Thoughts On The Anchorage Mayor's Race

The only thing I know for certain, the current mayor needs to be retired.  He was the surprise winner last time in a runoff.  He was a candidate because of the pandemic and homelessness.  He was backed by those who opposed masks and the decisions to quarantine in Alaska and Anchorage.  A key group supporting him live in Geneva Woods, a neighborhood of large houses in mid-town, where his supporters were strongly opposed to the Municipality buying a Best Western Hotel that had seen better days and turning it into a shelter for the homeless.  Easy walking distance to their snooty neighborhood and that was unacceptable.  

His supporters have disrupted Assembly meetings, yelled epithets are LGBTQ and Jewish Assembly members, wore yellow stars and compared the restrictions due to COVID to be like the Holocaust (which they normally would deny even happened.)  

Many of his appointees have long gone.  One of his former City Managers is suing the city for about three quarters of a million dollars,  His approach to homeless folks was a mass shelter in a giant tent.  I'm still fairly certain that if we track down why he wanted to buy that tent, we'd find some sort of financial or political connection.  Snow removal has been a disaster.  

So, the mayor is not on my list.  

Suzanne LaFrance was on the Assembly for much of the Mayor's tenure, chair part of that time.  She early on announced she was running for Mayor.  This is a non-partisan race and I'm not sure if she is even registered as one part or another.  She's done a reasonably good job and certainly knows the details of what's gone on in Anchorage.  I even interviewed for six or seven years ago when she was a first time candidate running for the Assembly.  She was pretty raw, but dedicated.  She's learned a lot over the years.  

But then Chris Tuck announced he was running. Tuck is a Democrat who has been on the Anchorage School Board, but then spent more time in Juneau as a representative - including stints as minority and majority leader.  I met him when I blogged the legislature in 2010 and he's a very personable guy and has a reputation of being able to work out compromises across party lines.  He's got strong labor connections, yet LaFrance has garnered a lot of union support.  I was told he voted for legislation that labor opposed (or vice versa) but I have no details.  

Tuck's entry into the race threw the liberal challenge against the incumbent mayor into confusion.  Both were good candidates.  LaFrance supporters started pointing out that Tuck was anti-abortion.  He's never denied that, but he's also said he votes for what his constituents want, and to my knowledge, as a politician has gone along with the other Democrats on abortion issues.

Then Bill Popp joined the race.  Popp has been head of the Economic Development Council for many years and says he's never registered in either party.  Before Trump hijacked the Republican party, Popp's interest in business and economics would have aligned him with more traditional Republicans, at least with the Chamber of Commerce,  though I do not know his stance on social issues.  He has good knowledge of Anchorage.  

This race requires a candidate to get at least 45% to win.  The sense I get is that those who follow politics closely don't expect any of the candidates to reach that number.  

The question then is who will be in the runoff.  An article in the Anchorage Daily News today says the candidates suspect that Mayor Bronson will face one of the above three in a runoff.  

So, who to vote for?  I think LaFrance and Tuck would both make good mayors.  They're both level headed and decent people.  I suspect the same could be said for Popp, but I don't know him really, and my perception of him as part of the Chamber of Commerce crowd takes him out of my top two.  (Lots of people join the Chamber of Commerce, not because they are politically aligned with their fairly conservative business view of the world, but because that's where many of the key players gather weekly.  My uninformed sense is Popp probably fits in with the Chamber crowd comfortably.)

So, LaFrance or Tuck?  

I was happy when LaFrance announced her candidacy.  I was thrown into a conundrum when Tuck announced his interest in the race.  LaFrance seemed to be more intimately knowledgeable of City dealings because of her position on the Assembly and dealing with all the issues for the last six years from there.  

Tuck seemed like an interloper, though he represents Anchorage and is an astute politician who has paid close attention to the city in which his district lies.  I'd note that when Elvi Gray Jackson announced her US Senate run in 2022, Tuck announced he would run for her Alaska State Senate seat.  That avoided a run against fellow Anchorage legislator Andy Josephson.  Both had been redistricted into the same district.  But when Gray-Jackson saw what was developing in the US Senate race, she pulled out and signed back on to run for her State Senate seat.  At this point, Tuck pulled out altogether - choosing not to run against either fellow Democrat.  I think that reflects positively on his moral compass and willingness to support his fellow Democratic legislators.  

It also suggests to me that he didn't make the decision to run against LaFrance for mayor lightly.  

As I watched the lists of people signing up to support LaFrance or Tuck, it appeared to me that people who knew LaFrance the Assembly member, supported her.  Those who knew Tuck from his rule in the State legislature supported him.  

I think they'd both do a good job.  My biggest concern is that they'll cancel each other out and Popp ends up in a runoff with Bronson.  And, again, I think Popp will be a competent mayor, but not necessarily someone aligned with a forward looking stance.  (By that I mean, someone who recognizes that Climate Change is the biggest challenge facing humanity and business has been a prime supporter of policies that have brought us to this climate crisis.)

I've picked one of the two.  My absentee ballot is still in the house.  I've got some time yet before I have to turn it in.  I'm on pause just in case something happens to sway me toward the other candidate.  I'm not expecting anything to change, but just in case.  

The only conclusion I have come to firmly is that Anchorage should switch to Ranked Choice Voting.  Then folks can vote for the first and second (etc.) choices.   

How Wisely Did The No Constitutional Convention Campaign Spend Its Money?

The Alaska Constitution requires a ballot measure on the ballot every ten years, asking voters whether there should be a new constitutional convention.  This year Alaska held the sixth such election.  

Those pushing for an election had two main goals:

1.  To make abortion illegal by either cutting out the Constitution's privacy language, adding new language that would outright ban abortions and/or say the privacy section doesn't cover abortions.

2.  Make the process for choosing judges more political so they could get judges who will not interpret the privacy clause to allow abortions.

