One line of argument they've made is that none of the private parties that have submitted plans were able to meet both the state requirements and the Voting Rights requirements either, so that shows it couldn't be done.
The plaintiffs seem to be trying to make a number of points leading that would eventually prove that, in fact, both the Voting Rights Act AND the Alaska Constitutional requirements could have been met.
1. Packing Districts
Arrington defined packing:
One of DOJ’s criteria is packing. Is there a higher concentration of natives than is necessary for them to elect the candidate of their choice.
Two definitions2. Changing Terminology and numbers needed to meet the benchmark
1. evil, done on purpose
2. just higher than they need to be
They presented evidence to show that everyone began using the 2002 redistricting terminology. Then changed the terminology for the kinds and numbers of districts when she met with the Board in Anchorage. And then had yet new terminology in her Report in August. And then there were different numbers for how many districts had to be 'effective' even later.
3. There were other issues such as distinguishing among different Native groups and whether they could all be assumed to vote the same way. Reference was made to Florida where Puerto Ricans and Cubans are both lumped in as Hispanics, but vote differently.
The first two points seemed to be setting the stage for saying that YES, districts could have been created that would have met both the VRA requirements AND the state requirements.
1. None of the other groups presented plans that met both requirements because the final benchmark had been changed and changed again, long after their plans had been submitted. So the plans the board got were aimed at different criteria. Had they known the actual final benchmark requirements, they would have been able to meet them.
2. One example of this was packing. There were districts that had much larger percentages of Natives than necessary to be effective. Better use of these 'extra' Natives would have meant that different lines could have been drawn to make more compact districts and certainly Fairbanks wouldn't have had to have been cut up the ways it was. The counter to this is that the Natives live in very concentrated areas that are sparsely populated so it's hard not to pack them.
There are other issues as well, but those were some. There's also the issue of political gerrymandering in Fairbanks. This came up yesterday in the testimony of the two Fairbanks area State Senators and today's testimony by Joe Hardenbrook. But I'll hold off that discussion to a later post.
Observations of Testimony of Leonard Lawson (Monday)
Yesterday's testimony from Leonard Lawson tried to say that if the Board could have drawn the lines differently, particularly in Fairbanks itself, it would have been easy to keep the City of Fairbanks mostly within one Senate district. Defense had challenged Lawson's credentials to be an expert witness. Lawson had been the technical guy who did the mapping for the Rights Coalition which submitted alternative plans. So he knew a lot about how the Maptitude software works and he knew quite intimately all the districts of Alaska because he'd spent many months this year trying to make the districts work. Even yesterday White challenged Lawson's right to stray over from technical comments to policy comments. He also seemed to be trying to raise questions about his credibility because he works for the Democratic Party. My sense was that White came across as pretty hostile to Lawson, and Lawson stayed totally calm and answered the question as though he didn't even notice White's hostility. He knew details and was able to translate fairly complex material into understandable English. (Or maybe it's just that I went to enough Board meetings that I understood the context.)
Observations of Testimony by Dr. Ted Arrington (Tuesday)
Today's first witness, Dr. Ted Arrington, spoke about the kinds of analysis done to determine if the Voting Rights Act (VRA) requirements were met. How do you determine if a district is effective? Effective means that the minority group - in our case Alaska Natives - has the ability to elect the candidate of its choice. It involves things like block voting by Alaska natives, whether the whites in the district cross over and vote for the Native preferred candidate or whether they are polarized, meaning they vote for the other candidate. There's lots of analysis of voting by precincts and extrapolating how much of the Voting Age Population (VAP) is Alaska Native and how they vote and how the non-Natives in the district vote to figure out a minimum percentage VAP Natives in the district needed for it to be an Effective District.
A lot of White's cross examination aimed at getting Arrington to say he agreed with most of what the Board's expert, Lisa Handley, had done. And he did. (They are both working for the Department of Justice on the lawsuit over voting rights issues from Texas.) But Arrington also said he had problems with the terminology Handley used to describe different categories of districts needed by the state to meet the VRA requirements. He also took issue with her statements about the benchmark that Alaska had to meet. The benchmark comes from the last redistricting and is essentially the number of districts that have to have Native effectiveness, as described above. Early on Handley had talked about effective districts, equal opportunity districts, and Native influence districts. This terminology came after initial draft plans had been submitted where people used different terminology from the previous redistricting in 2001-2. Later, when Handley submitted her report, she said there had been even more changes and now there was new terminology. Basically Arrignton testified that the terminology was changed and the number of benchmark districts was changed.
