Redistricting Board - Suddenly Getting Public Testimony Is Important to Simpson And Marcum

 [UPDATE April 4, 2022 5 pm.  The Board has posted 

https://www.akredistrict.org/2022-proposed-revisions/  - Two proposed Cantwell maps  and the Bahnke map for Senate districts in Anchorage from last November, which Board voted down and approved the Marcum map.  I expect we'll see more maps.  Jamie Allard  and Susan Fischetti testified today that ER should get two seats and all the people who turned out Saturday for the Bahnke map were just political attempts to gerrymander Anchorage.  Randy Ruedrich today proposed "three 2021 Map Senate Districts are acceptable." It includes pairing HD 22 (Eagle River) with HD 9 (Hillside) and HD 23 (JBER/Govt Hill) with HD (ER/Chugiak).  

Public Map Comment submission page - here's where you can comment online.]

[My notes from the meeting are below.  I'll begin with an attempt to give an overview and sense of the meeting.]

This 8am meeting was cordial and frosty.  Some wanted to get this job done quickly and others felt the need to deliberate carefully and get more public testimony.  

Essentially, there are two groups now on the Board:  The B Team - members Bahnke and Borromeo and the R Team - members Binkley, Simpson, and Marcum who were appointed by Republicans and who voted for the Senate pairings that were rejected by the trial judge and the Supreme Court.  

Back in November the R Team rushed the Senate pairing map through the board over the strong objections of Borromeo and Bahnke.  Marcum's map just appeared overnight and no one had a chance to really see it before it was approved, leaving the map Bahnke had presented the day before on the table.  

Today, Simpson began wanting more public testimony, more options for the pairings, more time to hear from people.  I'd note that Saturday there were public hearings and the overwhelming majority asked for the Bahnke pairings and for this to be resolved quickly so candidates and constituents would know what their districts are.  Simpson mentioned that the Judge had asked for a status report (not a final plan) by April 15 so there was plenty of time.  

Borromeo said this was really not that hard and the Court's order could be done today, but she was willing to wait until Wednesday.  

Simpson backed off a bit and said that was fine.  Bahnke asked that there be a brief recess so that Marcum could show the group her map.  But staffer Peter Torkelson's computer didn't seem to be able to handle both Zoom and Autobahn (the mapping software).  

Where both sides were able to agree fairly quickly was Cantwell.  They have a proposal that they moved forward and Marcum also has one and wants to compare the two to be sure about deviation of the new districts.  Binkley made a plea asking if there was a way to keep their plan since everyone - Ahtna, Cantwell residents, all wanted this small move of 200 people into District 36.  But if I recall, it was one of the points Mat-Su sued the Board over.  Their expert was flabbergasted by the Cantwell cutout.  

The Board's attorney and Simpson, I think, and Borromeo all said, NO, we have to change it back.  And they are soliciting feedback - particularly from Doyon who had pushed for the change.  

Then there was lots of wrangling over the wording of the motion to approve the Bahnke map provisionally and post it so people could see it and submit comments and testify.  

There was some debate over whether there should be a hearing tomorrow.  Simpson thought it was unnecessary.  Borromeo pointed out that he started off by saying we needed lots of public testimony and eventually they agreed to have public testimony Tuesday and Wednesday beginning at 10am.  

Later there was public testimony via the teleconferencing and some people at the LIO.  Randy Ruedrich offered an alternative Anchorage Senate map which split Eagle River into two Senate Seats.  A couple of callers - Susan Fischetti and Jamie Allard - called to say that Eagle River should have two senate seats - one with JBER and the other with Hillside.  There were accusations of gerrymandering and politicizing the process by getting out so many people who wanted the Bahnke plan.  

Yarrow Silvers (one of the East Anchorage plaintiffs) and Denny Wells (who helped create the Anchorage Municipal reapportionment maps) both said they hadn't planned to testify, but had to respond to the previous commenters.  

They both pointed out that in the Anchorage Municipal Reapportionment hearings the Hillside and Eagle River people did NOT want to be paired.  They each wanted to be in their own districts.  Wells went on to say that Jamie Allard herself had made a passioned plea to keep Eagle River together and not split it up and put it with Hillside.  

