Arizona Eagletarian

Arizona Eagletarian

Monday, November 21, 2011

Redistricting -- Brewer/Hauser wants Supremes to reconsider -- UPDATED 12:15am 11/22

This afternoon, Lisa Hauser, on behalf of the governor, filed a Motion to Reconsider along with a Motion for Expedited Consideration of the Supreme Court order given last week in the Special Action to nullify removal of Colleen Mathis from the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

Generally, in order for a court to reconsider a decision, either the circumstances must have changed or new insight on applicable law would have come to light. That could take the form of additional case law that the court did not have before it previously.

After dinner, I will review the documents and opine here with an update to this post. At this point, I'm skeptical of whether there is any additional legal authority presented in the briefs.

-----

UPDATE

In addition to the two briefs (linked above), Hauser also filed a Motion to Stay Mathis' reinstatement (with a copy of the AIRC press release saying they plan to resume meeting to address the maps next week). Further, Fair Trust's chief mouthpiece, David Cantelme filed a Motion to Intervene on behalf of House Speaker Andy Tobin.

An "avid reader" of the Arizona Eagletarian sent the following (which includes reference to relevant Rules of Procedure).
The “standard” – ARCAP 22(c) – is similar to what you stated:  “A motion for reconsideration shall be directed solely to discussion of those specific points or matters in which it is claimed the appellate court erred in determination of facts or law.”
 My own take:Brewer’s brief is part “motion for clarification” and part “motion for reconsideration.”
 First, she demands that the court issue an opinion explaining its reasoning:  “The Governor and the Senate have an immediate right to know what this Court intended by using the word “demonstrate.”” (Br. At 3.)   In this section she uses “birther” language typically targeted at Obama:  The courts have USURPED her authority:  “[T]his Court’s usurpation of the Governor’s and Senate’s authority is exacerbated by its failure to provide any meaningful information sufficient to guide their future conduct.” (Br. At 4)
 ……..Hmmm .  I can’t imagine that that will go over well with the AZ Supreme Court members…
  Second, she argues that the Court got the “political question” issue wrong … and doubles down on the purple dress issue (Br. at 7).  (At page 6 she slams the court again, condemning the  “….decision of the Court to seize the Governor and Senate’s constitutional authority …” )
 I haven’t followed the AZ Supreme Court much (though I’m licensed here, I haven’t done much AZ law at all) – but … seems to me that this is more PR for the move to change the Prop 106 process than a sincere attempt to get the Court to change its mind – b/c you don’t accuse someone you want to hear your views of “usurping” or “seizing” your authority ….
 Just some random thoughts ..
Actually, those thoughts are probably not so random. Several others have already mentioned that this is likely aimed not at the Supreme Court Justices. And given that Can't Tell Me has his nose right in the middle of it, the inference seems to be right on the mark.

I have not yet read the briefs, but wanted to get this much up on the blog for now. I will read them and update again this evening.

Regardless of how the briefs read, Howie Fischer reported this evening:
(Brewer's) Press aide Matthew Benson said it is far easier to come up with maps more to the governor's liking -- and, from her perspective, legal -- by having them redrawn by a revamped commission with someone new in charge. He said once those maps gain commission approval, the only remedy is challenging them in court, something which is much more difficult. 
If this doesn't dispel any doubt anyone had about Brewer's reasons for interfering with the IRC, that person simply wouldn't be able to tell the difference between his (or her) elbow and arsehole.

-----

UPDATE 12:15am 11/22/11

From Brewer's Motion to Stay Reinstatement:

This indicates that the public will not have another opportunity to comment on maps and that the existing draft maps created through a flawed, incomplete, secretive and unconstitutional process is what the public will be forced to accept.
Clearly, the governor and both chambers of the legislature, with Cantelme smack in the middle of the mess, are taking an extremely aggressive posture in their pleadings. They cannot reasonably think they will get the decision reversed. They MIGHT get the Court to expedite the writing of its opinion.

The fact that they continue to make outrageous and willfully deceptive claims shows that their main audience is the rank and file GOP activists, tea partiers and any other opponent of independent redistricting they can find.

It also seems pretty clear from these briefs that the governor wants another shot at removing Mathis. Along with the next shot, IF the Court opinion provides enough wiggle room to do it, will come some effort to repeal Prop 106.

If you know people willing to volunteer to collect signatures for a recall campaign against Jan Brewer, send them to Citizens for a Better Arizona. Randy Parraz on Monday, at the Capitol, laid out the need for 5,000 volunteers to each collect 100 signatures. Well, for every volunteer who collects 200 or more signatures, that reduces the number volunteers needed to reach the goal. If people begin volunteering in droves, the drive will have to happen.

3 comments:

  1. Do you think Governor Brewer is trying to set up grounds to take this to Federal court? I don't even think a Federal court could take jurisdiction as its a purely state constitutional matter (IMO).

    ReplyDelete
  2. My hunch is coincides with what one reader (which I quoted above) suggested, that it is intended as to set the stage for an attempt to repeal Prop 106 by voters.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah, I would have to agree. I just can't see the DOJ signing off on such an election, especially since that election would be when only Republicans can vote (is that even constitutional?).

    ReplyDelete