AK Redistricting - What's Next? Court Decisions And . . .?

The Supreme Court upheld the Superior Court's conclusion that the Board majority had gerrymandered once again and lifted the stay on the order for the Board to adopt Option 2 for the 2022 election.  But the Supreme Court did NOT lift the stay on having the Board adopt a permanent map for the rest of the decade.  

So, what's happening next?  There are two key factors:

1. What possible map other than the interim one (Option 2) could the Board come up with that would meet the narrow guidelines of the Superior Court?  
2. When is the Supreme Court going to weigh in?

First let's look at the possible maps, and then I'll share what I learned from the media liaison at the Supreme Court today.   

What possible maps other than option 2 could the Board draw that wouldn't be challenged?

My conclusion here is:  There isn't much wiggle room for the Board majority if they get the maps again.  First, they were told explicitly that the Senate Seat K (ER and South Muldoon) was intentionally gerrymandered and more vaguely that the two ER districts should be together.  They separated Seat K and put South Muldoon with North Muldoon.  But instead of pairing the two ER districts together, they left the Chugiak/ER district paired with JBER/Govt Hill and paired the other ER district with South Anchorage.  

The second time they were told to use Option 2, which also paired the two Muldoon districts, but paired the ER districts.  The Board minority (particularly member Marcum) REALLY wanted to keep Chugiak paired with JBER/Govt Hill.  But pairing the ER districts into one senate seat meant JBER got paired with another district in north downtown.  

I just don't see many choices for the Board now.  One of the instructions was to only make as many changes as necessary to fix the unconstitutional gerrymandering.  So there are a couple of Anchorage Bowl districts bordering JBER that could be played with, but I don't see any big payoff for anyone.  (I could be missing some incumbent pairing possibly.)  

That's a long way of saying the 2022 interim map seems like the only map that makes sense for the rest of the decade.  The Board majority could make a couple of Senate pairing changes just to show they won't be stuck with the Court order completely, but it would really be a waste of time and it would mess up incumbents and voters to change their Senate seats just out of spite.  

For those who want more detail about the changes, I've prepared the table below and the key parts of the 2021 map and the May 2022 map below.

This really isn't too difficult a problem.  But because we've gone through three different maps that caused a number of Anchorage House Districts to change numbers, it's tricky to describe.  So, let's look at the changes in the Anchorage House District numbers.  

NOTE
Senate districts are made by pairing two House Districts No House districts changed boundaries Some did change numbers Some did change Senate Seat pairing partners

I tried to make a chart showing which districts changed numbers, which changed Senate pairings, and which stayed the same.  I've used color to illustrate the changes.  I suggest you look at the chart, then look below the chart for more explanation of the colors.  

[Explanation:  Column 1 is the 2021 Proclamation Plan.  These are the original house districts and Senate pairings (#s are the House designation, Letters are the Senate pairings).  Column one are all aqua. 

If nothing ever changes, like HD 11 F, it stays aqua throughout.  

If the # changes the top half of the cell goes salmon the first time and lime green the second time. (unless  it changes back to the original number,  then it goes back to aqua.).  HD 9 (South Anchorage) kept the same number in the April map, but got paired with ER the second time.  So it stayed aqua on top, but changed to yellow on the bottom.  In May it kept its number and got its old Senate partner back, so it goes back to all aqua.  

If the Senate pairing changes, the bottom goes yellow the first time and blue the second time (unless it goes back to the original pairing, the it goes back to aqua.)]

Yes, I realize this is way too complicated, and if you find a simpler way to show it, please share it with me.  Here's another way to do this:  look at the maps.  But some districts are too big to fit.  I'd note that I'm only looking at the 2021 map and the last map (Option 2, May 2022).  

I've drawn boundaries around the Senate pairings.  Red is JBER/Chugiak/ER;  Black is ER/South Muldoon.  Blue is North Muldoon and U-Med.  Green is Downton and North Mt. View.  That's eight house districts, four Senate seats that are in play.  

Below is the May 2022 Option 2 map being used for the 2022 election.  The two Eagle River districts are paired (black lines.)  JBER/Govt. Hill are together (red).  North and South Muldoon are together (blue).  Then there are two others paired together (the former pairing of North Muldoon with the former pairing of Downtown (lime green.)  

That's pretty much all they can play with.  The Eagle River Senate seat is set.  The Muldoon Senate seat is set.  If you switched JBER/Govt Hill from downtown to North Mountain View, then you'd have to use some other districts.  

That leaves us with what is the court going to do next?  I emailed the Supreme Court's media liaison, Meredith Montgomery.  Below are my questions and her answers.

Q1.  When I look at the appellate court Most Requested Cases page (https://appellate-records.courts.alaska.gov/CMSPublic/Search/Media)  there are two redistricting cases listed.  One says "opinion issued" and the other says "closed."  But the Justices said earlier they'd give us a longer document which explained their April decision.  Is that still coming?

A1. There are two supreme court redistricting cases as you point out.  S-18332 is the one where we had the oral argument in March and issued a short order with the "full opinion to follow" language.  We don't really have a better status than "opinion issued" to reflect what is happening, but the case is still open and we are waiting for the "full opinion" to be issued.  The second case, S-18419 came to us as a petition for review on Judge Matthews's order following remand from our March order, and the supreme court quickly affirmed Judge Matthews ruling on the Board's second map and since we did not retain jurisdiction over that part of the case it is "closed."  

Q2.   What about a further explanation of their May 24, 2022 Order?  Might the two be consolidated?

A2. I have no idea if the "opinion to follow" in S-18332 will discuss anything further in the S-18419 case.  

Q3.  In the May 24 Order, they left the stay on for Judge Matthews' remand for the Board to work on a new plan for post 2022 elections.  Is there another order going to come on that?  There isn't much wiggle room for the Board to make changes to the map for 2022.  Does leaving the stay imply just leaving the 2022 map as the permanent map? (I know you can't answer that, but just to let you know the sense of my questions now, but some better closure than what we have now is necessary.)

