My sense of what the IRC public comments tell the four new commissioners

First and foremost, Robert Wilson represents a lightning rod and would make the entire process even more contentious than a decade ago. Unless they want that certain level of stress, they would do well to avoid him like the plague (or like Covid19).

Mr. Wilson had, by far, the most comments, both in support and in opposition to his appointment. By virtue of which, it's obvious he had his friends networked in, to watch and comment. Additionally, savvy people who are wary of having a Trump supporter in charge of the all-important remapping of legislative and Congressional districts were also paying close attention. 

He himself is confident in front of an audience, no doubt. But some of his responses to questions seemed lacking in candor. For instance, when asked why he didn't host any events at his store for Democratic candidates, his reply--that he invited some but none took him up on the offer--seemed far less than satisfying. The bottom-line on that issue is his persona, though he wants to put on a welcoming face, is not even close to independent. In fact, some comments in support of Wilson suggest that he has either implicitly or explicitly promised the likely new Congressional seat to rural Arizonans.

He suggests that the commission should defer judgment on 4 of the six lawful requirements (notably including communities of interest and competitive districts) to what the public tells the commission in public comments over the course of the process. Of course, that invites chaos as people badger the commissioners like the Tea Party activists did last decade.

Not only is that unseemly, but is a clear tell that Wilson has already been organizing (right-wing?) interests to hopefully overwhelm the public input and the Democratic commissioners to get his way. 

Thomas Loquvam had fewer comments but they were pretty much all in opposition because of his status as a lobbyist. His explanation for why he (out of an abundance of caution) registered as a lobbyist even though he did not need to, may be plausible but doesn't obviate his connections (that he worked as an attorney for them, and that his sister headed up the behemoth's lobbying and public relations for several years) to Arizona Public Service, a veritable Godzilla when it comes to political influence in our state.

Gregory Teesdale had fewer comments overall, but some recognized his potential value as a facilitator and his technical background. My impression of him, as I noted in my previous blog post,

He seems experienced in and well-qualified to explain complex issues and situations clearly so everyone can understand. Without, as he noted, talking down to them. He also prides himself in being an innovator. He impressed me as an out-of-the-box thinker.

One commenter--who said her professional background was in Block Grant planning, and that she has no political connections (and this blogger does not recognize her name)-- stated,

I have watched all 5 interviews, in their entirety, and have reviewed each online available application. I believe that Mr. Teesdale 1) reflects the most independent perspective, 2) expressed possessing personal strengths which would enable him to negotiate the stresses of negotiating conflict that comes with highly charged public input, and 3) has an extensive executive background with several strong skill-sets necessary to fulfill the position which demands both confidence and diplomacy. Additionally, his stated (on application) approach to redistricting seems the most logical, independent, and fair to all Arizona citizens, regardless of party. If "independence" is the goal, he seems most likely, of all candidates, to add that element to the commission.

Erika Neuberg apparently had several friends make comments in support of her candidacy. One comment, apparently left by a former rural county elected official indicated she felt that Neuberg presents adequate qualifications but "I worry about her ability to withstand controversy." Comments opposing Dr. Neuberg cited concern over her political contributions, suggesting she doesn't appear independent. By the way, Neuberg expressed fear over "chronic 3-2 votes" in the course of the IRC doing it's business. She did NOT explain how she would navigate those inevitable situations. 

Therefore, I have to wonder how she would get to 4-1 votes when the process is inherently contentious. She suggested that she wants all of the commissioners to be friends at the end of the process. Of course that would be nice. But does that mean she'd sacrifice compliance with the six criteria in the state constitution to get there?

Regarding Megan Carollo, a commenter noted her admission in her application that she did NOT vote in the 2016 election(s). The fact that the application specifically asks for that history, suggests that the screening commission probably should have nixed her from the get go. Carollo, in her interview, right at the beginning, disclosed her relationship with Doug York, saying that she and York are close friends. Given the fact that Gov. Ducey stacked the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments, that may explain why she was included on the short list.

Do I even need to go further into detail? Conflict of interest based on a years long close friendship with one of the Republican commissioners, and having not voted in a major election that was pivotal in seating a demagogue who spent the last four years demolishing key democratic institutions and the entire federal government. Deal breakers, alone or together.

But, she had a reason (rationalization) for refusing to vote.

Humans and human nature have demonstrated for millennia that we are ALL pretty darn good at coming up with rationalizations for why we do the wrong thing.

Clearly Wilson, Loquvam, and Carollo are all Republican plants.

Let's hope that Thursday morning, the new redistricting commissioners make a good choice. Or perhaps the least bad choice.