FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 2, 2011
CONTACT: communications@azgop.org
PHOENIX – The Arizona Republican Party issued the following statement regarding the removal of Arizona Independent Redistricting Commissioner, Colleen Mathis:
“Governor Jan Brewer and Republican members of the Arizona Legislature have our full faith and support in their recent action to immediately correct the gross misconduct that has occurred on the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. Governor Brewer exhibited extreme patience in allowing Commissioner Colleen Mathis more than enough time to perform her duties and abide by the Arizona Constitution. That time ran out yesterday when Ms. Mathis was removed from her position in accordance with the consitutionally-mandated direct oversight authorized to Governor Brewer. The Governor and Legislature had no other choice but to act swiftly to restore and preserve the integrity of the redistricting process.”
“Until yesterday’s action by the Governor and Legislature, communities across the state were in danger of losing democratic representation or even worse, being disenfranchised as a unique community. That political disaster appears to have been averted.”
“The Arizona Republican Party will stand firmly with Governor Brewer in her effort to correct this gross misconduct and to restore the confidence of all Arizonans in our constitutionally-required electoral process. We are especially grateful for her courage in placing the law above politics and partisanship.”
###
Careful what you wish for….a court drawn map could be even worse.
That’s why Jan Brewer only removed the chairwoman so far. If they can get better lines out of a commission with a new chair, a court drawn map is less likely to happen.
I want a revised 106 placed on the ballot as soon as possible. Only a morally corrupt person such as Big Sis Napolitano could create such a monster as Prop 106.
Thank you, Governor, for taking away Mathis’ state paid 4 -yes four- lawyers to defend her. And you don’t think she is corrupt? Then she would answer the darn questions. Why were the taxpayers paying 4 lawyers at $300 an hour for a month to defend Mathis? And Mathis’ husband is a lawyer glued to her side at every hearing. The corruption by the Guilty 3 is disgusting.
As a lawyer stated on another SA article:
If the Court intervenes on her behalf, the judges would be overstepping their constitutional authority. The Court would be illegally overstepping the State’s constitutional separation of power. The Governor and the Senate followed the rule of law.
I don’t have an opinion on the maps, but I need to commit on the “separation of power” canard.
The separation of power reflect a check and balance system. The legislature can not pass a law that is not constitutional, the president has no budget making authority, the courts can not pass new laws.
There is a branch of justice called Administrative Law, and the core of that law is that the courts are limited in when they can meddle in government affairs, but an equitable relief is always available once all administrative relief is exhausted.
In other words: not so fast with the claims that the court can not here an argument regarding the essential fairness of a the removal, especially where the removal is claimed to be political and results in precisely the harm the law that created the AIRC in the first place.
Again, I honestly have no opinion on the AIRC but have every confidence that a court, somewhere, will have the final say on all this. (I did read the finding published at a url linked in one of the press releases and found some of the argument compelling, with other parts seeming weak. Not being versed in the law, I am content to read and learn and read and learn.)
Oy – here = hear. my apologies for the dropped “s” on many words, dang fat fingers.
Only an attorney would state: “I honestly have no opinion on the AIRC but have every confidence that a court, somewhere, will have the final say on all this.”
Prop 106 amended the AZ Constitution to add this preposterous concept of an ‘Independent’ Redistricting Commission. But in that Prop 106 they allowed for this process of removal of any Commissioner. The process was clearly defined and in this case was followed to the ‘Tee’. But I suppose it’s possible that there is some corrupt, ideologically driven judge will find some excuse to challenge the Governor & Legislature’s actions.
What really worries me, (allegedly) True Conservative, is that you “…honestly have no opinion on the AIRC…” Either you have been living in a cave without any electricity, not following anything in GOP sites like SA; OR you are attempting to claim something you are not. That is to say, you’re not a true conservative. I’ve done significant research into the topic over the past year, and learned about who the players are in this game of manipulation of the system. I warned several of the leaders in the party about my concerns about what I learned, and suspected the shenanigans that would play out. Those concerns pale in comparison to what has actually transpired.
I’m glad to see the Governor and the Senate stand up to the fraud and abuse by the corrupt Democrat activists. When you have a lady who gave Obama $250 BEFORE the first primary, claiming to be an independent, you have to suspect her claims of independence! Colleen Coyle-Mathis’ actions as Chairman prove beyond any reasonable doubt she was acting as a 3rd Democrat on the panel.
So, True Conservative, do your research and then tell me you “…honestly have no opinion…”!
Allow me to clarify – I have no opinion on the maps drawn by the AIRC.
Some of us have jobs … we can’t claim an expertise in all fields.
I do not know the standard of review for a map, I do not know the standard of review for a removal. Do you?
And by that I mean an in-depth understanding, not just some rote recitation of the elements. Do you know the law behind the elements? I don’t. Without that knowledge, I don’t have an informed basis to make a decision.
So, yes, I can honestly state I have no opinion. I don’t have the style of weak mind that blindly supports whatever is popular. I like to research first, conclude later.
My point, the one you failed to address, is that this will end up in the court and in doing so no violation of the separation of powers will occur. That said, it is certainly possible the court will rule the removal lawful, or not so unlawful as to merit a full review.
This just does more damage to an already damaged Republican brand.
It is another shameful abuse of office committed by a self serving Republican politician, backed by other self serving Republican politicians. You are right, Sophia. The “conduct unbecoming an elected official” has become the “brand” of the party and that’s why they are being taken down, one by one.