US House Redistricting: Arizona

[dpmapper]

Would the US Supreme Court have had the power to undo Bill Clinton's impeachment on the grounds that the charges weren't sufficient?  If not, what makes this different?  

[Skill and Chance]

Would the US Supreme Court have had the power to undo Bill Clinton's impeachment on the grounds that the charges weren't sufficient?  If not, what makes this different?  

The State Constitution specifies a greater role for judges than federally, I believe.

[Gravis Marketing]

The justification should have been a nice picture of district 9 and its failure to adhere to the criteria.

That would be an argument for contesting the map once it has been approved, not for impeaching the Independent member of the commission.

[Invisible Obama]

The bottom line is, impeachment of any commissioner has to have a solid reason and it can't be "we don't like the map". The sort of negligence for impeachment would be things like embezzlement or showing up under the influence, where a commissioner could not do the job they were appointed to do.

To show how bogus the whole thing is, one of the Justices asked Brewer's lawyer if Brewer could have thrown out Mathis for a bad hairstyle and the lawyer's response was yes.

[dpmapper]

Does the fact that Congress can declare "All your base are belong to us" the national motto prove that its national motto-making power is non-existent?  

@Skill and Chance:  What clause?  I'm not trying to be snarky here, but I don't see any part of the AZ constitution granting extra jurisdiction over things like this. 

[Vasall des Midas]

Would the US Supreme Court have had the power to undo Bill Clinton's impeachment on the grounds that the charges weren't sufficient?  If not, what makes this different?  

It's a completely different procedure that just had the same name stuck on it by lazy lawmakers.

[BigSkyBob]

It's not really a mistake as there is little downside

There is plenty of downside to stage a constitutional crisis

The "Constitutional crisis" began when the Arizona Supreme Court decided to usurp the powers of a coequal branch of government, and, will end when that usurpage is overturned.

This is the third time that I can recall when a State Supreme Court nullified its own Constitution. In New Jersey, the Court struck down the whole city clause in reapportionment. In Nevada, the Court struck down the provision that it takes a 2/3rd vote to raise taxes. And, now, this usurpage. Courts have a mandate to enforce their Constitutions, not nullify it.

The usurpage in New Jersey was dropped when another state upheld the same provision in their Constitution. A pair of Supremes lost their jobs for the second usurpage, and Nevada Supremes were forced to withdraw their act. This third usurpage must not stand.

[krazen1211]

It's not really a mistake as there is little downside

There is plenty of downside to stage a constitutional crisis

The "Constitutional crisis" began when the Arizona Supreme Court decided to usurp the powers of a coequal branch of government, and, will end when that usurpage is overturned.

This is the third time that I can recall when a State Supreme Court nullified its own Constitution. In New Jersey, the Court struck down the whole city clause in reapportionment. In Nevada, the Court struck down the provision that it takes a 2/3rd vote to raise taxes. And, now, this usurpage. Courts have a mandate to enforce their Constitutions, not nullify it.

The usurpage in New Jersey was dropped when another state upheld the same provision in their Constitution. A pair of Supremes lost their jobs for the second usurpage, and Nevada Supremes were forced to withdraw their act. This third usurpage must not stand.

The New Jersey Supreme Court is famous for simply ignoring what it wants to, such as the election laws in the 2002 Torricelli switch.

It is why I am in favor of elected judges.

[Gravis Marketing]

Some people define a constitutional crisis as "courts did something I didn't like." I'm not one of them.

[dpmapper]

Would the US Supreme Court have had the power to undo Bill Clinton's impeachment on the grounds that the charges weren't sufficient?  If not, what makes this different?  

It's a completely different procedure that just had the same name stuck on it by lazy lawmakers.

How so?

[Vasall des Midas]

Would the US Supreme Court have had the power to undo Bill Clinton's impeachment on the grounds that the charges weren't sufficient?  If not, what makes this different?  

It's a completely different procedure that just had the same name stuck on it by lazy lawmakers.

How so?

Well, for one thing US impeachment is something the House does and which leads to a trial in the Senate. And is preceded by extensive quasi-legal hearings in the House (judicial committee) as well. It's a specific procedure to try people who enjoy immunity from normal criminal proceedings.
This is a mechanism for the Governor to remove somebody from a Commission, with Senatorial approval. There was no semblance of even a kangaroo trial. It's really, really not what the word "impeachment" was invented for (not by any American, need I add?) The only thing that vaguely resembles an impeachment is the line about this being only in case of (do I need up the exact wording? Nah) - specifically where they're as hazily defined as in the US Constitution. Which, obviously, opens the floodgates to judicial interpretation.

[dpmapper]

Well, for one thing US impeachment is something the House does and which leads to a trial in the Senate. And is preceded by extensive quasi-legal hearings in the House (judicial committee) as well. It's a specific procedure to try people who enjoy immunity from normal criminal proceedings.
This is a mechanism for the Governor to remove somebody from a Commission, with Senatorial approval. There was no semblance of even a kangaroo trial. It's really, really not what the word "impeachment" was invented for (not by any American, need I add?) The only thing that vaguely resembles an impeachment is the line about this being only in case of (do I need up the exact wording? Nah) - specifically where they're as hazily defined as in the US Constitution. Which, obviously, opens the floodgates to judicial interpretation.

Sure, there are differences in the details (although not all of these details are constitutionally mandated).  I'd quibble with your description of federal impeachments, however - the purpose is not to try officials who enjoy immunity.  They generally do not enjoy immunity from prosecution, and impeachment is not a substitute for prosecution, as that can occur independent of any impeachment.  The purpose is to remove the official from office, full stop. 

