AK Redistricting Court Hearing: 1) Each Case Separate or Group? 2) Faster Transcripts

 The pretrial hearings are moving fast and things get changed quickly.  The last hearing was supposed to be Wednesday, but got postponed to today.  In part, I think this was because the Supreme Court gave the Superior Court two extra weeks to get the case done.  

There were three basic issues today:

1.  Schedules for getting Direct Testimony and Opening Statements to the judge

They'd already decided the direct testimony would be done before the trial via depositions - if I understand this right - and in court they will focus on cross examination and redirect.  The judge wants to get materials as quick as possible so he has time to read things and the plaintiffs want as much time as possible to get depositions done and review transcript.  

Both sides seemed reasonable.  The plaintiffs and the Board wanted the weekend to get things done and the judge said, he like the best products possible so they'd be easier to read, and agreed to first thing Monday morning.  (I've got Tuesday, January 18 written down, so I'm guessing it means next weekend.)

2.  Structure of Trial:  Option A: Case by Case  or Option B:  All the cases together

The judge said that what he got shows the plaintiffs what Option A - each case heard separately- and the Board wants Option B all the cases together.  

The judge said he leaned toward option A

Matt Singer (the Board's attorney) argued that all together would be much less of a burden for the Board members three of whom live outside of Anchorage.  If the cases were all together they'd only have to be in Anchorage for one week instead of two and they wouldn't have to repeat their testimony in different trials.

They were, he said, appointed public servants, volunteers.  Five separate trials would be 'unfairly burdensome' to the Board members.  He mentioned that member Marcum had a vacation that was schedule a year ago and would not be back until Jan 31.  She also has trouble reading documents on a screen and needs hard copies to read.  

[I'd note that a year ago, Marcum already was on the Board and already knew that the Census data would be late and that every redistricting board has had court challenges and thus there was a good chance for a court challenge.  There was also a pandemic going on.  So if she made vacation plans she knew there was a risk.  Plus Alaska Airlines allows people to change tickets and even cancel without penalties.]    

He also mentioned the extra COVID exposure of coming into the office so often.  

Tanner Amdur-Clark - representing the Doyon Coalition as an intervenor on behalf of the Board in the Mat-Su case said he supported the Board on this.  He pointed out that the House cases (disputes about how House lines were drawn) are all interconnected.  Valdez and Mat-Su both don't want to be paired with the other, and if you change either, that will have a cascading effect on many other districts.  

Eva Gardner (an attorney with the Calista challenge) - Took exception to Matt Singer's characterization of the excessive burden of the Board.  "That's what they signed up for and argued for five separate cases.  Singer's characterization of the Board members as volunteers was misleading since they are getting paid and she came up with a rough estimate of how much they might be getting paid - I think it came to $45,000.  She acknowledged this is less than what they might get at their regular jobs, but it was still substantial.  [I recall that Bahnke and Borromeo said something about their pay going to the Native Corporations they work at, but don't remember the exact details.]  She said they could all be vaccinated and where good masks and she could recommend good air filters if Mr. Singer needed that.  

Robin Brenna (attorney for Valdez and Skagway cases)  - said he'd just gotten off a case with law firms and witnesses spread over five locations around the country and they had no trouble.  If they want to avoid COVID issues, why need to bring Board members to Anchorage?  The trial itself will be done via Zoom.  Favored Option A.  He also argued five separate cases would make a cleaner record for the judge and the Supreme Court.  

Judge Matthews then decided to go for Option A (though he said Option B two our of three mentions and when this was pointed out he made it clear he meant Option A.)

3.  Transcripts

Brenna complained that transcripts from early November Board meetings still aren't available and they need transcripts of the meetings before they do the depositions.  Given the delays he was concerned about transcripts for depositions.

Matt Singer said there were video and audio tapes of all the Board meetings available and he's been trying to get the transcription company moving faster.  There were also problems because of errors in the transcriptions so they had to be corrected and sent back. 

The judge decided Singer should contact the company and in the meantime, send the draft transcripts over to the plaintiffs.  

[I'd note that I've done some transcripts of some of the hearings.  They are time consuming because often the Board members are difficult to hear - they aren't near enough to a mic, they talk softly, or they talk very fast.  Additionally, I heard from a transcriber last time (2011 Board) that they had audio tapes and couldn't tell which Board member was talking.  

But I'd also say that I have done some transcribing from the videos for some of my blog posts.  I don't have transcribing equipment that lets me stop the tape then rewind it easily while I type.  I don't don't type at transcriber speeds.  If I can do it, professional transcribers should be able to do it much more quickly.  

Other issues:  Brenna had other issues but only mentioned one, saying there wasn't enough time for the others.  He wanted to know what a typical court day would look like under Option A - each case separately.  In the end, it seems like what he really wanted to know was how much time would be allocated to each side.  The judge said six hours for each side.  [I'd note that judges do allocate time to each side of a case and the time is tracked and it's possible for one side to run out of time.  That happened in a case I was involved in.  There were disputes about how much time was used by objections of the other side's attorney.  In the end the judge added more time.]

The next status hearing is scheduled for January 14, 2022 at 10am.  You can watch it here.  Though be warned, they've been canceling and changing hearings.  The trial looks like it's starting on January 21, 2022.