Redistricting Board Decision Day (Wed April 13, 2022) Video

The Board has posted the video of the April 13 Board meeting (embedded below) when the three Republican appointed majority members voted to approve the map Option 3B, submitted by long time Republican strategist (and past Republican Party Chair) Randy Ruedrich.  

They did these explanations because the Court found the previous map unconstitutional and had said that the Board needed to justify its decisions on the record, especially if they are contrary to public opinion.

As you listen, I remind you that Judge Matthews concluded  that contiguity simply means the two districts have touching boundaries in his order in the court cases - see pages 40-42.  He repeats it again on page 74-75, rejecting the concept of 'transportation contiguity.'

But he also notes that Marcum started the November approved Senate maps in Anchorage with the firm belief that JBER and Eagle River could not be pulled apart.  I'd note that D23 which includes most of JBER is also 1/3 off base areas left over from cutting downtown apart along 4th Avenue.  I mention that here because Simpson strongly defended the 23/24 pairing and he saw any attempt to split them as an attack on "our soldiers' and proof of partisan gerrymandering.  (Note how often Republicans these days are quick to accuse anyone who opposes of doing the exact same illegal or immoral thing they are doing.) He noted that protecting this pairing is what prevented the Board from pairing the two Eagle River districts which were shown to be communities of interest by the East Anchorage plaintiffs' expert witness, Dr. Chase Hensel.  

Enough preface.  I'm working the next post which will look at how their decision was based on unsupported assertions, anecdotes, and attacks on alternatives.  Not on any kind of professional decision making process.  

This is the video of that meeting.  My previous post reviewed member Budd Simpson's reasons.  That begins right about 20 minutes into the video and goes to about 45 minutes in.  This is followed by member Nicole Borromeo's critical response (beginning about 46) which includes asking the Court not to remand this back to the Board but to just finish the map because the Board will just continue with partisan gerrymandering.  

We also have much shorter (than Simpson) reasons from Marcum and Binkley.   Then there's the vote.  I like John Binkley as a person - he cheerful, has a ready smile, and genuinely seems to like people - all kinds.  And he has this amazing ability to keep that cordiality going even facing diversity.  Listen to him right after Borromeo blasts the majority decision. He couldn't be sweeter if she had praised the majority decision highly.  But also not how he tends to keep talking much longer than necessary - wanting to keep every possible option open as long as possible.  The procedural decisions that should have taken 15 seconds or more just go on and on.  

Joint Redistricting Board - 4/13/2022 - 1:00pm from AlaskaLegislature.tv on Vimeo.

Redistricting Board Votes 3-2 To Approve Option 3B

 The Board listened closely to some things the Court said - like explain your reasons for your choice.  The three Republican appointees did this at length.  Some of what they said is clearly wrong or only partially right.  I'll get into that tomorrow, but I'm redistricted out for now.  So, here's a map I got at the end that show's the numbers of the Anchorage House districts and the letters of the Senate districts in the new map.  

click on image to enlarge

The Senate Rotation they used is the same they used last November.  Starting with A then B with the revised numbers put into the rotation.  This was not discussed or agreed on by the Board.  The staff did this.  There's no change in the truncation - all but one seat is truncated.

click to enlarge

I haven't had time to go through this carefully, but you can figure out the districts from the map above, for example House Districts 11 and 12 are Senate Seat F;  9 and 10 (was 22 in the 2021 plan - Eagle River - is Senate Seat E.  

More tomorrow.  

Next, the judge has to decide if it satisfies his order.  The three Republicans believe it will because it satisfies his concerns with pairing South Muldoon with Eagle River.  (South Muldoon is now paired with North Muldoon in Senate Seat K).  The two Board members who voted for Option 2 think it will not because it splits Eagle River and they don't think the new Seat F (Eagle River and Hillside)  as 'contiguous as practicable.  

If the judge doesn't like it he could send it back with new instructions.  Or, he could, as Board member Borromeo asked him to do at the meeting today, repair it himself.  In either case, I suspect court challenges will follow.  

People have raised the concern that this won't be settled by the June 1 date for candidates to submit their applications to run for the state legislature in the November election.  I did address that issue in a post one week ago, looking at what happened prior to the 2012 election.  

No meeting tomorrow.  The Board is done for now.

Good night.  Sleep well.  As we move into the bottom of the ninth with the possibility of extra innings.  

How Should The Redistricting Board Weigh The Public Testimony

This is a longish post that combines lots that's happening with the Redistricting process.  The hardest part was probably leaving out relevant, but not the most relevant, issues.   That still makes for a long and, for many, a complicated post.  In the end I am presenting Part I - how to do the evaluation.  I'm hoping next to do Part II which will look at the written testimony.  

Let me give you a sort of executive summary here at the beginning:

1.  The Basic Question:  How should the Redistricting Board use the public testimony in deciding whether to adopt Option 2  or Option 3B?

2.  Legal Background:  The Court ruled that the Board did not take adequate account of public testimony after the original plan was challenged.  The Board's attorney, in the appeal to the Supreme Court argued the judge wanted to substitute public opinion for the the Board's decision making.  He also claimed the judge's decision would make this a more political process.  He also said there was no procedure for evaluating public testimony.

3. Evaluating Public Testimony:  Qualitative Research has an established history and methodologies for measuring what people say that the Board can use to evaluate the testimony.

