AI Scraping My Blog?

My Stat-Counter account has been showing this frequent Hong Kong visitor:

Total Sessions usually records how many times the computer has visited, but it says only 1, even though there are five total hits on this one page (of 20 hits) on the Stat Counter report.  It's been showing up frequently for weeks now.

I know, I said five, but they are scattered.  The one on top is one.  Here are three more and there was one more.  

I've had this sort of thing before, but it's been awhile.  In the past, the assumption was they were scraping content.  Now, I'm wondering if it isn't an AI bot gathering stuff for training.  If so, what should I do and how?  From Duda.

"How to Block AI Crawlers from Crawling your Site

Some site owners are choosing to block AI crawlers, such as ChatGPT and Bard from crawling their site in order to prevent it from learning from or using their website content. You can block these AI user-agents in a similar manner as you would block Google crawlers; by replacing the default robots.txt file with a new file that specifies disallow rules for specific AI user-agents."

When I first started blogging, I spent a lot of time learning about (and blogging about) technical aspects of blogging - how to:find out if anyone is reading the blog; to embed photos and videos; how to change the format; how to add an email address; etc.  

Now AI is raising other issues.  Such as how to block AI crawlers from using your site to train its bots.  

This is not what I want to spend my time on.  First the internet is telling me I have to block each crawler separately by adding code to the robot.txt file.  

Should You Block AI Tools From Accessing Your Website?

Unfortunately, there’s no simple way to block all AI bots from accessing your website, and manually blocking each individual bot is almost impossible. Even if you keep up with the latest AI bots roaming the web, there’s no guarantee they’ll all adhere to the commands in your robots.txt file. 

 From Google Search Central:

"You can control which files crawlers may access on your site with a robots.txt file.

A robots.txt file lives at the root of your site. So, for site www.example.com, the robots.txt file lives at www.example.com/robots.txt. robots.txt is a plain text file that follows the Robots Exclusion Standard. A robots.txt file consists of one or more rules. Each rule blocks or allows access for all or a specific crawler to a specified file path on the domain or subdomain where the robots.txt file is hosted. Unless you specify otherwise in your robots.txt file, all files are implicitly allowed for crawling."

That means I have to find the robots.text file and add stuff and hope I do it just right so I don't screw something else up.  But this site also warns:

"If you use a site hosting service, such as Wix or Blogger [That's me], you might not need to (or be able to) edit your robots.txt file directly. Instead, your provider might expose a search settings page or some other mechanism to tell search engines whether or not to crawl your page."

Of course I don't want to block search engines for browsers or only subscribers will ever see my posts.  

So I'm asking myself, is this worth the time it's going to take to figure this out.  Well, someone else asked that too.

"The real question here is whether the results are worth the effort, and the short answer is (almost certainly) no."

Here's another one saying the same thing:

"At the end of the day blocking ChatGPT and other generative AI crawlers is really a matter of choice. Depending on your website’s purpose and/or your business model it may make sense to. But in my opinion the vast majority of sites have nothing to fear from allowing AI crawlers to crawl their site."

For now, I want to agree with this advice.  But then I start thinking that this was written by an AI firm that wants to steal your content.   

And I don't even know if that Hong Kong visitor is scraping material for some AI enterprise.  Maybe it's just stealing content.  

Like your car, your house, your garden, your teeth, everything needs some maintenance to keep it functioning.  Clearly my phone and computer do, and this blog does as well, though I've avoided that for some time on the blog.  

I'm now officially putting myself on notice to pay more attention to AI.  

Can Your Physician Use Telehealth To Treat You When You're Out Of State?

 I was out-of-state when my doctor's office called to set up a telehealth appointment for me.  The date they wanted was when I was going to be back in Alaska.  I thought, wow, this is great.  If I'm out-of-state, I can still have an appointment with my doctor if needed.  

But they said, "No, you have to be in Alaska."  

For me, that makes no sense.  If I need a doctor when I'm not in Alaska, I'd rather see my doctor than a one I don't know.  [Of course if there's a need for physical contact or tests, it's not going to work as well.]  

So when I had my appointment, I asked, "Why can't we do this if I'm out-of-state?"

The nurse, the doctor, and the doctor's supervisor (this is through Providence) weren't exactly sure.  They'd been advised that it had to be Alaska only.  Licensing seemed to be a possible reason, but they weren't sure.  And they couldn't cite any documents I could see for myself.

Whether this was a state law, regulation, Providence policy or something else, they didn't know.  

So I decided I would try to track this down.  Here's what I've found out so far.

• During COVID emergency health declarations waived some interstate telehealth barriers, and much of what first pops up in searches are pandemic era webpages, some of which have dates on them.  
• A big issue IS the need to be licensed in the state where the patient is located
• Another issue has to do with payment for patients on the state medicaid or other health programs
• Some states allow out-of-state doctors to have telehealth appointments in their states, but the rules aren't easy to figure out for individual doctors.  There are various conditions one has to meet, and one has to be sure the source of information reflects the current law, that no changes have been made

Interactive at the site which appears
to be updated frequently

CCHP (The Center for Connected Health Policy) has some of the best information I've found so far.  Their Out Of State Providers page has a map that links to the policies for every state.  And they seem to keep it up to date.  One was updated this month.

For instance, here's what it says for Arizona:

"Arizona

Last updated 11/07/2023

A provider who is not licensed within the State of Arizona may provide Telehealth services to an AHCCCS member located in the state if the provider is an AHCCCS registered provider and complies with all requirements listed within A.R.S. § 36-3606.

SOURCE: AZ Medical Policy for AHCCCS Covered Services. Telehealth and Telemedicine Ch 300, (320-I pg. 2), Approved 8/29/23. (Accessed Nov. 2023)."

AHCCCS refers to Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System. The link isn't really that complicated, but if I were a physician, I'd want an attorney to read it.  

From HHS:

"Some states have temporary practice laws to support existing provider-patient relationships and minimize gaps in care. These laws allow a provider to practice for a limited amount of time, usually less than 30 days, in another state if their patient is temporarily visiting that state for business, a family visit, or other reasons."

This includes what I would be after - treating one of their regular patients who happens to be temporarily out of state. 

What states clearly or not so clearlyseem to allow out of state doctors not licensed in the patient's state to provide telehealth services to patients located in their state?  Go to the CCHP map page to get details for each state.

• Alaska
• Arizona
• Connecticut
• Georgia - "Physicians with licenses in other states may be licensed under the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact"  You can read more about this Compact here.  They also have a map that shows which states are in various steps in the process of joining the Compact.  
• Indiana - "Out-of-state providers can perform telehealth services without fulfilling the out-of-state prior authorization requirement if they have the subtype “Telemedicine” attached to their enrollment.  See Module for requirements."
• Kentucky - this one seems particularly liberal.
• Maryland
• Minnesota
• Oklahoma
• Oregon - Looks like a liberal policy
• South Dakota
• Vermont
• Washington
• Wisconsin

Most of the concern seems to be with the State reimbursing for services to Medicaid patients.  There are various conditions placed on out of state providers.  Note that I said 'appear to allow out of state" providers.  And there were some states that might allow out of state providers who are not licensed in the patient's state, but I couldn't really tell for sure.  