A3.  I understand the supreme court May 24 order basically says that the "option 2" map will be used for the 2022 general election, and (this is where we are all guessing) that after the full, explanatory decision is issued in S-18332, the court will lift the stay and allow the Board to get back to work.  Of course, depending on what the order says, any need for additional work by the Board could become moot.  

Q4.  Timing of any further decisions/orders:

     A.  One natural milestone is today's June 1 deadline for candidates to file.

     B.  Another possible milestone is after the November 2022 election

     C.  The urgency of the original decisions isn't as great now, however,

     D.  It would seem unreasonable to leave the Board and its staff dangling for too long.  Staff will look for other jobs and that would cripple the Board moving forward.  And Board members potentially could resign rather than leave their lives on hold that long.  That would raise issues of who would replace them.  The previous legislative appointers and the Supreme Court appointer have all departed those roles.  If the governor is not reelected, there would be protests over him appointing any new Board members.  This seems like a problem the Court could avoid by deciding sooner than later.  

A4.  You raise good points about timing, etc.  I'm sure the supreme court is aware of them as well.  

Conclusion

I like the part where Montgomery writes, "depending on what the order says, any need for additional work by the Board could become moot. "   

My look at the district changes and the maps tells me the Board doesn't have many options left and changing the maps yet again only confuses voters and makes candidates' lives more difficult.  It makes most sense to go with the 2020 interim map.  

I'm guessing the Court is taking advantage of having a little more time to rule.  And they also wanted to see how the Board would react.  The Board did as ordered.  There were a lot of issues raised in the trial and in the second round of challenges.  From whether ANCSA lines can be used as "local borders" when drawing district maps to clarifying how to avoid intentional gerrymandering and perhaps modifying the language the Board's attorney relied heavily on, that "everything within a borough or city boundaries is Socio-economically integrated."  And I personally would like them to make a distinction between contiguity in rural areas where there aren't roads and contiguity in urban areas where there are lots of roads.  

So, trying to craft all that language for future Boards to rely on and getting agreement among the Justices takes time.  But the other issues I raised - maintaining Board staff and the potentially nasty problems that could arise if a Board member resigned - also mean that the Court should get a decision out before too long.  

The first 'natural' deadline - June 1, 2022, when candidates must file to run for office in 2022 - is no past.  (Or will be by the time I get this posted.)  I would guess the next word from the Court will either be a decision with directions on what to do next (including possibly leaving 2022 interim plan in place) or a schedule for the Board so they don't hang in limbo too long and can plan their lives.

Redistricting Trial Day 2: Some Insights

[It's been a long day at the computer.  I'm putting this up now, but reserve the right to edit it later when I have more time.] 

On the surface today seemed more like a regular trial.  There were witnesses and attorneys questioned them.  Sometimes other attorneys objected and the judge had to decide whether to sustain it or overrule it.  

My rough notes are rougher than usual and it would be tedious for just about everyone if I posted them so I'll skip that today.  Instead I'll comment on what the testimony said to me about redistricting.  

I would like to make two observations on the Board's representation today after my comments yesterday.  Board attorney Matt Singer was, in my opinion, far more respectful of the witnesses than he was of the witnesses yesterday.  Also, I'd suggested he should have one of his associates take over some of the in court appearances so he can get a break, and Lee Baxter did much of the work today for the Board.  I'm sure that was arranged a while ago, but I want to let regular readers know there was a difference today.  

This was Mat-Su's day, though Valdez (which is doing the case with Mat-Su since they both object to being paired  with each other) had a witness - the Mayor - today as well because she was available today.  The district in question is 29-O  (O is the Senate seat.)

The Stated Issues

• Is District 29 (the one that pairs Valdez with suburbs of Palmer) contiguous?
• Is District 29 compact?
• Is District 29 socio-economically integrated?
• Is District 29 unconstitutionally over populated?

These are the  State and Federal constitutional requirements for a district.  

Questions and answers over these issues got just short of ridiculous, making it clear to me that it would be helpful if the Supreme Court offered some new advice on what these ideas mean and how you would test them - particularly contiguous and socio-economically integrated.

Types of Witnesses Today

• Elected Officials
• Mayor Edna DeVries - Mat-Su Borough Assembly
• Michael Brown - Mat-Su Borough Manager
• Mayor Sharon Scheidt - Valdez
• Mapping Experts
• Stephen Colligan

Insights (if that's not too lofty a word for these thoughts)

1.  Redistricting Criteria

Throughout the Board's mapping process last year - including the public hearings - I was struck by how the board used the criteria listed above.  Too often they were NOT used as criteria to measure the districts they were making.  Rather they were used to justify the districts. Perhaps that sounds like double-talk on my part.  I mean that criteria were used to justify doing things, not to stop and check whether what they had done was correct.  

This became more obvious as one criterion took precedence over another one that had been crucial earlier.  At one point we heard the all districts within a borough boundaries were socially-economically integrated (SEI) so they didn't have to consider, say community-councils in Anchorage, or whether neighborhoods were similar or different.  At other times, say when Bethany Marcum was trying to put part of East Anchorage into the same district as part of Eagle River, she was listing all the Socio-Economic Integration of the two areas.  

At one point getting low deviations was important until it fell by the wayside for other criteria.  

Today's discussion made some of the criteria look so malleable you could stretch them to mean whatever you wanted.  Let's look at three of them.  (I'm going to leave compactness out for now because that seemed to be abused the least.)

1.  Deviation - This is a federal requirement. In order for the one-person-one-vote concept to work, districts have to be as close to equal in population as possible.  In theory anyway.  Part of Mat-Su's complaint is that Mat-Su as a whole is over populated because it's districts range from 1.1% more than the ideal 2020 Alaska Redistricting population number of 18,335. (That comes from dividing the 2020 Census number for Alaska by 40 House seats.)  At one point, their challenge added up the percentages for each district and they claimed they were 13.7% above.  But as I pointed out in a post yesterday, you can't add up percentages.  If you take the population of the six Mat-Su districts and divide them by the ideal size of six districts, the deviation is 2.2 or so.  

