Too Nice to Stay Inside - Anchorage Spring/Breakup

Walked the bike path at UAA.  Such a beautiful day.  Here's the south fork of Chester Creek south of the foot bridge on the trail. 

And here's the north side.

And here's what I hope is a temporary lake on the way back home. 








Speaking of weather,  L sent me a link to what looks like a new weather website that gives way more information than I probably need.  But I'll need to spend some time here to figure it out.  Weatherspark.com

Double click to enlarge - or go directly to the Weatherspark link above

It's interactive, which doesn't work here on the screenshot.  But I'm not completely sure what it's telling me.  Thanks L. 

I Love Ted Herlinger's Guts

It was pretty amazing to walk into the gallery with all these spheres floating in the air.  And then I started looking at individual spheres and it was even more amazing.  I know, some people think it doesn't take much to get me excited.  But these are special, especially the whole collection hanging in this lighting.

 

The exhibit is called Phase II.  The artist is Ted Herlinger.

They're made of reed, pork gut, and elk sinew.

Here's what the description said.

One more.

I was there in Out North's gallery during intermission of The Brits and their Telly, which continues next week.  While there were a lot of interesting shorts - they are supposed to be the best British tv commercials - I remember being more enchanted by past Telly shows.  I was trying to figure out why.  I remember them as quirkier and I think for more local British products.  There were too many McDonald's and other multinational ads.  I think another issue for me was that what used to be high on originality is now more focused on high production values.

They were technically better, but too many were more like apprenticeship work for Hollywood.  All that talent and money to sell junk food is depressing.  But there were a bunch still reflected the Brits and their Telly that I remember.  Out North has a video with two of the good ones on their website.  Watch for Duckzilla, for the picnic in the field, and the British Airways ads were good.  So were the ads for non-profits. The anti-smoking and HIV prevention ads didn't beat around the bush.  And I was upset with Bob Dylan for selling out until I saw what it was for. 




An Out North heads up:  Bridgman Packer will be in Anchorage April 28 and 29.  We saw them at Alaska Dance Theater about three years ago.  Probably the most superlative post on this blog ever.  This time they will be in the Discovery Theater - but still an Out North event.  Scott says they'll be performing a piece commissioned by Out North which won them a Guggenheim Fellowship.  My breathless gushing last time wasn't misplaced.  They're so good, I think even a blind person would feel it in the room.  If you read this and don't go to see them, it's not my fault.

"Republicans must exploit this advantage without mercy." Can Redistricting Board Be Fair?

For many politicians, the decennial census provides an opportunity for parties in control of a State governorship and legislature to tip the political scales even further in their favor.  An example of that thinking comes from a post at the Charleston Tea Party blog:

In particular, the Republicans gained absolute control – that is, control of both state legislative bodies and the governorship – in Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania, among other states.  These three states must surrender 4 House seats due to lost population.  Likewise, Texas, Florida, Utah, South Carolina, Georgia and Arizona, who collectively gain 10 House seats – are all under Republican absolute control.  This control should ensure Democrat [sic] losses and Republican gains (Note 1).
In other words, if Republicans have the guts to exercise their constitutional powers to the fullest, they can claim most of the reapportionment changes.  Moreover, if they have the guts to also redraw the boundaries in various Democrat-held districts, many more Democrats can be evicted from Congress in the 2012 elections.  You can bet the Democrats will do the same in the few districts they still control.
The point is this:  Republicans have the overwhelming constitutional advantage.  Republicans must exploit this advantage without mercy.  This is the only way to stop the Democrats’ ruinous socialist agenda and reverse it.
The Tea Party Movement can play a critical role here.  Activists should lobby their governor and their state legislatures.  Demand that they exact the full price of reapportionment.  Demand that they exact the full price of their newly gained redistricting powers.  Nothing less is acceptable 

Four of Alaska's Redistricting Board's five members were appointed by Republicans.  The fifth member was appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court whose political affiliation isn't clear, but is presumed to be left of the others.

Two of the five are former Republican legislators.  One, Jim Holm, lost his seat in 2006 to Democrat Scott Kawasaki.  Is there motivation on his part to realign the Fairbanks districts to make them more friendly to Republican candidates?


Clearly, the representatives of the Democratic Party who attended the Redistricting Board's meeting Wednesday had this background in mind.  Their comments pushed the issues of fairness, transparency, and warned against private conversations with politicians and gerrymandering.

Deborah Williams, The Executive Director of the  Alaska Democratic Party said: [this, like other comments below, are from my notes at the meeting, definitely not verbatim, but close]:

This Board has the technical ability to make our votes meaningful or not very meaningful. The ability to gerrymander, depriving people of meaningful voting. And also to draw lines to hurt political parties and by keeping current office holders out. I’m not hinting this board is going to do that.

Our current districts in Anchorage and Fairbanks are compact and represent the communities well. There will have to be adjustments . . . But avoid pitting incumbents against each other and gerrymandering. There can be - as you say in your own documents - no political gerrymandering. Our constitution says this should not be political. Thank you so much for your work. You’ve heard from a lot of Democrats today, We do care a lot. We really wish you the best.

They did hear from a lot of Democrats who were clearly worried about lines being drawn to their disadvantage.  But only one obvious Republican testified, but Republican Party Chair Rudy Ruedrich, spoke by phone  as a private citizen, not representing the Republicans, and his issue was having prisoners counted in their home districts, not where they are incarcerated.  (The Board didn't think the could get the necessary information to do that in a timely manner.)  Why did the Republicans think they didn't need to be there?  When the Democrats thought they did.

Geric Jordan, the Mayor of Sitka, and another Democrat, via audio conference, wanted to know whether individuals would be able to speak to board members one on one.
Response:  Yes, but open meeting law means no more than two members can meet without it being an official meeting.

Jake Metcalf, the redistricting coordinator for the Alaska Democrats, said things like: 

• I know that you and the Board have one of democracy's most important tasks to complete in a fair manner.
  
