AK Redistricting: About that 2002 Eagle River to South Anchorage House District Singer Keeps Talking About

 The Supreme Court Docket for the Redistricting case is adding new documents.  

The Board has two major documents.  

• Motion to Stay Trial Court Order; Motion to Expedite Consideration of Motion to Stay
• Petition for Review

The first document is seven pages.  The second is an expansion on the first document and is 47 paged.  

I've read the first one fairly closely and skimmed the second one.  In this post I want to make two observations.  

From the Motion To Stay Trial Court Order

Throughout the redistricting process and again in the court hearings, Board majority members and Singer have insisted that previous court rulings have affirmed the constitutionality of combining Eagle River and South Anchorage/Hillside in a single district.  So this time I took Singer's quotes and checked on that Court decision he cites.  As I read it, the claims are exaggerated and misleading.  Let's look.  

Singer writes:

"Unlike the prior round of litigation, where the superior court identified regional

partisanship in pairing South Eagle River with South Muldoon, the superior court

departs from the framework it previously adopted with a rambling decision that fails to

articulate what a constitutional “community of interest” is or a legitimate basis for

invalidating a district that this Court has previously held was compact, contiguous, and socio-economically integrated.7"

So, let's look at Singer's footnote 7.

"7 As Judge Rindner observed, "respect for neighborhood boundaries is an admirable goal," but "it is not constitutionally required and must give way to other legal requirements." Therefore, the districts containing the Eagle River area are not unconstitutional in any respect." 

First, Judge Rindner was NOT talking about 2021 Senate District F. He was talking about 2002 House District 32.  We'll get back to this point shortly.

Second, Singer ignores the implications of "must give way to other legal requirements."  In the 2002 case, those other legal requirements were about having deviations that were too high.  So, while neighborhood boundaries are "an admirable goal," if they mean the district has too high or too low a deviation, then you have to find other alternatives. In 2002 deviation meant neighborhood boundaries needed to be sacrificed. In the 2022 case, those other legal requirements include no partisan gerrymandering.  

Singer continues:

"The superior court also ignores In re 2001 Redistricting Cases, where this Court rejected attempts to Balkanize the Municipality of Anchorage into separate areas for purposes of election districts. In that case, the Court reaffirmed that “communities within the Municipality of Anchorage are socio-economically integrated as a matter of law,” and that the community of Eagle River could be paired in a house district with the South Anchorage hillside.8 This Eagle River-South Anchorage hillside district was “not unconstitutional in any respect.”9"

Then, in the footnote 8, Singer tells us:

"Id. at 1091 (upholding House District 32, which spanned from the Eagle River Valley to the Anchorage hillside); See ARB Board Record at 10414 (2002 Amended Redistricting

Plan)."

Again, I say that the 2002 House District 32 was very different from 2022 Senate District F.

In those days, Eagle River and Chugiak weren't big enough for two House districts.  The north of the Eagle River Valley district had to go to southern Mat-Su to get enough population for a second district.  

In fact House District 30 captured most of the Eagle River Valley area.  House District 32 (the one Singer keeps harking back to) stretches from the edges of District 30 down south to Whittier and into the Kenai Peninsula, getting enough population to be a whole district by taking some population from the Hillside. 

BUT based on the only 2002 House maps I could locate, there are few if any residents of Eagle River in that district. If there are Eagle River residents, they are the leftovers once the district hit its target number of inhabitants. HD32 was called the Chugach State Park district.  This was a compromise district that went to the Supreme Court and was accepted because of problems with deviations in other districts.  It was a compromise under special circumstances.

From  the Alaska Election Pamphlet 2002 Anchorage area  here are the maps so you can see the context of that district.  

Maps of 

D 17 (ER) 18 (Military) =Senate I

D15 (Rural Mat-Su)  D16 (Chugiak/Southern Mat-Su= Sen H

D32 (Huffman/Ocean View) D32 (Chugach State Park) =Sen P

This first map focuses on the Chugiak/Southern Mat-Su district 16.  You can see a tiny District 17 on the lower left.  That's Eagle River.

You can see here that Eagle River, HD 17 was relatively tiny.  Smaller than the largest districts in the Anchorage bowl.  It was paired with the Base (18) to make a Senate district because there weren't enough people for two Eagle River/Chugiak House districts.  32 goes down into the Kenai Peninsula.

In the map below you can see District 17 better.  Basically ER Valley is in one district.  What ER residents there might be in District 32 are surplus people who couldn't be fit into 17.  

This wasn't an "Eagle River/Hillside" district as Singer portrays it.  It was called the Chugach State Park district that reached to the outer edges of ER and down into the Kenai.  It was a district that was trying to scrape up enough population to be an actual district.  

