Showing posts with label redistricting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label redistricting. Show all posts

Monday, December 28, 2020

The Alaska Redistricting Board Meets Tomorrow (Tuesday) Afternoon [Updated]

 Some of you may recall that my life got hijacked for almost three years after I innocently went to the Alaska Redistricting Board meeting in 2011.  Sine then technology (for mapping and for meeting) have changed a lot.  And so has the depth of local/state news coverage in Alaska.  And I have out-of-state grandkids who hadn't been born yet last time.  

I've been wondering if I really want to get so deeply involved this time.  And considering that the meetings won't be in person (for a while at least), it will be easier to attend, but more difficult to chat with the board members and other members of the public during breaks and after meetings.  

But my stalling got a bit of a jolt today when I got an email from someone who is interested in doing an academic project on the board.  She's already done a bit of homework and reminded me I'm getting out of date on this topic.  And part of her homework got her to my tab above that indexes all the redistricting posts I did in the past.  



Here are three links she just sent me:

Tomorrow's meeting* - starts at 2:30pm:

Free map-making - my quick look suggests this is based on the 2010 census numbers and the districts the board created last time.  I'm not sure how quickly this will be updated when the new census data come in.  But last time, this sort of free citizen available software was definitely not available.  
(I just noticed there is more than one open-source map-making website!)

Paper on nesting districts:

(This is an article that was published in April of this year looking at how you can gerrymander districts in states that allow nesting.  That is states where Senate districts are made up of two paired House districts.  The study is about Alaska.)


*[Updated 11pm]:Here's the agenda

Discussion: Procurement Code Options, TELECONFERENCED

Legislative vs. Administrative

Available for Questions:

- Emily Nauman, Attorney, Legislative Legal Svcs.

- Rachel Witty, Attorney, Dept. of Law

- JC Kestel, Procurement Officer, LAA

Adoption of Procurement Code

Discussion: RFPs for Proposals for Independent

Legal Services

- Review of 2011 RFP

- Timeline for publishing RFP & selection of firm

- Review options to proceed

- Provide direction to Executive Director

Monday, June 08, 2020

Blogging During A Pandemic [Updated]

Trying to keep current on the State's COVID-19 statistics has consumed a lot of space on this blog and time.  June 1 I added a tab up top and am doing briefer updates along with updating numbers on the chart.
Also trying to get things done around the house - almost have our taxes ready to go to the accountant.  Trying to get out early - or on rainy days - so I don't pass too many people on the bike trail, and balancing that with a knee that acts up has been tricky.  Late Netflix watching makes getting up early harder.  We have managed to limit that too evening.

Zooming with my granddaughter - never know when I'm going to get a text "May I please zoom with you and Bubbie? Now?"  followed shortly after by "I'm waiting" - takes precedence over everything else.  And my son and I are working out how to play games with my SF grandson.  He really likes things like DinoTrains on PBS Kids.

Our garden brings joy.  It's green and sitting on the deck is like being out in the woods almost.

The COVID-19 updates on the tab are like a mini-post every day already.  Plus there are so many things to post about, things important enough that I need to think carefully and do some research.

Like what does "Defund The Police" mean in practical terms?  I love the idea of focusing on the reducing the long term causes of crime rather than on militarizing the police.  And it seems like when the police presence faded away in the last few days, the protests were much more positive.  And what happens to the police let go, particularly the bad apples?  In Iraq, when Saddam Hussein's army and police were disbanded, those highly trained officers became an anti-government force - the insurgency.  I don't think we need to add more folks to white supremacist groups here, so there needs to be a plan for what to do with the old police.

And how are the 2020 elections going to work?  While Republicans cry voter fraud, the real problem seems to me to be Republican election fraud and voter suppression.  Ideally, the folks out in the streets and those supporting them in isolation will all vote and crush Trump so badly that no amount of election fraud will matter.  But I don't know that we can count on that.  

Then, there's redistricting coming up next year after the census numbers are in.  I spent three years of my life reporting on Alaska's Redistricting Board ten years ago.  I didn't intend to, but no one else was covering it.  And the tab on top of this blog on Redistricting has been getting a constant flow of visitors.  It's basically the only real serious source of material on what happened.  And since the state's redistricting website has been dismantled, many of my links to maps don't work any more.  Are we going to have mapping software this year that everyday people will have free access to so that they can make their own maps?  Will there be legislation that will make the new Board's website something that won't disappear so only those who had sway with the Board can use the information on it now?  Lots to think about.

And I've got a birthday book I'm trying to create for my grandson.  I got one done for his cousin when she was two years old and hoped he would get one too for his second birthday.  Life and an errant muse got in the way.  He's going to turn six now, so I'm way behind schedule, but I do have a number of pages in draft form.  Just getting the story to match the pictures now and then get it printed.

And I picked up Philip Caputo's Hunter's Moon this weekend - Barnes and Noble brought it out to the car - and I have to read that before my next book club meeting.

Isolation really hasn't been that great a change in my life.  Just don't see our friends at all, or go out to eat, or hike or camp.  We missed our annual May trip to Denali National Park and our grandkids won't come visit this summer.  But there's plenty to keep us busy.  Another crimp in our lives is our upstairs carpet.  It was supposed to be replaced last fall.  (It's about 25 or 30 years old now and it shows.)  But we also had the kitchen linoleum replaced with a bamboo floor.  They wanted the floor in first because it makes it easier to connect the wood to the carpet that way.  But the bamboo was delayed until November and by the time they got it in we headed out for Thanksgiving, then December again with family and then again January and February Outside with family.  By the time we got back and were arranging the carpet, COVID came.  I was sick (but couldn't get tested for COVID) and since then we've been wary of someone in the house for two days.)
The crimp comes from us having started last fall to move things downstairs so they could do the carpets.  So lots of stuff is in temporary storage downstairs, things we would like to use, but are having trouble finding.

Hope everyone else is surviving reasonably well.  I hope all the demonstrators are getting COVID tests and taking appropriate actions to minimize bad health impacts of the demonstrations.

[UPDATE June 8, 2020 12:20pm:  I totally forgot to mention blog subscriber problems.  That was one of the reasons I was doing this post.  I've had two folks contact me to let me know that they are no longer getting their email notifications of new posts.  I then realized I'm not either.  I've been trying to figure out the problem.  I'm not sure if this affects all subscribers or just those using the subscription option in the upper right hand column.  I'm working on it, but it's just one more of the many leaks I'm trying to plug in my life right now.  None serious, but just irritating and time consuming.]

Saturday, February 23, 2019

Virginia Redistricting Reform, The First Big Step

The US Constitution requires a decennial census in order to determine the current population so that states can be allowed an appropriate number of representatives in Congress.  Once the number is set, states redraw the maps.  It's at this point that gerrymandering becomes a potential problem.

Since Alaska has only one House member, that part is moot.  But our redistricting board maps the districts for the State House and Senate.  Right now, the Governor gets to choose two members of the board, the Speaker of the House and Senate President each choose one, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court also gets to choose one.    That's a total of five.  And it's been a pretty partisan project in the past.

A number of states have made changes.  It would behoove Alaskans to look at what's all going on and think about a better system for us as well.