•  My advice is to avoid backdoor politics, the board has to follow open meetings law. . . open government, transparency especially important in this process.
  
•  I’m wondering if the board individually or in groups of one or two have met with Mr. Ruedrich. [Chair of AK Republican Party.]  If there have been conversations, what I’d ask for is that in the future to avoid backdoor politics, that in future such meetings all parties at the meeting. Important. 

Response from Torgerson:

I’ve met with Mr. Ruedrich as much as I’ve met with you. Zero. Call me and I’ll meet with you. Not saying we’ll agree, but you’ll be able to pull on my ear. Some..

Lupe Marroquin, who worked in the Anchorage division of elections and ran as a Democrat for State House last year asked:

What is the involvement of the Governor’s office in this process?  Have you had any conversations with the Governor and if so what were the topics and how were they resolved and will the public continue to be advised?

John Torgerson response:

This is a constitutionally created board, neither under the legislature nor the governor. We cannot be public officials. We have to be independent, to keep board as private citizens. Governor appointed two members - other than initial interview, I’ve had no conversations with the governor. Don’t intend to.

So, by their presence and questions, the Democrats showed they are worried.  And by their absence (except on the Board itself) the Republicans seem to be suggesting they aren't.

Is this going to be a fair and honest redistricting devoid of political considerations?  I think, given the political mood of the country, this is a fair question.  I don't know the answer, but I can offer some signs I saw at the meeting and since.

Rejection of 'protecting incumbency' as a redistricting criterion

I've posted about the redistricting criteria in a previous post.  The discussion here focused on whether the board should even consider incumbency - would they intentionally or accidentally draw the lines to exclude an incumbent from his base?  Would they put two incumbents in the same district?  If they don't know an incumbent's address, might this happen?  Attorney Michael White said that if they were even going to consider this in their decisions, they need to make it a criterion.  But that given the Department of Justice oversight to make sure there was no retrogression ["drawing a district in a manner that worsens minority voting strength"] they would probably have to consider, as I understood it, Native incumbents.

So I don't know if this is good or bad.  If they wanted to draw the lines to weaken their opponents' political base, they could check the addresses outside the meetings and in the meetings never talk about it.  But if the Board did cut Democratic incumbents out, or put two Democratic incumbents together, presumably in the Post-Plan phase people would bring it up and they would have to talk about protection of incumbents.

I guess we'll see what this means when the draft plan is done April 14.



Transparency and Openness
The board sounded like it was committed to transparency and openness. 


Positive indicators:

• There will be a lot of public meetings.  
• All the documents submitted will be put on website for everyone to read.
• Some of the Pre-Plan public hearings will be teleconferenced statewide. (Anchorage (March 22), Fairbanks (March 28), Juneau (March 24), and Statewide (March 31).  I'm guessing the decision to teleconference was related to access to technology.
• Torgerson asked about videotaping all the meetings, but seemed to be talked out of it when he learned it would require camera people. 
• The discussion at the meeting emphasized openness 
• when asked point blank about ex-parte contact Torgerson said that there hadn't been any. 
• Torgerson pushed successfully for setting meeting times every afternoon during the last ten days, after the public hearings, when the Board would, in open meetings, discuss the various plan options.  That nothing would be hidden.

Negative Indicators

• There will be a lot of public meetings, BUT it will be difficult for people to develop plans in time for the meetings
• there is a lot of information on their website, but there is little guidance how to use it
• there is computer software that allows people to plug in different criteria and it spits out a plan - but the clerk from Valdez said it cost them $1000.  It may or may not be available on the website, which doesn't explain much yet.  (I hope yet is the critical word and more will be up there, but at this point I suspect this blog has more, accessible information on redistricting than they have.  I say that as a point of disappointment in what is available to help people understand things.)
• for those hearings not teleconferenced, it's not clear how long it will take for audio or transcripts to be available.  They said transcription turnaround from the state sanctioned vendors would be 7-10 days.  And then one has to read it.
• Notice for the public hearings didn't go up on their website until Saturday afternoon - they met and agreed on the locations and times on Wednesday.  And the first public hearing is Tuesday.  And I'm not sure where else information is posted.  The First Alaskans Institute testified that they were getting the word out, but I don't see information on their website either.
• Publicity about the Board and its process for the next 30 Pre-Plan days and then the 60 Post-Plan days doesn't seem to exist.  
• It appears no one from ADN was at the Wednesday meeting.  There was one Anchorage Daily News piece I've seen on Census data and population changes that mentioned the Board. 
• The television cameras stayed for the first hour of the six hour meeting.  Here's what KTUU has posted about the meeting:

• The board held its first major meeting Wednesday, after it got a preview of the data on Tuesday.
  The board has about 30 days to publish a preliminary re-districting plan from the date it received the new census data.
  Wednesday's meeting included a lot of housekeeping items, but also a time for public testimony, where the board heard concerns from Alaska residents on what these census numbers will mean politically when it comes to redistricting.
  Redistricting can be best described as drawing political boundaries.
  Every 10 years the state re-draws the State Legislature election districts. The goal is to reflect the changing population accurately so residents have a fair and equal share in the way they are governed.
  “The redistricting clearly sets the boundaries for the new legislative district. It's really important,” said John Tongerson [sic], the chairman of the Alaska Redistricting Board. “It's really a mathematical equation. We have to get as close as we can to get an ideal 17,755 people per district.”
   The board has until April 12 to come up with a preliminary plan.

Board Dynamics


This didn't feel like a group that knew each other well and were a team ready to go get the Democrats.  Robert Brodie - who came two hours late due to fog in Kodiak - seemed like someone used to being in charge and talked a fair amount given he kept saying he was new to this and trying to figure it out.   He was surprised the staff would come up with plans to present and he suggested doing Anchorage and Palmer in one day.  But later he pushed for there to be a second Anchorage opportunity at the end as the site for the Statewide Teleconference.  He argued for Anchorage's larger population needing more time to present.

