What's Wrong With Judge Guidi's Decision That Ben Nageak Should Be The District 40 Democratic Candidate?

In Friday's ADN a Nathaniel Herz article reports that Judge Guidi overturned the house district 40 election, deciding that Ben Nageak should have won.  Based on that article* I have some problems with the decision.

Map of house district 40 from elections website, I added Shungnak

Let's look at the key points I have issues with.

"But in the small Northwest Alaska village of Shungnak, which went 47-3 for Westlake, Guidi found poll workers acted with 'reckless disregard of the requirements of law. . .'

. . . And Randy Ruedrich, the former chairman of the Alaska Republican Party, testified on Nageak's behalf as an expert witness during the trial. 

Guidi's decision, in fact, hinged on an analysis by Ruedrich of how the double voting in Shungnak affected the outcome of the election. . ."

Note, we have a long-time Republican Party chair working on behalf of one of the Democratic candidates.  That's because while Nageak is a Democrat, he caucuses with the Republicans, which is why the Democratic party supported his opponent, Dean Westlake, in the primary.

"Westlake had his own witness — his campaign manager, John-Henry Heckendorn — but Guidi wrote that Ruedrich's testimony was more "authoritative and reliable." And in his decision, Guidi calculated 12 "contaminated votes" in Shungnak should be thrown out — 11 for Westlake and one for Nageak, based on the existing split in votes between the two candidates."

I would grant that Ruedrich is more knowledgable about voting in Alaska.  He's a very bright man and has spent many years studying districts and precincts around the state.  He was very much involved with the redistricting process in the most recent redistricting and in past ones.  Few people know Alaska elections like Ruedrich.

However, I would argue that Ruedrich isn't acting as a political scientists here, studying the facts and coming up with the most reasonable interpretation and solution.  Rather he was acting as a strong political partisan, finding a scheme that would sound reasonable to the judge, that would result in his favored candidate winning the election.

In fact, were the vote counts switched, and Westlake had challenged Nageak using the same argument Ruedrich used, Ruedrich would have argued against that reasoning, because Ruedrich's goal is to find an argument that will get his candidate elected, not one that is most reasonable.  (And as a party operative, that's what he ought to be doing and it's the judge's job to decide.)

Citing Ruedrich's testimony, Guidi ruled those dozen voters would have picked the Republican ballot — on which Nageak and Westlake didn't appear — based on historical averages."

Here's the part I have the most heartburn with.  Perhaps there were a dozen Republican voters in Shungnak.  But there were no house candidates on the Republican ballot.  The most contested election in the primary, the only one on which the voters of Shungnak might make a difference, was the Democratic** primary. It was the only race where voters in Shungnak could make a difference.

Republicans in Alaska are allowed to vote on the Democratic ballot.  The 'historical' 12 Shungnak Republicans knew they would have no impact on any of the statewide Republican primary contests.  The odds are that they all would have picked Democratic ballots so they could vote in the district 40 house primary.  But, Ruedrich would point out, there was no Republican ballot in 2014 or 2013 and still about a dozen people voted Republican.

I would counter that this was NOT like other 'historical' elections.  In 2012 there were four candidates on the Democratic ballot and Nageak won by four percentage points over the runner up.  In 2014, he beat Westlake by nearly 7% of the vote.  While these aren't landslides, they're comfortable margins.

What was significantly different this year was that the Republicans were backing Nageak and the Democrats were backing Westlake in the primary.  A lot of money was spent on this election.  It had a lot more publicity than in the past.  There was a candidate who was nominally a Democrat, but was had been caucusing with the Republicans and would in the future.  His opponent was going to caucus with the Democrats.  This was NOT by any stretch a typical election where 'historical average' ought to be used.

From what I can gather from the article, Judge Guidi has disenfranchised those 12 Republican voters in Shungnak.  Maybe they would have taken a Republican ballot.  But maybe not.

• They had the right to vote in the Democratic primary
• They chose their preferred candidate
• Any votes on mistakenly given out Republican ballots would have had no effect on any of the state wide primary races

 Since they had the right to vote in the Democratic primary why should their votes be taken away?

Why would Guidi choose to invalidate the Democratic ballots rather than the Republican ballots which Shungnak's Democratic voters had no right to use?

Furthermore, the reasoning Ruedrich used, if I read Herz' article correctly, and he reported correctly, was that we should look at how they voted in the past.  

By that logic, we could skip elections altogether, and just go by what voters did in the last election.  

I understand Judge Guidi's concern about election workers giving everyone both ballots.  That's totally unacceptable.  But so is Guidi's decision.

Essentially, Guidi disenfranchised 12 Shungnak voters.  

If he truly believes the results were tainted by giving out both ballots to all voters, the only fair option is to let both candidates run against each other once more in the general election where more voters are likely to vote.  Since there were no Republican primary candidates, or any other party candidates, this would pit Nageak against Westlake against each other once again.  One could argue that's unfair to the original winner Westlake, but it's a lot fairer than Ruedrich and Guidi second guessing the voters of Shungnak.  

If there had been a Republican candidate, this would have been a messy solution.  But there isn't so this would be the cleanest option if you truly believe that the primary was tainted.  

Now it's up to the Alaska Supreme Court to decide how this election will go.  

[UPDATE October 13:  Yesterday the Supreme Court threw out Judge Guidi's decision and Westlake will go to Juneau representing District 40.]

*Since I'm taking an online class called Journalism Skills For Engaged Citizens, I'm acutely aware that this post would have been stronger had I gotten a copy of the judge's decision and not just relied on the article.  I tried.  I did get to the case online, but couldn't figure out how to get a copy of the decision.  And it's after hours so I can't get help.  Next time I'll do better.

**I use Democratic primary, but technically it's called the ADL primary.

Jam Packed Anchorage Democratic Caucus

[Video in next post.]

I already had a suspicion that the Anchorage Democratic Caucus would be crowded. We've never really had a caucus before that had any impact. But this time we were on the media hyped Super Tuesday. People who would normally vote on a primary would be out. When I turned off Lake Otis onto Debarr, I began to wonder. I'm not usually on the road at 5pm, but things didn't move.



Five minutes later I was only a little further. Were all these people going to Begich Middle School for the Caucus? Then we had four or five more miles like this. No way. I followed the lead of some other cars and turned left before Costco and then got onto Bragaw and then the Glenn. Here things were whizzing along.



Until just after the 1/2 mile to Muldoon sign. Then we were back to a crawl. But I once on Muldoon it was easy to the Fred Meyer parking lot, and I found a spot and walked over a block to the school. .






It was a clear cold night and the mountains were spectacular, even if my photography isn't. It was 6:10pm. This normally 15 minute ride had taken over an hour. The caucus was supposed to start at 5:30pm. Well, they'd have to wait for everyone to get through the traffic.













This is NOT the school parking lot. These are fire lanes.






Finally got to the building and saw into a packed room.





Here are the people in the hallways.








Looking the other way. It was wall to wall people. There were lots of Obama and Hilary signs, but no signs to tell you what to do or where to go. People at the door were handing out registration forms. But I was already registered. I was supposed to get a blue card and then go to my district room. But this was the line to get a blue card. Someone said I could go to my district room without a blue card and sign in there. Where was my room? No one seemed to know. I wandered up and down the halls going into classrooms and asking what district it was. There was one map that showed the rooms and the districts. But it was only the second floor and mine wasn't on it.





Down at the end of the hall was another map that showed the room numbers, but not the districts. No one there had any idea. So I wandered back on the second floor (the first floor was too crowded to move.)







I made it to the gym where there was yet another mass of people. This is where the lines, if you can call them that, were headed. This is where people were getting blue cards and room assignments. But they were giving up. Someone had a mike and was telling us what room to go for what district. Finally. And we didn't need blue cards. When I got back down to the other side of the building, I wrote the name of my district and the room number on the map, but it was on plastic and my pen wasn't very good.



Once inside the room, packed with about 100 people or more, the loud speaker system started working. Here it was easy. We divided into Obama side, Clinton side, and uncommitted. People had also been allowed to write their names down on a Clinton or Obama sheet of paper and go. Not counting the people who signed up, we were 59 for Obama and 20 for Clinton. The uncommitted split 3 for Obama and 2 for Clinton. A few more stragglers added to the vote count later. It was about 7:40 now.









They were then going to pick delegates to the May Democratic convention in Alaska. I decided to go home. It was about 8pm.
And on the east end of town, a little chillier than when I'd gotten here. That's in Fahrenheit. It would be minus 21 C.

Despite the chaos, no one seemed at all upset. Everyone was excited. It was an event. I saw so many people with registration forms. You had to be a Democrat to participate. So people were either new voters, or switching from undeclared or Republican, or one of the other possible designations. Obama was clearly the source of lots of excitement, but there wasn't any animosity between the Obama and Clinton supporters that I saw.

If Legislative Coalitions Require Members To Vote For The Budget In Exchange For Benefits, Is That Bribery?

Alaska state representative  David Eastman from the Mat-Su, in a commentary in today's newspaper, raises an interesting question.  He describes when legislators join the Republican controlled 'fraternity' (the majority caucus) in Juneau, they get a bunch of perks - bigger office, more staff, prime committee membership and possible committee chairs, access to better state travel money and

 "you are invited to be 'at the table' at those closed-door meetings that never take place (at least officially.)"

But all those things don't come without a string attached.

"The cost for joining the fraternity is simple: a promise to vote with the fraternity when called upon to do so, and to approve the state budget endorsed by the fraternity — no matter what's in it."

 So, a group of legislators that forms a majority caucus, sets up rules that give benefits to legislators in exchange for votes.  That's what Eastman is complaining about.

If I gave a legislator $500 for a plane trip on the condition that he vote a certain way on a particular bill, that would be clearly illegal.

Here's from the Alaska Statutes:

"Alaska Statutes.
Title 11. Criminal Law
Chapter 56. Offenses Against Public Administration
Section 100. Bribery.
previous: Chapter 56. Offenses Against Public Administration
next: Section 110. Receiving a Bribe.
AS 11.56.100. Bribery.
(a) A person commits the crime of bribery if the person confers, offers to confer, or agrees to confer a benefit upon a public servant with the intent to influence the public servant's vote, opinion, judgment, action, decision, or exercise of official discretion.
(b) In a prosecution under this section, it is not a defense that the person sought to be influenced was not qualified to act in the desired way, whether because that person had not assumed office, lacked jurisdiction, or for any other reason.
(c) Bribery is a class B felony."  [emphasis added]

Clearly, when someone joins a Republican majority coalition, as Easton has described it, that coalition "confers, offers to confer, or agrees to confer a benefit upon a public servant with the intent to influence the public servant's vote, opinion, judgment, action, decision, or exercise of official discretion."


The benefits are all those things Easton describes:

• larger office
• better committee assignments including chairs
• more staff
• better travel benefits
• and access to private meetings where key decisions are made

In exchange, the legislator must vote as the coalition dictates on key bills including the budget.  As he describes it, their exercise of official discretion is removed.


I recall when  Rep. Lora Reinbold was kicked out of the Republican coalition in 2015, she was stripped of her committee assignments and her office etc.  She was kicked out because she didn't vote for the budget the coalition had put together.  I wrote a long post then (March 30, 2015) exploring the logic and reasoning and ethics of such rules.  But I didn't talk about it being a form of bribery.  But the way Easton talks about, it certainly seems to fit.


Here's a bit of what I wrote then.  The first quote confirms Easton's allegation.

"ADN Saturday March 28, 2015:

“All I can say is, she knew what she was doing, she knew what the rules were, and chose to go the way she did. There are consequences,” [House Speaker Mike Chenault] said."

Then I called my legislator's office and was told that wasn't how the Minority (Democratic) caucus worked.  They had no rules.  He suggested I call someone from the Majority (Republican) caucus.

"I check with speaker Chenault's office. 
A male staffer answered.  I explained my query and asked where I could get a copy of the rules.   
They're unwritten rules, he told me, that the caucus has.  There is no written set of rules.  They're understood.  The main one is to vote for the budget.  If you don't, things can happen.   I asked how anyone finds out about the rules?   They're told in the caucus he said."

