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

Checking Alaska's Proposed Election Regulation Changes

My wife had the section of the ADN that I wanted to read on Sunday.  So I picked up the Classified Section.  It had a long notice:

"NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO IMPLEMENT BALLOT MEASURE 2 AND MAKE CLARIFYING CHANGES IN THE REGULATIONS OF THE DIVISION OF ELECTIONS"

This link gives you that notice posted on the State's public notice site.

Given that lots of State Legislatures are busy passing laws intended to disenfranchise voters, this seemed like something I should look at a bit more carefully.  This is definitely one of those places where "the devil is in the details" applies.  

I've taken some time in the last couple of days to mesh the proposed changes into the body of the current regulations.  I've put the proposed changes in red so it's easy to find them.  The whole thing is at the bottom of this post.  

Things To Know About The Proposed Changes

• The announcement lists all the changes to be made.  To be clear, it tells us what needs to be done, but it doesn't tell us the new language, so we don't know what they intend to actually say.
• Most of the changes seem to be apolitical technical changes because of 
• passage of Proposition 2  which (1) changed the primary to be a single election with all candidates for each position running against all the others, and (2) changing the general election to ranked choice voting
• State is no longer using Accu-vote machines, so all references to those machines are to be deleted
• US Supreme Court Decision   Shelby Co v. Holder to no longer require preclearance of changes in election laws for Alaska and 15 other states.
• Some changes appear to be substantive and while they are simply spelling out the steps to determine the practical implementation of Prop 2, in some cases the wording could potentially directly or indirectly impact the elections, such as:
• Add 6 AAC 25.071 to specify when and how votes for write-in candidates will be counted.
• Add 6 AAC 25.072 to define duplicate rankings and determine how they will be counted.  
• Change 6 AAC 25.225 to determine the process for filling a vacancy in the candidacy for lieutenant governor.
• Change 6 AAC 25.240 to remove the specific number of petition booklets that the division will issue. [Current number is "500 or less."  Minimally they should change  'less' to 'fewer.']
• Change 6 AAC 25.683 to update a statutory reference; allow someone with a power of attorney to cancel a voter’s registration; remove a reference to selecting a primary ballot; and allow a special power of attorney to include the power to cancel a voter’s registration.  [Currently someone with power of attorney can register folks and help with absentee voting.  I understand the need to remove deceased voters from the rolls, but my sense is that this could also be used badly.  Think Brittany Spears.  I haven't heard the arguments, but at this point I think Vital Statistics should share deaths with the Registrar.  Given this political climate, I can see people with this power disenfranchising people they disagree with politically.  I don't know, just raising questions here.]
• Many changes I'm still trying to figure out what they mean such as 
• Add 6 AAC 25.069 to determine that the general election ballot will include space for one write-in candidate per race, except that the races for president and vice-president will not allow write-in candidates.
• Some I have a giant "WHY?" for.  There are probably good reasons but it seems odd.  For example: 
• Add 6 AAC 25.195 to specify that ranked-choice tabulation will begin the 15th day after the election, with only first-choice results reported before then.  [I'm guessing this has to do with the need to know the last place candidates in each race, because then the second place vote for the last candidate is given to the next ranked candidate. They may be assuming that you need all the absentee votes in before going to this process.  And that may be true in some or even most cases as they need to know the losing candidate before reassigning the 2nd place votes.  But I suspect in some cases you'd know before every last ballot is in.]

I'm not saying that there is anything underhanded going on.  I'm just trying to make sure there isn't.  I  haven't had time to think through and raise these kinds of questions for all the changes yet.  I'm hoping also to clarify some of my question with the Division of Elections.  

But in the meantime, I thought I'd put this up so other people don't have to duplicate this effort and can just jump in and look at what's there.  It would be nice to break this down so different people are looking at different parts.  Not everyone needs to look at everything.  

Some Notes On My Method For Doing This

• Most changes apply to a single section only, but some apply to several (such as every time they mention Accu-vote they need to delete it.) I repeat the red changes for all the sections they apply to.
• When there are multiple changes to a single section, I give each a bullet so you know there are more than one.
• Some are changes to a section ("Remove"  or "Change") and some are actually newly numbered sections ("Add")  I put the ADD where it would go.
• I've put the proposed changes in red so it's easy to find them.  

The Proposed Changes Embedded in the Current Regulations:

Remove repealed statutory authority in 6 AAC 27.035 and 6 AAC 27.150.

Alaska Election Code Propos... by Steve

Anchorage Mayoral Forum Wednesday, February 17, 2021 - Facebook - 5 - 630pm

Yes, we vote on Anchorage's next mayor April 6, 2021.  That's about six weeks away.  Wednesday (tomorrow as I write this, but today probably for most of you reading this) is a good chance to start getting a sense of the candidates.  Nine have accepted invitations for the Forum.  Start figuring out who you can clearly eliminate and who you want to support.  Too bad Prop. 2 which will give us ranked choice voting in 2022 on the State level, isn't in effect for this election.  We wouldn't need a runoff election if no one gets 45% on April 6.

[UPDATE Feb 17, 2021 - I should have said the quoted info comes from an email I received, as does the image.]

"The Alaska Center Education Fund, Anchorage Park Foundation, NAACP Anchorage, and other local partners are co hosting a virtual Mayoral Candidate Forum, tomorrow.  We are looking forward to engaging candidates about the issues that affect our community. Anchorage's parks, trails, climate and economy are critical for a healthy and sustainable future. We look forward to hearing the candidates’ visions for our city.
 
Tune in via Facebook Live from 5 - 6:30 pm Wednesday, February 17 or register TODAY on zoom to be a part of the conversation. Check out the Facebook event >> 

Anna Anthony

Jeffrey Brown

Forrest Dunbar

Bill Evans

Bill Falsey

Heather Herndon

George Martinez

Mike Robbins

Joe Westfall"

Click on the image below to see it bigger.