Virginia took a big step to ending partisan gerrymandering in redistricting.  From One Virginia 2021:
Here are key elements in the reform passed by the House of Delegates and the Senate on Saturday:
  • ESTABLISHES A REDISTRICTING COMMISSION OF 8 LEGISLATORS AND 8 CITIZENS, WITH A CITIZEN SERVING AS CHAIR
  • REQUIRES FULL TRANSPARENCY OF ALL MEETINGS, MINUTES AND DATA
  • INCLUDES SPECIFIC PROTECTIONS FOR MINORITY COMMUNITIES
  • INCLUDES IMPARTIAL REVIEW IN THE SELECTION OF CITIZEN MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION
  • EXCLUDES UNELECTED CONGRESSIONAL OR GENERAL ASSEMBLY EMPLOYEES FROM THE COMMISSION
  • GUARDS AGAINST PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING BY REQUIRING A SUPERMAJORITY OF COMMISSIONERS FOR APPROVAL OF DISTRICT MAPS
  • PROVIDES THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ONLY UP-OR-DOWN VOTES ON THE COMMISSION’S MAPS, WITHOUT AMENDMENTS
  • EXCLUDES THE GOVERNOR FROM THE APPROVAL PROCESS, WHICH WOULD THROW OFF THE BALANCE CREATED BY THE ABOVE FRAMEWORK

The post says it still has to be passed again by next year's Virginia General Assembly and by the voters in November 2020.   Here's a slightly different take from WTOP.

Wednesday, May 09, 2018

Old Posts Worth Rereading - Shoplifting Trick, Black Bugs, Trees With White Flowers, and Redistricting

They painters are still working upstairs - the schedule is somewhat unpredictable - and most of our stuff is in two rooms downstairs.  The bigger furniture is in the dining room crunched together or on the deck.

I've got a number of projects I'm working on, personal and community, including some longer blog posts like the Graham v MOA series.  More from Denali.  Thoughts on last night's Arctic Entries performance.  The weather seems stuck in "temps between low 40s and mid 50s, mix of some sun, lots of clouds" for a while.  The daffodils that were poised to bloom  when we left for Denali last week are still poised.

So here are some old posts you may not have read.

1.   How To Shoplift Without Getting Caught - Only Works If You're Black[White, obviously]  -  A visitor came to this post this week via a link in a comment (endof4th 10/13/2015 6:03 PM GMT-0800) on a Washington Post article about Georgetown shop owners alerting each other about suspicious black customers.  It's still a topical and insightful story from Neil Degrasse Tyson   - be sure to read the Tyson quote down to the bold section which answers the title question.

2.  Tiny Black Bugs - Fruit Flies or Fungus Gnats?  - This is the post that has gotten the most hits ever  (114,660 as of now on Google Stats) on this blog and continues to get most hits week by week.

3.  Three Anchorage Trees With White Flowers - This seems to be a seasonal hit.

4.  Various posts from the Alaska Redistricting series are getting hits as the 2020 redistricting process is coming up soon.  There's a lot there - here's a post that applies a lot of the concepts to how the Board created the house and senate districts in Fairbanks:  Was Fairbanks Gerrymandered:  A Look At the Riley Challenge to Alaska Redistricting Board' 2013 Plan Part 1    It's relevant to this November's upcoming race for Senate between Fairbanks Rep Scott Kawasaki (D) and Fairbanks Sen. Pete Kelly (R).  There's also a link to Part II which looks at truncation.



Monday, February 05, 2018

Justice Alito Denies GOP Appeal of Pennsylvania Gerrymandering Case -This Is A Big Deal [Updated]

The Pennsylvania congressional districts were so badly gerrymandered that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court threw out the whole map and required new, fairer districts BEFORE the November 2018 election.

Here's a picture (adapted from an analysis at 538) of what the districts look like:


The basic requirements for districts in Alaska as well as elsewhere are that they be compact and contiguous.  (I've got some charts on what compact and contiguous look like, in this post about questionable Fairbanks districts.) The green one and the trianglish one two below it are the most compact looking ones I see.  Most of the others are stretched and twisted so that they squeeze Democratic voters into as few districts as possible and thus give the rest strong Republican majorities.  Even though the state was pretty evenly divided in votes for Trump and Clinton in 2016, they have 13 Republican Congress members out of 18, due to gerrymandering the districts.

When I talked to the Alaska redistricting board's attorney about political gerrymandering back in 2011-12, he flat out said, there's never been a redistricting map thrown out because of political gerrymandering.  Well, the Pennsylvania court did just that two weeks ago, ordering the legislature to come up with better maps by February 9!  The GOP asked for a stay of that order and this morning Alito (yes, Alito) denied the stay.  The legislature is Republican majority (gerrymandering will do that), but their map has to meet state Supreme Court approval.

About the Feb 9 deadline:  It took the Alaska Redistricting Board almost three years to do its job after the 2010 Census data were received, so three weeks is pretty quick.

From Election Law Blog:
". . . now the Justice [Alito] has denied the request without referring it to the full court.
Failure to refer usually means the Justice has calculated that the other Justices would not be likely to grant a stay. It is very unusual for these measures not to be referred, but I’m guessing Justice Alito knows that if he was not convinced, the chances of getting to five were very small.
. . .
Justice Alito’s denial of the stay in the Pa Congressional redistricting case is a reminder that it is NOT all partisan politics at the Court. If it were, surely J. Alito would have ruled to help Republicans in their Pa House races in 2018."
There's still an appeal over the North Carolina racial gerrymandering decision out there.  And then there's Wisconsin which was argued before the US Supreme Court last October 3.  And there's Maryland where there is a challenge over one Democratic seat.

I'd note that a Washington Post headline on says about the Pennsylvania case:
"Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court just gave Democrats a big win on redistricting"
But that has to be put into context.  The Republicans have had, let's say four gerrymandered seats since the redistricting based on the 2010 census.  There have been three congressional elections since then.  Even if the Democrats pick up four more seats - not guaranteed at all - the Republicans have had those seats all this time.  And no one is going to be punished for this.  So there is no incentive for anyone to not cheat as much as possible after the 2020 census.  And that's true in Texas, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and elsewhere.  And it's affect American politics tremendously in favor of Republicans.

[UPDATE Feb 8, 4:30pm:  The Pennsylvania state legislator who represents the ground hog who saw his shadow three days go, Chris Dush, has introduced legislation to impeach the five Supreme Court justices who ruled that the state was unconstitutionally gerrymandered.  Did he think this up himself or did others help him?]

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Worth Noting - Redistricting, Court Info, Teaching Tolerance, Trees and Crime



Free Law has put up 1.8 million free opinions from PACER.  What's PACER you ask.  From PACER's website:
"The PACER Case Locator is a national index for U.S. district, bankruptcy, and appellate courts. A subset of information from each case is transferred to the PACER Case Locator server each night.
The system serves as a locator index for PACER. You may conduct nationwide searches to determine whether or not a party is involved in federal litigation."

Teaching Tolerance has lots of resources for educators.

