How Wisely Did The No Constitutional Convention Campaign Spend Its Money?

The Alaska Constitution requires a ballot measure on the ballot every ten years, asking voters whether there should be a new constitutional convention.  This year Alaska held the sixth such election.  

Those pushing for an election had two main goals:

1.  To make abortion illegal by either cutting out the Constitution's privacy language, adding new language that would outright ban abortions and/or say the privacy section doesn't cover abortions.

2.  Make the process for choosing judges more political so they could get judges who will not interpret the privacy clause to allow abortions.

There were any number of additional far right goals that they would love to tamper with if they got the chance.  

The measure lost decisively on Tuesday.  Mail-in, absentee, and questioned ballots are likely to make the No vote even higher and there's no way they could change the outcome.  

 

An Anchorage Daily News article today tells us:

"Defend Our Constitution dominated spending 80 to 1.

They recently reported spending $4 million and raising $4.7 million. The donations came mostly from Outside organizations like the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which is based in Washington, D.C. and has been described as a left-wing dark money group.*

Convention YES spent about $50,000, usually from small contributions from individual Alaskans, allowing them to make small ad purchases."

So, how effectively did both sides spend their money?  It's hard to know.  But since we've been voting on this question every ten years now since 1972, we can at least look at the margin of victory for the NO vote over the decades:

Alaska Constitutional Convention Question (1972)
Result		Votes	Percentage
No		55,389	65.49%
Yes		29,192	34.51%

From Ballotpedia

Alaska Measure 1 (1982)
Result		Votes	Percentage
No		108,319	62.93%
Yes		63,816	37.07%

From Ballotpedia

Alaska Constitutional Convention Question (1992)
Result		Votes	Percentage
No		142,735	62.70%
Yes		84,929	37.30%

From Ballotpedia

2002 was 72% No;  28% Yes.  [This image from Alaska Division of Elections because I couldn't find the 2002 election from Ballotpedia.]

Alaska Ballot Measure 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
No		179567	66.59%
Yes		90079	33.41%

From Ballotpedia 2012

Alaska Ballot Measure 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		62,985	30.15%
No		145,937	69.85%

From Ballotpedia   2022   [These numbers will change when all the mail-in and absentee ballots are added in.]

So, the highest NO vote has been 72% NO in 2002.  The lowest No vote was 62.7% in 1972.  

I'm guessing they could have spent $2 million and still defeated the measure soundly.  Probably $1 million.  The extra $2-3 million could have done the state a lot more good spent on the governor's race and a few of the state legislative races.  

I suspect a lot of money was wasted in this campaign.  Sometimes you don't know, but in this case we have ten years of election results suggesting Alaskans aren't interested in a Constitutional Convention.  

*I'd note that "has been described as a left-wing dark money group" is just troublesome language.  Use of the passive voice allows you to say something happened without saying who did it.  "Has been described as" could be pinned onto nearly any phrase.  And 'dark money group' is a short hand cliche that means 'bad'.  I'd bet half the readers would have trouble giving an accurate definition and they certainly wouldn't all define it to mean the same thing or in a way that would accurately describe the Sixteen Thirty Fund.  

"The Only Way" To Make Sense Of Sen. Hughes Questionably Logical Pro Constitutional Convention Commentary

I've been resisting writing a post on whether Alaskans should vote to have a constitutional convention.  I listened to a debate between former Assistant Attorney General Libby Bakalar and Senator Shower and resisted.  But today's ADN commentary arguing for a convention was the straw that broke my resistance.  

[For non-Alaskans, our state constitution requires us to vote every ten years on whether to have a constitutional convention.  Since the Constitution was ratified, we've never voted yes.  But this year far right Republicans are pushing this as a way to get rid of the privacy provision which the Supreme Court has used to keep abortion legal in Alaska, and to change the very rational way we select judges among other things.]

So let me talk about a few things. (I could do more, but you'll get the idea fairly quickly.)

1.  The title

COMMENTARY

A constitutional convention is the only way to fix Alaska

Shelley Hughes

That's the headline.  I don't know that Rep. Hughes wrote it or the Anchorage Daily News editors wrote it, so take my comments with that in mind.  

