Day 6 AK Redistricting Trial: Putting The Puzzle Pieces Together

I've spent over a year now attending on line or in person almost all the Alaska Redistricting Board meetings.  An old overview of the Redistricting project and an index of all my posts is here and also at the AK Redistricting tap under the blog banner up top.  

Today we heard the end of the Valdez case and the beginning of the Calista case. 

• Stephen Colligan, Mat-Su's Redistricting Contractor again
• Sheri Pierce, the Valdez City Clerk on the stand again
• Kimball Brace, the Valdez Redistricting Expert again
• Andrew Guy, President and CEO of Calista, Calista Witness

The first three have all been on the stand before.  This was Guy's first appearance as we move into the Calista part of the trial.  But I'm going to hold off on that until I catch up  with other things.  This post is intended to try to make sense, from a macro view, of what's going on.

The Puzzle Pieces - D36, D29, Mat-Su and Fairbanks pieces

[There are three other areas of complaint (Eagle River senate pairings, Skagway, and Calista villages), but they don't seem to spill over into other areas so much.  So I'm not focusing on them right now.  I'd also note, if there is significant partisan consequences to this fight, I haven't figured that out yet.]

The trial is bringing out some of the things that weren't so obvious in the mapping process we saw.  I'm still trying to make sense of what was going on behind the scenes.  It's sort of like putting a jigsaw puzzle together with two exceptions:

1. All the pieces have to be within 3 or 4% of 18,335 people
2. The images on the pieces aren't that obvious 

Those images on the pieces are only slowly becoming visible - sort of like rubbing a pencil on a paper to get the image of a coin below.  They're showing up as the socio-economic ties that exist among the people in the districts, or at least that mappers claim exist.  

So let me tell you what's becoming clear.  There are two districts (D29 and D39) and two clusters of districts (Mat-Su and Fairbanks) whose population needs and  socio-economic integration claims conflict and are competing for the same territory.  The losers in this competition - Mat-Su and Valdez - have challenged the plan.  

Piece 1:  District 36 - Doyon Trying to Get Doyon and Ahtna Villages All Into One District 

The Doyon Coalition has been part of the redistricting process from early on.  They had a team that was preparing maps of the state well before the Board got the final census numbers in August and they submitted one of the Third Party maps that were adopted by the Board and taken around the state for comments.  

But what was their goal?  Through the testimony it's now clear that the goal was to get all their shareholders - Doyon and Ahtna - into one district.  If I understand this right, these are basically Athabascan villages.  

D36 & surround districts 29, FB, and Mat-Su

This has come out clearly in the testimony.  

D36 is, according to the redistricting expert for Valdez, the largest election district in the United States.  If it were a state it would be about the 8th largest in the US by size.  It goes from Holy Cross on the lower Yukon up and around Fairbanks and then back down the other side with a long straight edge against the Canadian border including Glennallen and the Copper River and the Richardson Highway communities but not Valdez.  And at the end they were able to carve out an arm reaching along the Denali Highway to reach Cantwell which as Michelle Anderson, President of Ahtna, explained has "about 30 shareholders with a Cantwell address." (It was later mentioned that there were more Athabascans in Cantwell, just not Ahtna shareholders.) 

D36 contains 4000 'excess' Fairbanks people, so it's one of the Fairbanks districts in a sense.  The others are circled in white. The Magenta outlines the Mat-Su districts and the Denali Borough, except the Cantwell cutout.  I'd note there were questions like how are Holy Cross and Glennallen socio-economically integrated?  I did notice doing this that Ahtna's headquarters are in Glennallen.  Another fact about this district: despite getting all the Doyon and Ahtna villages in, the population is 30% Native and 70% non-Native.  

Note:  You can see all the districts I write about in this post on the D36 map.

Piece 2:  District 36 - Valdez Cut Off From Traditional District With Richardson Highway Communities Partners Up Toward Fairbanks and/or PWS and now Paired With Palmer-Matsu Suburbs Instead 

This is the piece of the puzzle that doesn't fit according to the Valdez court challenge.  They argue they were the last piece for the Redistricting Board  and forced to fit in ways they argued against but lost.  75% of the population is in the Mat-Su, particularly the suburbs of Wasilla and Palmer.  Valdez has about 4000 people.  A key number in this story.  

In previous decades the Valdez district  had various parts of the Richardson Highway corridor and sometimes were joined with Prince William Sound. But in this map all the Richardson Highway communities were cut out and they have to drive over 100 miles outside the district to get to Palmer and Wasilla on the other side.  I'd note D29-0 (Valdez) is paired with 30-O to form a Senate seat.  30-O is the green district on the left and goes all the way to the edge of Fairbanks.  So after you drive to Palmer, it's another 300 mies or so to the other end of their Senate district.  

Valdez has made the most persuasive (to me) argument about why they are economically (if not socially) integrated with the pipeline corridor and that they are actually in competition with Palmer.  They argue that the port at Point McKenzie is competitive with the Valdez port for state money.  And they have competing natural gas pipeline proposals.  Thus having a Palmer/Wasilla based representative means their interests won't be represented as strongly (if at all) by their rep in Juneau.

Piece 3:  Mat-Su Cluster: Mat-Su Wanted To Keep All Their Districts In Mat-Su and Denali Boroughs - Did Not Want to be paired with Valdez

Mat-Su Borough had enough population for 5.84 districts.  They testified they'd been planning for this for five years.  They knew how to do this.  They said they gave their map to the Board, but it was ignored.   They wanted to be paired with Denali Borough to the north and along the Glenn Highway out to about Glennallen and surrounding communities.  (Can you see where this is going?)

Cantwell was eventually cut out of Denali Borough and  put into D36, though that's only about 200 people.  On the other end, Glennallen and the nearby Ahtna villages along the Glenn Highway also went to D36.  And so Mat-Su got paired with Valdez to fill out their numbers.  

Note:  You can see all of the Mat-Su/Denali/Valdez districts on the D36 map at the top of this post.