In any case, it's not clear to me that these procedural differences mean that the act of impeachment by Congress is non-justiciable whereas the act in question by the AZ Governor & Senate is.  Both acts are exercises of explicit powers granted to the non-judicial branches by a constitution, and are actions, not laws: no part of removal from office requires judicial action, so it is not at all obvious that this should be subject to judicial interpretation as you claim, nor that they differ in their justiciability.  Both powers are granted under some vague threshold condition, but if Congress is the only body whose interpretation of that threshold matters in the federal case, it stands to reason that the AZ Gov/Senate's interpretation of that similar threshold is the only thing that matters here.  Courts do not always get the last word. 

[Senator Sbane]

Well, since some think the map passed by the commission is a democratic gerrymander, instead of one designed to get a Phoenix area dem elected, I think posting this map is in order. Maybe Mathis should just approve this map!




4th district: Obama 55%, Mccain 43%
5th district: Obama 54%, Mccain 43%
7th district: Obama 53%, Mccain 44%
8th district: Obama 54%, Mccain 44% (this is the Tucscon district, with a different color than the DRA color scheme)
9th district: Obama 50%, Mccain 48%

The rest are republican districts.

[krazen1211]

It's not really a mistake as there is little downside

There is plenty of downside to stage a constitutional crisis

The "Constitutional crisis" began when the Arizona Supreme Court decided to usurp the powers of a coequal branch of government, and, will end when that usurpage is overturned.

This is the third time that I can recall when a State Supreme Court nullified its own Constitution. In New Jersey, the Court struck down the whole city clause in reapportionment. In Nevada, the Court struck down the provision that it takes a 2/3rd vote to raise taxes. And, now, this usurpage. Courts have a mandate to enforce their Constitutions, not nullify it.

The usurpage in New Jersey was dropped when another state upheld the same provision in their Constitution. A pair of Supremes lost their jobs for the second usurpage, and Nevada Supremes were forced to withdraw their act. This third usurpage must not stand.

It appears we have a 4th. The newly proposed Texas house court map violates the county line rule in Nueces County.

[jimrtex]

It appears we have a 4th. The newly proposed Texas house court map violates the county line rule in Nueces County.

Nueces County is entitled to two districts.  The county has 340,000 people with 305,000 in the city of Corpus Christi (90%), so obviously two compact districts with a community of interest may be drawn.

The problem if you are trying to create two districts within the 5% limit, is that two districts can be drawn within 1%.   Since 1% is so much less than 5%, the obvious solution is to remove 11% of the county's population and attach it to a district based in Victoria.  Though this splits the city of Corpus Christi and happens to include about 20% of the Anglo population of Nueces County, it clearly is not based on race since the boundary is a continuous line and ignores city and school district boundaries.

Because you removed so much population it is no longer possible to create two districts in Nueces County (1.80).   Fortunately, you can add Kleberg County.  It is important not to split counties you understand.  Plus this places Bishop in the same district as Kingsville, albeit in a district dominated by Corpus Christi - though not the part of Corpus Christi nearest Kingsville.

And since you eliminated Kleberg County, you can draw that district you always wanted to from Willacy to Refugio,  So what if there is not internal road connectivity?  And since this uses whole counties it is obviously not driven by race.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Looks like Brewer might be giving up the fight.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

The Commission passed a tweaked Congressional map. Not sure if there's an actual map available yet.

[RBH]

here's a Google Map showing the changes between Draft and the new map, with an ability to just see the map passed tonight

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http:%2F%2Fwww.azredistricting.org%2FMaps%2FProposed-Changes%2Fdocs%2F121611%2FCong-Mathis_combo_map-121611%2FCong_draft_change-Mathis_combo_map-121611.kmz&hl=en&sll=34.168218,-111.930907&sspn=5.652564,7.393799&vpsrc=0&t=h&z=7

Hearing that 1 and 2 went bluer

[Torie]

Mathis just signed off on Dem McNulty's changes in toto it appears, and rejected any of Stertz's. She should just give McNulty her proxy, and not even bother showing up really. Whatever McNulty wants, Mathis gives it to her.

[muon2]

I still don't like Florence with the western edge of the state. There's not even a contiguous road connection.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I still don't like Florence with the western edge of the state. There's not even a contiguous road connection.

Mathis has gone bezerk.

She really believes she can get away with anything.

She is a rabid, foaming at the mouth Democrat, as well as a liar and cheat.

The congressional districting proposal she supports will be struck down by the courts.

[MilesC56]

This looks like the final map. The website said that this was the final map the commission submitted yesterday.

[Vasall des Midas]

That ridiculous pseudocarve of Cochise ended. Positive. And then a huge clockwise shift of small patches as a result... including Schweikert's residence, now outside the large R sink (and in the NE Maricopa R district with Quayle). And the official excuse for that R sink waived by breaching the Maricopa-Pinal line there after all.

And CD1 is still in Pima where it does not belong.
Florence does certainly belong in CD1 though.

[krazen1211]

AZ-9 is certainly a grotesque gerrymander.

[muon2]

That ridiculous pseudocarve of Cochise ended. Positive. And then a huge clockwise shift of small patches as a result... including Schweikert's residence, now outside the large R sink (and in the NE Maricopa R district with Quayle). And the official excuse for that R sink waived by breaching the Maricopa-Pinal line there after all.

And CD1 is still in Pima where it does not belong.
Florence does certainly belong in CD1 though.

It would seem easy and natural to swap the Pinal portion of CD 4 with the Yavapai portion of CD 1.