So, the problem doesn't seem to lie with the State of Alaska. 

The issue is 

• with other states - some do and some don't allow it, and those that do have different requirements
• with Providence for making a blanket policy rather than tailoring it to the states that allow for out of state doctors.  Providence should know which
• which states do not allow out of state doctors to have telehealth appointments with people in their states, 
• which states do allow it, and 
• what the requirements are for those that do
• with doctors who have licenses to practice in other states letting Providence know that

I would like to think this is simply policy that hasn't caught up with technology changes and not simply stodgy hospital administrators not wanting to change or lazily using the law as an excuse

But I also understand that collecting all the necessary data and keeping it up to date is somewhat of a challenge.  But I was able to do this in less that four hours, so someone in the Prov administration should also be able to do it.  Especially since Providence serves Alaska, California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, and Washington.

US Political Accountability Is Badly Broken

[There are so many forces and issues intertwined.  Every day there are new shocking reports to support one thing or another that I argue here.  This is several drafts along and so I'm just going to post it.  Yes, we are in crisis and I'll probably be writing more about the nature of the crisis.  Here the focus in on the lack of accountability.]

The reports of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' benefits from wealthy benefactors who have interests in the outcome of Supreme Court cases has already told us things weren't working.  

The fact that people who participated in the January 6 insurrection are still in their Congressional seats and voting like other members of Congress, also tells us this.

The fact that most Republicans in Congress voted against Trump's impeachments, and continue to support him publicly and take no action on corrupt Republican Senators and Members of Congress, tells us that accountability is broken. 

The report on Rep. George Santos says it once again, loud and clear.  Our accountability of elected officials and Supreme Court justices is broken.  From the Table of Contents of the report released last week:: 

"III. FINDINGS........................................................................................................ 10

A. OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS ......................................................................................... 10

B. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW, HOUSE RULES, AND OTHER

APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT ......................................................................... 13

 1. 2. 3.

C.

1. 2. 3.

Campaign Finance Violations............................................................................ 13 Willful and Knowing Financial Disclosure Violations ...................................... 37 Lack of Diligence and Candor During the ISC Investigation............................ 48

OTHER ALLEGATIONS REVIEWED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE..................................... 51 

Sexual Misconduct Allegation ............................................................................ 51 Conflict of Interest Violations ............................................................................ 52 Additional Allegations Charged by the Department of Justice.......................... 54"

You can read the complete report here. 

WHAT DO I MEAN BY BROKEN?

One could argue that the release of this report on Santos, and his subsequent announcement that he will not be running for reelection, shows that there is accountability.  

The problem is that we have known of evidence of widespread wrongdoing by Santos since shortly after he was elected.  Nevertheless, he's been allowed to serve as a Member of Congress, influencing US public policy through his committee work, public announcements, and votes all this time.  And unless the House votes to expel him, he'll continue doing that until his successor is sworn in.  

In most any other job, if employees are found to have lied on their applications or resumes, have been found to have violated organizational rules, or state or federal laws, they can be fired immediately.  At the very least they can be put on suspension and not allowed to continue using their position for personal gain or to otherwise work against the interests of the organization.  It's trickier to remove an elected official because one can argue 'they were elected by the people in their district." But we still have procedures to do it.  Republicans just won't do it for one of their own.  

Accountability Too Slow

Santos shouldn't have lasted this long.  Trump is using all the courts' protections for the innocent to delay his trials as long as possible.  Just the other day Judge Cannon is allowing delays that mean the classified documents case won't be decided before the 2024 election.  This clearly should be an expedited trial.  The consequences of stealing secret documents, showing them to unauthorized eyes, and probably selling them to enemy nations should be high priority and fast tracked.  

Supreme Court justices continue to rule on cases that have horrendous consequences for democracy.  Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has outlined four types of cases on which the conservative  Justices consistently vote together to help large corporation get their way:  [The link includes his time at the Amy Coney Barrett hearings.  This court background discussion begins around minute 21 on the video.]

1. unlimited dark money; 
2. knock down the civil jury trial down; 
3. weaken regulatory agencies  
4. voter suppression and gerrymandering  on that weaken government powers to regulate, voting rights, women's rights, etc. even though it's now clear that there is no accountability for clearly corrupt judges, and we're moving very slowly if at all to correcting that.  

In other presentations I've heard him include anti-labor cases.  The point is that these are all decisions that significantly weaken opposition to large corporations.  And there are further conflicts of interest due to Justices owning stock that is affected by their rulings on cases before them.  

Corrupted Officials

Republicans in the US Senate refused to impeach Trump despite overwhelming evidence of wrong doing.  They've allowed January 6 co-conspirators to remain in Congress.  

• the lust for power and fear of losing it - Republicans are afraid to buck the party because they fear  loss of GOP funds and the Republican voters in the next primary. They won't hold their colleagues accountable because they fear losing their majority in the House.  They support a Supreme Court that looks the other way in the face of gerrymandering that keeps many Republicans in power.
• the lust for the prestige of being in Congress - Maybe they don't care that much for power, but rather they enjoy the prestige and privileges that come with being a Member of Congress.  The same issues arise as for the lust for power.
• the lust for money for campaigns and personal benefit - Money for campaigns is intertwined with lust for power and prestige.  But Members of Congress also get hefty salaries, travel, health insurance, and retirements.  Additionally there are other opportunities to get richer than they already are.  Staying loyal to their corrupt party seems to be the safest way to hold onto these benefits.  
• mental slowness - I first labeled this 'utter stupidity' but that seemed too simplified.  

• short term thinking - as Republicans reveled in the ending of Roe, they didn't see the backlash that was coming.  And while they feel the need to cater to rabid Trump cultists to win the primary, they fail to see how their actions (and inactions) mean greater risks of losing in the general elections.  And even if they are in a highly gerrymandered district and will win, they are likely to lose the majority in the House.
• sheltered thinking - their beliefs and prejudices are reinforced by the people they spend their time with.  They see people who don't agree with them as caricatures  of evil rather than as rational human beings with different, but reasonable world views
• lack of empathy for others - whether they are sociopaths or have other afflictions that allow them no sense of understanding of other people's issues and problems
• inability to break from outdated (if ever even accurate) explanations of how the world works - things like individual responsibility even in a society that favors some over the many; religious and racial stereotypes; belief in the correlation between work and worthiness even as automation makes much work unnecessary and wealthy people need not work at all; belief that money and power will solve all their problems; 
• lack of analytic abilities - they can't understand the complexities of modern life and are stuck on simplistic and black and white explanations

Additionally, Republicans in the Senate allow Senator Tuberman to block appointments of military officers and others to delay the appointment of judges and high government officials.  For various reasons - 

Blocking military appointments only hurts our military readiness and can only help our military adversaries.  Blocking judicial and senior civil service positions, some argue, fits in with the Project 2025 [see below] blueprint, by keeping these positions vacant making it easier for Trump, in a second presidency, to fill them with his loyalists.  

