While I've been focused on Alaska's redistricting, the New York Times today reminds me that this is going on across the country. In most other states, though, there are two levels of redistricting - for Congressional seats AND for State Legislative seats. In Alaska, since we have only one US House district, there's nothing to draw - the whole state is the district.
In Florida, political leaders have set up MyDistrictBuilder, a Web site that will allow voters to propose new, nonbinding maps for the state’s districts. And in Virginia, teams of students from area colleges entered a contest to design new Congressional maps to be considered by a bipartisan advisory commission appointed by Gov. Bob McDonnell.
[The link was to download what I assume is the program, but since there was nothing else except one blue button on the page, and I have a some other things to do today, I didn't try it.]
I've been thinking throughout this process that there should be ways for people to go online and play, "Redraw Alaska's Districts." Right now it's nearly impossible for someone without the software to be able to draw lines and keep track of all the data necessary - particularly the actual number of people in each district and the percentage of Alaskan Natives in each district. [This is important because of the US Voting Rights Act, see more discussion on this in this prior post.]
The article says that nationally Democrats seem to be ahead in raising money to analyze data and litigate plans they don't like.
Democrats, aided by a ruling last year by the Federal Election Commission [I'm sure the FCC didn't write rules that gave Democrats preference over Republicans] that declared redistricting work exempt from some election financing restrictions, have set up a trust fund for litigation growing out of the redistricting. The trust’s structure will allow Democrats to raise unlimited amounts of “soft” money without running afoul of finance restrictions put in place in 2002 by the McCain-Feingold law, election lawyers say.
The Democrats’ fund-raising is intended to provide “the best data, the best ability to analyze the data, and the best legal team we can,” said Representative Mike Thompson, a California Democrat leading the party’s redistricting efforts across the country.
A good question would be whether any of that is coming to Alaskan Democrats. I'd guess not since no Congressional seats are affected here. But the regulars at the Board meetings are people from Alaskans For Fair Redistricting (Unions and Native organizations), a staffer from the Bush Caucus, John Harris (former Republican House Speaker), and less regularly, Randy Ruedrich (though he was back yesterday when the attorney reported his findings on Ruedrich's suggestion to count prisoners in their original home districts instead of at prison locations. The attorney said legally they had to use official Census Data and such block data with characteristics details like race won't be available until June and even then won't identify home addresses. And if the numbers actually mattered, they would come so late in the process that it would be hard to change everything so late in the process. But he doesn't think they'll matter anyway.) Ruedrich, the state Republican chair, has been associated with Alaskans for Fair and Equitable Redistricting (AFFER - a title that is a bit confusing since it's so close to AFFR).
AFFR discloses clearly at the end of their report all the organizations they are associated with - including the AFL-CIO which the Times article says is well organized for this.
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, meanwhile, has set up the Foundation for the Future, a tax-exempt “527” group with a $750,000 budget to help demographers, mapmakers and other experts aid Democrats. The organization grew out of meetings the union had with top advisers to Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, and others.
You can see the AFFR report, and the AFFER report along with the others that were submitted on the Redistricting Board's website - right column, first page. The AFFER report does not say who all was involved the way the AFFR report does. I should do a post on who all has submitted reports. It's covered - though scattered over the day's posts on March 31 when they all presented their plans at public testimony.
OK, Alaska, in 2021, let's make sure there's a redistricting contest online so everyone can get involved in the process. If computer gamers played a hand in this, it would make this fun. It can't be any more complicated that a lot of computer games people play. Plus this hidden process would then be out in the open for everyone to see and they would better understand all the factors that need to be balanced and how seriously politics were drawing districts.
I'm trying to figure out how to write about the Redistricting Board the last couple of days. They are playing with the software trying to find ways to make maps that meet all the criteria. I say 'playing' very consciously. This is very much like a computer game.
The Goal:
Make 40 districts each with 17,755 people, give or take a percent or two.
Restrictions:
No Retrogression
That's what they've been struggling with the last two days.
The current districts include NINE native districts. Let me clarify. There are 6 House districts that are either minority-majority or minority-influence districts (see this previous post for explanation) and three Senate districts. These are:
House
District
Incumbent
Senate
District
Incumbent
Minority
Majority*
Minority Influence*
5
Bill Thomas Jr. (R)
C
Albert Kookesh (D)
5?
6
Alan Dick (R)
C
Albert Kookesh (D)
6?
37
Bryce Edgmon (D)
S
Lyman Hoffman (D)
37 - S
38
Bob Herron (D)
S
Lyman Hoffman (D)
38 - S
39
Neal Foster (D)
T
Donny Olson (D)
39 -T
40
Reggie Joule (D)
T
Donny Olson (D)
40 -T
*I'm not 100% sure about which districts are Minority-Majority and Minority-Influence. I'll try to get that confirmed tomorrow. [TB, if you read this, please correct it in the comments.]