Do trees lower crime?  That's the claim a Chicago group is making after mapping tree density in 284 municipalities in the Chicago area.  My reaction was 'whoa, that's correlation, not causation.'  My take would be it's the other way around:  Where there's less crime, people plant more trees.  Where people have more money they have bigger lots, more trees and more park area.  And where there are already lots of trees, the property values are higher, and wealthier people buy the land.  But the article expected people like me:
"Of course, skeptics might argue that this sort of data is only correlation, rather than causation. Underserved communities have high crime and fewer trees—not high crime in part due to fewer trees. So to support their claims, CRTI compiled all the benefits that trees provide, with citations for the various studies backing up the claims. One of those studies suggests that trees 'may deter crime both by increasing informal surveillance and by mitigating some of the psychological precursors to violence.'”
Yes, I've posted about the psychological benefits of trees, but I'm still skeptical.  Trees may, to a certain extent 'sooth' a community, but I'm still guessing that there's an economic correlation between low income and fewer trees and that the economic factor is the bigger driver of crime.  I would guess that Anchorage has a pretty high level of trees per people and a fair amount of crime.  And much crime happens where trees give cover for the homeless who commit crimes in the greenbelt areas.  But it's interesting research.  And I'd love to be wrong on this.

Sunday, July 23, 2017

Wisconsin State Journal Gives Preview Of Upcoming Supreme Court Gerrymandering Case

A large part of the Republican control of the US House is due to the last redistricting based on the 2010 Census.  From Five Thirty Eight:
"Republicans’ astounding state legislative gains in the 2010 midterms — the year before the decennial redistricting cycle — allowed them to redraw four times as many congressional districts as Democrats in 2011 and 2012, stretching their geographical edge even further. As a result, in 2012, Democrats won 51 percent of all major-party votes cast for House candidates but just 47 percent of all seats. In 2014, Democrats won 47 percent of all major-party votes but just 43 percent of the seats. Amazingly, just 16 of 247 House Republicans won their races by fewer than 10 percentage points."
There's currently a redistricting challenge that has been accepted by the Supreme Court.   From the Wisconsin State Journal:
"The three-judge panel that heard the Whitford case last year weighed the evidence and ordered the maps redrawn. The state has appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing the process was lawful. The Supreme Court stayed the lower court order and agreed to hear oral arguments as early as this fall."
The Court hasn't ruled on political gerrymandering saying it was hard to get an objective sense of it.  But the Wisconsin legal team has come up with a way to measure
"the Whitford plaintiffs devised a three-pronged standard for partisan gerrymandering: Proving discriminatory intent, demonstrating a discriminatory effect, and finding no other justification for how the maps were drawn.
To prove the discriminatory effect, the plaintiffs measured the election results based on what is known as the "efficiency gap," which seeks to calculate how many votes for a given party are "wasted" because its voters are "packed" into certain safe districts or "cracked," that is, placed into districts where they still can't muster enough support for their candidate to win.
The Whitford plaintiffs argued the Wisconsin legislative districts were the most gerrymandered in the past 40 years, with 13 percent of votes wasted in 2012 and 10 percent wasted in 2014. Based on an analysis of 786 legislative elections across the country, they argued a gap of more than 7 percent should be deemed unconstitutional."

This will be a huge case either way it is decided.  If the Court goes with the plaintiffs, it should slow down partisan gerrymandering.  If not, it probably signals the issue is probably dead until there is a significantly new Supreme Court.

I wrote about this case back in February.

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Racism Is Racism Is Alive

[Note:  This is an unpleasant topic, but please indulge me.  The history here helps put today's narratives and actions into sharp focus.]

I've done more reading and listening about racism than the average American.  (No, that's not like Trump saying "I'm the least racist person ever." First, having read more about racism than the average American doesn't take much reading.  But I've been involved with Healing Racism in Anchorage for many years and I've attended many workshops on racism as well.  So my claim is no boast, nor an exaggeration.)

Yet reading White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide makes me feel like I was totally not getting it before.  Even though I know a lot of what Dr. Carol Anderson writes about.  But she puts together the pieces like I've never seen before.  I've already posted about the first chapter which traces how the South basically reestablished slavery after the civil war, but a nastier, meaner form.

  They did this with laws that denied the rights of blacks guaranteed in the then new fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, with the help of US Supreme Court decisions that said the federal government couldn't interfere with states, even if the states were denying those newly won rights such as citizenship and voting.  They also did it with laws that required blacks to have work contracts with white farmers or mine owners.  If they didn't, they could be convicted for vagrancy and then as convicts, leased out to those same employers with no pay and no rights.  Those are just a few of the structural means of denying Southern blacks their rights.

As a friend warned, the next chapters get worse.  This is material most of us want to avoid confronting and our schools, media, and general disposition have made that easy.  I'm asking you to just take another five minutes to do what all American really need to do.  It's the first step of overcoming denial.  And if you're not in denial, the first steps to understanding the enormity of the mistreatment of blacks, not by individuals, but by a corrupt and evil system that established elaborate legal structures to keep blacks in shackles.

Chapter 2 is called Derailing The Great Migration - how blacks fled the South during WWI, enticed by promises of better jobs in the North and how the Southern states did all they could to prevent that exodus. Laws banning newspapers that recruited blacks to the north.  Stopping trains. And how housing discrimination in the North condemned blacks to live in overcrowded poor ghettos.  Part of the problem with our education on these topics is that we've only gotten the most generalized descriptions, like the beginning of this paragraph.  We haven't seen all the mutilated bodies hanging from trees or burnt alive.  If you see this book in a book store, read the end of chapter 2.  In my hard cover edition it starts at the bottom page 56,
"Tired of the cramped living conditions and exasperated with paying exorbitant rents for ramshackle housing that landlords refused to repair, black professionals sought to move away from Black Bottom."
It goes on to relate the stories of two black doctors in Detroit who moved into white neighborhoods.  The first moved out the first day when neighbors mobbed his house.  The second brought friends and guns to protect his property.  The black doctor and his family were jailed for inciting a riot and murdering a white neighbor.  Everyone lied about what happened - the police, the neighbors, etc.  Only because they had Clarence Darrow as their attorney did they win the case, after the first trial ended in a hung jury, but meanwhile his wife and daughter and friend all contracted tuberculosis in prison and died after their release.  And this was in the North.


Chapter 3 is about how, following Brown v Board of Education, Southern (and to an extent Northern) states essentially nullified that decision to integrate the schools by a variety of tactics from using public money to fund private white academies, to simply not funding education for blacks, to enacting a variety of laws that they knew were unconstitutional, but that they also knew would take years to grind through the courts, giving them time to figure out more strategies.  Meanwhile black students were deprived of a their rightful education.

I've rushed through chapters 2 and 3 because chapter 4 offers some insights that cut to the chase about why Americans are ignorant about the magnitude of the Southern mistreatment of blacks and horrific impacts it's had on African Americans.  And why African American mistreatment and abuse continues to this day.