There was also discussion of whether there was packing of districts.
Rough Notes: Normal precautions to take these as imperfect notes as fast as my fingers could go. I did have time to do some spell checking. Again there are different levels here. The Plaintiff's attorney, Michael Walleri speaks very slowly and in disjointed sentences. He starts, then changes his mind midsentence and tries to say the same thing a different way. Lots of pauses. And he stays close to he mic. This makes taking notes much easier.
The Redistricting Board's attorney, Michael White, talks very fast and is often not talking into the mic, so it's much harder to capture his questions accurately.
January 10, 2011 Redistricting Board Court Challenge Fairbanks
Judge Michael P. McConahy, Superior Court
[I haven't been too successful with the Read More After the Break Feature, but there is so much here, this seems like a good place to try to put it. Hit the Read More button - if this works - to see my notes of the testimony.][Update: It works for me on Safari, but not in Firefox.]
Part 2 - 10:06
White: Objection, he hasn’t done the analysis.
Walleri: We haven’t had a chance to ask the question. He hasn’t done the analysis, We’ve asked in the nature of a hypothetical.
Judge: What question want to ask?
Walleri: Other factors that affect cohesion.
Judge: Other factors, if so what are they?
Arrington: Remember that the numbers are based on the averages of elections in last decade over the state. In new districts are there other factors, that would indicate that the statewide numbers do or would overstate cohesion or understate or overstate turnout. Suppose you have native within a district who are diametrically opposed, like in Florida with Cubans and Puerto Ricans. Or turnout of Natives in one district might be less than the statewide averages. A particular district might not be average.
Walleri: You didn’t look at things like language barrier an their ability to elect (no) nor did you look at possible political differences among natives that would affect cohesion or ability o elect? (no) Nor did Dr. Handley? (She didn’t report it if she did)
With Cubans and Puerto Ricans, both are Hispanics, it doesn’t show.
Judge: I’ll let them talk about Florida, some little states below, if a hypothetical go ahead.
Arrington: someone should look at that to see if it is effective.
Walleri: away from mic, not as clear.
Arrington: We have talked about that at great length, but in professional testimony I have nothing to say.
Walleri: And Dr Handley hasn’t looked at different native groups or languages?
Arrington: If she did, not in her report.
Walleri: What is table 12, and 13?
Arrington: 12 plans with strongest negative concentration.
Walleri: In her report she talks about unpacking, Table 12. 82% Native. Are those packing numbers.
Arrington: Two definitions
1. evil, done on purpose
2. just higher than they need to be
Yes, they are at least in (2)
White: No expert on packing
Overruled
Arrington: One of DOJ’s criteria is packing. Is there a higher concentration of natives than is necessary for them to elect the candidate of their choice.
Walleri: Her analysis says all they need is 42% is that correct? Yes
Page 31 where she does analysis. Table 17?
Arrington: Native concentration in 6 most concentrated native regions in Proclamation Plan.
Walleri: In HD 34 there is ?? is this effective?
Arrington: She also says there the voting is unusually???? polarized. That’s what I mean by political rather than legal.
Walleri: Do we consider equal opportunity districts? NO. Based on your DOJ experience. So we are basically looking at effective districts. We can.
She identified ….. HD 36 - area in Bristol Bay and Part of Alaska Pen. and Eastern Aleutian. What VAP needed here? (something less than 39.8.) In the plan we have 71.5, so the VAP is more than is need? Yes.
37 - Western Aleutians. What VAP needed here?
41.8 - area far west is not most of the population. The other area is critical and no reason to believe not polarized.
38 - What VAP needed here. 41.8 is about where you want. Some overlap from HD6, but not many whites. This is unique by combining urban area with rural Native area. But in terms of numbers over 41.8 should work.
Walleri: Definitely enfranchising Native people here by the numbers (yes) Interns of urban white areas in Ester, are we not saying the white vote would not be effective?
Arrington: laugh, we don’t normally say that. In every district there will be people who vote for people who won’t win. But in general principles joining a rural and urban area should be avoided.
Walleri: In this area? ?? This is 67.9 is this more than needed? [39?]
District 40 - what VAP? (42%) but it’s 62.2 - is that more than needed to be effective? (yes)
Walleri: That’s all I have
Judge: BEfore White asks, when you spoke about PR and Cuban Hispanics, is there any DOJ requirement to deeper analysis? I understand it may be appropriate, but
Arrington: In The past they’ve hired me whether they should pre clear a plan. it depends on their analysis of state plan. If they say, we suspect there is something deeper here. or someone objected to pre clearance and drew their attention. Sometimes just look at numbers and have no reason to believe, they don’t push. All they ever say is we don’t object.
