Follow Up Making Sense of Redistricting Trial Post - "Socio-Economic Integration"

[NOTE:  This post is trying to dig a little deeper into the meaning and purpose of the redistricting criterion of 'socio-economically integrated.'  That takes me to some of the testimony on what SEI means, the Hickel decision, what Boroughs are.  It's a little behind the scenes of the trial.  And I'm rushing it out because tomorrow starts another day in court.  So excuse the typos and other errors and just focus on the basic points.  Thanks.]

 In Thursday's post, there were some issues I raised but didn't say much about at the time, but promised  I'd address them soon. Two - 

• 4000 pop exchange between Fairbanks and Valdez into 36
• Importance of hearing the wishes of Alaska Natives and understanding the cultures relationships, and differences 

I discussed a little further in the previous post on the four districts and two district clusters and how they're all intertwined.  

That leaves three more and I think the one on Socio-Economic Integration (SEI) is the most important given that that criterion is the hardest to prove, yet every one of the cases is based at least partially on it and the Valdez/Ma-Su cases are based heavily on it.  

Here's how I left it in the Thursday post:

Bahnke pretty much tells us that SEI (Socio-Economic Integration) is in the eye of the beholder - SEI has been used to support and to challenge districting decisions by just about every party so far.  SEI is one of the Constitutional requirements for districts in Alaska.  One Supreme Court ruling concluded that everyone within a Borough boundary can be considered SEI.  That seems like a pretty broad conclusion.  The Fairview neighborhood (with a high level of diversity and relatively low income) is socio-economically integrated with the much whiter and wealthier hillside or other south Anchorage neighborhoods?   I don't think that's true. 

So, does that mean my interpretation of SEI is wrong?  Is merely different from the Supreme Court's?  Or that the decision of the court which is now 30 years old, is ready for a fresh look?  

First, what did Melanie Bahnke say on Thursday.  From my very imperfect notes.  The Board's attorney, Matt Singer, is following up on the questions from the previous attorney, Tanner Amdur-Clark (who is intervening on behalf of the Board) who had asked Bahnke the difference between issues that were statewide issues (ie everyone in Alaska no matter where they lived would agree on) such as salmon, by-catch, oil revenues, and whether these would count as SEI since everyone in Alaska would agree.  [That in itself is a big assumption.] And it by-passes the fact that Valdez' oil concerns are different from Mat-Su's.  But Bahnke agrees there are issues that are too generally held by most Alaskans to be used to assess SEI connections for redistricting.   Then we get this  

Bahnke: It was all relative to the part of the state we were looking at, do best we could without doing harm to other places.  May not live together, but live similarly.  Urban/rural;  subsistence, REAA [Regional Educational Attendance Area]  school district, cultures, customs, traditions.  Many factors going into this,  Short hand is live, work, and play together, but many factors that go into this.  

Singer:  Is it possible to come up with a utopian plan where everyone is in equal districts where everyone is happy?   

Since the definition of utopian is 

"having impossibly ideal conditions especially of social organization"

the answer to this question is clearly a 'No' and that's what Bahnke gives him. 

Bahnke:  No, we’re the biggest state geographically."

I'm not faulting Bahnke here.  In fact her answer is refreshingly candid.  While the attorneys kept asking "Do the people in X live, work, and play with the people in Y?"  Bahnke tells us that it's more complicated than that.  And as it gets more complicated and there isn't much guidance, then it sounds like it boils down to the opinions of the Board members.  

But it points out the problem of taking such vague concepts and trying to apply them.  Is there a better definition?

Attorneys refer frequently to The Hickel Decision in the trial.  When it comes to SEI we learned early in the redistricting process that the Hickel Decision says that inside a Borough, everyone is socio-economically integrated.  So I thought I should pull out that language from that case in 1992. [However this comes from a later case.]

From Justia Law - 2001 (Alaska) Redistricting Cases footnote 8

"[8] See In re 2001 Redistricting Cases, 44 P.3d at 146 ("Anchorage is by definition socio-economically integrated."); see also Hickel v. Southeast Conference, 846 P.2d 38, 52 (Alaska 1992) ("[A] borough is by definition socio-economically integrated."); id. at 51 (quoting AS 29.05.031) ("By statute, a borough must have a population which `is interrelated and integrated as to its social, cultural, and economic activities.'")."

Let's backtrack a bit further to that statue about Boroughs:

"Section 29.05.031 - Incorporation of a borough or unified municipality

(a) An area that meets the following standards may incorporate as a home rule, first class, or second class borough, or as a unified municipality:

(1) the population of the area is interrelated and integrated as to its social, cultural, and economic activities, and is large and stable enough to support borough government;" 

This probably was true when Alaska established boroughs, but how long ago was that?  I did find  a document from the Local Boundary Commission  that suggests it was 1961:

To ostensibly carry out the constitutional mandate that the entire state be divided into boroughs, organized or unorganized, the 1961 Legislature enacted a law providing that all areas not within the boundaries of an organized borough constitute a single unorganized borough. (AS 29.03.010)

In 1960, the population was just over 200,000.  I would imagine that the writers of the Constitution envisioned that the interests of various boroughs were relatively unified.  Though I suspect they weren't taking in to account of the  interests of Alaska Native groups within the state.

In fact, that Local Boundary Commission (LBC) document which was written in 2004  raises this very question about the unorganized borough area in Alaska in a footnote.

"Most recently, the LBC recently expressed the view that the 1961 law creating the single residual unorganized borough, “disregarded the constitutional requirement that each borough must embrace an area of common interests.” , Local Boundary Commission and Department of Education and Early Development, School Consolidation: Public Policy Considerations and a Review of Opportunities for Consolidation, February 2004, p. 30."