The 2015 post got into questions about written and unwritten rules.  I wondered whether the fact that rules were unwritten suggested they knew there was something shady about them.  But on further reflection, spurred on by Rep. Eastman, I think it's a pretty clear case of bribery.

Now, I'm also sure that the Republicans have somewhere exempted internal wrangling from being interpreted as bribery.  And it's clear that log-rolling and 'if you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" are long accepted practices in legislatures.  

Log-rolling is part of the process of getting work done in legislative bodies made up of many individuals with different agendas.  It's how you compromise.  The legislator may get a bill he badly wants passed, but he's not getting personal benefits.  But what Eastman so clearly describes is an attempt by party leaders to force their members to bow to their will in exchange for a bunch of benefits.

I'll try to check on if and where this practice is exempted from the Statute on bribery.  If I find out, I'll post again with some options for how one could end the exemptions.  If I can't find such exemptions, I think it would be time to prosecute the leaders of the Republican coalitions for bribery.

Why I Live Here: 10 Minute Interview With Jane Sanders

The Alaska Dispatch News said that Bernie Sanders' wife would be in Alaska for three days and that she was going to meet with media this afternoon.  I emailed the Sanders Alaska campaign to find out where and didn't have that much time to get my stuff together and go down to the Lakefront Hotel (the old Millennium on Spenard).

When I got to the hotel there were several other news people, a couple of whom I knew.  It was then I learned this wasn't just going to be a press conference, but that we would each get five minutes one-on-one with Jane Sanders.

Living in Anchorage has meant, on a number of occasions, that I've been able to meet people whom I would never meet if I lived in LA or Seattle.  We're a small place and when important people are here, there's much more chance to connect with them.

So below is my video of our talk.  I normally have talked to people standing up and hold my camera close to my face and the interviewee.  But we sat at a table and and I put my camera on the table which resulted in a terrible camera angle, with Jane Sanders seeming to be looking up.  She was looking at me.  So I apologize to Mrs. Sanders for messing that up.  But I think it's still worth posting the whole ten minutes (as it turned out) of our conversation.

I also seem to have cut out the beginning of my first questions which gives the context for the end of it that starts the video. Here are the questions I asked.  The first part of Question 1 didn't get recorded so it's helpful to have the whole question here.

Question 1:  The symbolic value of electing an African-American president in 2008 was pretty big.  It sent an important message to African-Americans and other people of color, and to the world.  Electing Hillary Clinton would also have an important symbolic value for women.  What does Bernie Sanders have to offer to women to offset the symbolic value of electing a woman?

Question 2:  The Sanders campaign has been about revolution.  I get that Part A of the revolution is getting elected.  But then, what is Part B?

Jane Sanders mentioned making a college education accessible to all, which led to a third question about the corporatization of universities negatively affecting both faculty and students.




Later, there was a gathering of Bernie Sanders supporters in the hotel.  I decided to stay and see how that went.  I'd guess there were between 150 and 170 people there, filling the room.  There was no public announcements that I know other than on the Sanders' Alaska website.   It was a highly enthusiastic crowd and it seemed to me there were lots of folks under 40 and a reasonable collection of folks over 60.  Those in-between were underrepresented.  I'll try to put up more on that later.

The Alaska Democratic Caucus is Saturday.  I also got a phone call this afternoon that hooked me into a conference call from Bill Clinton.  So maybe this is a teeny taste of what Iowans must feel like before their primary.

Rules Have Consequences - Thoughts on Chenault and Reinbold And Republican Caucus Rules

ADN Saturday March 28, 2015:

“All I can say is, she knew what she was doing, she knew what the rules were, and chose to go the way she did. There are consequences,” [House Speaker Mike Chenault] said."

This was to explain why Rep. Reinbold was kicked out of the Republican caucus of the Alaska state house of representatives.  She had voted against the caucus budget which is against 'the rules.'

So I tried to find those rules.

I googled Alaska House of Representatives rules and got a pdf of the Uniform Rules. 

FOREWORD

The Constitution of the State of Alaska (sec. 12, art. II) provides: “The houses of each legislature shall adopt uniform rules of procedure." It is noteworthy that the drafters of the constitution did not say "each house” shall adopt, but rather emphasized that the "houses" should adopt uniform rules. It was the intention of the writers that Alaska should avoid the circumstances of many state legislatures where one finds house rules, senate rules, and joint rules. The uniform system is intended to permit the members and the public to follow or conduct the legislative process without a confusion of rules. The rules are adopted by both houses sitting in joint session as one body.  .  .

There are 55 rules covering things like Expenditures (#6),  Use of Chambers and Offices (12), Daily Calendar (#18), and other procedural rules.


I called several legislative offices, including Rep. Reinbold's, (her voice mail message said she's short on staff and getting lots of calls) to see if they could steer me to the rules that she violated.

I got a person at my own representative's office, Democrat Andy Josephson.  He said that it wasn't in the uniform code, it was rules that Republican caucus had.  He didn't know where I could find them.  Did the Democrats have caucus rules too that I could get?  No, there were no such rules on the Democratic side.   (A call to Aurora Hauke, caucus staff for party head Chris Tuck confirmed that.  There are no rules - they aren't a binding caucus.)  Josephson's staffer suggested I check with speaker Chenault's office.

A male staffer answered.  I explained my query and asked where I could get a copy of the rules.  

They're unwritten rules, he told me, that the caucus has.  There is no written set of rules.  They're understood.  The main one is to vote for the budget.  If you don't, things can happen.   I asked how anyone finds out about the rules?   They're told in the caucus he said.

I asked how he spelled his name and he said he didn't want to be quoted.  I asked to confirm I was talking to staff in the Speaker's office.  He said, on the administrative side, not the political side. 

Maybe there are other unwritten rules about speaking to the media and that 'things can happen.' 

So, originally, I was going to write about the idea that rules have consequences.   But it seems more fruitful to talk about different kinds of rules. 


Natural Rules versus Human Made Rules

The "laws" of nature are statements of what humans have observed and documented.   Some are fairly straightforward and understandable - like the law of gravity, at least on earth.  If you jump out of a tree, off a building, from an airplane the consequence will be that you will descend at a predictable rate of speed.  But beyond that, the consequences are less certain.  If you land in a swimming pool, or hit a soft awning, or are wearing a parachute, you may well survive and live happily ever after.

Man made rules are different.  They are simply what those in power decide how others are to behave.  They could be decreed, they could be democratically voted on.  There's nothing inherently universal or moral about them.  They could be moral, but possibly they are not.

Natural Rules -  These are neither moral nor immoral, they simply exist, and we all are subject to the consequences of not paying attention.  We could freeze to death or get burned.  We could drown or get pregnant.  We could get fat or fit.   We may think the consequences are good or bad, but not in a moral sense. 


Human Made Rules

Human rules have a moral component because they are human made and those who make the rules are morally, if not legally, responsible for the consequences.  And we also attach a moral component on whether people follow the rules, at least some rules. 

Just off the top of my head, here are some examples of the reasons for having rules.  

1.  For the benefit of the whole.  These are rules that are helpful when people live among other people and don't have to interact with other people.  Traffic rules are intended to make it safer and more efficient to drive.  Having people drive on the right side of the road has obvious benefits.  Stop lights and signs to regulate cars going through intersections does too.  Roberts Rules of Order are intended to make meetings run more smoothly.  They set procedures for how to engage in potentially heated debate.  Fair weights and measures rules also have intrinsic sense.  Sometimes they seem silly, like when you wait for a red light at 3 am and there is no other traffic, but most of us understand that benefit is worth the occasional inconveniences.

2.  To maintain order among those who can't order themselves.  Parents establish rules for their kids.  Schools have rules for students.  Prisons have rules for prisoners.  I suspect that kids in school could learn a great deal about life and would be far more willing to follow school rules if they had some say in setting the rules.  I suspect that for a lot of things that go on in prison, prisoners could participate in the official prison rules. The assumption here is that the population is not yet capable of making good decisions on their own and so some or many rules must be imposed. 

3.  Rules to make life easier.  People can set up arbitrary rules that just simplify things.  In a household you might establish a weekly menu that repeats every week.  You might have a rule to walk the dog at certain times every day.  It just reduces the amount of decision-making.  Restaurants and stores set up times they will be open and closed.

4.  Rules for fun and to challenge ourselves.   We set up rules for games.  We set up rules for certain art forms, such as sonnets and haiku.  These are rules people generally can choose to follow or not.  I would say that rules of professional sports go well beyond this.

5.  Rules to exert power over others.  These are rules those in power are able to impose on everyone else.  The British rules over the American colonies.  Rules that governed slavery in the US South and later segregation.  Rules a kidnapper might impose on his captives.  Rules a corporation imposes on its employees and customers.

I suspect that rarely do any of these kinds of rules exist in their pure form.  Instead they blend with other kinds on this list.  Numbers 1 and 3, ideally would overlap.  All the rules can be tainted when some people have more power to make the rules and then each will also overlap with Number 5.  Parents (Number 2) could have good reasonable rules for their kids, but they can also add in rules to make their own lives easier (Number 3) because they can (Number 5). 

As people understand more about nature (including human nature) and as power shifts, rules get adjusted.  As we gained knowledge of health hazards, we've put restrictions on smoking and required seat belts in cars.  In these cases, knowledge also resulted in a power shift, albeit very slowly. 

 Unwritten Rules  

Every Knows them
Lots of rules are unwritten simply because everyone knows them.  They get passed along orally.   People are expected to learn many social rules at home or at school or through spiritual communities,  and because they are reinforced from interacting with other people.  They may actually be written - in needlepoint, in song lyrics, in self-help books - somewhere, just not in official law books. These are rules that may have real consequences and while they are unwritten, they aren't hidden.  In fact, they are so universally known and followed, that writing them may seem unnecessary.  The more homogeneous a community, the less necessary it is to spell out these rules. 

Secrecy and Power
But other rules are unwritten because the creators and enforcers know there's something wrong with the rules and written evidence of their existence is inadvisable.  Say, the rules of initiation rituals at some college fraternities, or unwritten rules for illegal discrimination in hiring. 


How Does This All Reflect On The Republican Caucus' Unwritten Rules?

I'm guessing that the Republican leadership would tell us that their unwritten rules are an example of Number 1 - they are for the general good.  Privately, they would acknowledge that they are about Number 5 - to help strengthen the party leadership's ability to get caucus members to obey.

The fact that these are unwritten rules suggests to me that the leadership knows there's something not quite right about them.  They're a bit like a parent saying, "If you argue with me, you'll be sorry."  They are treating Reinbold (and the rest of their caucus members) like unruly children.  Something some Democrats would probably say is appropriate.   And something the Republicans would say they have to do to achieve party goals.

But there is something inherently wrong about this.  To say that 'rules have consequences' suggests that everyone knows the rules.  But if you don't write them down . . . There was a time when federal regulations were not easily accessible.  It took the Administrative Procedures Act in 1946 to require federal agencies to establish procedures for writing regulations and making them available for all to see.  Unwritten rules can be changed without evidence that the old one existed.  It's the kind of thing tyrants do.  It rubs the wrong way in a democracy.  Especially when these are rules that govern how our democratic legislature works.  There's no way that a member of the general public or even a member of the Republican party can 'see' the rules.  You have to, it seems, be an insider.  Or the rule has to be publicly enforced, as in this case, for its existence to become evident to the general public.

 But there are other anti-democratic aspects of this.  We know that by cutting Rep. Reinbold out of the caucus and dropping her from her committee assignments (all except one), the party is weakening the representation of Reinbold's constituency.  Their elected representative has less formal power to shape legislation than even Democrats in the minority caucus.   It also weakens the representation of all members of the caucus to the extent that they are afraid to vote against the budget even if they believe that is the wish of their constituents. 

As a parent, I believed in rules having consequences.  A perceptive parent learns quickly that if they don't, the rules have no power.  Perceptive parents don't impose rules they can't enforce.  And since good parental rules are intended to help their kids survive to adulthood and thrive when they do, parents create rules that parallel, as much as possible, the natural and human made rules the kids  will face in life.  But even if all one's rules are good and sensible, kids continue to grow and learn.  And they will test the parents' will on all the rules.  That's part of learning about their own power and how to use it.  We found, though, that when our kids were given some control over the rules and the consequences, they could experiment with their own power needs in a more constructive way.