“LGBTQ activists have used bullying and blackmail tactics to strong-arm corporate America” -Minnery's Tired Rhetoric And False Accusations

From an Anchorage Daily News article on companies coming out against Proposition 1 in Anchorage's April municipal election:

"In a  February  email, Minnery [the executive director of the socially conservative advocacy organization Alaska Family Action, the main group organizing in support of Prop. 1] accused Anchorage’s business community of caving to a special-interest group. 

“LGBTQ activists have used bullying and blackmail tactics to strong-arm corporate America,” Minnery wrote." [emphasis added]

Prop 1 is an attempt to go back to the 'good old days' when right wing evangelical church leaders - Jerry Prevo in particular - could bring out their members with rants about the evils of homosexuality to defeat attempts to give legal protections to the LGBTQ community.  When the Assembly finally passed such an ordinance, this coalition then delayed things long enough to have an incoming mayor veto it.  But the last round saw the Anchorage Assembly pass the legislation by and 9-2 margin and it was signed by the new mayor.

Prop 1 is an attempt to undo that measure by raising fears about 'men' going into women's bathrooms and essentially denying the existence of transgender people, by defining people by the gender marked on their birth certificates, which people would have to show if challenged in a public restroom!

This quote reflects the same kinds of lies and scare tactics they've always used.

Strong-arm tactics

Strong-arm tactics?  Really?  Let's look at some dictionary definitions of that term:

Merriam Webster:

"using force or threats to make someone do what is wanted"

Collins dictionary:

"If you refer to someone's behavior as strong-arm tactics or methods, you disapprove of it because it consists of using threats or force in order to achieve something."

Let's look at the organizations that are opposed to Prop 1, that Minnery thinks were 'strong-armed' by the transgender community, one of the most vulnerable communities in the US.

11.17 Design Studio LLC ACDA Anchorage Economic    Development Corporation (AEDC) Anchorage Chamber of Commerce Arctic Choice Arctic Incident Response, LLC Arctic Wire and Rope BDS Architects BP Beartooth Theaterpub & Grill Broken Tooth Brewing Cabin Fever Classic Woman Coordinators Interior Design

Dos Manos Gallery Favco Favretto Limited Fire Island Bakery First National Bank K2 Avication K2 Dronotics KPB Architects Law Office of Glenn E. Cravez, Inc. Mad Dog Graphics Moose’s Tooth Mystic Productions Press Ozarks Perkins Coie LLP Portfolio Quilted Raven Re/Max

Rust Flying Service Second Run LLC Side Street Espresso Snow City Cafe South Restaurant Spenard Roadhouse Stoel Rives LLP The Boardroom The Sourdough Mercantile The Writer’s Block Bookstore & Cafe Tiny Ptarmigan Two Friends Gallery United Physical Therapy Visit Anchorage Wells Fargo Wooly Mammoth

Only a few of these are 'corporate America.'

For the most part these are small businesses in Anchorage.  Those I know are owned by people who would have volunteered to support the campaign against Prop 1.  They wouldn't have needed to be strong-armed.  Can you imagine the folks at Fair Alaska threatening Rust Flying Service or Mad Dog Graphics into getting on the list?  How?  Boycott their businesses? Ludicrous.  Telling them they would go to hell for eternity?  Sorry, that's Minnery's line.

Even more ludicrous is to think they could have strong-armed the national companies like BP, Perkins Coie, Stoel Rives, Re/Max, or Wells Fargo.

Strong-arming is what Prevo's friends do to get legislators to vote against women's rights to free choice or gay rights issues.  They use religion on some, threats to withdraw political support and give it to a candidate's opponent.

And as I've said before, people tend to accuse others of what they do themselves, because they assume everyone does it.  That's how they justify their own actions - "everyone does it, we'd be a disadvantage if we didn't."

I thought maybe Minnery had recognized the error of his approach when he held "Love Your Gay Neighbor Night" in 2014, but I'm afraid not.  Rather, he's now back to using "bullying and blackmail tactics to scare" voters into making the lives of transgender folks much more difficult.

My expectation is this campaign is the last gasp on this issue.  It's what Minnery knows how to do - fight to impose his religious beliefs on others in some twisted logic  that if gays have rights, he loses his rights.  He picks obscure parts of the Bible to justify his stance, while ignoring far more important lessons from Christ, like "Do Onto Others. . ."


I expect Anchorage voters to roundly defeat Prop 1.  The big unknown is how changing to mail-in voting will affect turnout.   Let's hope Minnery gets the message and finds more positive things to work on.

For more on this ballot issue see an earlier post with video of some local transgender folks and their parents talking about why this vote is so important to them.

Getting To Know Some Local Transgender Folks Before You Vote On Prop 1 On April 3

We are taught to think of gender as an either/or case of male or female.  It's just how you're born.

But we have lots of evidence that it's not that easy.  If it were, all men would have strong 'male' traits and women would all be 'feminine.'  But we know that's not how it is.  If we took all men, I'm guessing we'd get a bell shaped curve of 'masculinity' and 'femininity.'  A similar curve for women would overlap that for men.

Many cultures recognize the fluidity of gender and the fact that some people clearly do not fit the gender category their private parts seem to indicate.  A number have special roles for people who seem to carry both genders.

Many babies are born with ambiguous genitalia and doctors have traditionally decided what gender they should be right after birth, often with surgery to make the baby conform to the doctor's decision.

This is all relevant in Anchorage now because Jim Minnery  and the Alaska Family Council and friends have gotten Prop 1 onto Anchorage's April 3 local ballot.

So I want to post some video I made at a panel discussion last August here in Anchorage.  Mara Keisling, the Executive Director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, moderated this panel with three local transgender folks and two parents of transgender kids.

Here's a link to the ballot measure and explanations at Ballotopedia.  (I found that site easier to read than the Municipality's site on this.)