Chapter 4 is called Rolling Back Civil Rights.  It's about 1965 now.
"The impact of this civil rights struggle had been slow but significant.  Inequality had begun to lessen.  Incomes had started to rise.  Job and educational opportunities had expanded.  And just as with Reconstruction, the Great Migration, and the Brown decision, this latest round of African American advances set the gears of white opposition in motion."(p, 99)
How?  First,  those who thought blacks were trying to get their rights too fast,  including Nixon, Reagan, and the Supreme Court, redefined what the civil rights movement was about.  
". . . centuries of oppression and brutality suddenly reduced to a harmless symbolism of a bus seat and a water fountain.  Thus when the COLORED ONLY signs went down, inequality had supposedly disappeared.  By 1965 Richard Nixon asserted, 'almost every legislative roadblock to equality of opportunity for education, jobs, and voting had been removed.'  Also magically removed, by this interpretation, were up to twenty-four trillion dollars in multigenerational devastation that African Americans had suffered in lost wages, stolen land, educational impoverishment, and housing inequalities.  All of that vanished as if it never happened."(p. 99)
To emphasize this point she quotes Patrick Buchanan.
"America has been the best country on earth for black folks.  It was here that 600,000 black people brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known." (p. 100)

So by taking down the "COLORED ONLY" signs, race was no longer an issue.  Sort of like, by electing a black president, race was no longer an issue.  But rather these events merely triggered more backlash against blacks.
"President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society and affirmative action, which were developed to ameliorate hundreds of years of violent and corrosive repression, were easily characterized as reverse discrimination against hardworking whites and a 'government handout that lazy black people 'choose' to take rather than work.'" (p. 100)
 Second, was to redefine racism itself.
"Confronted with civil rights headlines depicting unflattering portrayals of KKK rallies and jackbooted sheriffs, white authority transformed those damning images of white supremacy into the sole definition of racism.  This simple but wickedly brilliant conceptual and linguistic shift served multiple purposes.  First and foremost, it was conscience soothing. . ." (p. 100)
Just as after World War II, there were no Germans who knew what had happened to the Jews, or who even were Nazis themselves [this is my insertion into Anderson's discussion],
"The whittling down of racism to sheet-wearing goons allowed a cloud of racial innocence to cover many whites who, although 'resentful of black progress' and determined to ensure that racial inequality remained untouched, could see and project themselves as the 'kind of upstanding white citizen[s]' who were 'positively outraged at the tactics of the Ku Klux Klan.'  The focus on the Klan also helped to designate racism as an individual aberration rather than something systemic, institutional, and pervasive.  Moreover, isolating racism to only its most virulent and visible form allowed respectable politicians and judges to push for policies that ostensibly met the standard of America's new civil rights norms while at the same time crafting the implantation of policies to undermine and destabilize the norms, all too often leaving the black community ravaged."(pp. 100-101)
Between the time I read this today and I started this post I read a couple of Tweets that remind me that this legacy is alive and well and still doing its evil in the United States today. From the Dallas News:
"In a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel in San Antonio found that the maps gave Republicans an advantage in elections and weakened the voting strength of minority voters. House Districts in Dallas and Tarrant counties were among those in which the judges ruled minority voters had seen their clout weakened.
The ruling is yet another blow to the state in its six-year legal battle over the redrawing of the maps. Last month, the same court found that the state's congressional maps were drawn with intent to discriminate against minority voters and invalidated three congressional districts. And last week, a federal judge ruled that the state's voter ID law was written with intent to discriminate."
But like the delaying tactics to fight Brown v Board of Education, the redistricting was used for all the elections since 2011 and those candidates won't be unelected and their laws won't be invalidated.  So while this is a setback, there's new redistricting when the 2020 census comes out and so this will only, possibly affect, the 2018 and 2020 elections.  Cheating works.

This disenfranchisement of blacks continues.  And in 2013, the US Supreme Court ruled to end a key part of the Voting Rights Act that required pre clearance from the Justice Department before their redistricting plan could go into effect for a number of states including Texas and Alaska.  The court said the criteria set 40 years ago were out of date.  Just as Anderson tells us, they were arguing that the civil rights abuses had long ago ended.  But this decision - as well as the one for North Carolina  - show they haven't.  Had the Supreme Court NOT invalidating that section of the Voting Rights Act, Texas would have had to get the approval of the Justice Department before implementing their plan.  And that would not have happened under Obama's Justice Department.

But with Trump's Justice Department, would it matter?

The other Tweet was about Attorney General Jeff Sessions who said today,
"I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the President of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and Constitutional power."
This language about amazement and 'an island in the Pacific' (the State of Hawaii) is just about right from a man born in 1946 in Selma, Alabama, who was in elementary school when Brown v Board of Education was decided and he grew up in as racist a state as there was.  Where his family was surely part of the outraged Southerners who did all they could to block school integration.  So, the legacy that Anderson writes about is now reincarnated as the highest law enforcer of our nation.  This isn't even about a legacy, Sessions was right in the middle of the most virulent racist state in his formative years.  And he's now our Attorney General in charge of enforcing laws to protect our rights.  Disgraceful!

There's also this story in today's LA Times on neo-Nazi attack on Jewish woman in Montana.  The same kind of harassment, though mostly today digital that Southern blacks and their allies were subject too, though it hadn't gotten to the point of physical violence.  Nevertheless, the result was what all terrorist action wants - to put fear into the hearts of its victims.


A few choice quotes from the book about some of our past presidents (and one of Sessions' teen heroes I'm sure) from these three chapters.
"At the behest of his 'great friend' South Carolina governor James Byrnes, Eisenhower hosted a small dinner party at the White House to explain to Chief Justice Earl Warren that Southerners 'are not bad people.  Al they are concerned about is to see that their sweet little girls are not required to sit in school alongside big overgrown Negroes.'"
"During his 1968 presidential bid, Alabama governor George Wallace understood this resentment.[white resentment of black gains]  He had experience a startling epiphany just a few years earlier after trying to blok the enrollment of an African American student in the state's flagship university at Tuscaloosa.  For that act of defiance, the governor received more than one hundred thousand congratulatory telegrams, half of which came from north of the Mason Dixon Line.  Right then he had a revelation:  'They all hate black people, all of them.  They're all afraid, all of them.  Great God! That's it!  They're  all Southern!  The whole United States is Southern!"
"Using strategic dog-whistle appeals - crime, welfare, neighborhood schools - to trigger Pavlovian anti-black responses, Nixon succeeded in defining  and maligning the Democrats as the party of African Americans, without once having to actually say the words.  That would be the 'elephant in the room.'  In fact, as H. R. Haldeman, one of the Republican candidate's most trusted aides, later recalled, "He [Nixon] emphasized that you have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks.  The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to.'"
"The objective [of redefining racism] was to contain and neutralize the victories of the Civil Rights Movement by painting a picture of a 'colorblind,' equal opportunity society whose doors were now wide open, if only African Americans would take initiative and walk on through.  Ronald Reagan breezily shared anecdotes about how Lyndon Johnson's great Society handed over hard-earned taxpayer dollars to a 'slum sweller' to live in posh government-sbsidied housing and provided food stamps for one 'strapping young buck' to buy steak, while another used the change he received from purchasing an orange to pay for a bottle of vodka.  He ridiculed Medicaid recipients as 'a faceless mass, waiting for handouts.'  The imagery was, by design, galling, and although the stories were far from the truth, they succeeded in tapping into a river of widespread resentment." 

Not much different from what we see today, not only about black, but even more so about Muslims.

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Can The "Efficiency Gap" Concept Change The Supreme Court's Mind On Gerrymandering?