The Republicans in Congress allow (and in many cases support) all the dragging out of these delays.  They refuse to work with Democrats to speed up the accountability of the egregiously guilty.  

HOW ARE THINGS DIFFERENT TODAY THAT MAKES THIS MORE OF A PROBLEM?

In the past, the idea of Democracy was never at stake.  Notice I said 'idea of Democracy.'  For non-whites and non-Christians democracy in the US has been spotty to non-existent.  Voting rights didn't exist for Blacks in the South and their courts were made up of all white juries. US citizens of Japanese descent were locked into camps during WW II and their property taken over by whites.  Immigrants have always been vilified.  Native Americans were displaced and massacred.   

But for white politicians, the idea of Democracy was pretty sacred.  The US was touted as the bastion of democracy in a world of dictators.  

Today, that's not the case.  To say that the election is about Democracy vs. Authoritarianism (whether that be Fascist, White Christian, or whatever democratic antonym is probably not that crucial)  simply is NOT an exaggeration.

You think people like me are alarmist?  Even long time Right Wing Anchorage Times and then Anchorage Daily News columnist Paul Jenkins says democracy is at stake.

"Trump is a danger to US democracy. How can so many good people still support him?"

Just take a look at Project 2025.  (The link is to Wikipedia which is written in a calm, pseudo-objective tone. If democracy and fascism are both equally moral and viable option, that might be ok.  But they aren't.  If you don't read it carefully, you might not see the real danger.  Sentences like:

"Project 2025 seeks to place the entire Executive Branch of the U.S. federal government under direct presidential control, eliminating the independence of the Department of Justice, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission and other agencies.[4]"

For people who don't have a deep understanding of how our government works, that sentence might not be alarming.  But trust me, it is the path to an all powerful president.    

Even NPR's (Here and Now) interview with a key author of Project 2025, while pushing back some, doesn't really give the sense of how this is a full blown attempt to overthrow Democracy.  While they talk about getting rid of 50,000 civil servants by making them 'at will' employees (who can be fired for no reason), they don't mention the long struggle to set up a merit system which hires people based on qualifications for the job rather than political allegiance and which protects civil servants against political firing by requiring their dismissal be based on just cause (such as not doing their job as required by law.)  Despite GOP rhetoric, staffing the government with educated and dedicated civil servants is a good thing if you want a government that runs well and provides the public the services they want and need.  But not if you want to use government to carry out your personal vendettas.

Project 2025 is a Heritage Foundation plan to give the next Republican president the power to obliterate the obstacles that would keep a Trump from controlling the US government as he sees fit.  It eliminates safeguards, it puts Trump's sycophants into power - the kind of people who told him the 2020 election was rigged and that he actually won.  It's a blueprint for taking down Democracy and setting up an authoritarian government.  It's written by the type of people spent 40 years plotting to pack the Supreme Court with Right wing extremists who ignored precedent to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Prior to the Trump presidency, we had lots of lines that politician's didn't cross.  They respected the many unwritten rules because, for most, they had a sense of decency and propriety.  For other because violating them would lead to censure or expelling.  But Trump and his supporters see those lines as challenges.  How many can they mow right over?

Trump violated every such rule that got in his way.  To the point that overthrowing Democracy and replacing the Constitution with the Bible seem to be reasonable to large numbers of people - including the current Speaker of the US House of Representatives.   

We've got January 6 enablers still serving in the Congress.  This would not have been accepted before Trump.  

The Heritage Foundation is behind Project 2025 - aligned surely with the Federalist Society that planned the takeover of the Supreme Court for forty years.  This is not just a band of crazies ready to attack at Trump's command.  Those crazies are are more sophisticated and more than willing to use Trump's cult as their attack dogs.  

The Supreme Court, restructured by Federalist Society judges that Trump dutifully appointed, has overturned long standing precedents - like Roe v Wade - even though each of the Trump nominees swore that such long standing precedents would be respected.  

• Political Violence Is One Of Those Lines

Nancy Pelosi's husband was attacked in her house in San Francisco by a Right Wing conspiracy consuming fanatic and the prospect of more political violence aimed at elected officials, judges, and election officials is on the rise.  

From AP via Anchorage Daily News Nov 19, 2023

The Trump types are using the slow and deliberate court processes to subvert justice.  We've never had an ex-president under multiple indictments who was also running for president again.  There's an urgency to these cases because they are running up against the election deadline.  The Trump team ignores the basic standards and pushes everything way past normal standards of conduct.  Because an ex-president is on trial and because the court's aren't used to this kind of a full court press, they continue to use constraint and deference as if we were in normal times.  We aren't.  I'm not asking judges to go around the law. I'm asking them to stand up to the bully defendants and not tolerate the flouting of their orders.  

SO, ARE YOU SAYING DEMOCRACY IS DOOMED?

If we don't take every action necessary to prevent Trump or any Republican from winning the 2024 election, Democracy as we know it is doomed.  

Senate and House Obstacles 

The US Senate is, in essence, gerrymandered by the Constitutional requirement that every state has two US Senators.  That wasn't a big deal in 1800 when state populations were comparatively (by today's standards) even.  But today state's like Alaska and Wyoming have fewer than one million people and get two Senators just like California with 39 million people.  And the smaller, more rural states tend to be redder.

"With the even split in the current Senate, the 50 Democratic senators represent 56.5% of the voters, while the 50 Republican senators represent just 43.5% of the voters. In 2018, the Democrats won nearly 18 million more votes for Senate than the Republicans, but the Republicans still gained two seats." (From the Brookings Institute)

In the House, the slim Republican majority is almost certainly the result of Republican gerrymandering of districts so that Democrats were either pushed into one or two districts or scattered into Republican majority districts.  

The US Supreme Court Leans Way Right

It used to be that Republican Supreme Court Justices used the Constitution as their guide for making decisions.  Today's Federalist Society judges use a pro-business ideology to find ways to twist the Constitution to favor the rich over the poor.  Individual rights - like abortion rights, voting rights - suffer.  How the Supreme Court will rule if the 2024 election is challenged by Trump does not give me hope.  

Another Insurrection, but larger

Trump persuaded lots of people to come to the Capitol on January 6 to try to stop the Congress from ratifying the election.  Many of them have been convicted of various crimes.  How many others are out there who are ready to make armed protests should Trump lose again?  

People support Trump for various reasons.  The US economy has shifted and good working class jobs no longer pay as well or are lifetime guarantees.  The array of GOP tax cuts for the rich over the years has created a an unbalanced division of wealth, with the top 10% controlling nearly 70% of US  wealth!