There were any number of additional far right goals that they would love to tamper with if they got the chance.  

The measure lost decisively on Tuesday.  Mail-in, absentee, and questioned ballots are likely to make the No vote even higher and there's no way they could change the outcome.  

 

An Anchorage Daily News article today tells us:

"Defend Our Constitution dominated spending 80 to 1.

They recently reported spending $4 million and raising $4.7 million. The donations came mostly from Outside organizations like the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which is based in Washington, D.C. and has been described as a left-wing dark money group.*

Convention YES spent about $50,000, usually from small contributions from individual Alaskans, allowing them to make small ad purchases."

So, how effectively did both sides spend their money?  It's hard to know.  But since we've been voting on this question every ten years now since 1972, we can at least look at the margin of victory for the NO vote over the decades:

Alaska Constitutional Convention Question (1972)
Result		Votes	Percentage
No		55,389	65.49%
Yes		29,192	34.51%

From Ballotpedia

Alaska Measure 1 (1982)
Result		Votes	Percentage
No		108,319	62.93%
Yes		63,816	37.07%

From Ballotpedia

Alaska Constitutional Convention Question (1992)
Result		Votes	Percentage
No		142,735	62.70%
Yes		84,929	37.30%

From Ballotpedia

2002 was 72% No;  28% Yes.  [This image from Alaska Division of Elections because I couldn't find the 2002 election from Ballotpedia.]

Alaska Ballot Measure 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
No		179567	66.59%
Yes		90079	33.41%

From Ballotpedia 2012

Alaska Ballot Measure 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		62,985	30.15%
No		145,937	69.85%

From Ballotpedia   2022   [These numbers will change when all the mail-in and absentee ballots are added in.]

So, the highest NO vote has been 72% NO in 2002.  The lowest No vote was 62.7% in 1972.  

I'm guessing they could have spent $2 million and still defeated the measure soundly.  Probably $1 million.  The extra $2-3 million could have done the state a lot more good spent on the governor's race and a few of the state legislative races.  

I suspect a lot of money was wasted in this campaign.  Sometimes you don't know, but in this case we have ten years of election results suggesting Alaskans aren't interested in a Constitutional Convention.  

*I'd note that "has been described as a left-wing dark money group" is just troublesome language.  Use of the passive voice allows you to say something happened without saying who did it.  "Has been described as" could be pinned onto nearly any phrase.  And 'dark money group' is a short hand cliche that means 'bad'.  I'd bet half the readers would have trouble giving an accurate definition and they certainly wouldn't all define it to mean the same thing or in a way that would accurately describe the Sixteen Thirty Fund.  

However The Night Ends, Remember These Two Things

 1.  However things turn out, remember that more people will have voted for Democratic candidates than Republican.  Only a Senate that gives small states (Wyoming and Alaska both have under 1,000,000 populations) the same number of Senators as large states (California has almost 40 million and New York has 20 million) and gerrymandered House maps cause the outcome to seem close. 

2.  Whatever the results, we must continue the struggle for respect, decency, understanding, and democracy.  No gloating if the results are good, no giving up if they aren't.  

The 2024 election begins Monday.  Lots of people have to talk to people about their values and where they came from and listen to others do the same.  Here's one path forward:

What is going to happen in these midterms? And what will it take for the pro-freedom movement to defeat American fascism?

Join @anatosaurus and me for this @nytopinion Twitter Space today at 12:30 pm ET.https://t.co/W9xLbOYjK4

— THE PERSUADERS by Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) November 7, 2022

I worked at a polling place today from 10:30 to 2:30.  Everyone was cordial to everyone.  Even when a ballot got jammed in the machine and people had to wait, they were calm and reasonable.  (I did have home made chocolate chip cookies as compensation for the wait to fix the machine.)

Click to enlarge

Alaska has great I VOTED stickers.  The blue Alaska flag stickers and then some alternate stickers designed by kids.  

I'm Keeping Busy So Here Are Some Recent Pictures

 Monday morning I biked over to the Century theater to see Amsterdam.  An odd hour to see a movie but that was the only time it was playing.  I liked it, but it was a bit odd at times, which is probably why I liked it.  It hasn't done well at the box office - it was a little too quirky I think and while it's message was a timely reminder of past attempts of Nazi's to take over the United States, it took too long to get there and then to spent too much time explaining itself.  

It was chilly - mid 20s - but sunny.  Even early afternoon, still just October, the sun doesn't get too high above the southern horizon these days.  So I did some errands and then went a bit out of my way to catch the Campbell Creek trail back home

It seemed that all the geese still in Anchorage were using the south of Tudor soccer fields in the old Trent homestead as a grass station before heading south.  

I used the pan feature on my phone since that was the only way I could get them all in.  But now they're so small you probably can't see them.  There's a mass in the middle to the left and more in front of the trees to the right.  

Today I was shoveling the new snow from the driveway.  I pulled out my phone to take a picture and noticed there was a voicemail message.  It turned out that what I thought was my 11am meeting was at 9:15.  I jumped in the car and wasn't too late and we had a good meeting.  But ever since my computer upgraded to the next California location named version of IOS, my calendar has not been my friend.  First it wiped out everything I'd had on my calendar. And today I realized it's not giving me the 24 hour notices it's supposed to give, so I don't get blindsided like I did today.  I ended up taking this picture when I got back.  

I left so fast for the meeting that I forgot to take our absentee ballots.  I after I actually got the driveway cleared - not too long, only a couple of inches - I went to the Election office to drop off my ballots.   I parked in front on the street behind this car.  

I saved this at a higher resolution so you could click on it and enlarge it (like I should have done with the geese.)  We were maybe 100 feet from the entrance to the Division of Elections.  I did point out that he was parked there and they said they'd get right on it.  But when I came out he was getting in the car and driving away.  

There is a sign on the front door about not campaigning - including bumper stickers, buttons, T-shirts, etc. within 200 feet of a polling place entrance.  

