Nancy Smith at Pinal Redistricting mtg
Maricopa City Council member Nancy Smith discusses proposed redistricting maps for the Pinal County Supervisors with constituents at a public meeting and open house at the Pinal County Complex Monday evening. [File photo]

The two proposed maps for updated Pinal County supervisor districts have Maricopa being split between two distant districts. 

Both maps have the majority of the city remaining where it currently is, in District 4, represented by Jeff McClure. However, the Tortosa area would be moved to District 3 under both plans, which is represented by Stephen Miller and primarily covers the Casa Grande area. 

The county will take input from the public throughout February online and at a series of public meetings, then vote on a final redistricting map at its March 2 meeting. 

The plans are not popular with local leaders. There are two primary arguments against the proposed districts: splitting Maricopa between two districts; and including Saddlebrooke, a suburban Tucson retirement community while placing Stanfield in District 3. Saddlebrooke is nearly 100 miles and a two-hour drive from Maricopa. 

Maricopa city councilmember Nancy Smith is adamantly opposed to the current proposals. 

“These district proposals are not tentative, as the final districts would be in place for 10 years,” she said. “It is absolutely not acceptable that Tortosa area be put in D3. Cities should not be split. 

“It’s possible that the Stanfield area could be moved to D4 if that helps average the population appropriately,” she added. “Saddlebrooke should be moved to District 1 because Saddlebrooke is more ‘like’ the rural areas significant to D1.” 

Mayor Christian Price agreed. 

“I have to agree with Nancy,” Price said “While we solved that on the congressional level and the legislative level, it would be silly not to solve it on the supervisor level that we’re still coupled with Saddlebrooke, because the interests just are not aligned. To have a supervisor that has to be torn between totally separate interests doesn’t make a lot of sense.” 

Vice Mayor Vincent Manfredi was even more strident in his opposition to splitting the city. 

“I think it’s incredibly shortsighted to split the city of Maricopa into two county districts,” he said. “Maricopa as a subdivision of Pinal County must remain whole.”  

In determining the district boundaries, the county is required to ensure all five districts have a “substantially similar” population. According to Deputy County Attorney Allen Quist, that means if there is a deviation of 10 percent or more between any two districts, the county must realign the districts to bring the populations back within the margin. 

County planners also must forecast what areas are poised for growth and factor that into their planning. 

“Deputy County Manager Himanshu Patel, a member of the redistricting committee, said splitting Maricopa would not be out of the ordinary.  

“Historically, other cities have had dividing lines among more than one district,” he said. For example, currently, Eloy has three supervisory districts – Eloy is already sliced up. Florence is the same way, it has two districts, Coolidge has two, Casa Grande has two. So, it’s not unprecedented.” 

Patel said as part of the planning process, the county wanted to preserve as much as possible of the current districts while considering the areas that were likely to see the greatest amount of population growth over the next 10 years.  

“Based on what we see today and what we’re seeing for the next 10 years, District 4 had to lose population and District 1 and District 3, which both abut District 4, they need to gain population,” said Quist. “District 4 is surrounded by all these districts that are lower in population.” 

Quist added that the proposed districts were drawn so that some of the growth expected in Maricopa over the next decade would spill into Districts 1 and 3, helping equalize their populations. He also said redistricting of borders must be evaluated every 10 years and re-drawn if the deviations are greater than 10 percent, but they may be revisited at any time if the population disparities exceed the mandated levels. 

To read an editorial by Nancy Smith on this subject, click here.