Redistricting Board Meeting Friday April 16 (Tomorrow) 2:30 PM - Public Testimony Taken And Voting Rights Act Consultant

 The Board's meeting tomorrow at 2:30.  Here's the agenda:

Date: April 16, 2021

Time: 2:30 pm

Place: Public Numbers: Anchorage 563-9085, Juneau 586-9085, Other 844-586-9085

Agenda

1. Call to Order

2. Establish a Quorum

3. Adoption of Agenda

4. Public Testimony

5. Adoption of Minutes from past meetings

6. Request for Information for Voting Rights Act Consultant

7. Adjournment  (emphasis added)

As you can see, most of the agenda is procedural.  There are only two items, maybe just one, with any substance.  I had to ask if "Public Testimony" meant they were going to talk about how to do it (since they haven't done that publicly yet) or if they were taking public testimony.  The answer was the latter, which, if I had paid closer attention to the notice at the state public notice site, I would have figured out myself.  

But what is there for the public to comment on?  And how does the public know that they can comment?  I dare say the average Alaskan doesn't know how to find the state's public notice page, or if they do, they can't find the Redistricting Board meeting.  

As of right now, I can't find any mention of the meeting or public testimony on the Redistricting Board's website, where it surely should be.  I would note, though, that you can sign up for email notifications of meetings and other key announcements on the website here.

It would appear the only truly substantive item on the agenda is the  Request for Information for Voting Rights Act Consultant.  What is this?  

The 1965 Voting Rights Act and its later renewal sets out the law for acceptable voting practices including redistricting. 

Alaska was one of 16 states required to get pre-clearance from the Department of Justice for their redistricting plans.  It's one of just seven states who were covered in their entirety by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).  The other states only had some jurisdictions that are covered.  

In the 2010 Redistricting process, the Board put Section 5 at the top of their agenda because if the Department of Justice (Obama was president then) didn't approve the redistricting plan, they had to start all over.  But in 2013, after the Board had done everything it could to comply with Section 5, the US Supreme Court invalidated Section 5.  The House passed the renewal of the Voting Rights Act in 2006 with 92% voting for the bill and the Senate voted 98-0 to pass it. I'd note that Alaska's Senators and Representative all voted in favor.  And this shows how messed up Congress has become since then.  

Nevertheless, Supreme Court, only seven years later, said that just because states had problems in1965 that didn't mean they should still be considered problems in 2013 and that Congress needed to reevaluate whether those states still needed pre-clearance.  You can see an extensive history of the bill here from the Congressional Research Service.  

Of course, we seen since then, that many of the 16 states that had required pre-clearance, immediately began finding ways to suppress minority voters.  And many more now are introducing ways to make voting for Blacks and other likely Democratic voters much more difficult.  

Part of getting pre-clearance last time involved a complicated set of formulas for maintaining the power of minorities in certain districts in the State.  In Alaska that meant a number of districts in which Alaska natives had enough population to sway the election. Those requirements are gone now. So the role of the Voting Rights Act consultant is very different, and limited, compared to ten years ago.

Here's a 2011 post called:  Can The Board Keep Nine Native Districts?  to give you a sense of the complexity of what they had to do.  Here's another on the topic:  Boundary Setting And Terminology Around Minority Districts.

And here's a post on the meeting with the Voting Rights Consultant who was calling in from Afghanistan where she was consulting on elections there.  Board Talks to Voting Rights Consultant Lisa Handley Calling from Afghanistan.  My notes say:

One hour meeting talking about

• What data she'll need to do her analysis
• Clarifying how to determine "Native"
• Other issues like whether 35% will be the number still for Native influence districts (not necessarily)
• How does voting age fit in?
• Schedule - her return time (April 24), how long until product (three weeks later)

Oh, yes.  Here's a copy of the draft RFI for the Voting Rights Consultant this time:  (sorry, the formatting is a bit off, but you can see the original here - at the bottom after all the minutes.  

(Again, this is a pretty esoteric expertise, particularly necessary every ten years, though I'm sure different states require experts between reapportionment.  This RFI does mention experience in Alaska redistricting which limits things even more.  But I suspect that requirement is NOT required, but desirable.  I'd also note that the RFI does give notice that the proposals may be subject to public disclosure.  That would be helpful for us all to evaluate the competing proposals.  Certainly seeing that Schwabe - the law firm the Board retained - proposal made it clear that that firm had access to Michael White who was the legal consultant to the previous board.  That removed any questions I had about the selection process.)

 SCHWABE DRAFT Request for Information (RFI) Voting Rights Consultant

Background

The State of Alaska, Alaska Redistricting Board, issues this Request for Information (Request) for a Voting Rights Consultant to assist the Board, and prepare a statistical racial bloc voting analysis of statewide and state legislative elections held in Alaska in 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020.

Scope of Work

The contractor shall provide Consulting Services and Voting Rights Assistance as directed by the Redistricting Board and Project Director.

Services shall include but are not be limited to the following:

1. Preparing a statistical racial bloc voting analysis of the 2012, 2014,2016,2018 and 2020 statewide and state legislative elections in the State of Alaska to determine whether voting in the State of Alaska, or in specific regions of the state, is polarized by race and assist the Board in complying with the Voting Rights Act while creating new legislative districts for the 2022 election cycle. This may include a vote dilution analysis of proposed plans.

This service will include the following tasks:

1. Assisting in the preparation and design of the data base needed to conduct racial bloc voting analyses.

2. Preparing a draft written report and a final written report to the Board outlining the results of the racial bloc voting analysis.

3. Making an oral presentation to the Board of the results of the analysis.

4. Advising the Board on matters pertaining U.S.Voting Rights Act of 1965.

This service may include the following tasks:

1. Assist the Board in determining if one or more proposed redistricting plans may comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

2. Serving as an expert witness for the Redistricting Board on Voting Rights Act issues in any court challenges to the Board’s redistricting plan, including testifying in deposition and/or trial as requested.

3. Performing these tasks and other Redistricting Board Consulting Services/Voting Rights Assistance as required by the Project Director.

4. Travel to the Redistricting Board Office in Anchorage for consulting as requested. Two or more visits may be needed.

Response Requirements

Responses must include the complete name, mailing address, telephone number and email address of the responder(s). Responses must, if applicable, provide notice that the offeror qualifies as an Alaskan bidder. Responses must be signed and dated by the responder.