On first blush, I can understand the idea of women not wanting men to use the women's bathrooms, though since women don't use urinals, it's my understanding their public restrooms all have private stalls.  So that should be, for the most part, moot.  Locker rooms and showers are perhaps a different story. Or so the sponsors of Prop 1 would  tell you.  (Actually, they'll tell you public bathrooms are a problem.)

Current Anchorage law allows transgender folks to use the bathroom that they identify with.  No problems have been brought to the public's attention that I know of.  The number of transgender people in Anchorage is very small.  The problems the initiative's sponsor cite are all hypothetical. And unlikely. I doubt too many men will dress up like a woman just to spy on women in the women's restroom.  And they could do that now and it would be illegal if they weren't transgender and were there to spy on women.

I also understand, and am more sympathetic with, the opponents' argument.  I suspect their key objection is the initiative's essential denial of transgender identity.  Even the US military recognizes this, but Prop 1 would make the gender listed in someone's birth certificate the only thing that counts.  Here's a statement from Nobodyaskedme.org (part of the Prop 1 campaign):

"In September of 2015, the Anchorage Assembly forced an ordinance upon residents that allows men to enter women’s spaces — public bathrooms, showers, locker rooms and changing facilities." 

I think this shows clearly that they deny the existence of transgender people.  There is nothing in the ordinance that allows 'men' into women's restrooms, only transgender people who identify as women.  I'm not trying to answer all the questions people have about transgender folks here.  I'm not that well-versed myself.  But I know that for a number of people, the physical gender parts don't always match the mental gender identity of people.  I also know that nobody in their right mind would claim to be transgender if they weren't.  There's far too much heartache and prejudice that comes with such an identity.   I'd also note that the Assembly passed the ordinance 9-2.  That's not even close.  That's not 'forcing.'  The representatives of the vast majority of Anchorage voted for the current ordinance.  If people were 'forced' they could have voted out people at the last Municipal election.

As both of the parents on this panel in the video say, 'before I had a transgender child, I really knew nothing about what the word means.'  My own knowledge, while probably more extensive than the average person's, is still sketchy, but I did post last August about my own education on this topic,  just before Mara Keisling moderated this panel.

Alaska Election 2014: What Does It All Mean?

Your guess is as good as mine.  I guess in today's internet style I should have titled this "The Ten Takeaways From Yesterday's Election and How You can Lose Ten Pounds (or Organize Your Life, or Become Financially Secure in Two Weeks.)"

This post is just my thinking out loud after the election.  Since my foot is still in a boot I can't go run or bike or even walk too much (trying to just let it relax and heal).  So I'll try to write my way out of this.


1.  Republicans won most offices that were up for grabs.  But there are still absentee and maybe early voters to count.

• Republican Dan Sullivan  is ahead of Democratic incumbent Mark Begich by 48.7% to 45.1% (102,054 votes to 110,203) in the US Senate race.  This morning's ADN headline is "Sullivan holds lead;  Begich won't concede."  Begich was behind Stevens at this point in 2008, but not as far behind.

• Republican incumbent Don Young handily beat Forrest Dunbar by 25,000 votes (51% to 40%, a margin that didn't change all night) in the US House race.

• The so called Independent/Unity Ticket of Walker/Mallot is ahead of Parnell/Sullivan (different Dan Sullivan) by 3,160 votes (47%-46%).  The ADN says "Too close to call."  But even if the Walker/Mallot lead stays through the absentee votes, we'll have a governor who was a Republican until he changed to undeclared before joining up with the Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mallot to run as independents.  

Republicans kept most of their seats and took a few they didn't have in the state house and senate.  They picked up one Senate seat in Anchorage

• (Rep. Mia Costello took Hollis French's seat.  He had originally been the Democratic Lt. Gov candidate before the Unity ticket.) 

The House apparently has one seat switching from Republican to Democratic:

• Democrat Adam Wool beat incumbent Pete Higgins in Fairbanks' District 5 in the House. 

Other House races are still too close to call. 

• Republican Anand Dubey is 35 votes behind Democrat Matt Claman in House District 21, held before by Democrat turned Republican after the 2012 election Lindsey Holmes.
• Independent Daniel Ortiz is 19 votes ahead of Republican Chere Klein in the Wrangell District 36 that was held by retired Rep. Peggy Wilson.  
• Democrat Laurie Hummel is only 167 votes behind Republican incumbent Gabrielle LeDoux in Anchorage District 15.  This one would be a little harder for Hummel to pull off, though LeDoux gained 140 votes over Hummel when the last 20% of the voters were counted.  I don't know how many absentee and early votes are to be counted in this normally low turnout district.

2.  All the ballot measures passed (well sort of because in the wording on Anchorage Prop 1, a no vote was a vote to pass the proposition).  This is noteworthy because while the Republicans did well when their label was on the candidates, the Democrats did well in the ballot measures where there was no party label.

• Ballot Measure 2:  To Legalize Marijuana  - we can quibble if this was a Democratic or Republican cause because both parties had key figures leading both sides.  But the Democratic opposition seemed to be more about the commercialization of marijuana than about legalizing marijuana.   It passed 116,803 to 107179 or 52.15% to 47.85%.  Marijuana got more votes than Dan Sullivan.  But then there was no 'maybe' or other options in this election, but there were third parties in the Senate election.

• Ballot Measure 3:  Increase Minimum Wage
  Yes:  154,516 (68.8%)
  No:    70,082  (31.2%)
  While this is normally a Democratic issue, some of the Republicans supported it on the grounds that states can set minimum wage, just not the feds.  Not sure how much difference that makes with their economic argument that it messes with the free market and causes jobs to disappear. 

• Ballot Measure 4:  Protect Bristol Bay Fish (by making it harder to build the Pebble Mine)
  Yes:  143,287 (65.32%)
  No:     76,062 (34.68%)
  Note again, that Republican Senate candidate Dan Sullivan got 110,203 votes.  Dan Sullivan who vehemently opposes federal regulation, the EPA report that raised major questions about Pebble Mine, and, from what I can tell, has never seen a problematic development project.

