Redistricting -- Nudging Federal Court on Legislature's Lawsuit

Apparently, it has been more than six months since anyone has heard anything from US District Court Judge Paul Rosenblatt in the matter of the Arizona Legislature v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, case number CV-12-01211-PHX-PGR.

The Arizona Legislature (actually, the GOP leadership), realizing they were unable to control the AIRC in 2011 like they did in 2001 (with chair Steve Lynn) complained to the court that: 

The Elections Clause of the United States Constitution delegates the authority over the redistricting of congressional districts to the Legislatures of the States. Contrary to this constitutional delegation, Proposition 106 (adopted in 2000) amended the Arizona Constitution – removing that authority from the Arizona State Legislature (“Legislature”) and vesting it instead with the “Independent Redistricting Commission” (“IRC”). The Legislature brings this action requesting the Court to a) declare that Proposition 106 is unconstitutional to the extent it removes congressional-redistricting authority from the Legislature, b) declare that the congressional district maps adopted by the IRC are unconstitutional, and c) enjoin the Defendants from enforcing or implementing any congressional redistricting plan from the IRC beginning the day after the 2012 congressional election is held in Arizona.

You see Judge, those damned voters in Arizona took away our toys. Redistricting isn't supposed to be done by the PEOPLE, but by US, the anointed... er, elected representatives, since WE obviously KNOW BETTER than the people.

Well, Judge Rosenblatt apparently has not considered the matter to be nearly as urgent as Andys Biggs and Tobin and their caucuses. Pursuant to local Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties, not hearing anything for six months, are allowed to politely nudge the judge to remind him of the matter before him.

Therefore, today the parties filed a Joint Notice, the entire text of which reads,

Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(l), it has been more than 180 days since the parties have fully briefed: (1) AIRC Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s June 13, 2012 Order Granting plaintiff’s Motion to Convene a Three-Judge Statutory Court filed June 27, 2012; and 

(2) Defendants Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission and Commissioners Mathis, McNulty, Herrera, Freeman, and Stertz’s Motion to Dismiss filed August 10, 2012, for which oral argument has been requested. Therefore, the attorneys of record in this matter respectfully inquire as to the status of each matter. 

By the way, the AIRC filed a reply to the Legislature's complaint. Of course, the AIRC position is that the vote of the people of Arizona is the final word.

When Judge Rosenblatt makes any ruling or sets a date for any hearing, I'll let you know.