Anyone who starts out saying there is only one way to fix something has already exposed themselves as an uncreative and rigid thinker.  There are always different ways to fix something.  Some very focused mechanical problems - like a backed up toilet - may have relatively few options.  But something as complicated as the whole State of Alaska, certainly has lots of different ways to be "fixed.'   And, note, she doesn't actually tell us what parts are broken and need to be fixed.  A constitutional convention is not the first thing that comes to mind as 'the solution', and probably not to most Alaskans minds. (Though we will learn next week whether this is true or not, at least for Alaskan voters.)

2.  Opening confusion.  She begins by imploring us:

"Alaskans, I respectfully implore you to recognize that the flood of paid advertisements you’ve been hearing about a state constitutional convention may not be telling you the whole story — and dare I say is “spinning” the story to protect the power and wealth of some who believe they would benefit more from your “no” vote."

This is a very confused sentence.   It's doesn't make grammatical sense. And, I'd note, unlimited Outside money is ok when it's oil interest money advertising for a GOP cause, but not when the other side has all that money.  

"the flood of paid advertisements you've been hearing about a state constitutional convention"

Does she mean a "flood of ads we've been hearing about"?   Or is 'about' connected to "a state constitutional convention."  As a blogger who writes a lot, I'm guessing this is the result of editing the original sentence without going back and reading whether it still makes sense.  

She then adds into this convoluted sentence something about spinning the story to protect the power and wealth of people who want you to vote no.  

Well of course, the 'no' side is telling a story to get you to 'vote no' because it's in their interest. 

Just like she's spinning a 'yes' argument to get us to vote yes, because it's in her interest.  

I'd note that Vocabulary.com says 'implore' suggests desperation.

"The word implore is often used to describe an urgent request made out of desperation. A man on death row might implore the governor to grant him a last-minute pardon."

And later in this Commentary she tells us why she's desperate - the No side is outspending the Yes side (her side) 100 to 1.  

3.  36 Questions.  Most of the commentary is made up of 36 questions.  (No I didn't count them, but I used the search function to tell me how many question marks there were.).   These questions, as you might imagine 

• "may not be telling you the whole story"
• " are “spinning” the story to protect the power and wealth of some who believe they would benefit more from your “no” ["yes"] vote."

They are all phrased with the very condescending school teacher structure of "Are we...?"  This is how some people talk to children.  Are we hungry today children?  Do we know what day it is today?

Question #1:

"Are we going to realize before we vote that more than 230 state constitutional conventions have been held in our nation successfully, peacefully, without upending state government and industry, without disrupting state economies and without constitutions being thrown out and rewritten, without extreme amendments passing voters?"

Let's briefly look at those '230 state constitutional conventions.'  A Cambridge University Press article published June 2022 tells us there were actually 250:

"From the 1770s through the 1970s, the 50 states held nearly 250 constitutional conventions, many of which brought about important changes in governance.

"Working from this list, I identify 77 of these conventions that were called to create inaugural state constitutions. Another 50 conventions were called for reasons stemming from the Civil War, including conventions called to secede from the Union and make necessary changes in state constitutions, then rejoin the Union and make state constitutional changes required as part of Reconstruction, and then later reverse changes adopted during Reconstruction. Another 41 conventions were called not at the instigation of legislatures but rather through automatically generated conventions or referendums or councils of censors or federal courts."

So the vast majority were:

• For the state to originally draft their constitutions*
• To secede from the US during the Civil War and then to rejoin the US after the Civil War make changes during Reconstruction and the reverse those changes.  All, according to Hughes, "without upending state government and industry, without disrupting state economies and without constitutions being thrown out and rewritten, without extreme amendments passing voters."  Really? Not even seceding from the US?  Not even setting up Jim Crow constitutions?  Really?

From the National Conference of State Legislators website, we learn:

"Nine states drafted new documents during the turbulent years between 1964 and 1975. Only two states have adopted new constitutions since then: Georgia in 1983, and Rhode Island in 1986.

Alabama is often mentioned when the idea of a constitutional convention comes up. The state’s current document dates to 1901 and at 376,000 words is about 80 times the length of the original U.S. Constitution, making it by far the longest and most amended of state constitutions. Amendments make up about 90 percent of it. Many local government functions are established by the constitution, and it often takes an amendment proposed by the Legislature to make changes to policies affecting a single county, or even a single town." 