• Anchorage Proposition 1: Keep Mayor Sullivan's Draconian Labor Ordinance
  Yes:  41998 (46.17%)
  No:  48961  (53.83%)
  Remember, a no vote essentially approved the proposition because of how it was worded:  Should we keep Anchorage Ordinance 37?  Also, only Anchorage voters had this on the ballot so the numbers are much lower.  This was heavily backed by labor unions and Democrats and opposed by Republicans.  

3.   So, what does this all mean?  Here I'm going to just hypothosize possibilities.  But who knows for sure?  Certainly not me.

• Left leaning issues did well when there was no party label, right leaning candidates did well when there was a label.

• Nationally, the Koch Brothers Party did extremely well.  It's more than money since there were left  leaning PACs as well that poured lots of money in.  

• Who's checking the voting machines?  I have no evidence whatsoever that there was any tampering with voting machines.  However, it's clear that such tampering is possible and has probably happened in past elections.  But we have no systems to vigorously guard against such tampering in each state and nationally.  We know that computer hackers can get into large corporate and government data bases.  The US government has accused China of hacking to get into trade and government secrets.  Yet as we watched the somewhat surprisingly heavy Republican victory nationwide last night, I heard none of the national new media even mention election fraud or hacking of machines in any of their attempts to explain what happened.  They can't, because they have no evidence.  But how would they get any evidence?  They don't have any way of checking except for the most obvious, clumsy attempts.  We need to have serious monitoring of all electronic voting equipment, just as we have monitoring of polling booths and voter ids.  

That's what comes to mind this morning after the 2014 election.  There are plenty of other issues to ponder and this is a quick and dirty post.  Don't take it too seriously.  I have things to do today besides blog. 

"Governor says he responded to every allegation but was misled by leaders."

The title is from a headline in the ADN. [The paper and online editions have different headlines and different dates.]

“Every time I heard an allegation, every time I got an allegation or my office did, we investigated that with guard leadership,” Parnell said even as he acknowledged the same leadership turned out to be the cause of some of the guard's biggest problems."

We asked the fox how the hens were doing. 

Sort of like how he investigated the claims of the oil companies that they needed a tax break so they could increase production and create more jobs.

Good intentions are important, but our Governor was simply unable to get to the heart of matters for four years.  You need more than intentions.  You need to be able to figure out what's going on and then correct it. 

For four years the governor has heard about problems at the National Guard.  Often such complaints come from people whose credibility may be questionable to people in authority, which, of course, doesn't invalidate their claims.  It just makes it harder for them to get people to listen.

But in this case the people who complained to the governor were people with credibility.  Chaplains.  Officers in the guard.  A senior politician from the governor's party.

What is revealed in this case is that the governor is, like Don Young said, Captain Zero.  He's an empty shell.  He simply doesn't have the ability to judge people - he listened to Katkus and not to Katkus' critics.  He doesn't know how to investigate and find the facts.  He got bamboozled for four years by the likes of Katkus.  (If you were to actually meet Katkus, you'd find this even more amazing.)

The National Guard scandal is all the more outrageous because Parnell made ending domestic violence one of his top priorities - but when it was waved in front of his face for four years, he didn't see it.  Or know what to do about it.  [OK, he'll say I did everything I could but there wasn't evidence.  That answer gives Parnell a fail on this question.  A more alert and serious governor would have done something much sooner.  The head of the National Guard is an appointed position and serves at the pleasure of the governor.]

And this is the governor who told us we needed to pass SB 21  giving the oil companies a $2 billion a year tax cut because the tax was hindering oil production and costing the state jobs.  (If he had done the math, he would have known that for $2 billion a year he could have given every unemployed Alaskan a decent paying job.)  And he fought against the referendum to repeal SB 21 saying it would cost the state oil revenue and jobs.

Yet the oil companies Parnell supported said themselves production would decline and after it passed one oil company said there wouldn't be increased oil production and another laid off  a significant number of employees.  We all know that if Prop 1 had passed, they would have blamed it for the layoffs.

We don't have a governor, we have a puppet.  He only knows what to do when one of his puppeteers tells him what to do.  His "Choose Respect" campaign to end domestic violence was a poor marketing campaign.  The scary thing is that I believe Parnell thought it had substance. (There were some substantive actions, but only because a non-profit that  working with state agencies had already developed a statewide plan and the governor's task force was able to adopt some of that.)

But it seems the governor is a good representative of the voters of Alaska who continue to believe Parnell's promises and continue to elect Republican majorities in the house and senate.  And continue to buy the Republican brand for our US Representative. The majority of voters seem to be swayed by symbols and not by substance.  Perhaps the so-called Unity Party with Walker an Mallot will change things.  I think just the change itself will allow for a little different direction, but how long will it last? And if he wins, how will Walker's socially conservative values play out after the election?   Stay tuned.

I realize this is not my normal style.  But this situation is so outrageous, even I have to call it out harshly.  This is a clear fail on the part of the governor.  There are no shades of gray here. 

Love Your Gay Neighbor Night At East High - Minnery Tries Out A New Approach

Jim Minnery of the Alaska Family Action which includes the Alaska Family Council was holding a Love Your Gay Neighbor Q&A Friday night at East High and although I was tired, it seemed like something I should attend.  I've already posted a short video of the question and answer to: What should I do if my son says he's gay and wants to bring his partner to a family function?

In 2012 Minnery led a successful campaign to stop GLBT folks from being added to the Anchorage Anti-Discrimination ordinance.

There were two couches, for panelists, and narrator Jim Minnery.

Click to Enlarge A Lot

Panelists (left to right)

Peter Hubbard - pastor and author of Love Into Light:  The Gospel, the Homosexual, and the Church.  (I looked for a different link from the previous post, but couldn't find a better one.)  The book argues for the church to find better ways to deal with GLBT parishioners.

