Occupy Phoenix -- support the brave ones when they go to court

The Occupy Wall Street movement is barely a month old. Comprised largely of young people who have struggled to begin careers, many of whom already have massive student loan debt, #OWS has changed the national conversation on the role of government. The focus now, despite detractors, is on the uncontrolled greed exhibited by opportunists on Wall Street.

A populist political movement first rose in America in the late 1890s. For whatever reason, that movement went dormant.

After World War II, prosperity spread throughout the country.

Young people began to organize civil unrest in the late 1960s, this time largely because of the Vietnam War.  A charismatic actor rose to prominence and in 1980 his presidency brought sweeping change to economic policy and the role of government. Now, more than thirty years later, the seductiveness of Reagan's policies is wearing thin for the vast majority of Americans.

Last month, perhaps inspired by the so-called Arab spring, young people began camping out in New York City's Zucotti Park, saying they had had ENOUGH.

Cut to October 15 and the spread of OWS throughout the US. Stories on Occupy Phoenix:

• 'Occupy' movement coming to Phoenix 
• Protest movement spreads across US
• Live updates from Occupy Phoenix (doesn't look like this site is still doing live updates)

About arrests for "criminal trespass" for peacefully gathering in a public park, and reflections by some who were arrested:

• An Arizona icon explains "Occupy Phoenix" 
• Occupy Phoenix protesters speak out about arrests (my friend Janet Higgins is quoted in this one) 

As an aside, I thank the many friends of the Arizona Eagletarian who, over the last day or so expressed support and encouragement after I was ejected from a hearing conducted by the Joint Legislative Committee on Interfering with Independent Redistricting. However, I view my act -- (quietly) calling BULLSHIT on our illustrious state Sen. Andy Biggs (R-Publisher's Clearinghouse) overwhelmingly insignificant, in light of what people like Janet Higgins went through.

Janet's court date, on a charge of criminal trespass, a 3rd degree misdemeanor, is coming up on OCTOBER 26 (Wednesday this week), 10am in Phoenix Municipal Court, 300 W. Washington, Phoenix (map and directions here). She could use all the SUPPORT people would be willing to offer, including showing up to let people know Occupy Phoenix does not stand alone. If you go, please dress nicely (professional or business casual would be apppropriate).

-----

UPDATE:

Janet advised me this evening that the charge has been upgraded to Criminal Loitering. She also said an ACLU attorney would be representing her and several of those charged with her. Support would still be important.

Redistricting -- Joint Lege committee on interfering with the AIRC -- first hearing

This morning, the Joint Legislative Committee on Interfering with Independent Redistricting convened at 10am in a state senate hearing room. A half hour earlier, House and Senate Minority legislative leadership, along with Democratic state Rep. Lynne Pancrazi, held a press conference to tell why they decided to boycott the committee.

Representative Lynne Pancrazi and Senator Robert Meza will not be serving on the Joint Legislative Committee on Redistricting because they believe it is inappropriate to lend the credibility of their participation to a committee whose purpose appears only to be political in nature.

Democrats were never informed about this committee. In fact, President Pearce and Speaker Tobin appointed Sen. Meza and Rep. Pancrazi without consultation from Democratic Leadership, a complete violation of protocol.

Sen. Meza had, at the AIRC hearing on October 11 at Phoenix College, testified about his views on the draft maps. If this hearing had genuinely been what legislative Republicans claim (just a fact finding process to simply make recommendations about the draft maps), Campbell and Schapira would have been happy to appoint members willing and able to actively participate.

This evening, the AIRC conducted a Public Outreach Hearing in Globe. Pancrazi was the first person called for public testimony. She represents Yuma and Yuma County. She requested the commission adjust the legislative draft maps to remove Maricopa County from LD4 and LD13. She went out of her way by -- literally -- hundreds of miles (close to 300 miles) to address the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission tonight. That blows away all claims made by the Joint Committee today about Democrats not wanting to participate in advising the AIRC.