The Supreme Court has ruled that in urban areas it should be less than two and the lower the better.  In rural areas there is more flexibility.  The absolute limit from the Supreme Court has been a 10% limit between the highest and lowest deviations.  So if the highest deviation is 5% above 18335, then the lowest allowable would be 5% below.  But even that number would have to be justified.  

Stephen Colligan, the challengers' expert today, complained about Mat-Su's overpopulation and said they didn't have as much influence in Juneau because of it.  But really, if they have 400 more people in their district out of 18,335 people, how much of a difference does that really make?  This is a theoretical equality.  At what point does it become really an equity issue?  Some districts have a much higher proportion of non-voters than other districts, such as children or non-citizens, or prisoners.  Don't get me wrong.  Equal size districts is an important criterion, but we shouldn't obsess over it.  It's become even more of an issue now that software is available to reduce the differences to 1% for most districts and under that for urban areas.  AFFER's maps did that.  And Colligan's point that Anchorage and other areas were uniformly underpopulated is a valid one.  Was that done intentionally?  I suspect not, but it probably didn't have to be that way if the Board had more professional mappers working on the maps.  But I'll pursue that later.

2.  Contiguity - This basically means that all parts of the house district are touching.  It's the main criterion for Senate pairings. (In Senate pairings the two House districts have to touch, somewhere.) Here the basic issue in District 29 is that there is no way to get from Valdez to Mat-Su by car without going through another district.  The Board argues that the land is contiguous, it doesn't matter if the road goes out of the district for 60 miles or more.  Board Attorney Lee Baxter seemed to mock witness Colligan's use of the term 'auto contiguity' which got changed then to 'transportation contiguity' which then no longer seemed to have any meaning when helicopters and chartered plane brought up.  

But I'm all for the 'auto contiguity' concept.  People should have to drive out of their district to reach other parts of their district.  Of course, there are exceptions in rural Alaska where there are no roads, or where there is water and island.  But in urban areas and in areas with roads, 'auto contiguity' makes perfect sense to me.  You shouldn't have to drive through nearer areas to get to the other side of your district.  In Valdez' case to where 75% of the population of the district is located a four hour drive away, in good weather.  But this should also apply in Anchorage and Fairbanks.  Last time a Fairbanks district was 'connected' by a military bombing range that was closed to the public.  It was done to dilute the vote of the main part of the district.  And in Anchorage this time, this same sort of thing is being done in the Eagle River Senate pairings.  Yes, the districts are contiguous by land, but not by land people can use to get to the other side.  Instead they have to drive through other districts and then eight or more miles to get to the other side of their district.  This too was for partisan reasons and if the Court recognizes 'auto contiguity' it would put an end to this sort of gerrymandering.  

3.  Socio-Economic Integration - This is the most ambiguous criterion.  In my mind, it means that there is an important relationship, a common interest, that makes it beneficial to be grouped together and be represented by on representative.  But the plaintiffs and the defendant alike are coming up with all sorts of ways areas are similar or different.  Do they use the same highways?  Where do they shop?  Do Valdez folks shop in Mat-Su or Anchorage?  The answer from the mayor of Valdez was, "if your 45 minutes from Anchorage, why stop in Mat-Su where you have to pay sales tax?"   I thought Valdez had a strong list of reasons they are connected with the Richardson Highway communities - from goods coming in the port going up to Fairbanks, to the pipeline, to electrical utilizes, to higher education, etc.  But the Board's attorney pointed out that Valdez sports teams play in Mat-Su once a year.  The Mayor pointed out they play in Kenai too, but mostly along the Richardson Highway.  The Board's attorney asked Valdez if they thought Mat-Su was socially-economically integrated with Tonsina?  Later the Board was challenged whether Holy Cross was socially-economically integrated with Glennallen?  Both had been paired in different maps that had been supported.  It just shows that not every pairing will work exactly and the different criteria have to be weighed and compromised here and there to get districts.

At the Board meetings we heard that Interior Native Groups have nothing in common with Coastal Native Groups.  I understand they can have different language traditions and other traditions, but does that mean they have more in common with the White folks who are relatively recent arrivals to Alaska than to other Alaska Natives?  It became clear to me over this process that we can  find all kinds of areas of commonality and differences.  But which ones are really important in terms of having a representative?  And if you put everyone who is different in a different district does this ultimately strengthen or weaken their representation?  Packing is the type of gerrymandering where you put a lot of one group into one district.  They'll elect their representative by 50% or more.  But that also means they had 50% excess votes that could have made another district more competitive.  Lots of think about here.  

Expert Mappers versus the Board

Third party groups like AFFR (Alaskans for Fair Redistricting) and AFFER (Alaskans for Fair and Equitable Redistricting), Doyon, the Democratic Party, and the Senate Democratic Minority  attended most of the public Board meetings.  As I listened to them testify and talked to them, it became clear that they had begun mapping months before the Board even started.  They had people trained in GIS (Geographic Information Systems) that is the basis of the mapping software.  Stephen Colligan, today's expert witness is the head of AFFER and said he has people with masters and PhD's in this field working on mapping.  He said that Mat-Su had begun working on this five years ago.  

In comparison, the Board is made up of people with little or no previous mapping experience.  They had basic classes for beginners to help them learn how to use the software.  At the time I was beginning to form thoughts like - "the board is way behind the third party groups" and "the board is learning on the job."  Colligan today said that the Board didn't start until September 7 and then gave themselves two days to come up with maps.  They actually started playing with the software on August 24, 2021.  Meanwhile the third party groups had professionals and had started making maps months earlier.  [UPDATE Jan 25, 2021: I tracked down my post "Redistricting Board Meets To Learn Software" which happened on June 30, 2021.  They had a three day workshop.]

This just tells me that for 2030, the Board needs to hire professional map makers and not be dilettantes trying to do a specialists work.  I don't blame the Board itself.  The technology has changed rapidly and they didn't know enough to know how in over their heads they were.  