As I understood things, the Board may well approve changing the Cantwell cutout, putting it back into the Denali Borough, and putting back a part of the Mat-Su borough that was affected.  If there isn't a lot of pushback by Wednesday, this could be finalized.  

The Senate District K pairings, which should be simple, may get complicated by people pushing to still split the Eagle River districts into two different Senate Seats.   Denny Wells also pointed out in his brief testimony today that there are no other communities in the state with just two house districts that have two Senate seats.  Not even Juneau.  

There's more to discuss, but I'm going to put my notes below.  They seem a little more complete than previous ones.  But remember, I'm not a court clerk and there are gaps and paraphrases, but it should give you a decent guide to what was discussed.  

My Rough Notes

Alaska Redistricting Board Meeting April 4, 2022, LIO (Zoom, teleconference) 8:00 am

Member Borromeo present at LIO in Anchorage.  Others on Zoom.

8:08am  

Binkley:  Ideas?

Simpson:  Would like more public testimony.  Like to hear more on possible alternatives, pairings.  A couple of days for folks to do that, think about it.  We could hear public testimony on plans before the public.

I know some members would like to move things along.  I personally do not have one I’m promoting.  I feel just having one before us doesn’t fulfill our obligations to look at options.  Need a couple of days to hear comments on other suggestions that have been submitted.  Then need to assimilate that.  Always probs with competing schedules.  For next couple of weeks available except on April 11. 

Judge who now has control has given us to 15 to provide a status report.  I’m hoping that status report is new Senate pairing.  I want to move, but not feel rushed.  Don’t want to cut people out who want to testify.  Want to report on 15th.  Say, we’re done, what do you think of it?

Borromeo:  More definitive in timelines.  Today we deal with Cantwell.  I think we can wrap things up in 15 minutes.  

Cantwell today.  Senate pairings ideas today.  

Public has five months to consider pairings.  Lots of testimony over the weekend.  More on line and in LIO.  Majority want to do the Bahnke pairings.  No more delay.

Simpson:  Wouldn’t object to dealing with Cantwell today.  In my memo I said didn’t think it would be controversial.  Pretty clear directive from the court.  Narrows what we have to do with rest of our time.  Would object to vote on Wednesday without letting people to weigh in. 

There was an alternative in Nov. but people haven’t really had time to comment.  

Sympathetic to moving forward, but want people to have full opportunity for plans not before us right now.  

Bahnke:

Borromeo:  Quick follow up  I’m willing to push this out as far as Thursday.  Don’t see need for longer.  If there are going to be alternative plans.  I’m proposing the Bahnke pairings.  Sorry for you loss, suggest you review the testimony.

Bahnke:  Testimony unanimous almost to adopt Bahnke.  Should be Bahnke Simpson pairings because we worked on that together.  

Simpson:  Lot of discussion, but not what we voted on.

Bahnke:  Reading the room, space.  Overwhelming testimony to not delay.  Court clear.  Only two specific spots:  Cantwell and Senate District K.  Public testimony Saturday.  No delays.  

Not expecting vote today.  We need to move this along.  Public has had since November to see the options.  I’m prepared to get them on the record so public can comment.

Singer:  If you want to start on Cantwell, sounds like Borromeo has a map.  I suggest follow constitution.  If Board has idea for D30 and D36 if we can vote on it as a proposal and put it on the website.  Those steps are important.  Ten years ago Board didn’t have hearing on remand.  I agree this is really a technical edit.  Likely to be uncontroversial.  But we could make an error.  We benefit from public testimony.  

Post to website and invite comments.  After testimony, decide.

Simpson:  I am all for what Matt said.  I Like the idea of putting member Borromeo’s Cantwell solution.  Don’t think controversial but give it a couple of days for feedback.  

Same for member Bahnke’s Senate pairings, I have no objection.  If we move it now would clarify what those pairings are and if they want to oppose or support they know what they’re talking about.

Borromeo:  Here’s my plan.  I would like vote to go out Wednesday.  And notify Doyon group because they have interest.  

Cantwell would be returned to Denali Borough and notice to Doyon.  Decision Wednesday.

I’m willing to vote today, but my second option is Wednesday.

Binkley:  Motion as I understand it is to adopt B4 version regarding Cantwell and D36, more specific.  Motion also says to make a final decision by Wednesday.  