Offeror must provide:

1. Comprehensive narrative statements that illustrate their understanding of the purpose and scope of this project, any pertinent issues and potential problems, and statements that illustrate their understanding of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the impact of subsequent amendments and court decisions.

2. A description of the offeror’s qualifications and experience in preparing racial bloc voting analyses in Alaska and other jurisdictions.

3. A description of expert witness experience the offeror has provided.

4. A description of the statistical analytical methodology the offeror will employ to perform the required services.

5. A listing of current or past clients similar to the Redistricting Board, a brief description of service provided and a contact name and phone number of each client.

6. A listing of staff experience in advising clients on redistricting/reapportionment in Alaska and other states and jurisdictions.

7. Information on the company ownership,headquarters,branch or affiliate offices, length of time in business,

8. Indicate if the award of this contract would require the acquisition of additional office space, equipment, personnel or any other items. Be as specific as possible, i.e., how much additional space, specific equipment, the number and function of additional employees, etc.

9. Adescription of any distinct and substantive qualifications for undertaking the proposed contract, such as the availability of specialized equipment, awards and recognition received for similar services or special approaches or concepts relevant to the required services under this Request

Costs & Expenses

1. Offeror’s must provide an hourly rate schedule for services provided in order for the proposal to be considered responsive. Proposals received that do not included hourly rate(s) shall be considered non-responsive and shall be rejected.

2. NOTE:Reimbursement for all travel and out-of-pocket expenses shall be limited to the items authorized by the Project Director as set out in a contract resulting from this Request.

Travel to the Redistricting Board Office in Anchorage for consulting as requested. Two or more visits may be needed.

References

Responders are encouraged to provide a list of references the Board may contact to verify the responder’s character, qualifications and experience.

Funding Source

Funding for the Alaska Redistricting Board is subject to Legislative appropriation.

Submission Details, Deadline

Provide one electronic copy of the requested information to the email address below. Responses to this Request must be received by 4:00 p.m. AST, on May 3, 2021.

• Peter.Torkelson@akredistrict.org

This Request in no manner obligates the Board to pursue a contractual relationship with an entity that responds to this Request or limits or restricts the Board to pursue a contractual relationship with an entity that does not respond to this Request.

This Request in no manner obligates the Board to pay any costs incurred in the preparation of any response to this Request. A party responding to this Request is responsible for all costs associated with their response. Responses become the property of the Board and may be subject to public disclosure.

Questions should also be directed to Peter Torkelson at

• Peter.Torkelson@akredistrict.org • 907-406-2894

The Law Firms That Sent In Proposals To The Alaska Redistricting Board [Updated]

Five firms responded to the Alaska Redistricting Board's RFI (Request for Information) for proposals for a legal team to advise the Board.  Two were interviewed and one was selected - contingent on negotiations about fees.  I've also highlighted the key attorneys the proposals identified as Lead and Assistant Lead.  Most firms had several other attorneys listed as well.

• Holmes, Weddle, and Barcott
• Former Attorney General Jahna Lindemuth lead counsel
• Stacey Stone
• Dorsey and Whitney
• Jill McLeod
• Mike Grisham
• Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt
• Matt Singer will serve as Lead Attorney. 
•  Lee Baxter will serve as Second Chair.
• Craig Richards
• Craig Richards, Lead Attorney was Bill Walker's Law Partner and Alaska Attorney General from 2014-2016
• Nicole Corr
• Birch Horton Bittner & Cherot
• Holly Wells, Lead Attorney
• Jennifer Alexander

The Board selected Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt.  I'd note that the Schwabe proposals says they will have retired attorney Michael White as an advisor.  Mike was the attorney for the Board in the 2010 round of redistricting and will be a huge asset to the team.  The Board has not yet released the name of the second firm that was interviewed.  I was hoping to find that out before posting this, but I've only eliminated one firm.  Two to go.  [UPDATE March 22, 2021, 3:43pm:  The other finalist was Dorsey and Whitney.]

The Board is required to give these proposals to people who request them.  I've put them up on SCRIBD  so you can see them here.

Holmes Weddle Barcott Propo... by Steve

 

Dorsey Whitney Proposal to ... by Steve

Schwabe Williamson Wyatt Pr... by Steve

Craig Richards Proposal to ... by Steve

Birch Horton Bittner Cherot... by Steve

I've scanned through these to see what experience each proposal said their attorneys had that was directly related to redistricting.  This is a unique specialty since redistricting only happens every ten years and unless an attorney is working for the Board or an entity that is very interested in redistricting up to the point of suing the Board, there aren't that many attorneys with direct hands-on experience.  I imagine there are other attorneys who have made redistricting a research interest, but probably not in Alaska.

Many of the firms discussed an attorney's experience with state or local government, with boards and commissions, with election law, public meetings and records, etc.  But there was relative little discussing direct experience with redistricting.  

Holmes Weddle Barcott

Jahna Lindemuth was the attorney general in the Walker administration, but as I scanned through proposal I didn't see anything in this firm about direct experience in redistricting.

Craig Richards

"Nicole A Corr: As counsel for the Alaska RedistrictingBoard in 2010, Ms. Corr is intimately familiar with the redistricting process and the specialized knowledge it takes to defend the Board and its plan.  Ms. Corr advised the Board on public hearing protocol and answered questions from the public during public meetings regarding the Board's legal obligations.  She also provided memorandums to the Board on the Alaska Open Meetings Act, interpreting the constitutional provisions applicable to theBoard, and advising compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act.  Ms. Corr served as assistant trial counsel when several entities challenged the Board's final plan, which included a two-week trial, two appeals to the Alaska Supreme Court, and a redraw within a year of adopting the final plan.  Ms. Corr successfully the Board's second plan, defeating the new challenge on summary judgment." 

Schwabe Williamson 

"In 2011, Matt [Singer] was hired by private clients interested in evaluating the Board's redistricting maps.  That work required Matt to develop a close understanding of the body of law that governs the work of the Redistricting Board.  We are well-versed in the constitutional requirements for contiguity, compactness, and socio-economic integration of house districts and will be well prepared to advise the Board about the procedural and substantive steps required by the Alaska Constitution and the Alaska Supreme Court." 

"At no additional expense to the Board, Schwabe has also arranged for retired attorney Michael White to serve as an advisor to this project. Mike was the Redistricting Board’s counsel in the 2010 round of reapportionment, and will bring a wealth of knowledge to the Team."