4.  Suggested Method and Examples:  I offer a relatively simple procedure the Board could use.  Noting attorney Singer's warning about this turning into a political rather than a rational decision making process, I offer ways the Board can avoid this.  

5.  Coming Next:  I'm hoping to follow this post with one that takes this methodology and takes a preliminary look at the written testimony that the Board has posted on its website.  

1.  The Basic Question  - The Board is now down to Option 2 and Option 3B. (You can see maps of the two - plus Cantwell - here.)

Option 2 was brought forward by the original plaintiffs who sued the Board over the pairing of Eagle River and South Muldoon in Senate Seat K.  Both courts agreed it was political gerrymandering - that it tried to give Eagle River two seats by 'cracking' south Muldoon.  That is, pairing a poorer more diverse district with an economically better off white community that always votes Republican and this would result in the South Muldoon voters not being equally represented.  This plan follows the Court's ruling and pairs North and South Muldoon together, then pairs the two Eagle River districts together, and then pairs JBER/Government Hill and downtown together.  

Option 3B was originally put forward by Randy Ruedrich, the former chair of the Republican Party of Alaska.  He also had a hand in the original plan that was thrown out by the court. 3B also pairs North and South Muldoon.  But then it pairs Chugiak/ER with JBER/Government Hill and the other Eagle River district with the Anchorage Hillside all the way south past Girdwood to Whittier.  The two Eagle River districts are split through neighborhoods and then paired with districts that do not have such neighborhoods in common.   House District 22 is 'contiguous' with House District 9, not with populated neighborhoods, but with the unpopulated Chugach State Park.  The residents of these districts have to drive 15-87 miles to reach each other.  The other ER House District 24 is paired with JBER/Government Hill (D23) - also along unpopulated areas, and again with the need to drive through several other districts to get to the other side of the district.  

If my description seems biased, well I'm only stating the facts.  Quite a few people who testified said that this is not a hard decision. That it's only hard because the three Republicans who voted 3-2 for the original unconstitutional pairing, seem to be headed toward doing the same thing, which will undoubtedly give Eagle River a second Senate seat and the State Senate an extra Republican Senator.  There isn't much hidden here.  It's pretty out in the open.  It's been noted that the 2011 redistricting plan set up a similar cracked Senate seat and in the following election Eagle River voters knocked off the only black State Senator.  

2.  Court Ruling on Public Testimony and the Board's Pushback

The trial court ruled, in part, that the Board did not pay enough attention  to public testimony when making some of its decisions.  

In the Redistricting Board's response to trial court Judge Matthews decision that the Board must take public testimony into account, Board's attorney Matt Singer argued:  

"the trial court’s rule asks the Board to compromise the requirements of Section 6 in order to do the bidding of a majority of public testifiers."(p.32)

He also wrote: 

"The trial court places quantity of testimony over quality" (p. 30)

Actually, the judge's ruling was a lot more subtle than that.  He explained his decision and reasoning in detail from page 131 - 143 of his ruling.  He concludes the discussion thus:

"If the Board adopts a final plan contrary to the preponderance of public testimony, it must state on the record legitimate reasons for its decision." (p. 143)

The Board's attorney went on to argue that the judge's ruling turns redistricting into a political popularity contest - the most votes win.  I've highlighter some parts of that argument:

"Contrary to the trial court’s intent, its new rule will further politicize the redistricting process and be harmful to Alaskans. The following foreseeable harms will flow from the new constitutional rule and duty:

 The trial court places quantity of testimony over quality. This provides incentive for political parties, partisans, and interest groups to pack public hearings and file volumes of pre-written testimony. The rule even encourages interest groups to pay participants, as is occurring already in other states.134 Dark money will be used to buy written testimony and will pay for the public testimony of political partisans.135

The judge did not put quantity over quality, but I can see that words like "preponderance" could lead Singer to think that. 

•   The rule places power in special interest groups who mobilize partisans to attend hearings and hijack the process. With Skagway, for example, the trial court emphasized in-person testimony over written testimony, suggesting that the Board should give special treatment to those who have time and resources to appear before it.136

Actually, this is how public participation works.  Different groups mobilize their supporters by letting them know what issues are being decided and getting them to attend meetings and write letters, etc.  Usually politicians can distinguish between legitimate personal testimony and partisan manufactured testimony.  Though in many legislative bodies it's lobbyists, not the public, who have sway anyway.  

  The rule turns a task of “Herculean” proportions into an impossible task. The Board will now be required to tally and quantify public testimony in real time. It will have to endure public hearings that could go for days, as competing interest groups each try to gain an upper hand in the quantity of testimony. And instead of balancing the demands of achieving a 40-district map that is compact, contiguous, and socio-economically integrated for all Alaskans, the Board will also have to adjust map lines because 23 out of 36,000 people in Districts 3 and 4 want a Skagway-Downtown Juneau district, 15 people in Fairbanks want the Board to use a specific road as a district boundary, 20 people in Wasilla want the hospital in its district and not the Palmer district, 8 people in Spenard did not want their district to stray into downtown, and on, and on, and on.

If by tally, he means, they need to look carefully at the public testimony - not just sit there appearing to listen until the meetings are over - then this is a good thing.  It's useful to sort through testimony to see what arguments were raised and rebutted and then to carefully determine the best route.  Since the Board's staff was not really equipped to research all the kind of issues that came up, it's useful to have an active and competent public to supply that kind of information.  It needn't be just a quantitative measure.  