I suspect this is something the legislature needs to work on, because we can't settle for amateurs doing the mapping and judging the maps next time.  We need people who are trained and experienced in this.  

You could tell by the level of detail Colligan went into.  It was a totally different kind of conversation than with the other witnesses and different from how the Board members talked about mapping.  You could also tell when Doyon attorney Tanner Amdur-Clark talked.  He too was very involved with the Doyon mapping and software.  This is like the difference between lay folks and doctors talking about medical issues.  

Should Local Areas Be Required To Submit Statewide Maps To Be Listened To By The Board?

This was a Valdez and a Mat-Su report.  The Board's attorney mocked is probably too strong a word, but was dismissive that Valdez submitted a map that only made appropriately sized districts for part of the state in the map they submitted to the Board.  "The Board has a responsibility to the whole state, not just your area."  Colligan said the same thing happened to Mat-Su who submitted maps for their districts.  

Colligan felt it was unfair to ask local areas to map out the whole state.  They should only be asked to do a map that shows their preferences and it's the Board's responsibility to do the whole state.  

I think this is an issue future Boards need to think carefully about.  It's expensive to hire experts to do a whole state map.  But I also understand it's easy to do one small area if you don't have to consider how it affects the rest of the state.  I raise here just to get it on the record for the future.  

Enough now.  It's late.  This isn't the he-said-she-said report of the trial, but I think it's just as meaningful if not more.  Take care.

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 

Redistricting Board Has "ADOPT FINAL REDISTRICTING MAP" Scheduled For Tues PM Nov 2 - But Probably Not Really. Here's What's Going To Happen

[UPDATE November 1, 2021:  Board sent out update Agenda for the week after this was posted and reflects what's discussed here.]

When I saw the Agenda [posted below] for Tuesday I was, like, "They're going to adopt a final map in one day?  They're never going to get all that done."   

I called Peter Torkelson, the Board's Executive Director, and we talked through the agenda.  

Most important point - This is more like an agenda for the week.  They're going to try to get through Agenda Item #9.  Then Wednesday and Thursday do the Mapping Work Sessions where the Board works on the maps.  This work will happen in the Board's office in the University Center. They are trying to work out some sort of Zoom connection, but there will be people working individually, in pairs, etc. with different conversations going on simultaneously.  People will be able to attend the meeting in person.  

Then Friday they want to get to Agenda Item #11 - Adopt Final Redistricting Map. But everything is fluid.  Things could happen faster or slower, but expect a final map by Friday at the latest.

Voting Rights Act Compliance - The board hired a Voting Rights Act (VRA) consultant to review the proposed maps to make sure they are in compliance with the VRA - basically impacts on minority voters, which in Alaska mainly means Alaska Natives.  Ten years ago, Alaska was one of 16 states that needed federal Department of Justice approval before they could finalize their maps.  The US Supreme Court in 2011 in Shelby v Holder said that Sec 5 of the Act was no longer valid and so preclearance is no longer required.  (They'd already gotten it last time before the SC decision.)  So the Board is going to be briefed in Executive Session - I'm not sure why that's necessary because last time the Voting Rights consultant report and questions were done in public - though some part may have been in executive session - and then the Board's attorney will give a summary to the public.

Next - After the districts are 'finalized' - they will "proof read" the maps.  They'll send the maps out to various Municipalities and Boroughs around the state, with whom they've already talked, for them to go through their locations carefully to find any blips - weird census blocks that raise issues such as a house cut in half by a district, odd protrusions that have an unintended negative impact, etc. - that can be corrected.  

Also over the weekend, Eric Sandberg, the tech on loan to the Board from the State, who served these same functions 10 years ago, will create the 'metes and bounds' - the verbal descriptions of each of the districts.  Here's a link to the post from May 15, 2012 where the Board votes to adopt the metes and bounds.  You can see an example of the description of District 1.  There's also a link to the audio of that meeting (about 7 minutes including an opening concert by the Board Chair). Eric Sandberg gives a very brief description of the kinds of corrections he made to the districts - basically moving census blocks that had no population, including some over water.  

And Finally - There will be more to do then next week.  Mainly Senate Pairings and truncation.  Each Senate district comprises of two house districts, so they have to decide which two house districts become a Senate district.  They have to be contiguous house districts. This could have political impacts.  The last Board paired the only African-American Senator, Bettye Davis, out of her Senate seat by pairing her house district in East Anchorage with a house district in Eagle River, adding a much more conservative set of voters.  

Truncation is a more arcane activity. If a "substantial" number of new voters are in a Senate district, then that district has to go up for election in the next election.  The idea is that the new people would be represented by someone they didn't vote for.  How much is 'substantial'?  Peter thought 30% new voters would be an absolute limit, but it could be fewer than that to trigger truncation.  Last time 19 out 20 Senate seats were truncated.  But there's more.

Term Allocation Table - Senate seats are staggered so that only 10 seats are up at any one election.  So that all gets messed up by truncation.  Thus some Senate seats will have to run for election again in 2024. (I'm assuming court cases won't delay the process enough to not go into effect in2022).  There's plenty of partisan hanky-panky potential in this process too.  

Ideally, all this will be accomplished by November 10, because November 11 is Veteran's Day and the day they have to be done by.  

Date: November 2, 2021 Time: 9:00am

Place:

Anchorage Legislative Information Office, Denali Conference Room, 1st Floor 1500 West Benson Blvd, Anchorage 99503

Anchorage LIO meetings: Live Video/Audio Web Stream: www.akl.tvAnchorage LIO: Teleconference public testimony dial-in numbers:

Anchorage 563-9085, Juneau 586-9085, Other 844-586-9085

Agenda
Call to Order and Establish Quorum
Adoption of Agenda
Adoption of Minutes
Public Testimony – will conclude at 10:30am
Dial into one of the phone numbers above and indicate to the operator that you wish to testify
10:30am – Executive Session with Legal Counsel Voting Rights Act Compliance in 2020 Proposed Plans
Voting Rights Act Compliance in 2020 Proposed Plans
Presentation by Matt Singer, Schwabe, Legal Counsel to the Board
Review of Sept 16 Census Physical Delivery Data 
Public Hearing Tour Summary
Review & Discussion: Tasks Ahead, Key Decisions 
Mapping Work Session
Adopt Final Redistricting Map 
Adjournment

Alaska Redistricting Board: State Wide Testimony Today Overview And Rough Notes

The Alaska Redistricting Board met in a Statewide call-in to take testimony today on the six maps that were adopted in September for consideration.  They have been gathering feedback across the state before submitting the finalized maps.  