There seemed to a clear Myers-Briggs type difference between him and Torgerson.  Torgerson proposed that in the last ten days, people should work on their own or in pairs, or meet with the public and then the Board would come together every afternoon about 2:30 for public meetings.  Brodie didn't understand what people would do all morning.  Torgerson saying he needed time on his own to think things through, sounded like a Myers-Briggs introvert needing alone time.  Brodie sounded more like an extrovert, wondering what people would do all morning by themselves, wanting to spend more time in meetings, and thinking by talking. (A wild guess there.)

McConnochie, a recent replacement, seemed well prepared and eager to get going.  She's spent time mastering the computer program and seemed to look forward to playing with it.   I thought this comment was interesting, but I'm not sure how to interpret it:

I’m naive enough that considering who is in the district and who might run against them is less important than socio-economic integration.

Either she is really naive, or this was disingenuous.   But I couldn't tell which.

You can get a sense of the group dynamics in this video I took before my sound card got full.




Other Indicators

Chair John Torgerson

Torgerson did most of the talking.   He seemed like a practical, goal oriented chair, but open to others' suggestions.  He just didn't want them to talk them to death.  When the attorney suggested not having closing times for the public meetings - in case the meeting ended early - Torgerson said he was willing to sit around in case people showed up late.   He seemed a little miffed that people would think the Board is politically motivated.  Though I though his frustration with Dave Metheny - who complained people couldn't get information from the Board fast enough - was justified.

Torgerson: "What haven't you been able to get?"
Metheny- "Census data, timelines of meeting, phone lines. We want to get our people plugged in."
Torgerson: We got the census data yesterday, it was on the web in two hours. How much faster should we do it?
Dave Metheny: That’s fine.

But overall, and even here, I felt his tone suggested impatience with questions about the Board being fair.  He spoke as though the idea of Board gerrymandering  or doing anything else fishy was ridiculous.

But given the national publicity on the Republican opportunity to gain during this apportionment period - as evidenced in the opening quote above - I'd like someone who would acknowledge the concerns more directly and not seem to take it personally.

He seemed to have done his homework and knew what the rules were.  I couldn't tell if he was going to be true to his word or whether he was an accomplished politician who knew how to say the right things at the right time. 



The Crunch of Time

There are 30 days starting last Tuesday for the Board to come up with a redistricting draft plan.  They are spending Tuesday and Wednesday in Anchorage and Wasilla public hearings from noon to 7 pm.  Then the travel to Juneau and Ketchikan for public hearings Thursday and Friday.  Then the next Tuesday is Fairbanks, Wednesday is Kotzebue, Thursday is Bethel.  Friday March 31 is back in Anchorage for a Statewide Teleconference.  They are all scheduled for seven hours.

Then they have ten days to play with their software and come up with plans that redistribute the state population into districts that are as close as possible to 17,755 each.  For each of those days they will have afternoon public meetings - the only times the more than two board members can talk together - each of those days as they settle on their draft plan.  Those will be the days where it is important to see what they do and how they do it.

I don't know how much time ordinary people will have to prepare for these first meetings.  I don't know how much time the Board members will have to think with all those hearings and the travel.

Then there are 60 more days - til June 14 they said - to make changes in the draft plan.  The traveling schedule for that period is even more hectic, but it won't be as a full board.



Watching What they Do as Opposed to What They Say

They spoke well about openness, about getting everything up on the website.

But the website has almost nothing on it.  Sure, there are links to documents, but they are complicated documents that could use a little online explanation so you know which PDF files to open.

There's nothing that explains the overall process and the lingo.

There's almost no media coverage - no announcements in the Daily News of the Tuesday hearing yet.  So, when are people supposed to learn about the public hearings and when are they supposed to get up to speed so they can just figure out what their concerns are, let alone document them and articulate them?

Is this by design - yes, we'll have lots of hearings and spend our $1 million plus budget to show that we went all over the state to hear people's opinions - is it incompetence, or is it lack of enough staff, or is it just starting and all this will happen eventually?  But they are going to be traveling next week, so I don't see when they'll have time to get the website and other publicity going during the Pre-Plan stage.  We'll see.

Department of Justice and Voting Rights Act

One other key factor is that not only are the Democrats ready to sue if they feel they aren't treated fairly, Alaska as one of 16 states on the Department of Justice Voting Rights Act watch list.  Whatever the Board decides, must be approved by the DOJ as I understand it.

Meanwhile, Anchorage folks, there's a seven hour hearing beginning at noon at the Legislative Information Office on Tuesday.  Drop in and see what is going on.  Look at the maps.  Ask about whether there will be public computers available that have the software that allows you to test out different plans.
The rest of you can go to your LIO offices and listen in.  Or listen online through the Legislative website.


Matsu folks can go to their meeting at the Wasilla on Wednesday, again from noon to seven.

Fairbanks on Thursday.

My last post has the email from the Board with details and links about the public hearings.

AK Redistricting Board Finally Gets Some Info Out - But Not Easy to Use

I signed up for the Alaska Redistricting Board email alerts.  I'd suggest that anyone interested in this do the same.  I got an email  announcing the public hearings dated 5:35pm this afternoon.  At the Board meeting Wednesday they said they needed to announce hearings five days in advance.  Today is March 18 and the Anchorage hearing is only four days away.  (I just looked at the Public Meetings Act and it says "reasonable" notice and says "reasonable" could be "three months or three days."  Given this is not a regular meeting, I suspect this probably counts as close to four days and would be ok. But I wonder how many people know about these meetings - especially the Tuesday one in Anchorage.)

Oh yeah, the link to the full public hearing schedule in the middle of the email - I couldn't get it to work from the original email either.  


This email doesn't give locations.  You can get that information on their website in two places:
1.  The homepage scroll down and on the right is Upcoming Events.  Click on the location and a window pops up with more information.
2.  On the Calendar - again, click on the event and a window pops up.