I understand that the Republican leadership would like to keep its caucus orderly.  But rules that require them to vote along party lines or suffer severe consequences, are inconsistent with democracy.  The power to 'deliver the votes,' as I see it, is only important if one has promised some outside interest you'd get something passed or if it is needed to gratify one's own control needs.

And as with dealing with children, especially rules perceived to be unfair cause resentment and rebellion.  Actions have consequences. 

Alaska Redistricting Board: About The Maps And How To Make Sense Of Them

[NOTE:  Board is meeting in Anchorage this afternoon:  

October 4, 2021: Anchorage Public Hearing: 4:30pm-6:30pm: Dena’ina Center 

 Kahtnu Rooms 1 & 2 (up escalators and to the left)

http://notice.alaska.gov/203893  from what I understand the Board will have maps up on the walls and people will be able to talk directly with Board members and staff, ask questions, make suggestions.  Whatever you say, also submit it in writing so it gets on the record.]

The Board's been meeting in SE Alaska and I read their announcements literally that they would simply have maps posted on the walls and the board members (at least two were going to attend these workshops)  who attended would be there to talk to attendees and that nothing would be broadcast.  I didn't look too carefully, because I was more than happy to be doing other things. 

But redistricting has been weighing on me and so let me share some thoughts about how people can figure out what's going on and weigh in on the maps, the heart of redistricting.

1. How many maps are there?
1. Depends on what you mean by 'a map.'  The Board was required to approve a draft map within 30 days of the Census Bureau giving out the official census numbers.  The Board produced two draft maps which they called version 1 and version 2.  (v1 and v2).  Then five other groups (the board calls them 3rd Parties) submitted alternative maps.  
2. After hearing public testimony, the board replaced v1 and v2 with v3 and v4.  The board approved of four of the five 3rd party maps (Doyon, AFFR, AFFER, and the Senate Minority maps.  They rejected the Democratic party map.) The approved maps have been posted on the Board's website along with v3 and v4 and are being shared with the public as the Board gets feedback around the state.  (Rejecting the Democratic map looks bad to casual observers, but it had a lot of issues. When questioned by Board member Borromeo, for nearly every district she asked about, they'd say, "This district has particular problems..."  The public has lots to digest and having one less set of maps map will make it easier for the public and I don't think anything important will be lost.  The Democratic Party is still free to point out aspects of their map that are better than any of the other maps is they feel it's important.)
3. So, there are two board maps and four 3rd party maps.
4. BUT, these are maps of Alaska and there are 40 state House districts.  So each proposal has 
1. a map of Alaska
2. maps of of key cities and regions (ie Anchorage, Fairbanks, Matsu, Kenai, SE, etc.)
3. maps of all 40 districts
5. You can get links to all the maps on the Board's map page.  The maps of Alaska in each plan are interactive - you can move around and enlarge them  to see details.  The individual district maps are pdf files.  If you have the right software and skills, there are also shapefiles.  If I understand this right, these have all the data on them and you can use them to make your own maps, as the 3rd parties did.
6. There's also a link to  an interactive map that overlays all the district borders of all the plans. Below is the AFFR map. The white lines outline AFFR District 25-M in Anchorage.  You can switch maps in the far left red bar (see blue arrow).  

   

   Click on image to enlarge

   
   
7. The Board offers a way to do your own maps.  All the current Alaska data are loaded there.  You can get there here.
2. How do you make sense of the maps?
1. Ah, that's the rub.  My suggestion is that you focus on your own district.  The Board's website has the 2013 plan too on the map page.  Go there.  Find your own district.  Print out that map.  Then start with v3 or v4 and find the district you'd be in with that map.  Print it out and then compare.  Then look at the districts the 3rd parties created for where you live.  
2. You can also go to the public meetings page.  This page lists all the meetings along with the minutes, audio recordings, and the testimony from the public.  You can listen to the tape of the meeting to hear what others are saying about the maps or read the public testimony.  This is where people have raised issues with the maps.  As I write this, they are only caught up to the September 20 meeting.  But there's enough to keep you busy and give you a sense of the key problems people found.  
3. If you notice a problem, how do you let the Board know?
1. Go to a meeting near you and testify.  I try to post info on upcoming meetings current here.  You can also subscribe to notices from the Board here.
2. Call in to a meeting. The meeting notices have a link to the information for calling in and testifying.  You can call in and just listen.  Testimony has been taken at the beginning and end of the meetings.  So if while listening, you can indicate to the operator that you want to testify at the end.
3. Speaking at meetings means you know the Board members heard you.  But if you want your message to be accurately captured, you can write it up at this link.
4. Ideally you do both so you know they heard you and there's an accurate record of your testimony.  
5. If the final plan is challenged in court, all the testimony can be used to show that the Board was informed of problems.  And if the 3rd party maps may be able to demonstrate that the Board's map  has NOT met the Constitutional requirements as well as other possible maps.  
4. But it's still so overwhelming, isn't it?
1. Yes, there's a lot there.  But if you focus on your district and nearby districts, then you can supply information about local issues and concerns.  
2. The 3rd party groups who submitted maps are also paying close attention to the map making and they represent different interests.  They've gotten mapping software in advance and are much more intimately knowledgeable than anyone else will be.  And if they think there are serious problems at the end, the will file a law suit challenging the maps.  The groups are:
1. Alaskans For Fair Redistricting (AFFR) - "Alaskans For Fair Redistricting (AFFR) is a coalition of Alaska Native groups, organized labor, public interest and community organizations. AFFR was created amid the 2000 redistricting process to ensure an equitable map for the people of Alaska"
2. Alaskans For Fair and Equitable Redistricting (AFFER) - This group looks out for Republican interests.  Randy Ruedrich (former Republican Party chair) and Steve Culligan presented the plan.
3. Coalition of Doyon, Ltd., Tanana Chiefs Conference, Fairbanks Native Association, Sealaska, and Ahtna. - This is a consortium of Interior Native Corporations and Sealaska.  Their ostensible interests are making sure that Native Alaskan interests are represented in Juneau.  And presumably they are looking for a map that will favor the various business interests of the Native Corporations. 
4. Senate Minority Coalition - Made up of the state Senate minority caucus and led by Sen. Tom Begich.  Begich has been involved with all the redistricting efforts going back to 1991 I believe and has been an expert witness and testified before the Supreme Court on redistricting.  This is group compensates for the loss of the Democratic Party proposal to some extent.  
3. Find the 3rd Party groups you think most aligned with your interests and contact them. Ask them for more information about the maps and how you can support their positions.  

Of course this is just one slice of what's happening, but the maps are the heart of redistricting so this is a good place to start.  

More Thoughts on Alaskan Bloggers' Impacts

Since I wrote about this hastily last week in response to Erik Boehlert's post on the contribution of Alaskan bloggers, I've had more time to think about it.

It seems I left out the biggest contribution of the so-called progressive blogs.

Bloggers have given Alaska liberals a media presence, a sense of identity and of political efficacy. The blogs have become a place where local Alaskans can see a more progressive view of the world than has been available from any other regular public source, ever. The Anchorage Democratic caucus that brought together masses of Alaskans to vote for Obama in February 2008 was a physical event that energized Alaskan liberals like nothing we'd ever seen. The energy and spirit of hope there took everyone by surprise. People looked around and said, "I didn't know there were so many of us."

The blogs documented that event faster, more thoroughly, and more graphically than other media did and kept that spirit going. Every day the blogs posted critical progressive interpretations of local Alaska events. For years 'liberal' was an Alaskan epithet and it seemed that liberals needed to be added to the the anti-discrimination ordinance. When the red/blue state concept emerged, no one had any doubt what color Alaska was. Having places to go to find like-minded thinkers, to get documentation for what one suspected, to learn about events of interest was an awakening for liberals in Alaska. And people who didn't identify themselves as liberals could find blogs that debunked the myth that all liberals had horns. (They could find a few horned liberal blogs too.)

I doubt we'll ever find out if Palin really was spooked out of office by bloggers or whether she just thought that we were a believable scapegoat. There may be some truth, though, what some have said about no local politician being so closely fact-checked by watchdogs.

But my response is that this sort of scrutiny should be applied to all politicians. Certainly the conservatives had mastered the art of coordinated spin with their daily talking points with which to go after national Democrats - but that was different. The talking points came from the Republican Party and were repeated in various media from newspapers to talk shows to tv news. At their most blatant they took some fact out of context and made up false and maligning stories - swift boats, palling with terrorists - to create non-existent scandals. No wonder some Republican critics of Alaskan bloggers assumed the bloggers were fed from the White House.

But the Alaska bloggers I know are a loose group of independents who occasionally share ideas with each other to see if others know something they are looking for
Basically they use the internet or personal contacts to fact check and analyze the public announcements of the Palin administration and other Alaskan issues. Sometimes they cover events live. If Palin's speeches and press releases hadn't been so full of holes, the bloggers wouldn't have been nearly so busy.

And there are no deep-pocketed tax-exempt think-tanks sending money to support Alaskan bloggers. From what I can tell, the Alaskan bloggers have done whatever it is they've done, on their own time and dime. Though some have successfully explored an alternative to salaried journalism. They've found that through Pay-Pal they can raise some needed cash, from their readers, to cover unusual costs of their blogging addiction. Linda's paid her public records request bill this way and Dennis got some of his transportation to rural Alaska paid for this way. But no one's making a living of this.


Bias Charges Probably Have Some Merit

But there is something in the Palin supporters' charges about how she was treated differently than a man would be. I think male officials do generally get more respect than female officials. Men look like the definition of American success. They can buy a few sets of the same suit, a few blue and a few white shirts, and basic striped ties, and they are set. You could take a homeless guy with a 'work for food' sign off the corner, clean him up, put him in a dress-for-success suit, get him to stand up straight, and people would treat him with respect. Because he would look like the image of American success - the model set by every president we've ever had.

Women officials always get comments on what they wear. And what their hair looks like. Always. They can't buy ten of the same dress or suit. They have to change their look every day.

So people like Gov. Sanford or Sen. John Ensign or Sen. Ted Stevens just have to look the look and not say anything obviously stupid and they get a pass. There was very, very little official media scrutiny of Stevens until they found out the FBI was on his case. He was a US Senator in a suit. (He also knew his facts and how to put sentences together. No reporter had nearly the knowledge of Stevens on issues nor the access to information that might raise questions. And he had a temper. All that made it much harder to challenge anything he did.) But right off the bat, a man (especially if he's white) wearing a power suit gets respect from people in authority and from people in general. It's sad, but true.


A woman walks on the stage or into the studio and she's already 'marked,' Deborah Tannen's term, as different from the norm. She can't be invisible in a dark pinstriped suit - because even if she wears one, she's a woman in men's clothing. And if she wears a dress she's not in the standard, invisible cloak of success. We see her legs and red shoes. Alaskan bloggers played this game too.

Even if the commentators like what she's wearing or how she does her hair, the fact that they mention it trivializes her already. They're talking about what she looks like, not about what she's thinking. (Sure, men's looks get commented on too, but only when they stray from the norm. So Edwards' $400 haircut got press because men aren't supposed to be so vain about their looks, the way we expect women to be.)

So, on that point, the criticisms of Palin being treated differently because she's a woman have merit. (But to be fair, she also contributed to the attention every time she opened her mouth.) But the answer isn't to back off on her.

Instead male politicians should all have a swarm of bloggers parsing their speeches and press releases to see if they make sense. (See this example of Leonard Pitts parsing Mitt Romney's words, which - because it's so unusual - also suggests men's empty words generally get less scrutiny than Palin's.) They should have the public record regularly scrutinized to find discrepancies between what they say and what they do. They should all have people checking and posting the connections between their earmarks and their campaign financing, and asking questions about their first class travel and speaking fees from people with public policy issues the official is deciding.

With bloggers posting more of this information I suspect a lot more sham public servants - not just those who shoot themselves in the foot on some non-policy issue by flying off to Argentina to see their soul mates -will find that incumbency loses its some of its glow.

