The Court therefore concludes that the Open Meeting Law, A.R.S. § 38-431 et seq., cannot be applied to the Independent Redistricting Commission.Fink also wrote:
Therefore, the Court finds that the Open Meeting Law, A.R.S. § 38-431 et seq., does not apply to the IRC, which is governed instead by the open meetings language of Article IV Pt. 2 § 1(12) (the Open Meetings Clause). It further finds that neither the Attorney General nor the Maricopa County Attorney may proceed in their investigation, except as provided by the Rules of Procedure for Special Actions.
For the foregoing reasons, as well as others expressed by the IRC and the individual commissioners in their briefing and argument, the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the IRC and joined by Commissioners Mathis, McNulty, and Herrera is granted. The State’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
This is a clear victory for INDEPENDENT redistricting and another spanking applied to the partisan forces that have tried to hinder the process.