It's sort of like how the Board majority characterizes HD 23 as the JBER district when it's really 1/3 north Anchorage Bowl.  

I haven't been able to find better maps to pin this down more precisely.  But it seems a point worth raising and exploring. I suspect the meme of an Eagle River/Hillside house district in 2002 that was constitutionally approved that floated around among the Option 3B supporters wasn't better supported than my points here.

Political-Gerrymandering And Zero-Sum Thinking

There are a number of issues to raise from the Board's motion to the Supreme Court and I just don't have the time to go through them all right now.  But I do want to address this one. From Singer:  

The upshot of the superior court’s order is that because it found a portion of the

Board’s previous 2021 Redistricting Plan invalid as a political gerrymander, the

Board’s new April 2022 Amended Redistricting Plan must also be a gerrymander.  On this basis, the superior court orders the Board to adopt senate pairings advanced by and preferred by democratic leadership in the Alaska Senate.6 This is wholly inappropriate.

First, the judge didn't conclude that because there was political gerrymandering in the first plan that, ipso facto, the second plan is also gerrymandered.  Judge Matthews addressed this question directly and at length.  He concluded that given the intentional partisan gerrymandering the first time round, and given that the second time round the Board continued to create two Senate seats for Eagle River, the level of proof of partisan gerrymandering  needed wasn't as high as it was the first time.  The judge also cited an email from board member Simpson 

 "to an unknown number of contacts stating in part that the Court's Order "implies that what the court perceived as a political gerrymander must be replaced with a different political gerrymander more to their liking."118 (From Court Order p. 24)

While I suspect that Simpson was probably being sarcastic, he's an experienced attorney and should know better than to write such an incriminating sentence.  Sarcastic or not, I suspect it was revealing of what he was thinking.  

Second,  

"On this basis, the superior court orders the Board to adopt senate pairings advanced by and preferred by democratic leadership in the Alaska Senate.6"

Let's see now.  Option 2 was advanced by the East Anchorage plaintiffs, not the Democratic leadership.  I'd note that Option 3B WAS drawn and advanced by one of the most partisan Republican operatives, and former Chair of the Republican Party. And supported by the three Republican appointed Board members.  

I'd note that footnote 6 refers to "Senate Minority Leader Tom Begich’s text-message communications to a board member seeking to influence Anchorage senate pairings."

It seems the Board majority and its attorney are firm believers of the zero-sum way of thinking.  It posits that what one person loses, the other person gains.  

Here, Singer posits that if the judge takes away the ill gained extra Republican Senate seat that the majority 'won.' then that translates into an intentional  extra Democratic seat for the enemy.  Singer seems to assume here that the only reason the Board minority voted for Option 2 was to gain an extra Democratic seat.  His evidence is a text message from Tom Begich, which he doesn't quote. This attempt by Singer to simply turn around and accuse the Board minority of doing what the Board majority did is classic Republican Rovian  "Tactic #3: Accuse Your Opponent of What He/She is Going to Accuse You Of."   At times it might be accurate, but the evidence against the Board majority is overwhelming while the evidence against the Board minority doesn't exist.  Was there lobbying of the Board minority?  Sure, but it was for specific things various constituents wanted, things other than partisan gerrymandering.  It wasn't to get more people elected from a particular party as the actions of the Board majority are.  

OK, enough for tonight, but there is plenty more there to chew on and spit out.  

Day 6 AK Redistricting Trial: Putting The Puzzle Pieces Together

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This has come out clearly in the testimony.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

Athabascan Identity and Pride Was A Winner

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

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

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

A couple of notes here:

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

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

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

Valdez Was The Biggest Loser

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fairbanks 

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

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

AK Redistricting: The Valdez Challenge Part 1 - #s 5, 4, and 1- How Do You Solve A Problem Like Valdez?

I've been taking notes and trying to figure out how to post about this in a way that gets the point across, without putting everyone to sleep.  But that, of course, assumes I know the point.  Sunday, I came up with this overview of my dilemma.

This chart is more or less in the order I tackled the problem.  But at this point it seems to make more sense to start with 5 and go backwards.  [I've since decided to add #1 at the end of this post.] 

NUMBER 5:  Probably the easiest for me and for the reader is to start with number 5.  

This is what's been playing in my head for a while and I think it's apt:

"How do you solve a problem like Maria,  How do you catch a cloud and pin it down"

So you can listen to this song as you read this:

Valdez has about 4000 people.  There are no other similar population centers anywhere near Valdez. The closest population centers are Anchorage, Mat-Su, and Fairbanks - but they aren't very close.  Southeast Alaska has four districts worth of population.  It basically has to go up from the south because the southern and eastern borders are Canada.  The western border is the Pacific Ocean.  I've thought they could use Prince Rupert, but, of course, they can't.  

