Blog For Arizona

Stop picking on Sean Noble!

Crossposted at DemocraticDiva.com

Sean Noble is a type of right wing operative I find particularly annoying. These guys are total miscreants but have the cornpone choirboy routine down pat. They often like to preen about how they don’t use profanity, which makes them more moral than us dirty liberals. Arizona is thick with these homespun “consultants”, hoovering money out of gullible rich wingnuts with political aspirations, but Noble has really scored. He was recently the subject of a hard-hitting investigative report from ProPublica, in which he was revealed as the ringleader funneling “dark money” from the Koch brothers to various conservative causes around the country. One of them was Mitt Romney’s campaign – they might as well have taken a match to that money – but others were more successful, such as the defeat of the Scott Walker recall in Wisconsin. Dark Koch money has flowed like a river into Arizona. It funded the legal attack on independent redistricting and the defeat of Prop 204 (making the one cent sales tax permanent for education) in 2012, among plenty of other things.

Our Tea-Publican lawless legislature loses in court, again (part the infinity)

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Our Tea-Publican lawless legislature has lost in court, again. This time it was our lawless legislature's attempt to overturn the constitutionality of the voter-approved citizens initiative creating the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC), Prop. 106 (2000), to determine redistricting election boundaries rather than the state legislature. Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (CV12-01211-PHX-PGR).

I have previously explained that, based upon case law precedents, this should be a no-brainer for the court in favor of the AIRC. Arizona Legislature v. the AIRC court hearing this Friday. And it was, except for Justice Paul Rosenblatt, who agreed with part of the ruling, but argued the citizen initiative wrongly removed any power lawmakers would have to influence how the politically sensitive lines are drawn in his dissent. Justice Rosenblatt is simply wrong. It happens.

The Court granted defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion for Failure to State a Claim, which is rare.

The Court's Ruling (.pdf) relies upon the case precedents I previously outlined, as the Court is bound to do:

The Supreme Court, however, has at least twice rejected the notion that when it comes to congressional redistricting the Elections Clause vests only in the legislature responsibilities relating to redistricting. Both cases found that states were not prohibited from designing their own lawmaking processes and using those processes for the congressional redistricting authorized by the Clause. In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that a state can place the redistricting function in state bodies other than the legislature.

Ohio ex. rel. Davis v. Hildebrant, 241 U.S. 565, 566 (1916) and Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (1932).

Sen. Michele Reagan's dark money disclosure bill will accomplish little

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Arizona Republic will never admit they were shamed into doing it by my constantly berating them for not reporting on Sean Noble and the "Kochtopus" dark money network operating in their own backyard in the state of Maricopa. But I am going to claim a small victory anyway.

Today the Arizona Republic published the entire report by Pro Publica at azcentral.com. The Dark Money Man: Sean Noble, Koch cash and politics. (Note that this is not by Arizona Republic reporters).

This small victory comes the day after Sen. Michele Reagan's half-measure for dark money campaign finance disclosures was heard in her Elections Committee on Tuesday. Reagan's bill is a band-aid approach to close a gaping wound in Arizona elections. Lawmakers seek to shine light on anonymous campaign contributions:

State lawmakers took the first steps Tuesday to cut down on so-called “dark money’’ in political campaigns, but with no clear indication if their plan will work, or whether it’s even legal.

Legislation approved by the Senate Elections Committee requires all campaign commercials, literature and similar materials to include the names of the three largest contributors. Sen. Michele Reagan, R-Scottsdale, said it’s unacceptable that people can spend large amounts of money to influence elections and remain hidden.

On paper, the vote for SB 1403 was unanimous. But several GOP legislators, after hearing from lobbyists, said they fear the measure creates unnecessary hurdles.

And Sen. Kimberly Yee, R-Phoenix, openly worried requiring people to get out from behind the committees they create to affect elections might chill their First Amendment rights to speak freely.

Proposed constitutional amendment is a Trojan Horse attack on the AIRC

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I previously posted about SCR 1003 (.pdf), a resoution which would refer a legislative ballot measure to the ballot that requires "the reauthorization of statewide initiative and referendum measures that create funds for public monies, dedicate public monies to a specific purpose or otherwise effect state General Fund (GF) revenues or expenditures."

Note that this reauthorizaton is not for all citizens initiative and referendum measures, just the ones the legislature does not like -- the ones that require the legislature to spend money on priorites decided by the voters, like heath care and education. This is the teabaggers' "I hate the Voter Protection Act" (Prop. 105 -1998) measure to undermine Prop. 105. The reauthorization applies retroactively to all specified statewide initiative and referendum measures approved on or after November 3, 1998.

The teabaggers want the opportunity to revisit and to reverse the laws that the citizens of Arizona enacted as a super-legislature exercising the powers reserved to the citizens under the Arizona Constitution and exercising their constitutional right to citizen initiative and referendum. This reauthorization provision would give opponents a second bite at the apple after seven (7) years. It would invite a perpetual campaign that seeks to undermine the legitimacy of laws enacted by the voters. The teabaggers are demonstrating their utter disdain for your constitutional rights and for democracy.

Pro Publica exposé on Sean Noble and the 'Kochtopus' dark money network (Updated)

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Arizona Republic frequently decries "dark money" organizations on its editorial page, but it oddly is limited to concern about public employee union "dark money" organizations that attacked their boy, Phoenix City councilman Sal Diciccio. It's funny (not) how little attention the Republic pays to the vast network hub of "dark money" organizations operating out of Maricopa County. Maybe it's because these people are their friends, neighbors and asssociates whom they hang out with at cocktail parties and political events.

About the only place you can find any reference to Sean Noble* and the "Kochtopus"  dark money network he operates out of Maricopa County is here. This is a fundamental failure of the corporate news media to perform its constitutional function as the "watchdog of democracy."

Kim Barker and Theodoric Meyer at Pro Publica have a richly detailed new exposé on Sean Noble and the "Kochtopus" dark money network, The Dark Money Man: How Sean Noble Moved the Kochs' Cash into Politics and Made Millions:

For a brief, giddy moment, Sean Noble—a little-known former aide to Arizona congressman [John Shadegg]—became one of the most important people in American politics.

Plucked from obscurity by libertarian billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, Noble was tasked with distributing a torrent of political money raised by the Koch network, a complex web of nonprofits nicknamed the Kochtopus, into conservative causes in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Noble handed out almost $137 million in 2012 alone -- all of it so-called dark money from unnamed donors -- from his perch atop the Center to Protect Patient Rights, a group run out of an Arizona post office box.

"Both parties suck! Wah! Why won't you Democrats fix it?!?"

Crossposted from DemocraticDiva.com

Laurie Roberts at the AZ Republic is beside herself that the well-heeled proponents of the dumb Top Two Primary idea are, as she delightedly exclaims, baaaaaack. (Much more after the jump)

This week in the Arizona GOP's war on democracy

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This has been some week in the Arizona GOP's war on democracy, hasn't it?

