AK Redistricting Board Meeting - Tying Up Loose Ends Before Hunkering Down To Make Final Maps

[Sorry, this is kind of rough, but it's been a long day and there will be more to do tomorrow, so until official transcripts go up, here's what happened today.]

 Today's Redistricting meeting was intended to get the Board ready to spend the next couple of days back at their computers making the final maps.  

There was public testimony first.  Really, some speakers who got a lot of time.  Rep. Matt Claman submitted written testimony and discussed it with the Board.  Randy Ruedrich, former chair of the Republican party, the main brain behind the AFFER maps, and one of the best versed Alaskans on redistricting spoke about the AFFER maps and why deviation has to be the most important criterion. Also Robin O'Donahue and David Dunsmore of AFFR went through the changes AFFR has made to their maps in response to all the public testimony.  

Then the Board went into executive session.  I listened to the first part by phone from home and went to LIO to hear the Board's attorney Matt Singer summarize what the Board had heard from the VRA consultants:  The four Native districts - 37, 38, 39, and 40 - are still Native districts so no problem.  And looking at some of the diverse Anchorage districts, they found no evidence of blocks of votes based on race in those districts.  While they are diverse, they are made up of different ethnic groups and don't vote as a block.  So, again no problem.  

Then Peter Torkelson, the Executive Director of the Board explained how the staff verified that the

Census data they downloaded on August 12 and used to make all the maps, was indeed the real Census data and hadn't been hacked.  He did this by comparing it to the physical hard drive and disc that arrive recently and matching the fingerprints.  I get the general idea, but not the details.  

Then he outlined what the Board has to do in the next week before the November 10 deadline.  I went through that in the previous post. They have to truncate the Senate seats - after the finish the new maps and pair the house districts into Senate seats.  

Truncating means identifying which districts have a substantial increase of new voters, that is voters who never voted for the incumbent Senators.  This is necessary because people shouldn't have representatives who weren't elected by the voters in the district.  There's no exact definition of substantial, but 30% apparently is at the high end.  That much and the district has to be truncated.  A normal senate seat is four years.  And that means instead of serving out the rest of their term (if they aren't up for election in 2022) those seats that are truncated will have to run again in 2022.  

But that's only step one.  The Constitution says the Senate seats need to be staggered so only 10 senators are up for election in any one year.  (That way there are always some senators who have some experience in office.)  So, there's a good chance that more than ten senators will have to run in 2022.  In that case, the Board will have to decide which ones will run again in 2024 and 2026.  

Eric Sanders, a tech on loan from the Department of Labor, will spend the weekend - or as soon as there's a final map - writing legal descriptions of each district.  This will verbally describe the boundaries of the districts based on geographical and man-made features.  He did this for the previous redistricting board to.  

So, then just before adjourning there was more public testimony.  David Dunsmore responded to the several pages of documents the Board handed out of the analysis by the Voting Rights Act consultants.  He agreed with their assessment of the rural districts 37, 38, 39, and 40, but did not agree with their assessment about their being no racial voting patterns in the diverse Anchorage districts.  He also mentioned that he didn't see any mention of the pending change to ranked choice voting and how that might affect racial voting patterns.  (I know that sounds a bit sinister - racial voting patterns - but the idea here is that if there are blocks of diverse communities who vote overwhelming for one party or the other and that voting pattern is different from the white voting pattern, then the Voting Rights Act plays some role in making sure their voting power is not watered down.)

Then, they recessed so they could move the meeting from the Legislative Information Office to the Board's office in the old University Center.   It's in the hallway between where UAA and the University Theaters used to be (the DMV is there now) and where Roundtable used to be.  They're close to the Round Table end, but you have to enter where the DMV is.  

Meeting at Redistricting Board Office at University Mall

I stopped by there on the way home.  Only Robin and David were in the audience.  You can zoom in.  It didn't look like I'd gain much watching them this afternoon and I had other things to do so I took some pictures and left.  

Below are my very rough notes of the meeting with more detail, but for most people I'd recommend just stopping here.  Not sure there is much more that the average citizen needs to know.  Tape and transcripts should be available before too long.  

MY ROUGH NOTES

9am  waiting for connection

Four members there - Budd Simpson not

Adopting agenda.

Agenda

Call to Order and Establish Quorum

Adoption of Agenda  

Adoption of Minutes

Public Testimony – will conclude at 10:30am

Dial into one of the phone numbers above and indicate to the operator that you wish to testify

Had to connect by phone.  Sounds like testimony

Randy Ruedrich  Talking about deviation.  

Binkley - SC urged lower deviations in local areas, Anchorage .93 %  Sounds like Randy Ruedrich - results in FB overpopulation.  We got an ideal map.  Reason large deviations then we had VRA and to maximize to get Native majority districts 

Binkley:  clarify.  When you say maps have 12X between the highest and lowest.  

Ruedrich:  Talking about over population in FB in 2010   -  .39%  ideal statewide compared to FB

This year, v3, deviations above 4% on average is 10X .4%.  

Binkley:  I understand, previous SC decisions have applied deviation within Municipality, but not Statewide.  

Ruedrich:  After litigation in 2002, met with Board to get deviation as low as possible.  16% excess population divided among Matsu districts.  SC commended board for lowering deviations.  

Borromeo:  Asking us to minimize FB deviations?

Ruedrich:  Exactly.  Should be minimized everywhere.  AFFER adds the Glen Allen precinct to get us a full 6 units of population.  We’d have exactly 6 districts.

 Do you think that’s more important than SEI?

Ruedrich: SEI is overrated - Most are within urban areas so it’s irrelevant.  Only a few districts where it’s a problem - District 40 is what’s left.  It’s mostly Doyon Villages.  Much better of 2013 map which put Doyon villages in ?? districts.

Bahnke:

Ruedrich:  Map we presented in FB has a Northside district.  We go east to west, Old Nenana Road goes top of all existing districts.  Northside should be competitive district and leaves less than 4K people (20%), that can be put in District 5 the rural Athabaskan district.

Binkley:  You’re saying SEI 

Ruedrich:  First equal representation, 5 districts 2 ok, other 3.  Traditionally one NP district, other ?? District, 3rd is far north which combine with NS.  Chena Ridge inappropriate. 

Rep. Claman -  Turned in written testimony.  Here 2 things.  Product of 1998 amendment to constitution.  Changed deviation.  Need to bring deviation low as possible.  Close to 1% deviation which means 1/2 percent.   33 or 34 districts statewide in urban.  Less than 1% problematic.  

Page 4 of written testimony - NSB 5.3%   Main point - deviation is starting point, then SEI next.  Cordoba shouldn’t be in SE in previous SC, but changes, such as ferry system, make it worth reconsidering.  Basis for Board to find that integrating Cordova to SE.  Now connected to kodiak, which seems further.

Borromeo:  Thank you.  More difficult areas, I have read your testimony.  Any thoughts on Valdez.

Claman:  Time spent there. Part oil and part Fishing.  Lean to more oil than fishing.  Better paired with Matsu than the fishing communities, but you could make argument for both.

Bethany:  Deviation between 5 districts in FB or from target population of entire map.  

Claman:  On page 4 of my testimony.  If take 18,335/ Anchorage population - just shy of 16.  Trying to get 16 districts w/in 5% of that number.  16th district as close as possible.  Same with FBs. FB gets 4+ districts.  Look at most populous areas and should be able to get those areas within that target since two maps did.  

Binkley - is deviation considered within the Municipalities, not 

Matt Singer (atty) - talking about Hickel SC ruling - 10% total statewide deviation, but within Muni should be within 1% of ideal population, but SC never said that.  Are urban voters more entitled to one person one vote than rural votes?  If reduce to almost zero in urban areas, then necessarily creating exaggerated deviations in rural areas. We’ll be able to talk more in executive session.  

9:34

Borromeo:  Asking for minimum deviation or one person one vote for FB?

Claman:  Matsu is 5.84, my perspective.  FB .22 over the 5 is much closer to five than six.  So 5 districts in FB and sixth district that gets part of FB.  Based on SC precedent, rural areas are harder to get right.  

Borromeo:  Cancel each other out?

Claman:  Hard to make case that FB should have six districts when overage is .22

Borromeo:  Overpopulating FB short changes them

Claman:  Districts should be closer to the targets.  

Binkley: Thanks  OK Randy  Don’t see anyone on line

Borromeo:  ????

9:38

Ruedrich:  Respond to counsel - 2002 case, different set of constraints than today. VRA act to create minority-majority districts with assumptions that those districts would be under populated.  That issue is gone, so interpretation in view of that change is that we minimize deviations.  Not within one B or another.  Mission as we did map - minimized deviations altogether.  Western -.35  for Aleutian chain = -1.08.  Admit with very few populations.  Won’t get rural to 1/8 percent only by accident.  Just above 1% is goal achieved.  Strives to maximize representation for Western Alaska.  D37, 38, 39, basically south to north.  D37 already needed 1000 people.  Had 8 villages.  Our solution was to take 5 Lower Kuskokwim school districts and putting them into 37??  And they could all vote for same Senator.  Wind up with deviation of -1.08 and -.35 for Calista.  Accomplishes significant things for Calista people.  Have half of a Senator.  Larger share of Senate S.  