From discussions and observations, I believe the four Republican members of the committee have different views, levels of understanding of the process and personal agendas. Based on my phone conversation yesterday with Sen. Steve Pierce and on how he conducted the meeting today, I give him credit for having an open mind and straightforward manner. He wants to figure out what is appropriate to do.

Former House Speaker Jim Weiers asked plenty of questions today. Some of which one might expect a man of his experience (longest serving lawmaker on the panel, has been in one chamber or the other since 1995) to already have answers. Weiers claims a reputation as pragmatic and willing to work with members from both sides of the aisle. In fact, I still have a clear memory of he and Gabby Giffords sitting on a bench in front of the state Senate talking about (working on) legislation. On the other hand, Weiers was the beneficiary of John Mills' efforts to recruit bogus Green Party candidates to dilute the Democratic vote in his district a few years ago.

One observer reported to me this afternoon that when today's hearing adjourned, in response to one question, posed to him, Weiers launched into a 30 plus minute monologue about him and his legislative exploits. I remember him doing the same thing with me about 15 years ago, when I was still working for the state of Arizona. What does this mean about his agenda? It's possible that he is genuinely interested in the committee's fact finding for the facts themselves. But it's also possible, and given grumblings that have been simmering just below the surface for months, he has been tapped by Speaker Andy Tobin to find justification to undermine the AIRC in any way possible.

Weiers, during the hearing today, addressed one criticism of the committee (that they will try to get Mathis removed from her chairmanship) by claiming that no one on the committee has said anything like that. However, in an op-ed piece dated August 22, posted on sonoranalliance.com Andy Biggs said: 

If Ms. Mathis is unwilling to act in an “independent and impartial fashion”, as required by the Arizona Constitution, she should be removed. The bidding process for Strategic Telemetry needs to be reviewed to see if state laws were broken. Mathis and Herrera need to come clean on whether they violated open meeting laws. Mathis needs to order her attorneys to respond immediately to my request for information. 

It's possible that Weiers just did not know Biggs' threats. 

State Rep. Doris Goodale, from Kingman, today asked a sum total of one question. To John Mills, she asked about a small population of Kaibab Indians along the border with Utah. My hunch is that area holds the about 3,500 Mohave County residents currently, according to the legislative draft map, included in the district with the Navajo Nation to the east. Goodale both at the Bullhead City hearing and today, was straightforward and sincere. If she has any other agenda for her involvement in this committee, I would be surprised.

That leaves Sen. Andy Biggs (R-Publisher's Clearinghouse). Biggs has astoundingly good lipreading skills. The Yellow Sheet accounts the events that follow thus:

Liberal blogger Steve Muratore has attended and written about nearly every IRC meeting, but he didn’t get to stay for long at this morning’s legislative committee hearing. During an argument between Biggs and Phoenix resident Tonya Norwood-Pearson over what constituted inflammatory rhetoric, Biggs motioned to a person in the audience who was swearing at him as an example of what was inflammatory, before asking that the person in question be expelled from the hearing. “He’s sitting here swearing at me. That’s beautiful. I would like him removed,” Biggs said. Muratore left quietly and went upstairs to Schapira’s office, where the two presumably watched the rest of the hearing. Both were tweeting throughout the rest of the meeting, with Muratore vowing that he’d have a lot more to say about his ejection. “Biggs being argumentative. I mouth some words to him and he had me kicked out. MORE to come!” he tweeted. After the meeting, Biggs explained exactly what Muratore did that got him kicked out of the meeting. “He was mouthing repeatedly a certain bovine excrement type of swear word,” he told reporters. “For the first two or three minutes, I thought, ‘He’ll get tired of saying it to me. … He’ll get it out of his system.’” But apparently, he didn’t: “At some point I said, ‘Okay, enough’s enough.’” 

Of course, the Yellow Sheet characterization of the situation leaves a lot out and gives Biggs the benefit of the doubt by quoting him. Fact of the matter is that he only looked at me once and the entire lipreading episode lasted MAYBE 15 seconds. But really, ejecting someone reporting on the committee for simply MOUTHING but not saying anything out loud?