Valdez has been paired with Mat-Su and it's been paired with the Richardson Highway up almost to Fairbanks.  Essentially, Valdez is the thorn in redistricting boards' side.  It's essentially a white oil community connected by water to fishing communities and by land to some areas with more Alaska Natives.  

So lets go to #4 and look at maps.

NUMBER 4:  Where is Valdez now and where did the different proposed maps put Valdez?

First, let's look at the current district that includes Valdez - from the 2013 Proclamation plan. [Not interactive.] I've circled Valdez in red - bottom, middle right.  The district goes to Whittier in Prince William Sound, includes the Richardson Highway communities along the pipeline (Valdez is the terminus of the Alaska pipeline) almost up to Fairbanks and also goes into Mat-Su. 

Click on image to enlarge

Second, let's look at the 2021 Proclamation map for Valdez - in D 29.  The link will let you look at the map in greater detail.  This is the map that Valdez is protesting. 

District 29-O does NOT include the Richardson Highway, nor does it go anywhere near Fairbanks or the other communities along the pipeline.  Instead it goes deep into Mat-Su, smack up against Palmer and Wasilla.  But in this district, since the Richardson Highway is mostly in the neighboring district, people in Wasilla driving to the Matsu part of their district have to travel out of D-29 on the Richardson Highway.  Below you can see how Route 4 - the Richardson Highway - is in the tan colored district (36-R), the district the Valdez folks want to be in.  Not only is Valdez in a different House district, but also a different Senate district.  If you look at the map on the Board's website, you can see that for the most part the Highway is in District 36-R.  (If it weren't, then the people in 36-R would have to leave their district to travel to other communities in their district.  But this raises questions of contiguity, a Constitutional requirement for districts.  

Third, AFFER and Senate Minority Plans put Valdez with Kodiak and goes into the Lake and Peninsula Borough, bordering Anchorage from the west and Mat-Su from the west and south.  These two maps are very similar - I can only see some differences around the Homer area.  This is probably not surprising because the architects of these maps - Randy Ruedrich and Tom Begich - have been doing this for years and this reflects a similar current district that connects Cordova to Kodiak. (But does not include Valdez.)

Fourth, we have the Doyon Coalition map.  They've put Prince William Sound all together in one district - with Cordova and Whittier.  But it cuts Valdez from the Richardson Highway communities the lawsuit says they belong with, and also takes the district to the edge of Palmer in Mat-Su.  But this looks like the most compact district.  The Coalition wants to keep various Native Corporation villages in the same districts.  

Fifth, we have the AFFR map.  This puts Valdez in a sprawling district that does keep them connected with the Richardson Highway communities, almost into Fairbanks, around Fairbanks, and also gets them into Mat-Su near Palmer.  But the few people who mentioned specific maps at the Valdez hearing said they preferred this map.  

Finally, we have a map - Valdez Option 1 - that is attached to the lawsuit - which Valdez is proposing.

It connects Valdez with Prince William Sound communities of Cordova and Whittier and goes up along the Richardson Highway.  But it would also require the Board to make a LOT of changes to other districts and there will be complaints from the Doyon Coalition among others I'm sure.

So this should give you something to chew on.  I've put links to the Board's interactive maps for each of these maps so you can see the details if you wish.  

I'm also going to skip to #1 - an outline of the Valdez legal challenge, with my additions in blue.  Part 2 will be #3 and #2.  

NUMBER 1:  OUTLINE OF VALDEZ COURT FILINGS   

I've condensed the filings and added (in blue)  some of the things they've cited or notes you I thought would help

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT VALDEZ

1.   On November 10, 2021, the Alaska Redistricting Board (“Board”), pursuant to its constitutional authority under Article VI of the Alaska Constitution, promulgated a new redistricting plan to govern legislative elections in Alaska for the next decade. This plan places Valdez into House and Senate Districts in violation of 
1. The Open Meetings Act, 
2. Article VI, Sections 6 and 10 of the Alaska Constitution, and 
3. the equal protection and 
4. due process clauses of the Alaska Constitution. 
5. This Complaint seeks 
1. judicial review of the Board’s redistricting plan and 
2. an order invalidating that plan and 
3. requiring the Board to redraw the districts in accordance with the Alaska Constitution

PARTIES

2-11 - City of Valdez, and Mark Detter, a resident of Valdez, 

The Board and each member.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12-13

ALLEGATIONS

14- 42  There are almost 30 allegations here.  It would have been more helpful if these were better tied to the Five Claims at the end.  One has to go through these 28 allegations and match them to the claims.  I’ll try.  