Binkley:  You said Doyon broken 5 times and in this map broken once?

Ruedrich:  It had 4 different representatives.  No only in 39 and D5?  

Like to move to Matsu Borough.  Six whole house seats, need 6 hundreds of a house seat.  Denali B has 9 hundredths of a house seat.  Would work.  I’d prefer full representation situation, requires take Glen Allen district SEI, those folks, go back to core area of Matsu to go shopping when things not available in Glen Allen.  Borough requested - not updated, incorporated in AFFR map.  

Wasilla - a highway town.  Mayor’s comments on record.  City centered N-s on Mainstreet - Wasilla Fishhook.  N part of district 13 on this map.  Western boundary Church road.  Wraps around Church and comes back down south.  This is what the mayor requested.  Can’t say there would be a different outcome than other districts from what we’ve drawn.  

Binkley:  Thanks Randy, you’ve put a lot of thought into this.  I see one on the line.  Let’s go to FB person

Debbie ??? FB - Thank you very much for all your work. I went through all the plans.  Noticed SE - every map presented have the 4 districts 800 to 1000 under the 18,335.  These are shrinking.  Other districts must be over populated if they are underpopulated.  So I recommend that SE boundaries reach up to Cordova and possibly Kodiak to get them fully populated.  

Wasilla/Palmer are growing the most, so those districts should have the largest underpopulation and in ten years they wouldn’t be underpopulated.  Tried to get maps from 40 years ago.

I want best representation for voters.  AFFER or v4.  

Binkley:  Questions.  Looking to how things might grow in the future, not something we allowed to do.  We have to go by Census numbers.  Can’t consider the census inaccurate.  In terms of over and underpopulation.  We’ve gotten as close as practicable.  We have to look at Compactnes, Contiguity, and SEI.  Then look at least deviation.  In SE, geography restricts us.  Can only go to north and only community is Cordova, but it would overpopulate, but would split Cordova in half.  That would be hard to divide Cordova like that.  

Debbie:  Cordova, on the map, appears a lot closer to SE much closer than to Interior.

Binkley:  Different maps connect Cordova with different areas.  It’s about 2500.

Debbie:  Oh, that’s small.

Binkley:  We appreciate you taking the time.  Here in Anchorage

Robin O’Donoghue and David Dunsmore:  AFFR, we submitted a 25 page report - all the comments since Sept. 1 and tried to coordinate.  AFFR had most statewide report - Western Alaska and Aleutians.  Responses on Constitutional issues - looked at constitutional impacts of the 6 plans taken on the tour.  Believe our map is the only constitutional option.  We made two modifications and David will comment in moment.  Comment on VRA and some additional public testimony.  Last, request for board, process.  Early on Board withheld Senate pairings  - ask ample time to provide feedback on the Senate pairings.  Take in testimony until the final day of this process.  Thank you for all your work.  Here’s David on our changes.

David:  Amendments after public testimony.  Regions of the state.

 Thank you all and staff for hospitality you’ve shown across state tour and hard work.

One overarching constitutional issues is Borough boundaries.  Hickel case why our approach minimizing breaking B boundaries.  Hickel - recognize may be necessary to break a B to deal with excess population,  Then all should go to one district.  2011 ??  Cases the same with FB.  AFFR is only map that achieved that.  One area where did have to divide B twice was Kenai Pen B.  Not possible to do that and all other maps did that.

Technical corrections.  Told board already.  Operator error.  1) Yakutat - portion of Canadian borough put in Coast district by mistake.  2) Anchorage - Elmore Road by mistake   3) two substantive amendment move ?? fromDistrict 38 and 39.  SE remove PoWales Island from D4 to D2 and switch with portions of Admiralty Island.

Kenai - unanimous opposition to Status quo - had to drive thru Soldotna to get to rest of district (Seward) want to be connected with Homer.  Homer strong desire for entire Kachemak bay in a single district.   

He goes on to talk more about Kenai, SE, FB details

Interior also strong support for our concept - Eilson, Salcha, 

Bahnke - Nome - captured Nome sentiment

Dunsmore - Robin can speak more to that.  Robin spent hours poring over the testimony.  Aware, Nome had population loss.  No way to make a district that doesn’t include other distinct cultural groups with Nome.  

Bahnke:  Makes no sense -Nome testimony - to connect Athabaskans with Sea people - your map was not popular in Nome.  

David:  It’s possible there’s an error in the numbers.  Your assessment of Nome is accurate.  My recollection was no one’s map was popular.  Interior villages didn’t think it made sense to have Hooper Bay.  Nome is one area where people would prefer a different map than any other map.

Bahnke - In Nome people like v4.  

Borromeo - you are capturing sentiments, but miss Nome, so are others accurate?

Dunsmore:  Based on what’s online and in the public record.  We’ve shown methodology.

10:31   [I’m being distracted so not capturing this all.]

Binkley - one more public testimony

Brian - In prior opportunities expressed concern about west Anchorage - AFFER and v4 - approaching the ?? Process.  Plug for AFFER for West Anchorage.  V4  That’s all I have.  

Binkley:  Conclude public testimony.  Go into Executive Session -OK take a break then go to ES.  

10:30am – Executive Session with Legal Counsel Voting Rights Act Compliance in 2020 Proposed Plans

Voting Rights Act Compliance in 2020 Proposed Plans

Presentation by Matt Singer, Schwabe, Legal Counsel to the Board

1:14 - Board back from ES  - Matt Singer, Board attorney presentation, handouts.

Voting Rights Act - has been part of Alaska Redistricting.  CAn’t diminish Alaska Native Control districts.  Have traditionally elected Native politicians.  Dr. Katz is statistician, Bruce Adelson VRA expert.  Analysis.  Katz concluded that racially polarized voting does occur

Districts 37,38,39 40 are protected.  Analyzed v3 to see if needed modifications.  Concluded they do not because D37-40 have enough Native population to elect candidate of their choice.  Did note that some districts have very high native populations.  Cracking would be diluting by spreading over districts.  Packing - when minorities packed into some districts and not giving them more power.  Could we add a fifth Native district?  Decided that we could not - just wouldn’t make sense.  

Detailed report to explain our IRA analysis.  Barring some drastic changes - all the plans had those four districts - they drew themselves the way the population is divided.  

Other component - Neighborhoods in Anchorage with diverse neighborhoods we looked at distribution of Anchorage population as example and House D19 there are 33.4% id as white  two or more  12.5 Hispanic  ……. Can’t keep up….   Is there a difference between white and minority voters?  We could not find statistical evidence to support there is political cohesion among the groups nor racial block voting.  Not a VRA obligation to draw Anchorage districts a certain way.  Board has obligation to NOT discriminate against minorities.  Compact, contiguous districts board avoids discrimination.  

Longwinded way is our advice to Board is VRA does not require alteration to the plans the board is now considering.  We’ll run the final plan through the experts.  

Q? No

Review of Sept 16 Census Physical Delivery Data 

1:26   Peter Torkelson:  Next item.  Our receipt of physical data package.  We sent out an email detailing this.  Point here is to be sure that the data we are using is the actual Census data.  August 12, downloaded from internet and things could be compromised.  We cross-checked different ways to validate.  Constitution says board must use Census data.  Only authoritative data we can use.  Census followed up with a hardware - DVD and thumb drive.  Opened the files and found data file.  At first glance seems to be same file we downloaded.  These files look to be the same.  But we must be able to document that downloaded data is exactly the same as the Census data.  

Compared new data to the downloaded data.  Digital fingerprinting - comparing two electronic files to make sure they are exactly the same 

[Explaining in more detail how he checked to confirm the files are identical.]

Avalanche effect - one small thing can cascade an avalanche of difference.

Digital fingerprints of Aug 12 download identical to physical file received in September.

1:35

Binkley - a lot shorter than your email.  

Peter:  I got a lot of feedback about the email…

Public Hearing Tour Summary

1:37  Review places we’ve been to meet Constitutional obligation to hold public hearings.  We took the six adopted plans

First half hour just talking with people about the maps on the wall and then offering public testimony.  Smaller communities people less likely.  [Basically talking about where they went - timing, etc.  Not much critical substance..  

List of Quick Stats - hundreds of truly generous Alaskans.  One lady testified, then left.  Went to store to buy us food before the local store closed.  We were overwhelmed by generosity of Alaskans.

1:44

Binkley - we all share the thanks for the hospitality of Alaskans around the state.

Review & Discussion: Tasks Ahead, Key Decisions 

VRA analysis not complete because we don’t have a completed map.  I work at your discretion, but also my duty to hold your feet to the fire.  

Next tasks ahead and vision for the week - board will do as they wish, but we’d recommend.  We urge you to get a final map by Friday.  We need another of days after the final map to fulfill our duties.

Mr. Sandberg from Dept of Labor has to write detailed descriptions of 40 districts.  He offered to work the weekend to get it done.  

