On Thursday, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge rejected challenges from a coalition of Republican voters that the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) used the wrong process in drawing boundaries for Arizona’s nine congressional districts. Arizona redistricting commission wins another legal challenge:
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Roger Brodman rejected claims that the five-member commission violated the state’s Open Meetings Law as it went about its work.
Brodman’s ruling continues a string of redistricting-commission victories. The citizen-created commission has won all five legal challenges brought against it, including two that went to the U.S. Supreme Court.
It is unclear if the plaintiffs will appeal; attorney Brett Johnson was not immediately available for comment.
Joe Kanefield, one of the attorneys representing the commission, called it a “sweeping victory” because the judge sided with the commission on all the complaints.
“It’s a broad victory, there’s nothing left to litigate at this point,” Kanefield said.
If there is no appeal, the commission could wrap up operations, close its offices and go home. A new commission would be appointed after the 2020 U.S. census to create new districts in effect as of 2022.
Brodman gave the commission 20 days to submit a proposed order for his judgment in this case. That document is needed to close out the case.
He also gave a nudge to the plaintiffs that an appeal might be futile, in a practical sense. Given the speed, or lack thereof, with which legal proceedings move, it could be near the end of this decade before the case is wrapped up, he wrote.
Every legal challenge brought against the AIRC by Republican operatives ended in bitter defeat, and court decisions that only strengthened the independent redistricting commission process. The GOP will be undeterred from abusing the process again after the 2020 census.
Please add up all the public money the one party dictatorship spent trying 50 different angles to defeat legislative and congressional redistricting plans that maintained their majority. It is obscene how much this bunch will spend constantly trying to defend the indefensible.
This article seems incomplete; what does this really mean? Does it mean the Democratic party will remain virtually powerless in this state for years to come?