Statement from Governor Jan Brewer on Redistricting in Arizona


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 29, 2011
CONTACT: Matthew Benson

“Perhaps the most difficult part of being a leader is telling people what they don’t want to hear. This is one of those moments. I share the sentiments of Arizona voters concerned about the conduct of the Independent Redistricting Commission, especially its Chairwoman. Likewise, I am deeply concerned that this year’s redistricting process has not been conducted openly and in full accordance with the Arizona Constitution, and that the resulting maps may unfairly diminish the political influence of individual communities and the state as a whole.

“It was with those concerns in mind that I removed the Chairwoman from her post with the IRC. I stand by that action, and believe the Arizona Supreme Court grossly erred in returning the Chairwoman to the Commission. There may be another time to deal with the Court, but it’s important at a time like this that we keep our eyes on the bigger picture.

“Arizona voters created the Independent Redistricting Commission with their approval in 2000 of Proposition 106. I’ve seen no evidence to date that indicates voters are ready or willing to throw out the Commission structure. Moreover, the Legislature has yet to produce a consensus set of redistricting reforms to propose to voters.

“I am aware of the time urgency. I know that some legislators, especially those of my political family, are anxious for me to call a Special Session so that they may pursue a ballot proposal to repeal or reform Prop 106. But we cannot act in haste – or in anger – when it comes to something as critical as the way in which Arizona draws its congressional and legislative districts. Our action must be reasoned and rational, and there must be a defined path to victory with voters. I will not call a Special Session on this topic unless and until I believe those bars have been met.”

###


Comments

  1. Deja vu.

  2. Mike Triggs says:

    Good for Governor Brewer. I’m not sure they could have changed the Constitution in a Presidential Primary anyway. With the exception of the incumbent officeholder and a few nutballs here on Sonoran Alliance I didn’t see a groundswell of support for jumping off a cliff.

    Thanks governor for listening to the voters on this one … We’re not as dumb as those who pull the political strings think!

  3. G.E.D. Jan lets the base down. Quelle dommage.

  4. Maybe Jan actually understands that the voters like to see what they voted in as law stay as a law? Way to go GED Jan, you figured out something.

    • Steven Robinson says:

      Both you and Klueless Klute seem to forget that Einstein was a high school dropout and Thomas Edison, the most prolific inventor in the first 150 years of our country, didn’t go past the 6th grade. Oh yes, Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard!

      So take your practically worthless degrees (if any) and your inability to make any cogent arguments, for or against Jan Brewer’s decision; and your last $3 and buy yourself a half-caff, grande mocha latte!! That is IF you can formulate a cognizant and understandable spoken sentence at the local Starbucks! LOLOL

      • What the hell are you talking about? Einstein went to one of the most presitgious universities in Europe, the Swiss Polytechnic Institute. And yes, Bill Gates went dropped out Harvard. The difference between him and G.E.D. Jan is that Bill Gates GOT INTO HARVARD. G.E.D. Jan couldn’t hack it 4 years of high school.

        “…and your last $3 and buy yourself a half-caff, grande mocha latte!! ”

        Ah, liberal sterotypes, where’d you learn them, your Atlas Shrugged coloring book?

        “That is IF you can formulate a cognizant and understandable spoken sentence at the local Starbucks! LOLOL”

        It’s fun to laugh at your own jokes, isn’t it Steven? It’s better to have other people laugh at them.

  5. I guess we’ll just have to go register more Republicans to make this even more difficult for Democrats. :)

  6. Now if we could get Jan to stop all of the nonsense concerning Prop 203, another on of those pesky “Voter Approved” propositions.

  7. Thanks, Governor Brewer.

    If all state agencies, commissions, committees, legislature would follow the Open Meeting Law, these fiascos might be less frequent. Guess there’s no one enforcing this one. Oh, I forgot, these “behind closed-doors, secret meetings” are being held by those who are above the law.

    For those who don’t know there is such a law, refer to:

    http://www.azleg.gov/ombudsman/Open%20Meeting%20Law%20101.pdf

    • True Conservative says:

      I largely agree with you, but with a slight twist.