On Thursday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman "Fast Eddie" Farnsworth's (R-Gilbert) bill, HB 2196 (.pdf), to repeal the GOP Voter Suppression Act, HB 2305, and to deny the citizens of Arizona their constitutional right to vote on a citizens referred referendum, was pulled after angry citizens and the media showed up at the hearing. More than 100,000 Arizonans signed the petitions for a "citizens veto" of the GOP Voter Suppression Act, exercising their constitutional right under the Arizona Constitution to vote to veto the legislature's anti-democratic measure. No matter.

The Arizona GOP's plan is to repeal HB 2305, and to pass the separate provisions for voter suppression in the bill as separate bills to make another citizens referendum virtually impossible, and to get their way by "skullduggery," as Arizona Republic columnist Laurie Roberts called it. Are legislators plotting end run around voters in election-law referendum?" "Fast Eddie" promises to bring his bill back up for a hearing, possibly as early as this week.

On Friday, the Arizona GOP was in U.S. District Court arguing to a three judge panel of federal judges that you, the voters of Arizona, by enacting a citizens referred initiative to create the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC), Prop. 106 (2000), violated their federal constitutional right to gerrymander congressional districts in favor of GOP candidates. (Where are the Neo-Confederate "states' rights" federal "guvmint" haters now?) As I explained, their legal argument is entirely without merit. Arizona Legislature v. the AIRC court hearing this Friday. This is one of those frivolous "junk lawsuits" you hear about.

Arizona Legislature v. the AIRC court hearing this Friday

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Tea-Publican members of the Arizona Legislature are challenging the constitutionality of the voter-approved initiative creating the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC), Prop. 106 (2000), to determine redistricting election boundaries rather than the state legislature. Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (CV12-01211-PHX-PGR). A hearing is set for oral argument in U.S. District Court before a three judge panel on Friday, January 24, 2014 at 10:00 a.m.

Based upon case law precedents, this should be a no-brainer for the court in favor of the AIRC.

A nearly identical claim was made by the Florida Legislature against a citizens initiative, Amendment Six, for a state constitutional provision establishing standards for congressional redistricting. The Florida Legislature, as does the Arizona Legislature, asserted that the citizens initiative was contrary to the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 4.

Republican members of Congress and the Florida House of Representatives appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals from a U.S. District Court summary judgment order in Diaz-Balart v. Scott, No. 1:10-CV-23968 (S.D. Fla.) upholding Amendment Six. They asserted that "Amendment Six is unconstitutional because it was enacted by citizen initiative rather than by the state's legislature in the ordinary 'legislative process.' Moreover, they asserted that Amendment Six -- even if properly enacted pursuant to Florida's legislative process -- imposes substantive requirements that far exceed the state legislature's Elections Clause powers."

Redistricting -- Merry Christmas, ya filthy animal!

Cross posted from Arizona Eagletarian.

 

Please pardon my irreverence about the holiday. Are there people who yet do not know that scholars generally understand that Jesus Christ was NOT born on December 25, and that this (retail) holiday has roots in pagan historical traditions related to the winter solstice?

Since Jesus scorned the money changers and hypocritical religious leaders, andembraced the sinners, I particularly appreciate Kevin's line from Home Alone, "Merry Christmas, ya filthy animal."

I also owe thanks to my son-in-law's aunt who often has tremendously poignant thoughts (and posts them on Facebook). This evening, she said,

"...And in his name all oppression will cease"...this line from O Holy Night at Christmas Eve service jumped out at me. He truly is the only lasting hope for the world. Jesus is not the founder of a religion. He is a true myth, God's never-ending story of love and forgiveness come to life, and at the same time he was a real person. I have a new appreciation for story this year, and especially the story that trumps all others. 

I personally find the kind of religion that demands obedience to some fool's interpretation of biblical morality incredibly distasteful. You know, the kind thatpeople like Ted Cruz use to justify Christian Dominionism (theocracy) andIslamophobia (promoting fear and hatred of a boogeyman version of theocracy).

But the Jesus Christ in whose name all oppression will cease, stirs my soul.

All of that said, other than writing for this blog, giving Christmas gifts to my grandchildren is just about the most fun thing to do any time of the year.

Please forgive me again. This time for having overshadowed the redistricting news with my reflections on Christmas.

-----

Alright, let's get down to business. On Monday (December 23), counsel for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission filed a motion to dismiss the legislature's lawsuit against the will of the voters. Noting that the AIRC already has one motion to dismiss pending, this one cites a different reason and different court procedure provision as cause. The motion also notes the AIRC reason for filing this one is to ensure that

While the Commission currently has pending a motion to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6) (Dkt. 16), this motion, which addresses the lack of subject matter jurisdiction, is proper. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(2), (h)(3)(requiring Court to dismiss action “at any time” if it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction). This motion is filed to assure that these issues are briefed before the January 24, 2014 hearing.

Rule 12 (b)(6) cites cause for granting a motion to dismiss: "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Rule 12 (g)(2) and (h)(3) notes a reason why the AIRC is allowed to file a second motion to dismiss.

If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.  

So, AIRC counsel gave the grinchy Arizona Legislature a lump of coal for Christmas. Or, actually it gave the legislature's lawyers something to do other than traditional Christmas family gatherings and rituals. They will no doubt now be spending more time trying to subvert this latest motion.

 

I've provided a link (above) to the 9-page motion, if you're so inclined to read it.

 

Merry Christmas, ya filthy animal!

Redistricting -- Florida Supreme Court says state lawmakers must testify

Cross posted from Arizona Eagletarian.

On Blog for Arizona today, based on a new Florida Supreme Court ruling, AZBlueMeanie wrote a post making a case for an aggressive counterclaim to one or more of the (three) GOP lawsuits challenging legislative and congressional maps and the right of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission to conduct redistricting at all.

The Orlando Sentinel reports, Florida Supreme Court rules lawmakers can be forced to testify in redistricting court fight:

The Florida Supreme Court ruled Friday that state lawmakers can be forced to testify and turn over documents related to whether they intentionally redrew political maps for partisan gain last year. 

Therefore,

... I [AZBlueMeanie] believe the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) should have been aggressive and filed a counter-claim against the secretive GOP redistricting organization FAIR Trust and its lawyer/lobbyists who tried to influence the AIRC on behalf of the Arizona GOP delegation. It would have allowed for litigation discovery and testimony under oath from everyone involved in FAIR Trust, and it would have conflicted out the lawyer/lobbyists who are currently representing the GOP in the redistricting lawsuits before the courts.

AZBlueMeanie's counterclaim argument relates to whether the Florida ruling could set precedent so that Arizona state lawmakers could be forced to testify about the clandestine operation of UNfair Trust. If so, what might reasonably be characterized as conspiring to subvert the Arizona Constitution could be brought into the light. Given that the question of legislative privilege as it pertained to the redistricting commissioners was an open question during the Harris trial in March, the role of legislative leadership may well one day become subject to discovery.

The lawyer/lobbyists in particular are David Cantelme and Mike Liburdi. Forcing them to testify would have created a conflict of interest for both. Which then would have precluded them from filing the lawsuits on behalf of the Harris and Leach plaintiff groups. Cantelme served as lead counsel for plaintiffs in the Harris case, which is still awaiting a ruling from the three-judge federal district court panel. Harris challenged the legislative district map. Liburdi has served as counsel on both the Harris case and the Leach case. Leach challenges the congressional map on the basis of a list of various alleged procedural errors made by the AIRC.

