FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 4, 2011
CONTACT: Mike Philipsen
Op-Ed by Senate Majority Leader, Andy Biggs
When the drafters of Proposition 106 took their idea to the ballot in 2000, they knew they had to address the possibility of the State needing to remove a Commission member. They wrote that a Commission member could be removed by the Governor, with the support of two-thirds of the State Senate, for acts considered “gross misconduct” or “substantial neglect of duty”
Thank goodness they included that in the proposition approved by Arizona voters. Because of that wording, and the overwhelming evidence that Chair Colleen Mathis committed “gross misconduct” and “substantial neglect of duty”, the Governor was able to remove Ms. Mathis before she could do any more damage to our state.
We have to get past the arguments of which party benefits by which map. That’s not what this is about. To make the decision to remove a member of the IRC, we must look at their actions in office. Take the partisan blinders off and look at how Ms. Mathis committed “substantial neglect of duty”.
- She admitted meeting in violation of open-meeting laws in a pursuit “of consensus” on awarding the mapping consultant contract.
- There is evidence that Ms. Mathis fudged the scoring on the mapping consultant in order that her preferred company was chosen. One political commentator indicated that her actions resembled bid rigging.
- She failed to disclose on her application that her husband was the Treasurer of Democratic candidate for the Legislature Nancy Young-Wright.
- Contrary to the Constitution she appointed two vice-chairmen instead of one.
- Her presentation of a donut-hole map, and the instructions to the Commission was a violation of the Constitutional requirement that the maps work from a grid and make adjustments to that grid.
- She privately created her own Congressional district map and forced a vote on that map on the same day it was introduced.
This list of her misconduct does not even include the pages of unconstitutional activities discovered during the course of the Joint Legislative hearings on the Independent Redistricting Commission.
We don’t even need to speculate on the partisan motivations behind all these actions. The actions themselves are more than enough to remove her.
Proposition 106 included very specific guidelines on the role of the Legislature in the redistricting process. This Legislature has followed those guidelines to the letter. Legislative leaders selected four of the five members. The Legislature reviewed the conduct and product of the Commission and made comments to the IRC. Members did this by convening a joint bipartisan commission, although Democrats shirked their duty by “boycotting” meetings. The State Senate has followed the requirement to review and confirm/refuse in the case of the Governor’s removal of a commissioner. Once the Senate received the Governor’s call of a special session and findings outlined in her removal letter to the former IRC Chair, the Senate had a duty to act.
As the weeks go on, many will discuss whether the IRC system is even the best way to draw Congressional and Legislative maps. But that is the system we are under right now, the Governor and Legislature worked in a Constitutional manner and removed a Commission member for a series of unconstitutional acts.
###
Senator Antenori is absolutely correct-we need to revise 106 and get it on the ballot soon-hopefully for the Presidential primary. Prop 106 does not work. It is estimated that the State has spent $6 million on these corrupt commission with itsw gerrymandered maps. Maybe we need an new idea.
How can a Commission find compromise when you have 2 die hard Republicans and 2 die hard Democrats with a so-called Independent as the deciding vote and Chair? At the bare minimum, we should have 2 preferably 4-5 Independents. And not chosen by Napolitano’s handpicked Court years ago.
We, the taxpayers are required to pay for 4 -yes four-lawyers to defend the Guilty 3 at $300 an hour. Just answer the darn questions!
And why do we the taxpayers have to pay for the 4 lawyers to CONTINUE working on defending Mathis since she is fired and off the Commission? We continue to pay the 4 lawyers at $300 an hour as they file papers to fight against the impeachment. The commission lawyers work for the State and the taxpayers and the entire Commission -not just defend one (ex) commissioner.
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.
We have about 36% Republican registration, 30% Dem Registration and 34% other registration. Why not allow any party with the greater part of 10% registration to have a seat at the Commission until we reach 10 Commissioners. So, currently, We’d get 4 Republicans, 3 Indeps (or maybe even a Libertarian depending on what their registration is) and 3 Dems. That way, as voter registration changes, so will the composition of the Commission. In the hypothetical case where we’d have 50% Dem registration, 10% Libertarian registration, 30% Republican registration and 10% other, the Dems would get 5 Commissioners, the Libertarians 1, the Republicans 3 and independents or PNDs would get 1. Such a composition mechanism would be a great incentive for the parties to cater to the masses so they can increase their numbers. Put it on the ballot so the voters can decide. If it loses, it loses, if not…at least via voter registration the Commission would more accurately reflect the population rather than the current set-up where Dems get 40% representation on the Commission while they’re only about 30% of the electorate. In other words, the Democrats are actually OVER-represented on the Commission. Indeps, which comprise about 33% of the electorate only get 20% representation on the Commission. Is that fair to Independents?
Thanks, Senator Biggs. You explained it well, especially, “We have to get past the arguments of which party benefits by which maps. That’s not what’s this is about. To make the decison to remove a member of the IRC, we must look at their actions in office.” And that’s the problem with Colleen Mathis: her actions in office are unconstitutional and disgraceful.