So, it isn't a happy story of 230 states willy nilly calling conventions and having kumbaya conventions.  And conventions stopped happening, for the most part, in the 1970s.  And the state that has amended its constitution the most is Alabama.  Now there's a stellar role model for Alaska.  

A related set of questions from Hughes:

"Are we aware that in the more than 230 state conventions that have been held in our nation that Pandora’s box was not opened, that not a single worm escaped a can? That only sane and reasonable amendments were adopted?"

How do 'we' know this?  Just because she says so?  Not a single worm escaped?  How about the Civil War?  Maybe we should look carefully at all the changes to the Alabama constitution.   Actually Former Louisiana state senator Tony Guarisco wrote: 

"The 19th-century racist constitutions of the Bourbons and their 1921"crazy quilt" successor were embarrassments at best. Between 1922 and 1973, a constitutional revision by amendment produced 536 changes to a document that became virtually incomprehensible. Louisiana's law schools expended little or no effort to teach useless or inferior legal authority."

While Guarisco may not be unbiased, he was involved in one the Constitutional rewrites and probably has a better take on this than Sen. Hughes has.

Question 2:  (I'm not going to go through all 36 questions.  Just a few.  So this is the second question from Hughes' list that I'm going to address.)

"Have we processed the fact that the yes side only has donations from individual Alaskans, not the millions from outside ultra-liberal organizations like the opposition? And that the no side is outspending the yes side by 100 to one? That this is a David vs. Goliath battle?"

I haven't checked these facts out, but articles do confirm that the NO campaign is vastly outspending the YES campaign, and that they have a large donation from the same Outside group that supported Ranked Choice elections.  But it ignores the many Alaskan organizations - unions, fisheries groups, Native Groups - that oppose having a convention.

What I want to address here is the David and Goliath comparison.  In the Biblical tale, Goliath was bigger than David.  And Goliath was the bad guy.  David was the good guy.  Well, Senator Hughes here makes the argument that the NO group is bigger (has more money) and then slips in the assumption that the NO group is also the bad guy and that YES group are the good guys.  But she hasn't proved that at all.  Sometimes the stronger guy is also the better guy.  

She reinforces this at the end of the commentary: 

"Much is at stake. Root for David; vote yes."

Question 3:

"Do we realize that the voters elect the delegates by district and therefore the delegates will reflect the values of Alaskans statewide?"

This is actually one of the murkiest parts.  We've just gone through a very contentious redistricting board process.  Exactly how many districts will there be?  Who will set the boundaries for the districts?  The Alaska legislature is elected from districts.  Why would the convention be more harmonious than the legislature (which Hughes implied in previous questions couldn't do the job)?  And why wouldn't the urban centers dominate the rural areas?  [Yes, I just gave you a bunch of questions, but they weren't rhetorical ones like Hughes' questions.  They seek answers.]   I haven't found any documentation on how these delegates would get picked, or even how many there'd be.  The Voter Pamphlet only asks us vote whether to have a convention or not.  It doesn't tell us any more detail than that.  

OK.  That's enough.  You get the picture.  I'll reiterate.  From my perspective the YES folks want to have a convention for two main reasons:

1. They are frustrated because the Alaska Supreme Court has interpreted the Privacy section of the Alaska Constitution as guaranteeing the right to abortions.  So reason one is to change the Privacy section of the Constitution and they want to add language to prohibit abortions.  
2. They want to change the very rational way the Constitution sets up for picking judges so the conservatives  have more political control of the judges.  

And there are other things they would change if they had the chance, but I think these are the two most critical ones.

If you haven't already voted, be sure to vote No on Proposition 1 that calls for a constitutional convention.  

*I'm not sure either why 50 states would have 77 constitutional conventions to draft their original constitutions.  Perhaps some were rejected the first time round and they had to start again.  And territories, like Puerto Rico, have drafted constitutions but haven't been accepted as states yet.  (Alaska and Hawaii had their conventions prior to becoming states.)

We Go To Alaska For The Afternoon

 We drove south to McHugh Creek where the spring tends to come a little sooner than in Anchorage.  It's good to just get out where there are just trees and mountains and water.  

The trail was sometimes snow, often ice (soft ice because it was well above freezing), dirt, wooden boardwalk, mud, and frozen mud. 

We heard ravens and this was our only sign of moose or bear.

