PHOENIX, Ariz. (KGUN) — Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes sharply criticized recent redistricting efforts and Supreme Court decisions that, he said, have undermined voting protections — and urged states to defend fair representation. 13 states have tried to redraw their congressional districts - seven have succeeded.
VIDEO: Watch below as AZ Secretary of State Adrian Fontes reacts to mid-decade redistricting efforts:
Speaking about the erosion of the Voting Rights Act and a wave of mid‑decade map changes, Fontes spoke with Scripps Media and said the nation is witnessing "a grotesque display of political cowardice" in which parties "scared of their own voters" try to "game the system" through court challenges or abrupt redistricting. He framed the issue as more than partisan maneuvering, calling it an attack on the democratic principle that Americans fought for during the civil rights movement.
Mid‑decade redistricting refers to changing electoral district boundaries outside the usual ten‑year census cycle. Although most states redraw maps after the decennial census, mid‑cycle adjustments happen sooner—typically prompted by partisan aims, court rulings, or shifts in political control. State legislatures most often carry out these changes, though other bodies or courts can initiate them as well. It is often used as a technique by state legislatures to create new maps.
"Folks were beaten nearly to death on the Edmund Pettus Bridge so that Americans of all stripes could have their voices heard," Fontes said, arguing that recent Supreme Court rulings have effectively rolled back the protections that followed those struggles. "The evisceration of the Supreme Court year in and year out...is a terrible development in the way that we run the guts of what our American democracy represents."
Fontes highlighted Arizona's safeguard against purely partisan mapmaking: an independent redistricting commission enshrined in the state constitution. "Not unlike our friends in Michigan and Colorado, Arizona has an independent redistricting commission," he said, noting that the commission sets the criteria for drawing lines and reduces the impact of legislative gerrymandering.
What’s happening in Arizona: unlike some states where lawmakers control redrawing or where governors have pledged mid‑decade changes, Arizona’s congressional and legislative maps are drawn by the voter‑created Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) and the panel normally reconvenes only after the decennial census. That structure — along with constitutional and statutory election deadlines — makes mid‑decade wholesale changes to congressional and legislative districts unlikely without a court order, and experts say it would be difficult to produce new maps in time for the 2026 election.
Still, the narrowing of Section 2 by the Supreme Court has prompted GOP leaders to signal legal challenges and spurred bills in the Legislature to overhaul the commission’s rules — including a proposal to dilute the chair’s tie-breaking power by requiring a larger consensus to approve maps. Critics say such changes could weaken protections for Native American and other underrepresented communities even if they stop short of a full mid‑decade redraw.
Fontes warned that the loss of federal protections has emboldened some state leaders to ignore factors that once protected underrepresented communities. He called for rethinking how judges are selected and urged leaders to resist changing the rules "midgame" to preserve power rather than compete on policies.
"The folks that are doing this don't want fair representation. They don't want fair maps," he said, adding that the goal should be "a government where the lines are fair, where voices can get heard, particularly those underserved and underrepresented voices."
Fontes urged bipartisan cooperation to ensure "a fair fight" in politics and to protect the representation that, he said, is central to the nation's founding principle of consent of the governed.