So, in addition to giving Alaskan liberals a media presence, a sense of identity and of political efficacy, maybe Alaskan bloggers will give other bloggers a model of how to track their local politicians.

Kamala Harris As New Presidential Candidate - UPDATED

 I wrote a couple of posts strongly defending Biden staying as the Democratic presidential candidate (for example.)  I had several serious concerns should he drop out of the race:

1. Chaos that would result as various potential candidates jostled for the nomination and the impact on Black voters if Harris wasn't the candidate.
2. Issues over who had access to the money that had already been collected
3. Questions about whether a new candidate would be listed on the ballots of all states. 

I acknowledged that Biden was getting on in years (as is the GOP candidate) and that he clearly did not do well in the debate with Trump, but was worried the three concerns listed above would doom a new candidate.  I was also concerned that some of those calling for Biden to step aside - people who normally are politically savvy - might have had personnel encounters with Biden that revealed more than a single debate's worth of issues.  And I also heard people who said it was the money people who were pressuring other Democrats to get rid of Biden.  

Well, I was wrong.  The new candidate has stirred a level of enthusiasm for a presidential candidate I last saw at the Alaska Democratic caucus in 2008, when the Begich Middle School was packed - seriously packed like a sardine can - with people who had come out to caucus for Obama.  

The people working on all this - including Biden and Harris - made sure the three issues I listed above were resolved before the announcement.  Clearly they made sure Harris was the only candidate and the issues about the money - with her as candidate - apparently was not an issue.  And getting the new nominees on the ballot apparently will not be a problem.  Which makes sense since the Democrats haven't had their convention yet anyway.  

Yesterday I signed up for the White Dudes for Harris call this afternoon (Alaska time) and watched cavalcade of (mostly) white men explain from different perspectives why they were supporting Harris.

Singer Josh Groben

      

 There was an alternating pattern of politicians/officials and celebrities - mostly actors. 

New Orleans Mayor Landrieu

Others included:  Pete Buttigieg, Illinois Governor Pritzker, Wisconsin Gov. Tim Walz,

Actor Paul Shearer

Michigan Sen. Gary Peters, California Rep Adam Schiff, 

Actor Rob Lowe

Actor Joseph Gordon Levitt,  Actor Sean Astin (Patty Duke's son), Rep. Steny Hoyer, and others.  (You can tell by the money amounts listed on the screenshots that I don't have them all up in the right order.  Well maybe it's not clear enough, but the totals were on the blue/red bar on the right.)

North Carolina Gov Roy Cooper

 It went on for about three hours and they said that there were 170,000 participants.  Though the white dudes were not nearly as generous as other groups.  By the end there was about $4 million donated, which pales compared to the - STOP - 

I went back to check on the numbers for the White Women's call.  Different sources give different numbers.  BBC said $3 million in one hour.  The Hollywood Reporter writes that

 "Author Glennon Doyle shared on Friday [the call was Monday] that the call raised over $8.5 million so far."

So the $4 million raised in the three hour call was actually significant.  

Most of the celebrities who participated talked about activism they're involved with such as unions or spoke about why different issues were important to them.  

I'd note that I 'registered' Sunday, but never got a link to the Zoom call.  I tried again just before the call.  I couldn't figure out how to skip the donation page.  Maybe you couldn't.  Maybe that's a way to screen out saboteurs.  I wasn't pleased and donated the lowest amount - $25 - though I guess I could have done my own custom donation, based on amounts listed on the bottom of the screen.  But even then I had trouble getting to the Zoom link.  Eventually I found a link to the Youtube live page.  I would have contributed more once I got on if I hadn't been forced to pay before getting on.  (And perhaps there was a way that I didn't see.)

So, despite my earlier Keep Biden stance, I'm a happy camper.  I know I wouldn't want to keep the hours and travel schedule a president keeps and that Biden's already done this for four years.  Now he can be an elder statesman rather than possibly die in office.  

And there appears to be a great deal of enthusiasm over Harris being the candidate, while it appears that Trump's pick of Vance - who apparently was pushed on him by Peter Thiel and perhaps Elon Musk - isn't working out as well as Trump might have liked.  

Hillbilly Elegy is still on Netflix and we watched it the other night.  I'm not sure it's the most flattering portrait. Perhaps he thinks his rise from poverty and abuse are admirable - and I'm sure they are - but he comes across as pitiful in many scenes.  And I'm not sure how accurate a portrayal of his life the film is.  I doubt Trump has seen the film because he hates weak losers (which is how the young Vance is portrayed in many scenes).  If he did see it, it would support the idea that he chose Vance because of the financial support from Thiel and other tech billionaires. This is going to be a troubled relationship.   

UPDATED July 30, 2024

I got this as part of an email from Ross Morales Rocketto and Brad Bauman, who organized the White Dudes for Harris call:

"Over 193,000 people attended the kickoff call

We raised $4.2 million dollars last night for Harris for President

Over 150,000 folks signed up to join White Dudes for Harris

And our twitter account was banned…no joke, Guess we got under someone’s skin yesterday ;)" [emphasis added]

It becomes clearer each day that Musk bought Twitter to be an election influencer.  

Alaska Redistricting Board: Live Streaming of Meetings And Updated Website

I subscribe to the Alaska Redistricting Board emails.  (Anyone can here.)  Friday I got one which announced that the meetings next week will have live audio streaming.  This means that people can listen in on the discussions on their computers from wherever they are and across the state.  Some past meetings have been available statewide.  The initial board meeting, as I recall, was delayed because of problems with the statewide audio feed.  The two statewide public testimony held in the Anchorage LIO were available statewide.  And at least one Juneau public hearing was broadcast as video and audio. 

Update:  Live Streaming of May 16-20 Alaska Redistricting Board Meetings 

Anchorage, AK - The Alaska Redistricting Board today announced that it will provide live audio streaming of scheduled Board meetings for May 16-20, 2011 via http://alaskalegislature.tv.

Detailed information about all Alaska Redistricting Board meetings and events can be accessed at http://www.akredistricting.org/calendar.

All Board meetings are public meetings and anyone needing special accommodations is requested to call (907) 269-7402 or email info@akredistricting.org.

The Alaska Redistricting Board is responsible for redrawing Alaska's legislative election districts every ten years after the federal Census.  For more information about the redistricting process in Alaska, please visit http://www.akredistricting.org.  

### 

CONTACT:

Taylor Bickford, Assistant Director

Phone:  (907) 269-7402

Email:  tbickford@akredistricting.org 

The board's website has also been updated.  The "History" and "Media Center" tabs have been removed and replaced with "Draft Plans" and "Archive."

Draft Plans tab has the

• district and regional maps, GIS, and population data for Option 1 and Option 2  
• Reports, maps, and/or Population and GIS data (not all groups submitted all items) for each of the private plans:
• Alaskans for Fair Redistricting (AFFR is an Alliance of Union and Native organizations)
• Alaskans for Fair and Equitable Redistricting (AFFER is headed by Republican Party chair)
• Rights Coalition (Democratic Party)
• Alaska Bush Caucus 
• City and Borough of Juneau
• Bristol Bay Borough
• City of Valdez

These are plans submitted March 31, but not the revised plans submitted May 6, 2011.

Archive tab has agendas and audio tapes for most of their

• Board Meetings and
• Public Hearings

All the Plans have been up since right after they were submitted.  Some of the audio has been up already too, but there are fewer missing meetings now, it appears. 

Click on image to go to Board Webpage

The Board also now has a window on the front page (right hand column below "Public Comment") that lists the dates and times of their scheduled meetings.  This improves the ease for people trying to find out the next meeting.  And with the audio streaming of these meetings makes access to what the board is doing easier for people across the state.  Clicking on each meeting gives more information, though they are still having trouble with the linked Google maps.  To my knowledge, the meetings will be at their office:


411 West 4th Avenue, Suite 302
Anchorage, AK 99501


Their Facebook page has also been updated.

Obama or Clinton?

The US voters are making history with the Democrats virtually assured that either a man with African heritage or a woman will be their candidate for president. Tomorrow night is the Democratic caucus in Alaska. From what I hear, there will be a large turnout in Anchorage, possibly even stretching the capacity at Begich Middle School for the Anchorage caucus. But which candidate is the best? I've boiled this down for me to three criteria.



General Electability in November

Are Americans less racist or less sexist? Or put another way, are they more willing to vote for a man with African heritage or a woman? Blacks, with 9% of the seats in the House of Representatives reflect their 13% of the US population much better than do women with 16.1% in the House. But in the Senate, where whole states, not gerrymandered districts ,vote there is only one African-American - Barrack Obama - for 1%. But women have 16% of the 100 seats. That still means 84% men in the Senate and House.


[2/5/08: Added the missing decimal point Ropi pointed out in the comments. This post was postponed because I had trouble finding reliable numbers for blacks in Congress. That story is in the previous post. A good webstie for information on women in politics is Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.]

David Broder has an interesting article on districts where women win.

The scholars could find no significant differences in terms of geography or social characteristics between those districts that elected African American men and African American women. Almost without exception, they were heavily Democratic, urban and working class.

But the picture is very different for white women running for Congress. "Female Democratic House members tend to win election in districts that are more liberal, more urban, more diverse, more educated and much wealthier than those won by male Democratic members of the House," they write. "They come from much more compact, 'tonier,' upscale districts than their male counterparts."

The fact that a woman and a man of African heritage are the finalists for the Democratic nomination says a lot about the changing demographics of the United States. I we are in a period of flux - the old rules are starting to dissolve, but I don’t know that the new rules are in place yet either. Will enough voters ignore gender and race to elect and man of African heritage or a woman as president?

Stand on Key Issues

I don’t think they are too far off on the issues, though Obama focuses on the fact that he never supported going into Iraq and Clinton did. But it isn't simply the issues we face now, but the issues that the President will face once in office - the 9/11's and Hurricane Katrina's that weren't anticipated. Which candidate has the imagination to find better ways to do things?

Ability to get things done

No matter how great their policies are, without the competence to get them through Congress, they have nothing.

Hillary Clinton surely has learned a lot of lessons in the eight years Bill was President. As a former first lady and second term Senator she knows a lot of people both in the US and overseas. Of all these people, how much does she owe them and how much do they owe her? More particularly, which people does she owe? The Clintons also have a high negative rating among a sizable minority of people. This could cause the kind of constant sniping Bill Clinton faced during his eith years. These are people who will always be trouble. On the other hand, Bush has much higher negatives and has managed to get his way a lot of the time.

Barrack Obama has less experience and presumably fewer connections, and fewer people he owes. He is inspirational, but you also need administrative mechanics to make things happen. His campaign shows that he is able to attract competent people to help. Obama is able to articulate people's hopes for a better way. That can be powerful for a while, but then some tangible things need to be achieved.

Either of the two will have to attract competent teams to develop good policies and to get them passed by Congress. It seems to me that Clinton’s strength and weakness here are her connections to the existing power structure. Obama’s strength and weakness are that he has fewer of the ties and can take us in a new direction.

May the best...candidate... win.

Redistricting Issues From Friday's Meeting: Gerrymandering,- The Issue Underlying Most People's Concerns

[Note:  I thought this post was going to be about 'issues' raised at the Friday (Sept 17,2021) meeting. But the more I worked on it, the more it was clear that all the issues stem from attempts to and concerns about gerrymandering.  With three Board members nominated by Republicans, one by and Independent, and one by the nominally apolitical Chief Justice, there is concern by non-Republicans.] [Note 2:  This post  kept me hostage most of the day and roughly does what it says above. And more.]

Friday after the meeting,  I put up links to the seven 3rd party map proposals that were introduced at the meeting, but without much comment.  In this post I'm going to focus on the public testimony and the issues that were raised.  I won't get into the details of the 3rd party plans - I need a lot more time.  But I can talk about the underlying issues that they represent which, in some cases, are related to the issues the public raised.  

Let's start with a headline in today's Anchorage Daily News - and let me say that I'm glad that the ADN is actually covering redistricting at all this time around.  Last time round it was a long time before they had any serious stories.  