They are saying the areas of Alaska in the unorganized borough did NOT have common interests.  

I dare say that most Alaskans who don't work with local governments have only the haziest notion of Boroughs.  Maybe they know 'it's like a county in other states.'  I myself wasn't sure how many boroughs Alaska has.  I did find this list and this map in a Local Government Primer put out by the Alaska Municipal League (can't find the date):  [The format is different in the original]

Alaska has 18 organized boroughs and a single unorganized borough. The organized boroughs are:

1. Aleutians East Borough
2. Bristol Bay Borough
3. City & Borough of Juneau 

4. City & Borough of Sitka
5. City & Borough of Wrangell

 6. City & Borough of Yakutat

7. Denali Borough
8. Fairbanks North Star Borough 9. Haines Borough

10. Kenai Peninsula Borough 

11. Ketchikan Gateway Borough 

12. Kodiak Island Borough

13. Lake & Peninsula Borough 

14. Matanuska-Susitna Borough 

15. Municipality of Anchorage 

16. Municipality of Skagway

17. North Slope Borough

18. Northwest Arctic Borough 19. Petersburg Borough

Source: DCCED

 

I'd note on January 26, Amdur-Clark asked Valdez expert witness Brace about whether he thought Valdez was in a Borough. Perhaps the Chugach Borough? (He and others also asked about whether you could drive from Cordova to Valdez - presumably to prove they weren't connected - and no one ever brought up the fact that while there is no road, the marine highway connects them, so technically, you can take your car from Cordova to Valdez.  That's a side issue but it does show the attorneys asking misleading questions.)

The point Amdur-Clark was suggestion, I'm guessing, is that perhaps Mat-Su going to Valdez was not breaking a borough boundary.  Or maybe that Cordova and Valdez are not in the same Borough. Or in any borough?  Or he was just setting Brace up for an Alaska gotcha.  From the map above, it does appear that Cordova and Valdez are in the unorganized Borough.  Brace responded that on the census maps they are in a borough.  Wikipedia says:

"Valdez–Cordova Census Area was a census area located in the state of Alaska, United States.[3] As of the 2010 census, the population was 9,636.[4] It was part of the Unorganized Borough and therefore has no borough seat. On January 2, 2019, it was abolished and replaced by the Chugach Census Area and the Copper River Census Area"

But back to my point about SEI and Boroughs.  Let's look at what the Supreme Court has said in more detail: 

From Hickel v Southeast Council 1992

"3. Socio-economic Integration.

In addition to preventing gerrymandering, the requirement that districts be composed of relatively integrated socio-economic areas helps to ensure that a voter is not denied his or her right to an equally powerful vote. 

[W]e should not lose sight of the fundamental principle involved in reapportionment truly representative government where the interests of the people are reflected in their elected legislators. Inherent in the concept of geographical legislative districts is a recognition that areas of a state differ economically, socially and culturally and that a truly representative government exists only when those areas of the state which share significant common interests are able to elect legislators representing those interests. Thus, the goal of reapportionment should not only be to achieve numerical equality but also to assure representation of those areas of the state having common interests."  [emphasis added]

 This was my point when I said (yesterday) that the most persuasive SEI argument that I've heard is from Valdez.  They point out that their interests in oil are different from Mat-Su's interest in oil.  Board members have argued this is a common interest between the two communities that have been put in the same district.  They say "Valdez has the pipeline and Mat-Su has oil workers."  Valdez responds, "Valdez people work on the pipeline and Mat-Su oil workers work on the slope."  Valdez also says that they get over 90% of their revenues from taxes on the pipeline and Mat-Su has other sources of revenue.  And most persuasive to me is that Mat-Su and Valdez are competitors on two major infrastructure projects where they compete for money from the state: on ports and on a competing natural gas pipeline corridors.

That seems to be the point that was being made in the Hickel decision:  

". . . a recognition that areas of a state differ economically, socially and culturally and that a truly representative government exists only when those areas of the state which share significant common interests are able to elect legislators representing those interests."

Valdez' key argument is that they don't share mutual significant common interests.  Most of the other arguments about SEI don't talk about how their interests need unified support from their legislators.  They are more about people feeling a district doesn't represent the neighborhood they self identify with, not how that would hurt them in the legislature.

But Valdez made that argument loud and clear:  If 76% of the voters in their district live in the suburbs of Palmer and Wasilla, then their representative is a) not going to be from Valdez  and b) not going to put Valdez' interests over Mat-Su's interests on key issues.

Truly, I don't have vested interests in Valdez.  I'm just pointing out what I see after all is said and done about socio-economic integration, the most logical arguments I've heard so far come from Valdez.  

There are two left over issues from the Thursday post:  

A lot of communication between the Board and the public was not on the record - Bahnke said that, Simpson said that, Torkelson said that, and we had the text message put on the record yesterday from Amdur-Clark to Borromeo and other emails.  Mostly they said there was just a lot of communication through conversations with the public and between Board members while traveling that ever got recorded.  Partly that's the tension between gathering enough information and documenting it.  For me the test is whether there were communications that were not documented or otherwise publicly acknowledged, that changed the outcome of the maps.  

^Reporting and the relationships you develop with your subjects - Another point I want to save for later, but it particularly relates to someone like me reporting on a governmental body over a long period of time - long enough to develop at least a professional relationship and getting to know people as more than just a role on a Board.  It's particularly apt today because of  my comments about Peter Torkelson.  This one can probably wait until after the trial is over.

I'll address these later.  Probably the last one after this part of the trial is over.   Tomorrow is more Calista.