We learned a LOT about Mr. BIGgs(hot) from this, however.

If YS wasn't such a slanted gossip sheet, the pejorative label "Liberal blogger" probably wouldn't have been the way to begin the blurb. While the term doesn't offend me, there's no question that the Arizona capitol lobbying "community" (the YS market base) is largely the corporate interests* that work to influence state lawmakers for personal and professional gain. YS saying, "Biggs explained exactly what Muratore did that got him kicked out..." is a subtle but definite way to legitimize Biggs' way of conducting himself as a lawmaker. I'm obviously no more biased than Arizona News Service (which publishes both the Yellow Sheet Report and the Arizona Capitol Times). They are, perhaps, more subtle in their bias, but are still very biased.

Elected officials are, conceptually at least, servants to the citizens. Some (from either or both or neither political party) approach their job as such. What about Andy Biggs?

Biggs was first elected to the Arizona House in 2002, when I was working in the Arizona Capitol Times newsroom. Even prior to taking the oath of office, Biggs appeared at events at the capitol wearing a nametag that said, "Andy Biggs, State Representative." He was, at that time, the ONLY one wearing such a tag.

Various senate observers I spoke with today all described Mr. BIGgs(hot) as TYPICALLY being "graciously impolite" to people who dare to disagree with him, especially those testifying in committee hearings, especially women. Is a servant-leader so insecure and sensitive? Or is that more typical of someone with power issues?

Now, what was going on between Ms. Norwood-Pearson and Mr. BIGgs(hot)? The Arizona Capitol Times described it thus:

The first speaker of the public comment period, a Phoenix resident named Tonya Norwood-Pearson, echoed some of the Democrats’ sentiments. She accused the Republicans of acting with a “mob-like mentality” and trying to undermine the IRC’s independence for partisan political gain, and said they should testify at the IRC instead.

“You are pushing your partisan agenda to forward your own political interests for political gain. It kind feels a little bit like bullying,” she said.

Sen. Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, said the committee was nothing more than a fact-finding mission formed to craft the Legislature’s official response to the IRC’s draft maps. He accused Norwood-Pearson of using the kind of inflammatory rhetoric that she alleged the committee was using.

“Demagogic language would be to say this is mob-like,” Biggs said, shortly before he had a liberal blogger ejected from the meeting for allegedly mouthing swear words at him.

Now, the main thing that occurred to me was that somebody needed to call BULLSHIT on Biggs.


By the way, it was only the $250/month subscribers (to the YS) who were graced with disclosure of the name of that "Liberal blogger."

BIGgs(hot) has been out in front of legislative GOP in criticizing the AIRC. How arrogant is it that he sent forth the August 22 op-ed -- accusing them of refusing to comply with a public records request -- AFTER the commission had notified him that the documents he wanted to review were available for him to do so?

How arrogant is it that Biggs conducts himself as THE arbiter of what's right and appropriate for the AIRC to do and where they should draw district lines?

How arrogant is it that Biggs refuses to hear when everyday citizens criticize his conduct as a lawmaker?

The Associated Press reported this afternoon:

Arizona Senate Majority Leader Andy Biggs says the Legislature will likely have a special session so lawmakers can make recommendations on a state commission's proposed maps of new congressional and legislative districts.

How arrogant is it that Biggs thinks he can continue to pull the wool over the eyes of Arizona citizens AND his colleagues. Some other Arizona lawmakers may know what he's been up to since last spring, but not necessarily very many of them. Whether or not Sen. Steve Pierce has any designs on removing Mathis from the AIRC, there can be no question that is very much Biggs' aim.

-----

Arizona Capitol Times reporter Jeremy Duda reported this evening:

Republican lawmakers got a lot of blowback over their new redistricting committee from legislative Democrats and sympathetic members of the public, but they got what they wanted when a parade of speakers stepped forward to air grievances against the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

Blowback is a fair characterization.  And it's clear they do not want to be seen as subverting the voice of voters. I think Duda nailed this one, in the lede anyway.