Judge: In Alaska’s pre clearance was this brought up?
Arrington: I don’t believe so.
White: ???
Judge: Not bringing up new points.
White: Email from head of Alaska Dem Party, if you look at this document (hard to hear) in this letter, object because of the language issue. . .
Arrington: Never saw it before, but see it here.
White: You understand the plan cleared. You would agree that Dr. H is an expert and competent (yes) and in your work, you use her work, and based on those things, that formed your analysis (yes).
Look at your report, p. 55, par. 2 go on and offer your opinion, par. 19, p. 7 of your report, 5 benchmarks House and 3 Senate districts - here you are saying benchmark is 5-3, based on your review of Lisa Handley’s report. (correct) Last sentence par. 10 - based on your opinion Dr. H. based on ability to elect, you were able to get to conclusion that benchmark must be judged by ability to elect. (correct)
Arrington: No, that’s what I say where I came out, but I was confused along the way. Her conclusion that HD6 was 50/50 which it is not.
White: came from testimony, not her report.
Arrington: doesn’t matter where it comes from
White: benchmark 5-3
Arrington: Correct
10:32
White: You relied on her analysis (correct) standard procedure to rely on analysis of other experts. I want to understand. I like language ability to elect from Texas. DOJ now considers either thumbs up or down. Correct? (yes) In the end concluded HD 38 was an effective district, has ability to elect.
Arrington: based on the numbers we generally use, yes. Determine from reconstructed analysis wasn’t a very good district, but gave it thumbs up.
White: ..
break for me here
He’s basically getting Arrington to say that all of Dr. H’s analysis about benchmark districts being effective are correct. And that he didn’t do any other analysis besides the numbers even though Arrington says “According to the numbers it’s effective.”
10:37 You didn’t know that there was a number that provided a threshold ?
Arrington: Not usually racially polarized.
White: Difference between degree or racial polarization. Are times when it is.
Arrington: That’s not a quibble. Dif. between section 2 and 5. Agree we’re talking about degree, but not a quibble. Overlap…
White: All the on the record statements
Arrington: Read them but don’t claim all in my head.
…
…
10:41 Once you start making changes to a district, this is 37, in the past decade regularly performed with 37% but if you make changes you get into area where you are saying you can’t make …
Arrington: but can still use state average, but if it is normally not polarized, you can go below the average, but defining mathematically hard, less that 41.8 is ok.
[…. I just can’t keep up ]
White: page 29 ????
Arrington: Is that a map? Oh, 29, I can’t see it.
White: ….. HD 36 combines with 35 and combine those and come up with Native VAp of 4?% but unless you get another district, you won’t have enough.
Arrington: can you make another district that has it . . . I don’t have the knowledge of the political geography of Alaska to look at the maps.
White: Map combined different areas to raise the Native VAP
Arrington: I don’t have all the plans in the top of my head
White: You’re aware that one person one vote trumps all other law? In order to do that yo have to have ???? Walleri ask you about 39 and 40 and their Native population. If deviation in 39 is 4.6?? so you can’t take out more people there?
Arrington: The way that plan is drawn. ARe we dealing just with Federal standard? Or are there state standards? You could go below 4% as long as highest wasn’t more than 6%.
White: Alaska is unique. We have to account for ethnic makeup of people there. Just because there is a high VAP, it could be just the geography.
Arrington: You have to ask if there are alternative plans that do it differently?
[This seems to be getting at the crux of the case - whether a different plan could meet the voting rights act requirements AND be consistent with the Alaska constitution]
White: Mostly, if we want to improve effectiveness, if you add whites, you want to add Democrats?
Arrington: I agree, that’s generally true, but there are elections where natives vote republicans. Even Native Republicans are sometimes not candidate of choice for natives.
White: Basically need to add Democrats if add whites? Yes
….
Trying to keep native candidates in districts they can win? (yes)
White: You remember you ….??? because overlap … if not sure about district, you’d advise client to
Arrington: But DOJ instructions warn against packing.
White: You have no expert opinion in your report about packing? (no)
You agreed with me that the analysis is more an art than a science.
Arrington: more engineering than art.