[UPDATE September25, 2017: Gill v. Whitford is scheduled to be heard at the US Supreme Court October 3, 2017]


A Mark Butler FB repost got me to a Slate article on something I'd never heard of in terms of gerrymandering.  Since I got pretty involved in blogging the last Alaska redistricting process, I figure if I didn't know about this others don't either.

The article talks about a challenge to the Wisconsin state redistricting process that successfully used this concept of "efficiency gap."  The case has been appealed to the US Supreme Court, so it's something to pay close attention to.

While double checking, I came across a New Republic article written by Nicholas Stephanopoulus who was quoted in the Slate article.  It seemed more appropriate to go to the horse's mouth for my quotes about 'efficiency gap.'

Stephanoupoulus begins by pointing out that while the Supreme Court isn't for gerrymandering, litigants haven't come up with solutions that they are comfortable with.  He says they have hinted at some ideas such as Justice Stevens' idea of 'partisan symmetry.'  So Stephanopoulos and Eric McGhee have come up with what he claims would test for that, though he calls it something a little different.
"No litigants have seized this opportunity yet, but they should. To assist them, McGhee and I have devised a new metric of partisan symmetry called the efficiency gap. The efficiency gap is simply the difference between the parties’ respective wasted votes in an election, divided by the total number of votes cast. Wasted votes are ballots that don’t contribute to victory for candidates, and they come in two forms: lost votes cast for candidates who are defeated, and surplus votes cast for winning candidates but in excess of what they needed to prevail. When a party gerrymanders a state, it tries to maximize the wasted votes for the opposing party while minimizing its own, thus producing a large efficiency gap. In a state with perfect partisan symmetry, both parties would have the same number of wasted votes. 
Suppose, for example, that a state has five districts with 100 voters each, and two parties, Party A and Party B. Suppose also that Party A wins four of the seats 53 to 47, and Party B wins one of them 85 to 15. Then in each of the four seats that Party A wins, it has 2 surplus votes (53 minus the 51 needed to win), and Party B has 47 lost votes. And in the lone district that Party A loses, it has 15 lost votes, and Party B has 34 surplus votes (85 minus the 51 needed to win). In sum, Party A wastes 23 votes and Party B wastes 222 votes. Subtracting one figure from the other and dividing by the 500 votes cast produces an efficiency gap of 40 percent in Party A’s favor. 
The efficiency gap has several properties that make it ideal for measuring the extent of gerrymandering. First, it directly captures the packing and cracking that are at the heart of every biased plan. Surplus votes for winning candidates are the definition of packing, and lost votes for defeated candidates the essence of cracking. All a gerrymander is, in fact, is a plan that results in one party wasting many more votes than its opponent. The efficiency gap tells us exactly how big the difference between the parties’ wasted votes is."
If you didn't read that carefully, here are some key terms:

Two Kinds of Wasted Votes - votes that didn't contribute to victory
Surplus Votes - those votes more than needed to win
Lost Votes - votes cast for candidate who was defeated

Efficiency Gap is simply the difference between the parties’ respective wasted votes in an election, divided by the total number of votes cast.

An extreme example was Pennsylvania where gerrymandering gave the Democrats lots of lost votes.   From Republic Report:
"In Pennsylvania, one state in which the GOP drew the congressional districts in a brazenly partisan way, Democratic candidates collected 44 percent of the vote, yet Democratic candidates won only 5 House seats out of 18. In other words, Democrats secured only 27 percent of Pennsylvania’s congressional seats despite winning nearly half of the votes."

Democrats, who have been hurt badly by Republican control of redistricting after the 2010 census, are hoping this case could break open some opportunities for them.  Here's a FairVote article from December 2016 looking at this case and the larger picture.  

Friday, February 17, 2017

Double Standards = Only Standard Is What Helps Me

Republicans screamed for investigation after investigation on Hillary Clinton's email security - none of which showed more than procedural lapses - but now they aren't supportive of an investigation of Trump officials who had actual, unauthorized conversations with Russian intelligence agencies.  This would appear to be  a double standard.  Or, in fact the reason they gave - national security - was NOT the real standard.

I'd suggest that the standard or the 'principle' they used to call for the Clinton investigations had nothing to do with national security or whatever other reasons they offered to justify the time and money spent on the investigations.

Rather the standard or  'principle' was 'help us win, help them lose.'


The Republicans refused to hold confirmation hearings on Supreme Court nominee Garland on the grounds that a lame duck president shouldn't appoint the next SC judge.   They delayed hundreds of other Obama appointments.  Yet, today, they are blasting Democrats who want to hold thorough hearings and investigations of Trump's nominees.  From Politico:
"The GOP says the calls for delay are a transparent attempt by Democrats to slow down the confirmation process and isolate individual nominees with negative publicity. Don Stewart, a spokesman for McConnell, said 'Sen. Schumer is not satisfied with precedent and best practices.'"
They can really say this stuff with a straight face?  Well, those with the power to do what they want can, well, do what they want.

Double standard again, if the principle is to hold speedy nomination processes.  But it's clearly not.  The principle is 'help us win, help them lose.'


Trump and the Republicans have been supporting a ban on refugees and particularly those from half a dozen Muslim-majority countries on the grounds that there needs to be 'extreme vetting.'

Yet today, the Wall Street Journal reports
'The officials’ decision to keep information from Donald J. Trump underscores the deep mistrust that has developed between the intelligence community and the president over his team’s contacts with the Russian government, as well as the enmity he has shown toward U.S. spy agencies.'
Exactly what sort of vetting was there before Stephen Bannon assumed his seat on the National Security Council?  Any at all?  So, extreme vetting for some (when we already have a very thorough vetting procedure for immigrants and refugees), but not for Trump staff and nominees.   Double standard, if vetting were
really the issue.

For Trump, it's been clear for a long time, that 'help me win, help them lose' is is very top principle in life.  For many of the Republicans who would appear to be applying double standards and rejecting reality (i.e. climate change) 'help me win' essentially boils down to 'do what my big campaign funders want.'  Whether they be oil companies, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, agribusiness, gun manufacturers, insurance companies, you get the picture.  (Democrats are not immune from helping their funders either, of course.)

For those of my readers who do talk to Trump supporters, I'm just offering some questions you can ask them here.

  • If the Republicans are so interested in national security, why aren't they livid about the Trump team's contacts with Russian intelligence agencies?
  • If the Republicans are so interested in extreme vetting, why don't they want Trump's appointees to be carefully vetted?
  • If Republicans blocked countless Obama appointees, why are they complaining so vociferously about Democrats wanting to hold confirmation hearings that look carefully into the backgrounds of the appointees?  

How To Change All This

Actually, humans are humans, and it's likely that a certain percent of them will be lusting for power, so the only way to prevent abuse of power is to structure the system appropriately.

For the balance of power in Congress to change, people are going to have to work hard to overcome the gerrymandering of congressional districts.  They need to elect as many Democratic governors and  state legislatures as possible in 2018.  This is so they have more control of the 2020 redistricting processes in the states that impact the fairness of the congressional districts. An extreme example where, according to Price Economics and others,
"Democrats won more than half of the statewide vote, but only 5 out of 18 House seats."
In plain simple language, Democrats got 50% of the vote in Pennsylvania congressional districts, but only 28% of the members of Congress.