Duda also addressed the elephant in the room, so to speak:

An unanswered question hovering over the meeting was whether there would be a special session of the Legislature to remove IRC Chairwoman Colleen Mathis, an independent whom Republicans accuse of being in league with the commission’s Democrats. Mathis can be removed with a two-thirds vote of the Senate, meaning at least 20 of the Senate’s 21 Republican members must vote to remove her.

It is unknown if Senate Republicans have enough votes to oust Mathis. And even if they do, it would be largely dependent on Gov. Jan Brewer calling a special session, something she has been hesitant to do.

Biggs said there has been vote counting and conversations between lawmakers and the Governor’s Office. But he acknowledged that there were a lot of unanswered questions, such as how long it would take to replace Mathis and whether the new chair would have enough time to redraw the maps.

A reporter recently asked AIRC exec. dir. Ray Bladine about the issue, suggesting scuttlebutt has him being appointed chair (since he was on the short list of eligible Independent candidates) if Mathis is removed. Bladine told me he replied, "they'd be crazy to think they could find an independent who would take the job considering the way they've treated the current chair."

They'd have to be REALLY crazy if they thought they could get Bladine to resign his PAYING job with the AIRC to become the volunteer (non-paid) chair.

-----


Speaking of bullshit, the Arizona Republic's Mary Jo Pitzl fact checked Russell Pearce's claim:

“The primary responsibility of the IRC is to protect communities of interest and they have failed to do that,” said Senate President Russell Pearce. “In far too many places neighborhoods that have nothing in common have been drawn into the same district.”

This is from the joint press release by Pearce and Speaker Andy Tobin announcing the Joint Committee. For Pitzl, this one was as easy shooting fish in a barrel. (It is not posted in the press release section of the AZ Leg website).


-----

AGAIN speaking of bullshit, the press release issued by the Senate Republican caucus after today's hearing veers a LONG way from a fair description of the hearing. THIS release undermines the benefit of the doubt I gave to Sen. Steve Pierce. THIS release puts him in league with Biggs and gives credence to the concerns Tonya Norwood-Pearson spelled out at the beginning of the public comment.

And THIS press release underscores the dramatic lengths to which GOP leaders will go to deceive Arizona citizens about the nature of the Joint Committee.

This committee reconvenes on Monday at 1pm. I will be there.

I called Sen. Steve Pierce's office about whether I will be allowed in on Monday. I was told that I would, but I must adhere to the rules of proper decorum.

I think that means they'd rather I not tell them the truth.

-----

*think #OccupyWallStreet

Redistricting -- competition and legislative interference

Previously on Criminal Minds...

Oh, yeah, right, this is not a television program, there is real conflict about real problems and issues of concern to our society, our culture and our political governance.

"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?"Rodney King, May 1, 1992, 

Okay, we know we cannot actually get along. That's why Thomas Paine wrote, long ago in Common Sense, describing the origin and design of government,

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil...

Because it is a necessary evil, there is, has been and always will be great disagreement about what our government should do or refrain from doing.

REDISTRICTING, explained Arizona State University geography Prof. Mike Kuby in testimony at Tuesday evening's AIRC hearing in Chandler, has been a tool to consolidate power for the dominant political party in each state. That is why the tension and political gamesmanship by Arizona GOP leaders has been significant since we heard the first grumblings in December 2010 when Russell Pearce and Kirk Adams filed suit trying to block Paul Bender from being eligible for appointment to the commission.

For decades, Arizona politics has been dominated by the GOP. Prop 106, passed by voters in 2000 was a monumental step toward citizens taking back that power and authority. The bottom line purpose, as stated in the preamble to Prop 106 was for the commission to oversee the establishment of fair and competitive districts.

The GOP out maneuvered everyone else with the first AIRC. Two groups began planning more than a year ago to engage in the process hoping to ensure the GOP did not repeat the travesty imposed on Arizona ten years ago. The Arizona Competitive Districts Coalition, with Democrats, Republicans and Independents, organized and engaged. The Arizona Democratic Party began organizing and recruiting commission applicants even earlier.