Bahnke:  Let’s wait until Peter puts it up.

Binkley:  Need a second for action.  

Simpson:  I’ll second it

Peter, Can you bring v4 up so we can see what it looks like.  

Peter:  Not on autobahn on this computer.  What you see is Purple is what we adopted.  Red is Borough boundary is the before boundary.  There are three districts impacted.    Denali Borough, Matsu- Borough,   D30, D25, D36 - Using Borough boundary where 30 and 25 meet.  And Borough Boundary where 30 and 36 meet.  

Bahnke:  If we wait til Wednesday, how do we do this?

Binkley:  There’s a legit motion on table.  Motion maker could withdraw, or have a withdrawal, or could move to table the motion.  

Bahnke:  Could we vote on it today, but if we hear opposition, we could change it?

Binkley:  Motion to vote on Wednesday.

Singer:  I urge Board to follow procedure.  Today vote on this as a proposed correction to the original and publish and then comeback and vote on a final plan on Wednesday.  

Marcum:  I also worked on a Cantwell solution.  I’d like to compare in Autobahn - I’d like to do that.  Not prepare.  Not ready to vote on proposed correction unless have chance to do that.

Simpson:  I’m interested in seeing Member Marcum alternative, but that doesn’t block us from adopting member Borromeo’s plan.  If we get another solution from member Marcum.  We can take public testimony between now and then.  Better process.  Process was an issue in the litigation.  Favor of adopting member Borromeo’s version to put on the table.  Put on the table any other ideas and looking again on Wednesday.  Vote Wednesday.  If we get other alternatives that look more elegant or better, we don’t have to vote for it. 

Binkley:  Clarification?  Are you saying not to vote on it til Wednesday.  

Simpson:  I understood we would vote on it Wednesday.  Adopted today but not voted on. 

Binkley:  Slight change, then  bring it before the board for adoption Wednesday. 

Borromeo:  This is getting way more complicated than necessary for Cantwell. 

Amend motion to vote on it today.  Not controversial.  We haven’t had any testimony.  But I do want a time certain to wrap it up.  Also want to second Bethany’s request for ten minutes to show her option

Marcum:  I’ve already done the mapping, but it might be the same as theirs.  Just want to be sure by looking on Autobahn.  

Bahnke:  Move to do that what Marcum said.  Can we have at ease to allow her to prepare.  

Binkley:  I was disappointed with SC ruling that Cantwell shouldn’t be in 36.  To me there was overwhelming testimony to be included in 36.  Compelling testimony in SC.  Respecting ANCSA boundaries.  That’s why we did it.  Denali Borough did not oppose this.  People in Cantwell.  The only people who did were the people of Valdez. Who aren’t really affected.  

I’m hoping that the Court give attention to ANCSA boundaries.  I don’t know if there is a way, SC pretty clear.  Any way where Ahtna shareholders in Denali so they can be together.

Bahnke:  As much as I appreciate your concern, but the court was clear.  We have two paths.  Can’t bifurcate Cantwell.  That would encourage litigation

Simpson:  Thank you, Matt?

Singer:  Everyone in Denali Borough is SEI as matter of law.  Can’t improve Cantwell situation by putting it in 36.  Board needs to honor Borough boundaries.  I would call it an error of enthusiasm.  Board was seeking interest of people who heard them.  But now, not much room for creativity.  Need to get rid of appendage, nor break into Denali or Mat-Su boroughs.  Don’t see any other solution palatable to the court.

Borromeo:  Second what Matt said. 

Binkley

Simpson:  Thank you for articulating what was on our mind when we adopted Cantwell.  No good turn goes unpunished.  Trying to accommodate what people who lived there asked for.  We knew it was a strange appendage.  Agree with Melanie that the SC was clear.  Still interested to see if there is anything from Bethany that is a different approach.  I’d guess not.  Giver her time to present and vote onion a couple of days.

Singer:  Take care with process.  Encourage Board adopt as proposed revised proclamation correction, then have public hearings, invite today, and then adopt it as the final.  Adopt proposed plan, publicize, the vote.  Would counsel you, the court would have a problem if we don’t go in that order.

