Alaska Redistricting Board Meeting: Fight Over 800 People, Airing Of Board Grievances, And Other Board Actions

[First let me note that the Board voted to approve their proposed maps today and tomorrow's (Friday Sept 10) meeting was cancelled]

This post is going to look at some of the dynamics of the Board displayed.  I can't cover everything in this post.  These are some things I thought important today.  There's lots more and since the Board isn't meeting again until next Friday I can  probably get the most important things up during the week.

Playing Ping Pong With 800 Voters

Redistricting is a very partisan activity.  The ability to redo the maps to favor one party or another underlies this activity.  Three of the Board members were appointed by Republican politicians, one by a Democratic politician, and one by the Supreme Court Chief Justice.  

Up until today the fight over what the Alaska legislature is going to look like was below the surface.  The previous board that did the 2010 Redistricting was appointed by four Republicans and the Alaska Supreme Court Chief Justice.  There was almost no bickering in public meetings.  (There was some at the end but among Republicans and it was minor.)  The Supreme Court Chief Justice's appointee essentially looked after Native issues and as long as they were taken care of, she was fine with everything else.  And since that Board needed to get preclearance from the Department of Justice to assure Alaska Native power was not being diminished, the Board took care of that first.  Any partisan actions decisions could be made without conflict - such as putting half of Bettye Davis' district into Eagle River, which ended up costing both a minority Senate seat and a Democratic Senate seat.  

This time we have a bit more division and the Democratic appointed member is a lot more protective.  In terms of backgrounds, the seemingly most partisan member, really I think ideological is a better descriptor, but it translates to partisan on the Board, would appear to be Bethany Marcum who is the Executive Director of the Alaska Policy Forum whose values listed on their website are far right, libertarian ones, and the organizations goals are to promote the passing of laws that embrace those values.  It would make sense that her role on the Board would be to  help get that done by skewing the seats toward Republicans.  

Nicole Borromeo is  the Executive Vice-President & General Counsel of the Alaska Federation of Natives.  This organization's values and mission are to support the interests of Alaska Natives.  It doesn't the same explicit partisan goals as the Alaska Policy Forum, but often they align with more Democratic values and support Democratic candidates.  But they were also instrumental in getting Sen. Lisa Murkowski reelected in 2010.  They've maintained good relations with all the Alaskan Congressional delegation who have been, for the most part Republicans.  

800 People

Today there was what I'd call a long ping pong match where the ball went back and forth between Borromeo and Marcum.  It actually began yesterday when Marcum argued strongly for valuing compactness over deviation when mapping districts.  (Compactness being about keeping the districts as compact as possible and giving them as smooth and straight boundaries as possible. Marcum seemed to be playing whack-a-mole with any protrusions from straight lines.  I wrote about compactness with illustrations in yesterday's post.)  Borromeo would hit the ball back over the net swatting it hard with an anti-deviation paddle. (Deviation referring to how much - in people and in percent - a district deviates from the ideal district size which is 18,335.  That number is the result of dividing the 2020 official Census population of Alaska by 40, which is the number of seats in the state house.)  Borromeo was making the point that the Matsu districts as a whole were under populated - they had fewer than the 18,335 people.  In the end the Board deviated from a guideline they had adopted, to keep all the boroughs whole if possible.  Some are too small to be stand alone districts, but as much as possible they didn't want to divide boroughs.  But then they decided to move 800 people from south Knik (in the Anchorage borough) into Matsu borough.  

Today, the ping pong game was about those 800 people.  Borromeo argued strenuously against them being pulled from Anchorage and that this violated the goal of keeping boroughs whole.  Marcum argued strongly to move them into Matsu.  

There was far more time and passion devoted to this debate than, on the surface, it seemed to deserve.  There was clearly something more going on.  I talked to people who attended the meeting - there are people working on alternative maps there paying close attention.  One theory that seems possible is this:  

By moving 800 people out of north Anchorage, you cause a need for more people in those districts.  You end up with a ripple effect and you have to move people up the district north until you get to the more urban areas of Anchorage.  Then you can pull out 800 out of the east Anchorage Muldoon area that Senator Bill Weilochoski represents, either putting him in a district with a lot more conservative voters, or pairing his district with an Eagle River district.  The last Board did this with Senator Bettye Davis last time - moving one of her house districts to Eagle River and got her voted out of the Senate.  My quick look at the maps tonight made it hard to tell exactly what they'd done with Weilochoski's district.  Partly it's hard because there's a green district that seems to be partly in the Anchorage map and partly in the Eagle River map.  I can't verify this theory, but I'm putting out there because so far it's the best explanation I can find for the battle over the 800 people.  And it echoes what happened in the last round.  But also look at the maps of Anchorage to see what happened there.  Marcum was arguing that people had been telling her that they wanted Anchorage to be more horizontal than vertical.  That seems to have happened.  And I'm guessing the result is to have Democratic legislator in the north and midtown being put in districts where incumbents would be running against each other.  There may be the same affect in the south of Anchorage where there are Republican incumbents.  