When the screening process began, the fact that the GOP took for granted the success it had in 2001 became apparent. When the list of qualified applicants was furnished (in December 2010) to legislative leaders, squawking from tea partiers, GOP officials and fundamentalist right-wing organizations (Cathi Herrod and the Center for Arizona Policy) began in earnest.  


Ever since then, the right-wing has engaged in a propaganda war, not to influence the drawing of the district lines as much as to intimidate and undermine the legitimacy of the independent redistricting process.

The bottom line is that the contentiousness will not let up anytime soon.

-----

Gems from Tuesday evening's hearing in Chandler include:

• Calling on the commission to establish competitive legislative districts, John Gallagher testified that Arizona citizens' frequent use of the initiative and recall processes is evidence of a non-responsive state legislature.
• Martha Jo Billy from Gilbert said that the right to vote is a big lie if our vote can never count for anything.
• ASU student Matt Lucky testified that the ritual of having an election, in itself, is not evidence of a democracy. He cited Iran as an example. Democracy requires meaningful elections.
• Genevieve Vega mentioned the irony that in a national platform document, the Republican party calls for competition, but in Arizona, since they already dominate state politics, they disparage the concept. 
• It occurred to me during the hearing that the contrast in personal style between Russell Pearce and his recall challenger Jerry Lewis is an apt analogy to the concept of a non-responsive (dogmatic) legislature vs responsive. 

Russell Pearce is as combative and dogmatic as they come in Arizona. His judgements are responsive to his hard-line dogma as opposed to the larger, broader perspective of the diverse voters in LD18. His dogma prevents him from recognizing the significance of his anti-Latino rhetoric and policy decisions on the overall economic situation for Mesa and all of Arizona.

Jerry Lewis shares Pearce's conservative overall approach, but seems far more capable of complex thinking and recognition of the impact of his positions on the people around him.

Russell Pearce has thrived in Mesa because the GOP has so dominated Arizona politics over the recent decades that the hardline ideologue voters have only had to vote in primary elections.

In a Mesa district which would have demanded politicians to reach a broader set of voters, someone like Jerry Lewis could have and would have likely emerged years ago.

As to Ms. Vega's point about Republicans and competition, the 2004 Republican platform says (on page 48),

Government should be: citizen-centered, not bureaucracy-centered; results-oriented; and market-based, actively promoting rather than stifling innovation through competition.  

What is more citizen-centered than competitive voting districts? What's more MARKET-based than competitive voting districts? What stifles innovation and positive public policy more than preventing election competition?

There are other very poignant gems in the 2004 Republican platform document, including about corporate accountability. But NOTHING stifles good public policy more than allowing one political party in a state or community to dominate elections.

A dear friend from the 1980s in the Phoenix area moved to Illinois and became a law enforcement officer working for a county government. He was so disillutioned by what he observed (Chicago style politics) among Democratic politicians that he could not tolerate my political perspective when we reconnected on the internet a couple of years ago. I understand his perspective. But in Arizona, the dominance of the Republicans makes the approach taken by Pearce and his ilk intolerable for me.

-----

UPDATE on the legislative committee on interfering with the AIRC:

I just spoke with state Sen. Steve Pierce, one of the co-chairs of the new committee.

He would not give any indication of what the committee would do or recommend to do after the hearing(s) are complete. He did say he believes it will take several days to go through the process. He said all options are on the table. Those options include what AJ LaFaro suggested, removing all five commissioners and starting over, to removing just the chair (Mathis), to recognizing the possibility that citizen complaints are solely political disagreement with decisions and taking no action.

While Pierce sounded like a very reasonable person, I'm not comforted. In saying that he believes it will take several days to go through all of the testimony from the public, that's an indication that tomorrow and at least Monday and maybe more consecutive days, will be highly contentious. I would have to expect that UNfair Trust has been organizing behind the scenes and giving people guidance on what to say to provide justification for the committee to recommend call for a special legislative session.