Overall, anything that represents a feasible strategy to enhance the independence of the AIRC, or to insulate it from undue influence from unsavory characters appeals to me. I wonder, however, about potential issues such a counterclaim might raise (because we don't know who made up the membership of UNfair Trust). Not to mention that funding legal representation for such a counterclaim gets dicey.

Article 4 of the Arizona Constitution sets forth the law under which the AIRC was established and operates. We've known since February 2011 that the legislature would use pending appropriations for leverage in influencing commission conduct. My gut tells me the legislature would refuse to fund the agency to the degree it could be able to initiate a counterclaim. That would then give rise to a special action in the Arizona Supreme Court exploring whether AIRC authority to defend the maps includes defending the process proactively.

Legal theory ought to be explored for whether the Arizona Constitution can allow for such a counterclaim. Even though it may be too late to matter for the maps currently in effect, providing insight on how to preempt anyone from injecting similar interference into the 2021 cycle is very much still in play and most appropriate.

Surely Arizona must have scholars who can sort through this area of law to provide a road map for the next set of redistricting commissioners or advocacy groups such as the League of Women Voters or the Arizona Advocacy Network to defend the process and therefore the maps.

In the meantime, we must remain vigilant, on the lookout for whatever new ways the GOP will try to subvert the will of the people of Arizona. I'm confident they will be trying.

The case for aggressive litigation in the AIRC redistricting cases

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This is the reason why I believe the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) should have been aggressive and filed a counter-claim against the secretive GOP redistricting organization FAIR Trust and its lawyer/lobbyists who tried to influence the AIRC on behalf of the Arizona GOP delegation. It would have allowed for litigation discovery and testimony under oath from everyone involved in FAIR Trust, and it would have conflicted out the lawyer/lobbyists who are currently representing the GOP in the redistricting lawsuits before the courts.

The Orlando Sentinel reports, Florida Supreme Court rules lawmakers can be forced to testify in redistricting court fight:

The Florida Supreme Court ruled Friday that state lawmakers can be forced to testify and turn over documents related to whether they intentionally redrew political maps for partisan gain last year.

The fight between voting-rights groups such as the League of Women Voters of Florida and the Legislature stems from 2010 constitutional amendments adopted by voters that specify lawmakers couldn’t base their decisions when re-drawing congressional and legislative districts on the desire for political gain.

Specifically, the Fair Districts amendments outlawed drawing new lines with the intent to favor or disfavor incumbents or political parties.

The GOP rigs the game

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A must-read article from Tim Dickenson at Rolling Stone, How Republicans Rig the Game:

Not only did Barack Obama win a second term in an electoral landslide in 2012, but he is also just the fourth president in a century to have won two elections with more than 50 percent of the popular vote. What's more, the party controls 55 seats in the Senate, and Democratic candidates for the House received well over a million more votes than their Republican counterparts in the election last year. And yet, John Boehner still wields the gavel in the House and Republican resistance remains a defining force in the Senate, frustrating Obama's ambitious agenda.

How is this possible? National Republicans have waged an unrelenting campaign to exploit every weakness and anachronism in our electoral system. Through a combination of hyperpartisan redistricting of the House, unprecedented obstructionism in the Senate and racist voter suppression in the states, today's GOP has locked in political power that it could never have secured on a level playing field.

Despite the fact that Republican Congressional candidates received nearly 1.4 million fewer votes than Democratic candidates last November, the Republicans lost only eight seats from their historic 2010 romp, allowing them to preserve a fat 33-seat edge in the House. Unscrupulous Republican gerrymandering following the 2010 census made the difference, according to a statistical analysis conducted by the Princeton Election Consortium. Under historically typical redistricting, House Republicans would now likely be clinging to a reedy five-seat majority. "There's the normal tug of war of American politics," says Sam Wang, founder of the consortium. "Trying to protect one congressman here, or unseat another one there." The Princeton model was built, he says, to detect "whether something got pulled off-kilter on top of that."

AIRC Update: AIRC files its response

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

On Friday, the AIRC filed its Response to Platiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricitng Commission. This is the case in which our Tea-Publican legislators want to overturn Proposition 106 (2000), the citizens initiative creating the AIRC enacted by the voters of Arizona, asserting that the citizens of Arizona have no authority to deprive the state legislature of the "exclusive" power to redistrict.

The Response cites the controlling case precedents demonstrating why the case filed by our Tea-Publican legislators is without merit, and they are not entitled to any relief.

It is important to remember that during the Progressive Era, a number of states enacted the reforms of citizens initiative, referendum and recall. The state of Arizona was admitted to the Union in 1912 with a progressive state constitution which expressly provided for citizens initiative, referendum and recall, reserving to the people the power to propose laws and amendments to the Constitution.

The controlling case precedent is Ohio ex rel Davis v. Hidebrant, 241 US 565, 569 (1916):

By an amendment to the Constitution of Ohio, adopted September 3d, 1912, the legislative power was expressly declared to be vested not only in the senate and house of representatives of the state, constituting the general assembly, but in the people, in whom a right was reserved by way of referendum to approve or disapprove by popular vote any law enacted by the general assembly. And by other constitutional provisions the machinery to carry out the referendum was created.

* * *

In May, 1915, the general assembly of Ohio passed an act redistricting the state for the purpose of congressional elections, by which act twenty-two congressional districts were created, in some respects differing from the previously established districts, and this act, after approval by the governor, was filed in the office of the secretary of state. The requisite number of electors under the referendum provision having petitioned for a submission of the law to a popular vote, such vote was taken and the law was disapproved.

Department of Justice aggressively pursues voting rights cases against GOP voter suppression

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Washington Post reports that GOP-led states are moving aggressively on voting rules:

Emboldened by the Supreme Court decision that struck down part of the Voting Rights Act, a growing number of Republican-led states are moving aggressively to tighten voting rules. Lawsuits by the Obama administration and voting rights activists say those efforts disproportionately affect minorities.

Last week, a three judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ruled 2-1 to allow the Department of Justice to intervene in the Texas redistricting lawsuit. The Court ruled (.pdf) that "after Shelby County, circumstances changed significantly, since §3(c) became an issue for the first time."

"The parties recognize the importance of the §3(c) claims. Certain Plaintiffs “posit that this particular VRA claim will be critical in resolving the issues in this litigation.” Docket no. 788 at 2. Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ briefing on §3(c) illustrates the fact that issues concerning the proper construction and application of §3(c) are unsettled and highly disputed. And the parties recognize that “there is limited judicial guidance available on the application of Section 3(c).” Docket no. 788 at 9. The United States has a direct interest in the construction and application of §3(c) that was not present until after the Shelby County ruling. Therefore, the interest that the United States seeks to protect is not the same interest that was present from the inception of the litigation."

Today, the Department of Justice sued the state of North Carolina in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina over "the worst voter suppression law" in the nation. Read the complaint Here (,pdf).