People's lives and prospects are not as good as they were.

With greater legal protections for women and people of color, there are more people competing for jobs.  Before the 1960s, white males were the only people competing for the better jobs.  The Republicans have convinced many of those white males, that the decline is because women and non-whites are taking over.  That's what the extreme abortion laws are about and the diatribes against immigration.  Arrows aimed straight at the emotional parts of the Trump cult members.  

IS THERE ANY HOPE?

Part of me takes hope from the elections, particularly those related for abortion, since the 2022 election.  The vast majority of voters do not support Trump.  It's possible the Trump team and the wealthy conservatives they are proxy for to simply collapse.  I hope that happens.  But I also don't want to be in shock the way we were after Clinton lost in 2016.  We need to be in shock now.  If we work harder than necessary to win, that's better than not trying hard enough and losing.

NPR reported that 80 million people DID NOT VOTE in 2020.  That's a lot of votes.  Convincing 10 million of them that Trump means the end of Democracy, would save Democracy, for now.  

But with all the lies and conspiracy theories, with mainstream media acting like the GOP is a normal party to be treated with respect, and with the many calls for violence, I'm convinced that the Trump campaign will do everything it can to obstruct voters, to subvert the election, and to repeat Jan 6 type insurrections, but with more discipline, if they lose again.  Trump's biggest incentive right now would appear to get back the power to pardon, starting with pardoning himself.  

So the votes have to be so strongly for the Democrat that there is no question about who won.  And that will take a lot of grassroots organizing to get non-voters educated and voting.  

How Long Should It Take To Build Or Repair Public Works?

 [A note.  I thought I posted this this morning.  But when I came back, it was not there.  Not even the draft.  That hasn't happened in a long time.  I'm pretty sure I hit publish.  I know for sure I had a complete draft.  I wasn't ready to rewrite it, so I took a walk, hoping it would mysteriously show up.  It hasn't.  Maybe this second attempt will be better than the first.  I had a bunch of links.  Maybe you don't need them.  But I don't like to post half-assed either.  Let's see what happens.  I'm going to save this much.  Shut blogger down.  Turn it back on, then see if the missing post was hiding somewhere and decided to stop messing with me.]

[Note 2:  I shut down all the Blogspot windows and then opened one back up and there was my old post.  Glad I didn't start writing it all over.  I highly recommend taking walks.] 

[Note 3:  I see the problem now.  I wrote this as a "Page" which is what Blogger calls 'tabs'.  So it didn't show up as a Post, but rather as a Tab, which doesn't show up on the main page. You can find the current tabs up on top, below the orange header.]

An article in yesterday's Los Angeles Times reports that a damaged part of a critical freeway (The 10, or the Santa Monica Freeway as I knew it when it was first built) would be completed by Tuesday instead of the original five week estimate.  

"Publicly, state officials stood by that timeline for most of this week, saying the freeway was likely to reopen in December. But behind the scenes, according to a Caltrans engineer familiar with the project, crews were scrambling to hit a more ambitious target and have the overpass ready for Thanksgiving travel.

The work paid off, and on Thursday, Newsom confirmed what the Caltrans crews had been working toward: All lanes in both directions will be open to traffic by Tuesday “at the latest,” he announced, though repair work will be ongoing."

The damage was caused by a large fire under the bridge a week ago Saturday.  If the Tuesday date pans out, then will be 10 days from damage to repair.  

Earlier this year a major bridge in Philadelphia collapsed.  The initial repair time estimates were "weeks or months."

"Workers are beginning to rebuild the collapsed section of Interstate 95 outside Philadelphia. Construction is expected to take weeks or months, and have ramifications up and down the East Coast."

In the end it took just 12 days. 

"Six lanes reopened to motorists at noon on Friday, 12 days after a bridge collapsed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro announced."

In the case of LA, the quick reopening was credited to  the bridge structure not being as severely damaged as expected.  An unnamed engineer told the LA Times political pressure was also involved::

“'Go faster. The political heat is on.'

There has been 'a dead-heat, crazy push to get this bridge open by Monday or Tuesday,'”

I've been wondering, in recent years, why things like road construction in Anchorage seem to take forever. 

•  Is it because the work can only be done in the summer so contractors take on lots of projects and work on one project for a while, then another, then back to the first ones?  
• Are they just stretching out the work for more pay?  That seems unlikely because the pay should be settled in the contract with bonuses for being early and penalties for being late.  
• Is the Municipality or the State Department of Transportation just not writing good contracts? 
• And why do the same roads seem to need to be redone over and over again? 
• I know there's an unhealthy relationship between the State DOT and the construction industry [a major engineering company has the contract to do public engagement and while the presentations to the public are first class, their financial interests have to bias them toward building every project and I've several projects where the public was overwhelmingly opposed but the state ignored the public]

I don't know the answers to these questions.  I know there are lots of complaints about driving around construction, but I don't know that anyone has undertaken a study to find out why things take so long.  

But these two highway projects that were completed much faster than originally scheduled  (in LA I'm assuming the Tuesday deadline will be met) reminded me of a visit to the Rosie the Riveter WWII Home Front National Historical Park in Richmond, California some years ago.  

They built ships there for World War II and I recalled they were built in phenomenal speed.  So I looked it up again today.  

 "The Liberty ship Robert E. Peary was assembled in less than five days as a part of a competition among shipyards. By 1944, the yard routinely needed only a bit more than two weeks to assemble a Liberty ship.^[3]"  (From Wikipedia) 

A whole ship built in five days!!!!!

That's a model we should have before us at all times.  But also remember the conditions:

• That five day record was part of a competition among shipyards, so competition (in this case I don't think there were rewards other than psychic rewards) played a factor.
• There was the collective will to win a war.
• And women did much if not most of the work  (Need I say more?)

There's also another aspect that needs to be considered.  From the Rosie The Riveter Park site:

"Working conditions on the Home Front were difficult and dangerous. Between the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December of 1941 and the D-Day Invasion of Europe in June of 1944, there were more Home Front industrial casualties than military casualties." (emphasis added) (from the National Park Service)

And there were some unanticipated benefits as well:  

"This high number of industrial casualties would lead to improved workplace safety and regulations, as well as better access to affordable health care. 

Another challenge faced by working women on the Home Front was childcare, as mothers comprised a significant portion of the work force. This led to the establishment of child development centers and the professional field of early childhood development."

Given the state of child care in the US today, I'd say these were short lived benefits, since after the war, when soldiers returned home, the women lost their jobs and were expected to go back to being housewives.  

I'd also note than when I wrote about Rosie the Riveter National Historical Park ten years ago, Bill Butler pointed out in the comments that the ships weren't meant to last long and they had lots and lots of workers putting together modular ships.  