The question on the Board's mind - at least on Chair Torgerson's - was whether the Board could avoid any retrogression by creating nine Native majority or influence districts and still meet the state's requirements for compact, socially and economically integrated districts. They had a plan with nice [nine]. but with a Senate seat made up of two non-contiguous House seats.
Because of Alaska's huge area, unique shape (narrow strips - SE between water and Canada, Aleutians, islands spread out 1200 miles across the ocean), and very sparse population, we already have some districts that are hardly compact.
So they were able to come up with a plan that had nine native districts, but in order to do that, they had to pair a House district in Ketchikan in the southeast with one in Kodiak to make a Native senate district. So, the answer was yes. You can see that explained in the first video.
But, could the meaning of 'contiguous' be stretched to cover two house districts (one in Ketchikan and one in Kodiak) over a large expanse of ocean to make a Native senate seat? That's the question Torgerson asks attorney White in the second video.
Wednesday it appeared they were going to really try to get to nine Native districts. Thursday it wasn't so certain, though Eric, the GIS guy, had come up with another way to get nine Native districts, but still 'ugly.' Yesterday it seemed like they were going to find a way to do get nine. Today, it looked liked they were ready to settle for eight Native districts. But it sounds like they'll go forward with a plan for nine and one for eight.
One thing I noticed was that the staffers who'd worked hard to get at least a Native-influence district out of SE said, "It can't be done." I think a more accurate way of saying it would be, "We couldn't figure out a way to do it." I don't know if it can be done more elegantly than they did it (because they did do it, though, as they said, "it was ugly"). But I suspect people with real skill and more experience with the software could do seemingly impossible things. Afterall, 30 years ago, people never imagined that people could do the stunts we see in sports like extreme skiing. But the board only has about six days to get the draft plan done.
I'm going to miss the Friday meeting because I have the Ole! blogging class at the same time as the board meeting. But they'll be meeting Saturday and Sunday at 2pm as well. They have til Friday to get a draft plan, so no time off. And those of you who can't get there because of work - well, you can see them in action. In the Yellow mall on 4th Avenue - 411 W. 4th. Suite 203.
The US Voting Rights Act has so far proven to be the major force guiding the Alaska Redistricting Board's efforts. There's good reason for this. Most of the prior Alaska redistricting plans have been legally challenged and the courts have required changes. Furthermore, because an earlier challenge showed racial discrimination against Alaska Natives, Alaska is one of 16 states monitored by the Justice Department under the Voting Rights Act.
This means, as I understand it, that Native voting strength should not be less than at the last redistricting. This is measured by how many districts are 'minority-majority' and 'minority-influence.' Minority-majority districts would have 50% or more Alaska Native population (not necessarily voters). Minority-influence districts have at least 35% Alaska Native population.
One of the issues that came up in Tuesday's discussion was whether the plans submitted by various organizations counted Natives the same way the board is counting someone Native. I thought I was hearing people say 'Native plus one." But today I heard someone say "Native plus white." Maybe they used both or maybe my kids are right about my hearing.
This makes a difference. If a group is using a more lenient definition of Native, then they would count more people as Native than a stricter definition. Thus they might define a district as Native-Influence because it had, using their numbers, 36% Alaska Natives. But the way the board is counting, the district might only have 34% Alaska Natives.
But I didn't quite understand what those different ways of counting were. So I asked Michael White if he could explain it on this video.
As you can see from the video, the issue is that so far the DOJ has counted, in the past, people identified as Native and people identified as "Native and White."
But NOT other combinations, such as "Native and Black" or "Native and Asian."
At the Wednesday (April 6) meeting, I believe that White told the Board that his understanding was that the Board could only count "Native" and "Native and White" but he's still seeking further clarification. And Chair Torgerson told the staff to find out how the groups that submitted plans to the Board counted someone as a Native. If they used a different way, then the data have to be adjusted to match the way the Board counted them.
And a followup to the question I had about what categories were used prior to 2010 in the video, a February 9, 2011 New York Times article on mixed race says that before the 2000 Census people could mark 'multiracial'. This raised a myriad of problems.
"[T]he census in 2000 began allowing respondents to mark as many races as they wanted. . ."
Yesterday was Municipal election day in Anchorage.
Image sources listed at bottom of the post
Suppose when you put your ballot into the voting machine the wall behind the machine looked like the poster above. If you were a Muslim, you might or might not object depending on how you felt about your faith and on your understanding of separation of church and state. I don't have any problem with these images on their own. But if I were forced to view these in order to vote in my local election in the United States, I would have a problem.
Well, yesterday this is what I actually saw when I put my ballot into the voting machine.
And here's the wall again with the voting machine:
It turns out that the voting officials were there Monday night checking that all the voting booths and other materials were there, when they discovered the previously religiously neutral room now had religious sayings posted on the wall.