I do understand that if you have stickers on your car you need to park somewhere.  I'd like to give this car the benefit of the doubt and he just forgot or didn't know the distance rule.  But part of me thinks he enjoyed his little act of defiance.  The stickers almost look like they're holding the vehicle together.  

Democratic Congressional Candidate Debate Made Me Vote Constant

 I'd narrowed my choices down to Mary Peltola and Christopher Constant in the primary for the special election to replace Don Young.  

With 48 or so people running, followed by our first ever ranked choice general (still special) election, it's confusing.  It would seem that Democrats need to give enough votes to one or two candidates to make sure at least one ends up in the final four.  

But after watching this Tongass Democrats Debate recently, it was clear to me that Constant was clearly the most prepared.  He was well prepared for all questions and had the details of issues at his fingertips and could articulate them clearly and concisely.  Made the decision much easier for me.  

So I invite others to watch and judge for themselves.  

I'd note that the lack of statewide debate forums is a problem in this election.  I realize that public radio/public television or even the private stations can't have a debate with 48 people.  But there's only one race, so they could have eight debates of about six people each.  They could decide if they would be randomly picked, or picked by party, or however.  Having an open primary is great, but it doesn't help unknown candidates if there is no statewide debate forums.  It only helps candidates with lots and lots of money or prior name recognition.  

And another note about the mail in election.  Yesterday J took our ballots to Loussac to put them in the drop box.  They said there was no drop box and to go to the post office.  [Turns out the drop boxes aren't available until May 27.]  Well, today our ballots came back to us.  I read all the instructions carefully and thought I followed them.  But our name and address was on one side and the Election Office address was on the other side, and it got mailed back to us.  Our mail carrier had already noticed it and was going to take it back.  He said it was the only one he'd seen come back like that.  

So, there's a design flaw in the ballots if they can get mailed back to the voter instead of to the election office.  Pay attention when you're mailing your ballot.  Or just wait until the 27th and put them in the drop box.  

Between Voter Suppression And Supreme Court Activism GOP Is Ripping Apart US Democracy

 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse is working hard to shine light on Republican actions to thwart democracy through covert operations.  In this previous post "When You Find Hypocrisy In The Daylight, Look For Power In the Shadows" - Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse At Barrett Hearings  I offered a video of Whitehouse outlining the goals of the new GOP Supreme Court.  (New referring both to GOP and to Supreme Court.)  He identified 80 cases where there was a 5-4 majority (conservative v. liberal) split in the rulings and identified these four key outcomes:

• Unlimited Dark Money - that allows the wealthy and corporations (yes those do overlap) control legislatures that make the rules and even to get people appointed as head of federal agencies that regulate them.  Citizen United is the key decision here, but there are many others
• Knock the Civil Jury Down - The powerful can't control civil juries like they can control Congress.
• Weaken Regulatory Agencies - particularly pollutors to weaken their independence and strength
• Voter Suppression and Gerrymandering - making it harder to vote for citizens who might vote against their interests - Shelby County decision on no factual record against overwhelming support on the other side, that knocked out voter suppression protections and a bunch of states started suppressing the vote.  Same on gerrymandering.  

The goal of all of these is to create a Supreme Court that would strengthen power of corporations and the very wealthy.  He also outlined the Federalist Society's 40 year campaign to create this kind of court, including the creation of a legal ideology - Originalism - that would allow justices to reinterpret the Constitution to meet the conservative objectives.  All supported by dark money.

I'd like to call your attention to a New Republic article - The Supreme Court's Total War on Congress - by Simon Lazarus, Robert Litan/July 8, 2021 that argues the Supreme Court has shown in recent cases that it is now at war with Congress and has moved past its powers to interpret whether a law is Constitutional, to simply invalidating laws they don't like.  Here's one brief quote from the article which they say embody their thinking underlying a couple of cases decided in the last week of the Court's session:

 "If we cannot come up with a credible Constitution-based excuse for striking those provisions down, we will simply turn to the power justified two centuries ago by Chief Justice John Marshall as this court’s responsibility to “say what the law is.” We will use that raw power to ignore or rewrite unwanted statutory provisions, to render them ineffectual, or to produce results directly opposite to what they mean."

They are specifically looking at the case which essentially invalidated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and a decision which blocks a California law allowing unions to meet with workers on private property in labor campaigns.  Clearly the Voting Rights case fits the last of Whitehouse's four categories - Voter Suppression and Gerrymandering.  The anti-union case probably fits into the Weaken Regulatory Agencies category, though this was a California State law.  

You'll notice that State's Rights are used when convenient - as in the Voting Rights case - and also ignored when convenient - as in the California case.   

Finally, here's Sheldon Whitehouse again responding to these two recent Supreme Court cases in a Tweet today:

This week’s Scheme speech discusses two decisions just delivered by the Court – Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. FEC and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee – that reflect the patterns and purposes of the Court-capture effort. https://t.co/LgkaE3zYkW

— Sheldon Whitehouse (@SenWhitehouse) July 13, 2021

 

Watching this video, I had to acknowledge that Whitehouse is a very slow and deliberate speaker.  But the content is is rich in fact and meaning.  For those who find Whitehouse too slow, I offer this comment by cartoonist Jen Sorenson on the recent Voting Rights Act.

I'd note that the two items in the title - Voter Suppression and the Supreme Court - are only two of the GOP efforts to destroy our democracy.  Trying to overturn elections is another.  Violent attacks on opponents is another.  Keeping democracy is going to require extra effort on the part of those who believe in democracy.  Extraordinary effort to get voters to the polls despite the obstacles the GOP is setting up and the Supreme Court is allowing is one option.  