I do hope though that we start getting reporters looking into the title question - how long should public projects take?  Why do they take so long?  When and how can they be sped up if necessary?  

And it's not just public projects.  Alaska Communications (ACS) started putting fiber optic into my neighborhood last June or July.  The door to door salesman said the new high speed internet would be ready in three to four weeks.  The confirmation email from ACS said 12-14 weeks.  Then at the end of summer,  a new email said something like, "Well, you know, construction doesn't always go as planned. This project won't be ready until next year." 

We saw signs of work - bright orange cables lying around - and sometimes we even saw workers digging trenches.  But it seemed like there was far more work to do than workers to do it.  Meanwhile ACS has my (and how many others') payment for the high speed internet we were supposed to be enjoying as of several months ago, but haven't gotten yet.  

 

New Speaker, Quick Show Of Bi-Partisanship, But Don't Hold Your Breath

 I try not to write about things getting saturation coverage if I don't think I have some insight no one else has shared.  Furthermore, I've been advised by people who care about me, not to put a target on my back by writing about Israel.  

But the House finally getting a speaker followed by an immediate, overwhelming bi-partisan vote to support Israel is too much to pass up.  [I began this Thursday evening.  Reviewing this draft on Friday, it's clear discussing Johnson AND Israel in one post, while an admirable goal since they are related, is beyond what I can expect any readers to endure.  So let's just focus in this post on Johnson's speech.] [Quotes are from the transcript at REV.com]

Johnson's speech

1.  The amount of time he spoke about religion and how he spoke about it is troubling, but given his background, not surprising.

"I want to thank my dedicated wife of almost 25 years, Kelly. She’s not here, we [is 'we' her preferred pronoun?] couldn’t get a flight in time. This happened sort of suddenly, but we’re going to celebrate soon. She spent the last couple of weeks on her knees in prayer to the Lord and she’s a little worn out, we all are."

Truly, I have no idea if he was being serious about her being literally on her knees in prayer for two weeks or he was just being metaphorical to make his point.  At the time of the speech, I took it literally.  Now I'm not so sure.  I suspect his fellow Baptists didn't even notice anything unusual in this phrasing.

Later in his speech he said, 

"I don’t believe there are any coincidences in a matter like this. I believe that scripture, the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raises up those in authority. He raised up each of you, all of us, and I believe that God has ordained and allowed each one of us to be brought here for this specific moment in this time."

Where to even start?  

A.  Given all the evil leaders the world has seen, this isn't much of a recommendation for God's choices.  But it would help explain why his wife might have been praying so fervently for two weeks - she was trying to get God to promote her husband.  

B.  And, of course, there's the oft pointed out contradiction between the professed beliefs of Christians and their support of the past president's thoroughly un-Christian behavior and life.  I know they would tell us "God works in mysterious ways" but that doesn't cut it for me.  Especially since those folks who display the most Christlike behavior - helping the poor, the outcasts, the strangers etc. -. are so roundly condemned by Evangelical Christians.  

A good portion of the rest of the speech also focused on God - how "In God We Trust" got engraved above the rostrum in the House chambers in 1964.  But that should be a reminder that before 1956, "E Pluribus Unum" was the unofficial motto of the US until "In God We Trust" was made the official motto, in the height of the McCarthy hearings and the demonization of the Communist Soviet Union.  These changes don't just happen on their own, but I couldn't quickly find much detail about who lobbied or who funded that lobbying, to make it happen.  But my point is that God wasn't that intimately part of our official national identity until about 150 years after the US' founding.  It wasn't with us from the beginning.  

2.  His apparent isolation from most United States citizens - isolated from other ideas about religion from his own and isolated from citizens who are not members of Congress. 

Sure, he's a member of Congress.  He talks to people who have different views from his, but despite that exposure, he seems either unaware that others might find his words jarring, or he simply believes he has an inside track on Truth and so he speaks what he thinks.  

Let's reintroduce his comment about his wife being on her knees for two weeks paying here.  

A.  While I understand there are probably millions of US citizens who might relate to this physical demonstration of one's belief in God's intervention in our daily lives, there are just as many of us, probably more,  for whom being on our knees praying for several weeks is not part of our life experience.   

I looked for specific data on this.  The Pew Trust has very detailed data on who prays daily, but it's too detailed for my purposes. I wanted something to compare religious believers who pray daily to others who never pray.  But going through the Pew charts,  I was a bit surprised to see that  Democrats pray daily almost as frequently (40%) as Republicans (42%).  That people who believe homosexuality should be accepted pray daily more (49%) than people who think it shouldn't (42%).  But I couldn't find methodology for that specific survey to find out how  'pray daily' was defined.  Was it left up to the respondents? Did it include a quick "Dear God, help me pass this test"?  Did it mean a daily prayer at dinner? A communal  ritual prayer in a synagogue, or at a Buddhist shrine, or five times a day facing Mecca, or in a church?  Or all of those things?  I couldn't find an answer.

B.  Another brief comment he made, that on the face of it, might seem benign or even a positive sign, was this: 

"I want to thank our children, Michael and Hannah and Abby and Jack and Will. All of our children sacrifice, all of them do and we know that and there’s not a lot of perks to being a member of Congress’ kid, right?"

I think thanking our children for the burdens we put on them is a very important thing to do regularly.  But when you have just become the head of one of the most powerful bodies of the US government (and thus the world)  and you're speaking to the nation, this is really an example of privilege and deafness to the rest of the population.  

"Not a lot of perks to being a member of Congress' kid."  I get it.  Their congressional parent is away a lot and always busy.  And if he were talking privately to other members of Congress, this would make sense.  But this was a speech to the world.

Lots of kids have parents who work long hours.  Have single parents.  Have no parents.  I imagine that Congress members' kids get a hell of a lot more perks than most kids get.  Especially in the current economy in the US where the divide between the very rich and everyone else has become so great.  Especially when conservatives are passing laws to require kids to bear the babies of their (often related) rapists. And when conservatives like Mike Johnson have tried to make being LGBTQ+ a crime.

That Johnson said this in a speech like this, tells me he doesn't understand how the vast majority of people in this country live. 

3.  On a more positive note, he also said this:  

"We stand at a very dangerous time, I’m stating the obvious. We all know that the world is in turmoil, but a strong America is good for the entire world. We are the beacon of freedom and we must preserve this grand experiment in self-governance. It still is. We’re only 247 years into this grand experiment. We don’t know how long it will last, but we do know that the founders told us to take good care of it."

At a time when many of us see the reelection of the former president as the end of US democracy, it's good to hear this.  But hearing it from the lips of an extreme conservative who voted against confirming Biden's election, and who has that ex-president's support, makes me question what he meant by this.  

A.  Does he define democracy the way I do?  He's a conservative Christian, former state legislature, from a state whose legislature was told to fix their gerrymandered voting districts and they refused.  It took the US Supreme Court to compel the changes. [And double checking this now, I see that all the Congressional chaos, plus the Israeli-Hamas war, has pushed to the background new developments in the Lousiana gerrymandering case -  that just last week the 5th Circuit has delayed this action further.