      The open meetings law needs to be rewritten. In its current form, the law only applies with a quorum exists. In other words, if its just a series of one-on-one or similarly less-than-quorum negotiations, then the law doesn’t apply.

      Because of that legal requirement, the secret meetings that certainly frustrate the purpose of the law did not, in fact, violate it.

      As such, serial secret negotiations and deal-making are carried out, lawfully but unethically, about which we the people never get to see.

      • Then change the law. Understand your point about the secret negotiations being unethical, but it seems the legislature is still trying to define ethics. How long has it been since there has been an ethics investigation about ANY questionable behavior? What are the chances those boys will change the law?

  8. Steven Robinson says:

    Well it’s interesting to see that the liberals come out of the woodwork to ‘endorse’ this lack of action by the Governor. Ironically I agree with her decision not to hastily act, but for significantly different reasons.

    The liberals and the loons like ‘Klueless Klute’ love the deliberate manipulation by the Dems of this so-called Independent (NOT!) Redistricting Commission. When I started researching this concept last year and realized the Trojan Horse efforts by the liberals to hijack and take the process of the VERY people accountable to the people for the process and put it into the hands of UNACCOUNTABLE and UNELECTED people who plan to manipulate the process; I warned several legislative leaders about the potential for fraud, and i predicted that this would happen. Unfortunately I was right.

    So what is my recommendations? FIRST, get Congress to throw out the Voting Rights Act, which a fraud used to manipulate the redistricting process for the benefit of liberal Democrats. (How could ANYONE believe that because we didn’t have bi-lingual ballots in 1972, yet was instituted in 1974 would be a legitimate reason for putting Arizona under that law??!!) That probably won’t happen so here are some real ideas. Propose revisions to the process that would TRULY reform the process and give ultimate responsibility to the elected legislative leaders, where it ultimately belongs.

    1. Increase the number of commissioners to 7 or even 9. Don’t allow the deck to be stacked but give more voice to the people, even including executive and legislative leaders a voice in the selection process

    2. Take the vetting process of the candidate OUT of the hands of that kangaroo court called the Commission of Appellate Appointments. This group of disingenuous liberal lawyers are as about as honest as US Attorney General Eric Holder.

    3. Have the Commission prepare LEGITIMATE mapping proposals, and perhaps have the Legislature select the Mapping experts and even the legal representation for the Republican and Democrat commissioners. You can’t have a Liberal Democrat (disguised as an Independent) and two Liberal Democrats deciding who represents the Republicans and who will be the Mapping group.

    4. Finally, Have the Commission present 3-4 different mapping proposals to a Special Session of the Legislature for vetting and passage of one of the plans, Perhaps in September or October.

    I suspect the liberals who love the appearance of ‘non-partisanship’ while practicing EXTREME partisanship will shriek in protest at these recommendations. After all, they see nothing wrong with the faux independent redistricting commission. Just like they see no problem with a dictatorship like North Korea or Cuba being called “The Peoples’ Republic of…” The reality isn’t important, just the impression to the ‘sheeple’.

    You can’t take the politics out of the process, we just need to make it more transparent.

    • Great ideas, but I wonder if #1 is necessary. I think if we still have an even number of R’s and D’s, with the Independent as a tie-breaker, the party members will vote in blocks and offset each other. All the power actually rests in the single Independent on the Commission now, and I don’t see how that changes by increasing the number of members (unless you increase the number of I’s).

      • Steven Robinson says:

        Perhaps having 2 ‘I’s and let the majority party have 3 positions and the minority party have two positions. Then have each party choose an ‘independent.

    • If a super majority of 4 instead of a simple majority of 3 of the 5 commissioners is needed to pass anything, then everything would probably be more fair and reasonable. Increasing the size of the commission won’t help much if a super majority is not required. If there is no consensus on a farily mechanical process of setting up new districts, then there is no hope of the IRC doing a competent, honest job.

      If they can’t reach a consensus by a deadline early enough to allow review before the ’02 election, then the responsibility for redistricting should revert to the legislature.