AIRC Update: Arizona Daily Star op-ed condemns Arizona Legislature's lawsuit

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I posted about the filing of the latest GOP lawsuit assault on the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) back in August, AIRC Update: Tea-Publican deadbeats sue the AIRC with your tax dollars to overturn Prop. 106 that created the AIRC.

Last Friday, the Arizona Legislature filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and requested consolidation of the hearing with a trial on the merits. Steve Muratore at the Arizona Eagletarian blog posted a good summary. More GOP Legislative Contempt for Arizona Voters...:

Last Friday, attorneys acting on behalf of majority Republicans in the Arizona Legislature filed a brief asking a federal court to essentially immediately and permanently nullify the Congressional district map currently in use.

...Arizona State Legislature hereby moves this Court to preliminarily enjoin the enforcement of Article VI, part 2, section 1 of the Arizona Constitution insofar as it takes the power to establish congressional districts away from the Legislature and conveys it to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission; as well as the use of any federal redistricting maps created by the Commission; and additionally moves to consolidate the hearing on this motion with the trial on the merits.

* * *

In explaining their rationale (as irrational as it may be), the GOP counsel states:

In 2000, a voter-generated referendum, Proposition 106 (hereinafter “Prop. 106”), removed the Legislature’s constitutional role in that process and granted it instead to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (hereinafter “IRC”), an unelected, nonrepresentative body.

"Voter-generated referendum" is the code they want to use to hide -- or at least minimize -- the fact that it was really an actual legislative act** conducted by citizen initiative. Technically, yes, the citizens acting in a legislative capacity DID relieve the Legislature of its role in redistricting. I've been over that issue hundreds of times. Case law as cited in the AIRC briefs in this lawsuit makes it crystal clear.

I explained at length in my post above why the case of the Tea-Publican legislators seeking to overturn Prop. 106 in their contempt for the will of the voters is not supported by case precedent and is lacking in merit.

AIRC Update: Are Nixon's Plumbers back in business?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I don't know . . . the cops may want to interview G. Gordon Liddy to see if he alibis out. This sounds an awful lot like Nixon's White House Plumbers. I wouldn't put anything past the Tea-Publican operatives who are behind the effort to destroy the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC). Thieves steal computers from redistricting panel:

Burglars hit the offices of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission over the weekend, stealing portable computers, paperwork and a staffer’s personal effects.

Ray Bladine, the commission’s executive director, said staffers discovered the burglary Monday morning, when they arrived at work. The burglar or burglars entered through a ground-floor sash window on the north side of the commission’s office, which is in a 120-year-old Queen Anne-style building. An alarm system apparently did not work.

“Some of the files were turned over on the floor,” Bladine said. “All of the portable computers but one were stolen.”

He said he didn’t suspect any political motivation for the break-in, although the commission has been at the center of heated partisan debate for more than two years and is the subject of three ongoing lawsuits challenging the new political boundaries it drew for Congress and the Legislature. The state Department of Public Safety’s major-crimes unit is investigating.

AZ GOP already plotting to undermine the AIRC - in 2020

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Steve Muratore at the Arizona Eagletarian blog has the latest on the redistricting cases proceeding in court, Harris v AIRC in the U.S. District Court of Arizona, and Leach v AIRC in the Maricopa County Superior Court, about set to go to trial this month. Redistricting -- Leach hearing Tuesday morning.

Before there has been any decision rendered in these redistricting cases, and the lengthy appeals process that is certain to follow, the Arizona Republican Party has already begun plotting how it will undermine the voter-approved Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission in 2020. Roll Call reports 2020 Redistricting? The Arizona GOP Is ON IT:

It’s never too early to start planning for redistricting, right?

On Monday, Arizona Republican Party Chairman Robert Graham announced he has formed a new committee of GOP election experts to monitor the state’s independent redistricting process — in 2020.

Local Republicans remain angry after the party got shellacked in the most recent congressional redraw ahead of the 2012 cycle. The next time the decennial redistricting process come around — eight years from now, after the 2020 cycle — the GOP does not want to be caught flat-footed again.

GOP Voter Suppression, Texas Style

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

If you do a Google search for Texas + secession, you will be shocked at the number of hits (or maybe not).

The question is not whether Texas can secede -- it can't -- but rather can the rest of America kick Texas out of the Union for ignorant racist crap like this?

Adam Serwer reports, Texas on voting rights: It's not about race, just politics:

Texas didn’t discriminate against minority voters. It was only because they were Democrats. And even if it did, the racial discrimination Texas engaged in is nowhere near as bad as the stuff that happened in the 1960s.

These are some of the arguments the state of Texas is making in an attempt to stave off federal supervision of its election laws.

* * *

Shortly after the Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act decision, Texas moved to reinstate restrictive voting laws that had previously been blocked by the feds. As far as it’s 2011 redistricting plan goes, the state’s brief argues that’s all in the past, and it was a partisan issue rather than a racial one anyway.

AIRC Update: the GOP files its brief in Harris v. AIRC

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Howard Fischer reports today that the lawyers/lobbyists for the GOP's secretive redistricting organization FAIR Trust, representing the Arizona GOP, have filed their brief requested by the U.S. District Court of Arizona in Harris v. AIRC on the question of the effects of Shelby County v. Holder on this case. GOP lawyer asks court to order new legislative districts for '14:

Arizona's 30 legislative districts need to be redrawn before the 2014 election, an attorney for Republican interests contends, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling that voided a key section of the Voting Rights Act.

In legal papers filed in federal court late Friday, attorney David Cantelme said the Independent Redistricting Commission's data show that it overpopulated some of the districts and underpopulated others.

he result was to politically disadvantage Republican candidates, he said.

Cantelme also pointed out to the three-judge panel that the commission's key legal argument for why it made those decisions was that it needed to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act.

Commissioners wanted to ensure that the map it drew was "precleared" by the U.S. Justice Department and didn't dilute the voting strength of minorities.

Howard Fischer's stenographic reporting for the the lawyers/lobbyists of the GOP's secretive redistricting organization FAIR Trust has been a persistent problem from day one. It is misleading and misinforms readers.

AIRC Update: U.S. District Court wants briefing on Shelby County v. Holder

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In a one-page order signed by Chief U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver on Monday, the three judge federal court panel considering the Arizona GOP's legal challenge to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) state legislative districts map has asked for additional briefing from the parties on the effect, if any, of the U.S. Supreme Court decsion on Shelby County v. Holder on this case. Harris v. AIRC - Order dated 7-8-13 (.pdf).

The issue the federal court wants briefed in particular is the possibility of abstention in favor of state court adjudication.

Section 5 pre-clearance under the Voting Rights Act (VRA) provides two paths to pre-clearance: one is submission to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for review -- the path the AIRC followed -- and the other is proceeding in U.S. District Court, the path the State of Texas chose to follow.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the formula for covered jurisdictions under Section 4 of the VRA in Shelby County v. Holder, which had the intended consequence of suspending the pre-clearance provisions of Section 5 of the VRA until such time that Congress acts to adopt a new covered jurisdiction formula under Section 4.