Andrew Walker - Is a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation and the director of policy studies at the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.  (Yes, the Heritage Foundation is the place that former Jim DeMint left the US Senate for.  And some think destroyed its credibility.)

Minnery is in the middle.  It gets more interesting though.

Jeff Johnston - who works at Focus on the Family.  He talked about his former gay life and how he got back to the church.  He now is married to a woman, though he doesn't deny he still has same-sex attractions.  The link is a radio interview that - in the beginning - covers much of how he introduced himself last night.  He said he was not ex-gay or gay. 

Melinda Selmys-   She described herself as a lesbian who broke up with her long time girlfriend when she converted to Catholicism.  She is now married to a man, though she still calls herself a lesbian.

Hubbard and Walker both sounded genuinely committed to love and being welcoming to LGBT folks, but also strongly committed to church doctrine.  Johnston seemed like he was still figuring out who he was and I found his generalizing from his personal experience to all gay men problematic, even though he did recognize everyone is not the same.  Selmys sounded the most grounded in a reality that I could recognize.  


Here's my short take on what I heard

Overall, it sounded like a genuine search for a way to change the church's approach to LGBT issues while staying true to 'biblical truth' (a term I heard a lot that night.) 

1.    Homosexuality has been treated as a special class of irredeemable sin by evangelical churches.  While we helped all other sinners struggle to overcome their issues, we assumed that LGBT folks were beyond God's grace and treated them differently.

2.   But homosexuality is no different from other sins.  From the link to a review of Hubbard's book by Tim Challies:

The gospel makes all the difference and the gospel is exactly what Fred Phelps and so many others have thrown away in their misguided, hate-filled attempts to address homosexuality. “If our attitude toward a gay or lesbian person is disgust, we have forgotten the gospel. We need to remember the goodness and lovingkindness that God poured out on us. God should have looked at us and been disgusted. Instead, without condoning our sin, He loved us and saved us. And I want everyone to know that kind of love!”

3.   We must love our kids, yet also tell them the biblical truth.  Hubbard distinguished between family relationships and church discipline.

4.  Homosexuality is still a sin and having gay sex is not condoned.


What Does This All Mean?

I couldn't help wondering what Minnery's motivation was for bringing these people here.  I also was wondering if this meant that he was having second thoughts on his fight against  Proposition 5 [to add LGBT to the Anchorage Anti-Discrimination ordinance] in 2012.

Prop 5
This question came up in the discussion.  My notes are pretty rough, but this is what I have down for Minnery's comments:

Prop 5 was a hornets' nest; it's the reason I'm having this conference.  We hurt a lot of people.
If there was any business that would deny service to LGBT person, I'd be the first to [defend the LGBT right to service] 

I'd note how easily people can use phrases like "I'd be the first . . . "  There are a lot of people who have already been doing that for years and years.  It's a little presumptuous for Minnery to claim he'd be the first here.  Especially since he led to the fight to keep LGBT people off anti-discrimination ordinance.  Though I'd guess that this phrase just popped into Minnery's head and if he had time to think about it, he would agree with me and say he didn't mean it literally. 

There's a little more, he clarified a little.

But it's different for some issues - marriage, adoption - where the law requires [businesses]  to [serve someone in a situation that violates their religious beliefs].  That crosses the line.

He also made some comments - to explain what Prop 5 was - including a description of the tv commercials they made that suggested day care centers and schools would be required to hire transgender people with the implication transgender people were a reater danger to your children than other people.   As he talked about it, I couldn't be certain, but it seemed more like he was talking about something he was proud of than sorry about.

Minnery's Motivation

A little background first:   The advantage of being some place a long time is that you know a lot of people. I talked to Rick Benjamin, the former pastor at Abbot Loop Community Church, at the break.  I'd gotten to know him when I was helping the Anchorage Ethics Board rewrite the Ethics Code.  (Much of the work was undone later by Muni attorneys.)  I had grown to like and respect Rick and met with him after that work was done so I could ask questions I had about evangelicalism.  One of the things he told me was that issues like abortion and gay rights were not big issues in the church when he was growing up and he thought they became big issues because pastors found that when they talked about them, people gave the church a lot of money.  Friday night Rick offered to introduce me to Jim Minnery.  But we couldn't find him.

After the discussion, Minnery was walking up the aisle and so I went up to him and waited for him to finish talking to someone.  Rich Mauer of the Anchorage Daily News came over introduced me to Minnery and we talked for a few minutes.  I asked about his motivation to host this event.  Our culture is changing, he said.  I asked if he meant church culture or overall culture.  Overall.  And he repeated what he'd said about Prop. 5.  It released a hornets' nest and he realized that a lot of people got hurt.   He said, We won, but we didn't really win.  I asked if he was a competitive person.  I was reminded of a dean who told me his son complained that he was too competitive.  The dean then told me that he did see everything as a contest and he played to win.  It explained a lot of things that I hadn't understood before.  I'm not that kind of person.  I care about ideas and issues, but not about winning personally.  I asked Minnery if he was a competitive person and he said, something like, well, sure.  What I meant, I continued, winning was an important part of defeating Prop 5 and his eyes seemed to light up a bit and he said, of course.  I don't want to project anything onto him that isn't there, but I wonder how many people (probably more men than women) fight hard to win, even if the issue isn't that important.  Or if when they get into a contest, even if they realize a victory will do harm, winning is still more important.

I told him I'd felt a little reluctant to talk to him, but I knew I should, and he invited me to contact him to follow up.  So I will put that on my list of things to do.  Because I still have a lot of questions, which I try to describe now.

Why this change?