"For this project, Schwabe has also arranged for Michael White to serve as a senior advisor to its team. Mike represented the Alaska Redistricting Board in the 2010 reapportionment, and was lead challenger’s counsel in the 2000 redistricting litigation. Mike is the most experienced redistricting lawyer in Alaska, and will share his experience as an advisor to the Schwabe team."

Birch Horton Bittner Cherot

"Ms. [Holly] Wells' redistricting law experience includes serving on the Firm legal team representing the Petersburg Borough in connection with the 2010 redistricting plan.  During the course of that representation, Ms. Wells gained an understanding of the redistricting process and procedures, the nature of the challenges and claims that are typical in the redistricting process, and the relevant case law and authority pertaining to such claims and challenges."

Dorsey and Whitney

"Jill McLeod is a lifelong Alaskan. Born in Juneau and raised in Anchorage, Jill is deeply committed to serving the Alaska community and upholding the Alaska Constitution. In this redistricting cycle, Jill was appointed by the Chief Justice of the Alaska Supreme Court, and then elected to lead, the Redistricting Planning Committee, the committee responsible for the initial preparations and arrangements necessary for the Redistricting Board to successfully complete its work implementing Alaska’s decennial redistricting plan. During her year long tenure as the Chair of the Redistricting Planning Committee, Jill became intimately familiar with the redistricting process, voting rights, electoral system design including redistricting software, redistricting and voting rights issues pertaining to redistricting and the redistricting requirements under state and federal law, including the Voting Rights Act. With her understanding of the redistricting requirements, Jill will be able to assist the Board in preparing a defensible redistricting plan. In her role as the Chair, Jill ensured compliance with the Open Meeting Act for all public meetings."

AK Redistricting Board Selects Schwabe, Williamson, and Wyatt For Legal Counsel

I missed the Board Meeting on Saturday afternoon and so I waited until the audio tape was up to report it. I'd note that the recordings are available at a different legislative website than before because the previous meetings were still during the 31st legislative session and now we are in the 32 legislative session. 

They are also up on the Board's own website, but you have to look a bit.  There's a  ≡ symbol in the upper right hand corner of the website and a click there will give you a drop-down menu with some additional pages, including one for "Minutes and Audio."

I'd also note that I used Board Members' first names, because that's how they identify themselves and each other and mentally trying to substitute last names as I listen really slows me down.  No disrespect intended.

Meeting Highlights

1.  Legal services selection - Board had five responses to the Request For Information.  They interviewed two firms and selected Schwabe, Williamson, and Wyatt.  There are still some negotiations to finalize the agreement ahead. 

2.  Protocol for meeting and information requests from public - Board decided to hold off this decision until Schwabe is on board and can help with potential legal issues for deciding this.  Since Census data have been delayed, this shouldn't be a problem.

3.  Time for public testimony at regular meetings - The Board decided to set aside time to do this at meetings.  There was also discussion of using the Anchorage legislative info office for future meetings and that with COVID restrictions loosening in Anchorage, this could be soon.

4.  Next meeting Friday, March 26 at 2:30pm

Below are my notes after listening to the tape.  The numbers are time on the audio tape at:https://www.akredistrict.org/files/9816/1532/4779/2021-03-06-ARB-Audio.mp3

It was much easier taking notes from the tape than it is from a live meeting.  I cleaned things up a bit, but remember this is a rough transcript, but it should let you know what was discussed and where you can find things, more or less, on the tape.

4:18  John - Call the meeting to order and ask Peter to take roll and establish quorum. 

John:  Draft agenda.  Legal services and meeting protocols.  Motion to adopt agenda.  Adopted. 

First item is discussion of legal service RFI and responses - ask Peter to go through the process up to this point

6:05 Peter:  Legal process - Constitution Article 6 Section 9 requires board to contract for  

Alaska Constitution Article  6 § 9. Board Actions
The board shall elect one of its members chairman and may employ temporary assistants. Concurrence of three members of the Redistricting Board is required for actions of the Board, but a lesser number may conduct hearings. The board shall employ or contract for services of independent legal counsel. [Amended 1998]

 

independent counsel.  RFI in January - five responses obtained.  We are required by law to keep them confidential until decision made.  After that we can share with the public who request it.

Board subcommittee picked two.  First firm had multi-slide presentation on how to avoid litigation and if we get sued, perhaps,  how to prevail.  

Second interview also went well - firm offered a question and answer format. Frank  discussion  about litigation strategy.what to expect and how the Board should prepare.

Thanks to both firms for candid advice.  Board has had several days to consider the interviews.  How to proceed.

John:  Did discuss in Executive Session (ES.)  Do we want to go back to ES?

Budd:  I think we want to - hard to understand - we had a total of 5 firms that responded.  All fiver were good, well regarded firms.  Hard to narrow down, but two that had a little more horse power or something going for them that got them to the interviews.  Let them know all were good and hard to get to short list.  Move to ES to discuss legal counsel.  Relying on - involving consideration of public records not allowed by law for public disclose.

Seconded.  

John:  A couple of items we asked the ED to return to law firms to discuss with them financial arrangements  and fee structures etc. and I think that's appropriate to discuss in ES.  We'll be back in public session to make decision.  Don't know how long.  Hope less than 30 minutes.  Back into public session.  Legislative telecom folks to work that out.  

12:26  recording:  "You've been muted"

31 minutes in, unmuted.

John:  Out of ES.  Chance to discuss further nuances of responses:

Budd:  Based on discussion and interviews and five proposals I would make motion that we select Schwabe, Williamson and Wyatt Firm - subject to negotiation and execution of a satisfactory agreement.

2nded - 

John:  Discussion

Melanie - Call the question.

John:  Objection?  Passed by unanimous consent.  Will ask ED, Budd and Nicole to put that agreement together.

Budd:  Along the lines of the quality of the other responding firms, ask that ED prepare nice letters to other respondent firms, thanking them for interest and quality of responses, indicating it was difficult selection, but we have selected Schwabe.  

John:  I know it takes time to put these together and we're genuinely appreciative.

35:  Next is protocol

Peter:  Draft on the website.  We're going to forward to help evaluate.  Board members can assist and ask for assistance.  Record from last cycle says we'll get a lot of these.  Reporting them as they come in is the best way.  

John:  Discussion?

Bethany - this is for private presentations, not public hearings, right?  

