Thursday, November 3, 2011

Attorney Paul Charlton: Mathis Removal From Redistricting Commission “Had Nothing To Do With the Law, It Had Nothing To Do With the Constitution. It Had To Do With Political Intimidation"

Posted By on Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 4:50 PM

We mentioned on Tuesday that attorneys for the Independent Redistricting Commission would be taking court action to block Gov. Jan Brewer’s removal of Colleen Mathis as chairwoman of the Independent Redistricting Commission.

We haven’t been able to catch up with IRC attorney Mary O’Grady to find out the latest on her legal strategy, but we’re told by IRC staff that she’s working today on the case she’ll be taking to the Arizona Supreme Court.

We did talk yesterday with attorney Paul Charlton, who is representing Mathis. Charlton, a former U.S. attorney for Arizona, says he will ask the Arizona Supreme Court to “affirm that Miss Mathis is still the chair of the Independent Redistricting Commission.”

The gist of Charlton’s arguments:

• Brewer and the Legislature were required to meet some kind of standard before removing a commissioner.

“The governor and legislature were required to provide substantial neglect or gross misconduct, and they did neither, because none had occurred,” Charlton says.

• Gov. Jan Brewer exceeded her authority by declaring that the draft maps were unconstitutional, especially since the commission was in the process of hearing public comment on the lines and could still adjust them.

“Once those lines are final, the way to challenge those lines is in court, not in a legislative body,” Charlton says. “That is the very reason we have an Independent Redistricting Commission, to take that authority away from the Legislature.”

• Brewer and the Republican lawmakers did not grant Mathis proper due process. “Due process requires more than hearsay,” Charlton says. “It requires more than politics. That’s what happened here and why we hope to have the opportunity to convince the Arizona Supreme Court that what the governor and the legislature did was unconstitutional and illegal.”

Charlton says that Mathis’ removal “had nothing to do with the law, it had nothing to with the constitution. It had to do with political intimidation. … It’s wrong, it’s unconstitutional and it’s wholly inconsistent with what the voters put in place with Prop 106.”

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments (2)

Showing 1-2 of 2

Add a comment

 
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-2 of 2

Add a comment

Previously in the Range

More by Jim Nintzel

  • Zona Politics: Your Primary Election Round-Up!

    • Aug 27, 2016
  • The Skinny

    Secret emails, fear of a bugged office, 911 calls: the greatest hits of Pima County Supervisor Ally Miller
    • Aug 25, 2016
  • The Skinny

    Kirkpatrick continues her effort to link McCain to Trump, while McCain links Kirkpatrick to Hillary.
    • Aug 18, 2016
  • More »

Staff Pick

Cool Summer Nights - Teacher Appreciation Night

It’s back-to-school time and the Museum is a great place to bone up on biology, rock out… More

@ Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum Sat., Aug. 27, 5-10 p.m. 2021 N. Kinney Road.

» More Picks

Submit an Event Listing

Popular Content

  1. Zona Politics: Your Primary Election Round-Up! (The Range: The Tucson Weekly's Daily Dispatch)
  2. The Weekly List: 21 Things To Do In Tucson In The Next Seven Days (The Range: The Tucson Weekly's Daily Dispatch)
  3. Casa Video Top 10 (The Range: The Tucson Weekly's Daily Dispatch)
  4. The New York Times is Telling the Story of How Tucson Became an 'Unlikely Food Star' (The Range: The Tucson Weekly's Daily Dispatch)
  5. Cinema Clips: Don't Think Twice (The Range: The Tucson Weekly's Daily Dispatch)

© 2016 Tucson Weekly | 7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 | (520) 797-4384 | Powered by Foundation