Piece 4 - Fairbanks Cluster - Board Chair John Binkley, of Fairbanks, Wanted To Keep All Five Fairbanks Districts Inside The Borough Boundaries Even Though They Were Overpopulated By 4000 People

While Mat-Su gained population, Fairbanks lost population.  They were down to enough population for 5.2 districts.  They had about 4000 people more than five districts.  Remember that number?  According to a few people who testified, Board Chair John Binkley, who was born and raised in Fairbanks and lives there now (though he spent some time in St Mary's and Bethel), didn't want to break the Fairbanks Borough boundaries.  Which meant that the five Fairbanks districts in his original map, were overpopulated.  They all were well over the 18,335 ideal size for a district, but not unconstitutionally over.  But probably too much for an urban area.  That means they would be underrepresented in the House because districts with more people have one rep and other districts with fewer people also have one rep.  Board member Nicole Borromeo and others reported Binkley was firm about this. 

Binkley testified he wanted to keep the Borough intact because, "Would I like to be moved out into a large rural district?"  

So that was the choice he saw.  People in Fairbanks would be taken out of the Borough and put into a large rural district -  D36.  But there were other options.  There had been districts in the past that paired Fairbanks to Valdez along the pipeline corridor. I don't know how much Binkley knew about Doyon's plan to have a district with all the Ahtna and Doyon villages. There was even a text presented in court from a Doyon team member to Board member Borromeo that seemed to show that they'd orchestrated a resolution from the Fairbanks Borough Assembly asking that the 4000 excess votes be moved to another district.  The question was from where in Fairbanks do you take the people?   

So when Fairbanks was broken on the west - causing an uproar from the people of Goldstream who were being moved into D36 - 4000 people went to D36.   Valdez' chances of their own 4000 people being put into  either D36 or a pipeline corridor district with the excess Fairbanks population were dashed.  

Conclusions

From what I can tell, and I'm far from certain, these are some of the consequences.

Athabascan Identity and Pride Was A Winner

Doyon and Ahtna won in the sense that their goal was to get all their villages into one district.  I think they've done that.  The main benefit that I see is symbolic and maybe even spiritual:  their territory, so to speak, is represented in a political subdivision of the State of Alaska. The political map matches the ANCSA (Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act) map.  As Ahtna president Michelle Anderson testified about the people of Cantwell, they don't feel excluded from their people any more.  While white urban folks might see a protuberance jutting into the Denali borough, that clashes with their ideal of district compactness, Athabascans see their brothers and sisters back as part of the family.  It's an important connection that is invisible to most people living in Anchorage.  

One thing that became clear to me in this trial is that most non-Native (particularly urban) Alaskans don't have a clue about rural Native Alaska. Even Judge Matthews had to be corrected on his pronunciation of the the word Calista (A ch sound, not a k sound.)  When most non-Native urban folk look at rural Alaska, we don't see all the differences between languages, dialects, family ties, types of traditional foods, and a myriad more factors that are important to the people urban non-Natives  lump together as "Alaska Natives."   These are similar to the religious, national origin, economic, racial, educational, political differences urban folk see among ourselves. Sometimes these are merely interesting, at other times they are significant.  

In this round of redistricting Alaska's Native peoples have had more input and impact on how Alaska's political maps treat the socio-economic factors that are important to Alaska Native peoples than ever before.  

A couple of notes here:

1.   While I'm pretty sure that Doyon is mainly Athabascan, I believe there was mention in the testimony that there are people from other groups mixed into the Doyon area.  Looking at Doyon's website (which everyone should do), I don't see claims that all their members are Athabascans, though it does include Athabascan history.  Ahtna's website explicitly tells us:

"Ahtna, Inc. shareholders are mainly comprised of the Ahtna Athabascan people of the Copper River and Cantwell regions of Southcentral Alaska."

2.  My spellcheck thinks Athabascan should be spelled Athabaskan.  I was confused when it changed my spelling, but I let it be.  But now as I look at the Doyon and Ahtna websites, I'm adding Athabascan with a c to my laptop's dictionary and taking out Athabaskan with a k.

Valdez Was The Biggest Loser

In yesterday's trial session, Intervenor attorney, Tanner Amdur-Clark, questioned Valdez City Clerk Sheri Pierce.  He challenged her assertion that the Board didn't really consider Valdez until the very end when everything else was locked in and there weren't any options left that Valdez wanted.  

He asked her if she had been to the September 17 session or the September 20 session.  Like any normal person, she couldn't tell for sure about random dates like that, but didn't recall hearing discussion of Valdez.  

But fortunately I have all my posts about the 2020 Redistricting Cycle indexed on a tab on the top of this blog.  So I went there, scrolled down, and checked those dates, pulled up the posts, and searched for 'Valdez.'   September 17 was when the third parties presented their maps and were questioned by the Board.  I don't have any details, just links to the proposals.  Mostly the third parties made presentations.  On September 20 the board questioned the third parties about their maps.  Amdur-Clark asserted that Nicole Borromeo talked about Valdez that day.  She did.  But she was merely questioning Tom Begich about the Senate Minority's decision to put Valdez in with Cordova and Kodiak. (The Board's final map puts Cordova with Kodiak, but leaves out Valdez which is also on Prince Willam Sound..)  When the Board spoke about Valdez, it was in the context of other districts.  The focus wasn't on Valdez until the end.  

Valdez made the best case I've heard at the trial on socio-economic integration (one of the Constitutional requirements for districts and a topic covered exhaustingly in this trial).  While others talk about why people are similar or different, Valdez is the only one I've heard that argues why it matters for their district.  The argue there are key economic issues - competing ports and competing natural gas pipeline proposals - where Valdez and Mat-Su are in competition.  A legislator representing both communities will be hard pressed to represent the interests of both communities fairly.   75% of the population of D29 live in the suburbs of Palmer and Mat-Su.  Valdez knows that means 

• it will be almost impossible for someone from Valdez to become the representative and 
• on the key issues of major infrastructure funding, the D29 rep will lean for the Mat-Su proposals.  

In a pipeline corridor district that Valdez wanted to be part of, the whole district would have the same interests as Valdez in these major projects.  (Valdez lists a lot of other issues they have in common with the pipeline corridor folks.)

Mat-Su Didn't Get What They Wanted, But Didn't Lose That Much Either  

I don't really see any serious legislative problem for Mat-Su.  It's true they are over populated by an average of 2-3% overall, but that's well within the limits.  There are some issues about parts of districts that, say Palmer thinks belong to them (the hospital) but are in another district.  However, they didn't make clear how that would hurt them in the legislature.  

They don't want to be paired with Valdez, and it certainly makes it trickier for a representative to have such spread out population centers, but Mat-Su has 75% of the voters in that district and should get what they want from their legislator.  