      The legislative leaders and the governor should be able to directly appoint one person each. There should not be any commission involved with filtering appointments. Perhaps the governor would be responsible for appointing the Independent? Requiring a super majority to pass anything would make this acceptable.

      If the constitution were to have the IRC provisions amended instead of repealed, it would probably work to help fix the process and make it more fair and more reliable. Voters would probably accept this sort of amendment to help resolve the problems we are seeing. I agree that repeal might not get support from voters even though repeal would probably be the best policy if it were achieveable.

    • “I warned several legislative leaders about the potential for fraud…”

      And no one listened to you? You were probably so rational and cogent, how could anyone ignore you?

      How’s it feel knowing that G.E.D. Jan has sold you Tea Partiers down the river again? The school tax thing, not going after the AIRC, failing to save Russell Pearce.

      The only thing she’s ever done for you baggers is sign SB1070, and a trained chimp could have done that.

      You probably worked so hard for her in the election, Steven. And this is how she repays you.

      HAHAHAHAHA!

  9. Randy parraz says:

    Me and my bud Chad boy is coming after you, you skanky old ho! Just you wait!

  10. I am pleasantly surprised by this. A knee-jerk reaction is not what is needed in this instance. If she and the Legislature can come up with an alternative for voters, I’d love to see it. Until that time, blowing up a voter-approved process because you may not like the outcome 100% is a little hasty.

    I still think she could take another run at removing Mathis by expressly spelling out her standards for “gross misconduct” and giving the Chairwoman ampled time to respond to the allegations. The way the Supreme Court worded the decision definitely left this option open and I think another run would remove the current cloud of ambiguity surrounding their decision for future Governors.

  11. Mike Triggs says:

    Steven – excellent suggestions!. Very well thought out!

    Shane – Something tells me Randy Parraz did not write that comment attributed to him.

    • No one believes that.
      It was blatent sarc/
      Parraz sounds exactly like True Conservative. Just a genuine coincidence, though, even in a time when genuine is a scarce commodity

    • Steven Robinson says:

      IF this room temperature IQ’ed nitwit spent as much time talking to his own party (La Rouchies?? or perhaps the Coneheads from SNL) as he spends trying to ridicule Conservatives and Republicans (THUS exposing his complete lack of intelligence) the minority party, Democrats, wouldn’t be only 1/3rd of the members in each House! Oh wait… There would probably 25% or less in each House for the Democrats! LOL

      Klueless Klute, You are a HOMOPHOBIC Bigot! Didn’t you get enough (or TOO MUCH?) daddy’s love??

    • Steven Robinson says:

      Mike Trigg: My last comment was in response to Klueless Klute (name of a hooker, played by the traitor Jane Fonda.

      Thank you for the comment about my suggestions. They bear close scrutiny by the legislature. Politically, we have to present options that the people recognize will solve a very serious problem in this process.

      • I don’t what’s funnier: you suggesting I’m a homosexual in accusing me of homophobia or deriding my IQ while REPLYING TO THE WRONG PERSON.

        And also, no, my stage name doesn’t come from the Donald Sutherland/Jane Fonda movie. Check the Klute wikipedia disambiguation page if you want to know the genesis.

        • Steven Robinson says:

          Well Klueless,I had posted it to your earlier comment. But when I started to post my response to Mike Trigg, my reply to you accidently appeared and I clicked “Enter” before I realized the computer glitch.

          And NO, I didn’t insinuate you were a homosexual, I simply pointed out your gay-bashing term used to insult Tea Partiers. It is interesting, however. I’ve often stated that Fred Phelps loud gay-bashing was a cover-up for his own latent homosexuality.

          And I do see the parallet in your constant rants and insults here!! Perhaps you have some “Latent” conservative tendencies that you are trying to quash???

          Inquiring minds want to… No! We REALLY don’t give a damn! LOL

          • “And NO, I didn’t insinuate you were a homosexual, I simply pointed out your gay-bashing term used to insult Tea Partiers.”

            No, you didn’t. Simply pointing it out, would have been, well, simply pointing it out.

