Jan Brewer embarasses herself again.

[Landslide Lyndon]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/11/04/361829/gov-jan-brewer-cant-explain-her-partisan-political-tampering-in-arizonas-redistricting-process/

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) has been under fire recently for her dramatic political move to interfere with the state’s bipartisan redistricting commission. Annoyed that the commission did not redraw congressional districts to benefit Republicans, Brewer convinced the GOP-controlled state Senate to impeach the commission’s independent chairwoman, Colleen Mathis.

State officials are only supposed to be impeached for “neglect of duty and gross misconduct.” But during an interview this week on Alan Colmes’ radio show, Brewer became completely incoherent when trying to defend her actions. She could not explain what offenses Mathis had committed that could possibly justify her impeachment:

    COLMES: What did Colleen do that was inappropriate, Colleen Mathis?

    BREWER: Well she acted, uh, inappropriately. Well it was very, pretty much obvious that she in communications, and doing things, uh, not in the public, and the people of Arizona deserve that –

    COLMES: You mean she was doing things secretly? Like what?

    BREWER: They just simply need to operate in a lawful and open fashion…

    COLMES: I’m trying to understand what she did. What are you accusing her of having done?

    BREWER: Well she wasn’t operating in the proper manner.

[Lief 🗽]

Impeaching Mathis was a naked and shameful power grab by the Republicans. Not surprising that they can't defend it.

[Torie]

Brewer can't defend it, because she has memory problems, and  can't remember the bill of particulars. I think maybe she drinks too much, which has damaged her brain a bit. I'm quite serious about that.

[Joe Republic]

CARL has some wild-eyed theories about Mathis's heinous crimes.  I'm sure he'll be along soon.

[minionofmidas]

Bob, mostly.

The "secret" part is some unsubstantiated allegation that she breached a harebrained law that probably does not apply to the Commission.
The other pretext, the one Brewer seems to not have been able to recollect, was that she gave incomplete info on the questionnaire when she applied to be shortlisted for Commission membership. That's what sunk Mathis - Brewer wanted to remove the Democratic members of the Commission as well, but couldn't get the votes in the State Senate for it. She's still seething about that, btw - it leaves open the very real danger that she has achieved nothing except character assassination. (As the Commission can still function now, and when the new indy member comes in they could theoretically just sign the map with no time left to impeach them too.)

[Torie]

Bob, mostly.

The "secret" part is some unsubstantiated allegation that she breached a harebrained law that probably does not apply to the Commission.
The other pretext, the one Brewer seems to not have been able to recollect, was that she gave incomplete info on the questionnaire when she applied to be shortlisted for Commission membership. That's what sunk Mathis - Brewer wanted to remove the Democratic members of the Commission as well, but couldn't get the votes in the State Senate for it. She's still seething about that, btw - it leaves open the very real danger that she has achieved nothing except character assassination. (As the Commission can still function now, and when the new indy member comes in they could theoretically just sign the map with no time left to impeach them too.)

Secret meetings among some members of the commission to plot strategy probably violates some form of the Brown Act and is  probably illegal. It's noisome in all events, unless disclosed.

[BigSkyBob]

Bob, mostly.

The "secret" part is some unsubstantiated allegation that she breached a harebrained law that probably does not apply to the Commission.

Sorry, aside from possibly breaching that "harebrained law" it also clearly violated the explicit mandate of the independent commissioner to act in a fashion that upholds public confidence in the impartiality of commission. Holding secret remapping sessions with the Democratic members created the impression that the acts of the commission were partisan Democratic instead of bi-partisan, or non-partisan. She simply was removed with cause.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By participating in the secret meetings, they ought to have been impeached as well.

[minionofmidas]

She was removed on a pretext. That's clearly to be enough to satisfy the law, though, so it's fine.
(Actually, the allegations about 1-on-1 meetings are about the grid mapper hiring, not the mapping itself. Or at least, those were the only ones mentioned in the articles I read.)

By participating in the secret meetings, they ought to have been impeached as well.

And the Republicans, then.

[BigSkyBob]

She was removed on a pretext. That's clearly to be enough to satisfy the law, though, so it's fine.
(Actually, the allegations about 1-on-1 meetings are about the grid mapper hiring, not the mapping itself. Or at least, those were the only ones mentioned in the articles I read.)

By participating in the secret meetings, they ought to have been impeached as well.

And the Republicans, then.

Well, if they weren't at the meeting, then that act wouldn't be a basis for impeaching them.

[Torie]

She was removed on a pretext. That's clearly to be enough to satisfy the law, though, so it's fine.
(Actually, the allegations about 1-on-1 meetings are about the grid mapper hiring, not the mapping itself. Or at least, those were the only ones mentioned in the articles I read.)

By participating in the secret meetings, they ought to have been impeached as well.

And the Republicans, then.

Yes, impeach the Pubbies too. They were pathetic protecting their team. Out with them! 

[minionofmidas]

She was removed on a pretext. That's clearly to be enough to satisfy the law, though, so it's fine.
(Actually, the allegations about 1-on-1 meetings are about the grid mapper hiring, not the mapping itself. Or at least, those were the only ones mentioned in the articles I read.)

By participating in the secret meetings, they ought to have been impeached as well.

And the Republicans, then.

Well, if they weren't at the meeting, then that act wouldn't be a basis for impeaching them.

They are the people who say Mathis met with them privately...

[BigSkyBob]

She was removed on a pretext. That's clearly to be enough to satisfy the law, though, so it's fine.
(Actually, the allegations about 1-on-1 meetings are about the grid mapper hiring, not the mapping itself. Or at least, those were the only ones mentioned in the articles I read.)

By participating in the secret meetings, they ought to have been impeached as well.

And the Republicans, then.

Well, if they weren't at the meeting, then that act wouldn't be a basis for impeaching them.

They are the people who say Mathis met with them privately...

You can read the details of the meetings here:

http://www.azag.gov/press_releases/sept/2011/Petition.pdf

While there was a conversation, it was completely one-sided with Mathis making demands [I want the Democratic mapping firm picked 5-0], and offering deals[Some day you'll want my vote on some issue], and, the one Republican member saying, "Is that a quid pro quo?" If that account is correct, she's guilty of violating the open meeting laws, if not public corruption, and he isn't. However, he should have reported the conversation immediately. The other Republican might not be so innocent based on the vagueness of his response. The first conversation indicates that Mathis had in fact discussed which mapping firm to choose with the other Democrats, as does the fact that all three just happened to score that firm 100%. Also, inexplicable is the fact that Mathis posted an explanation for the Commission's choice immediately after the vote without seeming to spend any time composing it. Impeach the whole lot, and start over.

Mathis was either bribing or threatening a member of the commission. If it was a vote swap offer, a quid pro quo, that's a bribe. If it wasn't an offer to swap votes, it was the threatening of a commissioner. The clear implication in the latter case that she was stating that instead of casting an impartial vote based on the merits of some particular question she would retaliate instead.