Peter:  Yes, if Board member requests and we'll forward to you.  

Bethany - Someone private group requests meeting with Board meeting.  

Melanie - I was going to ask if ever going to open LIO line to let people ask questions of us?

John:  Good idea

Peter:  Anchorage opening up restrictions and reached out to Anchorage LIO and they have big room and people can actually see us.  Happy to allow us to use when not used by other legislative body.  So Public Meetings in the future.

Melanie - Then can I suggest public comments allowed in future meetings.  Nome is relaxing travel regs too for people to travel, so my ability to travel is opening up.

John - hopefully by spring or summer can get back to regular meetings.  Peter and I will review with law firm how we interact with public - both in public and privately - so we don't get challenged on this in future litigation.

???:  I propose we wait then on this until we can hear from the law firm.  

???:  Since data is so delayed, we have plenty of time until we have attorneys on our payroll.

John:  next, unless comments, we are at item 7 - adjournment.

Nicole - want to thank Budd for his leadership on dealing with the law firm selection, a pleasure working with him.

John - Leg teleconferencing crew, we appreciate your help, especially coming in on a Saturday.

???:  Confirm next meeting.

Peter:  Proposed March 26, 2:30pm.  And will try to preload meetings for second Friday.  Anyone can request to be on email alert list.  

John - also lets start taking public testimony at next meeting.  

Nicole second motion to adjourn.  Adjourned  45 min.  

The Board Gets Advice From Legislative Attorney And Decides To Proceed With The Interview In Executive Session

When I worked at the Municipality of Anchorage long ago, I had to write some policy.  I wanted to be sure I wouldn't run afoul of the law, so I went to the legal department and asked what the law was regarding the topic.  

The attorney said what do you want to do?  I said I want to write the policy so it's legal.  He repeated, what exactly do you want to do?  I said I wasn't exactly sure until I understood the law.  He said, tell me what you want to do and I'll find the law that allows you do what you want to do.  

That's my sense of today's decision to go into Executive Session.    

I had suggested that the Board interview with the law office that will represent the Board be public and offered reasons why in the last post. 

Here are the reasons a body can go into Executive Session:

(c)    The following subjects may be considered in an executive session:
(1)     matters, the immediate knowledge of which would clearly have an adverse effect upon the finances of the public entity;
(2)     subjects that tend to prejudice the reputation and character of any person, provided the person may request a public discussion;
(3)     matters which by law, municipal charter, or ordinance are required to be confidential;
(4)     matters involving consideration of government records that by law are not subject to public disclosure. 

 I cited the Alaska Supreme Court which has ruled that the only likely reason in interviewing an applicant for Police Chief or City Manager in Executive Session was possibly number (2),  The Supreme Court ruled:

"Ordinarily an applicant's reputation will not be damaged by a public discussion of his or her qualifications relating to experience, education and background or by a comparison of them with those of other candidates."

The Supreme Court allowed that it is possible when talking about the personal characteristics of applicants.  But the remedy is to stay public and only go into Executive Session when discussing the allowed exemptions.  

Well, today the Peter Torkelson reported the advice of Legislative Legal.  I didn't catch all the details, but he didn't really talk that long either.  But basically he said that Leg Legal said that they could potentially discuss things that fall under exemption 1, 2, and 4. 

1.  matters, the immediate knowledge of which would clearly have an adverse effect upon the finances of the public entity;

What I understood here was that they might talk about legal strategies to use should the Board be sued.  I agree that legal strategies for pending lawsuits are generally exempted.  

2.  subjects that tend to prejudice the reputation and character of any person, provided the person may request a public discussion;

I already cited the Supreme Court's decision on this - that yes, it could happen, but for the most part people selling their services are not likely to do this.  

4.  matters involving consideration of government records that by law are not subject to public disclosure.  

It wasn't clear to me what records they were talking about.  Possibly they were again talking about legal strategies.  

OK, so these are items that might come up ("prejudice the reputation...") or are likely to come up (legal strategies).  However, the public meetings statute also says:

"Subjects may not be considered at the executive session except those                                         mentioned in the motion calling for the executive session unless auxiliary to the main                                question."

Which means that everything else must be considered in public.  So, they should begin the interview in public.  And when they get near either of those issues, they can go into Executive Session and then come back out of Executive Session.  

Different people can interpret the law differently.  I also understand that it's much more convenient to simply go into Executive Session.  And I suspect that most public bodies in Alaska invoke Executive Session so without seriously considering the intent of the law, or on advice of attorneys who don't tell them what the law is, but how to do what they want legally.  

Further, nothing is technically illegal until ruled so by a judge.  So unless a member of the body objects, or a member of the public sues, various bodies in the state will take the easy way out and just go into Executive Session.  

Today's meeting took about ten minutes to discuss the attorney's advice and then vote to go into Executive Session. (I'd note the attorney did point out that that office does not represent the Board.)

The Board has also not told the public who they are interviewing.  Surely the names of the two law firms is not going to prejudice the reputation of either of them.  Unless we are now at the stage where someone argues that not winning the contract will prejudice their reputation.  

Rich Mauer, then an Anchorage Daily News reporter, challenged the previous Board over this issue in 2013 when they were interviewing applicants for the new Executive Director and the Board agreed to conduct the interviews openly.  Given that the Anchorage Daily News is now owned by part of the Binkley family, and the Board Chair is part of that family, I don't think the ADN is likely to challenge, let alone sue, the Board over this sort of thing.

Below are my rough notes from the meeting:

2:58   Folks chatting   

3:01 John:  We got a little pushback about Executive Session - talked to Legislative attorney because of this.  

Hi Melanie, Hi Budd

Melanie:  How you doing?

Lots of snow in Fairbanks

Think we're all here.  Nicole , Melanie Banke, Budd Simpson, Bethany, John Binkley, Peter Torkelson

John:  One agenda item - legal services  Agenda adopted unanimously

Only item:  Interview for RFI legal services, plan to take care of this in Executive Session.  Ask chair to discuss this

Peter:  Talked to the Legislative counsel if this is the correct form.  Leg attorney said 195 of code.  Open in confidential matter until decision made   Open Meetings act C4  may be used for govt records by law requires it to be confidential.  Two other exceptions - Matters of immediate knowledge - since discussing legal strategy if sued, so it's important someone who might sue us won't know 

If prejudice reputation - we could.  Leg attorney said she doesn't represent us.  Feels we're on solid ground.  

