Cross posted from the Arizona Eagletarian
In Arizona Legislature v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the AIRC filed it’s motion to dismiss or affirm on June 30. Today, July 14, the legislature filed it’s final brief. It’s now up to the SCOTUS to review all of the briefs and issue a ruling… or set the matter for a full hearing and oral argument.
Up to this point, everything has pointed to the problem being that the ruling class in Arizona has had a prolonged hissy fit because the PEOPLE dared to take a stand against what all boils down to oppression.
In this last gasp effort, a Hail Mary play which may or may not be successful, lawyers for the legislature say,
As the constitutional text, the historical record, and this Court’s cases demonstrate, the Framers were well aware of the differences between the “Legislature” and other entities to whom they could have assigned the role of “prescrib[ing]” regulation of federal elections. Their assignment of this delegated power specifically to the most accountable branch of state government—“the Legislature thereof”—cannot be disregarded.
If that argument prevails, the court will be further validating the ruling class oppression of the PEOPLE. It will also have to delude itself about founding documents such as:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
and the Preamble to the Constitution.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Those citations do NOT say, “that all men, except those who aren’t in power, are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” or “we the RULING CLASS of the United States…”
The legislature’s brief is written from the perspective that the legislature is the primary owner of the sovereign power the people delegate to government. That, of course, is a faulty approach. The legislature wants to validate the notion of parliamentary sovereignty in Arizona. Taking its cue from the constitution of the United Kingdom,
Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.
Doesn’t that sound a lot like the GOP dominated Arizona Legislature over the last couple of decades? They fight many things that are in the interest of the PEOPLE. Including by taking things to court, at tremendous but undisclosed costs to taxpayers. When courts decline to rule in favor of the legislature, they often can be seen wailing and gnashing teeth.
If the court buys that argument and rules in favor of the legislature, it will only make the plain truth of the usurpation of the rights and authority of the PEOPLE of Arizona by a narcissistic bunch of power freaks.
… but at a minimum this Court’s plenary review is warranted to address this question of obvious national importance, which will continue to arise as States take ever-bolder steps to take “politics” and state legislatures out of the redistricting process.
The justices all know quite well how redistricting has been traditionally abused by partisans in state legislatures.
Up to this point, the IRC has adequately argued that the intent of the Founders was to put the authority for lawmaking as close as feasible to the people themselves. Technology, communications and computational, has made gerrymandering obsolete. The only thing remaining is for the highest court in the land to validate the concept.
Rather than simply hope for the best, the legislature asks, as its conclusion, for a full hearing and oral argument.
This Court should note probable jurisdiction and set the case for full briefing and oral argument.
I can’t speak to the issue of whether that request will be granted. But it seems this was the purpose for the statement, earlier in the brief (and quoted above), that “as States take ever-bolder steps to take “politics” and state legislatures out of the redistricting process.”
Of course, the bottom line is that the PEOPLE, by way of their lawmaking authority in state constitutions, will indeed take bold steps, “from sea to shining sea” to implement independent redistricting.
(In reply to crackerhead’s 4:12am post) So you say. Take your own bait.
I actually attended a bunch of redistricting hearings. The final districts drawn by the IRC followed the law much more closely than the proposed districts by the state legislature. Despite the fact that the district that I am in is not one that provides me a chance for representation, I support the final outcome because it does follow the entire law. Obviously “left” in this case refers to people who prefer to follow the law and the Constitution in total, not just the parts that are convenient to the maintenance of power.
There isn’t any such thing as “independent redistricting”. Whichever people are doing the redistricting have their leanings either right or left and they will redistrict accordingly. What this author is referring to when he uses the word “independent” is people who think like he does.
Actually, you don’t do well at defining what I’m talking about. Which MIGHT be a reflection that I didn’t do a good enough job at making myself and my message clear.
For clarification, “independent redistricting” is independent of those who have, for the first couple of centuries of US history, been able to choose their own voters.
For your claim to be true, you would have to supply some basis for your assertion that I’m only interested in redistricting that favors my interests. You’d be hard pressed to do so based on my writing.
Nice try, however, crackerbrain.
You are correct and I owe you apology. You did not indicate your desire to have likeminded people sitting on the Independent Redistricting Commissions. I inferred from your writing that this is what you wanted and that was unfair to you. Mea culpa.
But “Crackerbrain”? You are skilled enough with words that I was surprised and disappointed you fell back on name calling.
Is that anything at all like being so arrogant that you declare unequivocally that you know what I believe and think or what I mean when I use the expression “independent redistricting?”
There are literally 749 posts on my blog, the vast majority of which are on the subject of independent redistricting. Unless you’ve read them, you have no basis to even infer that you know what I mean when I use the expression.
I accept your apology and respect you for offering it. But I’m not particularly concerned about whether I disappoint you or not.
Rather than puffing up like a blowfish in trying to describe how much I DON’T know what you mean by “Independent Redistricting”, and going to great lengths to explain how little I know, why don’t you just describe what you mean? After all, if a person can not possibly understand what you mean without having read all 749 posts, then there are undoubtedly many more people than me that have no idea what you are talking about. And if that is true, then aren’t you wasting your time continuing to post since, over time, fewer and fewer people understand what you mean?