 Also, I've updated my last post which listed the towns the meetings will be held and updated it with the actual buildings they will meet in.  Except Kotzebue which hadn't been determined yet.

Here's the email:

March 18, 2011

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Anchorage, AK - On March 15, 2011, the Alaska Redistricting Board received its 2010 Census redistricting data from the U.S. Census Bureau. That data has been posted on the Board's website at http://www.akredistricting.org. According to Article VI of the Alaska Constitution, the Board must release a proposed redistricting plan or plans within 30 days of receipt of the census data. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND COMMENT  To assist the Board in its work, the public is invited to submit comments on the data and proposed redistricting plans via: Email (info@akredistricting.org) Mail (411 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 302, Anchorage, AK 99501) Fax (907-269-6691) Public comment and proposed plans may also be submitted in-person at hearings to be held in: Anchorage (March 22, 2011) Wasilla (March 23, 2011) Juneau (March 25, 2011) Ketchikan (March 26, 2011) Fairbanks (March 28, 2011) Kotzebue (March 29, 2011) Bethel (March 30, 2011) Additionally, the Board will conduct a public hearing via statewide teleconference on March 31, 2011. UPDATE March 19:  replacing this with corrected link: The full public hearing schedule including start times, end times and venues is available for public download at http://www.akredistricting.org/Files/Public Hearing Schedule.docx*.  PLAN PRESENTATION INSTRUCTIONS PLAN PRESENTATION INSTRUCTIONS Any individual, group or organization wishing to present a proposed redistricting plan at any of these hearings is required to provide reasonable advance notice to Board staff by: Telephone (907-269-7402) Fax (907-269-6691) Email (info@akredistricting.org) Plan proponents must also include in their notice to Board staff whether they will present paper copies or an electronic version of their plan to the Board and whether any special equipment is needed for their plan presentation. Plan proponents will be given a fixed amount of time to present their plan dependent upon the number of plans proposed at a respective hearing.  The Board will schedule a separate portion of each public hearing to take public comments related to redistricting issues not associated with any plan presented at that hearing. These comments will be limited to 5 minutes per individual, group or organization. Please note that the public hearing on March 31, 2011 will be the only hearing on this schedule to be conducted via teleconference. Redistricting Board members will be in attendance at the Anchorage LIO site for the March 31 hearing. Members of the public at the Anchorage LIO site on March 31 will be able to provide testimony and present plans during the teleconference.   If you need special accommodations, please contact 907-269-7402. The Alaska Redistricting Board is responsible for redrawing Alaska's legislative election districts every ten years after the federal Census.  For more information about the redistricting process in Alaska, please visit http://www.akredistricting.org. ### CONTACT: Alaska Redistricting Board 411 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 302 Anchorage, AK 99501 Phone: (907) 269-7499   Email:  info@akredistricting.org

Forward email

Anchorage, Wasilla, Juneau, Ketchikan, Fairbanks, Kotzebue, Bethel -Redistricting Board Comes to You Next Week

[Update:  I got an email dated today at 5:35pm (I signed up with the Redistricting Board) which covers this information.  I'll post the email shortly in a new post.  There's finalized information on locations on the main page of the website now, though it's in a little window in the lower right hand side entitled UPCOMING EVENTS and you have to mouse over each location to get information.  Not the easiest to find, but it will have to do.  I'll update the info here,]

OK, I know redistricting sounds incredibly boring, but it will determine what House and Senate district you are in.  How the lines are drawn could make it harder or easier for you to be represented.  At the very least, you should check what district you are in and see how close your district is to the ideal number of 17,755 per district.  If you are more or less than 5% of that number your district will see some changes.  Maybe big ones.  Some districts may disappear altogether.  And new districts will be created in Matsu.

I've posted the list of all the districts and how close they are to the magic number along with the current Representative and location (though for the large districts that could be misleading.)  You can see that list here.

If your district needs changing - should it be eliminated and parts added to other districts?  Should parts of Fairbanks or Anchorage be added to more rural districts to get an even numerical distribution among all the districts?  Should lines be drawn to lump all Democrats or all Republicans into their own districts?  Should Native representation be preserved?  There are lots of really critical issues that will be affected by these decisions. 

Board Members Brodie (Kodiak) and Greene (Koztebue)

Meanwhile, in the next 12 days or so, the board will be visiting all the places in the heading above.  The schedule is below.

The Alaska Redistricting Board  chose these locations for Pre-Plan public hearings on Wednesday.  I checked my notes and called the Board to double check before posting. (Though I think I wrote down the wrong date for Fairbanks. I think it has to be March 28)

Contacts:
Alaska Redistricting Board Face Book Page
Alaska Redistricting Board website You can join their email list on this page (lower right) and join their Facebook and Twitter pages.
First Alaskans Institute - is a Census Site and working to keep people informed about redistricting


What's the difference between Pre-Plan and Post-Plan?

The Board (five members and staff) are headed out to hear what people have to say about how they should redraw legislative districts.  The state Constitution requires that they have a draft plan 30 days after they get the Census data.  They got the House data on Tuesday March 15, so the target is April 14.  Then there are 60 days after the draft plan is made public to make changes.  (I'm not sure if the Senate data have arrived)

All Meetings are tentatively scheduled  for 12pm- 7pm, though there may be some changes to accommodate local needs and the flight schedules of the board members.  

Tuesday - March 22  Anchorage  

[UPDATED 9pm:  Legislative Information Office Building, 716 West Fourth Avenue, Room 220, Anchorage, AK 99501 (map)   DescriptionAudio streamed via www.legis.state.ak.us   (If that doesn't work, try this link.)]


