Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
The Red Queen and her Arizona Senate Star Chamber have made their next move on the chess board. Steve Muratore reports The Arizona Eagletarian: Redistricting -- Brewer/Hauser wants Supremes to reconsider:
Lisa Hauser, on behalf of the governor, filed a Motion to Reconsider along with a Motion for Expedited Consideration of the Supreme Court order given last week in the Special Action to nullify removal of Colleen Mathis from the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.
* * *
In addition ... Hauser also filed a Motion to Stay Mathis' reinstatement.
* * *
Further, FAIR Trust's chief mouthpiece, David Cantelme, filed a Motion to Intervene on behalf of House Speaker Andy Tobin.
The Arizona Republic captures the essence of this Motion for Reconsideration and motion for an expedited decision. Arizona redistricting reinstatement delay requested by Brewer:
"Is this court simply concerned with the format of the November 1, 2011, letter?" attorney Lisa Hauser asked on behalf of the governor, referencing the removal letter Brewer sent Mathis. Or was the letter insufficient "because the conduct complained of can never be grounds for removal?" she said.
A fuller court opinion would clarify things, Hauser wrote.
Based upon oral argument, the clear answer is the latter. Court rules Gov. Brewer acted illegally in firing redistricting chair - East Valley Tribune:
Retired Justice Michael Ryan, sitting in for the hearing, pointed out that another court is still considering the question of whether the commission is even subject to the Open Meeting Law. He also noted that the maps Brewer contends are unconstitutional are simply drafts.
"They're not the final maps," he said. "And they can be changed to satisfy the governor and the people that are complaining. So isn't all of this really premature for her to act?"
Judge Ryan is making the same legal points I have made here: the determination of a violation of the Open Meeting law is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the judiciary, the governor and the legislature have no jurisdiction to determine a violation under the statute. That matter is presently before the Superior Court.
The mapping criteria of Prop. 106 as applied to "draft" maps is premature. The sufficiency of the final maps can be challenged in court, and will be.
But the AIRC is a quasi-legislative body that enjoys legislative privilege, a right established by the governor's court jester Lisa Hauser when she previously represented the AIRC. The mapping process is not subject to second guessing or interference from the legislature or the governor.
In other words, the conduct complained of is not grounds for removal.
Despite the arrogant and authoritarian arguments by the governor and legislative leaders that they get to define what "gross misconduct" and "serious neglect of duty" mean under Prop. 106, they do not. These legal terms of art have their natural meaning as defined by legal precedents which date back to old English common law. The Supreme Court is saying the conduct complained of does not rise to this level.
The governor and legislative leaders are trying to frame this as merely a procedural matter in the media -- we didn't follow the proper procedure according to the Supreme Court, so we want the Court to give us a roadmap to the proper procedure which will permit us to remove Colleen Mathis that can withstand Supreme Court scrutiny. This is a fundamental misreading of what occurred in court last week as is clear from oral argument, and I am certain the opinion in this case will make clear.
As for the Motion to Stay Mathis' reinstatement, on what grounds? The Supreme Court ordered her immediately reinstated as chair of the AIRC after finding that it was the governor and the Arizona Senate Star Chamber who acted illegally in removing her from office. The only conduct to be enjoined here is the illegal conduct of the governor and the Arizona Senate Star Chamber, not Colleen Mathis or the AIRC.
As for the Motion to Intervene by FAIR Trust on behalf of the GOP House Caucus, again on what grounds? The Governor and the Senate have a colorable claim of standing under Prop. 106, but the House has no role whatsoever under Prop. 106. I fail to see how the House has any standing to intervene, in particular, in a matter already ruled upon.
The appropriate response from the Supreme Court would be "motions denied" and that "the opinion of the court will follow in due course."
As Steve Muratore points out, this is not a serious attempt to get the Court to change its mind but is rather a PR stunt, with the aid and assistance of the corporate media, to lay the groundwork for amendment or repeal of Prop. 106 by poisoning the well of public opinion -- something which Tea-Publicans have been working on for the past year.
In order to refer Prop. 106 to the ballot at the February 28 GOP Presidential Preference Primary, there would have to be a special session before December 1. The Supreme Court should take the full alloted time it has in ruling on the motions as it would do in any other case before the Court. This would extend its ruling beyond December 1. Check and check mate.
Recent Comments