•   There is no legal standard for determining the “clear weight of public comment.” If only one person testifies on a topic, is that the weight of public testimony that trumps the judgment of the five Board members?

Actually, there is a well developed field of qualitative research analysis to help review testimony in a more meaningful way than just counting those for and against.  This is particularly useful here because:

"Data collected in qualitative research are usually in narrative rather than numerical form, such as the transcript of an unstructured, in-depth interview. Analysis of qualitative data organizes, summarizes and interprets these nonnumerical observations." (From National Library of Medicine)

Evaluating public testimony doesn't need to be a complicated social science dissertation.  We can use simple principles of qualitative research to get something reasonably useful for the Board.  

The last two weeks at the Redistricting Board have been an incredible demonstration of the power of open government.  All the hearings have been available in person at the Legislative Information Office (LIO), via Zoom, and by phone through the LIO system.  There has been a steady stream of people testifying via the phone and in person.  Only one day were there some gaps between testifiers.  Chair Binkley looked at the lack of callers online and lack of people waiting at the LIO and asked the Board if they should call it a day.  Member Borromeo argued that since it was advertised until 2pm they should go to 2pm and offered to chair the meeting.  Binkley signed off and the lines were held open.  Four or five more people showed up after that.  

In addition, people have used the Board's online feedback page to write their comments and I guess others have emailed comments.  There's been a wide array of comments.  It's been amazingly frank and sometimes partisan.  A few people have made comments five or more times.  But cumulatively, it was a chance for different arguments to be presented and for others then to counter those arguments.  Much of the written testimony was one-liners.  Other testimony was longer thoughtful explanations of why the person felt that way.  Some testimony added lots of factual data to counter the mostly anecdotal testimony of many.  The Board has heard a lot more about the advantages and disadvantages of their two competing options.  (I originally wrote "The Board has learned" but we don't know that.  They did hear it though.)

3.  So How Should We Evaluate The Data?

A first step is to go through the testimony and identify the concepts/ideas/ points made and codify them.  This doesn't have to be as complicated as it sounds.  

Having heard most of the oral testimony and having looked at much of the written testimony I'd say we can divide the testimony into 

• For Option 2
• For Option 3B
• Other

Here, "Other" would include comments that don't choose an option or that discuss other redistricting issues than the Senate seat K pairing.  

Yes, that sounds a little like what attorney Matt Singer was warning about, but this is just the first step. While we divide the comments into those three categories, we won't stop there.   Then we'll go through them to see the extent to which they add information to the discussion that is relevant to the decision.  

The Board's attorney warned it would turn into a simple partisan drive to drum up testimony.  He obviously doesn't think that's a good idea and neither do I.   The Board shouldn't just make a pile for Option 2 and one for Option 3B, count how many in each pile, and then say that equals the preponderance of public testimony. ]I'd like to offer a way to think about the comments.  

This needs to be fleshed out more, but here's basic idea.  

Attorney Singer pointed out the dangers of quantifying public opinion.  This is not a vote, it's information gathering.  The Board is responsible for creating a plan that meets all the constitutional and other legal requirements.  

The purpose of public testimony is 

• To raise issues - often local ones - that the Board overlooked to add to their decision making
• To provide preferences that can be taken into consideration once the Board has some clear, constitutional plans. 
• To avoid making politically partisan decisions by creating districts that are less constitutional but favor one particular political party.  

Process for evaluating comments

First we divide the comments based on topics.  In some cases there will be several topics in one comment.  We can put those into a "multi topic' pile and then go through them later.

Second, divide the comments in each group based not on content, but how the content is conveyed.  For example: 

• Opinion - unsupported - basically "a vote"
• Opinion - Supported
• by Feeling
• by Facts
• by Concepts/Principles
• Legal
• Other
• by argument that combines principles and supporting facts to show how the principles are or are not supported by the facts. 
• Other factors that could be considered
• Does it add new data?
• Does it raise issues and data that have-not been discussed before?
• Does it add new data that supports or counters previous testimony?
• Is it accurate?

This is pretty much a technical job.  Sure, different objective people might categorize comments slightly differently, but the point is to organize that data for the decision makers.  If there are questions, Board members can help decide.  

Third,  is to review the information to see how it affects the decisions the Board is going to make.  When you put all the data together does it change assumptions that Board members made about a community or about whether a constitutional requirement is met?

Then the Board can make its decision based on the constitutional requirements supported by facts.  

If the Board has two or more options that appear equally good or at least equally constitutional, then the Board can assess whether there is an obvious public preference for one option over others.  

But remember, that the Board took feedback about Cantwell and then broke some basic redistricting rules - breaking borough boundaries and compactness - to accommodate the suggestion.  The Court overturned that decision.

Final Notes

One of the criticisms of the Board from the courts was that they made decisions based on personal preferences.  It was pointed out that the Board members are not professional redistricting experts.  They don't have special technical, professional training in this field.  Merely stating personal preferences is not enough.  They need to test the validity of those preferences.  Do the facts support them?  For example:  Is there a unique military connection between districts?  Personal perception needs to be tested against hard numbers about where military live, their age, income, ethnicity, etc.    For most districts meeting constitutional requirements that don't upset the communities was not much of an issue.  For a few it was and the Board was challenged.  And if the Board doesn't do it right this time the Court likely will reject their decision again.  

What about "the preponderance of public opinion" that Judge Matthews mentioned?  The judge wrote that a Board member's personal preference does not override a preponderance of public opinion.  