AK Redistricting Board Chooses U of Pittsburg Law Professor Bruce Adelson To Be Voting Rights Act Consultant To The Board

The Voting Rights Act required Alaska and 15 other states to get pre-clearance from the  Department of Justice before their maps are adopted.  These are all states that had a record of racial bias in their elections.  The pre-clearance requirement was struck down by the US Supreme Court in the middle of redistricting last time, but the Board had already taken that into consideration in their maps.  

Adelson image from U of Pittsburgh

Here's the announcement the Redistricting Board sent out today:

We are pleased to announce that the Alaska Redistricting Board executed a contract yesterday for Voting Rights Act Consultancy with Federal Compliance Consulting led by seasoned VRA expert Bruce Adelson who will be assisted by Dr. Jonathon Katz and Dr. Douglas Johnson.

Mr. Adelson has extensive experience consulting with state and local governments on Federal VRA issues.  In the 2011 cycle Bruce provided Voting Rights Act expertise to the Alaska Division of Elections.

On initial look at the proposal and a quick look online, Mr. Adelson seems very well qualified.  

The other two applicants were Lisa Handley, who was chosen by the previous two Alaska Redistricting Boards for this task, and Christian Grose.  Handley's proposal includes an expert who would also look at the potential impact of Alaska's Ranked Choice Voting on the fairness of the new maps.  

I'm posting Adelson's proposal and the other two applicants below.

Bruce Adelson of Federal Voting Rights Consulting LLC Winning Proposal To Alaska Redistricting Board by Steve on Scribd

Lisa Handley Proposal for Voting Rights Act by Steve on Scribd

Christian Grose Proposal to Alaska Redistricting Board for Voting Rights Act Consultant by Steve on Scribd

Redistricting Board Meeting Friday April 16 (Tomorrow) 2:30 PM - Public Testimony Taken And Voting Rights Act Consultant

 The Board's meeting tomorrow at 2:30.  Here's the agenda:

Date: April 16, 2021

Time: 2:30 pm

Place: Public Numbers: Anchorage 563-9085, Juneau 586-9085, Other 844-586-9085

Agenda

1. Call to Order

2. Establish a Quorum

3. Adoption of Agenda

4. Public Testimony

5. Adoption of Minutes from past meetings

6. Request for Information for Voting Rights Act Consultant

7. Adjournment  (emphasis added)

As you can see, most of the agenda is procedural.  There are only two items, maybe just one, with any substance.  I had to ask if "Public Testimony" meant they were going to talk about how to do it (since they haven't done that publicly yet) or if they were taking public testimony.  The answer was the latter, which, if I had paid closer attention to the notice at the state public notice site, I would have figured out myself.  

But what is there for the public to comment on?  And how does the public know that they can comment?  I dare say the average Alaskan doesn't know how to find the state's public notice page, or if they do, they can't find the Redistricting Board meeting.  

As of right now, I can't find any mention of the meeting or public testimony on the Redistricting Board's website, where it surely should be.  I would note, though, that you can sign up for email notifications of meetings and other key announcements on the website here.

It would appear the only truly substantive item on the agenda is the  Request for Information for Voting Rights Act Consultant.  What is this?  

The 1965 Voting Rights Act and its later renewal sets out the law for acceptable voting practices including redistricting. 

Alaska was one of 16 states required to get pre-clearance from the Department of Justice for their redistricting plans.  It's one of just seven states who were covered in their entirety by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).  The other states only had some jurisdictions that are covered.  

In the 2010 Redistricting process, the Board put Section 5 at the top of their agenda because if the Department of Justice (Obama was president then) didn't approve the redistricting plan, they had to start all over.  But in 2013, after the Board had done everything it could to comply with Section 5, the US Supreme Court invalidated Section 5.  The House passed the renewal of the Voting Rights Act in 2006 with 92% voting for the bill and the Senate voted 98-0 to pass it. I'd note that Alaska's Senators and Representative all voted in favor.  And this shows how messed up Congress has become since then.  

Nevertheless, Supreme Court, only seven years later, said that just because states had problems in1965 that didn't mean they should still be considered problems in 2013 and that Congress needed to reevaluate whether those states still needed pre-clearance.  You can see an extensive history of the bill here from the Congressional Research Service.  

Of course, we seen since then, that many of the 16 states that had required pre-clearance, immediately began finding ways to suppress minority voters.  And many more now are introducing ways to make voting for Blacks and other likely Democratic voters much more difficult.  

Part of getting pre-clearance last time involved a complicated set of formulas for maintaining the power of minorities in certain districts in the State.  In Alaska that meant a number of districts in which Alaska natives had enough population to sway the election. Those requirements are gone now. So the role of the Voting Rights Act consultant is very different, and limited, compared to ten years ago.

Here's a 2011 post called:  Can The Board Keep Nine Native Districts?  to give you a sense of the complexity of what they had to do.  Here's another on the topic:  Boundary Setting And Terminology Around Minority Districts.

And here's a post on the meeting with the Voting Rights Consultant who was calling in from Afghanistan where she was consulting on elections there.  Board Talks to Voting Rights Consultant Lisa Handley Calling from Afghanistan.  My notes say:

One hour meeting talking about

• What data she'll need to do her analysis
• Clarifying how to determine "Native"
• Other issues like whether 35% will be the number still for Native influence districts (not necessarily)
• How does voting age fit in?
• Schedule - her return time (April 24), how long until product (three weeks later)

Oh, yes.  Here's a copy of the draft RFI for the Voting Rights Consultant this time:  (sorry, the formatting is a bit off, but you can see the original here - at the bottom after all the minutes.  

(Again, this is a pretty esoteric expertise, particularly necessary every ten years, though I'm sure different states require experts between reapportionment.  This RFI does mention experience in Alaska redistricting which limits things even more.  But I suspect that requirement is NOT required, but desirable.  I'd also note that the RFI does give notice that the proposals may be subject to public disclosure.  That would be helpful for us all to evaluate the competing proposals.  Certainly seeing that Schwabe - the law firm the Board retained - proposal made it clear that that firm had access to Michael White who was the legal consultant to the previous board.  That removed any questions I had about the selection process.)