Other tasks.  Contacted by GIS departments of Boroughs and cities about problems with maps and they want to take our shape file and run it through their systems to identify where out maps may divide a house or other problems.  

Want to do the Senate pairings and to do that, have to run core constituency reports - what % of voters were in the previous districts.  In some districts we’ll have 90% the same voters, but in other districts not so high.  May have to truncate because voters in that district have substantially changed.  20 Senate seats, ten elected every cycle.  Decide a) which seats have to run again, and b) assign which election cycle each seat will run.  

That’s why we have to do final map by Friday.  But it won’t be final official map until we adopt the full proclamation - need to have everyone do all these things.  So need to get the map done by Friday.

We have organized our offices to have work sessions.  Maps on walls.  Time for board to look more inward and draft maps that reflect the standards and the public input we’ve received. Are two days enough?  I don’t know.  

Then come back here when done and explain Friday and formally adopt.  

Binkley:  Thank you Peter.  For all of us first time through and trying to get through.  You’ve outlined a good course of action.

Borromeo:  I find the office a better atmosphere for mapping.  Plenty of seats for everyone who is here today.  I encourage people to just do their mapping.  

Marcum:  I agree we’ll be more productive mapping.  Trying to do all this in two days, I suggest we start today and tonight.  Rather start early and intensely and get done early, rather than wait.

Simpson:  I agree

TJ Presley:  There needs to be a final public testimony opportunity.  Just make sure you are incorporating that.

Torkelson:  The mapping at the office will be open to the public.  We’ve got seating and made that possible.  Suggest public testimony before we make final decisions. 

Binkley:  We’d come back with Senate pairings and recommend public testimony after we do the senate pairings - maybe Monday morning.  Try to get things done Friday and staff can clean up on Monday.

Binkley:  OK, then we can recess, suggest.

Matt Singer:  Recess to another location.

Torkelson:  We have a zoom link, however, this is a dynamic process, people doing around.  No way to capture this whole process.  Not the same as if you were there in person.  

1:59pm

Matt:  When you make decisions should do that in way that is as public as possible.  

Peter:  Work session will be recorded.  Need to move from formal process and when decision points come, get more formal.

Matt Singer:  You will have to make decisions at different points should make that clear.  

Pressley:  Want testimony now?

Binkley:  If someone has something to say?  David Dunsmore

Dunsmore:  Brief time to look at VRA handouts.  It seems to me clear evidence of racial profiling in East Anchorage.  We concur with conclusion for rural Alaska that 4 rural districts required.  I’d suggest Board to ask Adelson to supplement report - one thing missing, curious how national expert would tackle the problem - how Prop 2 is going to interplay with bra analysis.  Under prop 2 (ranked choice) uncertain how last election would have ended up.  Appropriate to Board to ask for analysis of Ranked Choice voting.  It’s happened in various countries around the world, so I assume there are methodologies for analyzing.  Also appropriate to ask in ecological analysis, not just races, to see where Native Candidate against non-Native candidate.  Also VRA considers candidate of its choice, but doesn’t have to be same race.  

Also put on record couple of races - haven’t seen Anchorage analysis.  I think some showed clear racial voting.  Bettye Davis barely won her district but when paired with ER, minority voters denied the candidate of their choice.  White voters in ER heavily voted for Anna Fairclough.  Also 2012 Garen Tarr v. Cal Williams - clear white/minority voting.  That was a primary race, so not partisan polarization.  Also given new voting system, overlapping Senate district - Tom Begich v. ???.  Thank you again for the opportunity to give testimony

Matt Singer:  Adelson believes some white cross-over voting in AK native districts.  

Dunsmore - I did see but not that tied in post Prop 2 world.  

Matt Singer:  If five districts in Anchorage with 45% or more minority population.  

Dunsmore:  I don’t have the numbers in front of me.  

Matt:  v3 and v4 had five minority districts in Anchorage where a majority - if you buy that the diverse minority groups voted the same - every group came up with about five districts.

Dunsmore:  Haven’t had chance to review the other plans for this.  

Binley:  Thank you.  If not close and recess to work session at our office

Borromeo:  3901 Old Seward Highway, near DMV (Old University Center)

They adjourned at this point.  I’m afraid I stopped tracking the time.  It was maybe 2:30 or so.  

Mapping Work Session

This continued at the Board’s office.  

Adopt Final Redistricting Map  - postponed, most likely to Friday

Adjournment

Redistricting Issues From Friday's Meeting: Gerrymandering,- The Issue Underlying Most People's Concerns

[Note:  I thought this post was going to be about 'issues' raised at the Friday (Sept 17,2021) meeting. But the more I worked on it, the more it was clear that all the issues stem from attempts to and concerns about gerrymandering.  With three Board members nominated by Republicans, one by and Independent, and one by the nominally apolitical Chief Justice, there is concern by non-Republicans.] [Note 2:  This post  kept me hostage most of the day and roughly does what it says above. And more.]

Friday after the meeting,  I put up links to the seven 3rd party map proposals that were introduced at the meeting, but without much comment.  In this post I'm going to focus on the public testimony and the issues that were raised.  I won't get into the details of the 3rd party plans - I need a lot more time.  But I can talk about the underlying issues that they represent which, in some cases, are related to the issues the public raised.  

Let's start with a headline in today's Anchorage Daily News - and let me say that I'm glad that the ADN is actually covering redistricting at all this time around.  Last time round it was a long time before they had any serious stories.  

"May" in this headline should be "will."  There is no question redistricting will determine Alaska's elections for the next ten years.  The question is whether it will skew them hard to the right or let us have relatively fair elections meaning the districts will allow the state legislature to reflect the will of the  voters.  Why not skewed to the left? As I mentioned above three of the Board members were chosen by Republicans.  The governor chose two:   Budd Simpson of Juneau and Bethany Marcum of Anchorage.  Simpson is a Juneau attorney and has been relatively quiet at Board meetings.  Marcum is the executive director of the Alaska Policy Forum.  APF is one of the many far right, libertarian, anti-government 'think tanks' with funding ties to the Kochs* who work hard to remove regulations and keep taxes lower among other things.  Marcum's job at APF is to further the interests of the far right ideology.  This is a perfect position for her to do that.  Can she refrain from taking advantage of this opportunity and work for a fair map?  Does she want to?  Can the rest of the board counter that?  Let me say, that I don't know Bethany Marcum other than having introduced myself at one of the meetings.  She was warm and welcoming.  

*[I think' Kochs' or 'Koch Brothers' is now the generic term, even though brother Charles is the only one left..  "Charles has always been the brains behind the brothers’ vast corporate and political operations."]

The third Republican, chair John Binkley, was appointed by then Senate President Cathy Giessel.  Geisel was seen as a very conservative Republican until Governor Dunleavy started massive budget cuts.  She joined a coalition with Democrats and was primaried out of her seat by the Republican Party.  Binkley is a former state senator and Fairbanks businessman.  His family owns the Anchorage Daily News.  He's chaired the Board with an eye toward allowing public testimony at the beginning and end of each public meeting and has leaned toward openness.  My interactions with the Board staff have all been met with openness.  

House Speaker Bryce Edgmon (I) chose Nicole Borromeo, head counsel for the Alaska Federation of Natives.  I'd note that Edgmon had been a Democrat.  

Chief Justice Bolger appointed Melanie Bahnke, the president and CEO of Nome-based regional nonprofit Kawerak Inc.

Does this represent Alaskans?  The largest single category of voters is "undeclared" which means they chose not to say what party they align with. Of the groups that do declare, 'non-partisan' has the second highest total. But they don't get a seat on the Board.   The latest list of registered voters in Alaska (9/3/21) shows this breakdown:

Registered Voters	Alaska	Sept 3, 2021
Political Parties	A - ALASKAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY D - ALASKA DEMOCRATIC PARTY R - ALASKA REPUBLICAN PARTY	18,947 78,946 144,249
Political Groups	C - ALASKA CONSTITUTION PARTY   E - MODERATE PARTY OF ALASKA  F - FREEDOMREFORM PARTY  G - GREEN PARTY OF ALASKA  H - OWL PARTY  K - ALLIANCE PARTY OF ALASKA  L - ALASKA LIBERTARIAN PARTY  O - PROGRESSIVE PARTY OF ALASKA  P - PATRIOT’S PARTY OF ALASKA   V - VETERANS PARTY OF ALASKA  W - UCES' CLOWNS PARTY	672 280 1 1,482 58 24 6,870 163 167 1,307 125
Other	N - NONPARTISAN U - UNDECLARED	81,258 259,603

The Board's draft proposed maps had come out clearly partisan - three Democratic representatives had been put in one district.  Another had been moved to a more conservative leaning district.  Muldoon had been divided into four different districts.  The north pulled into mover conservative Eagle River, the South into more conservative Hillside, and the two middle parts had been divided into two east-west districts.  A Juneau Democratic representative's house had been kidnapped into another Democrat's district.  Fairbanks was all overpopulated and Matsu was underpopulated.  