The Pennsylvania redistricting committee could do this by drawing district lines that put most the Democrats into a few districts so that the other districts go Republican.

Without changing these practices, the Democrats will not win back the house.  So start finding out about your own state redistricting process and how you can make it more fair.   The Republicans worked on this for years and years, so 2030 should be the real target (I know that's depressing) and we need to make as much change as possible for the 2020 census.

[Go back and look at the US Constitution.  Article 1, Section 2:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."
So every ten years the Census Bureau counts how many people there are so they can know how many representatives each state gets.  That count (or enumeration) is what the state redistricting boards use to make districts.]

Thursday, January 26, 2017

This Video Overview Succinctly But Thoroughly Explains Redistricting And Gerrymandering In The USA

I watched a video today which spells out very clearly and accurately the electoral problems in the US based on our redistricting process.  (It's below.)

I say this as someone who knows a little bit about redistricting

I blogged the Alaska Redistricting Board that met from 2011 through 2013.  I learned a lot about redistricting both in the Alaska and in the US.

Among the things I learned (and are echoed in the video):
  • Whoever controls the state governorships and legislatures generally gets control of redrawing the maps.  That includes the congressional districts (this doesn't matter in states like Alaska where there is only one member of congress) and the state legislative districts
  • There are a number of different ways to gerrymander (make the maps so they favor your party):
    • "The first method is called the "excess vote." It is an attempt to concentrate the voting power of the opposition into just a few districts, to dilute the power of the opposition party outside of those districts that contain an overwhelming majority of the opposition's voters. [Sometimes called 'packing.']
    • The second method is know as the "wasted vote." This method of gerrymandering involves diluting the voting power of the opposition across many districts, preventing the opposition from having a majority vote in as many districts as possible.
    • Finally, the "stacked" method involves drawing bizarre boundaries to concentrate the power of the majority party by linking distant areas into specific, party-in-power districts."  (I originally posted this list on a blogpost on Anchorage redistricting.  It comes from Matt Rosenberg.)  
  • The Republicans were much more sophisticated and foresightful before 2010 and had captured a large majority of state governorships and legislatures.  Thus they controlled redistricting in most states.   This resulted in the House of Representatives having far more Republicans than the number of Republican voters would likely have produced if all districts were fairly drawn.
  • These lopsided districts limit the likelihood Democrats will retake the majority in the House of Representatives.  Some long shot ways Democrats can win in these districts:  
    • get out the vote of people who generally don't vote, and do so in huge numbers.
    • enough Democrats move into the Republican districts to even the lopsided-ness
  • Unless Democrats capture enough state governorships and legislatures, the Republicans will be able to keep control after the 2020 census redistricting.
  • The US Senate's two Senators per state is itself a form of gerrymandering which gives the many smaller states a lopsided influence in the Senate.



Here's the video, it gives a great overview of what's wrong.





If all the people who marched last weekend and are organizing to resist the Trump administration want to make a real difference, I'd suggest they take a good look at redistricting in their states and how to either change the system or get more seats on the redistricting board. Here are some starting resources.

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Reasons Why Alaska Legislature Republican Majority Leaders Hate Governor Walker

Alaska's Republican majority leaders have done their best to show their disdain for Governor Walker.  They refused to meet in Juneau despite his calling for the special session to be there.  They've said no to most of what he wants to do.  Why all this antipathy?  

I'm sure readers will think of a lot more reasons, but here are a few I can think of:

  1.   He left the Republicans and became an Independent
  2.   This let him by-pass the Republican primary
  3.   He joined with the Democratic gubernatorial candidate as his Lt. Gov partner
  4.   He won the election beating their oil company loyalist sitting governor Parnell
  5.   He's acts like an adult
  6.   He knows how to think for himself
  7.   He understands the economics of Medicaid expansion and thus supports it rather than stick to Republican ideological anti-Obamaism
But I think the most important issue for the Republicans is the fact that

8.  the next governor will be able to appoint two members to the 2020 Alaska Redistricting Board. 

They're doing everything they can to make him look bad, hoping he won't get reelected.  If the letters to the editor are any indication, they're making themselves look bad instead.  And Walker, as I mentioned above, is the one who looks like an adult in all this. 

Speaking of redistricting, it's not too early to start thinking about the next Board and how it will work.  By leaving all the decisions about technology to the Board, things get rather late to do the best job of surveying the technology available.  Mapping technology is getting much more sophisticated and much easier to use.  By the 2020 round there should be better technology to create the initial maps and the public should have access to play with the maps and come up with better alternatives.  Just something to think about. 

Monday, June 01, 2015

Anchorage Mayor Election - Review Of The Numbers And What They May Portend

As the Republican majority caucuses in the state house and senate act [fill in the blank], it's probably useful to look back at the April general election  and the May runoff in Anchorage, and consider what they might mean for future elections.

There are some interesting numbers to ponder.

First,  more people voted in the runoff than in the general election.  I thought that this was a first, though I'm not sure now.  The Municipal election results page which goes back to 1991, shows two runoff elections prior to 2015.  In 2009 there were a lot fewer voters in the runoff.  But 2000 isn't as clear.  The runoff election tally on the Muni website lists two different sets of totals.  One is less than the general election total (62,406) and one is more. 



You'd think the higher one might include absentee ballots, but election totals have lots of strange numbers so I'm not jumping to any conclusions.  Amanda Moser runs the Municipal Elections. She also believed that the prior runoffs had lower turnouts when I talked to her earlier today.  In fact, she pointed out that the Municipal Code only requires there to be as many ballots as in the regular election. 
“28.40.010 - Form.
B2
For each runoff election the municipal clerk shall ensure that the number of ballots prepared equals at least the number of voters who cast ballots in the election requiring the runoff election.”
Fortunately she didn't stick with the minimum and ordered more for the May election. 

The table below shows the results of the general runoff elections.


Gen Election April 5, 2015 Runoff May 5, 2015
Candidate # of Votes Percent # of Votes Percent
KERN, 62 0.11%

SPEZIALE, 36 0.06%

AHERN 406 0.71%

BAUER 223 0.39%

BERKOWITZ 21,189 37.03% 42,869 60,75%
COFFEY 8261 14.44%

DARDEN 609 1.06%

DEMBOSKI 13,796 24.11% 27,705 39.25%
HALCRO 12,340 21.57%

HUIT 124 0.22%

JAMISON 48 0.08%

WRITE-IN 128 0.22%

Totals 57,222 70,574 +13,352

Second,  there were 13,352 MORE votes in the runoff than in the general election.

ThirdBerkowitz won by 15,164 votes in the runoff.

Fourth,  if you subtract the additional 13,352 votes in the runoff from Berkowitz' total, he would have had 29,164 votes, only 2,212 more votes than Demboski.  The percentages would have been
Berkowitz 51.5% to Dembosky 48.5%.  A much closer vote. 


So, what does this all mean? 

We have to be careful about reaching conclusions.  I'm speculating here.  But my sense of elections for the last ten years or so, has been that there is very low turnout and the only way Democrats have a chance to win when there are more Republicans is to get more people to vote. People who have just given up on the process or don't think their vote counts.

While we don't know how people who voted in the general election voted in the runoff, we do know that there were  13,352 more of them in the runoff than the general and that Berkowitz won by 15,164 votes.