 SCHWABE DRAFT Request for Information (RFI) Voting Rights Consultant

Background

The State of Alaska, Alaska Redistricting Board, issues this Request for Information (Request) for a Voting Rights Consultant to assist the Board, and prepare a statistical racial bloc voting analysis of statewide and state legislative elections held in Alaska in 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020.

Scope of Work

The contractor shall provide Consulting Services and Voting Rights Assistance as directed by the Redistricting Board and Project Director.

Services shall include but are not be limited to the following:

1. Preparing a statistical racial bloc voting analysis of the 2012, 2014,2016,2018 and 2020 statewide and state legislative elections in the State of Alaska to determine whether voting in the State of Alaska, or in specific regions of the state, is polarized by race and assist the Board in complying with the Voting Rights Act while creating new legislative districts for the 2022 election cycle. This may include a vote dilution analysis of proposed plans.

This service will include the following tasks:

1. Assisting in the preparation and design of the data base needed to conduct racial bloc voting analyses.

2. Preparing a draft written report and a final written report to the Board outlining the results of the racial bloc voting analysis.

3. Making an oral presentation to the Board of the results of the analysis.

4. Advising the Board on matters pertaining U.S.Voting Rights Act of 1965.

This service may include the following tasks:

1. Assist the Board in determining if one or more proposed redistricting plans may comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

2. Serving as an expert witness for the Redistricting Board on Voting Rights Act issues in any court challenges to the Board’s redistricting plan, including testifying in deposition and/or trial as requested.

3. Performing these tasks and other Redistricting Board Consulting Services/Voting Rights Assistance as required by the Project Director.

4. Travel to the Redistricting Board Office in Anchorage for consulting as requested. Two or more visits may be needed.

Response Requirements

Responses must include the complete name, mailing address, telephone number and email address of the responder(s). Responses must, if applicable, provide notice that the offeror qualifies as an Alaskan bidder. Responses must be signed and dated by the responder.

Offeror must provide:

1. Comprehensive narrative statements that illustrate their understanding of the purpose and scope of this project, any pertinent issues and potential problems, and statements that illustrate their understanding of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the impact of subsequent amendments and court decisions.

2. A description of the offeror’s qualifications and experience in preparing racial bloc voting analyses in Alaska and other jurisdictions.

3. A description of expert witness experience the offeror has provided.

4. A description of the statistical analytical methodology the offeror will employ to perform the required services.

5. A listing of current or past clients similar to the Redistricting Board, a brief description of service provided and a contact name and phone number of each client.

6. A listing of staff experience in advising clients on redistricting/reapportionment in Alaska and other states and jurisdictions.

7. Information on the company ownership,headquarters,branch or affiliate offices, length of time in business,

8. Indicate if the award of this contract would require the acquisition of additional office space, equipment, personnel or any other items. Be as specific as possible, i.e., how much additional space, specific equipment, the number and function of additional employees, etc.

9. Adescription of any distinct and substantive qualifications for undertaking the proposed contract, such as the availability of specialized equipment, awards and recognition received for similar services or special approaches or concepts relevant to the required services under this Request

Costs & Expenses

1. Offeror’s must provide an hourly rate schedule for services provided in order for the proposal to be considered responsive. Proposals received that do not included hourly rate(s) shall be considered non-responsive and shall be rejected.

2. NOTE:Reimbursement for all travel and out-of-pocket expenses shall be limited to the items authorized by the Project Director as set out in a contract resulting from this Request.

Travel to the Redistricting Board Office in Anchorage for consulting as requested. Two or more visits may be needed.

References

Responders are encouraged to provide a list of references the Board may contact to verify the responder’s character, qualifications and experience.

Funding Source

Funding for the Alaska Redistricting Board is subject to Legislative appropriation.

Submission Details, Deadline

Provide one electronic copy of the requested information to the email address below. Responses to this Request must be received by 4:00 p.m. AST, on May 3, 2021.

• Peter.Torkelson@akredistrict.org

This Request in no manner obligates the Board to pursue a contractual relationship with an entity that responds to this Request or limits or restricts the Board to pursue a contractual relationship with an entity that does not respond to this Request.

This Request in no manner obligates the Board to pay any costs incurred in the preparation of any response to this Request. A party responding to this Request is responsible for all costs associated with their response. Responses become the property of the Board and may be subject to public disclosure.

Questions should also be directed to Peter Torkelson at

• Peter.Torkelson@akredistrict.org • 907-406-2894

Spring Time In Anchorage And Other Thoughts

Springtime In Anchorage

Spring in Alaska is different.  We still have a significant amount of snow on the ground.  

And streets look like streams and small lakes.

But the sun is galloping toward the solstice at nearly 6 more minutes a day between sunrise and sunset.  People still say things like "more daylight" but the daylight starts well before the official time of sunrise and lasts longer than the official sunset.  

Georgia's Voting Wrongs Act

The news, of course, distracts me if I let it.  Reports of Georgia's new Jim Crow laws to suppress voting mention making it a crime to bring food or water to people waiting in line to vote.  Yes, that's outrageous.  But the food and water focus overlooks the fact that these new laws will continue making long lines for undesirable voters into something normal.  Lines long enough that they'll need to get water and food.  Apparently they didn't outlaw bringing bottles that another story says that Amazon drivers carry because they don't have time to pee under their demanding delivery schedules.  

Let's be clear, if people have to wait in line for an hour to vote, it means there aren't enough voting places or staff.  Requiring such long lines are clearly an attempt to prevent people from voting.  Republicans argue voter restrictions are to overcome voter fraud, a phenomenon Trump's lawyers failed to prove in over 60 court cases.  

And that's what the Republican party has been reduced to:  preventing people from voting, ads that lie and unfairly characterize Democrats,  gerrymandering, and voter suppression.  

