By “Independent” We Mean “Under Our Complete Control”

Hat tip to Craig McDermott for this one.

Lori Klein has proposed a “strike-all” amendment to SB 2289. This amendment creates an “Independent” Redistricting Committees in the various counties to redraw supervisorial districts. I say “independent,” because unlike the balance that is established on the IRC that draws legislative and congressional lines, this bill only allows the speaker of the house, president of the senate and the governor to choose members, all of whom are Republicans. Current members of the various boards of supervisors would be on these committees, but, given that the legislature and the governor would appoint six members, appointees by folks from Phoenix would always have the majority. Also, as McDermott points out, it guarantees that Republicans overwhelm Democrats on these committees, even in Democratic counties. It also gives the governor an unprecedented veto over local redistricting plans.

And that leads to the oddest part of this. Maybe you’re wondering what happens if there is a Democratic governor that comes along and vetoes a redistricting. Well, they have that handled. This is from the text of Klein’s amendment:

This subsection does not apply to any redistricting after December 31, 2015.

Yep, this policy will only apply to our current governor (and redistricting) and no other.

Check out Craig’s post on this. Unaddressed even in his post is Klein’s reasons for why this is necessary, I mean aside from the Tom Delay-style power grab. Maybe Russell Pearce gave her a letter from a constituent claiming that county supervisors want to be in gangs or something.

11 thoughts on “By “Independent” We Mean “Under Our Complete Control”

  1. Power grab? Whaaa!

    I wonder who taught them about the power grab? Hey, I think I will invade Libya today… Michelle, pass the Grey Poupon please…

    It’s all good if this stuff is done on the national level by the feds and in the states by activist judges and thug unions, but when it’s done locally you get offended.

  2. I hope someone in COW asks what problem exists under the current system that she expects to disappear after December 31, 2015.

    I am pretty sure that this thing violates the Voting Rights Act. I hope they pass it so that they can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for some conservative celebrity lawyer to sue the federal government and lose. That is a far better way to spend taxpayer dollars than schools, cops, or transplants for dying people.

    We have all read this story before, over and over again.

  3. This state’s march to iron-grip oligarchical control truly knows no bounds. One must wonder if what happening with these blatant power grabs is what voters truly wanted in November.

    Slightly off-topic, R-Cubed readers might like to read this article showing Russell Pearce’s understanding of what U.S. Citizenship means (basically that it doesn’t exist; rather that we all are citizens first and only of our states).

  4. Beco,
    Your article is really nice… don’t forget about Article I, section 8 of US Constitution… you know the Enumerated Powers…

    Funny how the law of the land doesn’t mean anything when a federal judge strikes down a federal law, at least when the law is Obamacare…

    “And if Pearce actually read the Constitution, he would also see that it clearly trumps state law and “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.” This isn’t the first time Pearce has flirted with secessionist tendencies. Earlier this year, he sponsored a measure that would essentially nullify federal laws that Arizona state lawmakers disagreed with, amounting to a radical assault on our rule of law.”

    Was it not a Demokraut supporting the secession of southern Arizona?? Baja Arizona or whatever the morons were calling it??

    That entire article or blog is just funny.

    I say that big talk’s worth doodly-squat.

  5. Funny thing is that the Affordable Healthcare Act was also upheld by other federal judges as well – rulings which have been ignored for the most part in the media. The point of “Obamacare”, like other governmental legislation aimed at improving the lives of citizens, is to promote the general welfare after all, even if we can agree to disagree as to whether it will actually accomplish that.

  6. It doesn’t matter if it was upheld, it only takes ONE judge, in one court, and then that decision stands until it is overturned. It is the law.

    Yes, it might accomplish that, after it has been repealed, and replaced, which it will force.

    I pay for my own personal policy from AZ BCBS and since Obamacare has been enacted the policy has increased by 42%. Why?

    Also, I am very good friends with two doctors that are partial owners of the Arizona Orthopedic Surgical Hospital ( This hospital is solely owned by the doctors that use the facility and is ran by Catholic Healthcare West. They want to expand the hospital but can’t due to Obamacare. They both have said that if the hospital was built two years later, after Obamacare was enacted, they would not have able to build it due to the rules in Obamacare. Great law!

    The same mentality is being tried with Cap and Trade. Lets enact a law so terrible, so nonsensical, so idiotic, that it forces a change in the current system. Basically create an emergency to force a solution to a problem that didn’t previously exist. Great idea!

  7. Cmon Whocares do tell us what exactly in the recently passed and largely un-enacted ‘Obamacare’ legislation that caused your policy to go up 42%?

    Why couldn’t the hospital build 2 years later under ‘Obamacare’? Not because ‘someone told you’ but the specific cause and effect so it can be verified or refuted.

    For such an educated person as you say you are, you would sooooo fail forensics class.

  8. I am regularly bemused by the necessity of the other party to go to the Legislature to overturn or to direct actions in Tucson which are approved/disapproved by the citizenry in Tucson. Apparently they are much more successful convincing the members of their own limited caucus than they are in convincing the actual residents of the area they choose to rule by default. Limited government, anyone?

  9. I agree with the comment about COW. It’ll be very interesting to see if there’s an explanation to be rationalized from the strange cut-off date. Objectively, it certainly seems like it’s aimed at partisan-biased redistricting. What’s the point?

Comments are closed.