The Red Queen tries her case in the media, gets facepalmed

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Oh, sweet Jesus! Did you not get the memo Howie? Note to media villagers: Please, just stop!

Howard Fischer, once again, quotes gubernatorial press aide Matthew Benson on the law, giving him false equivalency with the actual lawyers quoted in this report, Creators of Arizona redistrictring process assail governor's firing of panel chair – East Valley Tribune:

But gubernatorial press aide Matthew Benson said what the drafters considered and rejected is irrelevant.

“What is controlling in this is the actual verbiage that voters approved,’’ he said. “And the actual language never called for judicial review and doesn’t define ‘gross misconduct’ or ‘substantial neglect of duty,’ leaving it to the governor’s discretion.’’

This media villager idiot doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. Last time I checked, the Governor is represented by a lawyer, Howard. Why don't you ask her for an equally banal quote for your report? Just stop quoting this media villager idiot, Matthew Benson.

But wait, there's more! The Arizona Republic today gives the Red Queen, er, Governor Jan Brewer, the opportunity to try her case in the media instead of in court where she belongs in this "My Turn" guest opinion. Brewer: Panel's leader needed to be stopped:

Imagine there was a commission.

This was no ordinary commission. No, its powers were such that arguably no other single factor would have as great an impact upon the outcome of elections in the state for the next decade.

Now, imagine this commission was required to conduct its business in public, but instead spent numerous hours behind closed doors in "executive session." Imagine its chairwoman phoned other commission members in secret to line up critical votes in advance of public meetings.

Finally, imagine the commission's failure to follow a proper and legal redistricting process resulted in its production of a congressional map that disregards constitutional requirements.

If you could stop the commission, would you?

As governor, that was the choice I was confronted with in recent days.

* * *

You may have heard this group, the IRC, was formed to take direct control of redistricting away from politicians. That's true.

But it's also true that voters explicitly charged the governor with the authority to remove any IRC member for neglect of duty or gross misconduct. Doing so is no small task as a supermajority, two-thirds concurring vote of the state Senate is required to ratify that decision. In the end, the decision to remove is entrusted to me and the Senate, not lawyers for the IRC or judges.

First of all, what's up with the "Imagine if you will…" framing? Is this an episode of the Twilight Zone?

Secondly, the Governor's last assertion is NOT True. This is the point of Howard Fischer's report in which the framers of Prop. 106, in a brief filed with the Supreme Court, Creators of Arizona redistrictring process assail governor's firing of panel chair – East Valley Tribune stated:

The people who crafted the measure creating the Independent Redistricting Commission say Gov. Jan Brewer is legally off base in her firing of the chairwoman of the panel.

Attorney Tim Hogan, who represents the trio, said the language allowing a governor to remove a commissioner for gross misconduct or substantial neglect of duty clearly does not cover the allegations that Brewer made against Colleen Mathis, even assuming they are true.

More to the point, Hogan told the justices of the Arizona Supreme Court there was an earlier, draft version of the 2000 initiative, one that actually would have given the governor greater latitude to dismiss any member of the commission. But that language was scrapped before the measure was sent to the voters.

“To me, that makes it absolutely clear that … process and bad maps were not a reason for removal,’’ said Ann Eschinger. She was the president of the Arizona League of Women Voters and one of the people who drafted the initiative.

* * *

Hogan gave the justices an early draft of the initiative, which took the power to draw legislative and congressional district lines away from lawmakers and gave it to the five-member commission. That draft would have allowed the governor to fire a commissioner for “a violation of this section.’’

That language was removed before it went to the ballot.

“(The crafters) can definitively state that the removal provision was never to provide a basis to subvert the redistricting process in the event that some politicians were unhappy with the mapping process,’’ he wrote.

Oooh! The Red Queen gets facepalmed by a fact check!

But the Red Queen continues with her delusions of grandeur:

The removal process is a critical constitutional check on the Redistricting Commission and a means to ensure that it fulfills its duty to operate in a way that is honest, impartial and upholds public confidence. Otherwise, it could act with impunity.

I used this authority last week to remove the chairwoman of the Commission.

As the framers of Prop. 106 describe in their brief filed with the Supreme Court, the removal process is for "gross misconduct," and "that is why there is no provision in the constitutional amendment for removal of commissioners because they produced ‘bad maps.' " "Removing the commissioner because you do not like the draft maps is the functional equivalent of removing a judge for a draft decision," Hogan wrote.

In actuality, the Governor's misinterpretation of Prop. 106 creates a "backdoor veto" power over redistricting maps that the framers never intended the Governor and legislature to have. So maybe this is an eposide of the Twilight Zone.

The Red Queen concludes her diatribe:

I ask that a new chairman quickly be selected to lead the IRC. The new chairman must not be registered with any party already represented on the commission, in accordance with the Constitution. Political registration, however, should not be the only consideration. The new chairman should also bring to the commission an independent spirit open to ideas and free of partisan baggage.

In the words of the Arizona Constitution, I ask that the new chairman be someone who behaves in an "honest, independent and impartial fashion," and with an aim toward "upholding public confidence in the integrity of the redistricting process."

Imagine that.

Of course, the Red Queen doesn't really mean this. Because the one thing that this redistricting process has taught us is that Tea-Publicans define "independent" as "GOP shill." They want someone who will roll over to Tea-Publican threats and intimidation of the AIRC and give them everything they want, as occurred ten years ago. Otherwise, the Red Queen will order "Off with their heads!"