White: Supreme Court came out …??? Not clear what standard DOJ was going to do with all these changes in the law? Your opinion involved … texas case as well. There was some nomenclature in your report that you wouldn’t agree with now, based on your studies and talking to people in DOJ.
Arrington: yes and work in New Mexico….
Walleri: A couple of questions. Take a look at ??? hard to hear -
Report by Dr. Handley to board in May. Direct your attention to page 2, talks about effective districts. Item 2. Roman Numeral II. Two types of districts there. Do you agree that for determining retrogression you consider effective, equal opportunity, and opportunity districts. Do you agree now with what she said in May?
Arrington: No, As I understand new provisions in law that overturned Ashcroft v. Georgia. The only thing that counts is effective, 50/50 isn’t enough. As a political scientist, I think that’s a good thing. You can’t measure potential based on proportion of minority. Minority at 10% in tight race, they will be important. But a larger percent in a strong Republican district, they won’t be important January 10, 2011 Redistricting Board Court Challenge Fairbanks
Judge Michael P. McConahy, Superior Court
Part 2 - 10:06
White: Objection, he hasn’t done the analysis.
Walleri: We haven’t had a chance to ask the question. He hasn’t done the analysis, We’ve asked in the nature of a hypothetical.
Judge: What question want to ask?
Walleri: Other factors that affect cohesion.
Judge: Other factors, if so what are they?
Arrington: Remember that the numbers are based on the averages of elections in last decade over the state. In new districts are there other factors, that would indicate that the statewide numbers do or would overstate cohesion or understate or overstate turnout. Suppose you have native within a district who are diametrically opposed, like in Florida with Cubans and Puerto Ricans. Or turnout of Natives in one district might be less than the statewide averages. A particular district might not be average.
Walleri: You didn’t look at things like language barrier an their ability to elect (no) nor did you look at possible political differences among natives that would affect cohesion or ability o elect? (no) Nor did Dr. Handley? (She didn’t report it if she did)
With Cubans and Puerto Ricans, both are Hispanics, it doesn’t show.
Judge: I’ll let them talk about Florida, some little states below, if a hypothetical go ahead.
Arrington: someone should look at that to see if it is effective.
Walleri: away from mic, not as clear.
Arrington: We have talked about that at great length, but in professional testimony I have nothing to say.
Walleri: And Dr Handley hasn’t looked at different native groups or languages?
Arrington: If she did, not in her report.
Walleri: What is table 12, and 13?
Arrington: 12 plans with strongest negative concentration.
Walleri: In her report she talks about unpacking, Table 12. 82% Native. Are those packing numbers.
Arrington: Two definitions
1. evil, done on purpose
2. just higher than they need to be
Yes, they are at least in (2)
White: No expert on packing
Overruled
Arrington: One of DOJ’s criteria is packing. Is there a higher concentration of natives than is necessary for them to elect the candidate of their choice.
Walleri: Her analysis says all they need is 42% is that correct? Yes
Page 31 where she does analysis. Table 17?
Arrington: Native concentration in 6 most concentrated native regions in Proclamation Plan.
Walleri: In HD 34 there is ?? is this effective?
Arrington: She also says there the voting is unusually???? polarized. That’s what I mean by political rather than legal.
Walleri: Do we consider equal opportunity districts? NO. Based on your DOJ experience. So we are basically looking at effective districts. We can.
She identified ….. HD 36 - area in Bristol Bay and Part of Alaska Pen. and Eastern Aleutian. What VAP needed here? (something less than 39.8.) In the plan we have 71.5, so the VAP is more than is need? Yes.
37 - Western Aleutians. What VAP needed here?
41.8 - area far west is not most of the population. The other area is critical and no reason to believe not polarized.
38 - What VAP needed here. 41.8 is about where you want. Some overlap from HD6, but not many whites. This is unique by combining urban area with rural Native area. But in terms of numbers over 41.8 should work.
Walleri: Definitely enfranchising Native people here by the numbers (yes) Interns of urban white areas in Ester, are we not saying the white vote would not be effective?
Arrington: laugh, we don’t normally say that. In every district there will be people who vote for people who won’t win. But in general principles joining a rural and urban area should be avoided.
Walleri: In this area? ?? This is 67.9 is this more than needed? [39?]