If advocates for fair and independent redistricting do not show up, this could foreshadow a major set back.

Redistricting -- Joint Lege committee on interfering with the AIRC

The recently announced Joint Legislative Committee on Redistricting is now scheduled to meet Friday morning at 10am in Senate Hearing Room 1.

The agenda is:

ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ARIZONA STATE SENATE

Fiftieth Legislature - First Regular Session

SPECIAL JOINT MEETING AGENDA

JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON REDISTRICTING

DATE:  Friday, October 21, 2011

ROOM: SHR 1 (Senate Hearing Room 1)

TIME: 10:00 A.M.

Senators:                             Biggs

                                           Meza

                                           Pierce, Co-Chair

  

Representatives:                  Goodale

                                          Pancrazi

                                          Weiers (J), Co-Chair

 ___________________________________________________________________________

1.	Call to Order
2.	Overview of Redistricting Process and Mapping
3.	Overview of Draft Legislative and Congressional Maps
4.	Discussion of Pinal County
5.	Discussion of Yavapai County
6.	Public Testimony
7.	Adjourn

 -----

From the looks of the agenda, this will certainly be a propaganda event. Having put calls in to all six members of the committee yesterday, I was only able to speak with one of them. 

Democratic Sen. Robert Meza, as soon as I posed my first question, which was hardly confrontational (I simply asked what he thought about the committee), made an excuse to get off of the phone. He promised to call me back shortly thereafter, but never did.

Never having met Rep. Pancrazi, I cannot say how active of a role she would take in the hearing. However, since she represents LD24 (Yuma), it's very likely it will be difficult for her, logistically, on such short notice, to participate. The bottom line is that if the Republicans had any intention of this committee being legitimately bipartisan, there are numerous other Democratic state lawmakers who would have been more likely to contribute to genuine dialogue.

Expect news coverage on this hearing but if there is minimal citizen turnout, the GOP will certainly attempt to seize some momentum in the propaganda war it and UNfair Trust have engaged in over the last year. Their attorneys (Cantelme and Liburdi) have not, to my knowledge, been overtly active in the second round hearings being held by the AIRC. Whether they show up and present tomorrow or just work behind the scenes to organize those hostile to the independent commission is yet to be seen. But the group's influence will certainly be seen somehow.

Arizona citizens supportive of independent redistricting should try to show up.

Redistricting -- Bullhead City hearing tonight

The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission holds a Public Outreach Hearing this evening (6pm MST) in the Bullhead City Council Chambers. At this point, it's difficult to tell how whether the crowd will be civil or hostile or somewhere in between.  Live streaming video should be available here.

Redistricting -- Super Tuesday, Arizona style -- UPDATED

Yes, Tuesday was a big day for Arizona regarding legislative and Congressional redistricting. Let me count the ways, not necessarily in order chronologically or in terms of significance.

While we've known all along (since late in 2010) that Arizona's GOP elected officials would challenge the Independent Redistricting Commission, we've often been left to guess as to what their next tactic would be. On Tuesday, Senate President Russell Pearce and House Speaker Andy Tobin announced the formation of the Joint Legislative Committee on Redistricting.

Members include Reps. Jim Weiers (Republican former House Speaker), Doris Goodale (R-LD3, Kingman) and Lynne Pancrazi (D-LD24, Yuma); and Sens. Steve Pierce (R-LD1, Prescott), Andy Biggs (R-22, previously of "drown the AIRC in paper" infamy) and Robert Meza (D-LD14, Phoenix). I've put in calls to all six committee members. When I hear from them, I will update this post. Someone familiar with the situation told me neither Meza nor Pancrazi asked to be appointed and speculated that it would be difficult for either to attend a hearing any time on Friday. I will not hold my breath waiting for the Republican committee members to call, so I hope you don't either. Meza returned my call, but as soon as he heard what I wanted to talk about, made an excuse and said he'd call me back in 20 minutes. That was an hour and a half ago.