AIRC Update: Cid Kallen appointed to fill vacancy on the AIRC

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Steve Muratore at the Arizona Eagletarian blog has the news on the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC). Redistricting -- Cid Kallen appointed by House Minority Leader:

This afternoon, House Minority Leader Chad Campbell appointed Yuma attorney and US Marine Corps veteran Cid Kallen to the fill the vacant seat on the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

Kallen was founding president of the Hispanic Law Students Association at the Phoenix School of Law. He now serves on the board of directors for the Los Abogados Hispanic Bar Association.

There is still no word on a ruling in Harris v AIRC, a federal lawsuit challenging the legislative district map used for the 2012 election cycle in Arizona. When the Harris ruling is made, if it requires any changes to the map, Kallen will get his feet wet and will have a say in those changes.

Good luck to Mr. Kallen, he is going to need it.

Gov. Jan Brewer: Racial discrimination doesn’t ‘take place any longer’

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Tea-Publicans truly live in an alternate universe reality. Governor Jan Brewer actually asserted with a straight face that racial discrimination is no longer a problem in this state.

This is the woman who used the racially divisive SB 1070 to get elected to the governor's office (SB 1070 was later struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court as unconstitutional).

This is the state where crazy Uncle Joe Arpaio was just recently found by the federal court to have engaged in a policy of unlawful racial profiling (he is appealing).

This is the state where nativist anti-immigrant politicians like J.D. Hayworth, Russell Pearce, and Andrew Thomas are celebrated as heroes by conservatives in the GOP.

This is the state where Tom "banned for life by the SEC" Horne and John Huppenthal, and editor and columnist Doug MacEachern at The Arizona Republic, have engaged in unhinged demonization (criminalization) of Latino students in Tucson for ethnic studies programs at TUSD.

Jan Brewer is delusional.

RAW Story reports, Arizona governor: Racial discrimination doesn't 'take place any longer':

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) on Tuesday said the Voting Rights Act had “hampered” the state and was pleased to see a key provision of the civil rights law struck down.

* * *

When asked why Arizona shouldn’t be required to have its voting laws precleared, Brewer said racial discrimination was no longer a problem in the state.

Supreme Court ruling green-lights GOP War on Voting

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Well, that didn't take long. Demonstrating just how wrong the Supreme Court was in Shelby County, the state of Texas, a covered jurisdiction with a long and sordid history of minority voter suppression, took the court's opinion as a green-light to engage in unbridled voter suppression.

The National Journal reports, That Was Quick: Texas Moves Forward With Voter ID Law After Supreme Court Ruling:

Just hours after the Supreme Court handed down a ruling that guts parts of the Voting Rights Act, Texas is moving forward with a controversial voter ID law that state Attorney General Greg Abbott hopes to implement right away.

"With today's decision, the state's voter ID law will take effect immediately," Abbott said in a statement to the Dallas Morning News. "Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government."

The Texas law requires voters to show photo identification to vote—a measure that was blocked by the Justice Department, arguing the law could discriminate against racial minorities. At the time, Attorney General Eric Holder called the law a "poll tax."

* * *

Although the Justice Department still maintains the right to approve voting-rights laws in counties that have historically implemented discriminatory laws against minorities, Congress now needs to determine those areas.

AIRC Update: 3 finalists to replace Jose Herrera

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

There are now three finalists to fill the vacancy on the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) to replace Democratic Commissioner Jose Herrera, who resigned last month.

Steve Muratore at the Arizona Eagletarian blog, as always, has the inside scoop (thank you Steve!) Redistricting vacancy -- short list:

[B]eside Jimmie D. Smith, the other two individuals on the short list are Cid R. Kallen and Jo Ann Martinez.

Smith applied in 2010 and made the list of 10 eligible Democrats from which Campbell and then Senate Minority Leader David Schapira chose Jose Herrera and Linda McNulty respectively. Smith is an attorney who has been a sole practitioner in Yuma for decades.

Kallen is a US Marine Corps veteran, attorney in private (sole) practice in Yuma and is an Hispanic male.

Martinez is a program director at Arizona State University -- Downtown. She holds a Master's degree in Education and is an Hispanic female.

House Minority Leader Chad Campbell now has 14 days to make a decision on which of the three to select. If he does not appoint one of those persons in that time, the Appellate Courts Commission will do it for him.

If you have any opinions about the nominees, you should contact House Minority Leader Chad Campbell ASAP.

(Update) Redistricting trial in U.S. District Court

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Hopefully you were all following reporting by Steve Muratore at the Arizona Eagletarian blog last week as I recommended because, I have to be honest, the corporate media reporting on this case has been so pedestrian and politicized it appears to have been culled from press releases from the conservative media entertainment complex. Bloomberg News, Arizona Capitol Times, and The Arizona Republic in particular were horrible.

This poor court reporting occurred the same week that a legend of court reporting, Anthony Lewis, the great New York Times reporter and columnist, passed away at the age of 85. On Anthony Lewis:

As a journalist, Lewis is best known for revolutionizing the coverage of the Supreme Court. In his remembrance of Lewis, current New York Times legal reporter Adam Liptak wrote:

As a reporter, Mr. Lewis brought an entirely new approach to coverage of the Supreme Court, for which he won his second Pulitzer, in 1963.

Redistricting trial in U.S. District Court this week

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The lawyers/lobbyists of the GOP's secretive redistricting organization FAIR Trust take their wild conspiracy theories about the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) to court today in U.S. District Court. These hucksters are challenging the state legislative districts which they believe should have been gerrymandered to create a permanent Republican majority in perpetuity because, after all, it is the divine right of Republicans to lord over us all.

Based upon the biased reporting of Howard Fischer today in the Arizona Daily Star, Arizona redistricting challenge heads to US court today, it appears that lawyer/lobbyist David Cantelme from FAIR Trust is pinning his hopes on  the claim that population deviation between the districts is a violation of law. He apparently believes that state legislative district populations must be strictly equal.

Challengers are pinning their hopes on the fact that 30 districts crafted by the Independent Redistricting Commission are not all equal in population.

Attorney David Cantelme contends the differences were done "deliberately, intentionally and in violation of the one-person/one-vote principle."

The goal of the commission, he charges, was to cluster as many Republicans as possible together in districts, leaving the other, underpopulated districts with more Democrats than otherwise would occur, giving Democrats an unfair and illegal advantage in electing their own candidates to the Legislature.

AIRC Update: State and Federal Court Cases Headed for Trial

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The attempts by the Arizona Republican Party Caucus and its secretive redistricting organization FAIR Trust to overturn the redistricting by the Arizona Independent Redistricitng Commission (AIRC) are headed for trial  soon. The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports, Courts: redistricting lawsuits to move forward, commissioners cannot invoke legislative immunity:

A Feb. 21 ruling by a Maricopa County Superior Court judge denied a last-chance request by the commission to throw out a lawsuit [motion to dismiss] that claims the state’s nine congressional districts were intentionally drawn to give favor to Democrats by packing Republicans into four districts.

* * *

[A] federal court on Friday denied the commission’s request to allow commissioners to refuse answering questions under “legislative privilege” in a suit that claims the state’s legislative map violates federal laws because of population deviations among districts.

