Redistricting -- Republican irony

Well, we finally now know what David Cantelme's been up to for the last year or so with his scheming to usurp independent redistricting in Arizona.

Recall that he began approaching the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission in March or April 2011 with his ruse about ensuring that minority voting rights be adequately respected in developing the maps for Congressional and legislative districts. He and I had our verbal exchange wherein sparks flew in July last year. On July 29, 2011, I quoted a letter he had written to the AIRC.

We further urge the Commission to determine in open hearing what level of voting-age population it will require in minority districts to ensure the rights of minorities to elect candidates of their choice.

He has been goading the commission to do the very thing he just yesterday claimed in briefs filed in federal court that they did. He also accuses them of doing it specifically for the purpose of diluting the voting rights of Republicans.

This action seeks to vindicate equal protection rights secured by the 14th Amendment and the equal population clause of the Arizona Constitution, art. 4, pt. 2, § 1(14)(B), that have been violated by the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (“IRC”). The IRC intentionally diluted Plaintiffs’ votes and the votes of all other voters of all political ideologies – Republican, Democrat, and all others – residing in Districts 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 14-18, 20-23, 25, and 28. 

What the IRC tries desperately to avoid is civil discovery that is bound to reveal what it has been struggling to hide for the entire redistricting process. No constitutional reason justified the vote dilution suffered by the citizens of these districts, and the IRC diluted the votes of the citizens of these districts solely to maximize the strength of the Democratic Party, an unconstitutional justification standing alone for vote dilution. Although there is a rebuttable presumption under federal law that population differentials of up to ten percent are constitutional, the Complaint states a claim for relief that (a) the legislative districts are not entitled to that presumption and (b) the presumption does not exist under Arizona’s equal population requirement. Accordingly, the IRC’s Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) (Dkt. 23) should be denied.

This pleading, obviously written by Cantelme, is much more pointed and strongly worded than the original (and the amended) complaint. This one has his (hostile) voice coming through loud and clear. But it also clearly displays the irony of his scheme.

The language about the IRC trying "desperately to avoid... civil discovery" is complete bullshit. The claims in the complaint were lame and without merit. The motion to dismiss blatantly warranted. What appears desperate, in reality, is Cantelme's hope to NOT have the case dismissed. The complaint did NOT present any credible evidence that anything improper had been done.

Cantelme and company's public records request, (which I mentioned previously) is the "fishing expedition" wherein they desperately hope to find something they can characterize as intent to deprive those poor, victimized Republicans of their voice in the state legislature.

-----

And speaking of irony, surrogates for Andrei Cherny have been busy this evening violating the rule of holes in their hope to characterize any criticism of Andrei's dissembling over the tea party debate videos.

Dick Foreman/Michael Monti campaign tactic! Andrei would have voted for the ACA and I remember angry activists a few years ago because the ACA dropped the public option! Throw mud at Sheriff Joe, he deserves it. Lets stop the negative campaigning in Democratic Primaries! (emphasis mine)

Then, after I called this Cherny staffer on his claim, pointing out that the people he was trying to silence (good luck with that anyway) were on nobody's campaign (or volunteer) staff, he continued digging the hole.

Steve, you might not know Andrei as well as C***** or F**** so maybe this doesn't apply but they KNOW Andrei would have supported the ACA and saying otherwise is not being 100% truthy. It is the type of whisper campaign I have been on the receiving end of in both the Stanton race and most recently the Kolby Granville race. (emphasis mine)

So, Cherny and his surrogates are now claiming that calling Andrei's OWN WORDS to the attention of their facebook friends is negative campaigning and a whisper campaign.

Of course, another Cherny supporter has taken to calling me and other bloggers "bullies" and "lacking credibility" for doing the very same thing.

If Cherny gets his "widdle feewings" hurt by me or others telling the truth about him, how strong of a candidate can he really be?

Or as Democratic activist Fred Barlam wrote tonight,

If Andrei can’t deal with the things that Democrats are throwing at him now, how will he EVER be able to deal with what the TeaPublicans will throw at him if he were the candidate? The Democratic objections that he is running into now will be like CHILD’S PLAY next to that!!!!

Cherny still has not responded to my request for his side of the story, by the way.