Conservative v Liberal Showdown?
The runoff pitted a 30 something female candidate against a 50 something male.  She identified herself as the most conservative candidate in the general election and he identified himself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  She promised to veto a gay rights addition to the Municipal anti-discrimination ordinance and was strongly opposed to abortion.  He was pro-gay rights and pro-choice.  Gay rights hadn't done well in prior elections in Anchorage.  (But then again times are changing.)

We don't know if it was the ideological stands, the name recognition, past experience, preference for a male candidate, or personality, or campaign styles that made the difference here.  Probably different things for different voters.  But we do know that a liberal trounced a conservative in the biggest city in a generally red state.

My guess is that the extra voters who came out in the runoff made all the difference.  And if the Left can get them out again in the future,  the state could see big changes.

November 2016 Election Implications

My sense is that the House and Senate Republicans, who have been acting like the trolls who lived under the bridge during our current budget crisis special session,  exist in a giant echo chamber.  The leaders are told by the oil and construction and other major industry lobbyists how wise and powerful they are.  They're told they're doing the right thing and to stand tall because the people of Alaska are behind them despite what the biased media report.  And they apparently believe that.  Or the lobbyists are making them offers that the public simply can't match. 

Now, the 2000 Census redistricting resulted in enough gerrymandering that a number of districts are safely Republican (and safely Democratic.)  But in Anchorage, all but sixteen precincts went for Berkowitz, most of those in Demboski territory in Eagle River or Chugiak.  That means most Anchorage precincts voted for the more liberal (and also well known candidate).  I think this election tells us that with strong candidates, Democrats can win in most of Anchorage, just not the Eagle River/Chugiak area.

Despite the gerrymandering, there are 23 Republicans, 16 Democrats, and one non-affiliated who caucuses with the Democrats.  Rural Democrats have traditionally been lured into majority Republican caucus with the promise of pork for their districts if they join and the threat of legislative castration if they don't. Three of the current rural Democrats are part of the current Majority Caucus.

But given this Anchorage election, and the anger that the Republican majorities in the House and Senate are stirring up now, the Democrats could pick enough seats House seats to tie the Republicans.  If this happened the three renegade Dems along with the non-affiliated representative from Ketchikan, would likely join.  It won't be easy, but if the Democrats had three strong candidates in marginally Republican districts, and could get people who normally don't vote to vote, they could do it.  Of course, they would also have keep all the seats they presently have.

People think 2016 is too far away for people to remember, but I doubt next year's legislative session will be much prettier, even if the price of oil shoots back up.  And people need health care and they want good schools for their kids.  And they see the oil companies being protected in the budget fights while Alaskans are being told "it's time to make hard decisions." 

Just some thoughts I had after renewing the Anchorage mayoral election numbers.  

[NOTE:   When I first went to get the numbers from the Muni election site, I had some questions.    I talked to the MOA elections official Amanda Moser, but the numbers she was looking at were different from the ones I had on my screen.  It turned out there were different pages on their website linking to different (but very similar) results.  They've made some changes since this morning to fix that, but after the phone call, I found other inconsistencies in the numbers and emailed that information.  The runoff information I had originally found is now (as I write) gone.  Amanda emailed me the numbers and said she'll get the website fixed in the next couple of days.  As a blogger, I recognize how hard it is to keep updating old pages and how easy it is to miss bad links, so I'm not too concerned.  My dealings with that office over the last few elections have convinced me they're working really hard to keep things as accurate and transparent as possible.  You can get the general election (April) numbers at the Municipal Election Results site.  Here are some others tallies which may not be linked any longer (or may not be linked yet):

[June 2, 9am Update:  I found the original Municipal page with the 2015 election results (it showed up in my history):  http://www.muni.org/departments/assembly/clerk/elections/pages/electionresults.aspx]

Friday, January 30, 2015

West Point Grad Laurie Hummel To Be New Alaska National Guard Adjutant General

The ADN has a good report on this up already so I'll try to add what I know about Laurie Hummel.

I first 'met' Laurie Hummel when she was interviewed by the Alaska Redistricting Board to be their executive director.  I was so incredibly impressed by how perfectly her background qualified her for the job AND by how well she presented herself and her knowledge.  She was both assertive and respectful.  In that interview she was asked to describe her managerial experience as it related to the job.  It was all impressive and you can see my very rough transcript here.

A part that particularly warmed my blogger heart was when she spoke about confidentiality and public information.  She said you have to set up categories:
"what you have to share, should share, can’t.  Things that have to be shared with the public [you share]  and that’s how it should be.  I come from climate that values ethics.  I hold the highest ethical standards. I see a big difference where there’s an enemy.  Here I see no enemies.  Press and people are not enemies."
I was blown away by Hummel that day and wrote one of the most enthusiastic posts I've ever written about anybody on this blog.

Second Applicant Incredible: Laurel Hummel, Vet and Geographer
When the Board decided not to fill the position, I was seriously disappointed and wrote a two part post exploring possible reasons why.

The last post I did that focused on Laurie Hummel was about her announcement to run for State House.  
Laurie Hummel Announces Bid for State House Seat - Laurie Who?


I was (and still am) so impressed with Hummel that I decided I had to help her win.  People complain about the lack of good politicians all the time.  But there won't be any unless the rest of us work hard to elect those who are willing to run.  It was time for me to get directly involved.

After I became involved in her campaign  I felt I could no longer report on the race.  Sure, I could have declared my involvement and written, but I didn't want this blog to be a billboard for one candidate.

Hummel ran a great campaign and came very close to beating an incumbent in her first race.  
Today I learned of her appointment to be Adjutant General of the Alaska National Guard by Governor Walker.

I called Hummel today to congratulate her.  She told me she hadn't expected this.  Her husband, Chad Parker, is a colonel in the national guard and when the governor asked her to take the position, she decided she'd ask to be deputy.  That's a civilian, state position, that wouldn't put her directly over her husband.  But Chad told her she couldn't turn this opportunity down.  Accepting the position requires her husband's resignation from the Guard.

In October, during the campaign, she'd written an op-ed piece in the ADN on how to reform the national guard. (I'm assuming my readers know about the scandal which played a role in defeating our former governor's reelection bid.)  She listed six steps to heal the Guard, which I'm abbreviating here.  You can read the whole piece here.
1. Immediately hold legislative hearings -- with witnesses under oath -- to independently investigate malfeasance in the Guard.
2. Appoint an independent special prosecutor to address criminal actions not currently enforceable by the Guard’s antiquated, ineffective state version of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
3. The Legislature must create a viable UCMJ. The Guard must advise and guide but the state’s Military Code is a state statute. This is the province of our Legislature. The heavy lifting for creating a meaningful and effective code is done in committee. This would appropriately be accomplished by the House Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs. But again, nothing is happening on that front.
4. Separate the adjutant general (TAG) position from the commissioner, DMVA position. Tom Katkus and his predecessors were dual-hatted as the TAG and commissioner.
5. Fill the existing military legislative liaison position to the Alaska Legislature.
6.  The commander-in-chief (our governor) must demand, receive and embrace unfettered access to Guard issues and take a personal and active part in restoring a culture of transparency. 
She was hoping to work on these as a legislator and these focus on what the legislature and governor need to do.  But now she gets to work on these from the inside and from the top.