I took running notes, which are really rough.  In 2011-12 I posted such notes because there were no other ways to get the information.  This time round the Board is doing a pretty good job of getting the testimony posted on the Board’s website within a week or so.  

Today Board member Nicole Borromeo chaired the meeting and Board member Bethany Marcum sat in as well.  Board chair John Binkley also listened in and occasionally made comments.  They had scheduled times when different parts of the state could call in and get priority.  When there were no more callers from that area, they took calls from all over.  

Some of my quick impressions:

 Fairbanks callers overwhelmingly preferred Board version 4 (v4) and the AFFR maps.  And disliked v3.  They particularly opposed putting North Pole and Fairbanks into the same district.  

Southeast callers still have a bad taste in their mouths about the original maps that cut out Rep. Story from her district and put her against another Democratic incumbent. 

There were a couple comments from the Homer area that wanted Fritz Creek to be part of Homer.  This reflected a lot of testimony at a previous meeting.  

The meeting also got me thinking about the whole issue of what things really are important to be together in state House districts.  What’s important and what is merely cosmetic or emotional?   I’ll flesh that out in a later post.  I’m still thinking it through and trying to bore down to the key elements and not have a lot of fluff.  

So, here are my notes.  Some caveats first:

 GIANT APOLOGY ABOUT PEOPLE’S NAMES!!!  I’m listening in via the phone. The Board has the list of people who have called in and want to talk, so they aren’t asking people to spell their names.  Leave corrections in the comments or email me (see upper side bar right)

I type as fast as I can and while I once was a pretty good typist, my fingers are getting slower.  Also, my ears aren’t as good as they were.

So, what you should expect here is the gist of what people were saying and if there is something important you can look for it when the Board posts the Oct. 30, 2021 testimony.

Assume errors and omissions.  

 

Some Abbreviations
SEI = Socio-Economic Integration  FB= Fairbanks;  NP = North Pole v3 and v4 = Board maps versions 3 and 4 FNSB = Fairbanks North Star Borough AFFR = Alaskans for Fair Redistricting (3rd Party) AFFER = Alaskans for Fair and Equitable Redistricting (3rd Party)

About 10:15 am   Nicole Borremeo:  

James Squire = Delta, Gulkana - we should be connected with Eilson - they have missiles and so do we.  Drainage, geographic features should be part of this process.  I sent a map that does a much better job.

Up highway to Eilson, Denali Borough, Clear Air Force - moves the needle of SEI (Socio-Economic Integration) and compactness.  Koyukuk drainage.  

Directed to use the census numbers.  Our area has more PFD applications than shown in our Census Count.  No reason to deny them.  Privacy.  Boundaries in wilderness, not on highways.  If you can see campaign signs on both sides of the road, then that’s a problem because those people should be in same district.  

Nicole, Marcum - questions?

Fairbanks Area - AFFR Map

[Here's a link to the Board's Map Gallery]

Casey ?Cafort - Fairbanks.  Grown up in FB and NP and two distinct communities, shouldn’t be in one district.  FB oriented along river.  FMeyer.  V3 follows boundaries, but no reason to redistrict. Don’t follow those things precisely in Anchorage.  As recent UAF graduate.  Hope you keep UAF together - only AFFR map does that now.  UAF critical part of our community and economy.  Appreciate opportunity to be heard.

Nicole:  Thank you.  

Kelvin Rogers - Support AFFR and preference for version 4 over 3.  V3 makes no sense to me - puts us with NP a place I’ve been a few times over my 6 years in FB.  V4 splits up FB along lines that makes sense.  

10:19

?Bretta  McAdams - grew up in FB, schools here.  Learned to drive here.  Alaskalands, Blockbusters.  Like John Binkley.  V3 is political map by former politician that gerrymanders FB.  Also divides FB by n-s which is against the Chena River that goes east west.  Both AFFR and V4 give us better representation.  

10:22

Alissa Franklin? - FB community organizer here for about 21 years.  Raised and school and now work as organizer.  Really know the community.  Others my points as well.  Definitely not v3, unnatural to neighborhood, work, etc.  V4 and AFFR better job capturing that natural orientation.  Why v3 so bad?  D31  Ester, Fox, Goldstream, Farmers Loop - that’s a good hours drive to get to Two Rivers.  Completely different communities.  Talking about neighborhoods - how is this fair to any of these communities.  Eilson completely different needs from University.  How people compete with each other.   Not fair and equitable.  How do we best represent these needs without cutting district in half.  Majority of POC live in these areas.  Access to voting, have to cross two different districts to get to their voting place.  AFFER/AFFR? do better job of how we’re laid out, not competing with each other, but picking person who represents our communities/  Wish I could drive you around

Leo Hippert?  - Needlessly under represents FB  Treated FB differently from other places.  Things oriented east west.  As U student feel connected to U and Goldstream, Ester, similar values and have one voice on issues.  AFFR and v4 represents these, but v3 is bad.  AFFR has racial ???  NP and FB different interests.

Nicole - any SEI issues in AFFR maps that you’d like Board to consider.  A:  Not really didn’t do research on that.  

Stuart Chapin - FB for last 50 years.  Appreciate importance and glad listening to testimony.  Strongly prefer AFFR or v4 and feel v3 divides FB in ways that are not in the best interests.  Prefer AFFR for two reasons.  V3 under represents FB in state.  V3 doesn’t represent various communities that make up FB area.  FB along east west along Tanana River.  People who share values and service area interests should be grouped together .  AFFR much better than v3.   Hope you take the FB testimony into consideration because we all agree.

