Quantcast
Don't Miss
Home / Opinion / Commentary / Mathis was removed before she could do any more damage to state

Mathis was removed before she could do any more damage to state

When the drafters of Proposition 106 took their idea to the ballot in 2000, they knew they had to address the possibility of the state needing to remove a member of the Independent Redistricting Commission. They wrote that a commission member could be removed by the governor, with the support of two-thirds of the state Senate, for acts considered “gross misconduct” or “substantial neglect of duty.”

Thank goodness they included that in the proposition approved by Arizona voters. Because of that wording, and the overwhelming evidence that Chair Colleen Mathis committed “gross misconduct” and “substantial neglect of duty,” the governor was able to remove Ms. Mathis before she could do any more damage to our state.

We have to get past the arguments of which party benefits by which map. That’s not what this is about. To make the decision to remove a member of the IRC, we must look at their actions in office. Take the partisan blinders off and look at how Ms. Mathis committed “substantial neglect of duty.”

• She admitted meeting in violation of open-meeting laws in a pursuit “of consensus” on awarding the mapping consultant contract.

• There is evidence that Ms. Mathis fudged the scoring on the mapping consultant in order that her preferred company was chosen. One political commentator indicated that her actions resembled bid rigging.

• She failed to disclose on her application that her husband was the treasurer of Democratic candidate for the Legislature Nancy Young-Wright.

• Contrary to the Constitution, she appointed two vice-chairmen instead of one.

• Her presentation of a donut-hole map, and the instructions to the commission was a violation of the constitutional requirement that the maps work from a grid and make adjustments to that grid.

• She privately created her own congressional district map and forced a vote on that map on the same day it was introduced.

This list of her misconduct does not even include the pages of unconstitutional activities discovered during the course of the joint legislative hearings on the Independent Redistricting Commission.

We don’t even need to speculate on the partisan motivations behind all these actions. The actions themselves are more than enough to remove her.

Proposition 106 included very specific guidelines on the role of the Legislature in the redistricting process. This Legislature has followed those guidelines to the letter. Legislative leaders selected four of the five members. The Legislature reviewed the conduct and product of the commission and made comments to the IRC. Members did this by convening a joint bipartisan commission, although Democrats shirked their duty by “boycotting” meetings. The state Senate has followed the requirement to review and confirm/refuse in the case of the governor’s removal of a commissioner. Once the Senate received the governor’s call of a special session and findings outlined in her removal letter to the former IRC chair, the Senate had a duty to act.

As the weeks go on, many will discuss whether the IRC system is even the best way to draw congressional and legislative maps. But that is the system we are under right now, the governor and Legislature worked in a constitutional manner and removed a commission member for a series of unconstitutional acts.

- Andy Biggs is majority leader of the Arizona Senate.

2 comments

  1. State Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) :

    Attorney General Tom Horne’s court filing, which was an attempt to get answers from the IRC members details far more than a technical violation of the law.” If the testimony from other commission members that he details in the report is true, then the chairwoman and one or two other commissioners violated the heart and soul of the open meeting law, not to mention possible bid rigging on the part of the chairwoman.

    Personally, I am surprised that most Democrats are being so defensive of such abhorrent behavior. John Kavanagh

    Kavanagh was interviewed on Horizon, in which he states there is “criminal activity” for an alleged quid pro quo between Chairman Colleen Mathis and other commissioners for their votes for the mapping firm Strategic Telemetry, in violation of Arizona’s Open Meeting law.

    FACTS: ABOUT WHY MATHIS WAS FIRED:

    Attorney General Tom Horne’s Petition for Enforcement of Written Investigative Demands, briefly summarized, states :

    - Chair Colleen Mathis spoke to Commissioners to “line up” votes for Strategic Telemetry

    - Chair Colleen Mathis had prepared a written statement regarding the selection of Strategic Telemetry

    - Chair Colleen Mathis told Republican Commissioners that she would like a 5-0 vote for Strategic Telemetry, and they testified (under oath unlike the Guilty 3) that Mathis said “you may need my vote in the future.”

    - Commissioners Mathis, Herrera and McNulty each gave Strategic Telemetry perfect scores of 100 on their scoring sheets (ST had no prior mapping experience and needed 3 contractors to help them)

    - Commissioners Mathis, Herrera and McNulty failed to respond to the AG request for information

  2. What a crock of chit…we all know that the whinning Republicans can’t conceive that we might have a more competitive state instead of their bullying tactics…I say Impeach them all….or better yet…vote them out of office….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Scroll To Top