District 40 - what VAP? (42%) but it’s 62.2 - is that more than needed to be effective? (yes)
Walleri: That’s all I have
Judge: BEfore White asks, when you spoke about PR and Cuban Hispanics, is there any DOJ requirement to deeper analysis? I understand it may be appropriate, but
Arrington: In The past they’ve hired me whether they should pre clear a plan. it depends on their analysis of state plan. If they say, we suspect there is something deeper here. or someone objected to pre clearance and drew their attention. Sometimes just look at numbers and have no reason to believe, they don’t push. All they ever say is we don’t object.
Judge: In Alaska’s pre clearance was this brought up?
Arrington: I don’t believe so.
White: ???
Judge: Not bringing up new points.
White: Email from head of Alaska Dem Party, if you look at this document (hard to hear) in this letter, object because of the language issue. . .
Arrington: Never saw it before, but see it here.
White: You understand the plan cleared. You would agree that Dr. H is an expert and competent (yes) and in your work, you use her work, and based on those things, that formed your analysis (yes).
Look at your report, p. 55, par. 2 go on and offer your opinion, par. 19, p. 7 of your report, 5 benchmarks House and 3 Senate districts - here you are saying benchmark is 5-3, based on your review of Lisa Handley’s report. (correct) Last sentence par. 10 - based on your opinion Dr. H. based on ability to elect, you were able to get to conclusion that benchmark must be judged by ability to elect. (correct)
Arrington: No, that’s what I say where I came out, but I was confused along the way. Her conclusion that HD6 was 50/50 which it is not.
White: came from testimony, not her report.
Arrington: doesn’t matter where it comes from
White: benchmark 5-3
Arrington: Correct
10:32
White: You relied on her analysis (correct) standard procedure to rely on analysis of other experts. I want to understand. I like language ability to elect from Texas. DOJ now considers either thumbs up or down. Correct? (yes) In the end concluded HD 38 was an effective district, has ability to elect.
Arrington: based on the numbers we generally use, yes. Determine from reconstructed analysis wasn’t a very good district, but gave it thumbs up.
White: ..
break for me here
He’s basically getting Arrington to say that all of Dr. H’s analysis about benchmark districts being effective are correct. And that he didn’t do any other analysis besides the numbers even though Arrington says “According to the numbers it’s effective.”
10:37 You didn’t know that there was a number that provided a threshold ?
Arrington: Not usually racially polarized.
White: Difference between degree or racial polarization. Are times when it is.
Arrington: That’s not a quibble. Dif. between section 2 and 5. Agree we’re talking about degree, but not a quibble. Overlap…
White: All the on the record statements
Arrington: Read them but don’t claim all in my head.
…
…
10:41 Once you start making changes to a district, this is 37, in the past decade regularly performed with 37% but if you make changes you get into area where you are saying you can’t make …
Arrington: but can still use state average, but if it is normally not polarized, you can go below the average, but defining mathematically hard, less that 41.8 is ok.
[…. I just can’t keep up ]
White: page 29 ????
Arrington: Is that a map? Oh, 29, I can’t see it.
White: ….. HD 36 combines with 35 and combine those and come up with Native VAp of 4?% but unless you get another district, you won’t have enough.
Arrington: can you make another district that has it . . . I don’t have the knowledge of the political geography of Alaska to look at the maps.
White: Map combined different areas to raise the Native VAP
Arrington: I don’t have all the plans in the top of my head
White: You’re aware that one person one vote trumps all other law? In order to do that yo have to have ???? Walleri ask you about 39 and 40 and their Native population. If deviation in 39 is 4.6?? so you can’t take out more people there?
Arrington: The way that plan is drawn. ARe we dealing just with Federal standard? Or are there state standards? You could go below 4% as long as highest wasn’t more than 6%.
White: Alaska is unique. We have to account for ethnic makeup of people there. Just because there is a high VAP, it could be just the geography.
Arrington: You have to ask if there are alternative plans that do it differently?
[This seems to be getting at the crux of the case - whether a different plan could meet the voting rights act requirements AND be consistent with the Alaska constitution]
White: Mostly, if we want to improve effectiveness, if you add whites, you want to add Democrats?
Arrington: I agree, that’s generally true, but there are elections where natives vote republicans. Even Native Republicans are sometimes not candidate of choice for natives.
White: Basically need to add Democrats if add whites? Yes
….
Trying to keep native candidates in districts they can win? (yes)
White: You remember you ….??? because overlap … if not sure about district, you’d advise client to
Arrington: But DOJ instructions warn against packing.
White: You have no expert opinion in your report about packing? (no)
You agreed with me that the analysis is more an art than a science.
Arrington: more engineering than art.