Early on the Board chose not to have political party or incumbent information in the data they had to make maps.  The point was to avoid doing just such things.  I was reminded of this when, at the end of the meeting today, Board  executive director  Peter Torkelson, speaking to third parties submitting alternative plans, reminded them not to have any partisan information in their maps.   But I also know that both the Democratic and Republican advisors to Board members have that information.  In the previous Redistricting Randy Ruedrich who coordinated a third party called AFFER (Alaskans for Fair and Equitable Redistricting) had most of this data in his head and wasn't shy about sharing it with Board members during breaks and after meetings.  On the other side Tom Begich, now state Senator Begich, also had that information and he worked with various groups making alternative plans.  I'd note that Sen. Begich called in to give  public testimony and shared maps with the Board today.  

Clearing the Air in Public

Another critical event happened today just before lunch.  Board member Borromeo asked the chair, John Binkley,  to take time to raise an issue that she'd asked him to let her discuss yesterday, I think, in Executive Session.  But since he said he didn't think it met the requirements for Executive Session that they should do it in public session.  So she wanted to do it them.  And he agreed.  Basically it was a list of complaints about how the Chair was running the meetings.  Some people got kept to a short 3 minute time limit for public testimony and others, like Sen Begich that morning, were given a lot more time to present his maps.  It's best, I think for me to just post my notes here.  As always, I was typing as fast as I could, but that's not fast enough to get it verbatim or even to capture it all.  But you can get a sense of this unusual public airing of grievances by a public body.  I'd note that I was impressed by a) the respectful way it was presented  b) the respectful way the Chair acknowledged that he was guilty of some of the charges and would work hard to correct them and c) that they did this in full public view so that the world could evaluate.  There was nothing hidden under the rug. (Well probably there are lots of other things we don't know.)  

r-l  Chair Binkley, Member Borromeo,
Exec Director Torkelson at 11:05am during break

So here are my notes from today.  The video and transcript might be up soon.  This happened just before the lunch break.

"Nicole:  Thank the Board for hard work.  We talked yesterday about a discussion that I thought should be on Executive Session.  You said to do it on the record.  

When we first met, both our names were put out for chair.  But different perspective.  I think Board Chair presides over the sessions, but all members are equal.  Don’t mean to be critical.  Don Young says bring solutions.  I’m bringing solutions.  When it comes to public testimony there were allowances.  When Bethany wanted Eric to talk about Valdez and when I wanted something, there was no time to do it.  When Sen. Begich testifies, there was no time limit, but when AFFR wanted to testify, they were limited to 3 minutes.

In executive session.  Yesterday we ate up a lot of time on procedural issues which might not be private.  I wanted to discuss.. ..  It was yesterday that Bethany and I worked on separate things and brought back to board.  I’d like to see more consistency.  I respect the role of the chair and not asking for changes.

Concerned about email that perhaps the Board should set broad policy and let the staff work on it - like where should we put Valdez.  As expert as they are - and I think they are - they aren’t Board members.  The clicking [on the mapping software] draws lines that we have to defend as board members.  People say, don't waste of time.  If that’s the case, we don’t need to work as a Board.  Working together we have expertise about where the lines would be drawn.

John:  Let me apologize if inconsistent.  I strive to be consensual  and sorry when I wasn’t.  My job is to chair, but we are all equl.  I serve at your pleasure.  Appreciate being able to serve but if Board wants to make change, that’s fine.  Not sure of all the details of your concern.  Agree with you 100% we are all equal???   And on e-mail you mentioned.  Happy to talk to you one on one to see how I can improve.  Important that we all have ownership of this.  But have to use the public's time well as well as ours.  Appreciate the constructive nature of your comments.

Nicole:  It's culturally jarring to have this conversation.  Don’t want to change the chair.  When I was in the Board's office and saw staff talking to staff and you, that it should have been a meeting.  My request going forward, whenever Matt [the Board's attorney] is going to talk to the Staff. . .  Melanie today said she wants all the emails from the districts.  Appearance that there are small group discussions going on should be avoided.

John:  I agree with all you say.  At the meeting we’d been doing things and slipped in.  I do think as uncomfortable as this is, I think it’s important not to hide behind executive session.  Only should have ES when legally required.

Nicole:  I agree.  Should be public.  This doesn’t end Friday.  We’ll get there.  As chair of my corporation board, I know the challenges.  I think unilateral actions taken.  Willing to speak with you.  Firm believer we can have open discussion and we all depart as friends.

Melanie:  couple of things, since I’m not there.[She had called in]  Reiterate yesterday, that Board and staff conversations that are deliberative be on the record.  No discussions that are about mapping at lunch breaks.  Yesterday I came back and there were conversations I wasn’t privy to.  When I was questioning Socio-economic issues, Board member said culture was not an issue to review.  Analysis pointed to website.  Want board to look at that.  We have Voting Rights Act to consider.  There are cultural issues, including predominantly Native communities.  Want public to be aware and it’s on the website.  And no side conversations.

John:  Thank you Melanie.  We talked about that this morning.  If more than two members present we cannot talk about anything related to this.  And appreciate your help with this.  Thanks for pointing that out now.  Peter is scrolling through some of these definitions  All these are available on the website.  

Peter:  We put a short blurb on all these terms with links to source material.  

John:  He put a lot of work into the website [I think he's referring to this page] and I think it’s phenomenal and I hope public finds it informative and easy to navigate.  OK, break.  Say 1pm?  OK"

This is getting kind of long and there are other issues to raise.  As I said above, there are no more meetings until Friday September 17, so I have some time to catch up in the next week.