Some of the complaint I heard from Steve Colligan, their mapping expert, was frustration that although Mat-Su had begun planning for this five years, had gotten professional mappers and software, had prepared districts that met with their local needs (the hospital was together with Palmer, roads were divided in ways that made sense to the population living on them, etc.) the Board seemed to ignore all  that and did what it wanted, creating less perfect districts.  There's may well be more that I missed or wasn't stated.  

The pairings may also impact who runs for office.  Mat-Su has some of the most conservative legislators in the state, including lifetime Oath Keepers Member, David Eastman, whom the Alaska legislature is investigating for belonging to a group that advocates overthrowing the government  

Where the lines are drawn affects which potential candidates are in which districts, but I'm not up on those details and couldn't tell you.   

Fairbanks 

I know the least about the implications of Fairbanks.  The fact that the population that went to D36 came from the west Fairbanks community of Goldstream seems like a political decision.  Goldstream itself has almost 3600 people (notice how close that is to the 4000 number that keeps popping up) and it's a left leaning community.  In the testimony they said they were a short drive from the University, and many people work there.  Dermot Cole, a journalist from Fairbanks, says that cutting off the Goldstream community takes a strongly liberal leaning community out of the Fairbanks voting mix and puts them into the rural district that Doyon created, diluting liberal voting in Fairbanks.  The Division of Elections shows that the two Goldstream precincts voted for Biden 54%- 46% for Trump.

OK, that's enough for people to chew on.  It's just my take and I may have missed things.  Doing all this online and not in person means I can't easily chat with people mingling around the courtroom to get other insights.  But it also lowers everyone's risk of COVID.  But since we're near Seattle now being grandparents, the electronic connection is the only way I can keep track.  

Redistricting: Will The Supreme Court Reject Alaska's Proclamation Because Of Partisan Gerrymandering?

[NOTE:  I'm going to discuss the law in parts of this post.  I'm not an attorney. But I do know that the law is more complicated than it seems.  That you can find a statute in one place, but that there may be exceptions to that law written in other laws.  So, take what I say about the law skeptically.  Take everything I say skeptically.]

IS GERRYMANDERING A VALID LEGAL REASON TO REJECT THE PROCLAMATION PLAN?

When I blogged the 2010 Redistricting Board (you can see the index of that here), the Board's attorney, Michael White, once told me that no redistricting plan had ever been rejected because of partisan gerrymandering.  I'm not sure if he meant just in Alaska or nationally, but I think at the time both were true.  Since that time the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned that state's map in 2018 based on political gerrymandering.

"The Court also adopted and announced a new legal standard for determining whether a map is unconstitutional. According to the opinion, “neutral criteria of compactness, contiguity, minimization of the division of political subdivisions, and maintenance of population equality among congressional districts…provide a ‘floor’ of protection for an individual against the dilution of his or her vote in the creation of such districts.” The Court went on to state that when 'these neutral criteria have been subordinated, in whole or in part, to considerations such as gerrymandering for unfair partisan political advantage, a congressional redistricting plan violates [the Free and Equal Elections Clause] of the Pennsylvania Constitution.'”

I've noted on this blog a couple of times how it was clear that some of those testifying were simply using criteria like compactness and deviation as a cover for what appeared to be more political mapping.  This became clear because people used one criterion in one situation then ignored it to emphasize a different criterion in another situation.  Marcum, for example, early on strongly advocated the idea that every district in Anchorage had been ruled Socio-Economically Integrated (SEI) with every other district in Anchorage.  But when she proposed a map that joined Eagle River with Muldoon and JBER, she argued heavily for the SEI of all the military and retired military in those three places.  

All this is preface to this post.  Those people thinking that the obvious political gerrymandering of Eagle River and Goldstream should be a slam dunk in the Alaska Supreme Court. . . well, no.  

I can't find any language in the Alaska Constitution that bars political gerrymandering.  The US Supreme Court will consider racial gerrymandering, but has rejected political gerrymandering.

"Held: Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. Pp. 6–34."

But in this post I'm going to offer a possible way to get politics considered in Alaska's redistricting appeals.

You can read the Alaska Constitution on redistricting here.  It's not long.  But there aren't very many rules about what the Board CANNOT do.  Mostly how they make the House districts and that's basically focused on balancing the ideas of compactness, contiguity, and socio-economic integration.   Federal requirements add being as close to one-person-one vote as possible.  The federal Voting Rights Act has other standards, mostly related to not discriminating based on race.  But the US Supreme Court has invalidated one of the key aspects of the VRA and there's no telling what they will still recognize as valid.  That's why the Democrats' new Voting Rights bills are so important.  

POLITICS IS MENTIONED ONCE WITH REGARD TO REDISTRICTING IN THE ALASKA CONSTITUTION

The closest the Alaska Constitution comes to banning partisanship is this sentence: 

 "Appointments shall be made without regard to political affiliation."

What exactly does that mean?  If you make a decision 'without regard' then you could choose a Democrat or a Republican or an Independent or a Green, whatever, so long as . . . what?  You weren't aware of that affiliation?  You didn't take that into consideration?  

HOW CAN WE KNOW IF DUNLEAVY CONSIDERED POLITICAL AFFILIATION?

How do you even know if someone made their appointment with or without regard to political affiliation?  To my knowledge, no one has ever raised this question in a challenge to a redistricting plan.  Actually, the original Alaska Constitution gave redistricting to the governor to take care of.  A 1998 Constitutional Amendment created our current system (pp. 114-115) From what I can tell, in 2000 Gov. Knowles appointed Democrats.  Gov. Parnell chose Republicans in 2010 and Gov. Dunleavy chose Republicans in 2020. The only appointments that have been seemingly free of political consideration have been the made by the Alaska Supreme Court Chief Justices.  But I say 'seemingly" because as judges, they don't officially affiliate with a political party.  

The Speaker of the House (Rep. Bryce Edgemon)  who appointed Nicole Borromeo was officially an Independent.  I don't know Borromeo's affiliation and it hasn't been clear from her actions on the Board.  (Republicans might say that her opposition to the Republican proposals at the end show she was a Democrat, but simply opposing Republicans doesn't make you a Democrat.  Especially when GOP actions appear to be openly pushing political advantage.)  Melanie Bahnke was appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Joel Bolger.  (He retired in June 2021, so if this Proclamation is challenged, he won't be sitting in judgment.)  Again, I don't know Bahnke's political affiliation.  It's not mentioned in any of the descriptions or bios I could find online about her or Borromeo.  If they are registered to a Party, it's not that important an aspect of who they are.