So this process reviews that public opinion, tests the assertions and the facts presented, then writes up the reasoning for making the decision the Board makes.  It's not a popularity contest.  It's not a vote.  It's not an invitation for political parties to get their supporters to simply say they support one plan or another without any reasons given.  The point is for the Board to make a more informed and defensible decision and document how they did it, so the court can review it.

Next 

I'm hoping in the next post to look at the written comments that came in to the Board and try to apply this.  But it's sunny out, I've got a long todo list,  and I'm more than tired of looking at a screen.  But I'll try.  

ARB Chair John Binkley Chats With Me Briefly After Supreme Court Hearing

 I'm still digesting the various arguments made and questions asked by the justices.  Not ready yet to post an overview, let alone my reactions.  But I do have this bit of video I made with Alaska Redistricting Board Chair John Binkley after the trial, still in the courtroom.  

I'll let the video speak for itself.  

[Note:  I haven't posted my own videos much lately.  iMovie on my laptop changed and I just got out of practice.  It seems a bit easier than it was.  I also have really slow internet at home so uploading takes forever.  I had to go over to UAA to get reasonable internet speed to upload it. I had edited out the extra subtitles, but I must have uploaded the wrong version to YouTube.  I'll leave it up for now since I'd have to upload it to YouTube again.  Sorry.]

What The Judge Decides Will Depend On The Intent/Meaning of Socio-Economic Integration

 I imagine the judge up late last night, writing, then stopping to look things up in the materials the attorneys submitted, in the transcripts of the Board meetings, in Hickel v Southeast Conference, and other Supreme Court rulings on redistricting.  He's busily reviewing what he's written, having staff check for typos, and generally giving himself as much time as he can, so he can get it as right and as inclusive as possible.  

Fortunately, blog posts aren't as consequential.  But I can't help thinking about the factors Judge Matthews has to balance.  While compactness, contiguity, deviation, all count, I think that the interpretation of Socio-Economic Integration (SEI) will be the most critical.  But issues about public participation and gerrymandering will also be in the mix.  

So here's a look at the cases being decided and another look aback at the Hickel case.

That case was decided December 29, 1992. (Not to be confused with a 1994 case with the same name which settled payment of attorney fees on the original case.)  

At that time redistricting was done by the Governor.  A 1998 Constitutional Amendment gave the process to a Board of five.  The Governor chooses two members  and the Speaker of the House, Senate President, and Supreme Court Chief Justice each choose two, "without regard to political affiliation."  

I add that last note because the Governor clearly used political affiliation in his choices.  Board member Budd Simpson said as much when questioned by Skagway attorney Robin Brena.  Those choices were clearly unconstitutional, but whether the courts take that into consideration remains to be seen.  While there were situations where incumbents of the same party were paired or other instances where decisions were made that will have partisan impacts, those weren't direct targets of lawsuits.  However, the East Anchorage attorney has charged that the Eagle River pairings were done to give (very Republican) Eagle River an extra Senate seat, so this is on the record for the judges to use if they see fit.  

But the critical issue as I said in all of the cases boils down to the meaning of Socio-Economic Integration (SEI), one of the four key criteria for evaluating the constitutionality of a district.  The other three are 

• equal sized districts
• compactness
• contiguity

From Article 6 Section 6 of the Alaska Constitution:

§ 6. District Boundaries

The Redistricting Board shall establish the size and area of house districts, subject to the limitations of this article. Each house district shall be formed of contiguous and compact territory containing as nearly as practicable a relatively integrated socio-economic area. Each shall contain a population as near as practicable to the quotient obtained by dividing the population of the state by forty. Each senate district shall be composed as near as practicable of two contiguous house districts. Consideration may be given to local government boundaries. Drainage and other geographic features shall be used in describing boundaries wherever possible.

 The key guidelines the Board's attorney, Matt Singer, has used for SEI has been:  Everything within a borough is SEI. And that was said clearly

"Everything within a borough or city boundary is SEI."

 Therefore, according to Singer, talking about SEI within Anchorage is besides the point.  He even cited the Supreme Court as saying at one point that Mat-Su and Anchorage could be combined and so he stretched that, at times, to claim all of Mat-Su and Anchorage are SEI. He backpedaled on that during the mapping, but he even claimed, in the closing argument (if I recall right) that at one time the court had allowed Valdez to connect to Anchorage, and since all three shop in Anchorage and use the Anchorage Airport, they can all three be considered SEI.  

My lay reading of the Hickel case  and the Constitution make me believe Singer's interpretation is much more simplistic than the Supreme Court's.  Valdez and Skagway attorney also sees it differently. 

The Constitution says "as near as practicable a relatively socio-economic area."  Each criterion is qualified with "as near as practicable" because they all have to be balanced to form each district and then to put all forty districts together.  As you get closer to the ideal in one criterion, you get further away in others.

In the Hickel case, PART II:  LEGISLATIVE REAPPORTIONMENT begins with this quote from the Alaska Constitutional Convention:

"Now the goal of all apportionment plans is simple: the goal is adequate and true representation by the people in their elected legislature, true, just, and fair representation. And in deciding and in weighing this plan, never lose sight of that goal, and keep it foremost in your mind; and the details that we will present are merely the details of achieving true representation, which, of course, is the very cornerstone of a democratic government."