The public testimony:  I went through my notes and created a chart that makes it easier to distill the key points.  I'll add it at the bottom.  Here's my sense of the main thrusts:

1. Gerrymandering.The maps are clearly gerrymandered and here are some specific examples - usually talking about the three Anchorage Democratic representatives who were all put in one district, the Juneau Democratic  rep whose house was cut out and put into another Democrats district, and a few other spots here and there.
2. Socio-Economic Integrity. People who are explicitly or implicitly talking about Socio-Economic Integrity, one of the Constitutional requirements for districts.  These broke down into the following:
1. Anchorage and Matsu are not socio-economically integrated
2. More micro concerns about neighborhoods in Anchorage or Fairbanks.  Testimony that the board should respect Anchorage community council boundaries.
3. Rural concerns about which villages (Interior) or which communities (SE) should or shouldn't be together, North and South of Alaska range shouldn't be together, etc.
3. Compactness.  A  couple mentioned compactness
4. Not Partisan.  The maps are NOT partisan and those calling in to say so have been coached by extreme partisan political groups.
5. Senate Pairings missing - Without the Senate pairings we can't tell if this is fair.
6. Procedural issues
1. Expand Testimony Hours.There should be evening and weekend sessions for public testimony for people who can't participate during work hours
2. Incumbents Policy.  The board should add to it's current policy of "not protecting incumbents" the corollary to "not target incumbents"
3. Board - Public Communication on Mapping. Board members should only work with the Board's software that has no partisan data and report any input on mapping from the public that is not given through public testimony.

Let me comment on these.

1. Gerrymandering - The Board's Executive Director made an opening comment about how the software the Board is using does not have partisan data and the maps had not been made in a partisan way.  A number of folks testifying spoke about a difference between what the Board said and what the maps showed.  My sense is that one or two Board members got partisan information from people they know and that made it into the proposed draft plans.  It would be difficult to have so many examples of Democratic representatives lumped together and so few GOP legislators lumped together. (The one GOP example was Rep. Shaw being put in a district with another Republican incumbent, but people are also saying that Shaw is planning to retire.  But I have no confirmation of that.)  
2. Socio-Economic Integrity -  S-E Integrity is one of four key requirements for all districts.  The requirements (from state and federal constitutions) have to be balanced off.  S-E Integrity is in the eye of the beholder.  The Alaska Supreme Court, in reviewing maps in previous redistricting cases that districts within a borough or city boundaries are by definition socio-economically integrated.  The Board's attorney has also cited a case where the court said that Matsu borough and Anchorage borough are socio-economically integrated.  He later backed off and said parts of Matsu (like the south that abuts Anchorage) and parts of Anchorage (like the northern parts that abut Matsu have been ruled socio-economically integrated.  It would be nice if the Board could respect all community councils and other neighborhood connections, but doing that and meeting the other standards will be tough.  The Board can fall back on the rulings that say everything within borough and city boundaries are socio-economically integrated.   The three other criteria that have to be met are: 
1. contiguity (all parts of the district touch)
2. compactness (they are as small or square like as possible
3. one-person-one vote  (roughly equal in population (the term deviation refers to how many people and percent the districts deviate from the ideal district size, which in this decade's process is 18,335 people per district (the state's population divided by 40 districts.  The maximum statewide deviation between districts is 10% but the expectation is for much lower deviation, especially in urban areas with denser population)
3. Compactness - the only specific example I recall is the 'Story bubble' in Juneau along a highway which has a loop that grabs Story's house and pulls it out of the old district.  There are two intents here, one positive and one negative:
1. The smaller and more compact a district, the easier it is for people to campaign and to represent the district.  Because of Alaska's large spaces and sparse population, this is impossible and one current district is larger that many (most?) states.
2. Politicians have learned to create districts that twist and turn to include and exclude voters to build districts that distort the political outcome to favor their party.  Compact districts makes this a little harder.  
4. Non-Partisan - there were about four people who made this argument two or three of whom argued that extremely partisan political groups had coached people to testify that districts were gerrymandered.  And that these groups themselves were trying to gerrymander. My sense is that these folks were disingenuous at best.  
1. There were a number of cases, already cited, where Democratic representatives were lumped together meaning several incumbents would have to lose their seats.  And it almost all hurt Democrats.  It would have been hard for this to have been accidental.
2. While these folks said the districts were fine, they didn't counter the specific districts that were cited.
3. They complained about people being coached to testify.  I am aware that AFFR did attempt to educate people about the redistricting process and about the way the initial two maps were drawn.  This is a normal part of political organizing.  Here is a  Link to Robin O'Donahue's webinar on redistricting.  I think this group's major complaint is that AFFR and others did a good job of alerting people to the process and the problems they saw.  This is why we have public participation in the process.  The Board listened and all the testimony will be taken into consideration.  If it is valid, let's hope the Board will incorporate it into the final maps.  If not, that they disregard it.  
4. To charge these 3rd party groups with trying to gerrymander is ludicrous.  It's the Board that has been charged with making the maps.  Only the mapmakers themselves can actually gerrymander the state.  Outside groups can attempt to prevent that from happening by testifying during the process and suing if they find the final product to have violated the law.  The Board has three Republican appointed members.  If anything, the power is on their side to come up with maps that tilt the political power to the right.  
5. Senate Pairings missing - I can understand the Board's point of view that since this is just the first draft, the Senate pairings wouldn't be final anyway.  However, without the Senate pairings, public can't evaluate the  legality of the districts.  It does suggest that the Board get Senate pairings done early enough to get public reaction before submitting them.  Last time, the Board paired and East Anchorage district with an Eagle River district and successfully got rid of a Democratic Senator who was the only African-American legislator at the time.  The Senate pairings were done, as I recollect, at the very end and there were no public hearings after they were made and before the plan was finalized.  
6. Procedural Issues - I think the first one - non-work hours to testify - is self explanatory.  I testified for the other part.  
1. While the Board did adopt a policy to not 'protect incumbents' the result of the first draft maps show they also need a policy 'to not target incumbents.'
2. The Board has not put partisan data into the software on the members' computers.  But it really appears that some of the mapmakers did have access to information about incumbents' home addresses.  The reaction of the public at the meetings shows many do not trust the Board.  So I proposed that the Board not consult privately with people not on the Board.  The public testimony - written and oral - is the proper way for the public to share information.  Thus Board members should report any contact with the public that attempts to given them specific information about map making.  I think this would go a long way to help the Board's creditability.  I'd note that at the meeting one of the people who worked on the Anchorage map - Nicole Borromeo - said she did not have any political information.  She was basically reworking a map mainly done by Bethany Marcum.  

There's a lot more to write about.  But this is already more than most people are going to read.  And the next Board meeting begins in less than 12 hours.  The Board will discuss the 3rd Party plans and also they're plans to hold public meetings around the state to get further feedback.  

So I'll call it a day for now.  More tomorrow.  The Chart I made of the testimony is below.  And below that are my written notes - very, very rough and to be used only as a guide of what was discussed. The Board is getting audio and transcripts up much faster than the previous board did.  So you can use the notes to get to the parts you want to hear.  

Sept 17,2021 Testimony Table Alaska Redistricting Board by Steve on Scribd

Rough Notes From Meeting Friday

Notes below are my quick and dirty and spotty notes from the meeting.  There are big gaps when we get to the 3rd party plans because they read from their materials.  I have put links to those materials.  

Again, this should give you a sense of what they discussed and if there's something of interest you can look for the tape or transcription when the Board puts that online.  

Alaska Redistricting Board  Sept 17, 2021  9am meeting

Members:  Melanie Bahnke , Nicole Borromeo, John Binkley, Bethany Marcum, Budd Simpson

9:05 members here, Marcum still coming.

Exec Director presentation - where we are at so that public has understanding of project.

Adopt draft agenda - passed

Peter Torkelson (ED)

-dramatic increase in interest in our work after proposed maps.  Chart on board of hits to websie.

-required to adopt one or more plans at least 30 days after receiving census data.  We did that on Sept 9.  Two maps.  On Friday, back to work, more compactness,  new maps that will be reflected on Monday’s meetings (we heard SE loud and clear.  This is a public process.  Adopting our draft proposals, just a beginning.

Now 6-7 week process of taking maps to the public - with COVID awareness.  

Received about 160 Public testimony

Some groups have invested thousands of dollars into Software, hired staff.  

Purpose of today’s meeting is to open the door to other groups to bring their maps.

John:  Questions?

Peter:  Board taking wide blank screen approach.  We did not include political data, blind to data on the software.

John:  Our intent to gather as much public input as we can  Testimony at beginning and end of meetings.  Try to be apolitical.  Alaska different.  Most states use legislature to draw own maps.  Five of us here appointed by gov, leg. And Supreme Court.  Tries to pull ???

Number of people online signed up.  

Online first, keep it brief.  Lots of people 

Anchorage, Tahnee Seccareccia - In Anchorage 20 years, Spenard.  Drummond is my rep.  Calling to ask the Board that process is truly non-partisan.  Two drafts concerning how Anchorage areas and greater Alaska split up or combined.  My area joined with Turnagain and downtown.  We are geographically distinct.  Appears to be gerrymandering.  The gentleman who said this is non-partisan - not true.  Consider 3rd party maps non partisan.