            You said:

            “Klueless Klute, You are a HOMOPHOBIC Bigot! Didn’t you get enough (or TOO MUCH?) daddy’s love??”

            So, perhaps you’d like to explain this to the class. What does homophobia have to do with getting too much or too little of my father’s love?

            “Inquiring minds want to… No! We REALLY don’t give a damn! LOL”

            Apparently you do, because you asked the question.

  12. ReallyConservative says:

    Jan-speak translated to English: “My poll numbers nosedived like a rock after firing Mathis. I’m really sorry about that and promise to drop this matter entirely now. Please, please start liking me again. I need this job.”

    Clear enough?

    • Steven Robinson says:

      Well (Not)ReallyConservative, boy are you DIDs (Democrats in Disguise that is, a Liar) coming out of the woodwork (Or is that, the sewer?) in typically cowardly fashion!

      Your words translated into common sense says I hate all things Conservative, and since I it in my mother’s basement drawing SSI or Disability while in my undershorts, and have no useful abilities, I’LL JUST INSULT EVERYTHING Republican! LOLOL

      • ReallyConservative says:

        OK, Steven Robinson. Name calling is fun and all, but let’s keep this discussion to the matter at hand. That’s how grown ups talk. Seems you don’t know that so I’m reminding you. And please, since you’ve called me a liar, tell me what my lies are?

        Since you know everything about everyone then YOU explain why Brewer shifted gears here and is suddenly cowering about all things IRC. Why did she break her promise to the senate to call a special session to repeal the voter initiative that created the IRC? She talked a big game two weeks ago. What happened? Have anything to do with the Capital Times poll that came out recently showing her numbers having dropped sharply? Could it be that she miscalculated here and pissed off the voting public big time? Jan is retreating with her tail between her legs. No other way a reasonable person could reach a different conclusion.

        I expect no response from you, as I think you aren’t prepared to engage in fact-based adult discussion without calling names. Prove me wrong.

        • Steven Robinson says:

          Aahh! (Not)Really Conservative, you are mistaken, once again! To engage in a fact-based adult discussion we would necessarily have to have two ‘adults’. Now I’d like to believe you are an adult, but without your real name we can’t verify that! There’s no doubt about my status, since I use both my name and photo.

          S0 regarding Brewer, whether she is following polls or that there was a misunderstanding I don’t know. I will talk to my State Senator about his knowledge of the issue. I’m not a Brewer defender by any stretch of the word. I simply acknowledged the political realities.

          SECOND, She can’t run for Governor again! So explain to all of us this: WHY she would care about poll numbers??

          And while you’re at it, step out from behind the facade and prove you are an adult!!

  13. There have been about 15 comments on this of which 11 are Liberal Leftwho don’t think much of Conservatives discussing amongst themselves how much they like Brewer’s stance, even if a few still need to insult her education credentials.

    Bet the Liberal blogs don’t allow Conservatives to dominate their discussions.

    • True Conservative says:

      You would be surprised. I spend more time on their blogs thrashing everyone (not just the lunatic fringe) than I do here, and on those blogs I am deemed very, very conservative.

      Here’s a list. Happy Hunting.

      http://www.maricopadems.com/az-liberal-progressive-blogs

      • Conservative American says:

        Is that right, TC. Then, as a “true conservative”. you shouldn’t have the slightest problem defining marriage for us, should you. Conservatives define marriage as being exclusively the union of one man and one woman. What is your “conservative” definition of “marriage”, TC?

        Don’t be shy now, Miss Conservative. Give us you definition of “marriage”.

    • Wanumba; Are you the judge of who here is Liberal or Conservative? Based on my comments, which column do you put me in?

      I think allowing and respecting both points of views is a healthy thing. Sure, some go overboard; personal attacks are unacceptable. But I don’t see anywhere on the site where an opposing view is not allowed.

      You sound kind of territorial here.

      • No. Did I shut anyone down? Anyone terrified they’ll go to prison because of that observation? No. THat’s the tyranny of a sitting government, not a casual citizen, isn’t it?
        So, Hmm? It’s just for passersby who may wonder why a “Conservative” site looks like a bastion of Liberal Left.