3 Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention (PACC) 1835 (January 11, 1956). [1835 is the page number]

This seems to make it pretty clear that 'the details' are a means to an end.  So, what does that mean?

Hickel then says the various criteria - size, compactness, contiguity, and SEI - have to be fit together. That's the hard part, but they help constrain the Governor (at that time) from gerrymandering. They give several definitions of gerrymandering, but the essence seems to be

Gerrymandering is the dividing of an area into political units "in an unnatural way with the purpose of bestowing advantages on some and thus disadvantaging others." 

 "Gerrymandering is `the deliberate and arbitrary distortion of district boundaries and populations for partisan or personal political purposes. , ,'"

While people often think of gerrymandering as being directly related to giving advantage to one party over another, these definitions cited in the Hickel case are broader than that.  They include "partisan" [that would be political party] or 'personal political purposes'. [that would mean more for personal power advantage.] 

They then tell us that limiting SEI can only be done to increase compactness and contiguity, NOT to achieve some other goals.

The requirement of relative socio-economic integration is given some flexibility by the constitution since districts need be integrated only "as nearly as practicable." Alaska Const. art. VI, § 6. However, the flexibility that this clause provides should be used only to maximize the other constitutional requirements of contiguity and compactness. The governor is not permitted to diminish the degree of socio-economic integration in order to achieve other policy goals.

There's a lot more discussion, but one more quote on SEI from Hickel:

"Relatively" means that we compare proposed districts to other previously existing and proposed districts as well as principal alternative districts to determine if socio-economic links are sufficient. "Relatively" does not mean "minimally," and it does not weaken the constitutional requirement of integration. 

Skagway Case 

ASIDE TO READERS:  You can see how hard it is to separate one concept from another.  I'm trying to talk about SEI, but all these other factors are intimately related.  In the case of Skagway, attorney Brena has argued with lots of supportive data, that Skagway is significantly more SEI with downtown Juneau (with which it is currently paired in a district) than it is with the Mendenhall Valley (in the Juneau Borough) where Board member Simpson put Skagway in the new maps.  Singer is using "Everything in a Borough is SEI" to say that it doesn't matter, constitutionally, if Skagway is with Mendenhall Valley or with downtown Juneau.

Brena has argued that it does matter.  He's also arguing, without saying it out loud, that there is gerrymandering going on.  He's given the court all the pieces to put together:

1.  Simpson was picked because he's a Republican

2. He and his wife have been strong supporters of building a road to Skagway from Juneau

3. He's given election results to show that Mendenhall Valley favors the road and downtown Juneau doesn't

4. He's offered evidence that a road would devastate Skagway's economy as the 'Gateway to the Klondike" and as a cruise ship destination (the source of over 90% of their income).  [Maybe it would, or maybe there would be new opportunities, but they seem to believe it would.]

5. He's shown public testimony being overwhelmingly in favor of Skagway staying with downtown Juneau and not splitting up the Mendenhall Valley.  (Another complication because I haven't cited above the part of the constitution that says the board needs to spend six weeks getting feedback from the public on their draft plan. So what the public thinks matters, but the Board's attorney brushed it off with "This isn't a popularity contest.")

So Brena, all together, is giving the Court the pieces to see that Simpson ignored the close SEI ties between downtown Juneau and Skagway to put them into a district they aren't so SEI with.  This will mean their "adequate and true representation" will be diluted by having a representative who represents mostly people who want to build the road to Skagway, which they strongly oppose.  And Simpson did this, ignoring public opinion,  to further his personal political purpose of building the road to Skagway. 

So, the court has to balance Singer's mantra of "everyone in a Borough is SEI" with all these other factors that Brena says  need to be considered.  

So it seems that in trying to provide legal perspectives on SEI, I've essentially laid you Robin Brena's case for why Skagway should be with downtown Juneau.  I'd also note, this is the easiest case to fix.  No other districts need to be affected.  Just move the line south to add about 4000 people and reunite the Mendenhall Valley community.  Then take out Skagway, Haines, and Gustavus - also close to 4000 - and put them with downtown Juneau.  

East Anchorage Case

Issues here:  Compactness, Contiguity, and Socio-Economic Integration.  Also some hints at

gerrymandering.  

1.  Contiguity is a possible big issue here, so let's see what Hickel said (in part, of course) 

"Contiguous territory is territory which is bordering or touching. As one commentator has noted, "[a] district may be defined as contiguous if every part of the district is reachable from every other part without crossing the district boundary (i.e., the district is not divided into two or more discrete pieces)."

The Board's interactive map makes the two Eagle River districts D22 and D24 purple so you can't really see which is which.  But they're paired with Elmendorf/Govt Hill (D23) and that little orange almost rectangle in the middle left (D21).  From Government Hill you'd have to drive through two districts to get to the other district in your Senate pairing.  From you South Muldoon you'd have to do the same.  Not contiguous in that sense.  Unless you want to hike over a mountain range.  

The Eagle River district maps only show parts of the districts.  It's hard to figure how they fit into this map above.  

East Anchorage is about the pairing of Senate districts and the only factor mentioned in the Constitution is contiguity.  

The two house districts paired here are contiguous geographically.  There is a large part where both districts touch.   But it is roadless land - mountains and different river drainages.  To get from the South Muldoon district to the Eagle River district you have to drive out of the district through other districts about eight or ten miles.  