Comments by Board members about doing this in Executive Session.  

Budd:  Moves to go into ES Open meeting act - records not subject to public disclosure.  

Nicole:  Seconded

John:  Opposition?  Passes by unanimous consent.  

3:10  You will now be disconnected.  

AK Redistricting Board Talks About Transparency Then Goes Behind Closed Doors

[The title is accurate, but I do want to say that at this point I have no reason to believe they were not acting in good faith and don't mean to imply that. But I think it's worth paying attention now and seeing how they react going forward.]

In my last post, I included my rough notes from their Friday, Feb. 26 meeting. When they talked about agenda items numbers:

"4. Staff Public Outreach Directive

5. Response Protocol for Meeting Requests"

several members expressed a clear need to have guidelines that would be as clear as possible to the Board and public so that they:

•  wouldn't appear to be playing favorites - giving information to some groups but not others
• would all be responding to folks the same way
• could be as transparent and fair as possible

I have some thoughts on how to do this - based on good public administration standards and on the experiences of blogging the previous redistricting board - but I need to think them through a bit more.  

In this post I want to focus on what happened when they got to agenda item number

"7. Interview with Legal Services RFI Respondents, Executive Session"

My notes [and I acknowledge I could have missed something] say:

"John [Binkley]:  Next, interview with one of the law firms that replied.  Thanks to Brittany for working on this.  Doing it in Executive Session.  Ready now to interview one of the respondents.   

Moved to move to executive session:  Peter if you can coordinate with leg affairs and let us know." 

What's wrong with that you ask?

By state law, a public body has to do two things before going into executive session.

1. They have to vote to do it.  [They may have voted and I just didn't catch it]
2. But before voting they have to declare why they're going into executive session. 

Here are the reasons a body can go into Executive Session:

(c)    The following subjects may be considered in an executive session:
(1)     matters, the immediate knowledge of which would clearly have an adverse effect upon the finances of the public entity;
(2)     subjects that tend to prejudice the reputation and character of any person, provided the person may request a public discussion;
(3)     matters which by law, municipal charter, or ordinance are required to be confidential;
(4)     matters involving consideration of government records that by law are not subject to public disclosure. 

Number (2) seems the most likely reason for them to go into Executive Session while interviewing an applicant to be the legal counsel for the Board.  But think again.  The law firm representative being interviewed is not likely to say anything about themselves that would prejudice their own character or reputation.  




Rather, they will be telling the Board about how good they are.   




Now, it's possible that the Board has done some background investigation that raised some questions about the applicant,  and they want to ask questions about that.  At that point, they could go into Executive Session.  




The Board didn't even tell us who the finalists were.  There was an Alaska Supreme Court opinion about whether finalists for policy making position should be made public.  In that case (City of Kenai v. Kenai Peninsula Newspapers) a case concerning the City Manager of Kenai was consolidated with a case of the Municipality of Anchorage selecting a Police Chief.  In both cases the selection process was not carried out openly and in both cases the local newspapers sued the governments.  Part of the courts ruling said:

"The appellee does not contend that the City Council may never go into executive session when discussing city manager applicants. It argues that generally such discussions do not have a tendency to damage the reputation of the applicants, and that the City erred in routinely convening executive sessions.

Appellee's reading of the statute is not without a degree of merit. Ordinarily an applicant's reputation will not be damaged by a public discussion of his or her qualifications relating to experience, education and background or by a comparison of them with those of other candidates. However, a discussion of personal characteristics and habits may well carry a risk that the applicant's reputation will be compromised. Such a risk is especially acute where the qualities of several applicants are being compared. We believe therefore that the City Council was authorized by § .310(c)(2) to meet in executive session while discussing the personal characteristics of the applicants.[29] To the extent that the order of the court prohibits this, it must be reversed.[30]" [emphasis added]

These issues came up last time when the Board had to hire a new Executive Director.   Here's what I posted March 14, 2013:

"I learned just now that Rich Mauer of the Anchorage Daily News pressed the Board on the Public Meetings Act and got them to open the interviews with the Executive Director candidates today.  Two have dropped out.  That leaves three and they were planning to interview each for about 50 minutes to an hour."
One could argue that this is not a high policy making position, but that would be contrary to facts.  The Board will make decisions that will decide the election districts for the next ten years.  How they do that will affect which parties control the State Senate and House.  While the Board will ultimately make the decisions, their actions will be strongly influenced by the advice they get from the Board's attorney.  
And in 2013, the Board's attorney advised them to let the interviews for the Board's Executive Director be public.  The ED carries out the instructions of the Board and I would argue has a lesser impact on the Board than the attorney does.  
Therefore, I would argue that the Board should make these interviews public.  I also recognize that they've already done one interview behind closed doors and it could be argued that it would be unfair to the second applicant to be the only one that was made public.  But they are recording these meetings, so the first interview could be posted on the Board's website.  
I would note that the Board did not even announce the names of the firms they were interviewing.  
I have no reason to believe that the Board was acting in bad faith.  I suspect that they just didn't consider these issues carefully enough.  As yet, they do not have an attorney to advise them when they are about to do something like this.  
I emailed the Board Chair and Executive Director about these issues and got a cordial response from the Board Chair saying he would take this up with Legislative Legal before Tuesday's interview.  

I'd emphasize the importance of publicizing the candidates and opening up of the interviews.  In the Anchorage Police Chief case, the Chief selection was done in secret.  The Municipality wouldn't even release the names of the finalists.  The Municipality then announced the new Police Chief.  At that point the Anchorage Daily News did some sleuthing about the new chief and found out he'd been fired from his previous post for sexual harassment.  (And 40 years ago, that wasn't something that happened often.)  When the story came out, the Mayor, who was traveling to a national conference, had to turn around and come back to Anchorage to deal with the fallout.  
So publicizing the candidates and letting the public sit in on the interviews means that a lot more people have the opportunity to either raise issues about the candidate the Board might not have discovered and/or  might challenge claims the applicant makes in the interview which the Board might otherwise take at face value.  
Last time, when the Board publicly interviewed the Executive Director applicants, the public was able to see clearly which candidate was best.  One had held some political positions, but was unprepared and couldn't really answer most of the questions.  One was a person with administrative experience, but nothing directly related to redistricting.  The third was incredibly well qualified for the position -one of the first women grads of West Point, she'd held high level positions in the army and in Alaska.  Plus she had a PhD in geography and had taught classes in GIS - a key component of the mapping software used by the Board.  And her doctoral dissertation had been on the impact of the military on Alaska Natives, so she had contacts around the state.  And her answers and manner of answering were complete,  respectful, and knowledgeable.  
Without open interviews the public would not have known the qualities of the three finalists.  In the end, the Board decided they didn't need an Executive Director and hired no one.  But the fact that they had passed on such an excellent candidate - who turned out to be a registered Democrat - was telling.  With closed interviews they could have picked one of the lesser candidates.  