Former rep David Guttenberg Fairbanks -16  years in legislature - I repped 3 different districts until they were ruled unconstitutional  Had my district out of Goldstream to the coast, Hooper Bay.  Experience repping district gerrymandered so I know how hard that is and wrong.  In order to get from west side to east side, had to drive thru 3 other districts.  A real problem here.  Different schools, community centers, shop in different places, no commonality. 

Urge you to pay attention to way line around Old Dog East trail in - I’ve repped that side.  A few houses there.  Isolated from one side of district to the other.  Dis. 32 is clearly a problem that doesn’t rep either part of the district.  Thank you.

John:  Marcum has joined us. 

Marcum:  Apologies.   

Kelvin Rogers, Fairbanks:  Chopped up Fairbanks.  Rather see other options for the maps.  Great injustice.  

Anchorage audience:  Lois Epstein:  Alaska Licensed engineer.  Live downtown L and 15th since 2005.  Responsibility compact and socio-economically consistent.  Each criteria are p???

My home is Downtown to Spenard to airport.  Does include 3 current house Democrats.  Another problem  Excess population numbers those residents have less representative .  Also need to see what Senators you intend so we can comment on that.  

Felisa Wilson -  Ret Airforce, Live on JBER, since 2015.  JBER is divided into specific areas around the gates.  Most at Ft Rich side socio-economically  Govt Hill is a different community

Rosa O’Hara-Jolley Fairbanks.  Teacher  Listened to board and like your words, but action doesn’t reflect your words.  Created areas where voters underrepresented.  Decision to go E-W from N-S does not represent how FB people see themselves.  Which transfer sites you live - two named East and West.  Transfer station 45 minutes away from community.  Thank you.

Michele Anderson, Anchorage - Thank you.  Original shareholder and president of Ahtna and naive village of Gulkana.  Interior Coalition and Sealaska created maps to insure Alaska native representation.  Ahtna appreciates being included and support the maps.  We’d like the interior villages to stay together.  

Online Karen Baker from Anchorage - Fairview former res of FB.  Strong opposition to these maps  - particularly Interior and SE.  Current gerrymander form attempt to favor certain candidates.  We have a right to fair and accurate representation.

Leon James from Anchorage online: Anchorage area, compared portions of Anchorage and Matsu Borough not a similar socio-economic Borough.  District 18 over population target, by growing to NE and north and Boniface and NE community council area.  Russian Jack community council area.  Boniface different.  North of Debarr as well.  Splitting up University area.

Nicole:  Looking at east side, east to west or north to south?  Along Seward HW and along Boniface.  Probably south of Tudor gets tricky.  

Online, Emily Becker - in Airport Heights, currently D19 specific comments   hard to hear her.  Better.  Close to Merrill Field.  My neighborhood and sense of the maps.  Ver 1 map puts elementary into D 18, while 70% of families in D20.  Title 1 school many kids in poverty.  Need a clear voice.  Despite apolitical both seems nakedly political.  Fairview and Mt. View low income neighborhoods sliced and diced.  

Online Constance Quinley   - I’m in my 60is grey haired woman.  Live in Anchorage for 36 years.  Parts of Ancho and Matsu combined.  Neighbors but different communities.  ER is part of Anchorage, different culturally, economically.  ER and east Anchorage not compatible.  

Casey Casort - online shocked and disappointed with clearly gerrymandered chart.  Hard for me to understand.  

Nicole:  reference map and you’re breaking up.  AFFR map should be looked at closely.  

Melanie:  mentioned maps around someone’s house, but you broke up.  Andy Story in Juneau.

Will Muldoon, Juneau - Dis 33, The Story bubble, deputy director no partisan data in the software.  Every one had problems.  I can’t speak much to north, but SE.  Yakutat Idea tough.  When you deviate, east west   or north south.  Creating not very compact districts.  Other side of coin on inside.  Not too critical yet. ???

Nicole:  Hear your criticism.  Solutions?  Appreciate questions.  2010 runaround and 2013 Proclamation plan.  Had lower ceiling for deviation.  Higher is great.  Each dis and looked at their deviation as absolute and then as percentage.  Currently from Board Ket-Kodiak in 2010, neither adopted.  

Cathy Hosford, Skagway,  Last ten years rep by downtown Juneau.  More in common with north Juneau and auk Bay and N. Linn canal.  Often wondered why.  Better to be compacted, share concerns ferries, roads.  Appreciate your hard work.  

Nicole:  One area of SE caused us to ponder.  Understand you down’t want to be with downtown.  Then your version of Juneau Split.  Easy to draw us into what is now 34 and make Juneau and Douglas into a district.  My current rep trying to do great job but they don’t know my issues.  

James Squyres from Gulkana - current Dist 9 my Aug 24 testimony.  Now included Holy Cross this strange district 36.  Difference between North and South of Alaska range.  Diff between rural Alaska and urban Alaska.  Delta For Greely.  Military presence 

Melanie:  Which map   Under my name James Squires, meets goal of 18K per district.  

Bethany:  Thank you Mr Squires - did you make a statewide map.  Yes, but focused on districts around me. 

Beverly Churchill Anchorage online:  Thank you.  Thanks for hard work.  Jumping in late and trying to catch up.  Reiterate points already made.  Anchorage MUNI combined with Matsu - these are very distinct community.  Comments that they are socially economically integrated.  Have own health care, school districts, etc. Also reiterate Anchorage folks - community councils divided by neighborhoods..  Finally ER, is becoming more and more distinctly their own community.  People there want to exit for MOA.  Shouldn’t lump with East Anchorage.  

9:57am

Online:  Jamie Rodriquez - Anchorage, address elephant in the room - gerrymandering.  Looking at the map, lots of gerrymandering some examples.  1.  Juneau, N map 1/4 of mile cut out that district’s rep.  Reason for concern.    2.  Ketchikan, similar since another double up representation 3.  In Anchorage, in second versions takes away to little precincts replaces with one, totally throwing it out of balance.  4.  3 reps in one district.  More examples.  One group wants to subvert our voting process.  You talk about preventing it.  Please do that.  We have to live with this for ten years.  Thank you.

Online Lynette Pham - Anchorage - Lived moved from Unalaska???.  Dis 21.  East Anchor and ER are distinct communities.  Takes away voices from both ER and East Anchorage.  …..

Holy Cross and Valdez in same district makes no sense.  

Gretchen Whemhoff from Chugiak - so many different maps.  Looking at composite 2 Dis 22,23, 24.  I’ve run for office.  Had to go to Fairview, Valley.  Going in right direction by separating MOA from Matsu.  Redistricting Alaska from other states, but this map, keeping those two large populations, very distinct separate.  Another on right track, in Dis 22, now more of similar Chugiak, Eklutna, more in common that downtown ER or the Valley.  Heard another speaker say this - if we do have that corner in NE like Anchorage has NE corner.  Should be able to separate NE Anchorage and ER.  NE Anchorage would be better served.  Former 12 had Valley and Chugiak - had to drive a long way.  But appreciate trying to map all this.  Two highly populated areas with separate govts should be kept separate.  Everything you do, it’s a domino thing.  

10:09

Kay Herold - Seward?  

Anchorage Judith Conte - Anchorage - Spenard.  Since 2003.  Redistricting maps supposed to be non-partisan ways.  I heard someone say apolitical and how maps were drawn that way.  That has not been the case in these districts.  Merged into one district spenard, downtown, all distinct and benefited by independent representation.  In testimony should merge Anchorage and Matsu, it points to gerrymandering attempt.  Differences between Matsu and Anchorage.  It adversely attack House dems and protects minority GOP,  Disregards community councils.  Integrity.  

Tara Lucas from ?  

Lee Drake from FB -  Lee Drake - respond to comments by Robin O’Donohugh - about norther districts and UA.  All have offices in LIO in FB.  Where you see your rep.  People in NPole.  No one cares about a daily commute, but now they complain about a drive once or twice a year.  Families live on Chena ridge, but being in house district problematic.  Eilson - talking very fast can’t keep up.  UAF and Dept of Defense - economic integration.  Goldstream and !! Have history of mining .  I support the current map of FB as shown on the website.

Nicole:  I apologize can you please email your testimony?  We got some info.  

Melanie:  Reference comments by Robin O’Donohue.  

John:  He testified last time.  [O’Donohue is part of AFFR and made video to educate people about redistricting.]

Anchorage online- Forrest McDonald  Start - Board has impossible task, lots of places tied into 40 districts.  I can see how you’re doing this so far and doing a good job.  Maps won’t look like they used too.  Do have problem with Downtown progressive district split into 3 parts from Muldoon to Kincaid - looks a little partisan,  Smell test.  Overall good job.  I’m partisan political person,  Recognize so many names that called.  In.  Board selected for board.  Call in have been coached by extremely partisan - AFFR, AKPirg, Native Groups.  Coaching people to say things in calls and then sue and refer.  Outside our public policy.  Take effort to prevent extreme public partisan groups.  