On the other hand, Governor Dunleavy appears much more likely to have considered political affiliation: 

1.  Budd Simpson is the husband of Paulette Simpson who has been active in the Juneau and Alaska GOP as an officer, was  State Convention Organizing Chair in 2020.  In 2013 she was described as a powerful party activist who was 'fired' from her position along other Alaska Republican heavyweights like Glenn Clary during an internal party takeover that was short lived.  In 2016 she was named State Republican Party State Finance Chair by Tuckerman Babcock when Randy Ruedrich stepped down as State Party chair.  Paulette doesn't show up on the current Alaska GOP list of officers, but she donates significantly to the party still.  But, you say, Dunleavy appointed Budd, not Paulette.  Good point.  There are married couples with spouses of different parties. But it's not that common.  And Budd Simpson did split another $500 in contributions to Dan Sullivan and Don Young in 2020.  So he does have some skin in the GOP game too.  

2.  Bethany Marcum is the Executive Director of the Koch backed Libertarian oriented Alaska Policy Forum. The Forum's mission and goals are to cut back government as much as they can.  Exactly what Governor Dunleavy wants to do.  The best way to do that in Alaska would be to elect the most conservative Republicans they can find.  What better position for Marcum than to be on the Redistricting Board where she can influence who gets elected to the Alaska legislature for the next ten years?  Did I mention she was on Dunleavy's staff when he was a Senator?  Here's a bio of Marcum attached to an essay at Constituting America:

"Bethany Marcum has made Alaska her home for over 20 years. She currently works as Executive Director of the Alaska Policy Forum. She also serves as a citizen airman in the Alaska Air National Guard. She worked as legislative staff for State Senator Mike Dunleavy from 2013 to 2017. She is currently the Alaska Republican Party Region V Representative and has held a variety of other positions at the district and state level. She is a former president, long-time board member and life member of the Alaska Chapter of Safari Club International and is a life member of the NRA. She serves in her church with the children’s ministry and is a volunteer “big” with Big Brother Big Sisters of Alaska. She and her husband Conley enjoy hunting together." [this was undated]

3.  The third Republican on the Board is former state senator and representative John Binkley.  He was appointed by then Senate President Cathy Giessel.  I had thought he'd be more independent because Giessel had become a moderate Republican (or rather she stayed the same but by comparison to the governor seemed moderate).  Her district had been stretched from the Anchorage hillside to Nikiski in the last redistricting.  She hadn't appreciated that.  National Republicans helped Dunleavy purge the state House of moderate Republicans in 2020 and also had her term shortened to two years twice.  In the last election she lost her primary (as did John Coghill) to further-to-the-right Republicans.  So one could hold out some hope that Binkley wasn't so tightly bound to Dunleavy.  But then Binkley chaired the campaign against Dunleavy's recall.  So there was also loyalty to Dunleavy on his part.   

Both Dunleavy selections would appear to have been made with consideration of 'political affiliation.'  These weren't just folks who happened to be registered as Republicans. In the case of Marcum it's someone he's worked closely with, whose day job is to reach goals (no taxes, shrinking government) that would be easier to reach if conservative Republicans control the legislature.  

Budd Simpson isn't quite as ideologically ideal, but he does have close ties to the Republican Party.  He's more than just a random Republican registered voter. One could counter that Dunleavy only knows Republicans, or only trusts them, but that's a failing on his part.  The governor should serve all Alaskans, not just the Republicans. He should have good relationships with honest, well-intended people who aren't Republicans.  I'm sure folks in Juneau can fill in more on Simpson's background.  

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

But how does one prove intent? We have to gather circumstantial evidence.  Again, I'm not a lawyer, so I have to look up a lot of definitions of circumstantial evidence to make sure that they all pretty much say the same thing. This comes from a New York Courts website.  What I first got was a document about circumstantial evidence, but there was no identification on the document itself.  By playing with the url, I was able to find this page which links to the document.  It's sort of a catalogue of jury instructions that New York judges can use.  You can scroll down to circumstantial evidence, or just go directly to it here.

"Circumstantial evidence is direct evidence of a fact from which a person may reasonably infer the existence or non- existence of another fact. A person's guilt of a charged crime may be proven by circumstantial evidence, if that evidence, while not directly establishing guilt, gives rise to an inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.3"

There's a lot more at the link, but the take-away is that circumstantial can be used to show what wasn't, or cannot be, observed directly.  Like Dunleavy's intent when selection appointees to the Alaska Redistricting Board.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF PARTISANSHIP

1.   DUNLEAVY STRONGLY FAVORS HIS APPOINTMENTS TO BE LOYAL TO HIM AND TO HIS GOALS

When Dunleavy first came to office his chief of staff, Tuckerman Babcock, required 1,200 non-politically appointed state employees to sign loyalty oaths or be fired.   That was in 2019. In 2021 a Federal judge rule that illegal and that the governor could be personally liable.  

"The decision by Senior U.S. District Judge John Sedwick Friday is a major defeat for Dunleavy and Babcock, who could be personally liable for their actions.  The judge refused to go along with the claim of “qualified immunity” because Dunleavy and Babcock should have known they were violating the rights of employees."

Why is this relevant here?

1. The original loyalty oath business suggests that Dunleavy does not like having employees who he doesn't know are loyal to him and his program.  While that's true of most elected officials, this is extreme.  Most assume that professionals will do their job professionally.
2. The governor was willing to try to do something that the judge said he should have known was wrong. 
3. If Dunleavy was willing to try to impose a loyalty test on state employees despite that being clearly illegal, it's reasonable to believe that choosing highly partisan Board members, despite the constitution prohibiting selection based on political affiliation, would come naturally to the governor.
4. Tuckerman Babcock is extremely partisan and was the chair of the Alaska Republican Party from 2016-2018.  He resigned as chair the same day Governor elect  Dunleavy appointed him chief of staff/.  He's also been involved heavily in redistricting.  He even wrote a book chapter on redistricting.
5. It's not a stretch to assume that Dunleavy chose Marcum and Simpson precisely because they were Republican loyalists who would carry out his political wishes.  

OK, up to this point we have 

1. the highly partisan nature of the Marcum pick, and
2. the less glaring but still partisan choice of Simpson, and
3. Dunleavy's attempt to get state employees to sign loyalty oaths, which supports the idea that he's hardly likely to select someone who won't do his bidding.  

