The 2011 AIRC with retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
From Thursday's Yellow Sheet Report,
The Commission on Appellate Court Appointments voted to choose the five independent finalists for the Independent Redistricting Commission. After a thorough discussion about the 10 independent candidates, the commission immediately approved four of five finalists, but had to hold a runoff vote to break a tie for the fifth slot. Nicole Cullen, a Gilbert teacher; Thomas Loquvam, an EPCOR employee who used to work for Pinnacle West [APS, as associate general counsel during the Dark Money heyday of interfering with Corporation Commission elections. Should THIS not disqualify Loquvam and raise the hackles of journalists and concerned citizens throughout AZ?]; Erika Neuberg, a psychologist who has contributed to several campaigns of both Republicans and Democrats; and Gregory Teesdale, a former member of the Coast Guard, made the first cut. Megan Carollo a small business owner, and Robert Wilson, a gun store owner who held a Trump rally in August, initially tied for the final slot, until Wilson won a runoff vote. Three of the 51 candidates for the IRC found themselves out of the running before today’s vetting interviews began – two for being paid lobbyists and one for holding a public office.
As the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments whittled down the list of applicants to semi-finalists last month, commissioners pondered whether independent candidate Mignonne Hollis might be considered a paid lobbyist. Today, the AG’s Office told the commission by its definition, Hollis is a lobbyist and therefore must be disqualified. The same went for Republican Ken Strobeck, the former executive director of the League of Cities and Towns, who had applied as a Republican. Mumtaza Rahi-Loo, a Democrat, later got the axe for serving as a pro tem justice of the peace, which qualifies as a public office – also not allowed on the IRC. Commissioners asked candidates how they would deal with hostility or disagreement within the commission, what competitive districts and communities of interest means for the IRC and how they would handle public scrutiny.
There is no way simply posing those questions, even though they were the most salient questions the applicants could have been asked in a five-minute interview, could convey a realistic sense of what the applicants might be getting themselves into.
We need to give a more thorough consideration to Thomas Loquvam.
In public comment (via ZOOM) on Thursday morning, I pointed this out to the screening committee. On Thursday afternoon, one member of the committee (they didn't have to identify themselves when making comments) flat out contradicted me. As soon as that member did so, I emailed the court staffer pointing out the situation. The staffer indicated she would forward the message to Chief Justice Brutinel. As far as I could tell, nothing further was said about the discrepancy, including when they voted on which five Independent names to adopt.
This matters and is a very salient point. Loquvam also disclosed that he was employed at Arizona Public Service from May 2010 through April 2019. For more than five of those years, he served as associate general counsel for APS. During this period APS has admitted it made substantial Dark Money contributions to interfere with Arizona statewide elections of members of the Arizona Corporation Commission.
This matters and is a very salient point. Loquvam also disclosed that he was employed at Arizona Public Service from May 2010 through April 2019. For more than five of those years, he served as associate general counsel for APS. During this period APS has admitted it made substantial Dark Money contributions to interfere with Arizona statewide elections of members of the Arizona Corporation Commission.
Loquvam's ties (being owned by?) to APS and his disclosed membership on Greater Phoenix Chamber clearly disqualify him. At best, he's a "fake" independent. His ties to interests that taint him are far more pronounced than were the vested Republican interests which applied nearly overwhelming pressure against Colleen Mathis, the independent chair of the 2011 Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.
He must be disqualified. Even a 20 percent chance to be named IRC chair is too high.
Megan Carollo, Scottsdale small-business owner raised concerns of some committee members. Her body language suggested strongly (and was discussed as such) that she could easily get rolled over by the partisan members of the commission. Clearly Megan is a nice person and is able to negotiate in her business. However, planning events (weddings and such) and selling flowers is NOT blood sport.
A related point of history, Jose Herrera, one of the original 2011 Democratic members of the IRC, ultimately decided he couldn't take the intensity of conflict that naturally arose. He resigned.
