Attorney General Tom Horne suffered another big defeat in Maricopa County Superior Court today. Judge Dean M. Fink ruled that the Independent Redistricting Commission is not subject to Arizona’s Open Meeting law, which eliminates an entire line of prosecution that Horne had hoped to use to remove members of the commission.
From Fink’s ruling:
Applying the Open Meeting Law to the IRC would subject it to political influence from two sources. The first source, obviously, is the legislature. If the legislature can, through its plenary legislative power, dictate how the IRC is to conduct its business and impose penalties for non-compliance, that power cannot be limited to open meetings; it can be used to harass and hamstring the IRC. The second source is the executive, specifically prosecutors such as the Attorney General and the various county attorneys, all of whom are empowered to investigate alleged Open Meeting Law violations. The threat of prosecution, even a baseless one, can be reasonably expected to intimidate its target.
The Court therefore concludes that the Open Meeting Law, A.R.S. § 38-431 et seq., cannot be applied to the Independent Redistricting Commission.
Also from Fink’s ruling:
The State’s argument that immunity would open the door to evils like bribery and embezzlement is not persuasive. Legislative privilege does not shield those who misuse public office for personal gain. But no such accusation has been made against any of the IRC commissioners. The allegations against them are that they failed to perform their official legislative acts in the proper manner. This is fully within the scope of the privilege.
Therefore, the Court finds that the Open Meeting Law, A.R.S. § 38-431 et seq., does not apply to the IRC, which is governed instead by the open meetings language of Article IV Pt. 2 § 1(12) (the Open Meetings Clause). It further finds that neither the Attorney General nor the Maricopa County Attorney may proceed in their investigation, except as provided by the Rules of Procedure for Special Actions.
While appeals are still possible, this is a major setback to Horne’s efforts to find a way to remove chairwoman Colleen Mathis from the IRC. Horne had already been removed from the case for ethical reasons; it was being handled by the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office.
These allegations that Mathis had violated the Open Meeting law formed much of case against Mathis lodged by Gov. Jan Brewer when she attempted to remove Mathis last month, only to have the Arizona Supreme Court reinstate Mathis because Brewer acted illegally.
This article appears in Dec 8-14, 2011.
So this thing can totally be done in secrecy behind closed doors according the the “judge.” Bravo. That is how democracy should work. In total secrecy. At least when Democrats are doing stuff. Congratulation, liberals, you have finally managed to hide all your dirty work so that it never has to see the light of day. Perish forbid that Republicans should ever try to do the same thing, that would be traitorous.
So the Republicans can’t get their hands on the process and “game the system”? What a shame. Republicans have rigged the system so much that it is good to see at least some obstacle thrown in their path to destroy the will of the majority.
Redistricting is a political issue. Judges should not be a part of it. Governors and legislators are accountable to the people. Judges are accountable to no one. Political issues should be decided in the political arena. If appointed judges and commissioners are to be our rulers, then let’s get rid of elections.
No. It’s not supposed to be a political game Maryalice. If it were then the minority would NEVER have a voice in politics. That is why not allowing municipalities to have party primary elections is also a terrible idea, only popular with the bullies known as the GOP. It allows the only choice on some ballots to be between two people representing the SAME party. That’s not democracy. It’s shameful enough America is a two-party system, it’s abhorrent when anyone suggests we should just do away with one of the parties in locales where the majority favor one. A one party system does not a democracy make. Derp a derp derp. This is specifically why, we the voters of AZ, voted to have a independent redistricting committee, to assure ourselves new district lines would not be designed by whatever party happens to have a majority of power at any particular moment. If you allow for that then you eliminate any possibility of a democratic election as you guarantee voters only have one choice, and one party. Seriously, what rock do you liev under that you would dare call having no choice democracy? What world do you live in where it makes sense to allow one party to have complete control, because, “well derp a derp, the majority of voters like that party and so only they count derp a derp derp.” Fair elections? Good grief. Super frowny face for you.