Does he have a different definition of democracy than I have?  Reports on his past statements tell us that belief in God is more important than the US Constitution. A Politico interview today reports: 

"Johnson has said that [David] Barton’s ideas and teachings have been extremely influential on him, and that is essentially rooting him in this longer tradition of Christian nationalism. Christian nationalism essentially posits the idea that America is founded on God’s laws, and that the Constitution is a reflection of God’s laws. Therefore, any interpretation of the Constitution must align with Christian nationalists’ understanding of God’s laws. Freedom for them means freedom to obey God’s law, not freedom to do what you want. So really, Christian supremacy and a particular type of conservative Christianity is at the heart of Johnson’s understanding of the Constitution and an understanding of our government."

B.  Is this all a well rehearsed performance to appear to be the polite new leader who will welcome all to work through our issues?  Or is it just a cover for a far right religious radical who is now the leader of the US House of Representatives?  

I'm inclined to think it is just a cover.  But while Johnson has managed to keep out of the spotlight up until now, all the world's spotlights are shining brightly on him.  And the internet means everything he's ever publicly said in the past will be blown up and examined in detail.  It's already begun.  

And if the Republicans had a rare show of unity Wednesday when they elected Johnson to be Speaker, is it going to last?  The rules that allowed one member to call for ousting the Speaker are still in place.   One objector with four other GOP supporters could overthrow Johnson the way Gaetz overthrew McCarthy.  But for the moment the GOP house thugs appear happy with Johnson.  

The Democrats will clearly make Johnson a poster boy when they campaign to put Democrats back in the majority of the House of Representatives.   

Overall his speech, was just under 20 minutes and you can watch and listen to it here. 

 

New Respiratory Virus Dashboard Is Up [Alaska Is Flu Hotspot - UPDATED]

 Last week I reported here that Alaska is retiring the COVID dashboards.  

Today I found the new state Respiratory Virus site and updated my COVID Page report.  You can see that here.

Meanwhile here's what the screens look like that report Statewide and Regional cases of COVID, flu, and RSV.  On the site, these charts are interactive giving you specific numbers for COVID, flu, and RSV.  

I'm not sure that I'm going to continue reporting this data.  It seems the worst dangers of COVID are behind us.  At least until a more lethal version comes on the scene.  

[UPDATED October 20, 2023:  This CDC chart puts the Alaska chart into perspective.  We're the national hotspot right now.

Alaska Retires the COVID-19 Dashboard. Will Post Weekly Bulletins On Infectious Diseases, Invludimg COVID

 

This announcement is on the September Alaska COVID-19 Dashboard.

I checked the Alaska COVID-19 Dashboard today, and learned it is now an archive:

"The COVID-19 Cases Dashboard was updated for the last time on September 12, 2023.

Starting in Oct. 2023, we will be publishing a weekly bulletin on respiratory disease case 

trends, including COVID-19."

The upside is that we now will get weekly updates (they've been monthly for a while now.)

If there is a link to the new tracking system on the page, I can't find it. Another page says it will begin in October.

GCI To Abandon Internet. Will ACS Follow? But Alaska.net Has Value GCI.net Doesn't Have

The Anchorage Daily News reported the other day that GCI (one of the local phone and internet companies) will end its email service by mid 2024.  

I understand that email giants like Google Mail have much glitzier email options than a local telephone company is likely to match.  But I am concerned that we will be down to just a couple of totally dominant email companies before long. 

[If you don't want to hear about ACS sluggishness and fiber optic, skip to the bottom.] 

Since I don't have a GCI account I wasn't worried.  But I do have ACS - formally the Municipality owned telephone company that went on its own and later got bought out by ATN International.  While technical help is still reasonably good when I call, trying to get information about anything else is almost impossible.  

I had much better response from the FCC in Washington DC when I complained about a rate increase that was going to be used, ACS said, "to upgrade internet speed."  Since I'm in a mid-town pocket that still gets 1 MBPS, I tried to find out if my neighborhood was planned for optical fiber.  No one could tell me.  I got answers like:

ACS: They don't show the maps.

Me:  Why not?

ACS: Because they don't want angry customers when it doesn't happen as scheduled.  

Me:  Is my neighborhood even scheduled at all?

ACS:  I can't tell you that. (I don't know.)

The FCC sent them communications saying they needed to respond in 30 days.  When they didn't, FCC said that was unusual.  Same thing after 60 days.  After 90 days someone said they'd bump up my request to someone who could do more.  Still no response.

When I called the FCC again, they said they'd gotten a response.  I said I didn't.  FCC (not ACS) sent me a copy.  I had objected to paying increased amounts to pay for upgrades if my neighborhood with the slowest service ACC has (my package was grandfathered in and they don't offer internet in my neighborhood any more) wasn't going to be upgraded.  

ACS' response was:  We are unable to upgrade service.  Of course I checked out other options, but in Anchorage we're limited.  GCI customers complain about GCI bitterly.  Aurora Broadband can't reach my neighborhood.  (Note - I'm in midtown.  Just over a mile from ACS headquarters.)

So about five weeks ago I was surprised when a young man was at my door to sign me up for ACS fiber optic.  He said it would be ready in 3-4 weeks.  Then email I then got from ACS said 9-14 weeks.  But they really are putting in fiber optic lines (they're bright orange.)  I talked to a supervisor who said he's just in charge of the outside lines (underground and by telephone pole) and someone else would be attaching it to the house.  Before the snow flies, he said.  

All that brings me around to ACS email.  Losing your email account is a pain because you have to figure out how to transfer important email somewhere else.  I suppose there must be relatively easy ways to do that.  Losing an email address called GCI.com is no big deal.

But ACS email addresses are Alaska.net.  Therewhen Alaska USA Federal Credit Union changed its name to Global Federal, the letters to the editors at the ADN were swamped with complaints.  

I'm worried that I will lose my Alaska.net email address the same way.  And I have no confidence whatsoever that ACS and its East Coast owners care one bit.  They'll follow GCI's lead and force us to find other email providers.  

They don't realize that many of us would rather have a balky email account that isn't part of a giant corporation that likely is data mining our email.  And with the Alaska.net in the name, we feel the same way that Alaska USA members felt.  

So I hope there's some local entrepreneurs ready to buy or otherwise acquire the Alaska.net email addresses should ACS decide to abandon it.  

The Final Board Meeting - But Maybe Not Quite [UPDATED] [UPDATED a second time June 20]

The Alaska Redistricting Board members came together on Monday May 15, 2023 - three [Nicole Borromeo, John Binkley, Bethany Marcum] live and Budd Simpson and Melanie Bahnke through the ether - and dutifully went through the agenda before finally voting 5-0 to approve making the Interim Redistricting Plan the Permanent Plan until the next Census and next redistricting board.  Officially it’s the Permanent Proclamation Plan.  