White: Supreme Court came out …??? Not clear what standard DOJ was going to do with all these changes in the law? Your opinion involved … texas case as well. There was some nomenclature in your report that you wouldn’t agree with now, based on your studies and talking to people in DOJ.
Arrington: yes and work in New Mexico….
Walleri: A couple of questions. Take a look at ??? hard to hear -
Report by Dr. Handley to board in May. Direct your attention to page 2, talks about effective districts. Item 2. Roman Numeral II. Two types of districts there. Do you agree that for determining retrogression you consider effective, equal opportunity, and opportunity districts. Do you agree now with what she said in May?
Arrington: No, As I understand new provisions in law that overturned Ashcroft v. Georgia. The only thing that counts is effective, 50/50 isn’t enough. As a political scientist, I think that’s a good thing. You can’t measure potential based on proportion of minority. Minority at 10% in tight race, they will be important. But a larger percent in a strong Republican district, they won’t be important. I never thought influence districts were a good idea. But I don’t know I’d know that in May. But I new opportunity districts weren’t good in May.
Walleri: What she was telling the Board back in May was basically wrong.
Arrington: yes
Walleri: next page, she’s talking about what a benchmark is. Particularly - benchmark, page 2 bottom, telling board what bench mark is: 4 effective, 2 influence or equal opportunity districts. You agree?
Arrington: No, that was language from her that confused me.
Walleri: It was confusing you when you did your report. (yes) Look at your report on page 7, par 19. you say, there are five house benchmark districts and 3 Sen benchmark districts. ARe you aware, before that if there is any place where Handley said five bench mark districts. (Taxing my brain, can’t say) May 24 she said 4 effective and 2 influence - would she have been wrong then? (yes)
June 4 you said you were confused about what the benchmark was?
Arrington: No, I said I was confused about what she said the bm was.
Walleri: She never said what the bm was and there were 5 effective districts.
White: leading the wittiness?
Walleri: Do you know any place in the report where she says what the bm is?
Arrington: I was confused about that, I don’t recall.
Walleri: In her rebuttal report is there anywhere she says how many benchmarks?
Arrington: Sorry I don’t remember.
Walleri: On direct exam you talk about HD 39 and 40 - North slope and - they were over the population needed to elect. (correct) In report did you look at the Sen. districts.
Arrington: Sen T as taxi?
Walleri: you said needed 42% to be effective. In Sen the same or different.
Arrington: When you combine the two, amount of VAP needed is 42%-50% but in plan she set it at 72.4
Walleri: page 22, needed for proclamation, more than needed? (yes)
Walleri: talking about Native candidate who is not ‘preferred’ candidate
Arrington: Doesn’t count. protecting voters, not the candidates. . .
Walleri: in SE, talking about native Sen. Kookesh paired with non-Native Sen Stedman.
Arrington: Is he the preferred candidate? yes Then I’d be concerned.
Walleri: You have Native candidate who sometimes is preferred and sometimes not
Arrington: I would report to my client the situation and they would determine if that was a legal problem - difference between the politics or law. I give the facts and you figure the law.
Walleri: If you have opportunity to protect native preferred incumbent or native candidate who is sometimes preferred and sometimes not.
Arrington. The former - the consistently Native preferred.
Walleri: complete
White: even back in May Handley is saying it’s really ability to elect, despite the language (I don’t know what she said) But you said ….
Arrington: But I made that judgment based on her numbers not her nomenclature. Numbers can also be confusing, but not in this case.
White: footnote 5...effective commonly used . . .(yes I often do same thing. ) page 4 of her report footnote 7, in there she takes about “...protected by voting rights act, equal opportunity district. . .3/4 …. (correct, also confusing for me. clear from work we’re doing in Texas - candidate regularly elected but lost in 2010 when Dems lost big . . .)
Walleri objection: ??/
White: No doubt in your mind benchmark …. and plan meets benchmark… (by the numbers it meets the benchmark) and no other plan met the bm (No other plan presented to the board did not meet bm.)
Judge: Good time to take a break. Dr. Arrington be excused. Tell everyone no mosquitoes in Alaska.
11:25 now, come back at 11:40, Walleri has time for next witness.. I never thought influence districts were a good idea. But I don’t know I’d know that in May. But I new opportunity districts weren’t good in May.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments will be reviewed, not for content (except ads), but for style. Comments with personal insults, rambling tirades, and significant repetition will be deleted. Ads disguised as comments, unless closely related to the post and of value to readers (my call) will be deleted. Click here to learn to put links in your comment.