Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
The Arizona Supreme Court fired the first barrel at the Tea-Publican tyranny last month finding that the Red Queen and her Senate Star Chamber acted without constitutional authority or legal justification in removing Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) Chair Colleen Mathis.
On Friday, the Arizona Superior Court fired the other barrel at the Tea-Publican tyranny, ending the political witch hunt of the AIRC by Arizona Attorney General Tom "banned for life by the SEC" Horne. These are sweeping victories for the AIRC against the Tea-Publican tyranny and the media narrative that their stenographers in the Arizona political media have been echoing for months.
The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports Judge: IRC can’t be investigated for open meeting law violations - Arizona Capitol Times:
A Maricopa County Superior Court judge has dealt the Independent Redistricting Commission a sweeping victory by declaring that the agency is not bound by state open meeting laws or subject to investigations into the contested hiring of a mapping consultant.
The ruling, issued today by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Dean Fink, terminates an investigation initiated by Attorney General Tom Horne into whether Commission Chairwoman Colleen Mathis violated state open meeting laws by contacting fellow commissioners in private to solicit their votes a mapping consultant with strong ties to Democratic candidates and interests.
Fink found that the commission’s own limited constitutional requirements to transparency exempts the IRC from more stringent requirements found in state law. Further, Fink ruled that the commission’s vote for the consultant constituted a legislative – and not an administrative – task, making it subject to legislative immunity.
Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, who inherited the stalled investigation into the commission after Horne was removed from the case by Fink in late October because of a conflict of interest, said that he did not expect such a sweeping defeat.
In his ruling, Fink said it was hard to imagine that voters in 2000 approved Proposition 106, which created the Independent Redistricting Commission, with the intention of allowing lawmakers and state and county attorneys to influence redistricting through legislative requirements or prosecutions.
“To the contrary, the voters went to extraordinary lengths to insulate the IRC from politics,” wrote Fink, adding that the existing Prop 106 open meeting provision demonstrated the goal of “insulating the IRC from the interference of political branches.”
Fink further ruled that the provisions Prop. 106 added to the state Constitution requiring the IRC conduct its business in public and announce meetings 48 hours before they are scheduled can only be enforced by the governor, who can initiate the removal of members.
The Arizona Supreme Court will define the standards for removal in its opinion in the coming weeks.
About the media narrative of the stenographers for the Tea-Publican tyranny in the Arizona political media:
In July, Horne initiated an investigation of the commission hiring of Strategic Telemetry, which occurred after an Arizona Capitol Times investigation raised questions about the process the commission used to hire Strategic Telemetry as its mapping consultant.
Take that Christian Palmer (The Yellow Sheet Report amd Cap Times). And don't think I have forgotten you, Howie Fischer. Map panel not bound by law on meetings, judge says:
A judge late Friday blocked prosecutors from investigating whether members of the Independent Redistricting Commission violated the state's Open Meeting Law.
The commission is not subject to that statute, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Dean Fink said. Members are instead required to obey a provision in the constitution establishing the panel that requires business be conducted in public, he said.
That difference is crucial: While prosecutors can investigate violations of the statute, Fink said they have no authority to see whether the constitution is being followed. Fink said that constitutional provision has no enforcement mechanism or penalty for noncompliance.
"Even if there is a violation, then, there is nothing for the prosecutor to prosecute," Fink wrote.
The decision by voters to provide specific constitutional openness requirements shows that voters wanted the commission exempt from the Open Meeting Law, which has somewhat different requirements, Fink said. That was designed to insulate the commission "from interference by the political branches," the judge said.
That includes the Legislature, which could use the Open Meeting Law to dictate to the commission how it conducts its business and impose penalties, Fink said.
"That power … can be used to harass and hamstring the IRC," Fink wrote. And he said subjecting the commission to the Open Meeting Law would make it subject to being investigated by the attorney general and the county attorneys in all 15 counties.
"The threat of prosecution, even a baseless one, can be reasonably expected to intimidate its target," Fink wrote.
* * *
Fink said his ruling is not a license for the commission to do whatever it wants. He pointed out the constitution does allow any citizen to seek a court order to compel the commission to comply with the openness requirement in the constitution.
And Fink said the constitution also allows the governor to remove a commission member for gross misconduct or substantial neglect of duty, with the consent of two-thirds of the Senate.
Howie, the boys at the Cap Times, and the lawyer/lobbyists for FAIR Trust must have all been crying in their beer on Friday night. The false narrative they have been spinning for months has been rejected on all counts by the courts. Truth and justice have defeated Tea-Publican tyranny.
UPDATE: Link to the 6-page minute entry by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Dean Fink, dated December 9, 2011, courtesy of The Arizona Eagletarian.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.