In the Supreme Court an attorney siding with Arizona's Republican National Committee defended such practices as the only way Republicans can win:

“What’s the interest of the Arizona RNC in keeping, say, the out-of-precinct ballot disqualification rules on the books?" Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked, referencing legal standing.

“Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats,” said Michael Carvin, the lawyer defending the state's restrictions. “Politics is a zero-sum game. And every extra vote they get through unlawful interpretation of Section 2 hurts us, it’s the difference between winning an election 50-49 and losing an election 51 to 50.”

Just as McConnell pledged to make President Obama a one term president, the Republicans in the Senate and House vote on legislation based on how it will help Democrats or hurt Republicans, not on what's good for the US.   

Democrats and those disillusioned with what the Republican Party has become, have to continue to do everything they can to get all those folks who don't normally vote to the polls.  They have to find ways to revise the filibuster rules so that the minority can't veto every piece of legislation.  

Word Matter - Especially In Headlines

I think it's important for every consumer of news to pay close attention to the words used in headlines.  Getting clicks means making headlines edgier and more confrontational than is warranted.  Republicans are working hard to frame what's happening with immigration as "Biden's Border Crisis."

Let's remember Biden has been in office just over two months.  And that the Trump administration delayed transition briefings that have always been routine parts of the transition of power from one president to the next.  Until Trump.  

By focusing on the border, the Republicans and the media that follow them, reduce the problem to the lump and not to the underlying disease that causes the lump - the dangerous conditions people endure in key Central American countries that force people to flee for their lives.  If you dig deep enough into these conditions you'll find the fingerprints of American Imperialism, from protecting US corporate interests, say in bananas, to the Iran-Contra arrangements that led to the US supporting repressive wars in the area.  

I also saw a link to the first Biden press conference that was headlined something like "hard hitting questions."  The video showed Kaitlin Collins pressing the president on whether he would run for reelection in 2024.  Really?  He's being evasive if he doesn't say yes two months into office?  That's hard-hitting?  No, that's not anything that takes any sort of research.  It's the kind of question that perhaps she's hoping she can get a momentary bump on her Twitter feed for being the first to get Biden to say he's running for reelection.  But it's a political question, not an informed question about policy that would be important for people to hear.  And Biden handled it appropriately, saying it wasn't something he's focused on.  That there are more important issues he's facing.  

Why Hasn't Biden Pushed Immigration and Gun Reform Already?

Biden's also getting criticism from some in his party for not pushing harder on immigration or gun control.  Politicians have to weigh what is important against what is achievable.  Immigration and gun control are still quite controversial.  Look at how the Republicans voted on COVID relief.  They were almost 100% no votes among Republicans.  Voting Rights should also be an easy vote.  Like COVID relief, it has strong the backing of US people, if not of all of their representatives in Washington DC.  Infrastructure is another highly popular and needed endeavor and one with lots of carrots for Republican lawmakers who want better roads and bridges in their states.  

My interpretation is that Biden wants to go after the' easiest' of the important tasks first.  He doesn't want to get bogged down in the most controversial issues.  Once he gets Voting Rights and Infrastructure in place, he can focus on Immigration and Gun Control.  If he starts with the gun control and immigration, everything else could get bogged down and he'd have nothing but COVID relief (a big deal on its own) to show for the 2022 election.  But reporters on deadlines with pressures for clicks and no time for in-depth research, grab what's easy rather than what's important. 

But media that allow their journalists time to dig deep are able to come up with stories that give us background that helps us understand people and situations that are normally just names passing our eyeballs briefly.  

Today's LA Times had a lengthy story about the Ball family's making Chino Hills into a basketball center.  Before this, the only awareness I had of the Ball family was the incident where one of them was suspended from the UCLA team after shoplifting during a team visit to China.  There's a lot more to know - though the article barely mentions the China incident.  It's not the same as many of the stories in the NYTimes or Washington Post on critical issues of the day, but it is a piece that has some depth to it.  

[UPDATED 5:30pm -  Just got back to finishing today's LA Times and there's another article that goes into more depth about something - this time about racism in LA's surfing culture.  It focuses on two black friends who surf every morning and then one day got involved in an incident at Manhattan Beach.

"As emotions climaxed, a different surfer — white and older — inserted himself into the fray. He began calling Brick the N-word repeatedly. Then he called him a “donkey” and violently splashed water in his face. He also called Gage, a 25-year-old dancer and choreographer with painted nails and arms full of scribbly tattoos, a gay slur and told him to “go back to the streets.”

“Go down there … that’s where the Blacks used to surf,” the man added, referencing Bruce’s Beach, a once-thriving Black-owned resort at the center of a fierce land battle in Manhattan Beach today. (The property was taken through eminent domain more than 100 years ago. Local activists are calling for Los Angeles County to return the land to the living descendants of the Bruce family and for the city of Manhattan Beach to publicly apologize and provide restitution for its role in institutionalized racism.)

As the altercation ensued, a crowd of mostly white surfers surrounded Brick and Gage and refused to intervene. A Black passerby named Rashidi Kafele took notice and started filming. He wasn’t used to seeing Black surfers in the water and, upon hearing the N-word, knew he had to document it.

This was the first time Brick and Gage had been involved in a racially charged altercation in the water, but locals had seen instances like this before. Kavon Ward, founder of the organization Justice for Bruce’s Beach, says the situation “shows that nothing has changed in Manhattan Beach.”]

LA Times has an obituary of Larry McMurtry today..  Obituaries of famous people are a little different because newspapers tend to have drafts of them ready, especially as they get older.  

It talks about his growing up in Archer City, Texas listening to cattle herding stories from his grandfather to his opening a bookstore and writing books like Lonesome Dove and screenplays for movies like The Last Picture Show and Terms of Endearment.  Later, recovering from a heart attack and by-pass surgery, he joined friend Diana Ossana who worked to overcome McMurtry's depression.