Wednesday - March 23    Wasilla - City Hall   
UPDATED 9pm:  Wasilla City Hall, City Council Chambers, 290 East Herning Avenue (map)

Friday March 25  -  Juneau - Capitol Building Hess Room 102
 [UPDATE 9pm:  State Capitol Building, 240 Main Street, Room 106 (map)
 Audio streamed via www.legis.state.ak.us.   I'm guessing you'll still have to link from this page to here, but I'll check later. ]

 
Saturday March 26  -   Ketchikan  -  Location to be determined (LIO Office?)
[UPDATE 9pm:  Ketchikan Borough Assembly Chambers, 1900 First Avenue (map)]

Tuesday March 28  -   Fairbanks   -
[UPDATE 9pm:  Fairbanks City Hall Chambers, 800 Cushman Street, Second Floor (map)]

Tuesday March 29 -  Kotzebue -
[UPDATE  9pm:  North Slope Borough Assembly Chambers, 163 Lagoon Street (map)]


Wednesday March 30 - Bethel  - [UPDATE 9pm:  This is still to be determined.]


Thursday March 31 - Anchorage - and Statewide Teleconference -
[UPDATE 9pm:  Alaska Legislative Information Office (LIO) network (map)
 

The teleconference will be conducted via the Alaska Legislative Information Office (LIO) network. Alaskans who do not have access to a local LIO may provide comments via the toll free number--(855) 463-5009. Because of a limited number of lines available, those who testify via the toll-free number will be required to hang up immediately following their testimony and then listen to the audio-stream at www.legis.state.ak.u.  Again, I think they mean  here.

They're just calling this a statewide teleconference that just happens to be coming out of Anchorage instead of a second Anchorage hearing.] 

l-r Torgerson, Bickford (staff), Holm, McConnochie, White (attorney)

HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU HAVE TO TALK?  - They decided people should get up to five minutes each, with some leeway to finish their sentences.  BUT if you are presenting a redistricting plan or representing a group and need more time, you should let them know in advance and they will accommodate that.  Maybe up to 30 minutes.  

WHY ANCHORAGE TWICE?

They originally just had Anchorage on March 22.  But they decided because there were so many people and organizations in Anchorage that it was more likely they would have people presenting their own suggested plans and there would have to be time to hear these. So the Statewide call-in teleconference will be physically in Anchorage.

CAN YOU PARTICIPATE IN ANY MEETING?
As I understand this:
1.  You can physically go to any meeting.
2.  All will be audio and/or videoconference through the LIO offices and online.  People can listen in to all, but only participate through teleconference at the March 31 Anchorage meeting.
3.  There will be Pre-Plan hearings or public testimony after March 31.  HOWEVER, people are free to contact the Board by phone or email and send in information at any time.  BUT remember, they will be pretty busy and I'm not sure how they will log in new comments and who will actually read them after March 31.  I'm not saying they won't, but I just don't know. 

I'll try to update the locations later today if I can get the information.


What's the purpose of the meetings?  The Board needs to set up 40 House districts with each having as close to 17,755 people in them as possible.  Given how many rural Alaskans live in small villages spread over a wide areas, this isn't an easy task.

District 6 is already the largest - geographically - state election district in the US.  The Census data says it has 14,235 people now - 19% below what it should have.

Should the  Board just cut this district up in pieces and give them to other districts?
Should they add other areas to this already huge district?
Should they include urban areas with villages?
What makes most sense?

I think that's what the Board wants to hear.  But when they made the list of Pre-Plan locations - places where the whole board will go together - they didn't seem to put any of District 6 on the list.  Partly, I imagine, because it is made up of very small places.

They will go to more and smaller places in the Post Plan period in April.  But those meetings will mostly be teams of two Board members (or a Board member and the attorney since there are only five members).

People can also start calling and sending in information.  But you have to have information to be able to comment.

People should also be able to audio-conference in for the Pre-Plan meetings.  But I can't find that information on their Website or Facebook page.  They have I think four staff right now and they are busily making travel arrangements for everyone to all these places next week, preparing materials.

At the meeting in Anchorage on Wednesday they sincerely sounded like they wanted the maximum transparency possible.  But the practical implications of getting this all done in 30 days with a small staff - and the current lack of post meeting information on their website  (I've got much more information up than they do) doesn't forebode well.  Maybe they'll get there feet on the ground soon.

Meanwhile it's up to the people of Alaska to make sure they know what decisions are contemplated and how they can give their advice and suggestions.

Some Numbers

Here are the districts that are most significantly BELOW the ideal size - districts which will require the most work by the board.

The Biggest Losers - districts significantly below the 17,755 mark.

District 5 - Southeast District that includes Haines and wanders south to the Canadian border, surrounding Districts 1, 2, 3, and 4, currently held by Rep. Bill Thomas Jr., has the lowest population - 13,846 - 22% below the ideal size of 17,755.


If these people want to get involved in the pre-plan process - they'll have to go to Juneau, Ketchikan, or Wasilla, or Palmer to be heard. And the March 31 Statewide teleconference.



District 6 - the large interior district north of Fairbanks held by new Rep. Alan Dick is 19% below the ideal size of 17,755 at 14,235.

This district goes from Cordova out to Aniak. Choices to participate Pre-Plan look like Fairbans, Bethel, Kotzebue, Wasilla, and Anchorage.  And the March 31 Statewide teleconference.



District 1 - Ketchikan seat held by Rep. Kyle Johansen is 19% below the ideal at 14,333.

Ketchikan has its meeting on March 26.  And the March 31 Statewide teleconference.



District 36 -Kodiak seat held by Rep. Alan Austermann is below by 17% at 14,570.

Out of luck for the Pre-Plan period. Will have to go out of their district to particiapte, or call and email.  And the March 31 Statewide teleconference.



District 2 - Petersberg seat held by Rep. Peggy Wilson is below by 17% at 14,651.

Have to go to Ketchikan or Juneau.  And the March 31 Statewide teleconference.



District 12   - the large seat that stretches from around Chickaloon to Valdez held by new Rep. Eric Feige is 16% below the target at  14,811.

Wasilla, Anchorage, maybe Juneau.  And the March 31 Statewide teleconference.



