The Arizona Senate is considering newly introduced legislation that would fund the IRC, which has continually come back to the legislature for more and more money. SB 1482 (IRC; supplemental approp) would give the IRC an additional $623,226.
The legislation would also authorize the IRC to spend a portion of their anticipated FY14 appropriation.
The legal bills for the Commission continue to mount as they fight what appears to be losing battles against those who claim that Commissions conspired to draw lines that favored democrat candidates.
IRC Deputy Executive Director Kristina Gomez told a Yellow Sheet reporter that the amount, which is less than the $623,226 to $719,425 range the commission requested, is an estimate based on attorney bills the commission has already received as well as anticipated bills at increasing rates. She said the commission needs the appropriation by the end of the month.
Gomez said that the IRC has revised its spreadsheets several times in trying to predict the amount of money it will need through the end of the year, but cannot seem to anticipate the cost of two lawsuits which have not gone to trial yet.
Closing briefs were due on April 9, in Harris (et. al.) v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. In that case, the panel of three federal judges heard compelling testimony from IRC commissioners and expert witnesses on the matter of commissioner collusion and vote dilution. They listened while evidence was presented that demonstrated deliberate efforts to create an advantage to Democrat Party candidates.
Attorney Steve Muratore, of the Arizona Egalitarian, wrote of the proceedings, “the judges noted that they consider the partisan advantage alleged by plaintiffs to be real, secondary and possibly incidental even if not unlawfully intentional. So what they will ultimately say is whether the provisions Arizona voters codified into the state constitution with the passage of Prop 106 in 2000 are a lawful state interest.”
IRC Chairwoman, Colleen Mathis, admitted to collusion by calling the commissioners and telling them that she wanted consensus on selecting a mapping firm. IRC attorneys argue that the commissioners were only following bad advice.
The IRC did not dispute the testimony of Dr. Thomas Hofeller. Hofeller testified that the “high number of deviations from neutral criteria for creating districts and the magnitude of the deviations lead to only one logical conclusion: that the IRC intentionally gerrymandered the political maps.”
Hofeller testified that the Commission intentionally diluted the Hispanic vote. Hofeller said that this was achieved by placing Latino voters into non-Latino heavily Democrat district, which then strengthened the Democrat presence in those districts.
Gomez told the Yellow Sheet, that the estimate does not include the cost of remapping in the event that a court rules against the current maps.