Thinking Arizona
Facts to Inform the Public Discourse
News Tracker
Noteworthy developments on topics covered by this websiteBrewer Overstepped, Framers Say
The people who wrote the initiative creating the Independent Redistricting Commission say the allegations made by Gov. Jan Brewer were not sufficient grounds to dismiss the chairwoman of the panel, Capitol Media Services reported.
Attorney Tim Hogan told the justices of the Arizona Supreme Court that an early draft of the initiative would have given the governor greater latitude to dismiss a commissioner. But the stronger language was scrapped before the measure was sent to the voters in 2000.
“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 created the initiative. Two of the other framers — Dennis M. Burke, who was director of Arizona Common Cause, and Bart Turner, who held a similar position with Valley Citizens League — agreed.
The governor’s press aide, Matthew Benson, said their arguments are 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.”
Hogan wrote in a legal brief that the “black letter” of the law should be enough to convince the justices that the actions by chairperson Colleen Mathis did not rise to that level. “The adjectives ‘substantial’ and ‘gross’ were used in order to clearly convey that the offense leading to removal had to be extremely serious,” he wrote.
Legislators’ Views of Survival Tips
Two conservative legislators respond to Thinking Arizona’s survival guide for the new chairperson of the Independent Redistricting Commission:
State Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, provides a few survival tips of his own.
State Rep. Brenda Barton, R-Safford, offers her views on accountability of the commission, and what its task should be about.
Replacement Process Set to Begin
A special screening panel is set to begin seeking a replacement Monday for the ousted head of the Independent Redistricting Commission, Capitol Media Services reported.
The state constitution requires the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments to nominate replacements to fill vacancies within 30 days. The starting point was Wednesday, when the appointments board was formally notified of the vote by the state Senate to ratify the decision to fire Colleen Mathis as head of the commission.
The panel, which a year ago provided the list of finalists from which commission members including Mathis were chosen, will have to decide whether to simply review the list of people who applied previously or ask for new applications.
The meeting notice comes as attorneys for Mathis and the redistricting commission are asking the state Supreme Court to rule her removal was illegal. By extension, they want to prevent anyone else from taking her place while the issue is litigated. The court has yet to decide whether to even hear the case.
The legal fight creates a conflict for Supreme Court Chief Justice Rebecca Berch, who also chairs the screening panel. Berch has agreed not to participate in the legal arguments over the governor’s action. She will be replaced in those deliberations by retired Justice Michael Ryan, who like Berch is a Republican.
The appointments commission is required to come up with three nominees to replace Mathis. All have to be registered voters who have not been affiliated with either major political party for at least the past three years. The four remaining members of the commission, two Democrats and two Republicans, will then make the final selection.
Survival Tips for IRC’s Next Head
Our survival guide for the next chairperson of the Independent Redistricting Commission. From the Editors.
Redistricting Chairwoman Ousted
The chairwoman of the Independent Redistricting Commission was ousted Tuesday by Gov. Jan Brewer and the GOP-controlled state Senate.
The removal of Colleen Coyle Mathis came on a 21-6 party line vote, giving the governor the two-thirds majority vote she needed. Mathis was cited for “gross misconduct” in her role at the helm of the independent panel.
The Arizona Republic reported that the unprecedented step was likely to touch off legal and political battles. Commission attorneys said they will petition the state Supreme Court today to allow Mathis to remain as commission chairwoman. Mathis’ personal attorney, Paul Charlton, said, “It’s my view that she is most certainly still the chairman.”
However, Brewer’s press aide said Mathis’ tenure ended when the Senate endorsed the governor’s action.
The issue polarized the already sharply divided Legislature. The Republic reported that Democrats decried the move as a power grab by Republican lawmakers unhappy with the draft map of congressional and legislative districts that the commission has put forward.
The letter from the governor outlining the reasons for Mathis’ dismissal cited the alleged failure to conduct commission meetings publicly, a reference to the ongoing controversy over whether the commission violated the state open meeting law when it hired a mapping consultant with Democratic ties. The governor also cited a failure to properly adjust the “grid map,” the starting point for drawing new maps, to account for all of the criteria required for new maps, as well as an overreliance on competitiveness as a factor in drawing new boundary lines.
Mathis, as well as several other commissioners, earlier this week rejected those allegations and defended their actions as proper.
Brewer Could Call Special Session
Gov. Jan Brewer could call lawmakers into special session as early as today as she pursues the campaign to dismiss one or more members of the Independent Redistricting Commission, several media outlets reported.
