AIRC Update: The briefs are filed – oral arguments on November 17

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

If you read nothing else in this matter, I highly recommend that you read the 10-page report released by the bipartisan think tank the Grand Canyon Institute. It is well-researched and well-reasoned, clear and concise. From the introduction:

As a part of its effort to Keep Redistricting Independent, the Grand Canyon Institute evaluated whether the IRC properly considered six competing interests: compliance with the U.S. Constitution and Voting Rights Act, respecting communities of interest, geographic compactness and contiguity, using geographic and municipal boundaries, and favoring competitiveness when it creates no significant detriment to other goals.

We believe we are uniquely qualified to evaluate these factors. Two of the Grand Canyon Institute’s board members were state legislators who helped craft Proposition 106, and urged its passage: Susan Gerard, a Phoenix Republican and George Cunningham, a Tucson Democrat.

* * *

After careful analysis, we conclude the IRC properly considered the constitution’s six factors when it created the draft map. Accordingly, the Governor and State Senate did not have reasonable cause to remove a commissioner on the grounds that the map is unconstitutional.

Many thanks to Steve Muratore for staying on top of breaking news in this case. Steve has the pleadings filed by the parties and amicus briefs filed through Friday.

On Thursday, Tim Hogan with the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest filed an amicus brief on behalf of Prop 106 drafters Bart Turner, Ann Eschinger and Dennis Michael Burke. Tea-Publicans frequently like to claim "original intent" of the drafters in constitutional interpretation. In this case, we are not dealing with long-dead drafters subject to historical revision by right-wing think tanks. The drafters are very much alive and are available to testify directly to the court if called upon.

The drafters' amicus brief is straight from the horse's mouth. Legislative intent, while not controlling, is entitled to great deference from the courts. As Steve Muratore writes:

In this case, the clear intent of the authors was to prevent the kind of abuse demonstrated over the last couple of weeks by Arizona's governor and state senate. The amicus brief lays out that intent in detail, with additional documentation of notes and discussions that had been made prior to finalizing the language that was submitted to the voters.

The Red Queen, er, Governor Jan Brewer has filed a 44-page response and a 139-page appendix "which includes meeting minutes and transcripts from IRC meetings, Mathis' application and resume, print outs of internet postings of news stories about IRC hearings (including Laurie Roberts' Arizona Republic blog post declaring that 'Republicans Got Screwed,' correspondence between Ray Bladine and State Procurement Administrator Jean Clark, and apparently just about anything they could find in writing that they could spin as Mathis being an evildoer, with her response."

The Red Queen's lawyer, Lisa Hauser, who should be disqualified from participation in this matter due to her conflict of interest as I have explained previously, is violating one of the rules of appellate practice by "papering" the court with irrelevant and immaterial exhibits. The court may order these exhibits struck and will not consider any exhibits that are irrelevant and immaterial.

Our recently deposed "King" Russell Pearce on behalf of the Arizona Senate Star Chamber filed a 49-page response "which focuses on comparing this situation with the impeachment of Evan Mecham in the 1980s." If only Colleen Mathis had been given the due process to which she was entitled under an impeachment process. She was summarily dismissed by executive fiat that was rubber-stamped by the Star Chamber. This brief is utter mendacity.

"A bipartisan group including Republican former state lawmakers Susan Gerard and Roberta Voss, Democrat Lucia Howard, Independent former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson and Common Cause has filed an amicus brief, supporting the AIRC and the Special Action."

"The Speaker of the Arizona House together with Mayors of the cities of Yuma, Prescott and Williams filed another amicus brief, opposing the AIRC and the Special Action."

"The Navajo Nation and the Arizona League of Women Voters also each filed amicus briefs in support of the AIRC, Mathis and the Special Action."

Steve Muratore points out that "In an Orwellian twist, the two (Brewer and the senate) responses declare that for the Court to restore Mathis would be a violation of separation of powers." Chalk this up to authoritarian hubris. Arizona's Open Meeting law gives exclusive jurisdiction to the courts to decide a violation of the Open Meeting law. Neither the governor nor the legislature possess jurisdiction. It is their actions in excess of authority which are a prima facie violation of the separation of powers.

In the related matter of Tom "banned for life by the SEC" Horne's political witch hunt against the AIRC under Arizona's Open Meeting law — the predicate judicial determination needed by the Red Queen for a legal basis to seek removal of an AIRC Commissioner for a violation of the law, a determination yet to be made by the court — the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission filed in Maricopa County Superior Court a reply in support of its motion for summary judgment. "The 18-page document sets forth the arguments why Horne did not have the authority to investigate the AIRC for alleged open meeting violations and that such an investigation violates legislative privilege."

Finally, the Red Queen appears to be making good on her promise to continue to pursue removal of the Democratic Commissioners, Linda McNulty and Jose Herrera. Governor Brewer has sent a letter to Commissioners Freeman, Herrera, McNulty and Stertz outlining her objections to the DRAFT MAPS — as if she possesses a veto power under Prop. 106 — and asserts "Unless the Commission can justify significant detriment to these criteria, it needs to make substantial revisions." The Arizona Eagletarian: Redistricting — What part of INDEPENDENT does Brewer not understand? The Red Queen does not possess any veto power under Prop. 106. As Steve Muratore observes:

Can this woman have any more gall than she has already displayed? Is she failing to heed the very lesson of this week's recall election? Several times over the last week or so, I can recall news stories citing the expression "doubling down." That seems to be what Brewer is doing here.

The Arizona Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the merits of the case on November 17th. It will be standing room only in the courtroom. Bring the popcorn! (metaphorically speaking, of course, no food allowed).