Shortly after the landmark June 30, 2011 AIRC meeting notable for the intensity of conflict from bussed in Republican voters, the Arizona Eagletarian quoted the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel,
But redistricting instead has become the worst of political blood sports because of the power it gives to those who draw those lines. In the United States, we elect nearly all our legislators by winner-take-all rules, where 51% of voters earn 100% of representation. The power to suppress the voices of as many of 49% of voices in a given area has been an irresistible temptation to our leaders for two centuries...(Milwaukee Journal Sentinal July 10, 2010)
I'm confident that Colleen Mathis would agree.
As much as the current screening committee (Commission on Appellate Court Appointments) clearly tried to do the best job it possibly could; and as much as it was cognizant of the inherent nature of conflict in the IRC doing its job, they just didn't seem to grasp, as a group, the intensity of what the next IRC will certainly endure. Some did. But not all of them, however.
*****
Today after conducting five-minute interviews with nearly 40 Democrats and Republicans, the screening committee adopted a list of 20 names (10 Dems/10 Reps) to forward to the 2021 legislative leadership (who themselves have yet to be chosen since we don't yet know all of those who will be elected).
A couple of my observations from having observed live-streamed deliberations:
A couple of my observations from having observed live-streamed deliberations:
Certain members of the screening committee verbally noted how one or more applicant mentioned that our country is a republic, not a democracy. From the context of the referenced comments, it was clear as mud as to whether any of them understand that "republic" actually means "for the good of the public."
It seems that many Republicans these days understand the word to mean that the voice of the people is not the determinant factor in what elected officials who have some authority (but NOT all of it) to make laws should decide. If only those elected lawmakers and other officials were more concerned with what "for the good of the public" means, rather than for the good of themselves or their Big Money vested interests. There is more than ample data available now to irrefutably demonstrate that the two are mutually exclusive much of the time.
Others commented about how David Mehl (and others) expressed themselves on the interview question about the tension between communities of interest and competitiveness as defined by voters (and interpreted by courts). Perhaps telegraphing his intent to the new Republican legislative leaders (whoever they may end up being) Mehl specifically indicated that he would prioritize all the other factors before competitiveness.
Since the courts have clearly indicated that competitiveness is NOT a subservient requirement only to be considered as an afterthought, that should disqualify Mr. Mehl. However, it's possible that it may have secured his appointment to the commission AND indicated where the next litigation may arise over maps for 2022.
It also struck me as quite odd (and troubling) that the screening committee, on multiple occasions, when motions were made to go into executive session (to exclude the prying eyes and ears of the public from the business of the committee), there was ZERO disclosure of the reason for excluding the public either before or after the executive session.
Others commented about how David Mehl (and others) expressed themselves on the interview question about the tension between communities of interest and competitiveness as defined by voters (and interpreted by courts). Perhaps telegraphing his intent to the new Republican legislative leaders (whoever they may end up being) Mehl specifically indicated that he would prioritize all the other factors before competitiveness.
Since the courts have clearly indicated that competitiveness is NOT a subservient requirement only to be considered as an afterthought, that should disqualify Mr. Mehl. However, it's possible that it may have secured his appointment to the commission AND indicated where the next litigation may arise over maps for 2022.
It also struck me as quite odd (and troubling) that the screening committee, on multiple occasions, when motions were made to go into executive session (to exclude the prying eyes and ears of the public from the business of the committee), there was ZERO disclosure of the reason for excluding the public either before or after the executive session.
Short-listed Democrats:
Ernest Calderon
Bryan Cooperrider
Donald Evans
Robert Kovitz
Shereen Lerner
James Robbins
Derrick Watchman
Maxine White
Teresa Wyatt
Short-listed Republicans:
Jonathan Allred
Short-listed Republicans:
Jonathan Allred
Scott Crouch
Lisa Davis
Paul Djurisic
Kevin Kopp
David Mehl
Brandi Oveson
Walter Randy Schoch
Michael Striplin
Douglas York
The applications are linked here.
No comments:
Post a Comment