* * *

A three-judge panel [federal court] will begin hearing the case on March 29.

Both suits are part of broader allegations made by many Republicans that the commission’s maps were created to favor Democrats with the help of Colleen Mathis, the chairwoman of the five-person panel.

When the media carries water for the Arizona GOP - Voting Rights Act edition

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I have already been over how we have a GOPropaganda echo chamber in the Arizona media in the previous post. So let's get to the other election news this week, from the Arizona Republic(an), Ariz. seeks Supreme Court relief on Voting Rights Act:

Three days after the Nov. 6 election, when many Americans happily made voting a memory, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that some legal experts say could lead to the biggest shake-up in voting law in nearly a half-century.

The court will weigh a key portion of the Voting Rights Act, a law that has changed little over 40 years and for decades has placed Arizona and eight other states under federal scrutiny for suspected discrimination.

Supporters of the lawsuit, which involves an Alabama county, say their efforts could once again put every state and locality on equal legal footing and evaluate anew whether minorities are treated unfairly anywhere.

* * *

The case has special relevance to Arizona, which is one of nine states that must get federal approval for any changes that could affect voting rights of minorities, such as Hispanics and Native Americans.

Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne has filed legal papers supporting the Alabama challenge of the requirement. Because of the provision, every conceivable change affecting voting in Arizona must run through Horne's office, which he said is a constant drain.

"I don't have any numbers at my fingertips, but I would describe the burden as huge," Horne said.

When the media carries water for the Arizona GOP - Redistricting Edition

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A large part of the reason Arizona is a "red state" is because the Arizona media carries water for the Arizona GOP, from the state's major newspapers down to your local yokel evening news programs. The "liberal media" is a myth, particularly here in Arizona. We have a GOPropaganda echo chamber. When GOPropaganda is all that people see and hear and it gets reinforced in the media echo chamber, they tend to believe it.

Case in point, the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC). There has been a coordinated effort among elected Republican leaders, their lobbyists/lawyers at the secretive GOP redistricting front group FAIR Trust, and the Arizona media to undermine the AIRC and to attack its credibility. AIRC chair Colleen Mathis has been unfairly demonized by Republican politicians and the GOPropaganda media, as have judges of the Arizona courts for upholding the law, in pursuit of a permanent Republican majority.

It began with conspiracy theories published by Christian Palmer who worked at the publication by and for capitol lobbyists, the Arizona Capitol Times and its sister publication The Yellow Sheet. (Palmer is now working for the billionaire bastard Koch brothers funded think tank, the Goldwater Institute).

Gerrymandering kept Republicans in charge of US House

by Pamela Powers Hannley

We here are Blog for Arizona have been beating the drum for election reform continuously for several weeks (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10, 11)-- long before our state was disgraced last week with 600,000+ uncounted ballots.

In the election integrity arena, one thing that Arizona has done right-- despite the Arizona Legislature-- is to vote for, support, and fight for an INDEPENDENT Redistricting Commission. Redistricting every 10 years, based upon the latest US census, is mandated by the US Constitution. In most states, the state legislatures draw the maps-- thus ensuring that whichever party is in power says in power for 10 years-- thanks to gerrymandering.

Arizonans passed the law forming the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) before the redistricting related to the 2000 census, but Republicans successfully blocked independent redistricting in the courts for years. (This is how a purple state like Arizona came to be controlled by scoundrels like Governor Jan Brewer and former State Senate President Russell Pearce.)

After the 2010 census, a new AIRC was formed with two Democrats, two Republicans, and one Independent. You'll remember that Brewer, Pearce, and the Republican-controlled Arizona Legislature (also known as the forces of darkness) tried to block the AIRC at several junctures-- including firing the head of the commission in late 2011 and attempting multiple legal shinanigans to stop reform... unsuccessfully. Thanks to redistricting and a strong showing by President Barack Obama and other Democrats, Arizona Democrats gained a significant number of seats in both the Arizona House and Senate. (And we were able to get rid of some real rotten apples like Pearce, Lori Klein, Ben Quayle, and Frank Antenori.)

Unfortunately, the vase majority of states have the old system in which partisan state legislatures draw the lines. Who swept into power across the US in the 2010 elections? Teapublicans. Who drew the new legislative and Congressional districts in most states? Teapublicans.

Why should you care? Because gerrymandering by Teapublicans helped those same Teapublicans retain contorl of the US House of Representatives in the 2012 elections. Despite an historic win by Obama, Democratic gains in the US Senate, and more Democratic votes in House races, gerrymandering enabled "Just say no" Teapublicans to control the US House and the budgetary purse strings. For more on this, check out this story in Think Progress: Why Americans Actually Voted for a Democratic House.

Here's a hint to election integrity activists across the country: start a grassroots movement to form independent redistricting... now.

GOP gives up on Gabby (Mercer, that is)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

The GOP has been targeting Congressman Raul Grijalva for removal for years.

Remember Ruth McClung? The Democrats initially dismissed the young, blond "rocket scientist" with the fiery, Sarah-Palin-style speechifying, but in the end, the new-comer nearly whooped the Congressman's ass in 2010.

Fast forward to 2012, the Republicans are running another attractive airhead against Grijalva-- but this time she's a bit more... ahem... mature and Hispanic-- Gabriela Suacedo Mercer. 

With a little more than a month to go, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) has announced that Grijalva is "unbeatable". (In all fairness, it should be noted that the new CD3 is 43% Democrat, 34.5% Independent, and only 22% Republican-- a tough race for any Republican.)

Poor Gabby. The national-level Republicans are going to spend their truckloads of cash elsewhere.

Locally, the Republicans are trying to keep a stiff upper lip regarding the Mercer-Grijalva match-up, but it must be hard with the Republican presidential campaign in disarray and with Democrat Richard Carmona in a dead heat with conervative Congressman Jeff Flake for the Arizona's US Senate seat.

For more on the story, check out this story in the Arizona Daily Star.

D.C. Circuit Court rules unanimously that Texas redistricting intentionally discriminates against Latinos

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In a major victory for the Obama administration's Justice Department, voting rights advocates, and for the rule of law, a panel of the D.C. Circuit Court ruled unanimously today that the Texas redistricting plan crafted by the Tea-Publican dominated Texas legislature intentionally discriminates against Latinos in violation of the Voting Rights Act. You're shocked, I'm sure. Federal Court: GOP’s Texas Redistricting Plan Intentionally Discriminated Against Hispanics | TPMMuckraker:

A redistricting plan signed by Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) intentionally discriminated against Hispanic voters, a three-judge panel unanimously ruled Tuesday. The judges found that seats belonging to white incumbent members of Congress were protected under the plan while districts belonging to incumbent minorities were targeted for changes.

The court was “persuaded by the totality of the evidence that the plan was enacted with discriminatory intent,” according to the ruling. There was “sufficient evidence to conclude that the Congressional Plan was motivated, at least in part, by discriminatory intent,” the court found.

All three judges said they were overwhelmed with the amount of evidence showing the law was intentionally discriminatory, writing in a footnote that parties “have provided more evidence of discriminatory intent than we have space, or need, to address here.”