"May" in this headline should be "will."  There is no question redistricting will determine Alaska's elections for the next ten years.  The question is whether it will skew them hard to the right or let us have relatively fair elections meaning the districts will allow the state legislature to reflect the will of the  voters.  Why not skewed to the left? As I mentioned above three of the Board members were chosen by Republicans.  The governor chose two:   Budd Simpson of Juneau and Bethany Marcum of Anchorage.  Simpson is a Juneau attorney and has been relatively quiet at Board meetings.  Marcum is the executive director of the Alaska Policy Forum.  APF is one of the many far right, libertarian, anti-government 'think tanks' with funding ties to the Kochs* who work hard to remove regulations and keep taxes lower among other things.  Marcum's job at APF is to further the interests of the far right ideology.  This is a perfect position for her to do that.  Can she refrain from taking advantage of this opportunity and work for a fair map?  Does she want to?  Can the rest of the board counter that?  Let me say, that I don't know Bethany Marcum other than having introduced myself at one of the meetings.  She was warm and welcoming.  

*[I think' Kochs' or 'Koch Brothers' is now the generic term, even though brother Charles is the only one left..  "Charles has always been the brains behind the brothers’ vast corporate and political operations."]

The third Republican, chair John Binkley, was appointed by then Senate President Cathy Giessel.  Geisel was seen as a very conservative Republican until Governor Dunleavy started massive budget cuts.  She joined a coalition with Democrats and was primaried out of her seat by the Republican Party.  Binkley is a former state senator and Fairbanks businessman.  His family owns the Anchorage Daily News.  He's chaired the Board with an eye toward allowing public testimony at the beginning and end of each public meeting and has leaned toward openness.  My interactions with the Board staff have all been met with openness.  

House Speaker Bryce Edgmon (I) chose Nicole Borromeo, head counsel for the Alaska Federation of Natives.  I'd note that Edgmon had been a Democrat.  

Chief Justice Bolger appointed Melanie Bahnke, the president and CEO of Nome-based regional nonprofit Kawerak Inc.

Does this represent Alaskans?  The largest single category of voters is "undeclared" which means they chose not to say what party they align with. Of the groups that do declare, 'non-partisan' has the second highest total. But they don't get a seat on the Board.   The latest list of registered voters in Alaska (9/3/21) shows this breakdown:

Registered Voters	Alaska	Sept 3, 2021
Political Parties	A - ALASKAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY D - ALASKA DEMOCRATIC PARTY R - ALASKA REPUBLICAN PARTY	18,947 78,946 144,249
Political Groups	C - ALASKA CONSTITUTION PARTY   E - MODERATE PARTY OF ALASKA  F - FREEDOMREFORM PARTY  G - GREEN PARTY OF ALASKA  H - OWL PARTY  K - ALLIANCE PARTY OF ALASKA  L - ALASKA LIBERTARIAN PARTY  O - PROGRESSIVE PARTY OF ALASKA  P - PATRIOT’S PARTY OF ALASKA   V - VETERANS PARTY OF ALASKA  W - UCES' CLOWNS PARTY	672 280 1 1,482 58 24 6,870 163 167 1,307 125
Other	N - NONPARTISAN U - UNDECLARED	81,258 259,603

The Board's draft proposed maps had come out clearly partisan - three Democratic representatives had been put in one district.  Another had been moved to a more conservative leaning district.  Muldoon had been divided into four different districts.  The north pulled into mover conservative Eagle River, the South into more conservative Hillside, and the two middle parts had been divided into two east-west districts.  A Juneau Democratic representative's house had been kidnapped into another Democrat's district.  Fairbanks was all overpopulated and Matsu was underpopulated.  

The public testimony:  I went through my notes and created a chart that makes it easier to distill the key points.  I'll add it at the bottom.  Here's my sense of the main thrusts:

1. Gerrymandering.The maps are clearly gerrymandered and here are some specific examples - usually talking about the three Anchorage Democratic representatives who were all put in one district, the Juneau Democratic  rep whose house was cut out and put into another Democrats district, and a few other spots here and there.
2. Socio-Economic Integrity. People who are explicitly or implicitly talking about Socio-Economic Integrity, one of the Constitutional requirements for districts.  These broke down into the following:
1. Anchorage and Matsu are not socio-economically integrated
2. More micro concerns about neighborhoods in Anchorage or Fairbanks.  Testimony that the board should respect Anchorage community council boundaries.
3. Rural concerns about which villages (Interior) or which communities (SE) should or shouldn't be together, North and South of Alaska range shouldn't be together, etc.
3. Compactness.  A  couple mentioned compactness
4. Not Partisan.  The maps are NOT partisan and those calling in to say so have been coached by extreme partisan political groups.
5. Senate Pairings missing - Without the Senate pairings we can't tell if this is fair.
6. Procedural issues
1. Expand Testimony Hours.There should be evening and weekend sessions for public testimony for people who can't participate during work hours
2. Incumbents Policy.  The board should add to it's current policy of "not protecting incumbents" the corollary to "not target incumbents"
3. Board - Public Communication on Mapping. Board members should only work with the Board's software that has no partisan data and report any input on mapping from the public that is not given through public testimony.

Let me comment on these.

1. Gerrymandering - The Board's Executive Director made an opening comment about how the software the Board is using does not have partisan data and the maps had not been made in a partisan way.  A number of folks testifying spoke about a difference between what the Board said and what the maps showed.  My sense is that one or two Board members got partisan information from people they know and that made it into the proposed draft plans.  It would be difficult to have so many examples of Democratic representatives lumped together and so few GOP legislators lumped together. (The one GOP example was Rep. Shaw being put in a district with another Republican incumbent, but people are also saying that Shaw is planning to retire.  But I have no confirmation of that.)  
2. Socio-Economic Integrity -  S-E Integrity is one of four key requirements for all districts.  The requirements (from state and federal constitutions) have to be balanced off.  S-E Integrity is in the eye of the beholder.  The Alaska Supreme Court, in reviewing maps in previous redistricting cases that districts within a borough or city boundaries are by definition socio-economically integrated.  The Board's attorney has also cited a case where the court said that Matsu borough and Anchorage borough are socio-economically integrated.  He later backed off and said parts of Matsu (like the south that abuts Anchorage) and parts of Anchorage (like the northern parts that abut Matsu have been ruled socio-economically integrated.  It would be nice if the Board could respect all community councils and other neighborhood connections, but doing that and meeting the other standards will be tough.  The Board can fall back on the rulings that say everything within borough and city boundaries are socio-economically integrated.   The three other criteria that have to be met are: 
1. contiguity (all parts of the district touch)
2. compactness (they are as small or square like as possible
3. one-person-one vote  (roughly equal in population (the term deviation refers to how many people and percent the districts deviate from the ideal district size, which in this decade's process is 18,335 people per district (the state's population divided by 40 districts.  The maximum statewide deviation between districts is 10% but the expectation is for much lower deviation, especially in urban areas with denser population)
3. Compactness - the only specific example I recall is the 'Story bubble' in Juneau along a highway which has a loop that grabs Story's house and pulls it out of the old district.  There are two intents here, one positive and one negative:
1. The smaller and more compact a district, the easier it is for people to campaign and to represent the district.  Because of Alaska's large spaces and sparse population, this is impossible and one current district is larger that many (most?) states.
2. Politicians have learned to create districts that twist and turn to include and exclude voters to build districts that distort the political outcome to favor their party.  Compact districts makes this a little harder.  
4. Non-Partisan - there were about four people who made this argument two or three of whom argued that extremely partisan political groups had coached people to testify that districts were gerrymandered.  And that these groups themselves were trying to gerrymander. My sense is that these folks were disingenuous at best.  
1. There were a number of cases, already cited, where Democratic representatives were lumped together meaning several incumbents would have to lose their seats.  And it almost all hurt Democrats.  It would have been hard for this to have been accidental.
2. While these folks said the districts were fine, they didn't counter the specific districts that were cited.
3. They complained about people being coached to testify.  I am aware that AFFR did attempt to educate people about the redistricting process and about the way the initial two maps were drawn.  This is a normal part of political organizing.  Here is a  Link to Robin O'Donahue's webinar on redistricting.  I think this group's major complaint is that AFFR and others did a good job of alerting people to the process and the problems they saw.  This is why we have public participation in the process.  The Board listened and all the testimony will be taken into consideration.  If it is valid, let's hope the Board will incorporate it into the final maps.  If not, that they disregard it.  
4. To charge these 3rd party groups with trying to gerrymander is ludicrous.  It's the Board that has been charged with making the maps.  Only the mapmakers themselves can actually gerrymander the state.  Outside groups can attempt to prevent that from happening by testifying during the process and suing if they find the final product to have violated the law.  The Board has three Republican appointed members.  If anything, the power is on their side to come up with maps that tilt the political power to the right.  
5. Senate Pairings missing - I can understand the Board's point of view that since this is just the first draft, the Senate pairings wouldn't be final anyway.  However, without the Senate pairings, public can't evaluate the  legality of the districts.  It does suggest that the Board get Senate pairings done early enough to get public reaction before submitting them.  Last time, the Board paired and East Anchorage district with an Eagle River district and successfully got rid of a Democratic Senator who was the only African-American legislator at the time.  The Senate pairings were done, as I recollect, at the very end and there were no public hearings after they were made and before the plan was finalized.  
6. Procedural Issues - I think the first one - non-work hours to testify - is self explanatory.  I testified for the other part.  
1. While the Board did adopt a policy to not 'protect incumbents' the result of the first draft maps show they also need a policy 'to not target incumbents.'
2. The Board has not put partisan data into the software on the members' computers.  But it really appears that some of the mapmakers did have access to information about incumbents' home addresses.  The reaction of the public at the meetings shows many do not trust the Board.  So I proposed that the Board not consult privately with people not on the Board.  The public testimony - written and oral - is the proper way for the public to share information.  Thus Board members should report any contact with the public that attempts to given them specific information about map making.  I think this would go a long way to help the Board's creditability.  I'd note that at the meeting one of the people who worked on the Anchorage map - Nicole Borromeo - said she did not have any political information.  She was basically reworking a map mainly done by Bethany Marcum.  

There's a lot more to write about.  But this is already more than most people are going to read.  And the next Board meeting begins in less than 12 hours.  The Board will discuss the 3rd Party plans and also they're plans to hold public meetings around the state to get further feedback.  

So I'll call it a day for now.  More tomorrow.  The Chart I made of the testimony is below.  And below that are my written notes - very, very rough and to be used only as a guide of what was discussed. The Board is getting audio and transcripts up much faster than the previous board did.  So you can use the notes to get to the parts you want to hear.  

Sept 17,2021 Testimony Table Alaska Redistricting Board by Steve on Scribd

Rough Notes From Meeting Friday

Notes below are my quick and dirty and spotty notes from the meeting.  There are big gaps when we get to the 3rd party plans because they read from their materials.  I have put links to those materials.  

Again, this should give you a sense of what they discussed and if there's something of interest you can look for the tape or transcription when the Board puts that online.  

Alaska Redistricting Board  Sept 17, 2021  9am meeting

Members:  Melanie Bahnke , Nicole Borromeo, John Binkley, Bethany Marcum, Budd Simpson

9:05 members here, Marcum still coming.

Exec Director presentation - where we are at so that public has understanding of project.

Adopt draft agenda - passed

Peter Torkelson (ED)

-dramatic increase in interest in our work after proposed maps.  Chart on board of hits to websie.

-required to adopt one or more plans at least 30 days after receiving census data.  We did that on Sept 9.  Two maps.  On Friday, back to work, more compactness,  new maps that will be reflected on Monday’s meetings (we heard SE loud and clear.  This is a public process.  Adopting our draft proposals, just a beginning.

Now 6-7 week process of taking maps to the public - with COVID awareness.  

Received about 160 Public testimony

Some groups have invested thousands of dollars into Software, hired staff.  

Purpose of today’s meeting is to open the door to other groups to bring their maps.

John:  Questions?

Peter:  Board taking wide blank screen approach.  We did not include political data, blind to data on the software.

John:  Our intent to gather as much public input as we can  Testimony at beginning and end of meetings.  Try to be apolitical.  Alaska different.  Most states use legislature to draw own maps.  Five of us here appointed by gov, leg. And Supreme Court.  Tries to pull ???