Let's look at Minnery's comment that culture is changing.  Peter Hubbard's Love Into Light website has a page on how to respond to last year's  same-sex marriage Supreme Court decision.  Hubbard is strongly opposed to same sex marriage:

Every serious sociological study has concluded that a child does best with his natural father and mother. Of course, the presence of a natural father and mother is not always possible, but a society that legalizes same-sex marriage is codifying dysfunction and intentionally dismantling the family. This dismantling paves the way for every kind of sociological malady. As the meaning of marriage is stretched to near meaninglessness, polygamy and incest will eventually be recognized as “marriage.” If marriage is the government’s way of recognizing love, then on what basis can any government declare two or more sincere people unmarriageable? Marriage, friendship and “shacking up” have all been convoluted. No one can explain the legal difference. And children will pay the price for our country’s moral suicide. This makes us sad.

There's a lot to quibble with.  I'd agree that in the ideal world being raised with one's natural parents would be best.  But

• not all natural parents are good parents.  
• people other than birth parents can be better sometimes
• not all birth parents stick around and there are lots of single mom's and a growing number of single dad's who have no choice
• there are often lots of male or female friends and relatives who can be role models for kids being raised by same-sex couples if that's as big an issue as Peter (and Jeff in the discussion) think it is.  I think it's worth talking about, but don't see it as crucial.
• allowing same-sex marriage doesn't automatically open marriage to other configurations - it's still just two people
• while he cites reputable sociological studies on marriage, he ignores reputable psychological and biological studies of homosexuality.  We can cite, he seems to say, science when it supports the bible, but when it doesn't support the bible we reject it.
• same-sex marriage opponents have said they were fine with marriage equivalent arrangements that weren't called marriage.  In that case the quibble is only about the word marriage.  Not about 'codifying dysfunction.' 
• Religions are free to marry or not marry whomever they choose, but I don't see why they should be able to dictate what people not part of their religion can do
• Actually, other religions cannot marry whomever they choose because even though Islam allows for more than one wife, that is illegal in the United States. 

Basically, to deny same-sex marriage on the grounds that kids should be in a perfect natural parent family is to ignore that a lot of families already don't work that way.

But Peter, at least, doesn't ignore that entirely.  In the talk and on his website, he says that the church had already trashed heterosexual marriage.

"We paved the way for gay marriage by watering down the meaning of marriage through our immorality, selfishness and the culture of divorce in our churches."

So Evangelical Christians seem to be facing a dilemma.   Tim Challies, the book reviewer I cited above, is a pastor in Ontario, Canada.  He writes in the review of Hubbard's book:

It seems inevitable that same-sex marriage will soon be legalized across America; it has been the law in Canada for several years now. Meanwhile the acceptance and celebration of homosexuality is becoming a cultural shibboleth, a means of determining who has a voice worth hearing and who does not.

What I hear in this, and other things I read online, is that now that homosexuality is becoming culturally and legally accepted, the evangelical church has to figure out a way to get rid of its gay bashing past. 

Option one is to reinterpret the scriptures and find a way to 'discover' that homosexuality is not a sin.  Perhaps science has supplanted what was known at the time the bible was written down.  They discussed Matthew Vine's book, God and the Gay Christian, which apparently does find ways to make the bible and homosexuality compatible.  Walker pretty much trashed Vine's thinking in the discussion.  (I found a review of Vine's book by Walker here.)

Option two is to treat LGBT folks with love, but not compromise biblical truths.  I understand that approach, because it's like the one I tried to take as a teacher - treat my students with warmth and respect, but still hold them to high academic standards.  But in the church, it still means labeling them as sinners.  We still love you and will help you find God's grace.

They even had one now married (to a woman) formerly gay man and one Lesbian who is now married to a man.   What was that all about?  It seems it was to show that you can stop acting on your same-sex attraction when you have something more meaningful.  I'd note I can believe both their stories - they didn't deny they still had same-sex attractions -  but their path wouldn't work for everyone.  And the panelists acknowledged this.  Some LGBT folks would have to stay single and celibate. 

So, is this because they are remembering their Christian principles of love?  Or simply a way to keep the church relevant in modern America?   I suspect that it's both.  For some people more of one than the other.

Angels Dancing On The Head Of A Pin

I'm amazed as I watch the dedication of people living in 2014 to this book that was written over a span of more than a thousand years starting over 3000 years ago by people who lived in worlds so totally different from our world today.  I also wonder at what it takes to believe in such a book as the literal and absolute moral truth.  I can easily read it as metaphorically telling us morals through stories - like Aesop's Fables or how some Alaska Native cultures use stories to teach proper behavior.

The idea that the literal word of the bible is the ultimate test of right and wrong just doesn't work for me.  With so many different bibles written in so many different languages, how does one even know the literal bible?  Do we take a Hebrew bible?  One written in Aramaic?  Greek?  Latin?  English?  And of these, which translation?  And which interpretation?

And I'm constantly struck by what seem to me to be inconsistencies.  Something like homosexuality is blown up for a time as a particularly egregious sin.  Yet other biblical 'abominations' such as eating shellfish are ignored.  And I don't hear US evangelicals calling for the stoning of adulterers.   Nor do I hear much complaint about violations of the Fourth Commandment.  (Aren't the Ten Commandments the most important laws?)  Do you see any evangelicals railing against businesses that are open on Sunday?

Science seems to be brought in when it supports biblical truth.  Hubbard, in the quote above, cites sociology to support the notion "that a child does best with his natural father and mother."  But what do they do with psychological and biological science on homosexuality that doesn't support their biblical truth? 

I guess for me, it boils down to letting everyone follow their own religious beliefs.  The problem arises when they want to impose those beliefs on others.  Evangelicals shouldn't practice homosexuality or have same-sex marriages.  But they also should NOT impose their beliefs on others.  And when we have conflicts between the religious (or non-religious) beliefs of people, we have to sift through the issues to determine which person is most harmed.  So, if a wedding photographer who doesn't believe in same-sex marriage is asked to photograph a same sex marriage - we have to parse whose rights are more violated.

