The Brewer administration has cut off funding for the attorney for the chairwoman of the Independent Redistricting Commission even as she is fighting her firing by the governor.
"Colleen Mathis is no longer a state employee,'' gubernatorial press aide Matthew Benson said Friday. "Under what grounds would we continue funding her legal defense?''
Mathis and the full commission contend her firing on Tuesday was illegal. They want the Arizona Supreme Court to rule that the governor exceeded her legal authority in dismissing Mathis and the Senate acted illegally in ratifying Brewer's decision.
But Benson said his boss stands by her action, believes it was authorized, that Mathis is out, "and the state is not in a position to fund her legal activity.''
Paul Charlton, the attorney the commission hired to represent Mathis, said he cannot discuss anything about his fees. But he said the state's premise will be proven wrong.
"My opinion ... is that she is the chair of the IRC,'' he said. Charlton predicted the state's high court ultimately will side with Mathis.
The move to cut Charlton's funding comes as Mary O'Grady, who represents the full commission, asked the Supreme Court Friday to let Mathis continue to serve while the legality of her firing is debated. She said the actions by Brewer and the Republican-controlled Senate amount to a "political power grab'' that voters specifically sought to prevent when creating the commission in 2000 to remove redistricting from the political arena.
Late Friday, the justices gave Brewer and the Republican senators until 5 p.m. Monday to respond to O'Grady's plea, with O'Grady then getting until noon the following day to counter any arguments. Justice Scott Bales will have a separate discussion with the lawyers Monday on how quickly the case will proceed.
O'Grady said the legal fees problem could be solved if the Supreme Court grants her motion, meaning Mathis remains a state employee for the time being and Charlton can continue billing the state. But if the court declines -- and Mathis is presumed ousted during the legal fight -- O'Grady said that presents a different problem.
The constitutional amendment which created the commission to draw congressional and legislative boundaries gives the governor the power to remove any member for "gross misconduct'' or "substantial neglect of duties.'' In her dismissal letter to Mathis, Brewer said she was guilty of both, citing what the governor said were violations of the Open Meeting Law and failure to comply with constitutional requirements in how the maps were drawn.
But O'Grady, in legal papers filed Friday, said there is no conceivable way that any of Mathis' actions fit either definition.
"This strange logic is applicable only in the world through the looking glass,'' O'Grady wrote, quoting from "Alice in Wonderland'': " 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' ''
Benson said the fact that the phrases allowing removal are not defined in law means "it's left to the discretion of the governor.'' He said as long as Brewer informed Mathis of the charges, gave her a chance to respond, and got the consent of two-thirds of the Senate, that makes the governor's actions legal -- and beyond the reach of the Supreme Court.
"Removal from office is a political check, it's not a judicial check,'' Benson said. "Courts have no authority to intervene in this case as long as the removal is procedurally handled.''
Senate Majority Leader Andy Biggs said there was evidence to support Brewer's decision. He recited a litany of allegations, including lining up votes ahead of time for a consulting contract, failing to disclose that her husband was the treasurer for a Democratic candidate for the Legislature, and presenting a proposed map that failed to follow constitutional procedures.
"In this instance, the body of work of Ms. Mathis rises to the level, in her opinion, of gross misconduct and substantial neglect of duty,'' Biggs said.
The legal maneuvering comes as a separate screening panel is set to meet Monday to begin the process of replacing Mathis. The law requires that committee to nominate five people, who are neither Republicans nor Democrats, with the final choice up to the remaining four commissioners who are members of both parties.
abimopectore posted at 6:42 pm on Fri, Nov 4, 2011.
This will be interesting. I figure the Supreme Court will let us know either late Tuesday or sometime Wednesday whether the Governor's and legislature's move was proper.
phxvato1202 posted at 7:14 pm on Fri, Nov 4, 2011.
wonder when the governor is going to realize that she does not have the midas touch but to the contrary the opposite. Everything she ( touches)sends to the courts seems to be shot down. I hope the courts make her look so bad that she will actually think the next time she does and makes a political decision like this that will show everyone either how incompetent she is or has the worst bunch of advisors but probably both.
