the district to gather additional comment. The public meeting for Winslow will be held during the November 27 regular city council meeting at 7 p.m.
McCauley encouraged all people, especially minorities and those living in the unincorporated parts of Winslow, to attend the hearing and express their concerns about Winslow being divided.
“Winslow being divided will dilute our vote, disenfranchise our Hispanic population and leave us with out the voting strength to elect a supervisor from Winslow in either district,” he explained.
“I hope people show up and line up around the block to tell them this is not what we want,” McCauley added.
The map that was put in the top position keeps District 1 the same as it was in the last redistricting, and places Winslow No. 4 and 5 into District 2 along with Dilkon, Indian Wells, Teesto 1, 2, 3, and 4, Whitecone 1 and 2, Oraibi, Toreva, Polacca, Keams Canyon, Jeddito 1 and 2 and Whitecone 1, 2, and 3. Winslow No. 1, 2, and 3 were moved into District 3 with Joseph City, Holbrook 1, 2, and 3, Sun Valley, Woodruff, Snowflake 1 and 2 and Cedar Hills. District 4 consists of Heber/Overgaard, Taylor 1 and 2, White Mountain Lake, Show Low 1, 2, 3, and 4, Clay Springs, Linden, Pinedale and Lakeside 1 and 2. District 5 consists of Pinetop 1 and 2, Hondah, Whiteriver and Cibecue.
McCauley believes that this map will not pass through the Department of Justice because of retrogression, or the possibility of making minorities worse off by diluting their vote.
He explained that the DOJ will look at all the maps presented to the committee to see if the proposed map is the least retrogressive. He hopes the DOJ will recognize the map he presented as the least retrogressive because it does not split any municipalities up, therefore keeping the minority votes together.
The state of Arizona is a covered state, meaning the state has a history of denying minorities their right to vote. Arizona is covered for the Hispanic vote and Navajo County is covered for both the Hispanic and Native American vote. The DOJ will take these two points into consideration when deciding whether to accept a redistricting map.
The map McCauley presented kept District 1 the same and moved Sun Valley, Holbrook 1, 2 and 3, and Woodruff to District 2 along with Dilkon, Indian Wells, Teesto 1, 2, 3, and 4, Whitecone 1 and 2, Oraibi, Toreva, Polacca, Keams Canyon, Jeddito 1 and 2 and Whitecone 1, 2, and 3. His proposal made up District 3 with Winslow 1, 2, and 3, Joseph City, Snowflake 1 and 2 and Taylor 1 and 2. District 4 included Heber/Overgaard, White Mountain Lake, Show Low 1, 2, 3, and 4, Clay Springs, Linden, Pinedale and Lakeside 1 and 2. District 5, like the other map, consisted of Pinetop 1 and 2, Hondah, Whiteriver and Cibecue.
He states that since the Holbrook precincts, Sun Valley and Woodruff have less people, moving them to Distrtic 2 will cause less retrogression, if any, because fewer people therefore making his map a better proposal.
He encourages everyone to contact him so they can look at the maps and compare the ones the committee was presented.
The state requires that district lines be redrawn after the mandated 10-year census. The laws also state that the lines must produce districts that are equal in population with the largest and smallest being within 10 percent of each other.
The Board of Supervisors a required to present a map to the DOJ before December 1, 2001.