2.  BUT WHAT DID DUNLEAVY WANT?  A SUPPORTIVE LEGISLATURE

Although Republicans make up a majority of both the state House and Senate, the Republicans are not all united with Dunleavy.  Some House Republicans have joined a coalition with Democrats.  The Senate Republicans are divided as well and block or alter Dunleavy's proposals.  

What the Governor wants is a Republican majority in both houses that is loyal to the Governor and passes his budget, PFD proposals, and other initiatives.  Not only does he want to weaken Democrats, but he's frustrated with Republicans who don't support him on everything.  The state GOP successfully eliminated two long time Senators,  conservative Republican senators with even more conservative, Dunleavy-loyal Republicans in the primary.  They did the same to less than 'loyal' Republicans in the House..

What better opportunity to advance loyal Republicans and weaken Democrats than to have loyal supporters work toward that end on the Redistricting Board?  

WHAT DID HIS APPOINTEES DELIVER FOR DUNLEAVY? 

A.  In the first round of map making, Bethany Marcum made Anchorage maps that paired a number of Democrats into the same house districts.  Meanwhile Simpson managed a protrusion that slipped one Democratic representative into the district of another.  While he has protested it was accidental, no one has explained how he did it accidentally except to talk about the oddities of Census blocks in general.  And it managed to get repaired without doing harm to the Census blocks. It appeared that they got assistance in developing those maps, because the Boards' official software purposely did not contain any political data.  After the strong protests against the political nature of the Board's v1 map, I suggested in public testimony, that Board members should publicly report any contact outside the Board - besides public testimony - they had to help with mapping.  Later, both Borromeo and Bahnke stated publicly at Board meetings that they'd had no outside contact.  None of the GOP-appointed Board members made such statements.  

B.  After the public hearing tour, Bethany Marcum made a map of Anchorage that had house districts that included Muldoon and Eagle River and other pairings that the public testimony had strongly opposed.  Districts that would add strong Republican populations that would dilute the Democratic East Anchorage voters.  Even Budd Simpson voted no, saying the public testimony had swayed him.  The Eagle River House districts stayed in Eagle River by a 3-2 vote.  Only Binkley joined Marcum to support her map.

C.  Senate Pairings.  At what seemed like the very last minute - Board member Bahnke said she was taken by complete surprise - Board member Bethany Marcum presented a map of Anchorage senate pairings which linked the two Eagle River house districts, NOT with each other, but one with South Muldoon (about 10 miles away by road through one or two other districts) and the other with JBER, Government Hill, and parts of downtown Anchorage.  This was after all the testimony opposed to such linkings.  An alternative map was rejected 3-2.  Marcum's map was passed 3-2.  There was minimal debate.  

Although Simpson had opposed those connections in the House districts, he voted, with little or no comment in favor of Marcum's map.  Others have spoken at length about how this gives ER two Senate seats and is an example of cracking much more diverse districts and favors GOP candidates. 

If the GOP-appointed members had had a good non-partisan, non- gerrymandering reason for these Senate pairings, they didn't tell anyone.  They did emphasize how important military socio-economic links tied these areas together.  I've pointed out in this Nov 9 post that the military are among the most favored subgroups already in Alaska, with 20% of the Senators fitting in that category.  I'd also note that Marcum had previously argued strongly that social-economic integration was irrelevant when pairing other Anchorage House seats because the Courts had ruled every neighborhood in Anchorage was socially-economically integrated with every other district.  Now SEI was her only argument for the Eagle River pairings.  

After this was over I asked Budd Simpson, 

Me:  "Since you cited the public testimony for keeping Eagle River separate from Muldoon when you voted for the House districts (he voted, to everyone's surprise, against the Marcum plan), what changed that caused you to vote for pairing ER with Muldoon in the Senate pairings?"

Simpson:  "I don't talk to bloggers."

Me:  explaining more of my background and redistricting blogging history and asking again

Simpson:  "You can ask all you want, I'm not going to answer."

This only makes sense if he doesn't have a good reason.  He's an attorney.  He should be good at articulating his argument.  My guess is that after his unexpected vote on the Anchorage House map, he'd been taken to the woodshed by his wife, the governor, and other GOP officials and was reminded why he was appointed to this Board.  Sure, this is speculation, but I haven't heard any better explanations.  I would say that his silence forces others to fill in the void.  

D.  Allocation of Senate Terms To Alternating Cycles

I wrote about this in detail here.  Basically, after a fairly brief discussion, and after rejecting the option of flipping a coin to decide whether to start with seat A or seat T, the GOP-appointed Board members all voted for Bethany Marcum's Allocation plan with the other two Board members opposed.  Why wouldn't the three flip a coin, as Nicole Borromeo proposed,  "to avoid any appearance of partisanship?"  Because, the outcome was punishment for moderate Republican Senators and reward for those loyal to Governor Dunleavy. Something they didn't want to say out loud.  The chart is pretty clear in the outcome.  In the follow-up post, I showed that the motion itself was hardly a plan.  Marcum once stated her 'motion' as   "I propose we go in simple numerical logical order, starting with A 2 years 4 years 2 years cycle like that.??  Is that how we say it Peter? 2 years 4 years 2022, 2024?"  The second time it wasn't even a complete sentence: "2022, 2024, 2026 something like that" in violation of all standards for making official motions. This wasn't a high school government motion on the theme of the prom.  This would affect the Alaska legislature for ten years.   It would appear Board members didn't even know the details of what the motion would do.  But that is grounds for a different challenge to the motion.  The point here, is that Dunleavy's appointees carried out exactly what he wanted them to do:  Support those Republicans in the Senate who stayed loyal to him and punish those who didn't go along with all his proposals.  

I mention it here only because it strongly supports the idea that the plan came from others, and because it so carefully and so successfully targeted seats for punishment or no punishment, that someone like Randy Ruedrich or Tuckerman Babcock with years of redistricting experience likely would have been involved.  And that these are examples that taken all together show a pattern of partisan appointees doing what they were appointed to do.  

SUMMARY

1.  The Alaska Constitution says that people should be appointed to the Alaska Redistricting Board "without regard to political affiliation."