Let me get this up so that people can at least see when and where the Pre-Plan meetings are scheduled.

POST-PLAN Hearing Locations

They also made a list of Post-Plan hearings. There will be more places - with teams of two attending from the Board. Dates aren't set yet. People should be able to see the draft plan before the meetings and then come and offer suggestions for fixes to the draft plan. Here's my list from the meeting:

• Anchorage, 
• Angoon
• Bethel, 
• Cordova
• Craig
• Delta Junction
• Dillingham
• Dutch Harbor
• Fairbanks
• Galena
• Glenallen
• Haines
• Healy 
• Hoonah 
• Homer 
• Juneau
• Ketchikan
• King Salmon or Naknek
• Kodiak
• Palmer or Wasilla 
• Petersburg
• Seward
• Sitka
• Skagway
• Tok
• Valdez
• Wrangell

No dates yet.

Not sure how they're going to get to all these places in a short time.  But I wish them luck.  My concern is that they will have gotten to a lot of places, but before people were prepared to really know enough to give meaningful feedback.  So it's up to readers to spread the information and get people to start getting on the Alaska Redistricting Board's mailing list.

Here are the other posts I've done on this topic:

Tuesday March 15:  

The Iditarod Winner is in, Next Event Redistricting
Lists the Board members with pictures and gives background to what they need to do.

Wednesday March 16:

Alaska Redistricing:  House Winners and Losers
This one takes the Census data with the numbers for all the districts for 2010 and adds in the names of the representatives, party affiliation, and location.  There's also a state district map, and lists of the districts with the highest and lowest deviation from the ideal size of 17,755.


Redistricting Board Meets, Sets Travel Agenda and Ground Rules      
My running notes of the Wednesday meeting.  For those who need to know all the details.  A long post.

Thursday, March 17


Redistricting Board Won't Use "Protecting Incumbents" as Principle
This posts reviews the federally and state mandated  criteria the board must use to make their decisions and their discussion and rejection of two others:  "protecting incumbents" and "community of interest."

There will be more coming.

Germany 1930s - US Today: Anchorage Cabaret Production Comparisons

An abstract black and white train rattled across the large screen over the stage where the young American Cliff Bradshaw is being charmed by German smuggler Ernst as the ride they train toward Berlin. (See a brief clip of this in the video below)

The screen above the stage gave Director Christian Heppinstall a whole nother stage to work with and he filled it - setting the context of the scene, adding to the crowd, setting the mood, and quoting Adolf Hitler between scenes.  His interpretation - reminding us that the Nazi party came into power during similar economic times as today.  Just as the US suffered a humiliating attack on the World Trade Center, Germany had been humiliated after WWI.  The banks were in trouble, and Jews, like Muslims today, were being used as the scapegoats.  And enough of the population were willing to be enticed by nationalism to hate the outsiders and elect a tyrant. [I do know the director, but if I didn't really like it, I'd either not put up anything or I'd tell you what I had problems with.  I liked this a lot.]



But all that is mostly in the background of this great musical.  On stage a young cast is clearly enjoying playing their young sexy characters and they do a great job with the singing.  But not all the cast is young and we have some fine performances from an older generation of actors as well.

And the live musicians greatly added to whole performance.

I love that Anchorage  has really talented folks who are able to put on great plays like this and pull it off on a shoestring.  (Well, I'm sure it doesn't feel like a shoestring for those raising the money, but compared to Broadway productions what our local theater does with minuscule budgets is amazing.)

I'd really like to do a much more thoughtful discussion here, but I realized that it's already Friday again and Cabaret is on again this weekend  through April 9 at the Wild Berry Theater.  This is one not to miss - a big vibrant musical with a strong cast and great production values.  And while the stadium seating gives every seat an unobstructed view and makes it feel bigger, the theater only holds about 100, so you are up close and almost part of the production.

But don't take my word for it.  Check out the video. [It's worth it just to see the great kiss scene].  But remember this was taken with my pocket Canon-Powershot and the stage lighting severely challenged my automatic light meter.  So I've used  iMovie FX in some clips.  And the sound doesn't come near to capturing it.  But it does give a bit of a sense of what you'll miss if you don't go this weekend (or next.)

Taking bows.

Audience gets to talk with the actors after the performance.

Beware the Ice of March

Tuesday I biked over to the dentist for a cleaning.  The shared sidewalk/trail on Providence was ice but at least had a good sand cover.













Lake Otis ice glared in the sun without sand, but was not flat out ice.  It seems to have had been more stamped down snow made into ice, but with little air pockets sucked out so it had a bit of traction. 

The picture on the right is a close up of the plowed snow on the right of the path above, as the low humidity and sunlight evaporate it.

Here's the ice at the bottom of our driveway,  created as the snow and ice in our driveway melt in the warmth of the day and then freeze solid at night.  We generally try to keep the driveway clear precisely so this doesn't happen.  But I've been away.  This is fall-on-your-ass ice and much of our street is like this right now.

While the street gets you from below, this ice gets you from above.

So when I went downtown yesterday, I was leery about biking on my studless tires. I took the bus.  But I walked home.  Sidewalks and streets downtown were in pretty good shape.  This ice is ice that should be there - it's Chester Creek.

  





And the Chester Creek Bike Trail proved to be in great shape - hard packed down snow, not ice, and a number of bikes passed me as I walked home. 

There was this interesting lumpy ice off to the side of the trail.  I clearly see something recognizable in it.  Does anyone else see something in this icy Rorschach? 

Getting off the groomed trail and onto a neighborhood street and it was challenging ice time again.  But it was a warm day - mid 30s.













At first I thought this was some fancy biking, but on reflection I don't think so - the grooves are too smooth and the curves too tight.  Any ideas?  I guess it could be done with a hose full of warm water, but how would that have happened at a busy street corner?

And finally some warmed ice edged by colder dirtier ice.