Side note:  Hummel will become the first female adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard.  She told me there had been women heads in Vermont and Ohio, but they have left office.  Other states are appointing their heads now as well and she wasn't sure if there would be another woman among them.

As I explore google's offerings on "women adjutant generals national guard" I get
Ohio's Maj. Gen. Deborah Ashenhurst and Vermont's Major General, Martha T. Rainville and Alaska's Col Laurel Hummel in the first five hits.  Moving down the lists there are a number of male adjutant generals whose page mentions "the fine men and women."  


But then up popped up BG Mary Kight who became California's first female, African-American adjutant general in 2010.  Are there others?  If Hummel pops up already, I'm guessing that if there were other women appointed to be their states' adjutant generals recently, they would show up.  But proving there are no black swans is harder than proving there is one.

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Reps. Gara and Kawasaki Introduce Constitutional Amendment To Create Less Partisan Redistricting Board

I get media emails every day and sometimes I pursue them, but most of this stuff goes to all the media and I don't need to cover it.

But today I got one on a Constitutional amendment to change Alaska's Redistricting Board to make it less partisan.  Since I've been paying some attention to Alaska's Redistricting Board, I did look into this one.

Two Democrats - Reps. Les Gara and Scott Kawazaki - introduced this House Joint Resolution (HJR).  I looked through it quickly.  Here's what I saw.

Highlights:
  • Increases the Board from five members to seven.  
  • Six would be members of the two top political parties chosen by the parties.  (Currently the governor chooses two, the presiding officers of the state senate and house each  choose one, and the supreme court chief justice chooses one.)
  • Seventh member would be chosen by the Board by Dec. 1 of the census year.  If they can't agree, Supreme Court chief justice chooses.
  • Seventh member must not be a member of any party for the last ten years.
  • Board members can't run for the legislature until after next decennial census and new redistricting board plan is in place. (Currently can't run until second election after new plan approved.)


What seems to be lost in the new proposal (language that's cut out and I don't see replaced elsewhere) is:
  • Designated time for having the six political members appointed.
  • New members have to be state residents for at least a year.
  • New members can't be public employees or officials.
  • Requirement that members chosen without regard to political affiliation (this changes and it wasn't followed anyway.)
This is the first attempt that I know of to change the redistricting board since the current plan was approved in December 2013.  At this point, I assume the Republicans think they'll still be the dominant party in Alaska by 2020 when the next redistricting takes place.  If that is the case, they would prefer the current system which gives them control over four out of five of the board members.  And by then the Supreme Court Chief justice could be on their side too. And since the Republicans have a strong hold on both legislative houses now, I don't expect any attempts to move too quickly on this.  But much can change in six years.    

This wouldn't be a "non-partisan" board, but it would be a more balanced board. 

Below is a copy of the new submitted HJR (which doesn't have a number yet).



And here's a June 3, 2013 report from the Alaska Legislative Research Services titled "Nonpartisan Redistricting" which includes an attachment of an article by Gordon Harrison on the 2002 Redistricting process in Alaska and recommendations for changes.  This  came with the email announcing the constitutional amendment.

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Laurie Hummel Announces Bid For State House Seat - Laurie Who?

I get emails.  Today one told me that Laurie Hummel is running for the Alaska State House in  northeastern Anchorage District 15.

I first 'met' Laurie Hummel when she was interviewed by the Alaska Redistricting Board with two other finalists for the executive director position last year.  I put 'met' in quotes because I was listening in by phone from my mom's house in LA.

The result of the interview was one of the more effusive blog posts I've written.  She had all the qualifications for the position and more.  A PhD in cultural geography which meant she knew all about mapping.  When they asked her if she knew the software program they used to do the mapping, her response was, "Well, I've never taught a class on it."  That wasn't a cheeky answer.  She'd explained that she'd taught classes in GIS in general just before.
Laurie Hummel

What about her experience with Alaska Natives?  At that point the federal Voting Rights Act section that required Alaska to get pre-clearance from the Justice Department hadn't yet been struck down by the US Supreme and so knowledge of Alaska Native regions was important.  Her answer - she wrote her doctoral dissertation on the impact of the military on Alaska Natives. 
What kind of experience did she have in dealing with sensitive situations?  Well, while in the army (she retired as a colonel), one of her projects in Afghanistan was to help integrate women into the Afghan military. 

She was ready for every question with a perfect response in a very modest and respectful tone.  For specific Alaska administrative procedures she hadn't worked with - like travel rules - she checked online and had the regulations.  I couldn't believe the Board had found such a perfect applicant.  I was  blown away with how amazingly she handled the interview.  Apparently the Board was too.  So much so that soon after they announced they decided not to fill the position.  My guess is that they were afraid of someone so well qualified, head and shoulders above most of the members of the Board to do this job.

So I found her email and asked if she'd talk to me when I got back into town.  I wanted to meet this woman.  We had a very pleasant conversation and I went away convinced that my first impression was right.  We talked a few more times over the phone and by email.  I learned that she was being recruited to run for office.  That was not in any of her life plans she said.  She was particularly turned off by the idea of asking people for money.  In the end, it seems like the appeal to service got to her.  If she thought politics was so bad, didn't she have a responsibility to do what she could to make it better?   Is Juneau easy compared to Afghanistan?

I don't know her views on many issues, but I do know that she's a well educated candidate with significant military and Alaska experience. She's spent a good part of her military career in Anchorage where she served as the Alaskan Command’s Chief of Operations Intelligence.  She's been on the West Point  faculty (her alma mater.)

People who complain about the lack of good candidates should check out Laurie Hummel.

Norm's on Bragaw and Debarr
noon to one
Thursday, January 23, 2014

    The email I got also said that she's talking at the      Bartlett Club tomorrow at noon.  I think I've been to one or two such meetings in the last 30 years, but I'm planning to see how she does. 


Friday, December 20, 2013

Alaska Redistricting Plan Now Final - Just The Bill Is Left To Settle

Fairbanks Superior Court Judge Michael McConahy made two short rulings [see both below] today.

The first declares the Alaska Redistricting Board's 2013 plan to be the official plan until the next decennial census.

You can see the statewide and area maps at the links below.

For all the other documents - including individual district maps - click here.

The second addresses a dispute between the parties - as I understand it - over who is the prevailing party and public interest litigant status.  The judge gives the parties until January 22, 2014 to file motions regarding those issues and how fees and costs should be allocated.


This will be of particular interest given the change in the law which has led the state to charge Vic Fischer and Bella Hammond for their litigation over Pebble Mine.   In this case, while the challengers did not prevail in this part of the litigation, they certainly prevailed in the earlier parts and I can't see how any objective person could believe this wasn't a public interest litigation that has benefited the state, even if they did not prevail in this last portion.

First order:  








Monday, November 18, 2013

Court Rules On Redistricting: "The court accepts the 2013 Proclamation Plan"

I turned on my cell phone as I got off the plane in Seattle on the way to see my little sweetie and there was a message saying the decision on the redistricting case had come down in favor of the Redistricting Board's plan.  I haven't had a chance to read the decision yet, but here it is and you can read it yourself.