First Claim - Violation of the Open Meetings Act

43-48     http://www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/statutes/title44/chapter62/section310.htm  Gets you to Open Meetings Act - not long, but too much to add it all here

43. Paragraphs 1 through 42 are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.   

44. The Board, as a governmental body of a public entity of the state, is subject to the requirements of AS 44.62.310-320 (“Opening Meetings Act”). The deliberations and decisions of the Board are activities covered by the Open Meetings Act.

45. Upon information and belief, the Board has violated the Open Meetings Act in the following ways:

(a) It conducted deliberations in secret. 

(b) It failed to properly conduct votes.

(c) It conducted a serial meeting.

(d) It withheld documents from the public that were used in formulating the final redistricting plan.

(e) It failed to clearly and with specificity state the subject(s) of each executive session or its reasons for addressing the subject(s) in executive session.

46. Plaintiffs and others have been harmed by these violations.

47. As a result of these violations, the actions of the Board resulting in adoption of the final redistricting plan including senate pairings, should be voided.

48. The Board’s proclamation of redistricting should similarly be voided, as it was based solely upon the redistricting plan.

Second Claim - Violation of Article VI, Section 6

49 - 55

§ 6. District Boundaries

The Redistricting Board shall establish the size and area of house districts, subject to the limitations of this article. Each house district shall be formed of contiguous and compact territory containing as nearly as practicable a relatively integrated socio-economic area. Each shall contain a population as near as practicable to the quotient obtained by dividing the population of the state by forty. Each senate district shall be composed as near as practicable of two contiguous house districts. Consideration may be given to local government boundaries. Drainage and other geographic features shall be used in describing boundaries wherever possible.

Third Claim - Violation of Article VI, Section 10

56 - 59  

(a) Within thirty days after the official reporting of the decennial census of the United States or thirty days after being duly appointed, whichever occurs last, the board shall adopt one or more proposed redistricting plans. The board shall hold public hearings on the proposed plan, or, if no single proposed plan is agreed on, on all plans proposed by the board. No later than ninety days after the board has been appointed and the official reporting of the decennial census of the United States, the board shall adopt a final redistricting plan and issue a proclamation of redistricting. The final plan shall set out boundaries of house and senate districts and shall be effective for the election of members of the legislature until after the official reporting of the next decennial census of the United States.

(b) Adoption of a final redistricting plan shall require the affirmative votes of three members of the Redistricting Board. [Amended 1998]

Fourth Claim - Violation of Article I, Section 1 (Equal Protection)

60-62

§ 1. Inherent Rights

This constitution is dedicated to the principles that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the rewards of their own industry; that all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights, opportunities, and protection under the law; and that all persons have corresponding obligations to the people and to the State.

Fifth Claim - Violation of Article I, Section 7 (Due Process)

64 - 68

§ 7. Due Process

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. The right of all persons to fair and just treatment in the course of legislative and executive investigations shall not be infringed.

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court:
1. Enter a judgment declaring the Board’s redistricting plan promulgated pursuant to the proclamation dated November 10, 2021, to be in violation of the Open Meetings Act, Article VI, Sections 6 and 10 of the Alaska Constitution, and the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the Alaska Constitution; 

2. Enter a judgment declaring the Board’s redistricting plan promulgated pursuant to the proclamation dated November 10, 2021, to be null and void; 

3. Enter an order enjoining the State Division of Elections and the State of Alaska from conducting any primary or general election for state legislative office under the Board’s redistricting plan, or otherwise taking any step to implement the plan; 

4. Enter an order requiring the Board to promulgate a new redistricting plan consistent with the requirements of the Alaska Constitution or, in the alternative, enter an order correcting errors in the Board’s redistricting plan;
5. Enter an order declaring Plaintiffs to be public interest litigants as constitutional claimants and awarding costs and attorney’s fees;
6. Enter an order for such other and further relief as may be just and reasonable. DATED this 10th day of December, 2021. 

BRENA, BELL & WALKER, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

By
Robin O. Brena, ABA No. 8511130 Jake W. Staser, ABA No 1111089 Laura S. Gould, ABA No. 0310042 

A Venice Beach Break

 Our outdoor thermometer read -10˚F (-23˚C).  That was not abnormal when we first moved to Anchorage in 1977, but it hasn't been that frequent in the last 10 or 20 years.  I know it sounds awful - especially to folks who have never experienced it, but the sky was crystal clear, the air still, and it's like being in another, amazing world.  As they say, there's no bad weather, just bad clothes.