In the meantime, both Senate Minority Leader David Schapira and House Minority Leader Chad Campbell told me they were not consulted on the appointments. Campbell issued the following this morning:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Sarah Muench
 Oct. 19, 2011
(602) 926-5848

smuench@azleg.gov
  Campbell: ‘GOP partisan games undermine Arizona voters’ STATE CAPITOL, PHOENIX – House Minority Leader Chad Campbell released the following statement today on Republicans’ divisive partisan games with Arizona voters:

“Republicans’ move to form a committee to prevent a fair redistricting process for voters is another partisan stunt to undermine the Independent Redistricting Commission and the will of the voters.
 “First, state Attorney General Tom Horne launches a bogus investigation on the IRC, then Congressional and state Republicans, along with Gov. Jan Brewer whine in chorus when the IRC attempts to level the playing field for Congress with four Republican districts, two Democratic districts and three as toss ups. Now Speaker Andy Tobin forms a committee to thwart the independent redistricting process.
 “Clearly, Republicans are unreasonably threatened by a fair voting process after holding control for more than 40 years. They know Arizona voters want and deserve better, and they’re scared because they’ve produced partisan bickering, not results.
 “Democrats also were never informed about this committee, and Tobin appointed the Democratic member without consultation from Democratic Leadership, a complete violation of protocol. This is the third time he has done this.
 “I guess Arizonans shouldn’t be surprised by Tobin’s actions, given that in August he asked for citizens’ opinions on banning special interests’ gifts to legislators but then called their suggestions “silly.” (See story: Arizonans want legislators to reject gifts)
 “Since when did protecting political parties become more important than protecting our Democratic principles that Arizona and our nation were founded upon?  What a shame.”   -30-

On the subject of Republicans efforts to undermine the AIRC, recently elected LD17 (Tempe/S. Scottsdale) GOP chair A.J. LaFaro spoke at last night's hearing in Chandler. He read a resolution he said had been unanimously approved by members of his group. The statement was so outrageous, I had to ask him for a copy. He sent me the resolution and a cover letter he sent with the resolution to people at the state Capitol.

Mr. LaFaro is not new to Tempe politics. He tried his "blast them with BS" confrontational style of engagement on former Tempe mayor Neil Giuliano more than a decade ago. LaFaro previously led an unsuccessful effort to recall Giuliano. In an apparent case of "can dish it out but can't take it," LaFaro obtained an injunction against harassment on then Tempe councilman Dennis Cahill. Cahill apparently recognized LaFaro as a "bigot, fascist, homophobe, and Nazi" and told people so. Cahill successfully appealed the injunction with the Court saying Cahill was exercising protected political speech and had not directed his comments at, even though they were about, LaFaro.

Anyway, LaFaro's LD17 GOP resolution is, on its face, incredibly outrageous, but is also protected political speech. He declared that the AIRC "knowingly violated" applicable law and failed to demonstrate a "sincere commitment to performing its responsibilities in an honest, independent and impartial fashion." Thinking Arizonans would have to question how he (they) came to those conclusions. The language is that of a court finding. But court findings are generally accompanied by a statement spelling out on what basis the finding was made.

Then, LaFaro recommends: the governor remove ALL FIVE commissioners, that Atty Gen Horne aggressively pursue criminal investigations against them and that

...the Majority Leadership of the Senate and House of Representatives, State of Arizona, make written redistricting recommendations to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission in accordance with Article 4 of the Arizona Constitution that are in the best interest of the State of Arizona, not the Commission’s favored special interest groups... 

Of course, LaFaro's performance was entertaining but it's also a tragic reflection of the Arizona political climate that has us mocked throughout the country and to some extent throughout the civilized world.

There is much more to write about Arizona's latest super Tuesday, but I wanted to get this posted for your edification.