Brewer is considering whether several commission members have committed offenses that allow her to remove them from office. Their ouster would require the consent of two-thirds of the Senate.
An attorney for the commission, Mary O’Grady, acknowledged Monday in a letter to Brewer that the state constitution gives the governor the power to remove any or all commission members “for substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office.” But she told Brewer it is up to the courts to determine whether those violations have occurred.
Capitol Media Services reported that the governor’s press aide, Matthew Benson, downplayed O’Grady’s response. “The constitution specifically prescribes to the governor an oversight role,” he said. “That is the authority that she has invoked.”
Senate Majority Leader Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, told Capitol Media Services that what a judge considers “gross misconduct” is irrelevant to whether the governor and the Legislature can remove a commissioner.
“There’s no case law on it, so it’s defined by the Legislature,” said Biggs, an attorney. “Gross misconduct is essentially what the Legislature says gross misconduct is.”
IRC Rejects Governor’s Allegations
The Independent Redistricting Commission today asked Gov. Jan Brewer to not interfere with its work, the Arizona Republic reported.
“I respectfully urge you to participate no further in efforts to prevent the commission from completing its work and to end any consideration of removing any commissioners from office,” attorney Mary O’Grady, who is the commission’s assistant legal counsel, wrote to Brewer.
O’Grady’s response, as well as replies from individual commissioners, rejected assertions Brewer leveled last week that the panel had “committed substantial neglect of duty and gross misconduct in office.” The governor had demanded that each of the commission members respond by 8 a.m. today to seven questions she posed in a letter to them last Wednesday.
Divided IRC to Hire Lawyers
A divided Independent Redistricting Commission voted Saturday evening to hire legal counsel to guide the response to Gov. Jan Brewer’s demand that each of them answer accusations she has made, the Arizona Republic and other media reported.
Chairwoman Colleen Coyle Mathis, an independent, and commissioners Jose Herrera and Linda McNulty, both Democrats, voted to hire attorneys to represent them in figuring how to respond to an 8 a.m. Monday deadline. GOP commissioners Scott Freeman and Richard Stertz voted no.
Brewer has demanded answers to seven questions dealing with the state’s open meeting law and, separately, with the commission’s draft map of congressional districts. She alleges that the commission has violated constitutional requirements.
Meanwhile, the Republic story by Mary Jo Pitzl revealed that Freeman and Stertz were assured late last week by legislative leaders that they are not the targets of attempts to remove the commissioners.
“We know that your responses to the governor’s letter will reflect that you have not participated in any of the disturbing and lawless conduct that has made this commission’s tenure so difficult,” wrote Senate President Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, and House Speaker Andy Tobin, R-Paulden.
A column by Josh Brodesky of The Arizona Daily Star responds to the governor’s action.
Judge Blocks AG’s Probe of IRC
Attorney General Tom Horne’s investigation into whether members of the Independent Redistricting Commission violated the state’s open meeting law was blocked on Friday by a Maricopa County Superior Court judge.
The narrow ruling by Judge Dean Fink focused on early advice about the law’s requirements that Horne’s office provided to commission members. Fink wrote that it would be ethically improper for Hornethen to come back and conduct an official investigation of how well they complied with that advice.
Capitol Media Services reported, however, that the ruling does not make the inquiry go away. Horne said he has turned his investigation over to Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery.
Campaign Groups To Be Audited
The secretary of state’s office will periodically audit three campaign organizations in an attempt to assure they are not trying to use the Citizens United court ruling to skirt campaign finance laws, the Arizona Republic reported in a story by Lynh Bui in Friday’s editions.
Secretary of State Ken Bennett said Thursday the three groups will be asked to show that they have spent most of their money doing something else other than influencing an election.
The targeted groups, which have been active in the runup to the Phoenix City Council election and the recall of Senate President Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, are called “Citizens United for Progress,” ”Residents for a Better Arizona,” and ”Americans for Responsible Leadership.”
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year in the case of Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission that corporations, unions and limited-liability corporations could spend unlimited amounts to influence elections as long as they don’t coordinate with a candidate or directly give to a candidate. These groups don’t have to disclose individual donors because it is assumed the money comes from their general treasuries.
Bennett said the ruling protects the First Amendment rights of established businesses, unions and companies that exist for some other reason than getting involved in elections.
But he said certain nonprofits and businesses that have been spending money on political mailers and ads were formed just weeks before the elections.