Number of people online signed up.  

Online first, keep it brief.  Lots of people 

Anchorage, Tahnee Seccareccia - In Anchorage 20 years, Spenard.  Drummond is my rep.  Calling to ask the Board that process is truly non-partisan.  Two drafts concerning how Anchorage areas and greater Alaska split up or combined.  My area joined with Turnagain and downtown.  We are geographically distinct.  Appears to be gerrymandering.  The gentleman who said this is non-partisan - not true.  Consider 3rd party maps non partisan.

Former rep David Guttenberg Fairbanks -16  years in legislature - I repped 3 different districts until they were ruled unconstitutional  Had my district out of Goldstream to the coast, Hooper Bay.  Experience repping district gerrymandered so I know how hard that is and wrong.  In order to get from west side to east side, had to drive thru 3 other districts.  A real problem here.  Different schools, community centers, shop in different places, no commonality. 

Urge you to pay attention to way line around Old Dog East trail in - I’ve repped that side.  A few houses there.  Isolated from one side of district to the other.  Dis. 32 is clearly a problem that doesn’t rep either part of the district.  Thank you.

John:  Marcum has joined us. 

Marcum:  Apologies.   

Kelvin Rogers, Fairbanks:  Chopped up Fairbanks.  Rather see other options for the maps.  Great injustice.  

Anchorage audience:  Lois Epstein:  Alaska Licensed engineer.  Live downtown L and 15th since 2005.  Responsibility compact and socio-economically consistent.  Each criteria are p???

My home is Downtown to Spenard to airport.  Does include 3 current house Democrats.  Another problem  Excess population numbers those residents have less representative .  Also need to see what Senators you intend so we can comment on that.  

Felisa Wilson -  Ret Airforce, Live on JBER, since 2015.  JBER is divided into specific areas around the gates.  Most at Ft Rich side socio-economically  Govt Hill is a different community

Rosa O’Hara-Jolley Fairbanks.  Teacher  Listened to board and like your words, but action doesn’t reflect your words.  Created areas where voters underrepresented.  Decision to go E-W from N-S does not represent how FB people see themselves.  Which transfer sites you live - two named East and West.  Transfer station 45 minutes away from community.  Thank you.

Michele Anderson, Anchorage - Thank you.  Original shareholder and president of Ahtna and naive village of Gulkana.  Interior Coalition and Sealaska created maps to insure Alaska native representation.  Ahtna appreciates being included and support the maps.  We’d like the interior villages to stay together.  

Online Karen Baker from Anchorage - Fairview former res of FB.  Strong opposition to these maps  - particularly Interior and SE.  Current gerrymander form attempt to favor certain candidates.  We have a right to fair and accurate representation.

Leon James from Anchorage online: Anchorage area, compared portions of Anchorage and Matsu Borough not a similar socio-economic Borough.  District 18 over population target, by growing to NE and north and Boniface and NE community council area.  Russian Jack community council area.  Boniface different.  North of Debarr as well.  Splitting up University area.

Nicole:  Looking at east side, east to west or north to south?  Along Seward HW and along Boniface.  Probably south of Tudor gets tricky.  

Online, Emily Becker - in Airport Heights, currently D19 specific comments   hard to hear her.  Better.  Close to Merrill Field.  My neighborhood and sense of the maps.  Ver 1 map puts elementary into D 18, while 70% of families in D20.  Title 1 school many kids in poverty.  Need a clear voice.  Despite apolitical both seems nakedly political.  Fairview and Mt. View low income neighborhoods sliced and diced.  

Online Constance Quinley   - I’m in my 60is grey haired woman.  Live in Anchorage for 36 years.  Parts of Ancho and Matsu combined.  Neighbors but different communities.  ER is part of Anchorage, different culturally, economically.  ER and east Anchorage not compatible.  

Casey Casort - online shocked and disappointed with clearly gerrymandered chart.  Hard for me to understand.  

Nicole:  reference map and you’re breaking up.  AFFR map should be looked at closely.  

Melanie:  mentioned maps around someone’s house, but you broke up.  Andy Story in Juneau.

Will Muldoon, Juneau - Dis 33, The Story bubble, deputy director no partisan data in the software.  Every one had problems.  I can’t speak much to north, but SE.  Yakutat Idea tough.  When you deviate, east west   or north south.  Creating not very compact districts.  Other side of coin on inside.  Not too critical yet. ???

Nicole:  Hear your criticism.  Solutions?  Appreciate questions.  2010 runaround and 2013 Proclamation plan.  Had lower ceiling for deviation.  Higher is great.  Each dis and looked at their deviation as absolute and then as percentage.  Currently from Board Ket-Kodiak in 2010, neither adopted.  

Cathy Hosford, Skagway,  Last ten years rep by downtown Juneau.  More in common with north Juneau and auk Bay and N. Linn canal.  Often wondered why.  Better to be compacted, share concerns ferries, roads.  Appreciate your hard work.  

Nicole:  One area of SE caused us to ponder.  Understand you down’t want to be with downtown.  Then your version of Juneau Split.  Easy to draw us into what is now 34 and make Juneau and Douglas into a district.  My current rep trying to do great job but they don’t know my issues.  

James Squyres from Gulkana - current Dist 9 my Aug 24 testimony.  Now included Holy Cross this strange district 36.  Difference between North and South of Alaska range.  Diff between rural Alaska and urban Alaska.  Delta For Greely.  Military presence 

Melanie:  Which map   Under my name James Squires, meets goal of 18K per district.  

Bethany:  Thank you Mr Squires - did you make a statewide map.  Yes, but focused on districts around me. 

Beverly Churchill Anchorage online:  Thank you.  Thanks for hard work.  Jumping in late and trying to catch up.  Reiterate points already made.  Anchorage MUNI combined with Matsu - these are very distinct community.  Comments that they are socially economically integrated.  Have own health care, school districts, etc. Also reiterate Anchorage folks - community councils divided by neighborhoods..  Finally ER, is becoming more and more distinctly their own community.  People there want to exit for MOA.  Shouldn’t lump with East Anchorage.  

9:57am

Online:  Jamie Rodriquez - Anchorage, address elephant in the room - gerrymandering.  Looking at the map, lots of gerrymandering some examples.  1.  Juneau, N map 1/4 of mile cut out that district’s rep.  Reason for concern.    2.  Ketchikan, similar since another double up representation 3.  In Anchorage, in second versions takes away to little precincts replaces with one, totally throwing it out of balance.  4.  3 reps in one district.  More examples.  One group wants to subvert our voting process.  You talk about preventing it.  Please do that.  We have to live with this for ten years.  Thank you.

Online Lynette Pham - Anchorage - Lived moved from Unalaska???.  Dis 21.  East Anchor and ER are distinct communities.  Takes away voices from both ER and East Anchorage.  …..

Holy Cross and Valdez in same district makes no sense.  

Gretchen Whemhoff from Chugiak - so many different maps.  Looking at composite 2 Dis 22,23, 24.  I’ve run for office.  Had to go to Fairview, Valley.  Going in right direction by separating MOA from Matsu.  Redistricting Alaska from other states, but this map, keeping those two large populations, very distinct separate.  Another on right track, in Dis 22, now more of similar Chugiak, Eklutna, more in common that downtown ER or the Valley.  Heard another speaker say this - if we do have that corner in NE like Anchorage has NE corner.  Should be able to separate NE Anchorage and ER.  NE Anchorage would be better served.  Former 12 had Valley and Chugiak - had to drive a long way.  But appreciate trying to map all this.  Two highly populated areas with separate govts should be kept separate.  Everything you do, it’s a domino thing.  

10:09

Kay Herold - Seward?  

Anchorage Judith Conte - Anchorage - Spenard.  Since 2003.  Redistricting maps supposed to be non-partisan ways.  I heard someone say apolitical and how maps were drawn that way.  That has not been the case in these districts.  Merged into one district spenard, downtown, all distinct and benefited by independent representation.  In testimony should merge Anchorage and Matsu, it points to gerrymandering attempt.  Differences between Matsu and Anchorage.  It adversely attack House dems and protects minority GOP,  Disregards community councils.  Integrity.  

Tara Lucas from ?  

Lee Drake from FB -  Lee Drake - respond to comments by Robin O’Donohugh - about norther districts and UA.  All have offices in LIO in FB.  Where you see your rep.  People in NPole.  No one cares about a daily commute, but now they complain about a drive once or twice a year.  Families live on Chena ridge, but being in house district problematic.  Eilson - talking very fast can’t keep up.  UAF and Dept of Defense - economic integration.  Goldstream and !! Have history of mining .  I support the current map of FB as shown on the website.

Nicole:  I apologize can you please email your testimony?  We got some info.  

Melanie:  Reference comments by Robin O’Donohue.  

John:  He testified last time.  [O’Donohue is part of AFFR and made video to educate people about redistricting.]

Anchorage online- Forrest McDonald  Start - Board has impossible task, lots of places tied into 40 districts.  I can see how you’re doing this so far and doing a good job.  Maps won’t look like they used too.  Do have problem with Downtown progressive district split into 3 parts from Muldoon to Kincaid - looks a little partisan,  Smell test.  Overall good job.  I’m partisan political person,  Recognize so many names that called.  In.  Board selected for board.  Call in have been coached by extremely partisan - AFFR, AKPirg, Native Groups.  Coaching people to say things in calls and then sue and refer.  Outside our public policy.  Take effort to prevent extreme public partisan groups.  

Donna Marsh  Petersburg

Juneau David Hanna - Thanks None of us envy you.  Doing best you can.  Boundary between district 3 and 4.  Take to heart Kathy Ho//  about Linn canal area.  I asked downtown Juneau rep and asked about ferry and the downtown rep was silent.  Still angst about where the lines were drawn.  Should take heart she would win.  Looks like followed basic population center.  

FBKs  Elizabeth Dalton - Lived here all my life.  In complete support.  Beautifully done.  All incumbents in their district.  We’ve lost population.  Including rep in Matsu that has has big growth.  Agree with fellow about coaching of the testimony from certain groups that want to gerrymander.  You on the board have taken an oath and I appreciate hard work you do and believe you are following he rules.  

Anchorage, David Nees - Rep myself.  Wanted to testify.  In favor of #2.  1990-2000, 2010 and overlaid them on what you have.  Community Council model still based on 1970 to advise Assembly.  Outdated.  Map following rules, excellent jobs.  Much less political than in 1990s.  One outlier, since 1990 to 2010 and 2020.  That should give you a range.  If stay within that mean.  A good test that you are meeting the anti-gerrymandering.  Doesn’t look like any gerrymandering.  Second one looks the best.  

Rep. Garan Tarr, in Juneau?  Not there

Robert Hoekema Anchorage - Gerrymandering - pairing incumbents together.  Claman, Drummond, and Field.  Tuck majority leader.  First version pairs Snyder and Sponhollz.  Don’t care too much, population.  Makes the districts much less.  U-Med district into Campbell area.  Balance between hard job and partisan outcome.  Hard to believe this was not partisan.  Forcing House majority to run against each other.  

10:33

Garan Tarr back on line:  Good morning.  Thank you.  As sitting leg. Not appropriate on the map.  First testimony since map came out.  How can we do testimony outside of work hours.  Can’t because meeting during work hours.  Evening testimony would be beneficial.  All I wanted to say.  Thanks for your hard work.  

John:  Just beginning.  Getting public testimony.  Third party presentations.  

Concludes online.  Still have some in the room.

??? Silvers here.  Dara Silvers??  My own.  Process of mapping Anchorage.  Two compact and socio-economic where people live shop,  Anchorage maps done pretty blindly with little info of how made.  Lack of compactness and was uniquely protecting republicans.  Map 1 has east anchorage shaped like a pin-wheel and split into other districts.  Everyone who knows East Anchorage distinct, older, seedy strip malls, and dive bars.  Lifelong Alaskan whose live in many parts of Anchorage.  East Anchorage is a close knit district.  Was  specifically designed for Lance Pruitt to make a comeback.  May not be by design.  Would like to point to Chantsu park with ice rink, and Saturday market - ripped out of East Anchorage and put into ER.  

