The Arizona Supreme Court today ruled in the matter if Arizona’s Governor and the Independent Redistricting Commission. The Court found in favor of the reinstatement of the Commission’s chair Colleen Mathis. In November the Governor removed Mathis from office.
The court ruled unanimously.
The Court found that they had jurisdiction. Brewer claimed that Constitution gave her purview of the matter. Prop 106 allows for the governor to remove an IRC commissioner for gross misconduct of duty and failure or inability to discharge the role of office. The governor then must secure the approval of two-thirds of the Senate.
However, the court found that the impeachment provisions of the Constitution solely grant that power to the Legislature. The court determined that the intended independence of redistricting, “suggest” that removal of a commissioner isn’t beyond the scrutiny of the courts. The “ratification by one political branch” didn’t “necessarily immunize the action” of removal from review or remove the court from its duty to interpret constitutional limits.
Also at issue was the question of what behavior qualifies as misconduct for an IRC commissioner. The Governor argued that it was her decision.
At the time, the Governor removed Mathis she ignored state senators who wanted to find legislative remedies. Instead, then acting Governor Ken Bennett hastily attacked the IRC Chair. It was his hasty letter that the Court found to be most problematic.
Secretary of State Bennett was covering for the Governor who was reportedly out peddling her book.
His letter removing Mathis failed to note “categorical and egregious” behavior to necessitate removal. Bennett only offered two reasons for removing Mathis: her failure to conduct commission affairs in “meetings open to the public,” and the failure to adjust the grid maps to accommodate the mandated constitutional goals.
The court found that Bennett never alleged that a non-public IRC meeting occurred – the minimum required to constitute “substantial neglect of duty” or “gross misconduct” for not following the constitutional open meeting provision. The letter did not refer to state open meeting laws, and the question of whether those open meeting laws apply to the commission is still pending before the Court of Appeals, according to the Yellow Sheet.
Bennett’s letter failed to allege that Mathis engaged in a “willful derogation of clearly established and ascertainable law” that could rise to “gross misconduct.”
The Court found that grid mapping decisions were not cause for removal and that the maps were “still in draft stages.” The Court found that procedural flaws in the maps are a matter for the courts.
According to the Yellow Sheet, the Governor “shrugged off the opinion, saying she disagreed with the decision, but it’s all in the past.”
“It was unfortunate the way they ruled. I believed that I had the constitutional authority. But it’s over. The new maps have been put out. People are following it. And we’re going to move on. It’s sort of like old news,” the governor told the Yellow Sheet reporter.
Two of Brewer’s Supreme Court appointees, Brutinel and Pelander, ruled against her in this case.
On April 9, Mathis announced that the Department of Justice has approved the congressional district map submitted by the Commission on February 9, 2012. The Department of Justice has until April 30, 2012 to act on the legislative map.
Republicans are mulling a court challenge to the maps.