Redistricting Board Won't Use 'Protecting Incumbency' As a Principle

Last night I posted my running notes of the Alaska Redistricting Board's meeting a day after they received the 2010 Census data on which they base their decisions.  Receiving the data also sets off the State Constitutional clock which gives them 30 days to create a draft reapportionment plan. (This period is called the PRE-PLAN)  Then there are sixty days to write the final plan.  (This time period is called POST-PLAN)

That post yesterday was for the redistricting obsessed only.  This time I'm going to try to make the meeting more accessible to normal people who really should be interested in how our election districts are set. [Actually, it's turning out I'll do several posts about the meeting and this one focuses on the principles or criteria they will use to decide how to create the districts in the new plan.]

The agenda set out a few main decisions for them to make:

Board Attorney Michael White

1. Election of a Vice Chair (not sure how critical this is - they chose PeggyAnn McConnochie)
2. Adopt a time-line for public hearings  (See below)
3. Decide on  Pre-Plan hearing sites (places they'll visit to get public testimony)
4. Decide on Post-Plan hearing sites
5. Set public process & recording of hearings
6. Determine deadlines for submission of public comments and suggested plans
7. Set up Redistricting Guidelines
8. Decide what to do about legal issues
   a.  Reallocation of prisoner populations
   b.  What to do about military population
   c.  How to determine which Senate seats must go up for reelection in 2012
9. Decide on What Public Can Access (the short decision - everything they can figure out how to get online quickly)
10. How will they handle talking to the media - basic question was who would act as the Board's spokesperson
    

Can you see why this meeting went from 10:30am until 4:35pm? And why the last post went on forever? And how this post could go on for half of forever?

So I think I'll address one or two of these points each in their own posts. This one will look at lucky number seven - Redistricting Guidelines.

There are mandatory Federal and State Guidelines and then the board discussed two other possible guidelines, that are sometimes used in other states - protecting incumbency and

Board's attorney, Michael White's Redistricting Guidelines memo, dated March 16, 2011 lists in order of priority:

• Federal Constitutional Redistricting Principles
• Federal Statutory Redistricting Principles
• State Constitutional Redistricting Principles
• State Statutory Redistricting Principles

 [This document is in a long pdf file that contains all the handouts available at the meeting yesterday - it's pages 50-52.  But I'll cover it below.  This PDF file is not cut and pasteable. I'll note that the memo spelled principles as 'principals.'  I'm sure it was just a typo in the rush to get things out for the meeting, but I'll use the correct spelling even as I quote it.]



The Federal Constitutional Redistricting Principles are, briefly:

• A.  "One Person, One Vote". . ."legislative seats must be apportioned exclusively on the basis of population and the populations of the respective districts must be substantially equal."
• B.  "Districts of as nearly as equal size as practicable.  Maximum overall deviation of the no more than 10%, (i.e. plus or minus 5%)  Deviation is the measure of how much a district or plan varies from the ideal.  Good faith efforts to make deviations as small as practicable must be made.

Note:  The census data has come up with 17,755 as the ideal number for each district. (The 2010 State Population divided by 40 house districts.)  Of the 40 house districts, ten (10) fall in the plus or minus 5% range.  That's the MAXIMUM deviation allowed.  They are listed on this chart from lowest deviance (plus or minus) to the highest.

District	2010 Total Pop	2010 # Deviation	2010 % Deviation	Current Rep	Party	Location
31	17,744	-11	-0.06	Bob Lynn	(R)	Anchorage
19	17,804	+49	+0.28%	James ‘Pete’ Petersen	(D)	Anchorage
29	17,639	-116	-0.65	Chris Tuck	(D)	Anchorage
40	17,516	-239	-1.35%	Reggie Joule	(D)	Kotzebue
27	18,047	+292	+1.64%	Mia Costello	(R)	Anchorage
35	17,419	-336	-1.89%	Paul Seaton	(R)	Homer
28	18,473	+718	+4.04	Craig Johnson	(R)	Anchorage
33	18,493	+738	+4.16%	Kurt Olson	(R)	Soldotna
20	18,540	+785	+4.42%	Max Gruenberg	(D)	Anchorage
23	16,958	-797	-4.49%	Les Gara	(D)	Anchorage

There are some districts that are up to 19% below the ideal size and one 45% above.  These will challenge the board members.  You can see a chart with all 40 seats listed with their levels of deviance in a previous post.

• C.  "No purposeful discrimination against a group that has been consistently excluded from the political process."

In previous years, Alaska has been sued, successfully over discrimination in redistricting against Alaska Natives.  Because of this, Alaska is one of 16 states whose redistricting plan must be approved by the Department of Justice under the Federal Voting Rights Act.  You can read more details on this in a post I did last year on legislative hearings to enlarge the legislature. 

This does put pressure on the Board to be more careful because they know that not only Alaskans, but also the Federal Department of Justice will carefully review what they do.  

• D.  "No political or racial gerrymandering."

Then there are the Federal Statutory Redistricting Principles - two sections (2 and 5) of the US Voting Rights Act.

• Section 2 - No denial or abridgement of voting rights on account of race, color or status as a member of a language minority.
• Section 5 - No avoidable retrogression.  Retrogression is drawing a district in a manner that worsens minority voting strength as compared to the previous district configuration.  The minority group must be a large, cohesive and vote as a bloc.

Retrogression is the key issue the board has to be careful of in terms of the DOJ scrutiny.  Section 2 was an issue in a lawsuit about having translators and ballots in villages where English was not the main language of some voters.  I'm not sure how it affects the redistricting - except perhaps to keep large enough blocs of such voters together to allow them to get appropriate ballots and translators.  But I'm not sure.


The State Constitutional Redistricting Principles give some pretty specific guidelines.  The first one mimics the second US Constitutional Principle.