We stopped at Potter Marsh on the way back.  Snow is gone, Water is still mostly ice.  Saw a few gulls.

Good day.  

The Difficult Life Of Flight Attendants And Passengers

When we waited for our plane in LA, there was a large group of men, say mid twenties through forties, maybe fifties.  They kind of invaded the waiting area and were speaking to each other in another language.  And they were less than fastidious about their masks.  I'd guess five to ten had their masks on their chins much of the time.  Others didn't have their noses covered. 

When we got on the plane, I mentioned this to one of the flight attendants at the entrance as a bit of a warning.  She said she'd already heard.  We sat down.  The lady next to us was handicapped and needed assistance getting up to let us pass to our seats.  She was agitated.  The men were still breathing mask free around us.  She said she'd told Alaska Airlines before we boarded.  She had health issues and was worried about getting COVID.  She got an attendant and explained her concerns and pointed out that the men around us had noses and mouths showing before the attendant arrived.  She even got the captain to come out and talk to her.  

It's not clear how good their English was (presumably some better than others) and if they could even understand the captain's announcement about keeping masks on.  But they did know they needed to be masked and did pull them up when an attendant was nearing.  This wasn't a political statement.  It just appeared to be avoidance of an inconvenience.  

The men pulled up their masks when asked to and then they would slip off again.  Around us there were four or five offenders.  We took off.  Soon the lady next to us got the attendant again and wanted to move.  We decided to just stick it out.  An American Airlines flight attendant soon replaced the woman who got assistance to move to another seat.  The attendant was headed to Anchorage to celebrate his birthday with friends and relatives.

Throughout the flight the masks went up when attendants came by and then down again.  

It's a tricky business when you are up in the air.  The flight attendant sitting next to us told us that it was something like three warnings and then you go on a no fly list.  But it didn't appear that was happening.  The flight attendant sitting with us left and then the original woman was back next to us.  

When we landed we were all told to stay seated while those who needed assistance got helped off.  An attendant was there to help the woman next to us and the nearest offender stood up and helped her get up too.  His mask was in place at that point.  

I'm just thinking about the calculations the airlines make.  This was a large group - maybe 20 or 30  good sized men.  Were they flying up to work on the Slope?  Fishing?  Who knows?  Was Alaska Airlines weighing the loss of a bunch of passengers against trouble in the air?  It was a five hour flight.  No one wanted to land midway and drop off anyone.  The attendants were clearly avoiding confrontations and the men didn't refuse to wear masks.  They complied when asked.  Alcohol was not an issue.  

I already had  concerns about flying on a plane full of masked people with Omicron spiking, when it turned out I'd be flying with some unmasked and partially masked passengers.  You could say that we're overreacting - most people who are fully vaxed and masked are less likely to get COVID and if they do, not likely to get too sick.  That's what I told myself.  

As a blogger, I know pictures pique people's interest.  But as a person, I'm not comfortable putting any pictures of these folks up.  

Just want to let everyone know that even the Airline that banned an Alaska State Senator is walking a fine line between enforcing the mask rules and looking the other way.  

To the person who wrote a letter to the editor (Anchorage Daily News)  yesterday complaining about the Airlines giving in to the unions and cutting back in-flight services, I'd say the flight attendants' lives are hard enough as it is without spending lots of time among the passengers.  And serving alcohol is clearly not a good idea. Sure, a lot of people would like a drink on a flight and for most it wouldn't be an issue.   If people really can't get through a flight without a drink, it would seem to be an indicator of a problem that needs attention.  Not having alcohol on board (and I'm not completely sure that's the case) keeps the skies a little calmer.  

Some First Quick Thoughts On The Matsu Suit Against The Redistricting Board's Plan

Tthe first suit against the Alaska Redistricting Proclamation Plan has been filed.  By Matsu.  Back in September when all the alternative plans came in, there was one from Matsu.  But when I asked about it, the Board's Executive Director told me 

"The one wrinkle that has emerged is that Mat-Su and AFFER’s plans appear to be identical."

I assumed that's why we never saw that map again.  But I can't find it on the Board's map page, so I can't compare.  AFFER is the group that Randy Ruedrich makes maps for - a very Republican leaning group.