Donna Marsh  Petersburg

Juneau David Hanna - Thanks None of us envy you.  Doing best you can.  Boundary between district 3 and 4.  Take to heart Kathy Ho//  about Linn canal area.  I asked downtown Juneau rep and asked about ferry and the downtown rep was silent.  Still angst about where the lines were drawn.  Should take heart she would win.  Looks like followed basic population center.  

FBKs  Elizabeth Dalton - Lived here all my life.  In complete support.  Beautifully done.  All incumbents in their district.  We’ve lost population.  Including rep in Matsu that has has big growth.  Agree with fellow about coaching of the testimony from certain groups that want to gerrymander.  You on the board have taken an oath and I appreciate hard work you do and believe you are following he rules.  

Anchorage, David Nees - Rep myself.  Wanted to testify.  In favor of #2.  1990-2000, 2010 and overlaid them on what you have.  Community Council model still based on 1970 to advise Assembly.  Outdated.  Map following rules, excellent jobs.  Much less political than in 1990s.  One outlier, since 1990 to 2010 and 2020.  That should give you a range.  If stay within that mean.  A good test that you are meeting the anti-gerrymandering.  Doesn’t look like any gerrymandering.  Second one looks the best.  

Rep. Garan Tarr, in Juneau?  Not there

Robert Hoekema Anchorage - Gerrymandering - pairing incumbents together.  Claman, Drummond, and Field.  Tuck majority leader.  First version pairs Snyder and Sponhollz.  Don’t care too much, population.  Makes the districts much less.  U-Med district into Campbell area.  Balance between hard job and partisan outcome.  Hard to believe this was not partisan.  Forcing House majority to run against each other.  

10:33

Garan Tarr back on line:  Good morning.  Thank you.  As sitting leg. Not appropriate on the map.  First testimony since map came out.  How can we do testimony outside of work hours.  Can’t because meeting during work hours.  Evening testimony would be beneficial.  All I wanted to say.  Thanks for your hard work.  

John:  Just beginning.  Getting public testimony.  Third party presentations.  

Concludes online.  Still have some in the room.

??? Silvers here.  Dara Silvers??  My own.  Process of mapping Anchorage.  Two compact and socio-economic where people live shop,  Anchorage maps done pretty blindly with little info of how made.  Lack of compactness and was uniquely protecting republicans.  Map 1 has east anchorage shaped like a pin-wheel and split into other districts.  Everyone who knows East Anchorage distinct, older, seedy strip malls, and dive bars.  Lifelong Alaskan whose live in many parts of Anchorage.  East Anchorage is a close knit district.  Was  specifically designed for Lance Pruitt to make a comeback.  May not be by design.  Would like to point to Chantsu park with ice rink, and Saturday market - ripped out of East Anchorage and put into ER.  

Back online Donna Marsh from Petersburg - urge board to consider how map figured most contiguous, Econ-integrated  A large star has so many  diverse populations.  Respect your effort.  But created redistricting that adversely affect ?????  Especially SE.  

Budd:  Seek clarity.  See Petersburg joined with Sitka, Ketchikan?  Ketch and Juneau probably more aligned with Sitka.  Hard to make everyone happy.  Can go lots of ways.  Why reinventing the wheel.  

Robin Smith Anchorage - thank board for opportunity to speak.  Tried to follow.  I understand it’s very difficult considering the size of AK  and.  We don’t see the Senate districts.  Woefully incomplete.  Failed to respect Borough and city boundaries - Anchorage Matsu FB.  Appears to be gerrymandering in the nao,  New FB city center map not drawn historically now N-S districts.  UA has Dem Senator and two Dem reps.  Would result in total Republican in FB.  

Nicole:  If public info I have no idea where legislators live except my own representative.  

Robin:  It really looks like it .  Hard to … May not be intentional but it appears to be.  How it looks to the average person.  

Nicole:  Want to go on record, this is not something we did intentionally.  

Bruce Farmwell:  thanks for the hard work.  Some of us have taken time to tell you what we perceive as problems.  First I heard that coaching was available .  Couldn’t  get it.  Thoughts on big picture.  I’ve lived for 40 years in AK and my district 20 years.  Changes probematic.  Lots of 3rd party maps.  Draft of Constitution tried to be fair.  Lots of processes put in place for succession of leadership.  Designed this process and did best they could.  But four out of five of you appointed by leaders of a political party.  And hard not to think of yourselves that way.  Most Alaskans like me are not members of the two parties.  If completely non-partisan board without party members involved.  Think of that and try to map it that way.  

Drew   Had to leave

Brian Hoek?? - West Anchorage - Can dive into the weeds a bit at this point.  Turnagain Area can be defined another of ways.  Area west, both sides of NLights, particularly the south side.  Much more connected to airport than down.  Adding us to downtown.  Lots of testimony.  More  than anticipated.  

New caller Ellen James -  In Anchorage in Hist district 17,  in both maps several districts are split up.  Encourage follow community council boundaries as much as possible. 2 point:  version one map.  Didn’t ????? East Anchorage.  Didn’t make sense.  I appreciate it’s hard.  

Concludes Public testimony.  Take ten minute break

10:59

Nicole:  Maybe five minutes and get on track. Back at 11:05

11:05  Doyon Coalition presentation Tenana Chiefs Conference, Fairbanks Native Association, Sealaska, Ahtna.  See presentation at:  https://aws.state.ak.us/OnlinePublicNotices/Notices/Attachment.aspx?id=129694

Worked with constitutional guidelines - compact, contiguity Relative Socio-Economic integrity and Equal. 

We added Local government boundaries.  ANCSA Boundaries, Communities of interest

Population   total 6.1 %  620 people fewer than ideal.  District 37 completely off the road system and 

600? Over 

Tanner :  Statewide map and further note on deviations.  Some deviation is inevitable.  Geography is enormous and census blocks odd.  Doesn’t mean that deviation amount should be allowed in a different district.  We want lowest deviation practicable.  Munis and Burrooughs compacter.  Big Deviations concentrated in rural area.  

Tour through Alaska.

SE:  Our plan keeps Ketchikan whole but Board plan split Ketchikan.  Also kept islands whole

City and B or Ketchikan and 

District 2 is Island District - prince of Wales and Burroughs of Yakitata

Juneau itself.  Urban District - Auk Bay and Valley from Lemon Creek.  Haines and Skagway - we heard same testimony you heard and will look at it.

Downtown - some people say easy to draw district - but either splits Mendenhall and or Auk Bay

Given members of coalition jump straight into interior but should stop in S Central - but we have concerns about whether Valdez does fit with the interior areas.  Different boroughs, 

Others have paired with Cordova. 

How did we solve this.  Put Valdez with Chenega and Cordova.  But too much population to add Kodiak.  Ours keeps Valdez along the highway, but ???? 

Kenai Pen has more population than number of districts.  Allowed Kenai to be paired with Kodiak itself.  Rest is traigh????

McHugh Creek natural break from S. Anchorage

Nicole:  You have Kodiak with part of Kenai - just Seward?  Rationale?

Maritime coastal community.  Helps with issue of population of Kenai needing to go outside.

Nicole:  Why not take in Home with that direct ferry connection

Tanner:  To do that harder to create socio-economic because Homer has too much population

John:  Seldovia not in same district as Homer?  Correct.

Nicole:  I don’t have the Valdez page.  Can you go back to Valdez.

Tanner:  district here that keeps all the Sound communities together.  Not in Richardson Highway that goes to Delta.  No longer that far north.  

John:  Are Valdez and Copper center in same districts?

Tanner:  No.  

Matt:  On Valdez, your thinking about socio-economic between Cordova and Sutton.  Also about Seward to Kodiak is continuous and skipping over Kachemak Bay.

Tanner:  Contiguity.  Simply artifact of software.  Kodiak is an island, over water contiguity.  Are limits.  Probably couldn’t connect Kodiak and North Slope.  Socio-E integration.  There have to be tradeoffs as you go.  Looking for the best places.  Right now Valdez inBoard’s plan socio-economically integrated with Interior.  Better in our map with water.  In comparison to other alternatives.  

John:  You’d have to drive thru district 36 to get there?  Thru the hub.

Presenter:  Includes every district in Ahtna region.  We recognize FB as our hub.  Worked fromWest to east

Fairbanks- see map - House 33 Ft Wainright and off base housing tied to east side hopping and work downtown, go to HS.

34 Also Eilson and area around the base

35 - College, UAF 

John:  Chose to break up FBNS borough to put in interior district.  Deviation more important than Borough boundaries.  Make sure FB retains one person one vote.    We heard from our council that deviation within those larger areas where deviations are important.

With respect.  To have their one person with less than one vote, plus with Matsu having theirs less than one person one vote.  People don’t necessarily feel tied to B. Feel closer to road .  Communities that don’t elect to have fire service even though they are in the Borough.  

HD 40 identical toBoard map

39 close to old 39

38 - hub Bethel

37 very similar without the Athabaskan interior villages.

Nicole:  I know you’re a coalition, did you consult with others in this district?