The courts allowance of contiguity via roadless areas was originally in recognition that the State has many communities off the road system.  So that makes sense in rural areas.  It doesn't making sense in urban districts.  (Urban districts are also expected to have lover deviations (from the ideal population) than rural districts.  

2.  Socio-Economic Integrity

The two Eagle River districts which adjoin each other like the two halves of an apple (a very odd shaped apple) are among the whitest and wealthiest districts in Alaska.  The homes are large and many on large secluded lots.  The south Muldoon district is has a population made up of a large percentage of people of color and immigrants - actual population is close to 50%, voter age population is lower.  When a Muldoon house district was paired with an Eagle River district in 2013, the State's only black Senator was trounced in the next election.  

So the goal of reapportionment, from the Constitutional Convention of "adequate and true representation by the people in their elected legislature, true, just, and fair representation" is what the Court should be considering closely, because the people of south Muldoon are not going to get fair representation in the Senate with this pairing.  Continuity and compactness were also sacrificed to form this and the other Eagle River district that goes to Government Hill and parts of downtown.

Gerrymandering is also an issue here.  Board member Marcum said at the Board meeting that this pairing would give (Republican) Eagle River an extra Senate seat.  

Putting the two Eagle River house districts into one Senate seat is the most obvious and natural pairing on all factors, for both Eagle River and the two Anchorage districts they were paired with.  It would require repairing [pair them with different house districts*] some of the north Anchorage bowl house districts, but wouldn't be difficult and wouldn't affect other parts of the State.  

*Someone was confused with 'repairing' thinking I meant to fix, but I meant to re-pair them with other districts.

Calista

I have much less sense of this case.  Essentially, there are enough Calista Native Corporation members for one and a half house districts and about 70% of a Senate district.  The Board's map spreads them out over three house districts (D37, D38, D39) and two Senate districts.  They didn't come up with a map that puts all their members in two districts, but they did, if I understand this right, manage to increase their percentage in the third district from 1% to 10% (or something like that.)  

From Calista's Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law:

From the Board's Interactive Map

"Calista’s goal was to achieve more effective representation for its region by consolidating more of its population into fewer districts, specifically by having Hooper Bay, Scammon Bay, and Chevak—which were historically in a district with Nome (District 39)—moved into the Bethel district (District 38), and shifting other Calista villages into the district to the south (District 37). While the Calista Region would still be split across three house districts and two senate districts, this would concentrate more of the region’s population into two house districts and one senate district in a manner that would have a meaningful effect on future election outcomes."  [emphasis added]

The goal, according the Calista President and CEO Andrew Guy, is to gain more control of a Senate seat.  

This would appear to be consistent with the idea of 

"the goal is adequate and true representation by the people in their elected legislature, true, just, and fair representation"

This case specifically raised the issue of gerrymandering:

"Multiple Board members had actual conflicts of interest. Member Bahnke is the President and CEO of Kawerak, Inc., the nonprofit arm of Bering Straits Native Corporation, which has an interest in District 39.7 Member Borromeo is a Doyon shareholder and the evidence at trial demonstrated that she was in close communication with the Doyon Coalition’s attorney about District 36 throughout the redistricting process.8 Member Simpson is outside counsel to Sealaska, an ANC in the Doyon Coalition, and testified that he receives six figures in billings from Sealaska annually and communicated with Sealaska about District 36 while working on the maps.9"

Particularly that the drawing of D36 and D39 unfairly impacted how D37 was drawn.   

Part of their proposal would move Tyonek out of D37 and put it back with Kenai Borough which it is part of.  (The fact that Kenai Peninsula Borough was broken twice, but the Board stubbornly refused to do that with Fairbanks raises questions about the consistency of the Board's rules.)  This will cause a ripple effect that Doyon Intervening attorney Admdur-Clark argued would ripple into many other districts, meaning the Board would have a bigger job.  

Mat-Su and Valdez

I've spent a lot of time on this in previous posts.  Again Brena made a strong argument about competing interests between Mat-Su and Valdez, which means Valdez wouldn't achieve 

"the goal is adequate and true representation by the people in their elected legislature, true, just, and fair representation"

There are also contiguity issues because you have to cross into District 36 for over 100 miles to get back to District 29 and drive into Mat-Su where 76% of the population of the district lives.

Brena also raised the issues of various Board members protecting their interests - getting all the Doyon and Ahtna villages into D36 for example - that meant that Valdez' normal pairing with the Richardson Highway communities was foreclosed.  

Ruling in favor of Valdez will cause the Board the most headaches, because it will affect a lot of other districts, either directly, or through ripple effects.  

So, sometime in the next 12 hours the Judge Matthews' decision should be known.  

I'd make a correction to what I wrote in the previous post.  I said if they can't get a final map done in time for the Division of Elections, then the Proclamation Plan map would be used.  That's what happened in the 2012 election.  But as I read the Hickel case again, I saw that another option is to have the trial court judge get a map done in time for the election.  

"In a separate Order of Remand, later corrected, we directed the superior court to remand the case to the Board for formulation of a final plan. However, because of time constraints, we also directed the court to formulate an interim plan so that 1992 state elections might proceed in conformity with the requirements of the United States Constitution, the Alaska Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act. Further, we authorized the court to employ experts or masters to assist in the formulation of an interim plan. See Appendix C.