Borromeo:  Withdraw

Propose corrections correct 36, 30, 29   Return Cantwell to Denali Borough, deviation, all three more compact.  

Simpson:  Concur with withdrawal and new motion, with understanding that it is published at this point for public comment and voted on it Wednesday.

Binkley:  Is that clear? We had a version we worked on.  Be sure you are clear on what we’re proposing.

Peter:  I think I’m clear and comparing with member Marcum that will help us.  

Binkley:  Take at ease til 9am sharp.  Bethany, enough time for you?  

Marcum:  will do it offline almost have it done.

Bahnke:  While at ease, can you do the Sen K map pairings map.

Peter:  Are you referring to graphics we’ve been working on.   Please stay on Zoom call.  We’ll pause the recording and teleconference audio.  Then unpause at 9am.  

8:50am

9:00  Marcum:  Peter’s having trouble with Autobahn.

Peter:  Same computer doing Zoom and Autobahn and Autobahn isn’t working.  

Binkley:  Timing? 

Peter:  I think it will work, if Board has other things to discuss, I should be able to do this.

Simpson:  My suggestion is we adopt this for publication and let Bethany and Peter get together after the meeting.  If they have additions we can deal with that Wednesday.  

Binkley:  

Simpson:  Putting off to Wednesday anyway to get other public comments.  

Binkley:  Wednesday, settled on schedule yet?  Move along quickly.  Was Wednesday specific in your motion?

Borromeo:  Move forward, act on it Wednesday, give Bethany and public to weigh in on other proposed solutions on 36, 30, and 29.  

Simpson:  I thought Matt had hand up if has something else to add.

Matt:  Board members have made my point.  Adopting a proposed solution to take time to look at it and give public time to do the same.  

Binkley:  If we don’t need roll call.  Everyone understand the motion?  Objections?  Hearing none, the motion carries.

Moving forward

Borromeo:  Like to make correction  Bahnke pairings  22/24, 22,21  18/19  23/17  16/14 13/12   15,10  11,9

Bahnke:  Second

Binkley:  Same - 

proposed correction, sit out in public for comment until Wednesday and I would move to vote on Wednesday.  

Peter:  does this map match the numbers she listed, the colors are different.

Bahnke:  Introduced back in Nov.  it’s been out there.  Heard lots of testimony in favor of the Sen pairings.  Didn’t make pairings lightly.  Don’t live in anchorage, but seemed most reflective of what Constitution requires.  Don’t need same pairings as house district, but these do meet them.  It’s been out there since November.  Also ask we vote on this Wednesday with Cantwell cutout, so state has some certainty.  

Binkley:  Comments?  Not certain, can we consider this at next meeting?  

Marcum:  Thank you.  I heard Wednesday mentioned later.  Whether Wed is part of the notion.  I won’t be prepared to vote, but want opportunity for more discussion, heard from community about what and what can’t be done.  Want to see what members of the public come up with.  Last fall, but that was before what judiciary said.  Only yesterday did our attorney interpret what that means.  So think it’s important to give public time.  Take the time to do this right.  

Borromeo:  contrary to what Bethany just spoke to.  We had 30 Alaskans weighed in and 30 more in person or online - everyone said do it and do it fast.  Idea that public hasn’t had a chance to weigh in.  Asking Board to offer their pans.

Bahnke:  I appreciate only yesterday got interpretation.  Not hard to understand,  Out since March 30.  SC ruled a week early so Alaskans can move along and have maps so we know what the districts are for voting.  If you have other maps, bring them forward.

Marcum:  Want to correct Borromeo, every single Alaskan said the same thing.  That was not the case.  I’ll be watching for other options.  I’ve had inquiries about interpretation of SC.  Those folks have asked for information.  

Borromeo:  I agree we take it into consideration.  Every Alaskan who put forward a plan supported Bahnke plan.

Marcum:  Absolutely not true.  I have the testimony in front of me.

Binkley:  I would agree that overwhelmingly testimony consistent supporting Bahnke plan, there was some testimony that had other pairings.  Discussion?  I’d like to comment.  With regard to SC ruling and remand, two things:

 Don’t act too quickly

When you do have a plan….

Only date we have from the court is April 15.  The court wanted a status update on April 15, not a plan.  Agree we can do it in relatively short order.  Have to listen to SC and Superior court to not rush it.  Shouldn’t make same mistake as we did originally.  