2.  Governor Dunleavy's appointees were not simply Republicans.  One had been active as an officer in the party and was the executive director of an organization whose job is to pass anti-government legislation.  The other is the husband of a woman very active in the Alaska Republican Party, and, Budd Simpson himself  had contributed $500 to GOP candidates in 2020, the year he was appointed.    His wife contributed over $1000 to the Party that year.  This is the Party that has already supported the far-right, Trump supported US Senate candidate over our sitting Republican US Senator Lisa Murkowski. 

3.  It is hard to imagine Gov. Dunleavy would have made his appointments "without regard to political affiliation."  Why?  Because this is the governor who on taking office sent letters to 1200 career employees requiring them to sign letters pledging loyalty to his policies or be fired.  Since then the judge has found this not only illegal, but so illegal that he may hold the governor personally liable.  That's not the kind of man who would choose people for a Board that will help determine the political makeup of the Alaska legislature for the next ten years, without considering their political affiliation and loyalty to his policies.  

4.  In various actions - early Anchorage maps, later Anchorage maps, Senate pairings, and Allocation of Senate Terms - his two appointees made decisions that harmed Democrats and 'disloyal Republicans' and favored Republicans who had been loyal to the Governor. Only once did Simpson vote contrary to Dunleavy's wishes, but he quickly toed the line after that.  

5.  Not one of these points by itself is overwhelming proof, but taken altogether, they show a pattern of partisanship starting with the appointments and ending with various actions aimed at weakening Democrats and moderate Republicans.  

CONCLUSIONS

Dunleavy appointed two Board members who delivered on his objectives - to make maps and allocate the Senate seats in a way that would favor candidates  more supportive of the governor's policies.  

From what I can tell, every governor, since the constitution was amended to create a Redistricting Board up to now, has appointed people of their own party.

The requirement to NOT consider political affiliation when choosing is clearly not being followed.  I suspect the Supreme Court has not ruled on this because no one has specifically brought it up in suits against redistricting plans.  However, given the clear line from Dunleavy's appointments to specific partisan outcomes, it's apparent to me that his appointments not only considered political affiliation, but also commitment to fulfill the Governor's interests in redistricting.  

If any of the possible lawsuits against this year's Proclamation raises this point and the evidence I've presented here and if the Court fails to act on it, then the Court would be effectively saying that the clause that prohibits considering political affiliation when selecting Board members is meaningless or unenforceable.  

What might the court do?  I suspect that depends on what the attorneys ask of the court.  Here are two options.

1. At one extreme, the Court could invalidate Dunleavy's choices and order him to choose two new members.  This would not only be very disruptive to the redistricting process, but the Governor could simply pick two more Republicans and then what?
2. The Court could instead invalidate the most partisan results of the Proclamation Plan and order the Board to make appropriate changes.  This would include at least the Eagle River Senate pairings and the Allocation of Senate Terms.  This would neutralize the partisanship of the original appointments without dismantling all the other work that was done by the Board.  And it would send a message to future governors (and Senate Presidents, Speakers of the House, and even Supreme Court Chief Justices) that if they make partisan choices that result in partisan gerrymandering of the new redistricting plan, those parts of the plan will be invalidated.  It might not change what governors do, but it would set a precedent that the Courts will reverse partisan plans.  And they can do this because the Constitution requires that Board picks be made without regard to political affiliation.  Which implies the Board is not supposed to make politically partisan plans.  

FINAL NOTE:  I've focused on the Eagle River Senate pairings because they seem the most egregious acts of partisanship and because I know the Anchorage area much better than I know the rest of the state.  I know that the residents of Goldstream strongly protested first their being carved out of Fairbanks and into a much larger district, and then their Senate pairing.  But most of that seems to have been done by John Binkley, not a Dunleavy appointee.  Other areas of the state may also have grievances that I'm less sensitive to.  I apologize.  Just focusing on the Anchorage area was a huge task.  Others can make their own cases better than I can.  

Pot, Deflating Bubbles, And Other Word Battles

Words play a huge role in what we know.  Even our own observations are affected by the language we speak and think in.  We wrap our experiences in the words we have available.  Very few of us break those constraints and create new words if the ones we have are inadequate.

Here are some examples word issues in today's newspaper:

1.  Stop using the word 'pot' - An ADN headline:

Marijuana industry gets blunt: Stop using the word ‘pot’

". . .But marijuana still carries a stigma that surfaces with the use of old slang like pot and weed. For many, the words evoke an image of lazy, not-so-bright people who puff their lives away.
The image deeply bothers the marijuana industry, which is telling the public — sometimes gently, sometimes curtly — that they should use the word cannabis. That's the scientific name for the plant from which marijuana is derived."

Here, it appears the cannabis industry is trying to change its (in business jargon) 'brand.'  'Brand' is a word I dislike.  "Branding" epitomizes the idea of substituting the image of something for the actual essence of it. Branders want people to think about their product a certain way so it sells better.  It's the image, not the product itself, that they are selling. 'Brand' is a way of 'branding' the word 'deception' and making it into something that's seen as good.

I don't think that the name for cannabis matters all that much - it's the intrinsic product that people are  interested in, no matter what you call it.  I suspect those holding negative images of 'pot' are dying out.  That view was part of the political ideology that didn't like rock music, hippies, and Vietnam war protestors



2.  Bubble Deflates - Another ADN headline that comes originally from the New York Times:

BITCOIN FALLS BELOW $10,000 AS VIRTUAL CURRENCY BUBBLE DEFLATES

Did you ever see a bubble deflate?  Balloons and tires can lose their air slowly (deflate), but bubbles burst.  Except, it seems, in economics.  But then economists often deductive,  starting with theory they tell us how the world works.  It's the theory, not the real world that matters.   In economics, for example, people only  make 'rational' decisions. And, bubbles deflate.  It took people like Vernon Smith to actually do experiments to burst some of this economic bubble nonsense.

This is just lazy thinking.  Mixed metaphors are a kind of lazy thinking.  "A carpenter was the low rung on a totem pole." comes from a long list of mixed metaphors.   But if you google 'deflated bubble' you'll find lots of serious economics examples of this term.

3.  Other Word Battles

George Lakoff tells us that framing the debate is the most critical thing in political discourse.  We've fought over words like "illegal alien" versus "undocumented worker"; 'baby killing' versus 'pro-choice.'  The list goes on and on.

The conservatives have made a science of this and do it masterfully.  The never say 'the Democratic Party."  They say 'the Democrat Party." It's like taking someone's name and changing it just a little bit to irritate them and control what they are called.  It's a form of bullying.   And their most successful reframing was the term  'political correctness.'  Even liberal have bought into this perversion.