Anyway13. According to the 2020 United States census, Alaska had a population of 733,391 residents, an increase of 23,160 residents. The MSB had a population of 107,081, an increase of 18,086 residents, representing 78 percent of the statewide population growth. 

 the Alaska Landmine put up a link to the suit.  

A quick perusal suggests two major grievances:

1. Getting paired with Valdez in one district
2. Being overpopulated

AFFER made a big deal about keeping district deviations low.  But as I looked at the suit, I found these statements surprising:

13. According to the 2020 United States census, Alaska had a population of 733,391 residents, an increase of 23,160 residents. The MSB had a population of 107,081, an increase of 18,086 residents, representing 78 percent of the statewide population growth. 

30. Every House District within the MSB (25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30) exceeds the quotient for the ideal House District. Combined, the total overpopulation of the districts is 13.75 percent. This represents the most significant deviation of any geographic area in the State of Alaska as proposed in the Final Plan. 

31. Comparing the MSB to Anchorage, Anchorage has 18 House Districts included in the Final Plan, of those 18 only two are overpopulated, thus the Anchorage House Districts are underpopulated by 10.02 percent. 

They seem to be monkeying around with percentages to make the Matsu grievances seem terrible.

In 13) they tell us that Matsu had 78% of the growth in the state.  OK, so what difference does that make?  That was, in people, not percentages,18,086.  That's about 269 people under one new ideal House  district.  And Matsu got  a new district..  

In 30)  they again play with percentages.  This looks so obvious that I'm wondering if I'm missing something.  You can't add up percentages to get the cumulative percentage.   Lots of people make this kind of mistake apparently.

"The common error is taking the percentages at face value and adding them together to get the overall percentage change."

Each of these percentages represents district deviation / total district population.

So you have to add up the numbers, not the percentages.  First add the number of people over or under the ideal district size for each district.  Then divide that number by the ideal district size (18335) * 6 (districts)..  Then you do the math to get the percentage of the six districts altogether.   

If you add the number of people above the ideal number (18,335) of people per district, it comes to 2520.  

If you divide that 2520 by the whole population of the Matsu's six districts which they tell us is 107,081 (2520/107,081) the Matsu area is over populated by 2.4%, not 13.75%.  I know Randy Ruedrich is smarter than that, so someone else must have done it, or he must think that the judges would be fooled.  No, he's smarter than that too.  So who did the math

I did not go through all the Anchorage districts to add all the numbers, but the same rule of math applies - you can't add the percentages, you have to add the numbers for each district and then divide the sum, by the total ideal population of all the districts.  

But look again.  They say that Anchorage has 18 House seats.  Throughout this process everyone has always said that Anchorage has 16 House seats.  And when I look at the final map of Anchorage I can only count 15 seats, because the 16th, District 24,  is north, off the map.

That's just a quick look.  These are pretty glaring errors that may torpedo this challenge.  

I do think that fact that Matsu altogether is overpopulated is a legitimate issue.  In urban areas, the deviations should really be about 1% or less  But only tiny parts of Matsu could be considered mini-urban areas.  The rest is more rural, so higher deviations are more acceptable because the population is so scattered.

And pairing Valdez with Matsu is also a potential problem. But finding the right place to put Valdez is hard, because you have to keep the deviations down.  

The issue of taking just Cantwell out of the rest of the Denali Borough is also a reasonable complaint.  The Board did this, as I recall, to include it with other Ahtna region villages.  

The argument that some people made at public hearings - that Matsu is the fastest growing part of the state, so it should be underpopulated to allow for growth - goes against the basic rule of redistricting.  That rule is that the numbers you use are the Census data numbers you are given.  Not some future expectation.  Who know for sure that Matsu will continue to grow into the future?  It has grown in the last two decades and may again.  But it may not.  While the suit points out Matsu's large population increase, I didn't see them making this argument.  

I'm waiting for someone to tell me I'm wrong.   These errors seem way too basic.   It would be embarrassing to be wrong about my math when criticizing someone else's math.  But I do acknowledge that possibility.   I must be missing something.  I have a toothache, so maybe it's messing with my mind.  

Beautiful Day For Hike Along Eklutna Lake

 Didn't get to the keyboard until about 5:30 pm today because we went to Eklutna Lake to take advantage of the beautiful day.  Maybe low 70s, sunny with some decorative clouds.  And it's a Tuesday so it shouldn't be crowded.  And it wasn't.  Although it's not far (maybe 20 miles away) we haven't been there since our kids were little.  Just going to offer you some pictures.  