If more ideas on how to do this better.  A lot has happened in last two weeks since we got ruling - on political scene - Municipal campaigns where senate pairings directly affected.  Statewide level as well with passing of Rep Young and the special election.  Well served by letting public weigh in.   Maybe narrow down.  I’m not support necessary.  Don’t mind this is the proposal that comes forward and put it out for the public to see it.  

Bahnke:  The pairings Nicole moved are reasonable in terms, not just coming up with new map.  Following court orders.  I appreciate need to get public testimony, but don’t want that to be excuse to drag this out.  SC ruled early.  Don’t see need to drag out further.  Could finish by end of the week.  Give public a day or two.  Testimony overwhelmingly supporting that map.  Need to be careful about delays.  We need to get this done.  Not sure what you are trying to accomplish by dragging this out.  Testimony overwhelming and if we drag it out, we aren’t listening to public testimony.  People said to move quickly.  Shouldn’t use public testimony to delay.  

Borromeo:  Question for the Board.  Put proposed solution on the table.  Heard from Bethany she isn’t prepared to put her proposed corrections on the table.  When is that going to happen.  I’ve done my homework.  I seriously hope you’ll have your proposals tomorrow Tuesday at 10am.   Most testimony so far has been to adopt the Bahnke hiring and do it quickly.

Marcum:  Thank you I have multiple plans but based on guidance from the court, I want to see what the public comes up with, then for us to be the all mighty decider.  We need to give the public their due.  That’s how I’d like to move forward.  No problem picking date for rather than presenting mine like I’m the all powerful.  

Borromeo:  When is she going to give us her plan.  And, regarding the public.  They said Bahnke pairings over and over.

Binkley:  Bahnke pairings is full plan. Hybrid about what she presented.

Simpson:  I have the Word proclamation map before me and going through pairings Ms. Bahnke read to us, it appears they are all different from that.  And a reason why it would take time to assimilate. Resent implicatiowanyone is trying to slow roll this.  Maybe some difference of opinion about meaning of expeditious.  If it takes 3 votes, I’m in favor of due deliberation.  We got int trouble for going to fast last time.  Concept that 30 Alaskans have weighed in on this, so that is all we need,  I don’t want to argue back, but that’s ridiculous.  I’m not voting on anything until we do  

I favor putting the plan that was moved, publishing it, getting it on the record until such time as we decide.  I said Wednesday.  If anyone else in the public. Wants to suggest, if Bethany or any other member.  Need a hard deadline so not strung out.  Favor moving expeditiously, but not precipitously.

Singer:  Two legal issues and maybe confusion about the motion.  Difference in public testimony.  Some members wanted 8 new Senate districts for Anchorage and others 4 of the eight districts Bahnke proposed in November.  Not sure which map - and I’m color blind so Peter’s map no help.

2.  Board consider taking a day on which both board and public will share any proposed plans they have.  Pick a day for sharing alternatives.  Put all cards on the table and website.  Tell pubic this is the day we’re going to act.  

Bahnke:  They are consistent with nov  10/11 10/15  12/13  14/16 18/19 23/17 20/21  22/24.  

Singer:  Eight districts in proclamation plan?

Bahnke:  Haven’t compared

Singer:  Court has suggested we look at K

Binkley:  Does that change all districts?

Bahnke:  Do you want to do side by side

Peter:  I think I can compare the existing

Bahnke:  Not existing, present one is dead

Binkley:  I propose we wrap this up so ??? Can catch plane.

Simpson:  I don’t think we need to do side by side.  My quick glance and they aren’t the same.

Take a couple of days.  My preference is to do surgical fix 21/22 K problem and that implicates surround districts.  Find a more concise, limited solution that complies with constitution. 

Put on table for public process with understanding not final, just going out for public review and 2.  Deadline for alternative parties to put in alternative versions and I’ll suggest Wednesday.  

Borromeo:  Move we consider for proposed correction for Sec. 10 the Bahnke pairing (listing them again)  16/14  13/12  15/10  

Binkley:  I can support that motion.  Objection?  Hearing none - adopted.

Discuss time and date of next meeting.  And then testimony.