I've written about the origins of the term 'political correctness' in the past.  I don't want to repeat all that.

I also posted about my view of the difference between conservative and liberal use of restricting words.  Conservatives try to restrict words as a way to win debates.  If you ban or demonize words needed by your opponent, it rigs the whole debate.   Their opponents aren't allowed to use key terms needed to make their case.   The NRA has bullied the Center For Disease Control to end research on gun deaths in the US.  Without data it's hard to make a rational argument.  And the Trump administration has banned terms like 'climate change' and 'fetus.'

Liberals try to ban words that insult or demean or even terrorize other human beings, generally people who are NOT white heterosexual males.  There are plenty of other terms to use that are more respectful and so these bans don't hinder political discussion.  

Political Correctness Republican Style: Ban On Term "Climate Change"

Here's a hypothesis I'm proposing:

When Democrats ask people not to use certain terms and phrases, it tends to be words that are demeaning or hurtful to categories of people.

When Republicans ask people not to use certain terms and phrases, it tends to be words that reflect truths they want to deny.

Is it true or not?  I'm guessing it might be, but I'm starting with way too little real evidence.  But here's just one example:  Expunging 'climate change' in government agencies.

From the Guardian:

"Staff at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) have been told to avoid using the term climate change in their work, with the officials instructed to reference “weather extremes” instead."

From Politico:

"A supervisor at the Energy Department's international climate office told staff this week not to use the phrases "climate change," "emissions reduction" or "Paris Agreement" in written memos, briefings or other written communication, sources have told POLITICO. 

Employees of DOE’s Office of International Climate and Clean Energy learned of the ban at a meeting Tuesday, the same day President Donald Trump signed an executive order at EPA headquarters to reverse most of former President Barack Obama's climate regulatory initiatives. Officials at the State Department and in other DOE offices said they had not been given a banned words list, but they had started avoiding climate-related terms in their memos and briefings given the new administration's direction on climate change. . . 

A DOE spokeswoman denied there had been a new directive. "No words or phrases have been banned for this office or anyone in the department,” said DOE spokeswoman Lindsey Geisler."

Florida Center For Investigative Reporting:

"The state of Florida is the region most susceptible to the effects of global warming in this country, according to scientists. Sea-level rise alone threatens 30 percent of the state’s beaches over the next 85 years. 

But you would not know that by talking to officials at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the state agency on the front lines of studying and planning for these changes. 

DEP officials have been ordered not to use the term “climate change” or “global warming” in any official communications, emails, or reports, according to former DEP employees, consultants, volunteers and records obtained by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting. 

The policy goes beyond semantics and has affected reports, educational efforts and public policy in a department that has about 3,200 employees and $1.4 billion budget."

Fortunately, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) is a Congressional, not Executive, agency, so it, apparently can still write about climate change.  Their report, dated Sept. 28, 2017 doesn't mince words:

"Why GAO Did This Study
Over the last decade, extreme weather and fire events have cost the federal government over $350 billion, according to the Office of Management and Budget. These costs will likely rise as the climate changes, according to the U.S. Global Change Research Program. In February 2013, GAO included Limiting the Federal Government's Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change Risks on its High-Risk List.
GAO was asked to review the potential economic effects of climate change and risks to the federal government. This report examines (1) methods used to estimate the potential economic effects of climate change in the United States, (2) what is known about these effects, and (3) the extent to which information about these effects could inform efforts to manage climate risks across the federal government. GAO reviewed 2 national-scale studies available and 28 other studies; interviewed 26 experts knowledgeable about the strengths and limitations of the studies; compared federal efforts to manage climate risks with leading practices for risk management and economic analysis; and obtained expert views.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that the appropriate entities within the Executive Office of the President (EOP), including the Office of Science and Technology Policy, use information on potential economic effects to help identify significant climate risks and craft appropriate federal responses. EOP entities and the Environmental Protection Agency did not provide official comments on the report."

Actually, they do mince words.  The opening of this overview talks about the research in a way that gives deniers lots of cover:

"The methods and the studies that use them produce imprecise results because of modeling and other limitations but can convey insight into potential climate damages across sectors in the United States."

Maybe that's there for those folks who only read the first paragraph of so.  The rest is pretty alarming, though from what I can tell, they are very conservative in their estimates of the costs of not dealing with climate change - both through lowering carbon emissions and mitigation efforts to deal with the impacts of climate change.

You can see their overviews here and the whole forty page report here.

But I need to keep collecting more examples of what Republicans complain about as 'political correctness' and the words and phrases (and in the case of 'taking a knee' actions)  they don't want others to use.  Will my hypothesis hold up.

I'd note that I've discussed political correctness before and basically it refers to someone or organization using their power to keep people from using certain words or espousing certain ideas.

Most recently I wrote about what I dubbed 'Republican political correctness' and Colin Kaepernick.  Rather than repeat what I said then, I'll just let you go to the link.  That post has links to earlier posts on the topic.

I would note that this climate change example is basically a form of censorship in an attempt to stifle discussion of what I think is the greatest threat to humanity.  And it's similar to the NRA's successful campaign to prevent the Center For Disease Control from doing research on gun violence.  Without data, scientists can't 'prove' anything.  Now that is real political correctness.  "You can't study what we don't want you to study."

Sanctuary State - Why It's Harder For Trump To Dominate US Than It Was For Hitler To Dominate Germany

Back in February I did a post called Structural Difference Between US and 1930's Germany That Makes It Harder For Trump which recalled the lessons I learned from my mother who grew up in Nazi Germany and how that helped me see, as a Peace Corps volunteer in Thailand, the stark differences between a centralized national bureaucracy and one where each state had significant independence from the capital.

Screenshot LA Times 9/17/17

Yesterday I was reminded of that lesson once again when I saw this headline for an LA Times story:  State to become a 'sanctuary'.




In a centralized bureaucracy like they had in Nazi Germany or have in Thailand, all government is controlled out of Berlin or Bangkok - education, police, health, everything.

But in the US the federal government is in charge of certain things and states have the power over everything else.  The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

(Article 1 of the Constitution which enumerates the federal powers is not nearly as brief.)


Some of that state independence has eroded as Congress has, over the years, tied federal funding to compliance with the federal mandates.