As long as no one successfully challenges the final plan in the courts, this is the last meeting. If such a challenge were successful the Board would have to reconvene to redraw the part of the map that was challenged. There are only a few Senate seats in northeast Anchorage that could possibly be challenged because all the House seats and other Senate seats have been settled. (The time to challenge them was 30 days after the previous plans.) I don’t see much likelihood that anyone can convince the courts to reopen this.  Even those Board members who had their wrists slapped by the Superior and Supreme Courts offered no serious pushback.  

The NOT QUITE part?  In public testimony, one of the Girdwood plaintiffs, Louis Theiss asked the Board to instruct the Board attorney to not object to their request for attorney fees.  Board member Borromeo said they needed to do that in Executive Session.  But by the time the Board got to approving the plan, it seems this was forgotten and they didn't adjourn into Executive Session. They just adjourned. Given the Girdwood plaintiffs prevailed in the Courts, there's a good chance the Courts will award the fees to the Girdwood plaintiffs.  It would seem a waste of money to pay the Board attorney more to oppose this.  Though I guess one could argue that whatever money is saved if Girdwood plaintiffs don't get reimbursed would go back to the State. But maybe Monday was not the time for that.  Attorney Matt Singer also said they needed additional meetings to settle legal matters.  While any such meetings will probably be in Executive Session, the Board does have to announce the meetings, open in public, and then explain what they will be doing in Executive Session - the reason for the ES as well as the specific Board topic.  And when they are done they have to go back into a pubic meeting and announce any decisions they've made.  

[UPDATED May 22, 2023:  Board Executive Director Peter Torkelson emailed to say Board is likely waiting to see if there are any legal challenges to the Permanent Plan they just approved before they meet to discuss legal issues. The public has 30 days from the approval date which was May 15.  So, another meeting is likely after about June 15.]

So let’s go through the agenda - my rough transcription along with, here and there, my commentary which will be in [brackets.]  Remember these are my rough transcripts, not exact quotes.  

My Notes  [UPDATE June 20, 2023:  The Board's Draft Minutes of this meeting were posted today, so you can compare them to my rough notes.]

1.  Board meeting opens about 1:10pm

Nicole Barromeo, John Binkley, Bethany Marcum present in person.  Budd Simpson and Melanie Bahnke are online.  

2.  Agenda accepted

3.  Bethany Marcum sworn in as new member [I’ve covered this saga in a previous post - she was appointed to the Board of Regents and had to resign from the Redistricting Board.  But the legislature did not approve her Regent appointment and the governor reappointed her to this Board.]

3.  Minutes approved. [I didn’t pay real close attention here, but there were minutes from various meetings approved.  Simpson made a correction to something.]

4.  Public Testimony

[I was the only person at the meeting who signed up to testify.  The few others there I could identify were media.  I had three points I wanted to make, but I had sensed the way things seemed to be headed before the meeting started.  There was a draft resolution all written out that they were clearly going to vote on to make the Interim Plan permanent.  I chatted with members Marcum and Binkley before the meeting began and I didn’t sense any interest in prolonging this further.  

So I just focused on my first item - Thanking the Board for the hard work they’d done.  Because they were at pretty much every meeting. They spent lots of time learning the software and then working to make maps.  I thought they’d all worked hard to further those things they believed in.  I also noted that the Chair - John Binkley - had set a productive tone with his always cheerful demeanor and his commitment to making this a transparent process.  I didn’t highlight incidents, but over and over throughout this process he has included public testimony at nearly every meeting and on a couple of occasions insisted that potentially awkward discussions about how the Board was operating be held in public.  (I’m not ignoring the over use of Executive Sessions by the Board in some cases, but John wasn’t the one who pushed that.)   

All this was leading to the subject of my real focus - Peter Torkelson, the Board’s Executive Director.  Early on he’d reached out to me - having found my tab on the 2010 Redistricting Process on this blog - and I met with him and his assistant director about the website they were creating and they let me know they were open to suggestions.  Peter was a website designer and had also worked for the legislature and I pointed out that he had a unique set of technical skills and ethical standards that made him ideal for this job.  

He put up an incredible website  and put  documents and information and maps up on the website within 24 hours, usually faster.  He also was key in getting maximum communications for the public in terms of Zoom meetings and phone lines.  I could go on, but I didn’t want to delay the vote.  Peter was a truly great administrator for this Board.]

Louis Theiss - Girdwood, one of the Girdwood plaintiffs.  Last Friday attorney filed an appeal,  First I too want to thank you.  I’ve been living on Timberline Drive in Girdwood, since 1971, and poll worker.  Myself, my neighbors, fellow plaintiffs all paid for our legal fees.  So asking your attorney not to oppose our request for fees

Borromeo - we should take that up in Executive Session. [Now that I think about it, they didn't go into Executive Session and there have not been any other meetings announced.]

Yarrow Silvers - this is a long journey.  Ask you - I want to thank you, you’ve made me a lot more civically engaged.  I hope this is the last time we meet as Redistricting Board.  

Binkley - any one else?  

5.  Review by Legal Counsel

• [First attorney Matt Singer talked about Supreme Court opinion as a guide for future Boards. 
• Looked at the specific challenges  Then he 
• Went through key areas where the court added new interpretations. 
• He praised the Board for getting most of the districts - both House and Senate - right, though everyone focuses on the couple that had problems.]

Matt Singer:  Supreme Court issued an Opinion.  History of Board.  Another Summary Order May 2022, and this decision issued last month explains its decisions.  No changes, but explanations.  

Starting point to step back and appreciate the litigation process, court review and citizen involvement.  It’s part of the process, expected in the constitution.  Litigation is expected, every plan challenged, and every plan tweeted.  Just part of the process.  What comes of that - the constitution gives basically two sentences on how to redistrict.  The Court cases flesh that out.  

What I see as a gift is the Supreme Court’s 112 pages recognition that there are aspects of redistricting that haven’t been well spelled out.  Now they’ve given the next Board a road map.  These pages will be read very carefully in years to come.    Many we got right and some we didn’t.  Nature of the process.

Court’s decision provided constitutional backdrop, the  constitutional convention, due process clause, the Hickel Process, the public meetings act, and Section 6 o f the Constitution.  

In Nov. there were 5 plaintiffs who challenged the plans - a corporation and four individuals

Skagway

Valdez and Matsu - challenged their being paired

East Anchorage plaintiffs challenged ER

Plaintiffs had wide variety of theories.  

Trial court ruled against Calista - W Alaska constitutional

Against the Board and for Skagway - Hard Look standard

Against Valdez and Matsu  and they appealed

Against the Board on East Anchorage and we appealed

SC ruled in favor of the Board on Hard Look doctrine incorrect on Skagway - not most popular, not important.  Must have salient constitutional issues

. . . 