Looking north.  We started near the low point on the left.  

Looking South

People in the canoe are not us.  They just paddled by while we were on the shore having lunch.

Alaska COVID 2021 Highs And Some Vaccine Numbers

 Today's COVID tab entry:

Wednesday, August 18,2021 - Four new deaths reported today.  That's nine in the last two days.

Current COVID patients hospitalized 148 - that's 127 listed as 'Currently Hospitalized - COVID positive" and 21 more listed as 'Currently On Vent Statewide - COVID Positive or Suspected'.  Or, as I've been reporting 127/21.  That's an increase of one person since yesterday.  The cases dashboard says there are 13 newly hospitalized people.  That sounds about right - four people died and a few others maybe got better and left the hospital.  

28 available ICU beds Statewide.  Three in Anchorage!

633/617 new resident cases.  That's a new 2021 high for one day and the highest since Dec. 10, 2021.  The Cases Dashboard changed.  Instead of 'resident' and 'non-resident' options, we now get 'resident' and 'all' options.  But I couldn't get the all button to get me different data from 'resident' data.  Not sure why they thought this was a better idea.  Every time you change how you organize the data, you making tracking and comparisons harder.  So there has to be a really compelling reason.  And if you change the Dashboard, but it doesn't actually work . . .

About 10,500 tests.  Test Positivity is up to 7.43.  Another 2021 high.  Hasn't been this high since November 23, 2020 when it was 8.13.  

If you get to talk - not shout - with an anti-vaxxer, just ask when their relationship with their parents changed from parent/child to friend/friend.  

 These COVID updates don't usually show up in the main window.  They're at a tab under the top banner. Alaska Daily COVID-19 Count 3  I'm putting this one in here because Alaska's COVID situation continues to deteriorate.  Here's some added info on vaccination rate.

Last week- August 11, 2021:

The Key Numbers As Of August 18, 2021
# of people who have two vaccines shots in Alaska: 324,635. That's in increase of 3,101 since last week (Aug 11) # of people who have had one vaccine shot in Alaska: 36,519 That's an increase of 1,320 since last week.

It took Alaska four and a half months to get 50% of population with one or more shots.

It's taken three months to get the next 8%

And here's today's (August 18, 2021).  

In one week we have gone from from 58.8% with one or more shots to 59.5%.  From  356,823 people to 361,154 or a total increase of 4,669.

From 53% with two shots to 53.5%.  321,534 people to 324,635, or a total of 3,101 increase.

Remember, that the first number is people with one + shots.  So it includes all the people with one AND all the people with two shots.  To find out how many only had one shot, we subtract the two shots number from the one+ shots.

Last week: 356,823 - 321,534 = 35,289 people with just one shot

This week:  361,154 - 324,635 =  36,519 people with just one shot   

That would mean 1320 people got their first shots in the last week and 3,101 got their second shots

Looking at the graph on the bottom of this week's chart, I highlighted as close as I could get to 50% - (50.3%) on May 13, 2021.  

So, it took Alaskans about four and a half months to get to 50% with one or more shots.

And it's taken three more months to go another 9%!

I understand there are people who believe that the vaccine doesn't work, that it injects God knows what into their bodies.  There are people who make lots of money off of conning people into fearing the vaccines.  Those people who didn't vote in Anchorage's mayoral runoff election helped to vote an anti-masker/anti-vaccine guy into office.  Even though over 50% of people over 12 have been vaccinated twice.  People - you have to vote or we get crazies elected to make decisions for us.  

On a more positive note, I reached Nakorn Sawan the other day and have about 130 km left to get to Bangkok.  (No, I'm not in Thailand.  I'm doing this imaginary ride on the bike trails of Anchorage.  It looks like I'll make the 750 kms in plenty of time.  I can't tell people how wonderful it is to ride through the woods with creeks on one side several times a week.  I may have to do a short side trip after I'm done to keep me going until the snow falls.  

Alaska Redistricting Board Calculates District Gains and Losses - Precint By Precinct

I don't totally understand this yet, but I thought it important to get this email from the Alaska Redistricting Board up for people to see.  (If you sign up with the Board, they will send you updates like this.)