• A.  House districts of as nearly equal size as practicable (no overall deviation greater than 10% (plus or minus 5%)
• 10% deviation standard is not a safe harbor, good faith efforts must be made to reduce deviations to as small as practicable
• Deviations in Urban areas must be made as small as practicable because new technology makes it practicable to achieve those deviations

So those ten seats highlighted above, theoretically are acceptable, but those with the 4+% deviation probably are will face adjustments.   Seven of these ten are in Anchorage, two on the Kenai Peninsula, and Kotzebue.  The ones under 2% deviation are probably pretty safe, but the others - in Anchorage - probably are not.

• B.  Redistricting must be based upon the population within each district as reported by the official U.S. decennial census.
• C.  Districts must be contiguous.  Contiguity = All parts of a district being connected at some point with the rest of the district.
• D.  Districts must be relatively compact.  Compactness = Having the minimum distance between all parts of a district.  

If you look at the current district map of Alaska (bottom of post) you'll see House Distric 6 is huge - the largest in the US - and hardly compact.  Alaska's low population density and large geographic size makes redistricting a particular challenge - especially with all these criteria.

• F.  House Districts consisting of relatively socio-economically integrated areas [the attorney's memo skipped E]

An additional criterion they discussed was "communities of interest" in addition, but followed the attorney's advice that 'socio-economically integrated areas' pretty much covers the same ground.

• G.   Consideration to be given to local government boundaries where it is practical to do so.
• H.   Senate districts composed of two contiguous house districts.

As of yesterday, the Census data for the Senate districts wasn't yet available.  Just the House.

• I.  Drainage and other geographic features must be used, whenever possible, in describing boundaries.

Finally, the State Statutory Redistricting Principle.  (There's only one.)

• A.  Compliance with AS 15.10.200.  Redistricting Board may not adjust the census numbers by using estimates, population surveys, or sampling for the purpose of excluding or discriminating among persons counted based on race, religion, color, national origin, sex, age, occupation, military or civilian status, or length of residency.

There was relatively little discussion of most of these principles.  The focus was on two possible additions to these mandated principles.  Both were voted down.  But the discussion is worth considering.

1.  Should "communities of interest" be added to the criteria for how to mark district lines.
2.  Should "protection of incumbents" be added to the criteria.

Communities of interest, as mentioned above, was seen by the attorney, Michael White, as 'too amorphous' to use and basically covered by the State criterion of "socio-economically integrated."  The Board accepted that conclusion and voted against adding this criterion.

The discussion on protecting incumbents was longer.  The attorney warned the Board that if the were going to consider incumbency in their decisions, they needed to make it one of their principles, so that it was open and clear.  And if they were going to use it, they would have to be completely non-partisan in its use.

The reasons it might be considered included:

• Needing to know an incumbent's address so that when redrawing the lines, they didn't accidentally
• exclude an incumbent from her district. 
• This could be particularly problematic in the case of Alaska Native incumbents because of the Federal Voting Rights Act and the issue of retrogression - "drawing a district in a manner that worsens minority voting strength as compared to the previous district configuration."
• they didn't accidentally put two incumbents into the same district so they would have to run against each other. 

But this also starts skirting the issue of gerrymandering which is explicitly prohibited.  In the end they voting against including criteria other than the Federally and State mandated criteria.

Below is an excerpt of some of the discussion on these topics. [This is from my running notes during the meeting.  Assume there are errors and omissions, but it gives you the sense of the discussion.  The notes of the whole meeting are in the previous post.]

Notes: 

G. Redistricting Guidelines

White (Attorney): It’s ok to use ‘protecting incumbents’ as long as it’s non-partisan. If you are defending a plan, you could have made district 12, 2% instead of 3%, then you could defend it by using the principle. If you use protection of incumbents as a guideline, then it should be voted on as a guideline. If you use where an incumbent lives, that’s ok. But if you’re going to use it, then you should adopt it. We will have to have data on where incumbents live for the Voting Rights Act stuff.
If you don’t expect to use it as a justification for your plan.
Brodie: is there a problem if you protect 30 but not ten [incumbents]?
White: Given the changes, it is inevitable. But if the board does it intentionally, to protect an incumbent, it should be one of your guidelines. But it has to be nonpartisan.
Last board didn’t use that as a guideline. If you have rational reasons based on your principles, then it’s ok. As long as information on incumbent’s address is not improperly used.
Brodie: Others? [criteria]
White: Metcalf mentioned communities of interest. Tried to use community councils and court rejected that. You can adopt that as a guideline, it’s pretty amorphous. Contiguous intactness protects against gerrymandering. In Eagle River they changed a little part that cut out an incumbent. Court threw it out.
Another Case - Cox - was thrown out, they used partisan interest and didn’t try to hide it. Others board could consider. I think statutory mandatory guidelines is legit and going beyond that isn’t necessary.
Brodie: doesn’t stop us from using community of interest?
White: If you use them, but haven’t adopted them a guidelines, not good.
Brodie: Other guidelines?
White: Yes, but not in Alaska. Like whole counties. For me communities of interest is pretty amorphous. Socie-economic integration gets that.
John Torgerson: I think socio-economic integration good. The incumbent guideline leads to gerrymandering.
PeggyAnn McConnochie: What’s in the federal and state guidelines. I’m naive enough that considering who is in the district and who might run against them is less important than socio-economic integration.
Greene: You  concur?
White: I think socio-ecomomic integration covers 'communities of interest'
If you deviate within 10% there’s no presumption it is a problem. More than ten%. State Supreme Court said, in urban area - Anchorage in decision - I think it applies to other urban areas. In rural areas, it’s harder and you have more leeway, but still under ten%. Yes, I think anything that community of interest covers, is covered in socio-economic integration.
John Torgerson: I think court went on to say that ferry system and other things are part of community of interest.
Motion before us is to add community of interest and incumbents as guidelines.
Brodie: in rural area it is easy to know where people live, I don’t know about in urban areas.
John Torgerson: motion to adopt
Motion fails.
Adopt redistricting guidelines presented in our [memo from attorney - stuff above in this post]
Adopt guidelines.