Back online Donna Marsh from Petersburg - urge board to consider how map figured most contiguous, Econ-integrated  A large star has so many  diverse populations.  Respect your effort.  But created redistricting that adversely affect ?????  Especially SE.  

Budd:  Seek clarity.  See Petersburg joined with Sitka, Ketchikan?  Ketch and Juneau probably more aligned with Sitka.  Hard to make everyone happy.  Can go lots of ways.  Why reinventing the wheel.  

Robin Smith Anchorage - thank board for opportunity to speak.  Tried to follow.  I understand it’s very difficult considering the size of AK  and.  We don’t see the Senate districts.  Woefully incomplete.  Failed to respect Borough and city boundaries - Anchorage Matsu FB.  Appears to be gerrymandering in the nao,  New FB city center map not drawn historically now N-S districts.  UA has Dem Senator and two Dem reps.  Would result in total Republican in FB.  

Nicole:  If public info I have no idea where legislators live except my own representative.  

Robin:  It really looks like it .  Hard to … May not be intentional but it appears to be.  How it looks to the average person.  

Nicole:  Want to go on record, this is not something we did intentionally.  

Bruce Farmwell:  thanks for the hard work.  Some of us have taken time to tell you what we perceive as problems.  First I heard that coaching was available .  Couldn’t  get it.  Thoughts on big picture.  I’ve lived for 40 years in AK and my district 20 years.  Changes probematic.  Lots of 3rd party maps.  Draft of Constitution tried to be fair.  Lots of processes put in place for succession of leadership.  Designed this process and did best they could.  But four out of five of you appointed by leaders of a political party.  And hard not to think of yourselves that way.  Most Alaskans like me are not members of the two parties.  If completely non-partisan board without party members involved.  Think of that and try to map it that way.  

Drew   Had to leave

Brian Hoek?? - West Anchorage - Can dive into the weeds a bit at this point.  Turnagain Area can be defined another of ways.  Area west, both sides of NLights, particularly the south side.  Much more connected to airport than down.  Adding us to downtown.  Lots of testimony.  More  than anticipated.  

New caller Ellen James -  In Anchorage in Hist district 17,  in both maps several districts are split up.  Encourage follow community council boundaries as much as possible. 2 point:  version one map.  Didn’t ????? East Anchorage.  Didn’t make sense.  I appreciate it’s hard.  

Concludes Public testimony.  Take ten minute break

10:59

Nicole:  Maybe five minutes and get on track. Back at 11:05

11:05  Doyon Coalition presentation Tenana Chiefs Conference, Fairbanks Native Association, Sealaska, Ahtna.  See presentation at:  https://aws.state.ak.us/OnlinePublicNotices/Notices/Attachment.aspx?id=129694

Worked with constitutional guidelines - compact, contiguity Relative Socio-Economic integrity and Equal. 

We added Local government boundaries.  ANCSA Boundaries, Communities of interest

Population   total 6.1 %  620 people fewer than ideal.  District 37 completely off the road system and 

600? Over 

Tanner :  Statewide map and further note on deviations.  Some deviation is inevitable.  Geography is enormous and census blocks odd.  Doesn’t mean that deviation amount should be allowed in a different district.  We want lowest deviation practicable.  Munis and Burrooughs compacter.  Big Deviations concentrated in rural area.  

Tour through Alaska.

SE:  Our plan keeps Ketchikan whole but Board plan split Ketchikan.  Also kept islands whole

City and B or Ketchikan and 

District 2 is Island District - prince of Wales and Burroughs of Yakitata

Juneau itself.  Urban District - Auk Bay and Valley from Lemon Creek.  Haines and Skagway - we heard same testimony you heard and will look at it.

Downtown - some people say easy to draw district - but either splits Mendenhall and or Auk Bay

Given members of coalition jump straight into interior but should stop in S Central - but we have concerns about whether Valdez does fit with the interior areas.  Different boroughs, 

Others have paired with Cordova. 

How did we solve this.  Put Valdez with Chenega and Cordova.  But too much population to add Kodiak.  Ours keeps Valdez along the highway, but ???? 

Kenai Pen has more population than number of districts.  Allowed Kenai to be paired with Kodiak itself.  Rest is traigh????

McHugh Creek natural break from S. Anchorage

Nicole:  You have Kodiak with part of Kenai - just Seward?  Rationale?

Maritime coastal community.  Helps with issue of population of Kenai needing to go outside.

Nicole:  Why not take in Home with that direct ferry connection

Tanner:  To do that harder to create socio-economic because Homer has too much population

John:  Seldovia not in same district as Homer?  Correct.

Nicole:  I don’t have the Valdez page.  Can you go back to Valdez.

Tanner:  district here that keeps all the Sound communities together.  Not in Richardson Highway that goes to Delta.  No longer that far north.  

John:  Are Valdez and Copper center in same districts?

Tanner:  No.  

Matt:  On Valdez, your thinking about socio-economic between Cordova and Sutton.  Also about Seward to Kodiak is continuous and skipping over Kachemak Bay.

Tanner:  Contiguity.  Simply artifact of software.  Kodiak is an island, over water contiguity.  Are limits.  Probably couldn’t connect Kodiak and North Slope.  Socio-E integration.  There have to be tradeoffs as you go.  Looking for the best places.  Right now Valdez inBoard’s plan socio-economically integrated with Interior.  Better in our map with water.  In comparison to other alternatives.  

John:  You’d have to drive thru district 36 to get there?  Thru the hub.

Presenter:  Includes every district in Ahtna region.  We recognize FB as our hub.  Worked fromWest to east

Fairbanks- see map - House 33 Ft Wainright and off base housing tied to east side hopping and work downtown, go to HS.

34 Also Eilson and area around the base

35 - College, UAF 

John:  Chose to break up FBNS borough to put in interior district.  Deviation more important than Borough boundaries.  Make sure FB retains one person one vote.    We heard from our council that deviation within those larger areas where deviations are important.

With respect.  To have their one person with less than one vote, plus with Matsu having theirs less than one person one vote.  People don’t necessarily feel tied to B. Feel closer to road .  Communities that don’t elect to have fire service even though they are in the Borough.  

HD 40 identical toBoard map

39 close to old 39

38 - hub Bethel

37 very similar without the Athabaskan interior villages.

Nicole:  I know you’re a coalition, did you consult with others in this district?

?? :  Multiple conversations with Calista.  They are aware our goal was to pull the Athabaskan communities together.

Anchorage - board has 3.89 3.57  ours has deviation of about 1%  - following 2010 court rulings. Deviations are artifacts of ?land? Or census block.  Also considers the Base exits and connects with communities outside those gates.

ER are

Matsu has 5.84

27 Glen Highway and Richardson Hwy districts.  Includes Denali Borough w/o Cantwell

We submit for consideration.  

11:39

John:  Denali Borough with Matsu w/o Cantwell.  Part of Ahtna community of villages.  

Marcum:  Kept Palmer whole?  Yes. Thank you

Matt:  Port Graham and Seldovia with Aleutians.  Another question, blocked off Girdwood and joined it with northern side of Penninsula.  

Tanner:  Seldovia:  See deviation - under 3%. Issue board and everyone runs into in SW Alaska.  If put the border here, under deviated and goes up the coast with other SE integration issues.  These areas also strong maritime areas.  

Tradeoff between S Anchorage - what was your thinking. A:  Straight tradeoff?  Pops don’t come out the same.  Mathematical problem.  Map Seward with Kodiak.  Then too much pop in Kenai for borders of Borough.  One has to crsss the Boarder.  There’s a highway that connects these areas.  Population realities.  

?????:  Rural communities have been using ?? To make Boroughs look good.  Don’t want it to fly in face of common sense.

Nicole:  Is Bethel in 37 or 38?   A:  38

Bethany:  Looking at Shake file - Palmer split into two districts.

Tanner:  We had some issues about whether our shake files matched.  We’ll get you updated version.

11:48 John:  Next group?  Lunch is here and we should take a break.  30 minutes?  Melanie says 15 - back 12:05

12:09  Back on Board - “Alaska Democrat Party” (not Democratic though that’s what it says on their material)

Mike Wentrop - Alaska Democratic Party Director and ???   :  Reading from materials.  https://aws.state.ak.us/OnlinePublicNotices/Notices/Attachment.aspx?id=129695

Questions?

John:  Respected boundaries of B and cities - sounded like you said ok to break them, but only do it once?   Mike:  yes.

Eilson AF Base and population will grow.  Did you speculate on how it will grow?

No, but we considered it.

Bethany?  Thank you:  As far as 3rd party presenter.  Only 3rd party with a political affiliation, did you use political data?  Aware, but didn’t use. 

Nicole:  Can you elaborate on what you said about more population coming to Eilson.

???:  Didn’t want an overpopulated district, but we also didn’t underpopulated that district.  Unfair to inflate a population based on speculation

Attorney:  US census is only population you can consider. 

Budd:  Downtown Juneau goes down to Petersburg.  Are you going to walk thru the maps?  

Erin:  Making B and city lines were possible and natural geography.  

Follows Yakutat B?  Correct.  Doesn’t include Cordova?  Correct.

Combined Kodiak, but not all the way to Valdez.  Kachemak Bay and Seldovia?  Is that a borough all the way to Halibut Cove?    That’s my recollection.

With eye to Senate pairings Kenai and respecting community lines.  Town lines afford that

16 Anchorage districts.  Contained ER as much as possible.  Two NE Anchorage districts structured around ???. Two similar to 16 and 27.  Westward trying to follow major streets and arteries, with understanding that population and census blocks vary.  S Anchorage including Girdwood and Whittier.  

Matsu Borough - Community, Town lines, other community lines as possible

Large Borough

John:  District 6 - out Glenn Highway to Butte and Knik and Denali a  into S Fairbanks.  Into S area census district - outside of the Borough.  Like Delta Junction.  

John:  Dot Lake and Tok, but not Tanacross?  Correct.  

Trying to respect community of North Pole as best we could.  And district along the outside.  Breaks Borough in two areas?  Follows B boundaries except.

John:  Between Delta and Eilson?   I don’t see the numbers so hard to describe.  Part in blue, part in green,  

Mike:  We break the borough only once.  Population and pairing senate seats.  

Bluish, goes around and to Valdez and villages.  All villages in Inerior River district?  Kaltag with Unalakleet?  Population.  

Bethel - 39  shaped around Bethel and  - odd cutout based on census boundary and not much population.

Melanie - in this area looks like a couple of B breaks Dillingham, four different areas?  Correct?  Yes.

Erin:  Goal was to provide as much possible without deviating more than we did.  

John:  What’s this appendage?  Census block.  

Quinihak, Good News, and Platinum with Aleutians?  Yes.

Melanie:  Share this with anyone from this part of the state?  Mike:  Yes mentioned names.

Nicole:  I’m looking at Bethel region and this is splitting them into four different districts.  Mike:  Bethel growing so much. 

Up the coast - currently 39 and 40.  Can easily draw districts self contained.  But because we started at Bethel and Hooper Bay.  

John:  So Buckling and Deering are in ?  Instead of.  

12:42 finished

AFFER:  

????:  Thank you for taking all this time to volunteer to do this.

I’m Steve Culligan.  Lifelong Alaskan.  Grew up in Fairbanks.  Work for MOA now.  This technology took up a whole room.  Alaskans helped develop this technology.  You can torture data enough.  Data used to support different redistricting to deal with rural districts with 100s of miles isn’t easy.  Today, we can improve our own maps.  This is a process.  Senate pairings.  

Myself and Randy Ruedrich.  AFFER  Fair doesn’t always mean equitable.  This map is 3.36 statewide deviation.  

In packet we’ve got entire deviation.  I will mention any public - also have online map and loaded all the others online.  Some great ideas.  https://aws.state.ak.us/OnlinePublicNotices/Notices/Attachment.aspx?id=129696

Courts have found that a Borough meets that socio-economic integration.  There are no other needs to consider for SE integration.

Populations as near as possible to division of population by 40.  Tested in 2000.  Many approaching -5.  The SC instructed the Board to redo 37 of 40 districts.  If you have census block of similar size.  Larger deviations in rural areas Courts should meet.