-----
UPDATE

While it is very important to be vigilant about the legislature's obvious intention to interfere in the redistricting process, Pearce and Tobin appropriately invoked Prop 106 language giving the legislature the right to make recommendations on the district lines. The most troubling aspect of the press release, to me, was that there was no agenda and no time given for the committee meeting on Friday. That raises memories of the Alt-Fuels Debacle. The legislature at that time snuck the Alt-Fuels bill through hoping to pass it with no public scrutiny. They "succeeded" but it cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

There are likely very few things the new Joint Legislative Committee on Redistricting can do on Friday. One would hope that discussion by committee members would be more specific to the Constitutional language, rather than efforts, as we have come to expect, to undermine the commission altogether.

Can we view the testimony at the Bullhead City hearing (Weds evening) by Rep. Doris Goodale (a member of the new committee) as encouraging? Goodale's Bullhead City testimony was cheerful, as she gave specific guidance about 3,500 Mohave County residents north of the Grand Canyon. Rather than leave them a legislative district with the Navajo Nation (to the east), according to the draft map, the LD3 state rep. simply wants those people put back with the Mojave County legislative district.

Municipal leaders, like Sam Medrano of Bullhead City, speaking at the start of the public comment period expressed emphatic appreciation that the AIRC heard their requests for a rural Congressional district largely encompassing Arizona's Colorado River communities.

Only one man invoked the worn out tea party talking points, calling on Mathis to step down. Fortunately, the audience was not encouraging rude behavior.

Surprisingly, at 6:55pm, Commissioner Freeman adjourned after ALL people who had requested to speak had their opportunity.

More about yesterday's hearings by tomorrow afternoon.

Redistricting -- eventful day

This evening the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission conducted a Public Outreach Hearing at the Chandler City Council Chambers -- about which I have plenty to write.

Arizona House Speaker Andy Tobin announced a Joint Legislative Committee on Redistricting which is scheduled to meet Friday.

And Commissioner Jose Herrera participated, along with former state Rep. John Loredo, Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission exec. dir. Leonard Gorman, the NAACP's Rev. Oscar Tillman and Arizona Advocacy Network exec. dir. Linda Brown, in a roundtable discussion on minority issues in this year's redistricting process.

You deserve to hear about all three of those events. I will have plenty to tell you about each. If I stay up to do so this evening, I'd be up until the wee hours. So, look for more on Wednesday afternoon.

Here, however, is the text of the Press Release announcing the committee:

From: Mike Philipsen
Date: October 18, 2011 5:17:25 PM MST
To: "Mike Philipsen"
Subject: MEDIA ADVISORY Joint Legislative Committee on Redistricting

MEDIA ADVISORY
ARIZONA LEGISLATURE
1700 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007

           Joint Legislative Committee on Redistricting

(PHOENIX, State Capitol) – The House and Senate today announced the formation of a Joint Legislative Committee on Redistricting. The committee will propose recommendations to the full Legislature, in pursuant of the Legislature’s comment authority under Arizona Constitution Article 4, Part 2, Section 1, Paragraph 16 which states:

The independent redistricting commission shall advertise a draft map of congressional districts… and a draft map of legislative districts to the public for comment, which comment shall be taken… for at least thirty days. Either or both bodies of the legislature may act within this period to make recommendations. The independent redistricting commission shall then establish final district boundaries.

“The primary responsibility of the IRC is to protect communities of interest and they have failed to do that,” said Senate President Russell Pearce. “In far too many places neighborhoods that have nothing in common have been drawn into the same district.”

“We appreciate the hard work of the IRC,” Speaker Andy Tobin said. “It is clear, however, that the draft maps are in substantial need of improvement. It is fitting that the elected representatives of the people have a voice in this important process that will effect legislative representation for the next decade.”
.
                                                                    #####
WHO:  Representatives Jim Weiers (Co-Chair), Doris Goodale and Lynne Pancrazi; Senators Steve Pierce (Co-Chair), Andy Biggs and Robert Meza
WHAT: Joint Legislative Committee on Redistricting
WHEN: Friday, October 21, time and agenda to be determined
 WHERE: Senate Hearing Room 1

-----

Needless to say, I will have plenty to say about this situation and will try to talk to some of those involved before I do so.