The Arizona Supreme Court on Thursday evening handed Gov. Jan Brewer a stinging defeat, overturning her removal of the chairwoman of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission and reinstating Colleen Mathis as the panel's leader.

The ruling came less than three hours after the court heard arguments on the case, which revolved around the extent to which the commission is free of outside political interference.

Roberts: Brewer's attempted redistricting coup put down

The court decided the governor did not demonstrate substantial grounds for removing Mathis from the head of the redistricting panel, and it ordered Mathis returned to her duties.

Specifically, the court found that Brewer's Nov. 1 letter notifying Mathis of her removal "does not demonstrate 'substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office or inability to discharge the duties of office.'" Those are the criteria for removal.

Mathis, who attended the court hearing, did not return requests for comment. But, after the hourlong hearing, Mathis indicated she didn't know what the commission would do if she were reinstated, other than to say the panel needs to get back to work.

Brewer lamented the decision.

"With its reinstatement of the IRC chairwoman, the Supreme Court has averted its eyes from the commission's misdeeds," the governor said in a statement late Thursday.

Governor's Office spokesman Matthew Benson said Brewer, who was in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, will meet with legislative leaders to consider options. He said the court's order, which he described as "sparse," potentially leaves the door open for the governor to return with a more-specific letter spelling out reasons for removal.

The court said it will issue an opinion detailing its reasoning "in due course." Commission representatives said they need to talk to the panel and figure out the next move.

Dennis Michael Burke, one of the authors of the ballot measure that created the commission, was elated.

"The court has well-served the people of Arizona, who went to great effort 11 years ago to take some of the partisan politics out of the map-making process," he said in an e-mail. "We the people owe the justices a drink."

An independent voice

Voters created the commission in 2000, approving a plan to remove the once-a-decade task of redrawing political boundaries from the Legislature and give it to an independent commission. It consists of two Democrats, two Republicans and one member from outside the two major parties who serves as chairman.

This year marks only the second time the independent commission has drawn legislative and congressional boundaries, which must be adjusted to reflect population changes from the 2010 census. The maps will define boundaries for elections for the next decade, starting with 2012.

The commission had completed draft congressional and legislative maps and was nearing the end of a mandatory public-comment period when Brewer pressed for Mathis' removal. She was unhappy with the preliminary maps and said Mathis presided over a process that did not follow the constitutional requirements.

The governor took the unprecedented step of invoking a provision of the state Constitution that allows for removal, as long as two-thirds of the Senate agrees. She got that approval Nov. 1 when all 21 Republican senators agreed with her action. However, she could not muster enough votes to also take out the two Democratic commissioners.

The governor charged that Mathis had violated the state's Open Meeting Law, an issue that is the topic of an ongoing investigation. Prosecutors have not made a determination on that matter.

Mathis, a registered independent from Tucson, drew increasing scrutiny from many "tea party" Republicans for a series of votes in which her vote lined up with the two Democrats.

Of particular concern was her vote to hire a mapping consultant who had done work on President Barack Obama's 2008 campaign. That vote also triggered suspicions she had violated the Open Meeting Law by trying to line up a unanimous vote to hire the firm, Strategic Telemetry.

Mathis' removal ignited a rush to the courts, culminating in Thursday's hearing.

Legal arguments

The Supreme Court's two-page order indicates the justices agreed with commission attorneys, who argued the court has a role in interpreting the constitutional language that outlines the grounds for removal.

Brewer's attorney, Lisa Hauser, contended the governor can remove any member of the commission and set her own definition of what "gross misconduct" and "substantial neglect of duty" mean.

Acting Chief Justice Andrew Hurwitz tried to test the limits of the governor's authority.

If a commissioner wore a purple dress the governor didn't like, or if she disapproved of a certain haircut, could the governor remove the commissioner? he asked.

Yes, Hauser said. That's because the constitutional amendment that created the redistricting commission gives the governor wide berth in judging whether there has been misconduct. It doesn't provide a role for the court to substitute its judgment for the governor's, she said.

But Thomas Zlaket, a former Supreme Court justice and Mathis' attorney, said there needed to be a check on the governor's authority or else the commission's independence was destroyed.

The court should reinstate Mathis "or the Independent Redistricting Commission becomes a joke, a laughing joke, subject to the very people the commission was designed to be kept away from," he said.

Commission attorney Mary O'Grady told the justices that the governor needed to state the rationale for her removal, something Brewer did not do when she directed Secretary of State Ken Bennett, filling in as acting governor because Brewer was in New York, to issue Mathis a letter ousting her from the panel.

The governor also was not specific in her complaints, O'Grady said.

Brewer's disagreement with the draft maps, particularly the one creating nine congressional districts, is not grounds for removal, O'Grady said.

"Mapping is an improper basis for removing the chair," she said. It's the commission's duty to draw maps, and if people disagree, the remedy is to go to court, not to remove commissioners, she said.

Brewer has said she fielded complaints from Arizona's GOP congressmen about the draft map. Of particular concern was the proposed new ninth district, which would pit incumbents David Schweikert and Ben Quayle against each other in a Republican primary. Brewer and the Quayle camp have denied reports that said she acted against Mathis because of personal appeals from the family of Quayle, son of former U.S. Vice President Dan Quayle.

Next steps

The commission has been in a holding pattern since it wrapped up a public-comment period Nov. 9. Without a chairman, the panel is left with two Democrats and two Republicans, who presumably would deadlock on 2-2 votes if they tried to complete work on the maps.

The commission had hoped to complete the maps by Thanksgiving and send them to the U.S. Department of Justice, where federal approval is needed to ensure the new boundary lines protect minority voting rights.

Whether it can meet that deadline is unclear. The next task, barring any other interference, is to consider the reams of public comment about the two maps and adjust the draft plans.

Already Thursday evening, some were speculating that the commission might try to rush through the maps.

There's also the possibility the governor could rework her removal letter to try to pass court muster. But without a written opinion outlining the court's reasoning, it might be hard to come up with acceptable wording.