Friday, July 05, 2013

Board Gets Court Order For Schedule, Discusses Deviation and Section 2 of VRA, Then Adjourns

Again, these are rough notes.  I put some headers in to help you find the points in the title.  Don't consider these more than a guide - lots of missing words and paraphrasing. 

1:35pm Board reopens meeting

Torgerson:  Took 35 minute break, not ten.

Look at some plans from last week and then Board members can open own computers and start working.
Start with AFFER map.  Trial court order just came turn to Mr. White.  We were being challenged on not having a deadline to adopt the final map.


White:  Order from Judge McConahay, July 5.  Order short. On Riley motion to establish deadline.  Pointed out they said they failed, something about Shelby County, don't dispute how it affects Alaska.  Neither court or Board submitted plan.

It shall propose a schedule within five days

I read that to say Board has to have a schedule by next Friday.  Something the Board should think about and consider.  No indication what timeline is required, might help a bit with someone ???? Board can think about it and have formal schedule adopted prior to next week.

Torgerson:  REasoning?  Still slow, to speed Board up? 
We'll go back to Eric, AFFER overlay with Calista 4
Marie:  Can't hear.

Eric:  AFFER 2.1 - Pastel Colors,  Red Outline is Calista Option 4.

White:  I think we might have confusion here.
Torgerson:  What are you confused about?
Eric:  Pastel Color AFFER 2.1 turned in this morning.  Red Outline is Calista Option 4.  I also have Calista Option 2.5 if you want to look at that.
Torgerson:  We might
McConnochie:  Can you take the numbers off?

Lots of nothing.

Torgerson:  Can you zoom in on Matsu?  Brings Valdez.  2.1 comes down.
White:  AFFER 2.1  ???

1:53pm I wasn't listening too carefully, but now they are talking about members playing with maps and taking a 90 minute break

Green:  [Can't hear well enough - they moved mike]
Torgerson:  you two will work together on SE.  Mr. Holm on Kenai???  Healthy to have Mr. White talk about deviations again.  I got lost about best deviation and findings that we can go.  If another constitutional need, deviation might not be that important.


White:  I would interpret the teachings of our SC, that we no longer need to comply with Section 5 of the act.  The only way was to underpopulate the Native districts to get districts effective.  it's been shown that maps can be drawn with extremely low deviations.  there may be some problems.  You don't need to have the lowest possible deviations if making changes to improve SEI, compactNess or contiguity.  Balancing act.  Do I think ok to have 9.6?  Probably not.  But if you have a good justification, maybe.  If going from 1.2 to 5% don't think a problem unless those deviations are in urban areas.  Given relatively larger populations and because Boroughs are by law SEI, so you have to get those deviations as low as possible.  But according to trial court, deviations aren't everything.  If more compact or more SEI, I think the higher deviations ok.  US Supreme Court gave 10% safe harbor, but Alaska court will look.
Brodie:  I appreciate that interpretation.  Now we don't have Native districts and non-Native districts, now we have Alaskan districts, rural and urban.  Need to take into consideration their unique issues.


White:  Section 2 of the VRA still applies and we do have to comply with that, doesn't have impact of discriminating against natives.  US Supreme Court, if protected minority group doesn't 50% plus in a district.  We had districts under 50% that were not under 50%.  37 was not over 50%.  You could not draw it to make it to be 50% plus.  Under section 2, that district wouldn't count.  Need to make up majority in order to qualify for Section 2 protection.
Torgerson:  How do you propose we make a reocrd of higher deviation.
White:  Do what we did last time, when we make those decisions, we do written findings as we did last time of how the Board makes its decisions.
Torgerson:  Stand in recess until 3:30.  Should I go off the teleconference and back on.  Call back in at 3:30.  At that we are at recess. 

[I'm listening in via from Los Angeles]

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.