North Pole - Barbara Kendall?  50 years in Alasak.  Any plan for NP should include Eilson and Salcha.  Where we do shopping, churches, housing.  Some adjustment to AFFER plan, but concur that AFFR and v4 would do best.  Would increase population a bit - but in NSFB and better aligned.

Q:  You like AFFER.  Yes.  Prefer over v4.

Allison Cafort - lifelong FB resident, grew up in ?? And NP.  Now west FB.  Distinct communities and shouldn’t be in the same district.  V3 does that not good.  Also overpopulates.  V4 and AFFR follow east west orientation.  As current UAF student - keep U and Fox etc. together - where many faculty live.  AFFR map.  

Lori Huffer?  15 years FB.  And unique NP area.  Thanks for listening.  Support competitive fair and equitable map.  NOT v3.  Interested in AFFR and V4, better represents our communities.  FB and NP seen as separate communities.  Thanks for insuring we’ll have appropriate representation by not using v3 and focusing on AFFR and v4.  

Q:  Any SEI issues?  I guess we lost her

Gary Kendall - NP- overview comparisons of versions.  Balance several criteria - pop.  Compactness, SEI.  In interest of representation give more weight than just population .   AFFER map seems to be the best balance of factors under consideration.  NE corner of D6C - portion goes north of the river and down toward NP, that would be better placed with 9E, NP Moose Creek, based on where people are and work and interests  D8D, westward with Badger Road border- move it up and make border along the river better than the road itself.  AFFER map does better job of bringing in North Creek Salcha and Eilson .  Thank you.

Martha Roberts - final FB in queue for now.  50 years in FB mostly in University and now just north of Farmers loop.  Agree with others v3 shouldn’t be used.  FB in5 districts all the others have 6 districts.  Also separates NP from Eilson.  Main testimony is against v3 map.  I prefer the Senate minority map which puts my area with ??  Which seems better than with Fox.  

Nicole:  FB has 5 districts in both v3 and v4.

Martha:  Oh, I miscounted.  When release Senate pairings?

Nicole:  Not yet, plan to do closer to Nov 10.  These are still draft form.  

Move outside of interior - 

Sen. Tom Begich - State senate minority leader, here because Wednesday you asked views on constitutionality.  Touch lengthy.

Alaska Court have focused on lover deviations of house districts over time.  But Board seems to be moving to maps with higher deviations.  Many 3rd party plans have said there can be lower deviations without sacrificing the other criteria.   Likelihood v3 and v4 lawsuits because 

of deviations.  Those decisions March 21, 2002 Court - priority must be given first to Federal Constitution, VRA, and then to Alaska Constitution.  1.  Contiguousness and compactness, SEI, Community boundaries, geographic boundaries.     Representation over SEI.   Overemphasizing  SEI over others is inconsistent.  

First you draw the map with Alaska Constitution, then 

Reynolds and Brown - federal considerations — Alaska SC found Alaska should have narrower standards.  Newly available tech advances make it easy to meet lower deviations.  10% deviations in Anchorage meet federal standards, but burden shifted to board that lower deviations impracticable. If districts can be created with our technology.  Boroughs and cities are defined as SEI, then Board is compelled to lower the deviations.  As you heard from FB.  

All FB and Matsu districts and 16 Anchorage districts are all .14???   And Kenai and SE also .

Focus on deviation emerges from Hickel and 1998 - AK constitution requires relatively SEI - means we compare to proposed districts to previous districts and alternative districts.  

Board reduces FB representation and gives extra FB to other district.  

Hickel - excess pop shouldn’t be given to other districts.  It may be necessary to divide a borough, however where possible all the excess population should go to one district.  You want to give representation to those who deserve it.  Board maps don’t that   Proportional representation.  

Board’s counsel has interpreted this differently.  Kenai Peninsula Borough ….   Recognizes that it shouldn’t divide the municipalities, was open for legitimate non-discriminate polices.  In that passage, court conclusion honed in on MOA and Matsu B’s together because fractional seats.  That’s important.  Underscores how interpreted by the courts and how interpreted now.  

Footnote seven:  2002 case Matsu 3.8 and Anch - .? Would support 20.4 seats.  But Board gets 17 and Matsu gets 4 for 21 seats.  Saying because way board did it, created an additional seat.  Today, the over pop 5.8 for Matsu and 15.8 of Anchorage would create total of 16 + 6.  Excess then 2001 combining excess would be excess of ??? Seats and would have to look north or south to do that excess.   West was not excluded as an option.  Can’t be absorbed - 2001 told board to take hard look at north.  Now, today Board trying to do that.  Kenai, Matsu, Anch. And FB need low deviations meeting standards.  AFFR maps do this.  Board is compelled to meet standards of 3rd party maps.

Cordova with SE?  Court acknowledged to Baranof Island would be compact, but further would not.  Including Cordova in D5 to reduces deviation.  That ruling allows Board to consider Cordova with SE to reduce deviation.  

ER and Anch - part of SEI of Anchorage, but compelling testimony should ER be separate.  2 districts from ER and Peters Creek.  Might be compelling to combine house districts in this area into single Senate seat.  Anchorage neighborhoods substantial dispareity.  SEI - multiple compact continuous districts.  In Groh we considered ….   

If low deviations can be met without sacrificing AK constitutional criteria, it’s important.  

Kenai-  less disruption to overall map, should be considered.  Multiple ways to do Anch and FB under 1.4% deviation  SE   - more mathematical precision in urban areas.  Limits opportunities for gerrymandering.  

AK court has ruled that Delta Junction (2001) has no constitutional right to be in a single house district, as long as each portion is integrated.    Board should take hard look - Saxman is part of borough, more connected to Ketchikan than with other Native districts in SE.  

How you arrived at higher deviations is what matters.  

Lengthy answer - hope it answers your questions.  

Nicole:  Thank you.  Board did ask for clarification and apology.  Clarification - Board chose John Binkley to chair meeting but we are all equals.  