Simpson:  I suggested Wednesday as a deadline for public plans.  If meet tomorrow, can do public testimony.  But people can put in written opinions without us having to meet.  Don’t care whether tomorrow, but that we do meeting again Wednesday.  

Third parties and Board pairings.  Any that come in at the deadline, we need time to assimilate and consider.

Bahnke:  I support Budd’s suggestion of Wednesday for alternative maps.  One concern Friday afternoon I can’t meet at all.  Wonder if we can leave Tuesday for people to call in if they don’t have internet.

Singer:  In section 9 you need 3 votes to take action, but could have fewer members if not voting.

Borromeo:  was going to say that.

Borromeo:  Board on track for maximum public testimony so we should back track on public testimony.  I’ll be here tomorrow.  

Binkley:  appreciate that, Marcum said we should maximize public opinion.

Simpson:  I can attend by Zoom, what time?  10am.  I’m on board with listening.  If a bunch of people show up, I’m comfortable with that.  

Binkley:  Objection?  

Bahnke:  We’ve notice for M-T-W-Th  Shouldn’t we meet Thursday?

Binkley:  Let’s wait and see what we have Wednesday.

Bahnke

Binkley:  We could schedule a meeting for every day until April 15

Marcum:  

Binkley:  We have people who want.  We have a hard deadline of 10 o’clock.  Need to wrap up and have public comment.  

Anyone?  One in house in Anchorage.  Could you come forward.  

Randy Ruedrich:  

Binkley:  Can you keep it to under two minutes?  

Ruedrich:  I will be offering an alternative, preserving 3       H=15/16  L=26/24     E -9/22  uplands of snow and avalanches.  2001 map, it was put into final proclamation as 18   if I have time I’ll talk about other things.  

Binkley:  If you can come back tomorrow at ten.  If to move one have to move several   Highlands district for Anchorage east side.

Susan Fischetti - testified Saturday and back today.  Agree with Mr Simpson to do this right since judge’s decision is only three weeks ago.  I only heard from Hodge.  Partisan gerrymandering - one-sided testimony Saturday shows it was orchestrated.   Sen Randy Phillips should be approved.  Judge has taken it off the table.  Con Bundy - it’s been done before.  

Also, can’t get to Chugiak and ER without driving through JBER only makes sense for them to be paired.  Do it for all Anchorage and not special inerests.

Jamie Allard:  Resident of Eagle River.  Bahnke plan should not be adopted, unfair, not nonpartisan, what constituents want, not what political parties want.  To get fair and just plan , but rushing the process you are denying the rights of public.  ER voices need to be heard.  No need to rush this with current elections  - tomorrow people are voting.  This Saturday 140 individuals not able to testify with emergency - in Hiland.  I beg of you, please turn this down.  Clear gerrymandering.  

David Dunsmore:  AFFR-  Good morning.  Not planning on testifying today, but conversation, just had a couple of thing to put on the record.  Reviewing the court decision.  Talked about public process but also, “court’s words that Bahnke pairing had clear public support.  Board needs to take that into consideration.  Court has acknowledged that.  

Also on the record, Ms. Allard, AFFR we participated in process.  Issue that ER/Chugiak didn’t have population to meet a full Assembly district.  But substantial pushback   And member Allard was very passionate to keep ER whole and intact.  There is a proposal the Board did that which does that.  Those are Bahnke’s pairings

Yarrow Silvers:  Hadn’t planned to speak but need to respond and will return tomorrow.  It is not gerrymandering to keep communities together.  When you split communities apart, for political reasons, that is gerrymandering.  

I’d have you look at what happened when Muni tried to pair Anchorage with ER there was overwhelming testimony to keep communities together.  Should keep them together and not split them for political purposes.  

Danny Wells:  Didn’t  plan.  Worked on Muni redistricting.  I’d reiterate what you heard from Yarrow.  We had substantial testimony against pairing ER and the Hillside.  Keeping ER and Chugiak together.  Comment on Saturday, retired today , that ER should have two Senators.  There is no other place in the state where a community with two house seats has two Senate seats.

Binkley:  Concludes our public testimony.  

Peter:  From time to time we have people raise their hands and the number is ??????.  

Adjourn.  We’re adjourned   10:08   Tomorrow morning at 10am