AIRC Update – Next Public Hearing is Friday in Tempe

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The next public hearing of the Arizona Independent Redistricitng Commission (AIRC) is scheduled for Friday in Tempe.

September 2, 2011
1:30 pm

Fiesta Resort – Galleria Ballroom

2100 S. Priest Drive
Tempe, AZ 85282

Agenda Info

At its Wednesday meeting, the AIRC finally decided on a policy for its contractor, Strategic Telemetry, to keep a record of contacts with "outsiders" regarding its work for the Commission. The policy includes news media contacts. Firm must disclose its redistricting contacts:

The commission voted 4-1 on Wednesday to change Strategic Telemetry's contract to generally require the firm to log its redistricting-related contacts with individuals or entities other than government officials and other vendors.

* * *

The commission voted 3-2 against Herrera's proposal to exempt news media contacts from the logging requirement.

Who exactly is included among "government officials"? Does this include all elected officials seeking to influence the Commission on preserving the electoral advantages they currently enjoy in their districits? Or does it just include the Speaker of the House, Senate President, and House and Senate Minority Leaders who appointed the Republican and Demcoratic members of the Commission?

I am more than surprised that the corporate media in Arizona did not use one of its media organizations or First Amendment organizations to lodge an official objection to the inclusion of media contacts in the policy. Then again, the corporate media is barely reporting on the AIRC, so what do they care?

Steve Muratore reports that the teabaggers are still being rude and disruptive at AIRC public hearings, behaving like ill-mannered children. The Arizona Eagletarian: Redistricting — Teleconferencing and False Dichotomies:

One familiar tea partier offering public testimony has been to several AIRC hearings and business meetings. If all I could tell you about her this time was that she attempted to offer biting criticism, that would be as tired and worn as her efforts.

Ann Heinz usually likes to sit front row center. This time was no different.  But when she and the gentleman sitting with her repeatedly disrupted the court reporter, the meeting had to be stopped. Ray Bladine asked the two to either stop talking or move to the back of the room.  After a pause, they decided to move back a few rows.

* * *

Skip to the end of the meeting and the Call to the Public.  Ms. Heinz took to the microphone and, like at the hearing in Glendale, seemed to criticize every aspect of the commission she could recall.

At the Mesa hearing, Heinz handed out tea party talking points and propaganda with the AIRC banner printed at the top.  When Wednesday's meeting adjourned, she cornered an AIRC staffer with printouts about Roman Ulman and LD17 Democratic activist Lauren Kuby.  Heinz called the two Democrats thugs. I laughed. I told her Kuby and Ulman are no more thugs than she is. And I do not think she is a thug.  Misguided, of course, but being critical of the AIRC hardly qualifies one as being a thug.

Well, Steve is much more diplomatic than I am. The teabaggers, inspired by Sens. Frank Antenori and Cap'n Al Melvin, and Rep. Terri Proud and her LD 26 Tea Party cohort Lynne St. Angelo, have been behaving in a thuggish manner by disrupting meetings and making veiled threats to Commission Chair Colleen Mathis, and repetitiously testifying from mass produced conspiracy theory talking points ad nauseam, which only serves to diminish the value of the points these fools think they are making.

Do these teabaggers think the Commission makes one of those "Word Cloud" things from the transcripts and the most oft-repeated words somehow are given greater weight? When you repeatedly demonstrate that you are not a credible witness, the Commission is not going to give any weight to your testimony, just like in court. At some point these disruptive children should be asked to leave if they cannot conduct themselves in a civil adult manner.

I have to wonder about the "Dean of the Arizona Press Corps," Howard Fischer, when he includes the lunatic ravings of Emily Litella Lynne St. Angelo in his reporting, as he did today Latino pressure on redistricting effort:

The whole issue of putting ethnicity first [VRA Districts] angered Lynne St. Angelo, an Oro Valley resident.

"The Hispanic coalition had the nerve to say that their districts couldn't be competitive," she told members of the Independent Redistricting Commission on Wednesday, with Latinos wanting to maintain "their hold on political power." St. Angelo argued the whole purpose of creating an Independent Redistricting Commission a decade ago was to ensure that no one group had a lock of power.

* * *

St. Angelo argued that the Voting Rights Act is illegal, pointing out that Attorney General Tom Horne is challenging that law, at least as it applies to Arizona. But the chances of a final ruling on that before the final lines have to be drawn for the 2012 election are virtually nil.

Latinos wanting to maintain "their hold on political power"? In what alternate universe does this nut job live? She is also being entirely disingenuous. The whole purpose of this teabagger intimidation of the AIRC is to preserve a "permanent Republican majority" in Arizona — just like Karl Rove promised us!

And the Voting Rights Act is "illegal" because Tom "banned for life by the SEC" Horne says so? It has been the law for 46 years and has been extended several times with overwhelming bipartisan support. The federal courts have routinely enforced the law. Sounds to me like someone has a discriminatory bias against Latinos — the very thing that the Voting Rights Act was intended to remedy.

I am really hoping that Howard Fischer included these quotes only to demonstrate how foolish Emily Litella Lynne St. Angelo is. I doubt she gets that — she is probably proud to see her name in the paper and is showing it to all her teabagger friends.

Howard Fischer concludes his report with a bit of editorializing:

Supporters of competitiveness contend there are ways to draw lines to make more districts competitive, with party registration in each within 7 percent of each other. Changes necessary to do that, however, create conflicts with the Voting Rights Act.

Not necessarily, Howard. You may want to consider Steve Muratore's point in The Arizona Eagletarian: Redistricting — Teleconferencing and False Dichotomies:

Comments to this blog recently have also suggested that competitiveness just does not go together with the Voting Rights Act.

* * *

This dichotomy is simply not true.  Months ago, Arizona redistricting expert Tony Sissons explained how a dramatic increase in the number of competitive districts can be accomplished without jeopardizing VRA compliance.

You know Tony Sissons, Howard. He did some reporting on redistricting for the Arizona Capitol Times last year. Maybe you ought to get together with him for some more informative reporting on this subject than simply quoting the lunatic ravings of Emily Litella, which serves no useful purpose of informing the public.