First up, Mary Jo Pitzl of the Arizona Republic has updated her story from yesterday. Now, both Mark Schnepf and Steve Sossaman have withdrawn their applications for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC). They did so in response to a letter from Pearce and Adams, even though Schnepf believes that he is qualified to be a member of the redistricting commission.
Second, Jim Nintzel, writing for the Tucson Weekly, has found some interesting ties between Christopher Gleason, the applicant that Pearce and Adams want added to the pool of people that they can consider when making their picks for the AIRC.
From the article -
The Range hears that Republican Jesse Kelly, who lost his bid to unseat Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords by fewer than 4,200 votes last month, may be itching for a rematch.It wouldn't be too surprising (to me, anyway) if Pearce, Adams, or one of their mouthpieces stand up at tomorrow's meeting to request that the Appellate Court Appointments commission reopen the pool of applicants because two of the candidates have withdrawn their names from consideration.
The GOP rumor circuit is buzzing with word that Kelly will announce his plans to run against Giffords as soon as mid-January.
And, depending on how things go at tomorrow’s hearing of the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments, he may end up with a friend on the Independent Redistricting Committee.
Here’s a detail that hasn’t been explored in all the controversy over Gleason’s application: He was also a member of the Conservatives for Congress Committee, which ran a number of below-the-belt hits against Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in an unsuccessful effort to boost Jesse Kelly earlier this year.
We hear from multiple sources that Gleason—who didn’t return a phone call from The Range—is now helping set up a new non-profit with the working title of Tucson 360. The plan is to hire Kelly as an executive director of the non-profit so he’ll have a perch from which he will be conducting his 2012 congressional campaign.
Of course, they probably won't mention the fact that the two who withdrew did so at the behest of Pearce and Adams.
What's the cliche? Oh yeah...
That's like someone murdering his parents and then pleading for mercy because he is an orphan.
To put it in a less snarky (or cliched) way -
The Appellate Courts Commission was required to give Pearce and Adams ten names from which to choose two Republican members of the AIRC.
They did so.
Pearce and Adams then considered the available options, and then, of their own free will, informed two of the applicants that they wouldn't be chosen. That notice isn't required, but I can't find anywhere in the law re: AIRC where it is barred, either.
Pearce and Adams can now continue their deliberations, considering the remaining eight Republican applicants.
What's the problem?
BTW - if they really want to keep independent Paul Bender, former dean of the law school at ASU, from being the fifth member and chairman of the AIRC (and they *really* don't want him there), there is one certain way to prevent that -
Pearce or Adams can make him one of the first four picks.