All three redistricting plans — for Texas’ congressional delegation, its state House of Representatives and the state Senate — were blocked by the federal court. The Supreme Court had earlier ruled that interim maps drawn by a federal court were invalid.

The panel of three judges found that “surgery” had been performed on congressional districts belonging to minority members of Congress while no such alterations were made to districts belonging to incumbent white members of Congress.

“Anglo district boundaries were redrawn to include particular country clubs and, in one case, the school belonging to the incumbent’s grandchildren,” the judges wrote.

That country club reference is tied to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), who chairs the House Oversight Committee that oversees the Justice Department.

You can read the opinion here (there was a partial dissent by Judge Griffith as to one district, who wrote most of the majority opinion as well). 

City of Tucson Redistricting hearing Wednesday, August 22

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

City of Tucson Notice of Public Hearing

Redistricting of Wards

Every four years the boundaries of the six wards of the City are reviewed to determine whether adjustments are necessary to equalize the population in each ward.  The Mayor and Council have established a citizens committee to assist with this effort.

The Redistricting Advisory Committee encourages public participation in the redistricting process and wants to hear from you. A public hearing will be held to gather information from the public regarding ward redistricting. 

The preliminary redistricting plans will be on display at the public hearing and are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the City of Tucson, City Clerk’s Office, City Hall, 255 West Alameda, 9^th floor. 

Additionally, the plans are available on the City Clerk Elections web page:  http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/gov/elections

Redistricting Advisory Committee Public Hearing
Wednesday, August 22, 5:30 p.m. 

Mayor and Council Chambers, City Hall, 255 West Alameda, Tucson, Arizona

Comments and suggestions may be submitted to:
Redistricting Advisory Committee c/o City Clerk, P.O. Box  27210, Tucson, AZ 85726-7210
Emailed to  mailto: [email protected]
Delivered to the City Clerk’s Office, City Hall, 255 West Alameda, 9^th floor, weekdays 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

A quorum of the Mayor and Council may be in attendance.  However, no items of business are scheduled to be discussed.  No legal actions, proceedings or deliberations which foreseeably could lead to legal action shall be taken at this gathering.

The Council Chambers is wheelchair accessible and an assistive listening system for the hearing impaired is in place. 

A request for reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities must be made to the City Clerk’s Office by parties at least two working days in advance of the scheduled meeting and can be made by calling 791-4213 or 791-2639 (TDD).

They're baaack! Tea-Publican lawsuits against the AIRC

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A follow-up to an earlier post, AIRC Update: Tea-Publican deadbeats sue the AIRC with your tax dollars to overturn Prop. 106 that created the AIRC:

The Tea-Publican controlled legislature is suing the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC), arguing that the voter approved Proposition 106 (2000) to the state constitution that created the AIRC violates the U.S. Constitution. And even though only Tea-Publicans argue this for their partisan political advantage, they are using your tax dollars to overturn the will of the voters.

The parties are now filing their pleadings. Howard Fischer reports, in only the way he can, Arizona redistricting commission argues state legislators shouldn't draw Congressional lines - East Valley Tribune: 

Members of the Independent Redistricting Commission want a federal judge to rule that state lawmakers are wrong in saying only they get to draw lines for congressional districts.

In legal papers filed in U.S. District Court, attorneys for the commission acknowledge that the U.S. Constitution does say that the manner of selecting members of Congress "shall be prescribed in each state by the Legislature.'' And it was the commission created the maps used last decade and again last year for the coming decade.

The lawyers, however, told Judge Paul Rosenblatt that process is legal.

Andy Tobin taking the lead in the Republican fight against independent redistricting

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

 

...and the fun part is: he wants the voters to pay $8 million for the privilege of subverting their own will...

Rep. Andy Tobin (R-Paulden), the Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, has introduced HB2710, HCR2051, HCR2052, HCR2053, and HR2005. If passed, they would mandate a special election in May where the voters would be "asked" to amend the independent redistricting provisions in the Arizona constitution.

HB2710 would call the special election.

If passed by the voters, HCR2051 would take the "independent" out of "independent redistricting commission". It would take the current 5-member Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC), where no political hacks are allowed (meaning no party precinct committeemen, or PCs. Full disclosure: I'm a Democratic PC, so I can call PCs "hacks." :) ) and turn it into a cesspool of hackery, with 12 politically-appointed members. It would also remove the requirement under current law that there be an Independent member of the AIRC. In addition, it would remove the requirement that the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments screen the applicants.

[start sarcasm] Obviously, as the judicial branch of government in Arizona is the only branch the receives, or is even worthy of, respect for its professionalism, so it shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the redistricting process. [end sarcasm]

If passed by the voters, HCR2052 and HCR2053 would scrap the the legislative and Congressional maps, respectively, in favor of maps drawn by Tobin.

HR2005 is a resolution where the legislature (or to be realistic, the Republicans in the legislature) pledge to base their maps on the scribblings and the electoral alchemy of the Republicans' own Andy Tobin.

It's "alchemy" because Tobin is trying to turn the iron clauses of the Arizona constitution into a golden opportunity for job security for the Capitol's elected Republicans.

Even more infuriating than Tobin et. al.'s open contempt for the will of the voters (we are the ones who created the independent redistricting process specifically to take it away from legislators interested only in serving their own self interests above all else) or even the best interests of the people of Arizona (we are served best by public officials who have to answer to the entire electorate in their districts, not just a few partisan extremists) is his plan to have the voters pay (subscription required) more than $8 million for the special election/Hail Mary pass. On top of that, Tobin has defended (subscription required) the secrecy that shrouded his drawing of the maps that he wants to implement, and the use of a taxpayer-funded employee of the legislature, John Mills, to aid him in his quest to overthrow the voters' independent redistricting process.

An interesting two-step for someone who has criticized the AIRC for spending too much money (expenses incurred in part to deal with the litigation stemming from previous attempts to subvert the process by elected Republicans) and has complained that the AIRC's dozens of meetings and hearings with hundreds of hours of testimony isn't transparent enough.

Note: in this context, "interesting" is a synonym for "hypocritical." In case you couldn't figure that out on your own. :)

Of course, Tobin's scheme pre-supposes that...

a) the other Republicans in the lege go along with Tobin's scheme (IMO, highly likely);

b) the voters go along with Tobin's scheme (IMO, less likely, but given that a special election would be a low-turnout affair dominated by partisan GOTV efforts, definitely possible); and

c) the US DOJ goes along with Tobin's scheme (IMO, highly unlikely given the secrecy and deliberate exclusion of minority groups specifically and the public in general from the crafting of his maps).


On the other hand, Tobin's proposals are so sloppily written that it makes me wonder if this is more about posturing for his caucus or for the inevitable redistricting-related lawsuits than anything else.

As written, HCRs 2052 and 2053 appear to be mutually exclusive. They each propose to amend the same part of the Arizona constitution by inserting identically labelled clauses.

From HCR2052

From HCR2053

Now, I'm just a layman with no advanced (or even beginning-level) legal education or experience, but it seems any credible attempt to amend the Arizona constitution would at least be correctly written, especially as it comes from putative subject matter experts such as Tobin and his "associate" Mills.