"Ossana eventually got him back to the typewriter with the story of the 1930s outlaw Pretty Boy Floyd. “It was the way to jump-start him into life,” she said. “He was shriveling up and would have died.”

The pair collaborated on a number of novels and teleplays, but their cultural and aesthetic sensibilities most famously aligned in 1997, when Ossana recommended an 11-page short story about two gay cowboys that was published in the New Yorker.

“I don’t read short fiction,” McMurtry told her.

Twenty minutes later, they were writing a one-page letter to Annie Proulx asking to option “Brokeback Mountain.” They had a first draft in three months and, in 2006, accepted the Oscar for best adapted screenplay.

Standing with the golden statue in hand, McMurtry, who had paired an Armani tuxedo jacket and shirt with bluejeans, gave a special nod to “all the booksellers of the world,” whom he thanked, 'from the humblest paperback exchange to the masters of the great bookshops of the world ... contributors to the survival of the culture of the book, a wonderful culture which we mustn’t lose.'”

I also spent time responding to a long comment about White Privilege.  I won't repeat it here, but if you have any interest, you can see the discussion here.

Enjoy the weekend.   Passover begins tonight.  

 

Alaska Redistricting Board Chooses The Easy Contracting Process For Hiring Its Attorney

 The Redistricting Board met Tuesday, December 29, 2020, to take two actions:

1. Determine whether to use the Legislative or Administrative procurement process.  
2. Start the process for hiring an independent counsel for the Board

It appeared that the Board members were connected via zoom (someone talked about not being able to turn off the hand raised icon), but people like me using the phone line provided were only listening by phone.

But there was an agenda posted and links to the documents in the Board Members' packets.  Those present were: 

• Peter Torkelson as Executive Director 
• TJ Presley as Deputy Director. 
• John Binkley, Fairbanks, Chair of the Alaska Redistricting Board. 
• Melanie Bahnke of Nome, 
• Nicole Borromeo of Anchorage, 
• Bethany Marcum of Anchorage  
• Budd Simpson of Juneau.   

I'd note that the documents include the 2010 RFP for an attorney and the winning bid by attorney Michael White.

Which Process?  Below is a chart prepared by staff comparing procurement constraints of using the Administrative Code versus the Legislative Code.  

The brief discussion focused on:

• Minimum and Maximum bids
• Who could protest the decision
• How long each process would take

Procurement Code Features

State Procurement Statute is found at AS 36.60

Feature                              Administrative Code              Legislative    Code
No Bid Maximum	$50,000	$35,000
No Bid Max with documented justification	$100,000	No fixed ceiling
No Bid Direct Procurement Exception for State Agencies (UAA/Dept. Labor)	No	Yes
No Bid Direct Hire of Legal Counsel Allowed	No	Yes
RFP Time on the Street	20 days	20 days
RFP total time to complete once published	60 days	45-60 days
Protest Allowed	Yes, bidders only within 10 days	Yes, “interested parties” within 10 days
– Protest freezes contract execution	No	No
– Protest Step 1	Procurement Officer documents findings may implement remedy	Procurement Officer documents findings may implement remedy
– Protest Step 2	Commissioner of Administration who may refer case to an Administrative Law Judge	Appeal to Legislative Council
– Right of Appeal	Superior Court	Superior Court
Inter-branch payment coding required	Yes	No

They had several people available for questions:

• Emily Nauman, Attorney with Legislative Legal Services
• Rachel Witty, Attorney with Department of Law
• JC Kestel, Procurement Officer, Legislative Affairs Agency

The memo to the board discussing the options in more detail (and available as one of the links) was written by Legislative Legal staff member Emily Nauman and is dated December 23, 2019.   It concluded: 

"It is advisable that the Committee abide by competitive procurement rules.  However, the statutes establishing the Committee are silent as to what procurement rules apply.  Therefore, the committee can likely choose which procurement rules to abide by.  There are three options, the state procurement code (AS 36.30), the Legislative Procurement Procedures, or the Court System Procurement Guidelines.  Whatever set of procurement rules the Committee choses, it should abide by them consistently for all of its procurements.:

 In the discussion they also talked about the difference between using an RFP or an RFI.  Here, a key differences was that the RFP had to be "on the street" for 30 days and the RFI only 10 days, plus the RFI was much less 'formal.'  That is it has fewer checks in the process.  Some may see those checks as red-tape, but they were originally put there to make bodies more accountable.  But as long as the Board puts all their documents online, that should compensate for a faster process.  

Board member Budd Simpson of Juneau said that in any case he wanted the bid out on the street the full 30 days to make sure anyone interested had time to find out about and respond to it.  

He and Nicole Borromeo of Anchorage volunteered to work on the draft Request with Executive Director Peter Torkelson.  

Melanie Bahnke larified that the Board would be the evaluation and selection committee.  

Below are my rough notes as the meeting moved to the end:

Melanie Bahnke:  Move Board begins RFI process for Legal Counsel, board needs to approve.

John Binkley:  Discussion?  If no objection, the motion is adopted.  

I think that’s the only two items on the agenda

Let’s get this done as fast as possible.  

John Binkley:  Maybe we can get a time next week when we can all get together.

Budd:  I’ll send out an email notice.

?? - Going to have to be a weekend If next week.  We have other meetings.  

John:  Anything else?

Budd Simpson:  Peter and PJ could you run thru the Request for last time (ten years ago) and make necessary edits for dates and names to give us a first cut at what Nicole and I would take a look at.  When you make changes, do it with red lines so we can see changes easily.  Continue to use that so everyone can see changes.

Peter Torkelson:  OK, you guys should have in your head, how the RFI is going to deal with the Voting Rights Act changes.  Old one has clear language about pre-clearance and Voting Rights Act, not as important as last time since requirements no longer apply.