In any case, we flew through Seattle and got to LAX Monday night.  LAX is still trying to be a world class airport.  But it still doesn't have rail service and you have to take a shuttle bus to get a taxi or Uber, etc.  It used to be a taxi to my mom's house was around $30.  That's why we often just took the bus.  Then came Uber and Lyft and we could get to the airport for about $19.  But when I opened the Uber app, prices ranged from $33, then a bunch between $56-$86, and then some that were $200 and up.  We decided on a taxi, which ended up $29.  (That's all without tip of course.)

Tuesday was the storm.  It rained on and off, but didn't seem to match the great storm predictions.  Or maybe we slept through it.  By the afternoon there was sun.  But it was in the high 40s, chilly for LA.

Yesterday it was in the 50s and J found the bike pump and I went off to see what the last two years have brought.  Things look pretty much the same.  The biggest difference was the fence along Penmar Golf Course.  (This is a public course that was a swamp when I was a kid and a great natural playground I spent many hours in.)

Well, of course the gold course has always had a fence.  But there's a dirt pathway along the outside which had been changing into a homeless camp.  It had campers parked there for a while, but last time there were also tents along the walkway. Here's a pic I posted January 2019:

Here's what it looked like yesterday:

There are houses across the street and having homeless folks camped out by your house without bathrooms can become old.  From the neighbors' perspective this is neighborhood improvement.  Not sure what the homeless who camped here think.  If they've been offered decent lodging, maybe they'd agree.  

From my perspective, the city has blocked off a beautiful walkway along the golf course that I used to jog along when I was still running.  The bike trail is still usable.  It's only an improvement in the sense that our society has deteriorated to the extent that there are so many homeless people that the city has to fence off their encampments to get them out of the neighbors' hair.  Having a social safety net like most European countries have would have been a better way to deal with this - that is make it so people have health care, including mental health care.  Have jobs that pay a living wage.  Support those losing jobs to cheaper labor overseas or automation.  Better education.  Child care for working families, etc.  Then this would still be a lovely walk way for the neighbors to enjoy without the extra fencing blocking it off.  

Our understandings of the world and of human behavior never worked all that well, but the Protestant work ethic - just work hard and you'll do well - is not an accurate description for most people.  Yes, there are examples of it working, but the homeless populations in the various US cities shows us that we need more complex theories.  

But I was headed for the beach on this nbikeride and so were you in this blog post.  

The next picture has me almost there - riding down the last block of Rose Avenue before getting to Venice Beach.  I love this view with the palm trees and the water off ahead of me.  I spent a lot of time at the beach here as a kid and later in life visiting my mom.  

But I got to the bike trail, which wasn't there anymore.  Truly, we must have slept through the worst of the storm.  The bike trail was completely covered with sand.  Mostly it was navigable by bke, but there were places I just had to get off and walk.  I did google to see if anyone has explained all the sand, but all the reports are from previous years - usually wind blowing sand.  But I've never seen it like this.  Was it high tides and wind?  (The moon was close to full.)  I did call a number on an LA City Venice Beach website, but the woman who answered said she had nothing to do with Venice Beach.  I've sent an email to an address on that page, but I'm not holding my breath.  

I got to the skateboard park which had a few skaters despite a sign saying it was closed for filming obligations.   

Folks were filming - tv show?  movie?  commercial?  - taking advantage of the dune like setting.  I'd note this wall of sand is usually there, courtesy of the City of Los Angeles.  Then I made my way a little further to Venice Pier where I got these pictures 

Santa Monica mountains in the background.

This isn't a high resolution photo, but if you look closely above the building, closer to the pole on the left, you can see what I think is Mt. Baldy with a good amount of snow.  I'd note, with the sandy bike trail, there were very few other bikers.  The pier was pretty empty and I didn't see anyone fishing in the choppy waters.  Nor were there any surfers below the pier.  That's a first for me.  

On the way back I just stayed on the pedestrian walk (that turns into the Venice Boardwalk) which had been cleared of sand.  I stopped at the Frank Gehry house (designed by the famous architect, not where he lives).  Here's a post with the Disney Concert Hall for a very different Geary construction.

Finally back to the Boardwalk - Venice's contribution to edgy kitsch.

And then I was back on my way home having enjoyed the beach, and pushing pedals.  

And yes, I've got links to all the redistricting legal challenges and I'm trying to figure out what I want to do with them.  Also so Tom Begich's press release about yesterday's Board meeting (also an email and I can't find a link) which I spent at Venice Beach.  Later.  

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