    • You just hate that whole freedom of speech thing don’t you?

      Real conservatives welcome debate, fake ones whine and want to censor.

      Free speech is a real drag, you might have to hear something different, and perhaps learn..

      • Refer to my above comment. If I wanted to hear what you say, you’ve already said it on other blogs, it’s just boring redundant here with no new ideas.

        • Let me know when you actually have a new idea. LOL

          • You’d reject it instantly without considering it, because of your racist bias against Conservatives, so what’s the point?

            • Wait, conservatives are now a “race”? Since when?

            • You whine more than the liberals! Racist against a political group?

              Either you are just:

              a) really stupid

              b) think that all conservatives are the same race (what race would that be?)

              CA is just an uneducated fool, I understand his limitations, but you can actually communicate, but I can’t figure out your excuse for so many flat out stupid posts.

              • I can communicate in three languages, but you do not want to hear it. You want me, and by extension millions of people like me, to discard all that I’ve learned the hard way for over forty years for your opinion, which is empty of any similar experience, while other Left posters demand that I capitulate and deny what I saw with my own eyeballs, and you call my posts “stupid.”
                You want to throw the truth out because it doesn’t mesh with the facade? Isn’t it that the facade should be dumped in favor of truth?

                How stupid is that?

                There’s a problem with “uneducated” and “limitations” but it’s on the Liberal Left Democrat side.

                As for racist, what do you call stereotyping a person you’ve never seen based on your politically-formed biases ? Yeah, it could be “tribalism” but then I’d have to take a full page to get you up to speed explaining what THAT means in socio-political-cultural terms lest you assume that’s some cartoon-level comment.

                You have the power in your own hands to improve yourself.. in background, in training, in experience.. even taking on learning a foreign language… but I can’t figure out your excuse for flat out not being willing to do that.

              • I speak a bit of spanish, learned a bit of czech and russian. Been to over 50 countries, have a degree and advanced certifications. I’m not some GED office holding Governor.

                Your “racist” lament was stupid, just admit it was a mistake to say it and you look like less of a fool. I’m glad you are working in Africa, if the economy were better I might be working in Europe now, that is one of my goals, may happen sooner rather than later.

              • Steven Robinson says:

                Well THAT’S news: Lampoon admits liberals whine! At least that is a step in the right direction towards a semblance of honesty. I see Lampoon, that while you attack minor mistakes like using the term ‘racist’ when Wanumba more correctly meant “Ideologically bigoted”, YOU accuse him of wanting to deny your freedom of speech (display your dishonesty and ignorance, in most cases) WHEN in fact, he was pointing out, QUITE accurately I would say, the complete intolerance of Liberals/Socialists towards ANY conservative speech. Just look at those at Columbia University who drove Jim McGilchrist off the platform, and attempted to do the same to Ann Coulter and many others. It’s not a recent phenomenon either. Over 25 years ago Portland’s Lewis & Clark College students attempted to shout down Jeanne Kilpatrick (sp?) as she spoke to the student body.

                Wanumba was pointing out this clear difference. Liberals CANNOT win in the Arena of Ideas, so all they have to win the ‘war of words’ is brute bullying force, Alinsky-like tactics of insults and sarcasm, OR as Obama’s buddy Bill Ayers pointed out would be necessary to 25-30 million Americans; ‘Elimination’ (euphemism for mass murder) of those who couldn’t be ‘Re-Educated’! Yes Billy boy is on tape as making this statement over 30 years ago and he’s still the same Marxist he was then.

                In a Socialist state, totalitarian control, including and especially political speech, is a necessary prerequisite for implementation of a complete Command & Control, centrally managed economy. That is what we are facing as an option to our system of economic freedom and personal liberties.

                So, Lampoon (or is baboon a better description?) respond to this comment, if you dare.

              • So, Radical American Patriot says…

                “Liberals CANNOT win in the Arena of Ideas, so all they have to win the ‘war of words’ is brute bullying force, Alinsky-like tactics of insults and sarcasm…”

                And then a few paragraphs later…

                “So, Lampoon (or is baboon a better description?) respond to this comment, if you dare.”