There was also a technical problem in how the Board went into Executive Session in an on-line meeting.  The last word people listening in by phone heard was the part I cited above.  Then the line was quiet for 15-30 seconds and a voice then said something like "This session is now over."  My guess is that the only business the board had after coming out of executive session was to adjourn.  But that part of the meeting should have been, technically, public.  We don't know if there was any discussion other than adjourning.  
I also realize that the Board didn't know exactly how long the interview would take.  I'm guessing that keeping everyone on the line but without hearing what was happening would be expensive.  But I think the Board could have estimated how much time they'd need and could have told listeners they could call back after, say an hour.  At that point, the operator could connect them or give a new estimate if the Board needed more time.  If the Board was finished early, they could take a break until time for the public hearing to resume.  

At this point, I have seen or heard nothing to make me believe that what happened was nothing more than oversight.  But I also know from my experience with the previous board, that both political parties have as their goal from the Board to get as many candidates of their party into the legislature for the next ten years.  
Given that goal - which was stated clearly by some politicians last time - it's critical to do as much of this work as openly and by-the-book as possible.  This will become easier if they select a top-notch attorney to advise them.
My intent is not to condemn the Board, but to help them do their jobs as professionally, legally, and fairly as possible.  

Alaska Redistricting Board Goes Into Executive Session To Interview Legal Advisor Applicant

[These are my rough notes as I first waited, then listened in to meeting.  Most people identified themselves, but sometimes forgot and not sure about all the voices yet.  Some comments, but a follow up post coming concerning how and why they went into executive session.]

 Here's the agenda.  [While I'm waiting for the meeting to begin, I've put some notes on the agenda in [brackets].  My notes on the meeting will be below the agenda and below the Proposed Outreach Directive.

Proposed Agenda: 

Date: Time: Place:

State of Alaska Redistricting Board

February 26, 2021 2:30 pm

Teleconference:

Public Numbers: Anchorage 563-9085, Juneau 586-9085, Other 844-586-9085

Agenda

1. Call to order

2. Establish a Quorum

3. Adoption of Agenda

4. Staff Public Outreach Directive - see Proposed Public Outreach Directive  [I've also added most of this below.]

5. Response Protocol for Meeting Requests

6. Software Training Availability [I'm hoping this is for the public, but I suspect it is only for the Board.  We'll see.]

7. Interview with Legal Services RFI Respondents, Executive Session 

8. Adjournment

2:25pm - Much of this meeting will be in Executive Session as the Board interviews law firms that responded to the RFI for legal services for the Board.  The attorney for the Board plays a pretty large role in advising the Board on what they are legally required, permitted, or prohibited from doing.  And often the guidelines are not that clear, so they have to figure out the best possible path.  

2:28pm still waiting for the meeting to begin.  There were some voices a few minutes ago, but it's quiet now.  I'd note that the Public Outreach Directive linked above in the agenda, is pretty broad.

"The staff mission is to:

1. 1)  Facilitate the Redistricting Board’s decision-making process through administrative, technical and logistical support. 

1. 2)  Explain the redistricting process and resulting Board decisions to the public.

2. 3)  Assist legal counsel to defend the Board’s decisions in the courts."

Then there's:

"Direction to Staff  [My guess is the staff wrote this for the Board, a bit ironic]

The Board directs the staff to proactively engage in public outreach using means and technologies which best facilitates the Board’s work.

1) Who is the “Public”? – In this context the public means all Alaskans, their elected local and state representatives, local government bodies, interested parties such as ANSCA Corporations, political parties and other non-governmental organizations and their representatives.

2) What is the message? – Staff should endeavor to be as helpful and specific as possible while educating the public about the Board’s constitutional mission, governing laws, policies and procedures, open meetings guidelines, public notice practices, procurement process, sources for additional information, and Census methodology and timing. The staff should work to educate the public about the various constraints placed on the board: namely the 4 constitutional standards of compactness, contiguity, social- economic integration and population equity (one person, one vote) as well as a general summary of Federal guidelines enacted in the Voting Rights Act. Staff should be prepared to provide a general overview of the most relevant case law as it applies to the Board for the 2020 cycle. (Shelby, Egan etc)

3) Is there anything the staff should not communicate? – Yes. The staff must not divulge specific content of executive sessions, matters subject to attorney-client, deliberative privilege, or details of litigation strategy options. The staff should refrain from making projections about what the board will or won’t do in any specific situation. The staff should not cast negative dispersions on any member of the public or their representative, even during hostile legal proceedings."

2:34pm - my phone line is still quiet.   

2:36pm -"the host has rejoined the conference" 

2:40pm - Guessing that one of the members is either late or having trouble with the zoom connection.

2:44pm - still quiet, but my phone says I'm 25 minutes into the call.  

2:46pm - some voices, sounds like someone is having technical difficulties connecting.  Discussion about groups and people the staff should be reaching out to.  Talking about non-profits - 

Q:  public wants to know "what is redistricting?"  A:  Questions will range from those basic questions to more complicated issues that I still have.  Non-profits are on the list.

Nicole:  something we should be very much engaged in.  Extended time line to our advantage.  . . .

Nonprofits, municipalities, when safe to travel, invite whole community, and as much outreach as we can.

A:  Outline of outreach can have a few more groups, but general consensus is outline.

Melanie:  Good start.  For me, timelines and more concrete plan so we will have information of redistricting process for anyone who needs it.  Leave it for staff, like to see, dates, locations on your websites.  Mechanism for groups that want us to meet with them.  Board, or staff.  I know it's next on our agenda.  Want to be pro-active in our outreach.  Also for groups that want specific meetings.  

A:  Intention, once Board agrees, get down to brass tacks and get going.  Tap into Board members' local knowledge to help figure out best times for different regions.  