They got the initial data and the staff have been trying to organize it.  You can see all the districts here on the Board's website.

It should come as no surprise that Matsu has the biggest gains.   Here's District 1 in Fairbanks. The cooler colors represent losses of population.  The warmer colors gains.

Population Change

This table compares Alaska's 2010 to 2020 Census population count at the voting precinct level.
Click column heads to sort. Click again to reverse sort order. Monochrome

District	Prec.	Name	2010	2020	Diff	Change
District 1 ~ Fairbanks ~ Map: HD01-A.pdf
1 (A)	446	Aurora	2,995	3,108	113	+3.77%
1 (A)	475	Fairbanks No. 4	1,143	993	-150	-13.12%
1 (A)	485	Fairbanks No. 6	2,483	2,390	-93	-3.75%
1 (A)	470	Fairbanks No. 3	1,872	1,872	0	0.00%
1 (A)	465	Fairbanks No. 2	1,542	1,468	-74	-4.80%
1 (A)	455	Fairbanks No. 1	659	580	-79	-11.99%
1 (A)	490	Fairbanks No. 7	3,010	2,637	-373	-12.39%
1 (A)	480	Fairbanks No. 5	2,885	2,668	-217	-7.52%
1 (A)	495	Fairbanks No. 10	1,137	1,466	329	+28.94%
–– >	9 Ps	District: 1 Totals:	17,726	17,182	-544	-3.07%

"Good afternoon subscribers,

After many hours of data crunching, we have a couple of key reports available for your review. These are:  

1. A table of population changes from 2010 to 2020 at the house district precinct level. This shows how each of Alaska's 441 precincts increased or decreased in population over the last 10 years. District totals are also provided. Click table heads to sort, click again to reverse sort order. Warm colors are up, cool colors are down. Click Monochrome if coloration is not preferred.
   
2. A report of each house district's 2020 population compared to the new ideal district population of 18,335. (733,391 divided by 40). Click title heads to sort, click again to reverse sort order. Warm colors are high, cool colors are low. Click Monochrome if coloration is not preferred.
3. An Excel sheet with the data for your computing convenience. Click to download. Available formats are .xlsx and .xls

See: https://www.akredistrict.org/pop

Here's how we got to the numbers:

The Alaska Department of Labor imported the 2020 legacy-formatted Census data¹ into their demographic software and sent us Excel reports of Alaska's 2010 and 2020 population for all of Alaska's 441 voting precincts. This is the foundation of our population change table.

To verify the 2020 numbers, we did the same thing independently. We downloaded the 2020 legacy data and loaded the lines² which provide voting precinct counts into a relational database. We then overlayed the Department of Labor's 2020 precinct population numbers with ours.

Row-by-row, every precinct population matched exactly.

This is how a voting precinct total appears in the legacy-formatted Census data. (line 7,991, akgeo2020.pl)

To further validate our findings, next we totaled the precinct populations for each house district and compared these line-by-line with the house district summary population values contained elsewhere in the raw legacy data.³ 

Once again, every value matched exactly.

This is how a house district total appears in legacy-formatted Census data. (line 4,496, akgeo2020.pl)

On April 26, the Census reported that the total resident state population was 733,391. When we total all 441 of our individual voting precincts the result is: 733,391. When we total all of our 40 house districts the result is: 733,391.

After these and other validation exercises, we conclude that the reports published on our website today faithfully interpret the findings of the 2020 Census. Of course, we will re-verify these numbers again using the fixed DVD media we expect to officially receive from the Census Bureau on September 30.

Have a great evening,

Peter Torkelson

Executive Director

Alaska Redistricting Board

1 – You may download the legacy-formatted data here:

https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/data/01-Redistricting_File--PL_94-171/Alaska/

2 – See lines 7,989 - 8,444 of the legacy-formatted file titled 'akgeo2020.pl'. The precinct name appears three columns to the left of the population value. There are more than 441 lines used to report precinct populations as some precincts are reported in multiple parts, one part on each line.

3 – See lines 4,495 - 4,534 of the legacy-formatted file titled 'akgeo2020.pl'. The district name appears three columns to the left of the population value."