Thereafter the superior court appointed three masters. After receiving instructions from the court and reviewing alternative plans proposed by the parties, the masters presented a recommended interim plan to the court on June 14. In Orders dated June 18 and 19, the superior court accepted the Masters' recommendation, with several modifications including a redrawing of the Fairbanks House Districts. The parties cross-petitioned this court for review of the court's orders. On June 25, after considering oral and written arguments, we granted the petition and affirmed the court's interim plan with modifications required by our determination that the court had erred in redrawing the Fairbanks House Districts."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since the definition of utopian is 

"having impossibly ideal conditions especially of social organization"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Section 29.05.031 - Incorporation of a borough or unified municipality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 6. City & Borough of Yakutat

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

10. Kenai Peninsula Borough 

11. Ketchikan Gateway Borough 

12. Kodiak Island Borough

13. Lake & Peninsula Borough 

14. Matanuska-Susitna Borough 

15. Municipality of Anchorage 

16. Municipality of Skagway

17. North Slope Borough

18. Northwest Arctic Borough 19. Petersburg Borough

Source: DCCED

 

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

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

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

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

From Hickel v Southeast Council 1992

"3. Socio-economic Integration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are two left over issues from the Thursday post:  

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

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

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

AK Redistricting: The Valdez Challenge Part 1 - #s 5, 4, and 1- How Do You Solve A Problem Like Valdez?

I've been taking notes and trying to figure out how to post about this in a way that gets the point across, without putting everyone to sleep.  But that, of course, assumes I know the point.  Sunday, I came up with this overview of my dilemma.

This chart is more or less in the order I tackled the problem.  But at this point it seems to make more sense to start with 5 and go backwards.  [I've since decided to add #1 at the end of this post.] 

NUMBER 5:  Probably the easiest for me and for the reader is to start with number 5.  

This is what's been playing in my head for a while and I think it's apt:

"How do you solve a problem like Maria,  How do you catch a cloud and pin it down"

So you can listen to this song as you read this:

Valdez has about 4000 people.  There are no other similar population centers anywhere near Valdez. The closest population centers are Anchorage, Mat-Su, and Fairbanks - but they aren't very close.  Southeast Alaska has four districts worth of population.  It basically has to go up from the south because the southern and eastern borders are Canada.  The western border is the Pacific Ocean.  I've thought they could use Prince Rupert, but, of course, they can't.  

Valdez has been paired with Mat-Su and it's been paired with the Richardson Highway up almost to Fairbanks.  Essentially, Valdez is the thorn in redistricting boards' side.  It's essentially a white oil community connected by water to fishing communities and by land to some areas with more Alaska Natives.  

So lets go to #4 and look at maps.

NUMBER 4:  Where is Valdez now and where did the different proposed maps put Valdez?

First, let's look at the current district that includes Valdez - from the 2013 Proclamation plan. [Not interactive.] I've circled Valdez in red - bottom, middle right.  The district goes to Whittier in Prince William Sound, includes the Richardson Highway communities along the pipeline (Valdez is the terminus of the Alaska pipeline) almost up to Fairbanks and also goes into Mat-Su. 

Click on image to enlarge

Second, let's look at the 2021 Proclamation map for Valdez - in D 29.  The link will let you look at the map in greater detail.  This is the map that Valdez is protesting. 

District 29-O does NOT include the Richardson Highway, nor does it go anywhere near Fairbanks or the other communities along the pipeline.  Instead it goes deep into Mat-Su, smack up against Palmer and Wasilla.  But in this district, since the Richardson Highway is mostly in the neighboring district, people in Wasilla driving to the Matsu part of their district have to travel out of D-29 on the Richardson Highway.  Below you can see how Route 4 - the Richardson Highway - is in the tan colored district (36-R), the district the Valdez folks want to be in.  Not only is Valdez in a different House district, but also a different Senate district.  If you look at the map on the Board's website, you can see that for the most part the Highway is in District 36-R.  (If it weren't, then the people in 36-R would have to leave their district to travel to other communities in their district.  But this raises questions of contiguity, a Constitutional requirement for districts.  

Third, AFFER and Senate Minority Plans put Valdez with Kodiak and goes into the Lake and Peninsula Borough, bordering Anchorage from the west and Mat-Su from the west and south.  These two maps are very similar - I can only see some differences around the Homer area.  This is probably not surprising because the architects of these maps - Randy Ruedrich and Tom Begich - have been doing this for years and this reflects a similar current district that connects Cordova to Kodiak. (But does not include Valdez.)

Fourth, we have the Doyon Coalition map.  They've put Prince William Sound all together in one district - with Cordova and Whittier.  But it cuts Valdez from the Richardson Highway communities the lawsuit says they belong with, and also takes the district to the edge of Palmer in Mat-Su.  But this looks like the most compact district.  The Coalition wants to keep various Native Corporation villages in the same districts.  

Fifth, we have the AFFR map.  This puts Valdez in a sprawling district that does keep them connected with the Richardson Highway communities, almost into Fairbanks, around Fairbanks, and also gets them into Mat-Su near Palmer.  But the few people who mentioned specific maps at the Valdez hearing said they preferred this map.  

Finally, we have a map - Valdez Option 1 - that is attached to the lawsuit - which Valdez is proposing.

It connects Valdez with Prince William Sound communities of Cordova and Whittier and goes up along the Richardson Highway.  But it would also require the Board to make a LOT of changes to other districts and there will be complaints from the Doyon Coalition among others I'm sure.

So this should give you something to chew on.  I've put links to the Board's interactive maps for each of these maps so you can see the details if you wish.  