?? :  Multiple conversations with Calista.  They are aware our goal was to pull the Athabaskan communities together.

Anchorage - board has 3.89 3.57  ours has deviation of about 1%  - following 2010 court rulings. Deviations are artifacts of ?land? Or census block.  Also considers the Base exits and connects with communities outside those gates.

ER are

Matsu has 5.84

27 Glen Highway and Richardson Hwy districts.  Includes Denali Borough w/o Cantwell

We submit for consideration.  

11:39

John:  Denali Borough with Matsu w/o Cantwell.  Part of Ahtna community of villages.  

Marcum:  Kept Palmer whole?  Yes. Thank you

Matt:  Port Graham and Seldovia with Aleutians.  Another question, blocked off Girdwood and joined it with northern side of Penninsula.  

Tanner:  Seldovia:  See deviation - under 3%. Issue board and everyone runs into in SW Alaska.  If put the border here, under deviated and goes up the coast with other SE integration issues.  These areas also strong maritime areas.  

Tradeoff between S Anchorage - what was your thinking. A:  Straight tradeoff?  Pops don’t come out the same.  Mathematical problem.  Map Seward with Kodiak.  Then too much pop in Kenai for borders of Borough.  One has to crsss the Boarder.  There’s a highway that connects these areas.  Population realities.  

?????:  Rural communities have been using ?? To make Boroughs look good.  Don’t want it to fly in face of common sense.

Nicole:  Is Bethel in 37 or 38?   A:  38

Bethany:  Looking at Shake file - Palmer split into two districts.

Tanner:  We had some issues about whether our shake files matched.  We’ll get you updated version.

11:48 John:  Next group?  Lunch is here and we should take a break.  30 minutes?  Melanie says 15 - back 12:05

12:09  Back on Board - “Alaska Democrat Party” (not Democratic though that’s what it says on their material)

Mike Wentrop - Alaska Democratic Party Director and ???   :  Reading from materials.  https://aws.state.ak.us/OnlinePublicNotices/Notices/Attachment.aspx?id=129695

Questions?

John:  Respected boundaries of B and cities - sounded like you said ok to break them, but only do it once?   Mike:  yes.

Eilson AF Base and population will grow.  Did you speculate on how it will grow?

No, but we considered it.

Bethany?  Thank you:  As far as 3rd party presenter.  Only 3rd party with a political affiliation, did you use political data?  Aware, but didn’t use. 

Nicole:  Can you elaborate on what you said about more population coming to Eilson.

???:  Didn’t want an overpopulated district, but we also didn’t underpopulated that district.  Unfair to inflate a population based on speculation

Attorney:  US census is only population you can consider. 

Budd:  Downtown Juneau goes down to Petersburg.  Are you going to walk thru the maps?  

Erin:  Making B and city lines were possible and natural geography.  

Follows Yakutat B?  Correct.  Doesn’t include Cordova?  Correct.

Combined Kodiak, but not all the way to Valdez.  Kachemak Bay and Seldovia?  Is that a borough all the way to Halibut Cove?    That’s my recollection.

With eye to Senate pairings Kenai and respecting community lines.  Town lines afford that

16 Anchorage districts.  Contained ER as much as possible.  Two NE Anchorage districts structured around ???. Two similar to 16 and 27.  Westward trying to follow major streets and arteries, with understanding that population and census blocks vary.  S Anchorage including Girdwood and Whittier.  

Matsu Borough - Community, Town lines, other community lines as possible

Large Borough

John:  District 6 - out Glenn Highway to Butte and Knik and Denali a  into S Fairbanks.  Into S area census district - outside of the Borough.  Like Delta Junction.  

John:  Dot Lake and Tok, but not Tanacross?  Correct.  

Trying to respect community of North Pole as best we could.  And district along the outside.  Breaks Borough in two areas?  Follows B boundaries except.

John:  Between Delta and Eilson?   I don’t see the numbers so hard to describe.  Part in blue, part in green,  

Mike:  We break the borough only once.  Population and pairing senate seats.  

Bluish, goes around and to Valdez and villages.  All villages in Inerior River district?  Kaltag with Unalakleet?  Population.  

Bethel - 39  shaped around Bethel and  - odd cutout based on census boundary and not much population.

Melanie - in this area looks like a couple of B breaks Dillingham, four different areas?  Correct?  Yes.

Erin:  Goal was to provide as much possible without deviating more than we did.  

John:  What’s this appendage?  Census block.  

Quinihak, Good News, and Platinum with Aleutians?  Yes.

Melanie:  Share this with anyone from this part of the state?  Mike:  Yes mentioned names.

Nicole:  I’m looking at Bethel region and this is splitting them into four different districts.  Mike:  Bethel growing so much. 

Up the coast - currently 39 and 40.  Can easily draw districts self contained.  But because we started at Bethel and Hooper Bay.  

John:  So Buckling and Deering are in ?  Instead of.  

12:42 finished

AFFER:  

????:  Thank you for taking all this time to volunteer to do this.

I’m Steve Culligan.  Lifelong Alaskan.  Grew up in Fairbanks.  Work for MOA now.  This technology took up a whole room.  Alaskans helped develop this technology.  You can torture data enough.  Data used to support different redistricting to deal with rural districts with 100s of miles isn’t easy.  Today, we can improve our own maps.  This is a process.  Senate pairings.  

Myself and Randy Ruedrich.  AFFER  Fair doesn’t always mean equitable.  This map is 3.36 statewide deviation.  

In packet we’ve got entire deviation.  I will mention any public - also have online map and loaded all the others online.  Some great ideas.  https://aws.state.ak.us/OnlinePublicNotices/Notices/Attachment.aspx?id=129696

Courts have found that a Borough meets that socio-economic integration.  There are no other needs to consider for SE integration.

Populations as near as possible to division of population by 40.  Tested in 2000.  Many approaching -5.  The SC instructed the Board to redo 37 of 40 districts.  If you have census block of similar size.  Larger deviations in rural areas Courts should meet.

SE has a problem.  Has pop deficit like FB.  The rest of the state has pop surplus..  We added like other, Yakutat B.   But can’t get that northern population size right.  Need a long coastal district from north to the south.  One was called an ice worm or maritime region.  This creates a problem every time.  Surplus distributed to rest of state.  Three inside district one.  District 1 and 2 .  District 3 is Juneau to airport.  

Matt:  Looks like you ???  

Randy:  Very specific putting Saxman with strong ties to Sealaska, put it in with rest of marine area???

Budd:  Related question - we tried to draw a similar map.  To get numbers to work, we accidentally left out a road in Ketchikan.  Does this map also do that?  Yes.  I was trimming off everything that isn’t a city street.  ????? If we add it back, its a bigger deviation.  

John:  Saxman more associated with Ketchikan.  The resources look to Sitka for SE integration for Native Groups.  Agree with my Democrat colleagues you can break a boundary once only.

Nicole:  Break 3 o4 4 times? 

Randy:  In western Alaska, using ANCSA boundaries is preferred?

Matt:  I don’t recall what SC decided.  Borughts are ok by definition.  

12:59

Budd: Not sure people in the Saxman area would agree with you.  We’re at 29 with districts within 1%. 

Randy:  We have a unique problem with FB.  SC said in 2011 that FB deserved a Senate Seat.

One is Western FB pop.  The middle has all the rest.  To honor the integrity of the House seat in the city we add North Pole and Eilson.  

It’s hard to keep up.  Sorry.  Doing the best I can.  There will be tapes and transcripts eventually.

Capture all the Northside that have always been in North district.  In 2013 had nearly 8000 more people than could be handled in five districts.  Now it’s 3500.  District 5 wrap around FB and has similar voting interests.  Suggest put Ester and Goldstream.  In District 5 we added Cordova.  Didn’t fit in SE or Kodiak.   Eyak, has Native link

Matt:  Why taking Ester out of FBNS borough.  

Randy:  Have to take out something/  

Matt:  Why Ester.

Randy:  You could take out Eilson because they didn’t vote.  I find that offensive.  They showed 11% voting.  But that was only on election day.  Many were out of state and voted absentee. 

That we must have a closed west side of FB city.  It’s a fortress.  Need to heed SC decision that they deserve a Senate seat.  I just mapped around.  Can minimize that if overpopulate FB.   It would minimize people going to District 5.  Keep all together all those except in the 2013 map put in rural Alaska.  

Matsu - has three small cities - Houston, Wasilla and Palmer.  Six districts.  Anchor those cities in their protected space.  I concur with adding Denali Borough.  But put Cantwell in District 5.  

We should share it across the bridge because of excess population.  Open the door on highway.  

With bridge closed, we have a clear north ER district Chugiak to Meadow Creek.  All civilian district 17.  18 downtown ER and JBER at Muldoon entrance.

Melanie:  Putting ER?  Splitting it only by taking norther neighborhoods.  Precincts ping pong balled from census to census.  Attach it to Muldoon.  Since SC in 2002 said ER could be attached to South Anchorage.  

Anchorage:  CampbellCree between 30 and 28.  Chester Creek between 22 and 25 and ??????