John? ;  Segue into #5 - reviewing the archives, as time gets closer, as we're drawing lines, there will be numberouns requests of people who want to meet with Board.  How do we route these?  Forward them on, file them, what do we do?  

???:  When you get personal requests (Members and Staff).  Open discussion on it.  

??:  Thanks.  Mixed feelings about this.  Already had handful out of the blue calls because people heard I was on the Board and they want to talk about some legislative issues.  I say, you're way too early.  Deal with us a lot later.  There will be more of this happening.  Nice to have a policy to say that individual board members won't engage in off-the record side bars.  But a good way to get feedback.  Just thinking out loud here.  Nature of private conversations and how that fits with public meeting rules versus being as available as possible.  thanks.

John:  Agree.  Fine line.  We're open about their ideas, but some boundary to indicate what we might and might not do.

Melanie:  suggestion:  I already got phone call that wants to speak to me as Board member, and I declined until we establish procedure.  Need to be as transparent as possible, that info should be shared with the group and the public:  Melanie Banke has met with Group X in official capacity.  Need these ground rules.  My preference is to let these meetings with individuals, but if we have a formal mechanism, the pressure for individual meetings will lessen.  If I just meet with some groups, but not other groups, looks partisan.  Needs to be transparent with record of meeting.

Bethany:  Like sense of what we mean by a meeting.  Talking to someone about something else altogether and then they start talking about Redistricting.  Telling me what they think.  Gets sticky.  Tough to define and track these conversations.  

John:  May be difficult to quantify all that in a document and policy.  May come down to individual judgment and what we feel comfortable with.  And Melanie's idea about what we've discussed.  But that is that line between individual conversations that strays too Redistricting.

Nicole:  In favor of system where B member and staff can talk to folks, but I don't know every conversation requires a memo.  [hard to understand]

Bethany:  Casual conversations.  Staff will let us know as individual board members.  I'm talking about formal meeting requests.  If we have a plan there won't be individuals lobbying us.  

John:  Ask staff to draft something for us.  Maybe can capture some of this in policy.  Areas that might be sticky.  Circulate to us all and start to work on it.  Later decide what that might be.

Staff:  Certainly we can do that.

??:  For now, all meeting requests go through staff.  I don't want individuals calling me.  I don't feel comfortable having side meetings with groups.  Staff can share we have outreach plan in development.  Until we have something more formal.  

John:  Board like that as an interim policy?  We may have differences of opinion.  

Bethany:  Comfortable with that if we are talking about a group.  But with individuals harder to figure out how to handle that.  

Budd:  Same as Bethany.  Shouldn't restrict ourselves from calls or casual conversations with people who grab you by the collar and ask questions.  But if more formal talks to groups, we need a more formal policy in place.

Nicole:  sounds good.  

Bethany:  Goal to avoid appearance of us taking favorites.  It will be the wealthier groups with lobbyists that will be trying to influence us.  Avoid appearances of impropriety or that we can be influenced by special interests.  Want to be transparent.  

John:  even as legislator being lobbied all the time by people.  We legally can't have a majority of us in meetings like that.  Meanwhile, if formal request, special interest group, defer.

Bethany:  I really mean a group.  General information about redistricting versus formal meetings.  

John:  Item 6.  Software Training.

Peter:  Yes, we saw need for training, and hire people to help with training.  We have a contractor with 12 instructional videos, and links to that training.  And also a corporate virtual training seminar.  After look at your own training, then have a formal training session with the board.  

John:  If we are really going to be utilize software, shouldn't train too early because I'll forget it when we get the data.  Other thoughts?  If people want to get started, they can do that.

Peter:  We'll send out links on Monday.

John:  Next, interview with one of the law firms that replied.  Thanks to Brittany for working on this.  Doing it in Executive Session.  Ready now to interview one of the respondents.  

Moved to move to executive session:  Peter if you can coordinate with leg affairs and let us know.  

[There's an issue here for me about them not announcing who they are interviewing.  Last time round when they interviewed for a new Executive Director, the ADN challenged them because they didn't announce the finalists. 

3:16 - was disconnected.  

1.  Call to order

2.  Establish a Quorum

3. Adoption of Agenda  [If 1-3 happened I did not hear it on the line I was on.]

4. Staff Public Outreach Directive - see Proposed Public Outreach Directive 

     

5. Response Protocol for Meeting Requests 

 [Some members showed concern about:  a) transparency about who they talk to outside of meetings,  b) avoiding being pestered by people who want to lobby them  c) concern about what things they can and can't say  d) want a policy to govern this.]

6. Software Training Availability [I'm hoping this is for the public, but I suspect it is only for the Board.  We'll see.] [Just for the Board, no mention of the public having access to software.]

7. Interview with Legal Services RFI Respondents, Executive Session [follow up post coming on this- why didn't they mention the finalists?  why did they need to go into Executive Session?  

8. Adjournment [They went into ES and didn't mention coming out of ES to do anything else, including adjourn.]

Alaska Redistricting Board To Begin Interviewing Legal Firms To Counsel The Board

I got the following email message today from the Alaska Redistricting Board staff:

"The Redistricting Board will be meeting Friday, Feb 26 at 2:30pm and tentatively again on Tuesday, March 2nd at 3pm.  Please note that the bulk of both meetings will be dedicated to interviewing legal firms who responded to the Board's RFI for legal services. The interviews will be conducted in executive session.  Friday's meeting will have an agenda item or two for discussion prior to going into executive session.

The agenda and board packet will be posted here in the next couple of days:

http://notice.alaska.gov/201511 "

That link gets you this information:

The Alaska Redistricting Board will meet by teleconference on Friday, February 26 at 2:30pm.

The public may listen by audio stream through http://akleg.gov or by calling one of the following phone numbers:

 - Anchorage 563-9085

 - Juneau 586-9085

 - Other 844-586-9085

 

If you want to get email messages about meetings and other redistricting board news, go here.

2020 Alaska Redistricting Board Debuts Its Website

A post-Civil War map of the newly purchased Alaska sets the mood for this decade's Redistricting Board website. This is NOT your typical government agency look.  Especially compared to the site of the last Board.  This is a very user friendly site and offers Alaskans an easy portal to the redistricting process.  And now that the Census data isn't due until late summer, this is a good time to start exploring the site.  

I'm Not Really Being Lazy Just Because I Don't Have A New Post Everyday

 Because, actually, I do.  And sometimes two.  