I didn't have an official photographer at my wedding so I don't personally feel a wedding photographer is critical to getting married.  But for people who believe in the whole big wedding package - including wedding photographers - a wedding without a photographer isn't a wedding.  Such a photographer isn't being asked to perform a wedding or even worse, get married to a same-sex partner.  But I can understand a photographer believing that her photos of a same-sex wedding would be a form of supporting, even promoting, an act she felt was wrong.  But I can also see a same-sex couple - especially one living in a small town where there is only one photographer - feeling they are being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, no differently than if a restaurant refused service based on that.

Life is full of conflicts and reasonable people can work them out.    In this situation, a photographer ought to be able to suggest other professional photographers who would do the job.  A gay couple would probably not want someone who wasn't supportive to take the photos of their wedding. 

You can see the issues raised Friday night can lead one down countless paths and we could go on and on exploring them.  But I did think it significant that evangelicals now see their harsh treatment of LGBT folks as a liability and are now trying to figure out how to jettison that approach yet stay consistent with their version of biblical truth.

When I talked to Minnery, he'd said that Ethan Berkowitz, on his talk show, asked Minnery if this was "A Gentler, Kinder Bigotry."  I had been thinking, as I sat in the audience, if this was a "gentler, kinder evangelicalism."  If one is committed to the literal word of the bible as one's moral truth, and your reading of that bible leads to an understanding that homosexuality is a sin, then you are stuck with that conclusion.  I respect that, up to the point that your chosen path to the truth begins to harm the lives of other people.  I think that the defeat of Prop 5 caused harm to LGBT people in Anchorage.  Fortunately, most people don't believe that truth should cause them to treat GLBT folks differently than other folks.  But enough do to make LGBT people fearful that they could lose their jobs or find a suitable place to live if they disclose their sexual orientation.  That's a heavy burden to live with every day. 


[UPDATE 10:40pm:  Here's a view of the Saturday meeting in the Valley from Alaska Commons by Julien Jolivette who writes:

". . . I am a baptized Catholic, and made a fervent foray into conservative evangelicalism as a teenager. But I felt that my past did not prepare me for the experience of being a queer agnostic walking into an event titled “Loving My Gay Neighbor' . . .”]

"Yes, but we're not Congress, aren't we?" Giessel Said

Wednesday I reported that Sen. Hollis French had sent a letter to Sen. Cathy Giessel requesting that the witnesses - oil company representatives - be asked to testify under oath.

For those who want just the summary, scroll down to:  It All Seems to Boil Down To


That afternoon, the committee met and the Anchorage Daily News reports that Giessel opened the meeting by saying they would not administer oaths and when French attempted to respond to her, she had his mic shut off and the televised portion when silent.

Obviously, the issue, as far as Giessel was concerned, was not open for debate.  I've tried to glean from the Daily News article by Rich Mauer   Giessel's main objections.  This snippet seems to get most of them which I've highlighted:

“It’s unfortunate we have to have this kind of duel on the floor,” she said. Acknowledging that the use of sworn testimony wasn’t quite without precedent, she said it was last used by the Legislature in 1997.     
“We are to conduct ourselves with some decorum, and to spring that on people who are coming to testify would simply be unprofessional of us,” Giessel said. “I’m not an attorney, as the previous speaker is, but it is my understanding that the preparation for testimony under oath is a different type of preparation than simply coming and providing information.”    
As the Senate broke, French said as he was leaving the chamber that his request was hardly extreme. “You can’t contest a traffic ticket without taking an oath,” he said.    
At her desk in the chamber, Giessel talked to Senate President Charlie Huggins, R-Wasilla.     
Doesn’t Congress swear in witnesses? a reporter asked.     
“Yes, but we’re not Congress, aren’t we?” Giessel said.     
“This is redneck Alaska,” Huggins said.    
“There was no criminal activity that was being investigated,” she said as Huggins called her away.

Additionally, Giesel is quoted as saying the request was:

• “unprecedented and inappropriate.”
• “Springing an under-oath requirement on invited citizens at the last minute is not only unfair but unprofessional,” Giessel said. The request by French, a former prosecutor, would bring a “criminal justice approach to this committee meeting,” she said. 

My reaction Wednesday, and the reaction of some others I talked to, was, "Gee, I thought it was expected that you told the truth."  But it turns out that unless you are sworn in, you can't be prosecuted for perjury.  So, if you lie, there are no legal consequences.

Let's look at the arguments one by one.  

• "to spring that on people who are coming to testify would simply be unprofessional of us,”
  There are two parts here.  1.  The timing and 2.  asking them to testify under oath. 
• Sen. French's letter is dated one day before the committee hearing.  I'm not sure when the witnesses were announced.
• Unprofessional is a word that many people use when they disagree with a practice.  Essentially it's a fancy word for 'bad.' For 'unprofessional' to have real meaning, one would have to cite a professional association (in this case relevant to legislative hearings) that has among its rules, regulations, or standards something about asking witnesses to testify under oath and/or related to a time limit.  
• "preparation for testimony under oath is a different type of preparation than simply coming and providing information."
• My sense of this, confirmed by an attorney friend, is that this isn't wrong, but it depends on the context and the experience of the people testifying.
• If under oath, it isn't hard to say, "I'm not sure of these numbers" or other qualifying comments.  In fact, the ConocoPhillips presentation even had a 200 word disclaimer (see below) on their forecasts. 
• These oil company representatives were not there to casually provide information.  These are well-paid professional spokespersons,  trained in presenting their corporations' views.  They had Power Point presentations (see below) that someone had clearly spent a lot of time preparing. 
  
• "we’re not Congress"
  I'm not quite sure how to interpret what she meant by this.  Obviously, the Alaska legislature is not the US Congress, but it is to the state of Alaska what Congress is to the United States.   Some possibilities:
• She may have meant that unlike Congress with all its intense security and many other restrictions, the Alaska legislature is much more casual.  And that is certainly true.  Anyone can walk into the capitol building and up to any legislator's office without going through security.  And being more casual, we don't have to administer oaths. 
• Or perhaps she meant we aren't gridlocked like Congress.  In Alaska the minority has no power to stop whatever the majority wants to do.
  