Returning to Fairbanks:

Darla Hudson?  - short comment.  Don’t support v3.  No sense to put FB with NP.  Been here for ??30 yers. Listening to Mr. Squires - not grouping Delta with Koyakuk.  Natural borders.  ??

Eilson and Salcha do most shopping in FB, not in Delta.

Christina Buckington??  - After reviewing maps, Doyon coalition along with aspects v4 and Minority Senate map.  Do not support v3.  Donut shape Doyon keeps contiguous urban and rural areas together.  Also integrate tribal communities.  Minority map keeps communities together though I haven’t reviewed the map beyond FB area. 

Mindy O’Neall - Presiding officer of FNSB Assembly - voted - stayed away from comments about one map.  Biggest concern - general underpopulation of overpopulated districts.  FB has right to 5 plus districts.  Ask that extra population be put into a single district.  Due to urban nature it’s unnecessary to require to go through other districts to get to other side of districts.

Neighborhoods that share values and common - Excess pop into one district rather than spreading among five districts. 

Nicole:  clarify - testify on behalf of  NSB Assembly A:  Yes

Ellen Murray McKazy? - Live -   2007 retired from teaching at UAF.  AFFR map best for us.  Binkley map out of balance.  Would have me with NP.  Not my community.  Overpopulates us. Underprepresented and Matsu and Anch overrep.  Does not match east-west orientation of FB.

V4 and AFFR maps respect east west divide.  First choice is AFFR map.  Second v4.  Thank you for considering my opinion and for your work.  

Nicole:  switch to SE, Kodiak, Kenai

???   I wanted to voice opinion of Kachemak, Homer on Kenai.  I oppose v3  spell my name: 

No thanks Terry, we have info already.  Board proposed maps v3 and v4 strongly oppose.  Seperating Fitz Creek from Homer makes no sense.  

Don’t understand Doyon map very well - Sen Minority looks very logical to me as well as the AFFER Kenai Peninsula looks logical.  Alll the others including AFFR makes no sense.  Separating Frizt Creek is out of the question.

Nicole:  We did Homer area weeks ago and others made same point.  

SE callers:

Mr. Witte???  I can’t do better than Sen Begich, but would add minimizing deviation so opposed to v3 and v4 and support Doyon, AFFR, and Senate Minority because they have smaller deviations. Oppose AFFER because of Mendenhall - and v3 because of obvious intentional carving out rep Story.   

Nicole:  For the record, the Story was corrected early on the map.  Can I ask a question about the deviation.  United Ketchikan Wrangell borough - keep Prince of Wales?

I’m in Juneau and I’ll leave that to SE people.

Nicole - divide between Juneau and Valley?

Mr.  Valley homogenous in terms of economics  AFFR and Sen Democrats have minor differences but keep valley as one district.  

Jaeleen Kookesh - Sealaska Corp - thank Board for their service.  Appreciate opportunity to comment.  Sealaska proud to work with Coalition with Doyon- urge to consider this map.  Specifically to issues of importance.  Borders of house districts inSE.  Rural Alaskan communities and support of Doyon around FB and NSB.

SE:  Compact, contiguous and SEI population 3.89 districts - two senate seats and four districts.  Preferred SE Alaska Island district.  Angoon, Kake, Sitka.  Key feature of SE is islands.  With exception of Admiralty Island in north.  Some options for Juneau.  [Can’t keep up with details]  Many rural communities with areas that do not share concerns and culture.  We support our coalition partners for rural communities

3.  Concerns about FB v3 map.  About 800 people more in each district.  Will submit written testimony.  Want to thank you.  History my late father lost his seat in rural Alaska. 

Nicole:  can PofWales Island be split?

Kookesh:  We didn’t look at breaking up communities.  Looking at PoW - at least the traditional Native communities stay together.  Don’t want to speak for the island.  

Nicole:  If you of PoW contacts, please have them contact us.

11:40

Jim Ayers- Thank you for service, maps and tables.  Worked in Juneau for most of 40 years - Douglas, Auk Bay.  Worked with some of you and respect you very much.  Our community is wonderful place to live, work, raise a family.  Community works well.  Talked to you a few weeks ago.  Community naturally meeting the fair, balanced, non-partisan way - Valley flow together.  Downtown flow together.  V3 and v4 bring divisiveness.  Board says they corrected concerns about line cutting out Story.  I heard that - if that correction you referred to mean you are no longer pursuing that?

Nicole:  yes it was corrected.  Unfortunate software glitch. No intention to pit current elected representatives.   Board has no knowledge where representative live.  No intention to pit incumbents against each other or protect them.

Ayers:  State suffers from continuing strife and divisiveness. Imperative you consider whether you actions increase that divisiveness in our state.  I worked with Bill Hudson.  He was elected in Juneau several times and he likely would be elected again.  If there is a reason or motivation of some to change the representatives we’ve elected, they should choose a candidate and not change the district to achieve your goals. Support Doyon, and ?? maps.  Urge you to do right thing for us.  And thank you again for your public servie.

Nicole:  Question from John Binkley

Binkley:  I have Borromeo’s comments - I believe the architect of that area in v3 and v4 have - there was an appendage and what you’re suggesting it was ??  [hard to understand I think he’s emphasizing it was accidental.]  We decided not to formally make those changes.  Just making maps - public hearing process  [can’t understand, bad connection]  

Ayers;  30 second Response?  Thank you so much Sen.  We’ve known each other a long time and great respect for you.  And firmly believe in your forthrightness and what you’ve said. I’ve looked at maps.  I don’t support v3 and v4.  I do support Doyon and irrespective of politics, I do believe you’ll look at the best aspects of the redistricting.  

John:  I’ll call back in and try to get better connection.

Nicole

Susan Warner in Gustavus.  Thank you for your work to fairly redistrict and for offering Doyon map that retains connection with Juneau and Haines.  Please consider D33 boundaries to have a say in our inside waters adjacent to our community.  

11:58am  Nicole:  that includes all the callers we have in queue.  

Juli Lucky:  We will be available until 4pm to call in.  