But individual states, police departments, school districts, can risk the funding if they object strongly enough to the federal demands.  They can, essentially, tell the feds to go to hell.   In this sanctuary case they are telling state employees not to enforce (partially at least*) immigration laws because those are federal, not state, responsibilities.  And in this sanctuary case, it appears that so far, the courts have agreed with the states that the feds can't withhold federal funding to sanctuary cities.  (That's also mentioned in the LA Times story.)

Of course, states rights are a good thing when they protect what you feel is important, but not when they protect things to which you object.  The rights of African-Americans were horrendously violated in the post-civil war south through to Jim Crow and even after the civil rights acts of 1964, on the grounds of 'states rights.'  And the states that have legalized marijuana are improvising a tricky dance with the feds around conflicting laws.

But I'm pleased to see how many Americans are standing up for the rights of immigrants, particularly the DACA folks.  We've come a long way since Japanese-Americans, including US citizens, were incarcerated during WW II, with very little objection from the rest of the population.


*The new sanctuary law in California, the article tells us, does allow some cooperation, mainly regarding immigrants with criminal violations.

Having Trouble Figuring Out What's Politically Correct And What's Just Correct?

I don't see much difference in concept among these events.  But some have been called politically correct while others aren't.  Can you guess which of these events have been labeled 'politically correct' and which ones haven't?

• Colin Kaepaernick not hired for kneeling during national anthem to protest cops shooting blacks.
• College students protesting offensive speakers
• Removing Robert E. Lee from a place of honor to a museum.
• Harvard withdrawing fellowship for Chelsea Manning.  

The only distinction I can see is if the action is taken by liberals, it's political correctness.  If by conservatives it's not.

Which just helps demonstrate what I've said all along - political correctness is when someone behaves  a certain way so as not to rile the powers that be.  But the Right has done its PR magic to make it seem that only the Left is politically correct.  When the Right does this, it's just the right thing to do.

Trump: A View From Spain

Cartoon by Tomás Serrano and used with permission

I met Tomás Serrano when he was visiting Alaska.  He's a Spanish artist, cartoonist, and architect who does wicked caricatures and probing portraits.  I've linked to his website since we first met.

My interpretation of this cartoon is that the world outside the US, at least Tomás' world, takes heart in watching the American people stand up against Trump.

In the short run, I expect that the protesters won't have access to the field that they have in this cartoon, and that Trump will score some goals by playing on a secret field, like he did with the travel ban - consulting with none of the professionals or with the Republicans in Congress even.

But in the long run, let's all hope that the worst of his policies will be ruled foul by the refs, and if we're lucky, Trump will be ejected from the game.  Let's remember, though, the advice to be careful what you wish for.  His stand-by is Pence, whose ideology may be worse, but masked in a more reasonable appearing style.

But if the protests are sending reassuring messages to the rest of the world, that a large percent of American people are as appalled as they are, then that's a big step toward recovering our 'brand,' to use logic that Trump might understand.

You can see more of Tomás Serrano's work at his website.

Alaska Governor Should Borrow Bradley Manning to Help Release Palin Emails

The ADN reported Wednesday that Governor Sean Parnell's office was given more time  to release the rest of the Sarah Palin emails that have been sought in various freedom of information requests. 

An extension, until at least Feb. 20, was requested by Randy Ruaro, deputy chief of staff to Gov. Sean Parnell, in October. Ruaro maintained that without an extension, responding to requests for the emails would "substantially impair" the other functions of the governor's office, as well as the ability to properly and thoroughly review the messages.

It's taking quite a while.  Palin left office in July 2009 and it's already 2012 now.  Meanwhile Bradly Manning is sitting in prison for releasing a large number of government documents to Wikileaks.  He knows how to do this and I'm sure he's got some spare time. 

Perhaps the Governor's office could show some initiative and a little uncharacteristic cooperation with the Feds by working out a deal to let Manning help his office get the Palin emails out.  
  

Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2012/01/04/2245579/state-gets-more-time-to-release.html#storylink=cpy

What Constitutes a Native for Determining Native Percentage of a District?

The US Voting Rights Act has so far proven to be the major force guiding the Alaska Redistricting Board's efforts.  There's good reason for this.  Most of the  prior Alaska redistricting plans have been legally challenged and the courts have required changes.  Furthermore, because an earlier challenge showed racial discrimination against Alaska Natives, Alaska is one of 16 states monitored by the Justice Department under the Voting Rights Act.

Staff Attorney Michael White's guidelines for the board say the act requires "no unavoidable retrogression."  (On March 22, Fund for Native American Rights senior staff attorney Natalie Landreth testified that it should be "no retrogression" without the unavoidable.  Later, while White accepted one of Landreth's corrections, he did not accept this one. )

This means, as I understand it, that Native voting strength should not be less than at the last redistricting.   This is measured by how many districts are  'minority-majority' and 'minority-influence.'  Minority-majority districts would have 50% or more Alaska Native population (not necessarily voters).  Minority-influence districts have at least 35% Alaska Native population. 

One of the issues that came up in Tuesday's discussion was whether the plans submitted by various organizations counted Natives the same way the board is counting someone Native.  I thought I was hearing people say 'Native plus one."  But today I heard someone say "Native plus white."  Maybe they used both or maybe my kids are right about my hearing.

This makes a difference.  If a group is using a more lenient definition of Native, then they would count more people as Native than a stricter definition.  Thus they might define a district as Native-Influence because it had, using their numbers, 36% Alaska Natives.  But the way the board is counting, the district might only have 34% Alaska Natives.

But I didn't quite understand what those different ways of counting were.  So I asked Michael White if he could explain it on this video. 




As you can see from the video, the issue is that so far the DOJ has counted, in the past, people identified as Native and people identified as "Native and White."
But NOT other combinations, such as "Native and Black" or "Native and Asian."

At the Wednesday (April 6) meeting, I believe that White told the Board that his understanding was that the Board could only count "Native" and "Native and White" but he's still seeking further clarification. And Chair Torgerson told the staff to find out how the groups that submitted plans to the Board counted someone as a Native. If they used a different way, then the data have to be adjusted to match the way the Board counted them.

And a followup to the question I had about what categories were used prior to 2010 in the video, a February 9, 2011 New York Times article on mixed race says that before the 2000 Census people could mark 'multiracial'.  This raised a myriad of problems. 

"[T]he census in 2000 began allowing respondents to mark as many races as they wanted. . ."