Checking Alaska's Proposed Election Regulation Changes

My wife had the section of the ADN that I wanted to read on Sunday.  So I picked up the Classified Section.  It had a long notice:

"NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO IMPLEMENT BALLOT MEASURE 2 AND MAKE CLARIFYING CHANGES IN THE REGULATIONS OF THE DIVISION OF ELECTIONS"

This link gives you that notice posted on the State's public notice site.

Given that lots of State Legislatures are busy passing laws intended to disenfranchise voters, this seemed like something I should look at a bit more carefully.  This is definitely one of those places where "the devil is in the details" applies.  

I've taken some time in the last couple of days to mesh the proposed changes into the body of the current regulations.  I've put the proposed changes in red so it's easy to find them.  The whole thing is at the bottom of this post.  

Things To Know About The Proposed Changes

• The announcement lists all the changes to be made.  To be clear, it tells us what needs to be done, but it doesn't tell us the new language, so we don't know what they intend to actually say.
• Most of the changes seem to be apolitical technical changes because of 
• passage of Proposition 2  which (1) changed the primary to be a single election with all candidates for each position running against all the others, and (2) changing the general election to ranked choice voting
• State is no longer using Accu-vote machines, so all references to those machines are to be deleted
• US Supreme Court Decision   Shelby Co v. Holder to no longer require preclearance of changes in election laws for Alaska and 15 other states.
• Some changes appear to be substantive and while they are simply spelling out the steps to determine the practical implementation of Prop 2, in some cases the wording could potentially directly or indirectly impact the elections, such as:
• Add 6 AAC 25.071 to specify when and how votes for write-in candidates will be counted.
• Add 6 AAC 25.072 to define duplicate rankings and determine how they will be counted.  
• Change 6 AAC 25.225 to determine the process for filling a vacancy in the candidacy for lieutenant governor.
• Change 6 AAC 25.240 to remove the specific number of petition booklets that the division will issue. [Current number is "500 or less."  Minimally they should change  'less' to 'fewer.']
• Change 6 AAC 25.683 to update a statutory reference; allow someone with a power of attorney to cancel a voter’s registration; remove a reference to selecting a primary ballot; and allow a special power of attorney to include the power to cancel a voter’s registration.  [Currently someone with power of attorney can register folks and help with absentee voting.  I understand the need to remove deceased voters from the rolls, but my sense is that this could also be used badly.  Think Brittany Spears.  I haven't heard the arguments, but at this point I think Vital Statistics should share deaths with the Registrar.  Given this political climate, I can see people with this power disenfranchising people they disagree with politically.  I don't know, just raising questions here.]
• Many changes I'm still trying to figure out what they mean such as 
• Add 6 AAC 25.069 to determine that the general election ballot will include space for one write-in candidate per race, except that the races for president and vice-president will not allow write-in candidates.
• Some I have a giant "WHY?" for.  There are probably good reasons but it seems odd.  For example: 
• Add 6 AAC 25.195 to specify that ranked-choice tabulation will begin the 15th day after the election, with only first-choice results reported before then.  [I'm guessing this has to do with the need to know the last place candidates in each race, because then the second place vote for the last candidate is given to the next ranked candidate. They may be assuming that you need all the absentee votes in before going to this process.  And that may be true in some or even most cases as they need to know the losing candidate before reassigning the 2nd place votes.  But I suspect in some cases you'd know before every last ballot is in.]

I'm not saying that there is anything underhanded going on.  I'm just trying to make sure there isn't.  I  haven't had time to think through and raise these kinds of questions for all the changes yet.  I'm hoping also to clarify some of my question with the Division of Elections.  

But in the meantime, I thought I'd put this up so other people don't have to duplicate this effort and can just jump in and look at what's there.  It would be nice to break this down so different people are looking at different parts.  Not everyone needs to look at everything.  

Some Notes On My Method For Doing This

• Most changes apply to a single section only, but some apply to several (such as every time they mention Accu-vote they need to delete it.) I repeat the red changes for all the sections they apply to.
• When there are multiple changes to a single section, I give each a bullet so you know there are more than one.
• Some are changes to a section ("Remove"  or "Change") and some are actually newly numbered sections ("Add")  I put the ADD where it would go.
• I've put the proposed changes in red so it's easy to find them.  

The Proposed Changes Embedded in the Current Regulations:

Remove repealed statutory authority in 6 AAC 27.035 and 6 AAC 27.150.

Alaska Election Code Propos... by Steve