However, given that Tobin's maps guarantee him a safe district, credibility may not have been a consideration in Tobin's scheming, just ensuring his continued seat on the West Washington Gravy Train.

As near as I can tell, the measures haven't been agendized for committee consideration as yet, probably because they haven't been assigned to any as yet while they await for the Speaker to "first read" the bills and assign them to committee. The timing of that and the specific committee that they are assigned to is completely within the Speaker's discretion and is often subject to the vagaries of the relationship between the introducing sponsor and the Speaker.

In this case, I expect the measures to be formally introduced, First Read, and assigned to committee on Monday.

Something tells me that Rep. Andy Tobin is on good terms with Speaker Andy Tobin. :)


Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services has coverage here, via the East Valley Tribune.

AZBlueMeanie at Blog for Arizona has his take here.

Steve at Arizona Eagletarian offers his take here.

The Democratic caucus of the Arizona House of Representatives has a statement from Rep. Chad Campbell, House Minority Leader, here.

Mike's 2011 Top Ten

Posted by Michael Bryan

I thought I would get in the spirit of reflecting back on the past year by taking a look at my posts over the course of 2011 with an eye to picking out a few of the 'best'.

What I found is that I hadn't done all that much :) It may or may not be news to some readers that I was pretty distracted by health concerns this year. I basically didn't post between July and November. I had a quadruple cardiac bypass in early August and was pretty much disabled in the months prior and subsequent to that event.

So, in thinking about things I'm grateful for this year, top of the list is, of course, my continuing survival and returning health, and the support and love of my family that got me through the crisis.

Here in the blogosphere, my gratitude goes out to the wonderful bloggers who have joined me here at BlogForArizona who continue to make this a lively and informative forum for political junkies of Arizona to come and get their fixes.

A blog is like a broadcast. Dead air is the enemy. This blog would absolutely no longer exist if smart and public-spirited folks like David, Meanie, Craig, Karl, and all our occasional guest authors weren't here keeping BlogForArizona on the air. This year proved to me that BlogForArizona is truly become a community. I'm grateful beyond measure to be a part of that, and grateful to all of you who read and comment and contribute to keep that community alive.

Now, for my Top Ten:

The year started out on a tragic note with the January 8th shootings. Everyone on the blog chipped in to keep up with the terrible news (Gabby, Our Thoughts Are With You). In the days following I got pretty intemperate about what that tragedy revealed about the state of American politics (The Hypocrisy of the Right-Wing on the CD8 Shootings).

Much of politics in Arizona over the course of 2010 was driven by Senate President Pearce, unfortunately. I weighed in on his horrible lies about immigrants (The Big Lie at the Heart of the Birthright Citizenship Attacks on "Anchor Babies"), and even got a bit whimsical when I made a video about the issue (Arizona Senator Pearce throws Down with a Mexican Anchor Baby Mama). I also fisked his statement when the 9th Circuit enjoined enforcement of several provisions of SB1070 (Arizona Senator Pearce Attacks the 9th circuit Court of Appeals). Hopefully, Pearce won't be in a leadership position of Arizona's government ever again.

I was appalled by the AZ GOP's utter incompetence and immorality in dealing with this year's difficult budgetary deficit (An Immoral Budget), and their appalling lies about having 'balanced' the budget (AZ GOP's Big Budget Lie).

An entirely manufactured crisis was Jan Brewer's unconstitutional and nakedly political attack on the Independent Redistricting Commission (Janet Wants Her Veto Back) by summarily removing its Chairperson, which I predicted would fail (Arizona Courts Constitutional Crisis Over IRC). Thankfully, I was right for once, and sanity prevailed.

Another ego-driven perennial windbag in Arizona politics had the starch taken out of his pink underwear by the Department of Justice (Arpaio, MSCO and the DOJ Civil Rights Division Findings. What's it All Mean?), and immediately took the fight into the mud (And Arpaio's Supporters Go There Publicly).

Finally, a true piece of shit who besmirched the face of Arizona's politics looks to be about to get what he so richly deserves (Andy Thomas is in Big Trouble). But as the ethics panel's ruling won't actually come until late January, so perhaps this story is really the first Top Ten of 2012. And that, in the "baker's dozen" tradition of Top Tens, is actually 11 posts :)

BlogForArizona was founded in 2003 as the DeanForArizona blog during the 2004 Democratic Primary season. So, Happy New Year and welcome to BlogForArizona's 9th year in publication!

 

 

 

This Quote Says All That Need Be Said About Redistricting in Arizona

Posted by Michael Bryan

Republican's main complaint about the independent redistricting process really boils down to just this:

"It treats the Democrats as an equal party," said attorney Tim LaSota, a Republican who monitored the redistricting process as part of the FAIR Trust, a group of lawyers hired by Republican congressmen.

God forbid.

Certainly, if the redistricting process were still in the hands of the GOP politicos who controlled it until the voters said "Basta!" in 2000, the Dems would have been treated like a red-headed step-child.

Really, this quote is all you need to know about the controversies and unconstitutional over-reach by the GOP regarding the AIRC in recent months. The GOP are willing to try anything to prevent the Democrats from being treated as equals in Arizona. They think that a 100K registration advantage among 6.5 million citizens gives them the right to absolute control of our government.

Sometimes I'm less than grateful for the ballot initiative process because of the results. But the creation of the AIRC is a perfect example of why the framers of Arizona's Constitution felt it wise to give the people direct recourse to the ballot: to counterbalance a legislature bent on putting a thumb on the scales for the party in power, in order to preserve and entrench that power perpetually.

Janet Wants Her Veto Back

By Michael Bryan

The voters specifically took away the Arizona Governor’s veto over redistricting maps when they passed Prop 106 in 2000, establishing the Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC). The voters didn’t want the redistricting process to be held hostage by the political powers-that-be; Arizonans want an open and bi-partisan process governed by the public interest.

Governor Brewer (and the GOP caucus) won't stand for that. She wants enough control over redistricting to ensure that the end result helps preserve the GOP’s super-majority status, even though Republicans are only a narrow plurality in Arizona, where Independents and Democrats constitute almost 2/3rds of registered voters.

So Brewer wants her veto back.

If she can’t have it de jure, she’ll take it de facto by summarily removing IRC members for failing to deliver what she considers a “constitutional” district map: read “constitutional” as “sufficiently protecting GOP incumbents”.

The “constitutionality” or suitability of any map created by the IRC is protected by our Constitution's grant of authority over redistricting to the IRC, and can only be challenged in court. The Governor can no more remove an IRC member over a map the IRC created than a legislative fuck-wit like State Senator Al Melvin can be impeached because legislation he has introduced is possibly unconstitutional (or, as is more frequently the case, bat-shit crazy). This is called Legislative Immunity: it protects a member of a legislative body from legal liability for their official acts. Arizona’s courts have already recognized that the IRC has Legislative Immunity for the district maps they produce.

Thus Brewer’s allegation that the maps created by the IRC are not “constitutional” cannot possibly be the legal basis for an IRC member’s removal. Brewer's action against the IRC is merely an attempt to reestablish the Governor’s lost veto over district maps by extra-legal means.