Melanie Bahnke - that was the main thing I saw about Voting Rights Act and pre-clearance.  Something else, these meetings are being recorded and made available.  Requirements of minutes, are these required?  Court reporter.

Peter:  On our agenda.  Chasing them down.  They are being recorded and posted on website within a week and stay there.  

John Binkley?:  I have name of court reporter and haven’t followed up with them.

JP:  Open meetings and public notice, we’ll have to adopt how we’re going to do that, voted on and all agreed on.  

John:  Anything else?

??:  Thank Peter and PJ for getting documents out well in advance.  

John Binkley:  Motion for adjournment?  Made and seconded.  Adjourned.  

??:  Someone is going to have to figure out who made the motions etc.  plus time adjourned etc.  3:10pm Adjourned.

Here are a few thoughts I have after following most of this process starting in March or so 2011:

Voting Rights Act (VRA) - 1964 law pushed through by President Lyndon Johnson after Kennedy was shot.  It recognized that a number of states had traditionally discriminated against minorities in voting and it identified 16 (I think) that needed to get pre-clearance from the Department of Justice before their redistricting plans could be approved.  Alaska was one of those states because of treatment of Native Alaskan voters. Many of the others were Southern states.  

Last time round the Board had to make sure that they didn't diminish, through redistricting, the voting power of Alaska Natives.  There could not be fewer districts than before in which Alaska Natives were a key block of voters.  Thus, the first plan was carefully worked on to be sure Alaska Native districts would not be diminished in order to get pre-clearance.  This involved a lot of terms like "Minority/Majority district":  Here's a post I wrote on the issue in April 2011.

After the Board got its pre-clearance (which included testimony by a VRA expert who helped the Board,  the first plan was successfully challenged and a second plan had to be undertaken.  Somewhere in this process the US Supreme Court, in Shelby v Holder in 2013  ruled that the section of the VRA that required the pre-clearance was out of date and no longer applied.  But the Board here pretty much kept the Native districts in compliance anyway.  However, since then many of the states that were required to get their plans pre-cleared have done everything they could to suppress black and other minority voters.  

We'll see to what extent Alaska Native districts are preserved this time round.  It isn't easy because in rural Alaska where Natives have a majority, the population is very sparse, resulting in some huge districts geographically.  And while there are enough Alaska Natives to have their own district in Anchorage, they aren' living just on one or two areas.  

Timing -  You may have noticed that the memo I quoted above was dated Dec. 23, 2019.  At the meeting they mentioned that the previous board had gotten their RFP for the independent counsel in October 2010 and so they were a bit behind and thus can't wait the long time period needed for an RFP.   I realize that we're in the middle of a pandemic, but we've all gotten better at distanced meetings and I'm not sure why the Board didn't start this process earlier.  On the other hand, the Bureau of the Census isn't going to be handing over the census data on time and it may arrive later than it did in 2011.  

Virtual Board Meetings -  There were a few times during the last board's tenure that I had to listen in online or by phone.  But by then I'd been to many, many meetings and I could recognize the voices of all the Board members and staff.  Listening in this time was trickier.  If someone didn't call on someone by name, I had to guess at who was speaking.  It appeared that the Board was connected by Zoom.  There's no technical reason why people who want to 'attend' the Board meetings can't do that via Zoom as well.  I've been on a couple of national zoom meetings where the key speakers had their video and sound on and everyone else just listened in, no video, no sound.  

I'd also note that the transcripts of the prior board were many months behind.  I later learned that one of the problems was the stenographers, who were getting audio tapes of the meetings, couldn't figure out who was talking and they needed to have that info on their transcripts.  

The Board has posted  video of three of the six meetings listed at the AKLeg website, including the December 29 meeting I'm reporting here.  And transcripts are so much easier to scroll through and search.  The the video that the Municipality puts up of the Assembly meetings does allow for searches.  

Transparency and Openness - I got to listen in to the last meeting because someone sent me a link to the site.  I'm still looking for the Board's website.  There are a couple of 'redistricting' sites for Alaska, but they look like someone has just bought the names.  They don't have anything to do with the actual Board that I can tell.  

And when the Board does get its website up, I'd like to request that they plan where it is going to be preserved.  There are lots of important Alaska documents there and they shouldn't disappear after the Board closes.  The various links to documents and maps shouldn't just go missing.  Perhaps the legislature needs to require the preservation of the website and all the linked documents.  One of the Alaska history related libraries in the state could be given the funds to maintain the site after the Board concludes its business.  

For those looking for transcripts of what happened ten years ago, the best resource I know are my own posts which are indexed here in chronological order starting March 15, 2011.  I'm hoping that the increase in local and state reporters at the ADN and at Alaska Public Media means that paid journalists will be covering this decade's redistricting board.  And I can just drop in now and then.   

Potential Conflict of Interest

When the Binkley family bought the Alaska Dispatch (formerly and presently the Anchorage Daily News) the ADN noted:"

"The buyer is the Binkley Co. LLC made up of siblings Ryan Binkley, Wade Binkley, James Binkley and Kai Binkley Sims. The group is working with Jason Evans, owner of Alaska Media LLC, though the proposed sale agreement lists only the Binkley Co. as buyer."

From what I can figure out - sorry, I haven't kept close tabs on Fairbanks personalities - these are John Binkley's children.  So there is at least the appearance of a potential conflict-of-interest in how the ADN might cover the Board.  Though it's also possible they allow the editor to run the newspaper independently.  

KTOO reported  that John Binkley took over the opposition to the recall of Governor Dunleavy last March.  Since then that campaign has gotten a huge assist from the Corona Virus.  But it means that Binkley is the third Board member with ties to Dunleavy, who appointed Bethany Marcum of Anchorage and E. Budd Simpson of Juneau to the Board.   I'm merely pointing these things out.  The Board has been pretty partisan in the past and as long as the members are appointed by politicians it will continue that way.