                You do understand what the words “insult” and “saracasm” mean, right Steven? Or did you press the wrong button again?

              • Steven, hypocrite much?

                If I dare?

                BWAAAAHAAA (hyperbole, look it up)

                You are too much. Baboon? Wow, you rhymed a word!

                Wanumba claimed racism, pretty damned stupid on his part, doncha think?

                Not a liberal, not by any means, but, I’m not like you, and I’m pretty happy about that.

  14. Brewer talks about there maybe being another time to deal with the overreach of the court. With a majority in the House and 2/3 majority in the Senate, there is no better time to deal with the court than NOW. If it is done quickly, it will be old news by the time the 2002 election is held and won’t hurt Republican candidates – at least not very much. If it is done later, it will be a significant issue in the election. If we wait until after the election, we might not have a 2/3 majority in the Senate.

    What Brewer is really saying is that she won’t do anything about the court exceeding its authority! Probably, she doesn’t want Republican legislators or herself to look “mean” to the public.

    • True Conservative says:

      Academically, I would be fascinated to see that happened. Co-equals squaring off, the poltical nature of the supposedly non-political judiciary exposed … that’s law-porn for guys like me.

      The danger is that there must be a trial, and in that trial the justices may win in the court of public opinion and that opinion may last longer than the few years you suggest.

  15. Conservative American says:

    NOTICE: The above poster, “True Conservative”, is a same-sex marriage liberal posing as a conservative.

  16. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
    Lampoon says:
    December 2, 2011 at 6:09 am

    I speak a bit of spanish, learned a bit of czech and russian. Been to over 50 countries, have a degree and advanced certifications. I’m not some GED office holding Governor.

    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    You demean a lot of people who didn’t get anything more than a GED:

    “Because of Vaclav Havel’s bourgeois history, the Communist regime did not allow Havel to study formally after he had completed his required schooling in 1951. In the first part of the 1950s, the young Havel entered into a four-year apprenticeship as a chemical laboratory assistant and simultaneously took evening classes; he completed his secondary education in 1954. For political reasons, he was not accepted into any post-secondary school with a humanities program; therefore, he opted to study at the Faculty of Economics of Czech Technical University in Prague but dropped out after two years”

    “Poland’s Lech Wałęsa was an electrician by trade, with no higher education.”

    ..wikipedia …

    Given the politics, and the basic common decency, both leaders would find it much easier and pleasant dealing with (R) Governor Brewer than anyone from Harvard, Yale and Princeton combined.

    I can’t imagine how you would insult tri-lingual Africans if you showed up here with that dismissive attitude.
    A college degree doesn’t make ANYONE a better person, and these days, it’s not even a guarantee of a paying job of any kind, so why do you continue to spit on Brewer for what she had to earn with hard work? You can’t just disagree without being repulsive about it?

    • Steven Robinson says:

      Well said Wanumba! Lampoon presents no new ideas, simply rehashing of tired, overdone insults directed towards all things conservative. I believe the Beverly and others, misunderstood your comment. You weren’t complaining about the libs who rant, and insult; simply pointing out the dichotomy and hypocrisy shown by the liberals.

    • So, you’re comapring the Czechoslovak government preventing Havel from getting an education, to G.E.D. Jan having education handed to her on a silver plate and refusing it.

      You insult Havel with this comparison.

    • I spent a good deal of time in Prague in the early days of freedom, for you to compare a leader like Havel or Walesa to Brewer is the height of ignorance (and its funny as hell). But, run with it, it makes me laugh. (and I think Steven has a mancrush on you)

      • WHy are you using GED as an insult?
        A lot of people have GEDs and they’re doing very well .. and that Brewer’s GOVERNOR in most people’s books would be an excellent return on investment.

        I notice you aren’t, even though you have assured us all you’re smarter, better educated and better traveled.

        • Nothing wrong with a GED, unless you stop at that level like the Gov.

          Didn’t say I was smarter, but I am better traveled.

Speak Your Mind

*