SC we should be more precise about why having Executive Session, but not productive to go back because of those violations

Some issues about court technicalities - caused by unusual, expedited trial

Hope next time there will be more time, more like normal trial

Matsu - Court agreed with us    Court did not violate the Hickel process by drawing rural districts early in the process, didn’t violate equal ?? By having larger districts

Calista did not appeal

Following first appeal - another plan

Trial court found against the Board on Eagle River pairings and SC agreed.

Highlight key reasoning from board for future

Hickel process - Voting Rights Act (VRA) important, but Board’s job is first to follow Alaska constitution.  Draft plan and then evaluate it against the VRA.  Because Board referred to districts as VRA and did them first people complained.  SC recognized that just saying the words doesn’t mean applying VRA first, Board has to have some opportunity, can’t wait until last minute.  

Open Meetings Act (OMA)- hadn’t been established when constitution amended, not clear the act covered this Board.  Court affirmed.  We assumed it did.  Executive Session, need to be more specific about topics being covered in ES.  Slightly tapped our wrists, but not in public interest to change plan due to ES violations

Taking a Hard Look and considering testimony that comes before you.  Making reasoned decision, not about popular decisions.  Superior court focus on quantity not correct.  

Compact and Contiguous - don’t need road contiguity.  But reconsider (Socio-Economic Integration) SEI

Another - took out of footnote - contiguity and compactness take precedence over SEI - my advice on Cantwell appendage.  I said you’re sacrificing compactness and you’re balancing constitutional priorities.  Start with compactness, then contiguity, and then SEI.  

Not previously articulated Sec 10 procedural requirement to have a plan - within 30 days, not only a house plan but also Senate pairings.  Not clear in constitution but understand why.  Board adopted a few 3rd party plans after the 30 day deadline - Superior court said that was not good enough, but SC said it’s ok, but should have been adopted within 30 days.  Gentle tap on the wrist, but not enough to overturn it.  

Most interesting part of the case, developing new laws - equal protection laws and Court adoption of communities of interest - geographic group of people who share SEI and believe they are part of ?community??    That body of law will impact urban folks much more than rural.

I’ve hit the highlights, after six lawsuits in total, Court found this Board had constitutionally redistricted 99.9% of house districts - Cantwell - which Board corrected in Spring last year.  

In Senate 19/20 constitutional 95%.  Compared to ten years prior, plan thrown out, new plan and it was thrown out and there was a third plan.  

[He didn’t mention partisan gerrymandering. I asked him about that afterward.  He said he spoke about equal protection which was the factor most related to the gerrymandering charge.  I’m guessing he just didn’t want to say partisan gerrymandering out loud. We also talked about the Executive Session he held to talk to the Board about the Constitution and Court cases that provide guidance for future Boards to use when mapping the state. I pointed out that the previous Board’s attorney, Mike White, did that all in open meetings.  Singer said his purpose for that meeting was to tell the Board he was hoping to have the Board produce a plan that would not be challenged and outlined strategies to do that.

This was the first time  the courts have rejected part of an Alaska redistricting plan, due to partisan gerrymandering.  I think that is a big deal and should have been mentioned by name.  When I do my post on the lessons from the Court decision, it will discuss partisan gerrymandering. ]

More fun to write about what Board disagrees about than where they agree.  You should be proud of the effort and the result.

The court directed on remand - if you feel additional redistricting necessary, then I need to show cause .  But if Board doesn’t believe additional redistricting is necessary can just approve plan.

Some litigation matters to resolve in separate meetings.

Binkley:  Questions?

Marcum- when you talk about community of interest versus SEI  - does it apply to House districts or Senate pairings or both.

Singer:  Much to be developed further .  As I read it, the court went to lengths, they are not the same thing.  Constitutional on House districts SEI.  Communities of Interest to evaluate equal protection challenge to the Board whether a House district or a Senate district.  Time will tell. 

Binkley:  Others?  Questions?

Melanie, Budd:  No

Nicole:  No questions

6.  Binkley:  Consideration of adoption of Interim Plan as the Permanent redistricting plan.

Peter:  I have draft .  There are no changes proposed.  The two plans would be the same.  

Budd:  Can we have that up on the screen?  

Melanie:  Bethany’s name is not on the page

Torkelson:  I have stationery with all the names.  He reads the Draft Final Proclamation Plan [I posted it in the previous post. https://whatdoino-steve.blogspot.com/2023/05/alaska-redistricting-board-approves.html

Binkley:  We have item for consideration for adoption - we could discuss ahead or adopt a motion and then discuss.

Borromeo:  Move we adopt this as final proclamation.  

Pause before Bahnke seconds it

Binkley:  Discussion?

Simpson:  I intend to support the motion.  Would be disingenuous to say I agree with everything and facts in their [rulings?]  I attribute this to the expedited process, but I think it would be disruptive and an exercise in futility to make any substantive changes.  

Marcum:  I didn’t read the court opinion because I didn’t know I would be here.  But Court was gracious to give us that opportunity,  We had a couple goes at it and they gave us the opportunity and time to do so.  By [the Court] adopting it, it would set a bad precedent.  Better if we are the ones who decide.  But out of respect to other Board members desire to not take the SC on the opportunity.  But setting a bad precedent by letting the Court impose this.[I think she was saying it would set a bad precedent if the Court imposed the plan rather than giving the Board the chance to do it.]

Bahnke:  I’ll vote for this.  Both courts gave us two opportunities.  All of us voted for the two plans [The Board picked plan 3A over plan 2 at their meeting in 2022.  So plan 2 was a Board plan, not a Supreme Court made plan.] up for consideration. If [create?] other plans [now?], we should have done it before.  Don’t think it good use of public resources to try another plan.  

Binkley:  I’ll associate myself with the comments of member Simpson.  Travel around the state to do a better job pulling this together.  As Matt pointed out, we did an exceptional job compared to past boards.  And maybe it gets easier as SC gives guidance to make it clear.  I agree with Bethany to make clear, it’s the Board’s decision.  But that’s preserved in this ruling.  And by adopting this plan, doesn’t jeopardize that.  It’s our plan, not the court’s plan.  Protected future boards, because we drew the plan itself.  I don’t agree with everything in the decision but I recognize the Court has the final say.  Great constitution.  Public confidence in the process, checks and balances.  I will support this.  Least confusion for the public.  Don’t have to worry if they are shuffled into new districts.  

If no further discussion, ask for a rolL call vote.

7. The Vote

Bahnke yes

Borromeo yes

Marcum yes

Simpson yeah

Binkley yes

Plan is adopted until next process.  

The Executive Session Borromeo mentioned regarding the Girdwood plaintiffs attorney fees seems to have been forgotten in the excitement and relief of bringing things to conclusion. But maybe they are planning on another meeting or two.  Attorney Singer did say that there were legal matters to settle in additional meetings.