Diogenes Lantern posted at 9:14 pm on Fri, Nov 4, 2011.
Lawyer Charlton works for the ENTIRE Commission and Arizona taxpayers not just the Guilty 3.Since Mathis is no longer on the IRC, why are the taxpayers forced to defend her?
If the Court intervenes on her behalf, the judges would be overstepping their constitutional authority. The Court would be illegally overstepping the State's constitutional separation of power. The Governor and the Senate followed the rule of law.
We, the taxpayers, have been footing the bill for over a month for the Guilty 3. If you are innocent, you would answer the state's questions. But no, Mathis has two fulltime lawyers on the Commission and then hired 2 criminal lawyers at $300 an hour to defend her-at taxpayer expense. Just answer the darn questions, Mathis, or let your husbamd lawyer defend you.
Why should the taxpayers defend the Guilty 3?
Porp 106 is a travesty. It will never work-2 Dems pitted against 2 GOP with an Independent as Chair. We need to start over and stop using this twisted design of Big Sis Napolitano.
Please legislators, revise 106 and place it on the ballot soon-the next election is the Presidential primary.
abimopectore posted at 9:29 pm on Fri, Nov 4, 2011.
"If the Court intervenes on her behalf, the judges would be overstepping their constitutional authority. The Court would be illegally overstepping the State's constitutional separation of power. The Governor and the Senate followed the rule of law."
Ignorance is rampant in Arizona. Let me ask you this. Who is going to determine whether the Governor and legislature acted legally when a dispute arises? Where do the participants, including the Governor and legislature, or aggrieved parties turn to?
IT IS THE COURTS!!!! Folks, please get an education before you start commenting on the law when it's clear that you don't understand what you're saying.
downtownresident posted at 9:29 pm on Fri, Nov 4, 2011.
Rule of law? What rule of law? This is so clearly a political (Carl Rove) move that the stench is coming all the way to Mesa. I expect that Russ Pearce and Greg Western gave Jan the high sign to sabotage the committee.
Scum floats to the top of ponds, not politics.
Once again, Diogenes Lantern illustrates that ignorance is bliss.
Arizona Willie posted at 8:35 am on Sat, Nov 5, 2011.
I wonder what it takes to get an impeachment / recall started for Governor Brewer.
oldtimer posted at 11:45 am on Sat, Nov 5, 2011.
It is the voters responsibility to elect good honest people. When in office you decide you can fire directly or indirectly any who disagree with you, you are not a good leader and need to be replaced.
In looking at the local history, I have to feel that the local voters have very short memory or care about nothing that doesn't affect them directly. Then, it has to hit the pocket book to get action (maybe). You want to find the real source of the problems? Follow the money trail everytime.
Diogenes Lantern posted at 2:26 pm on Sun, Nov 6, 2011.
Mathis was fired because of Strategic Telemetry, who provides political campaigns with DATA MINING.
( AZ was the first test case because of Mathis to use ST as a mapper with no previous mapping experience.)
Voice of America Interview and Article 11-6-11:
Andrew Dreschler, Vice President of Strategic Telemettry , is a data miner. He works with millions of pieces of information. He looks for details about people -- what neighborhood they live in, what they buy, what they like to do on their weekends.
Mr. Dreschler's job is to collect enough details to form a sense of how people think. That also makes him a little like a storyteller….Andrew Dreschler is vice president of Strategic Telemetry, a company in Washington that works with Democrats. In two thousand eight, Strategic Telemetry worked for Barack Obama's presidential campaign.
Andrew Dreschler says instead of focusing on one person or one data point, data miners look for patterns across large groups. They are not trying to learn everything about you. They are looking for ten thousand people like you. To do that, they use math, maps and machines.(And Arizona's voting data)
He (Obama) turned out more than the traditional Democratic caucus-going base in the state of Iowa.(by using the data mining tactics of ST). For the voter, and the consumer, I think as technology gets more sophisticated, it gets a little creepy. Article/Interview Voice of America 11-6-11
Right out of George Orwell thanks to ex-Chair Mathis!