AIRC Update: Supreme Court ruling – injunctive relief denied

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Many thanks again to Steve Muratore for staying on top of this breaking story.

Muratore has the additional pleadings which were filed on Tuesday. The Arizona Eagletarian: Redistricting — more supreme court filings:

Additional briefs have been filed:

Mathis' reply to responses filed by Brewer and the state senate, in which former Chief Justice Thomas Zlaket opens his argument thus:

As demonstrated in previous pleadings, this is a remarkable case involving the shocking abuse of raw political power to frustrate the will of Arizona's voters, while recklessly smearing the good name and reputation of honest, hard working citizen volunteers holding unpaid Constitutional offices.

Without copying for you substantial amounts of the text Mathis reply, I cannot do justice to describing the significance of this particular document. If you are concerned about the shocking abuse of raw political power by the ruling Junta in Arizona, you must read this.

McNulty and Herrera reply in support of motion to intervene rebutting Brewer and the senate's claims they have no standing to intervene in the special action on Mathis' removal.

* * *

Attorney Mel McDonald, representing Russell Pearce and the state senate, filed a response to the motion to stay the Mathis' removal.

* * *

Finally, the AIRC response in support of the motion to stay Mathis' removal.

The Arizona Supreme Court promised a decision on injunctive relief on Tuesday. The Arizona Eagletarian: Redistricting — Supreme Court rules:

Having considered all pleadings filed to date in this matter, the Court, en banc, decides as follows: 

IT IS ORDERED denying Petitioner Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission’s Motion to Stay Removal Order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Colleen Coyle Mathis’s Motion to Intervene as Petitioner in the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission’s Amended Petition for Special Action and Declaratory Injunctive Relief. The clerk is directed to amend the case name accordingly. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Motion to Intervene by Arizona Independent Redistricting Commissioners Linda McNulty and José Herrera. The Court will treat the pleadings filed by these individuals as amicus briefs and hereby recognize Ms. McNulty and Mr. Herrera as amici curiae. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents may each file a single, consolidated response to the petitions of Petitioner Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission and Petitioner Mathis.Petitioners may each file a single, consolidated reply. Each party may respond to any amicus briefs in a single, consolidated response.

* * *

We will work with the vice chairmen to see how the commission should proceed while the Arizona Supreme Court resolves the important legal issues in dispute. In the meantime, we will continue processing the tremendous amount of input the commission received during the public comment period.

There will be additional amicus briefs filed by 5:00 pm on Friday.

Not a big deal, and not unexpected. The court is signaling that it wants to decide this issue of first impression on narrow grounds. The parties should adjust their arguments accordingly.