SE has a problem.  Has pop deficit like FB.  The rest of the state has pop surplus..  We added like other, Yakutat B.   But can’t get that northern population size right.  Need a long coastal district from north to the south.  One was called an ice worm or maritime region.  This creates a problem every time.  Surplus distributed to rest of state.  Three inside district one.  District 1 and 2 .  District 3 is Juneau to airport.  

Matt:  Looks like you ???  

Randy:  Very specific putting Saxman with strong ties to Sealaska, put it in with rest of marine area???

Budd:  Related question - we tried to draw a similar map.  To get numbers to work, we accidentally left out a road in Ketchikan.  Does this map also do that?  Yes.  I was trimming off everything that isn’t a city street.  ????? If we add it back, its a bigger deviation.  

John:  Saxman more associated with Ketchikan.  The resources look to Sitka for SE integration for Native Groups.  Agree with my Democrat colleagues you can break a boundary once only.

Nicole:  Break 3 o4 4 times? 

Randy:  In western Alaska, using ANCSA boundaries is preferred?

Matt:  I don’t recall what SC decided.  Borughts are ok by definition.  

12:59

Budd: Not sure people in the Saxman area would agree with you.  We’re at 29 with districts within 1%. 

Randy:  We have a unique problem with FB.  SC said in 2011 that FB deserved a Senate Seat.

One is Western FB pop.  The middle has all the rest.  To honor the integrity of the House seat in the city we add North Pole and Eilson.  

It’s hard to keep up.  Sorry.  Doing the best I can.  There will be tapes and transcripts eventually.

Capture all the Northside that have always been in North district.  In 2013 had nearly 8000 more people than could be handled in five districts.  Now it’s 3500.  District 5 wrap around FB and has similar voting interests.  Suggest put Ester and Goldstream.  In District 5 we added Cordova.  Didn’t fit in SE or Kodiak.   Eyak, has Native link

Matt:  Why taking Ester out of FBNS borough.  

Randy:  Have to take out something/  

Matt:  Why Ester.

Randy:  You could take out Eilson because they didn’t vote.  I find that offensive.  They showed 11% voting.  But that was only on election day.  Many were out of state and voted absentee. 

That we must have a closed west side of FB city.  It’s a fortress.  Need to heed SC decision that they deserve a Senate seat.  I just mapped around.  Can minimize that if overpopulate FB.   It would minimize people going to District 5.  Keep all together all those except in the 2013 map put in rural Alaska.  

Matsu - has three small cities - Houston, Wasilla and Palmer.  Six districts.  Anchor those cities in their protected space.  I concur with adding Denali Borough.  But put Cantwell in District 5.  

We should share it across the bridge because of excess population.  Open the door on highway.  

With bridge closed, we have a clear north ER district Chugiak to Meadow Creek.  All civilian district 17.  18 downtown ER and JBER at Muldoon entrance.

Melanie:  Putting ER?  Splitting it only by taking norther neighborhoods.  Precincts ping pong balled from census to census.  Attach it to Muldoon.  Since SC in 2002 said ER could be attached to South Anchorage.  

Anchorage:  CampbellCree between 30 and 28.  Chester Creek between 22 and 25 and ??????

Wonderful road SH split along Huffman, Abbot, Tudor.  Changes on west side of the highway incidental because all slightly underperform.

Airport left in tact.  From Ship Creek Boundary to RR crossing.  Moved Spenard east along Chester Creek and N to Tudor. 

Mountain View is the other half of downtown.  21 goes into Boniface Community.  20 nearly perfect rectangle, we nibbled on the edge of Reflection Lake????  Nibbled on the edge to get enough population Abbot to OMalley.  Shed some population on the south.  The least map mess in my opinion.  

Kenai - skimmed north precinct off Kenai.  Kenai slightly over populated.  Shared Kenai’s surplus population down to Tustemena.  Closed surplus population problem by putting all of Kachemak Bay in one district.  Associated with Homer district, not Kodiak.  Without Yakutat problem was Kodiak.  Combined PWS including Valdez with Kodiak that is a shipping districting  Largest ports - Kodiak and Valdez and left port of Whittier in PWS district.  

1:20

History:  Boundary between Bering straits and Nana adjusted each time.  2001 one recall was Shismareff into 40 to get the population up.  The solution we came up with was.  We have surplus population.  

Put resultant population into 37, not only Platinum and Goodness and Qy]uinahak and ???? Protects population of Calista to bring norther boundaries.  Putting more Calista folks into 39.  Haven’t cured the problem, but have more Calista votes in same district.

Melanie:  Taking NANA region and , but 39 has four different ANCSA corp villages.  

Randy:  Trying to keep down deviation.  

Steve:  These are the impacts in rural entities of trying to keep down the deviation.

John:  Pairing Bethel with Norton Sound rather than Arctic Region.  Are you saying deviation more important than SE integration.  Rather than the hub they associate with.  

Ruedrich:  If you allow more deviation, you just create more problems.  

1:30

https://Arch.is/1ny9TK

Melanie:  Thank you for the presentation and the hard copy you gave us.  

Next:  We have the Matsu Borough  Mike Brown - Matsu Borough Manager.  We’re zoomed in on Matsu Borough.  Highlight key points. See handout.  https://aws.state.ak.us/OnlinePublicNotices/Notices/Attachment.aspx?id=129697

Matt Singer:  Seen plans that pair Matsu with Cordova and Valdez

Mike:  We concentrated on the Borough, but that seems reasonable.  

John:  OK Thank you very much.  

1:37

Next up we have Alaskans for Fair Redistricting AFFR

Robin and David?    Five minute break while you set up.  

1:45PM 

AFFR

John:  Good Afternoon

Robin O’Donahue and David Dunsmuir, also our chair Joelle Hall would like us to read the statement .  Online  https://aws.state.ak.us/OnlinePublicNotices/Notices/Attachment.aspx?id=129719

Robin reading Joelle Hall’s statement.  

We’ve structured this a little different.  Presentation goes with larger report online at ARB site and on our site 

Asked about our membership: Alaska Native Orgs, Labor Unions, Non-Profits  - lists in link.  Said does not mean that they all endorse the plan, but have worked with us.  

I’m going to rest and you can read the links

David Dunsmuir - Areas where significant differences from Board, and also Senate pairings.  

Deviations: 

Board Option 1

9.01%   

AFFR

4.88% for house and Senate 3.2

Our largest house district same as 40 and smallest district in SE.  

Respecting local boundaries - list of broken boundaries comparing Board and AFFR only Borough we break twice is Kenai.  

Melanie:  Did you factor ANCSA boundaries.  We tried Doyon and balance concerns as much as we could.  

Do not include Haines, Skagway or Klukwan with Juneau

See the AFFR handouts

Melanie - What is guidance on Community councils?

Matt Singer - Not SC ruling.  Can be considered.  

Still talking 2:16pm

Bethany:  Could you zoom in on Aleutians district?  Where you jumped down.  District 37.  Alaska Peninsula in District 5?  

2:19pm

Melanie - I will be leaving at 2:30 but will watch 

Sen Begich online - I’m on the road, so I hope link is ok https://aws.state.ak.us/OnlinePublicNotices/Notices/Attachment.aspx?id=129699

https://aws.state.ak.us/OnlinePublicNotices/Notices/Attachment.aspx?id=129699

Greatest number of individual voter protection - Example of how this could be done.  3.14% deviation.  Able to get to that, is by moving Deering into 39 to 40.  If you leave NW Borough intact it would be 4.77.  Senate and House seats identical .  If removed, Senate 2.94.  Meets or exceeds deviation standards set by courts.  

Only going beyond boroughs to to deal with deviance. 

Based on findings in Hickle, only 5 districts in FB would probably lead to litigation.  

Even with odd census blocks and States size etc.  this map shows with current technology, urban areas relatively compact and equal districts can be drawn.  .35% with most of the districts.  

Finally, Senate pairings numerically.  

Can’t review Board maps because not sure about senate pairings.  

Anticipates process will continue and you can incorporate in your future maps.  Over time, court has tightened requirements and with improved technology we have, this is likely to continue.  Should 

2:29

John:  Not endorsed by the caucus and request go forward with public process

Begich:  We didn’t want to put finger on the scale and say you should do this, but we wanted to offer a map that would show that the various criteria could be met at the highest standard.  Do I endorse it?  Sure.  But does it protect my district?  Destroys it.  (did I understand that right?)

Members of caucus have reviewed it and agree, but choice not to endorse because we don’t want political persons to - 

TJ= proposed district 6 - Cordova is included in District 6 including it with Interior.

Begich:  You have to consider map as a whole.  In the past it has been with Intrior, reprinted by Rep Lincoln. Cordova part of unorganized Borough as it has and upheld by courts in the past.  Way to make clean break with  SE .  We need additional pop for Interior.  Best way to incorporate most of Doyon villages in District 6.  

John:  I see significant number of Doyon villages not in District 6.  

If we do include it as 3rd Party map, do we call it Minority Caucus?  

Begich:  Yes

Next on agenda:  

Begich wanted more time  OK Map is up

By regions - my 1-5    FB deviation of .11   North Pole, Individual house districts from 1-6

Matsu B broken once  12 adds  has two full senate seats  dev. .25

Anchorage to Whittier - 

borough has excess and is shared with Anchorage  

Losing track here.

John asking about SE

Tom  Begich still talking 2:52pm

John:  In MOA 16 seats.  Total MOA population divided by 16 in MOA.  Within those boundaries you can get it much tighter.  

John:  One more if you could:  Senate Pairings?  

Begich:  Sure I can.  1 and 2, 3 and 4 in sequence.  

2:56

Public Testimony:  Steve Aufrecht

Online- Karen Concern about representation for people in the unorganized boroughs,

Thanks for the opportunity .  I’ll be praying for you.

Major Felisa Wilson - thanks for being conscientious and taking everyone seriously and trying to get to what the public wants.  

Concludes public testimony 3:03

Public Hearings and Outreach 

Then plan for Monday

Peter:  We are entering public hearing tour.  Monday Sept 20 at 9am.  Board will discuss the 3rd party maps and changes to proposed maps.  Then visit communities around the state, launch that Sept 27th, traveling the state.  Still talking with Board members and COVID restrictions.  Generally 2 board members and a staffer in smaller communities.  Have them after working hours.  In some places over noon because of flight schedules.  We intend to visit 10-13 places.

Monday.

Bethany:  For people who made public testimony, if you can provide written testimony

Peter:  Every comment coming in I grab and add it to data base so it’s key word searchable.  

John:  A lot to digest in short period of time.  Not sure I can absorb it all and make decisions by Monday.  We may want to take more time.  Should meet Monday, but I don’t want to be rushed.  

Nicole:  I second that.  The public response has been much more than I expected.  We need more time than Monday to go through the feedback.  

Budd:  I agree.  I was impressed with the quality and itemizations and alternative maps from the public.  Much of that information we will want to use and incorporate somehow.  When we start tinkering with one district it causes issues.  

Consensus, for expectations from public.  We’ll work on Monday.  May not have final maps for taking on the road yet.  3rd party folks, that would be helpful.  See how it goes Monday and see if we need to meet again.  

Nicole:  We’ll work hard over the weekend with staff.  May adoptMonday but we might need more time.  Try, but not lock ourselves in.

Budd:  How will we proceed Monday.  Screens.  Giant printer in the office.  

John:  Start with our maps and talk about changes from what others had.  

Bethany:  Another consideration for Monday.  I do have questions from attorneys.  Have clear understanding.  

John:  May need executive session about areas we need to be cautious about. 

Budd:  Important to get public testimony.  Probably limit time for public testimony.  Or we won’t get this done.

John:  Delicate balance.  Slows us down, but important.  Public was good, kept testimony short, but voluminous.  I thought good process today.  

Peter:  Marathon of outreach.  Caution members to take time to deliberate.  We do need some conclusions by Sept 27.  If Board needs more time, we’ll adjust.  But we have a five week window.  

9am Monday morning.

Nicole:  Not 9:30?

John:  laugh 9:00

Ok motion to adjourn?  3:17pm  adjourned