Since I started tracking Alaska's COVID-19 cases, other posts aren't showing up so often.  I started just doing COVID-19 posts here, like this post.  But they were taking too much room and I was repeating the same charts over and over.  So I switched to a "Page" - a tab in Blogger jargon.  So now, unless you click on the tab above (just under the orange blog banner) it looks like I haven't done a new post.  

But in addition to updating the table with the day's new numbers, I do a brief summary as well.  Like this one from yesterday:

Monday, October 19, 2020 - Good signs, but not all good.  

Today was the second day in a row with no new deaths or new hospitalizations.  October 4 was the last time we had just one day with no deaths or hospitalizations.  We have to go back to September 14 and 15 for two days in a row like that.  And before that?  June 27-30 when there were four days with no deaths or hospitalizations.  This might just be a problem of not getting the hospitalization reports in over the weekend.  But it's a glimmer of hope.

There were 208/200 new resident cases.  It's four days in a row with 200 or more cases.  That has never happened before in Alaska.  Not so good.  The more cases, the more eventual hospitalizations and deaths to follow.

27 reported recoveries and 175 MORE active cases - for another all time high of 5235.

11,012 new tests, one of the highest totals. [10/20/20 -Had typo in chart yesterday.  Not sure how many new tests, yesterday.  The updated past numbers are totally different from what I documented daily.] We're at [5]33,723 tests total.  Our state population is about 730,000.  But this number is NOT how many Alaskans have been tested, but how many tests have been given.  Many essential workers get tested over and over again. 

The test positivity rate dropped slightly from 4.78 yesterday to 4.6 today.  Under 5.0 is good.  

The State keeps other numbers I don't keep track of on the chart above.  I've been reporting Reproductive Number in the daily reports lately.  Today down slightly to 1.07.  Under 1 is the goal.  We're close.

I haven't mentioned hospital capacity for a while, mainly because it hasn't been an issue.  But when I looked today, The hospitals are getting a little more crowded.

57% of adult beds are occupied.  There are 550 vacant.  That's for everything, not just COVID-19.

68% of adult ICU beds are occupied.  There are only 43 left.  Again, not just COVID-19 patients.

Ventilators aren't an issue at this point.  Only 9% being used with 324 left.  

There are 41 COVID-19 patients in hospital beds and 24 more suspected COVID-19 cases.  

What I'm learning is that the State's numbers are fluid.  That is they get adjusted as more info comes in - maybe some new cases turn out to be non-residents instead of residents, or a bunch of tests come in from several days ago.  I'm just doing each day's numbers and if anyone every wants to know how much the State's numbers have fluctuated, they can compare what the State has posted to what I have posted.  Though that won't show how often the State adjusted their numbers.  

We've been seeing about 200 new resident cases a day this last week or so and the number of active cases keeps going up because new cases outpace recovered cases.  Though recovered cases are one of the least up-to-date numbers they offer.  

On the positive side, our Test Positivity has only been over 5.0 a couple of times.  (5.0 is the target number set by the WHO.  And our Reproductive Number is only fractions above the target number to be below: 1.0.  

But with not much effort at all, the numbers could explode, and our hospitals could get overpacked.  

Anyway, just wanted to point out that this action is taking place a little hidden from sight in the tabs. There are two COVID tabs because the first one was getting really big.  It goes from June 1 to September 30. (Before that I was doing daily COVID-19  posts, which you can probably find most easily by looking at the Blog Archive (right had column) in March, April, and May.  The new tab started October 1.  

Stay well and if you must engage the anti-maskers do it gently and just listen, don't argue.  Ask questions if you have to say anything.  They have issues regarding power mostly, so telling them to do something pisses them off.  Like a rebelling teenager who will do the opposite of what you ask them to do.  These are chronological adults, but emotional teenagers.  (Yeah, that's a pretty broad generalization, but I suspect it's more accurate than not.)

My Alaska Mail In Ballot Has Seven Candidates For US President

 We got our mail in ballots the other day and when I opened mine I was surprised to see so many presidential candidates on the ballot.  

Ballotpedia lists six of these candidates.  James Janos, it turns out, was nominated by the Alaska Green Party.  Ballotopedia lists another Green Party candidate - someone nominated by the national Green Party.  

But since none of these candidates was invited to the presidential debates, I'll give Alaskans a bit of background on the lesser known candidates with links to more information.  

Roque De La Fuente

"De La Fuente was a 2018 Republican candidate who sought election to the U.S. Senate from California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming.[2][3][4] He was defeated in those states' primary elections. The United States Constitution does not establish specific residency requirements for United States senators, stipulating only that a senator must be an "inhabitant of the state for which he shall be chosen." Residency requirements vary by state."

James G. “Jesse Ventura” Janos

"James G. “Jesse Ventura” Janos – United States President – Green Party Nominee

Other:

Jesse Ventura is a former professional wrestler, actor, political commentator, bestselling author, naval veteran, television host, and politician who served as the 38th governor of Minnesota from 1999 to 2003."

Jo Jorgensen

"Jo Jorgensen is the 2020 Libertarian Party presidential nominee. She was nominated at the Libertarian National Convention on May 23, 2020, becoming the first woman to lead the party's presidential ticket.[2][3] Her running mate is entrepeneur and podcaster Jeremy "Spike" Cohen.

Jorgensen framed her campaign as an alternative to Democratic and Republican policies she said created trillion-dollar deficits and led to involvement in expensive and deadly foreign wars. "Big government mandates and programs created these problems. To solve them, we need to make government smaller – much, much smaller," her campaign website said.[4]"

Brock Pierce 

"Brock Pierce is an independent candidate for president of the United States in 2020.

Pierce is an entrepreneur with experience in Blockchain technology and digital currency. He co-founded the cryptocurrency Tether. He also launched several philanthropic efforts, including the Brock Pierce Foundation and Integro Foundation.[1]"

 

Don Blankenship

"Don Blankenship – United States President – Alaska Constitution Nominee

Other:

Don Blankenship is a coal miner who rose to become CEO of Massey Energy Company. Blankenship said, 'I am running for President to let people know how dire the American situation is and what must be done to fix it. We cannot survive as a country if we do not stop the Republican and Democrat nonsense.'”

I have voted third party on occasion, knowing that my vote in Alaska would have no impact because I live in a red state.  But this year, it doesn't matter.  Every vote counts, even if it isn't reflected in the electoral college.