I'm also going to skip to #1 - an outline of the Valdez legal challenge, with my additions in blue.  Part 2 will be #3 and #2.  

NUMBER 1:  OUTLINE OF VALDEZ COURT FILINGS   

I've condensed the filings and added (in blue)  some of the things they've cited or notes you I thought would help

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT VALDEZ

1.   On November 10, 2021, the Alaska Redistricting Board (“Board”), pursuant to its constitutional authority under Article VI of the Alaska Constitution, promulgated a new redistricting plan to govern legislative elections in Alaska for the next decade. This plan places Valdez into House and Senate Districts in violation of 
1. The Open Meetings Act, 
2. Article VI, Sections 6 and 10 of the Alaska Constitution, and 
3. the equal protection and 
4. due process clauses of the Alaska Constitution. 
5. This Complaint seeks 
1. judicial review of the Board’s redistricting plan and 
2. an order invalidating that plan and 
3. requiring the Board to redraw the districts in accordance with the Alaska Constitution

PARTIES

2-11 - City of Valdez, and Mark Detter, a resident of Valdez, 

The Board and each member.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12-13

ALLEGATIONS

14- 42  There are almost 30 allegations here.  It would have been more helpful if these were better tied to the Five Claims at the end.  One has to go through these 28 allegations and match them to the claims.  I’ll try.  

First Claim - Violation of the Open Meetings Act

43-48     http://www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/statutes/title44/chapter62/section310.htm  Gets you to Open Meetings Act - not long, but too much to add it all here

43. Paragraphs 1 through 42 are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.   

44. The Board, as a governmental body of a public entity of the state, is subject to the requirements of AS 44.62.310-320 (“Opening Meetings Act”). The deliberations and decisions of the Board are activities covered by the Open Meetings Act.

45. Upon information and belief, the Board has violated the Open Meetings Act in the following ways:

(a) It conducted deliberations in secret. 

(b) It failed to properly conduct votes.

(c) It conducted a serial meeting.

(d) It withheld documents from the public that were used in formulating the final redistricting plan.

(e) It failed to clearly and with specificity state the subject(s) of each executive session or its reasons for addressing the subject(s) in executive session.

46. Plaintiffs and others have been harmed by these violations.

47. As a result of these violations, the actions of the Board resulting in adoption of the final redistricting plan including senate pairings, should be voided.

48. The Board’s proclamation of redistricting should similarly be voided, as it was based solely upon the redistricting plan.

Second Claim - Violation of Article VI, Section 6

49 - 55

§ 6. District Boundaries

The Redistricting Board shall establish the size and area of house districts, subject to the limitations of this article. Each house district shall be formed of contiguous and compact territory containing as nearly as practicable a relatively integrated socio-economic area. Each shall contain a population as near as practicable to the quotient obtained by dividing the population of the state by forty. Each senate district shall be composed as near as practicable of two contiguous house districts. Consideration may be given to local government boundaries. Drainage and other geographic features shall be used in describing boundaries wherever possible.

Third Claim - Violation of Article VI, Section 10

56 - 59  

(a) Within thirty days after the official reporting of the decennial census of the United States or thirty days after being duly appointed, whichever occurs last, the board shall adopt one or more proposed redistricting plans. The board shall hold public hearings on the proposed plan, or, if no single proposed plan is agreed on, on all plans proposed by the board. No later than ninety days after the board has been appointed and the official reporting of the decennial census of the United States, the board shall adopt a final redistricting plan and issue a proclamation of redistricting. The final plan shall set out boundaries of house and senate districts and shall be effective for the election of members of the legislature until after the official reporting of the next decennial census of the United States.

(b) Adoption of a final redistricting plan shall require the affirmative votes of three members of the Redistricting Board. [Amended 1998]

Fourth Claim - Violation of Article I, Section 1 (Equal Protection)

60-62

§ 1. Inherent Rights

This constitution is dedicated to the principles that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the rewards of their own industry; that all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights, opportunities, and protection under the law; and that all persons have corresponding obligations to the people and to the State.

Fifth Claim - Violation of Article I, Section 7 (Due Process)

64 - 68

§ 7. Due Process

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. The right of all persons to fair and just treatment in the course of legislative and executive investigations shall not be infringed.

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court:
1. Enter a judgment declaring the Board’s redistricting plan promulgated pursuant to the proclamation dated November 10, 2021, to be in violation of the Open Meetings Act, Article VI, Sections 6 and 10 of the Alaska Constitution, and the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the Alaska Constitution; 

2. Enter a judgment declaring the Board’s redistricting plan promulgated pursuant to the proclamation dated November 10, 2021, to be null and void; 

3. Enter an order enjoining the State Division of Elections and the State of Alaska from conducting any primary or general election for state legislative office under the Board’s redistricting plan, or otherwise taking any step to implement the plan; 

4. Enter an order requiring the Board to promulgate a new redistricting plan consistent with the requirements of the Alaska Constitution or, in the alternative, enter an order correcting errors in the Board’s redistricting plan;
5. Enter an order declaring Plaintiffs to be public interest litigants as constitutional claimants and awarding costs and attorney’s fees;
6. Enter an order for such other and further relief as may be just and reasonable. DATED this 10th day of December, 2021. 

BRENA, BELL & WALKER, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

By
Robin O. Brena, ABA No. 8511130 Jake W. Staser, ABA No 1111089 Laura S. Gould, ABA No. 0310042