  However she meant it, it's more than clear that few other issues than SB 21 and its impact on oil companies will have greater impact on Alaska's future.  The oil companies are spending millions of dollars to defeat a proposition to overturn SB 21.  No one in Alaska has a greater financial vested interest in any legislation than the oil companies have in SB 21.  They have every incentive to make it appear that SB 21 has stimulated them to invest more in Alaska and to create more jobs in Alaska.  And that could include misleading testimony.
  
• There was no criminal activity that was being investigated  Note:  She didn't say there was no criminal activity, only that (if there were), it wasn't being investigated.  But we do know that battles over oil tax funding have, in the not too distant past, involved criminal activity that netted a dozen or so pleas and/or convictions.
   
• “unprecedented and inappropriate.”
• Sen. Giessel herself already corrected the unprecedented claim
• Inappropriate is like 'unprofessional' but even more vague.  It's a way of saying no in polite language but without giving a reason.
  
• "unfair but unprofessional" Unprofessional has already been addressed.  But we don't know what she meant by 'unfair.'  It's unfair to ask people to swear that what they are testifying is the truth?  

I checked with Sen. French's office to see if any reports were submitted to the committee.  Each oil company representative had a Power Point presentation (see below), but nothing too heavy with words.  My thinking was that if they had prepared reports that they knew were not quite truthful, it would be hard to withdraw them before the hearing.  But if you look at the presentations linked below, there's simply not that much content that could be faulted for perjury. It's mainly about plans, which can always be changed. There are claims about how much new money has been budgeted to be spent in Alaska this year and in the future.  Discussions about new projects and new work.  There is even language that talks about new investment in relation to SB 21:

Plans for over $2 billion gross in production adding investments announced since passage of SB21

Note that this only talks about timing, not about cause and effect.  Since the oil companies are in control of when they announce things, there's no reason to believe that this wouldn't have happened if SB 21 hadn't been passed.  Certainly these things take a long time to plan and cost out.  If the passage of SB 21 was the reason for this new investment, then surely they would have said so. But I didn't see that claim in their written documents, only that it happened after SB 21 was passed.

It All Seems To Boil Down To:

Essentially, from what I can tell, this was a show hearing.  SB 21 gave the oil companies a $2 billion a year tax break, which the governor said would increase oil production and state revenue and jobs.  Prop 1 on the Alaska ballot in August would repeal SB 21.  The oil companies were being given a platform to prove how the passage of SB 21 was making Alaska a better place.  French wanted to require them to be subject to perjury prosecution if they lied. Giessel didn't. 


The Reports 

The reports that are linked online through Basis - the legislative website - are essentially Power Points with some text.  I've highlighted the main text below.  The links should take you to the reports themselves.

• Respol - basically pictures
• ConocoPhillips - pictures and text
• $1.7 billion net 2014 Alaska capital budget - 1750 new jobs
• 2014 exploration update
• Plans for over $2 billion gross in production adding investments announced since passage of SB21
• ExxonMobile- mostly pictures with a bit of text, here's what appears to be the key text:
• More than 729 positions on the slope, many of which are rotational
• 1,200 positions statewide
• 85% Alaskans
• Out of 92 companies, 73 are Alaskan
• BP   - Pictures and fair amount of bulleted text, below is their Investments in Alaska Summary:
• Actively investing in the North Slope oil fields
• Acquiring new seismic data in Northern Prudhoe Bay – 190 sq. miles summer and 220 sq. miles winter season, 150 jobs, ~$78 million, 55 million barrels resource potential
• Adding 2 new rigs with 200 jobs, $1 billion over 5 years – currently 7 rigs • Testing new drilling completions technology for challenging oil fields.
  i.e.: Sag River potential resource 200 million barrels
•  Restarted development Milne Point drilling in 2014
• Appraise/Select stage engineering for West End Prudhoe Bay with potential startup in 2018, $3 billion, peak 2022 est. 40,000 bopd
• Major facility investments committed to safe & sustainable operations, for example $76 million in 2014 Turnarounds with over 700 people involved, including GC2 Module built at NANA’s Big Lake facility – 79 jobs, $13.5 million, potential 2,000 bopd.

Here's the ConocoPhillips disclaimer:

The following presentation includes forward-looking statements. These statements relate to future events, such as anticipated revenues, earnings, business strategies, competitive position or other aspects of our operations or operating results. Actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or forecast in such forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict such as oil and gas prices; operational hazards and drilling risks; potential failure to achieve, and potential delays in achieving expected reserves or production levels from existing and future oil and gas development projects; unsuccessful exploratory activities; unexpected cost increases or technical difficulties in constructing, maintaining or modifying company facilities; international monetary conditions and exchange controls; potential liability for remedial actions under existing or future environmental regulations or from pending or future litigation; limited access to capital or significantly higher cost of capital related to illiquidity or uncertainty in the domestic or international financial markets; general domestic and international economic and political conditions, as well as changes in tax, environmental and other laws applicable to ConocoPhillips’ business and other economic, business, competitive and/or regulatory factors affecting ConocoPhillips’ business generally as set forth in Item 1A of ConocoPhillips’ 2012 Form 10-K and in our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Other notes:

I also called Sen. Giessel's office to ask her about these statements and to see if I had missed anything.  I talked to an aide, who, after my first question - about what professional standards the Senator was referring to when she said it was 'unprofessional' said he'd have the Senator call me back and answer the questions.

That was Wednesday.  My cell phone did ring.  I got a call from "an inmate of Grayson County" that I could accept for $9.99. I assumed it was not Sen. Giessel so I hung up.
It's Saturday now and there have been no messages from her on my phone.

Title Note:  I didn't comment on Sen. Giessel's grammar because:
a.  it's not really relevant
b.  it's a quote and not necessarily accurate
c.  much of our spoken English wouldn't pass grammar tests when written down