Calls will be prioritized by time for areas, but anyone can call. 

12:34   Caller from Juneau

?? Lyman - some maps left me horror struck.  Most favor Senate Minority map.  Don’t know how ? Harbor put together - or putting representatives together, clear gerrymandering.  My preference is Senate minority map. 

Nicole:  comments from Board.  Ms. Lyman, the board is committed to a fair map and no intentional gerrymandering.  

Times for certain regions:  SE currently, PWS and Kodiak, but no calls in line so anyone can call now.  

1pm Kenai Pen. Anchorage Matsu

2pm Northwest (I think that’s what she said)

3pm Statewide

12:43

Caller from Fairbanks

Leslie Peters - live just south of Chena Pump Road, since 1975.  Past redistricting.  This time since I’m retired I had time to look at maps carefully.  Don’t agree with v3 or v4.  I prefer plan forAFFR, less community division and less deviation.  Allows North Pole to have its own rep.  I’ve worked and taken class at University and don’t have that much in common with other places.  More in common with peoples over the ridge.  Mr. Binkley know that.  Putting districts in direct conflict.  Should look at AFFR maps.  Thank you for your efforts, has to be tough task.  

Binkley:  thank you Leslie for coming out and testifying and paying attention. It is hard, daunting putting all the pieces together statewide. To get the best possible map.  We share a district, we’re neighbors.  Do we keep the district as a whole or take the extra .2 population.  Which part of FB do we send to that extra district?  West side?  Eilson?  Or the North side?  Or keep it altogether even tho overpopulated.  

Leslie:  Thank you.  I looked at deviation numbers and I understand that.  Biggest reason tried to find those that have less deviation.  Thanks for listening.  

12:48  Andrea Dewees - calling from SE Lifelong Alaskan.  In support of map proposed by the Senate Minority, best for SE.  Appreciate your considering interests of voters not incumbents.  I like how Juneau is grouped.

12:52

Catherine Heinz?   Thanks for having this on a Saturday.  I live in Two Rivers, a pretty gerrymandered district and I hope this will change.  I think you know what I’m talking about.  I looked at proposed changes and want to throw my support to v4 or Doyon.  Want to see the communities united and not spread out - like Chena Hotsprings.  That’s all.  

Binkley:  Thanks for participating.  I appreciate what you’re saying over past cycles - your current rep is from Tok and that’s difficult for someone in NSFB is difficult. 

Catherine:  I realize that represent statewide issues as much as when my neighbors talk about what’s important to us and whether this person in Tok knows anything about our neighborhood, schools, etc.  A huge district that person has to carry and canvas.  Not useful.  

Binkley:  I appreciate that.  Question before us really is do we keep the whole Borough together in five overpopulated districts or do we break it apart and send a small portion to a rural district.  

12:59

1:05  Anchorage Chelsea ??  Support the AFFR map.  Only one that fairly represents the diverse communities of east Anchorage, Mountain View and downtown.  Not connected to ER.  Although the board may prefer one of their own maps, I’m hoping they consider AFFR.  I live in South Anchorage.  AFFR doesn’t pair hillside with East Anchorage. 

Nicole:  Any SEI criteria to consider?

Not at this time, but I’ll get back to you if they come up.  

1:33  Christopher Constant - speaking personally.  Not as chair of Assembly redistricting committee.  PreferAFFR map.  ER kept separate.  ER has own perspective.  Govt Hill connected with ER is several maps that are politically opposite with how we live and organize our lives.  ER prides itself on large maps, wells and sewer system.  In my neighborhood small lots, city utilities.  Listen to ER they have been clamoring for their own city.  They have unity of demographics and economics that is very different from our community.  So strongly urge you to use AFFR map.  

2pm - Alaska NW Districts now

John Sowell??? Juneau  Concern with redistricting maps.  Against each other.  Takeoverof the country.  Adding  districts to make up imbalance.  We’ll be in SC.  Hope we do.  I am aware the intention is to have story.  I think there is something untoward about redistricting.  Maintain our representation .  That’s about it.  Thanks.  Not much business this afternoon.  Do want to be more specific.  Can’t give.  Representation here in Juneau.  Thank you.

2:12 

Kotzebue - John Lincoln - President of NANA regional corporations.  15,000 shareholders in NW Alaska including Buckland And Deering.  Keeping our SE Integrated  together.  Clear evidence of 

Roads, ancient social ties and more.  All testifiers in Kotzebue want to keep Buckland And Deering together.  

3:09 - John Rasmon?  - FB  would like to keep Salcha, Wainright, and ??  together.

Nicole:  Thanks for your clear preference of v4.  

3:15 back  Anchorage

Diane Preston - After navigating your website you did a lot of work.  AFFR and AFFER maps hard to navigate.  AFFR map seems the best.  AFFER pairs me with Chena Hot springs road and separates me with my across the street neighbors.  Senate Minority also splits my neighborhood too.  V4 keeps me with my neighbors. AFFR looks the best for Fairbanks.  

3:29 Anchorage caller

Laura  ??  AFFR plan shows all neighborhoods equally represented no district varying more than 36 people.  Only one that fairly groups downtown, mt. View, Fairview.   Doesn’t group downtown with JBER.  Follows community council districts as much as possible.  Has Chugiak and ER form own Senate district.  Eagle Exit wants to separate so they should have their own Senator.  

3:47 pm caller from Fairbanks

Mary Elizabeth ??? - here over 30 years.  Important to all of us.  My issue concern with v3 not fair for the Borrough.  According to the Census, we should get 5.23 house seats.  Five seats for the borough and then one other seat with the excess population.  Should go to an adjoining district to meet one person one vote standard.  

Binkley:  What part should be put into an adjacent district?

Mary Elizabeth ??  - West side - they have their own style.  

Binkley - where do we put the extra 4000 people - go into a district with representative far away - people complained about being represented by someone from Tok.  

4pm

Nicole Borromeo, also online Bethany Marcum and Chair John Binkley have been online and we are signing off now.  Adjourned.