Wonderful road SH split along Huffman, Abbot, Tudor.  Changes on west side of the highway incidental because all slightly underperform.

Airport left in tact.  From Ship Creek Boundary to RR crossing.  Moved Spenard east along Chester Creek and N to Tudor. 

Mountain View is the other half of downtown.  21 goes into Boniface Community.  20 nearly perfect rectangle, we nibbled on the edge of Reflection Lake????  Nibbled on the edge to get enough population Abbot to OMalley.  Shed some population on the south.  The least map mess in my opinion.  

Kenai - skimmed north precinct off Kenai.  Kenai slightly over populated.  Shared Kenai’s surplus population down to Tustemena.  Closed surplus population problem by putting all of Kachemak Bay in one district.  Associated with Homer district, not Kodiak.  Without Yakutat problem was Kodiak.  Combined PWS including Valdez with Kodiak that is a shipping districting  Largest ports - Kodiak and Valdez and left port of Whittier in PWS district.  

1:20

History:  Boundary between Bering straits and Nana adjusted each time.  2001 one recall was Shismareff into 40 to get the population up.  The solution we came up with was.  We have surplus population.  

Put resultant population into 37, not only Platinum and Goodness and Qy]uinahak and ???? Protects population of Calista to bring norther boundaries.  Putting more Calista folks into 39.  Haven’t cured the problem, but have more Calista votes in same district.

Melanie:  Taking NANA region and , but 39 has four different ANCSA corp villages.  

Randy:  Trying to keep down deviation.  

Steve:  These are the impacts in rural entities of trying to keep down the deviation.

John:  Pairing Bethel with Norton Sound rather than Arctic Region.  Are you saying deviation more important than SE integration.  Rather than the hub they associate with.  

Ruedrich:  If you allow more deviation, you just create more problems.  

1:30

https://Arch.is/1ny9TK

Melanie:  Thank you for the presentation and the hard copy you gave us.  

Next:  We have the Matsu Borough  Mike Brown - Matsu Borough Manager.  We’re zoomed in on Matsu Borough.  Highlight key points. See handout.  https://aws.state.ak.us/OnlinePublicNotices/Notices/Attachment.aspx?id=129697

Matt Singer:  Seen plans that pair Matsu with Cordova and Valdez

Mike:  We concentrated on the Borough, but that seems reasonable.  

John:  OK Thank you very much.  

1:37

Next up we have Alaskans for Fair Redistricting AFFR

Robin and David?    Five minute break while you set up.  

1:45PM 

AFFR

John:  Good Afternoon

Robin O’Donahue and David Dunsmuir, also our chair Joelle Hall would like us to read the statement .  Online  https://aws.state.ak.us/OnlinePublicNotices/Notices/Attachment.aspx?id=129719

Robin reading Joelle Hall’s statement.  

We’ve structured this a little different.  Presentation goes with larger report online at ARB site and on our site 

Asked about our membership: Alaska Native Orgs, Labor Unions, Non-Profits  - lists in link.  Said does not mean that they all endorse the plan, but have worked with us.  

I’m going to rest and you can read the links

David Dunsmuir - Areas where significant differences from Board, and also Senate pairings.  

Deviations: 

Board Option 1

9.01%   

AFFR

4.88% for house and Senate 3.2

Our largest house district same as 40 and smallest district in SE.  

Respecting local boundaries - list of broken boundaries comparing Board and AFFR only Borough we break twice is Kenai.  

Melanie:  Did you factor ANCSA boundaries.  We tried Doyon and balance concerns as much as we could.  

Do not include Haines, Skagway or Klukwan with Juneau

See the AFFR handouts

Melanie - What is guidance on Community councils?

Matt Singer - Not SC ruling.  Can be considered.  

Still talking 2:16pm

Bethany:  Could you zoom in on Aleutians district?  Where you jumped down.  District 37.  Alaska Peninsula in District 5?  

2:19pm

Melanie - I will be leaving at 2:30 but will watch 

Sen Begich online - I’m on the road, so I hope link is ok https://aws.state.ak.us/OnlinePublicNotices/Notices/Attachment.aspx?id=129699

https://aws.state.ak.us/OnlinePublicNotices/Notices/Attachment.aspx?id=129699

Greatest number of individual voter protection - Example of how this could be done.  3.14% deviation.  Able to get to that, is by moving Deering into 39 to 40.  If you leave NW Borough intact it would be 4.77.  Senate and House seats identical .  If removed, Senate 2.94.  Meets or exceeds deviation standards set by courts.  

Only going beyond boroughs to to deal with deviance. 

Based on findings in Hickle, only 5 districts in FB would probably lead to litigation.  

Even with odd census blocks and States size etc.  this map shows with current technology, urban areas relatively compact and equal districts can be drawn.  .35% with most of the districts.  

Finally, Senate pairings numerically.  

Can’t review Board maps because not sure about senate pairings.  

Anticipates process will continue and you can incorporate in your future maps.  Over time, court has tightened requirements and with improved technology we have, this is likely to continue.  Should 

2:29

John:  Not endorsed by the caucus and request go forward with public process

Begich:  We didn’t want to put finger on the scale and say you should do this, but we wanted to offer a map that would show that the various criteria could be met at the highest standard.  Do I endorse it?  Sure.  But does it protect my district?  Destroys it.  (did I understand that right?)

Members of caucus have reviewed it and agree, but choice not to endorse because we don’t want political persons to - 

TJ= proposed district 6 - Cordova is included in District 6 including it with Interior.

Begich:  You have to consider map as a whole.  In the past it has been with Intrior, reprinted by Rep Lincoln. Cordova part of unorganized Borough as it has and upheld by courts in the past.  Way to make clean break with  SE .  We need additional pop for Interior.  Best way to incorporate most of Doyon villages in District 6.  

John:  I see significant number of Doyon villages not in District 6.  

If we do include it as 3rd Party map, do we call it Minority Caucus?  

Begich:  Yes

Next on agenda:  

Begich wanted more time  OK Map is up

By regions - my 1-5    FB deviation of .11   North Pole, Individual house districts from 1-6

Matsu B broken once  12 adds  has two full senate seats  dev. .25

Anchorage to Whittier - 

borough has excess and is shared with Anchorage  

Losing track here.

John asking about SE

Tom  Begich still talking 2:52pm

John:  In MOA 16 seats.  Total MOA population divided by 16 in MOA.  Within those boundaries you can get it much tighter.  

John:  One more if you could:  Senate Pairings?  

Begich:  Sure I can.  1 and 2, 3 and 4 in sequence.  

2:56

Public Testimony:  Steve Aufrecht

Online- Karen Concern about representation for people in the unorganized boroughs,

Thanks for the opportunity .  I’ll be praying for you.

Major Felisa Wilson - thanks for being conscientious and taking everyone seriously and trying to get to what the public wants.  

Concludes public testimony 3:03

Public Hearings and Outreach 

Then plan for Monday

Peter:  We are entering public hearing tour.  Monday Sept 20 at 9am.  Board will discuss the 3rd party maps and changes to proposed maps.  Then visit communities around the state, launch that Sept 27th, traveling the state.  Still talking with Board members and COVID restrictions.  Generally 2 board members and a staffer in smaller communities.  Have them after working hours.  In some places over noon because of flight schedules.  We intend to visit 10-13 places.

Monday.

Bethany:  For people who made public testimony, if you can provide written testimony

Peter:  Every comment coming in I grab and add it to data base so it’s key word searchable.  

John:  A lot to digest in short period of time.  Not sure I can absorb it all and make decisions by Monday.  We may want to take more time.  Should meet Monday, but I don’t want to be rushed.  

Nicole:  I second that.  The public response has been much more than I expected.  We need more time than Monday to go through the feedback.  

Budd:  I agree.  I was impressed with the quality and itemizations and alternative maps from the public.  Much of that information we will want to use and incorporate somehow.  When we start tinkering with one district it causes issues.  

Consensus, for expectations from public.  We’ll work on Monday.  May not have final maps for taking on the road yet.  3rd party folks, that would be helpful.  See how it goes Monday and see if we need to meet again.  

Nicole:  We’ll work hard over the weekend with staff.  May adoptMonday but we might need more time.  Try, but not lock ourselves in.

Budd:  How will we proceed Monday.  Screens.  Giant printer in the office.  

John:  Start with our maps and talk about changes from what others had.  

Bethany:  Another consideration for Monday.  I do have questions from attorneys.  Have clear understanding.  

John:  May need executive session about areas we need to be cautious about. 

Budd:  Important to get public testimony.  Probably limit time for public testimony.  Or we won’t get this done.

John:  Delicate balance.  Slows us down, but important.  Public was good, kept testimony short, but voluminous.  I thought good process today.  

Peter:  Marathon of outreach.  Caution members to take time to deliberate.  We do need some conclusions by Sept 27.  If Board needs more time, we’ll adjust.  But we have a five week window.  

9am Monday morning.

Nicole:  Not 9:30?

John:  laugh 9:00

Ok motion to adjourn?  3:17pm  adjourned