The focus of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) is supposed to be on the complex task of aligning legislative districts with the latest census results. Instead, the IRC itself has found itself in the center of an increasingly cantankerous public spectacle.
This week’s ouster of Colleen Coyle Mathis, chairwoman of the IRC, capped off months of wrangling, accusations and rebuttals. Only, with the way things are going, there’s no certainty that the 21-6 vote of the state Senate to boot Mathis from the IRC is the end of the drama.
In fact, commission attorneys appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court to block the vote to remove Mathis, but were too late to halt the senate action.
Asked for her reaction to Tuesday’s legislative action, IRC attorney Mary O’Grady replied, “Stunned. By the process and the speed of the process.”
Governor Jan Brewer initiated the process to oust Mathis and called a special session of the Arizona Legislature to secure the Senate vote, which was made primarily along party lines. Republican legislators provided the two-thirds majority vote required to seal Mathis’ fate.
Brewer said in a statement on Tuesday prior to the senate vote, “The Arizona Constitution provides that the governor has direct oversight of the Independent Redistricting Commission, as well as the ability to remove any member due to ‘substantial neglect of duty’ or ‘gross misconduct in office.’ I invoked that authority today with my decision to remove IRC Chairwoman Colleen Mathis, and I’ve called the Arizona Legislature into special session so that the state senate may concur with this removal, in accordance with the Constitution.”
Brewer has expressed concerns about the IRC function, its make up, the conduct of its members, and Mathis in particular, for months. Last week, she distilled those concerns into a letter to the IRC, accusing IRC members of violating public meeting laws to “pre-arrange” voting to award the IRC mapping contract to Strategic Telemetry, a company Brewer says has strong Democratic leanings. Brewer also said IRC members have refused to cooperate with Attorney General Tom Horne’s investigations of the IRC, that Mathis has failed to publicly conduct commission meetings, that the IRC is relying too much on competitiveness as a factor influencing district lines and that the map itself isn’t based on all of the criteria required for developing new maps.
“I recognize that my decision (to convene a special session) will not be popular in some quarters. However, the conduct of the IRC–led by Chairwoman Mathis–has created a cloud of suspicion that will not lift. A flawed redistricting process has resulted in a flawed product,” said Brewer. “Just as disturbing, the public does not have confidence in the integrity of the current redistricting process. As chairwoman of this commission, the buck stops with Ms. Mathis.”
Earlier this week, the IRC fired back at Brewer over her letter to the commission, essentially asking her to stay out of the IRC’s business.
“I respectfully urge you to participate no further in efforts to prevent the commission from completing its work and to end any consideration of removing any commissioners from office,” O’Grady wrote in a letter to Brewer. IRC commissioners reinforced the sentiment in individual letters to the governor.
O’Grady said the governor fell short of meeting Arizona Constitution requirements of citing specific complaints about individual commissioners in her allegations, and said Brewer was interfering with the voter-granted authority of the IRC.
In 2000, voters passed Proposition 106, which establishes a five-member citizen panel to align legislative and congressional boundaries with population shifts revealed in the U.S. Census. O’Grady says that Prop. 106 removes the governor and the legislature from the redistricting process.
Prop. 106 does allow, however, for the governor and legislature to intervene in the event of neglect of duty or misconduct by commission members. It is this authority that Brewer drew upon to support her bid to remove Mathis from office.
“Today’s action isn’t the easy thing, certainly. But I’m convinced it’s the right thing. I will not sit idly by while Arizona’s congressional and legislative boundaries are drawn in a fashion that is anything but constitutional and proper. Arizona voters must live with the new district maps for a decade.”
O’Grady said Brewer’s decision to call a special session was all the more confusing to her because the issues the governor cited as justification for the session are already being addressed in court as part of an ongoing lawsuit.
“Some of these issues had been public for quite some time and were already in court being resolved, which makes it all the more shocking that there would be this sort of political action,” said O’Grady.
Stuart Robinson, public information officer for the IRC, said the commission is continuing with its public hearing schedule, with Vice Chairman Jose M. Herrera, (D-Maricopa County) at the helm. Robinson said he thinks the commission will delay reconvening to discuss hearing results and the redistricting maps until the issue surrounding Mathis’ removal has been resolved.
O’Grady has filed a lawsuit to examine the legality of the governor’s and legislature’s actions.
“It’s unclear if this is what the framers of Prop. 106 had in mind,” said Robinson.
In the meantime, the final public hearing will be held on Saturday, Nov. 5. When the maps will be complete, and the focus returned to their content, is anybody’s guess.
Governor Jan Brewer