They called the Muncipal Clerk's office and were told to cover the religious sayings and symbols. One of the officials had some butcher paper in her car and covered the wall. The Municipal Clerk told me that they also called the Pastor Monday evening to let him know that this was being done. There was some objection and the Pastor said they would not have voting in the church again if the walls were going to be covered.
Sometime Tuesday morning, the voting official told me, a woman came storming in and tore off the paper covering the wall, crumpled it up, and said to the poll workers, "Remember where you are. This is a church." This turned out to be the Pastor's wife.
According to the Municipal Clerk, the First Church of God at McInnes and Tudor will no longer be a site for elections. The Pastor pulled his church from being used to vote in the future.
I was not quite sure how to approach this story. I think that most readers here understand that the separation of church and state is critical, because people should not be forced to face religious symbols and sayings in order to vote. For some, voting in a church already raises issues as I've posted in the past. And a study (mentioned in the link) suggests that where people vote affects how some people vote.
I added the Islamic 'wall' above for people who do not see any problem voting before a wall full of Christian sayings and imagery. I'm hoping that by imagining being forced to see a different religion's symbols when they voted, they might understand why non-Christians (and Christians) might be bothered by what I experienced yesterday.
After the covering was torn down, the poll workers did their best to minimize voters being forced to view the images by rearranging the polling booths and the voting machine.
I am waiting for a copy of the agreement between the Municipality and voting places and I also have a call in to the Pastor.
The Alaska Redistricting Board began its meeting at 2pm today and looked at the Native districts. They're looking for ways to comply the the Federal Voting Rights Act. Alaska is one of 16 states of the watch list - their redistricting has to be pre-cleared by the Department of Justice before it is adopted. There can be no 'retrogression' - meaning, Native representation can't be less than it is.
As I write this and as I google for more information, I can't find anything specific to Alaska on this. I think I'm on the cusp of understanding this but I need to ask more questions tomorrow to get it right.
In any case, some definitions:
Minority-Majority District means a district where a minority group has a majority - 50% or more is what they said in the meeting.
Minority-Influence (or sometimes Effective) District means a district where a minority has enough people to have a strong influence in the election.
Through the VRA, the federal government moved to guarantee access for all citizens to the ballot. Even so, the right to vote did not necessarily translate into electing representatives for voters who were in the minority. In jurisdictions, particularly in the South, voters who historically had faced racial discrimination (African-Americans, Latinos, Asian-Pacific Americans and Native Americans) had been unable to elect candidates of their choice unless they constituted a majority of voters in a given electoral district. In 1982, Congress amended the VRA to include requirements that certain jurisdictions provide minority voters opportunities to elect candidates of their choice
The most interesting part of the meeting today, for me, was when Jim Holm spoke. He's been pretty quiet and he may have said more in that moment today than he has in all the meetings.
Chair Torgerson had just presented his own proposal (after they'd gone over several others) and said that we can get up to nine Minority-Majority and Minority-Influence districts but it means taking some from the urban areas like Wasilla and Fairbanks.
Holms said this was racial gerrymandering. Staff attorney White responded. You can go down to read it at the bottom of my notes on the session.
[NORMAL DISCLAIMER: These are my notes during the meeting. As fast as I can type, I still miss a lot, but this should give a sense of the meeting. It's pretty rough, I'll try to clean it up later.]
Alaska Redistricting Board April 5, 2011
2:02 pm Open meeting Roll Call - All members here STaff - Taylor Bickford, Jim Ellis, Eric (new GIS guy) , and Brenda (who is new) Approve Agenda - yes
Focus on Rural and get the Minority Representation figured out
Torgerson passing out licorice
Starting with Fair and Equitable Plan (Republican Plan) - they have a much better projection system today - it’s much sharper and I can take better photos.
Torgerson: Basic flaw in this plan is that the percentages aren’t high enough
They have three majority and one influence and two really close.
Also assumes we would take an influence district that is not contiguous and connect with another to make a Senate district.
Looking at SE: Can we change 1 or 3 colors so easier to see different districts.
Chair Torgerson is back in charge after yesterday when Brody took over in the afternoon.
Torg: Balance of Baranof island minus Sitka is 2000 people and this plan takes that into consideration. Eric and I used Indian River as a boundary of the district. From here to rest of Baranof is 2000.
McC (McC is for PeggyAnn McConnochie): A lot I like, but some districts I don’t. Sitka shouldn’t be split. The argument that they get to swipes at the apple doesn’t work with more representatives. It’s too small.
2 looks like Metlakatla - picture -
Torgerson: Anyone in Hyder? it says 0.
McC: A few. They’re missing opportunities in se. they came around the left and the back up and jump to get Haines and Skagway and Yakutat and there’s really no population in some of those areas. Yesterday we went around the left to the west coast that they haven’t been able to include here. Interesting they went to the east instead of the west.
Torg: Focused on rural influence district. Anyone think we can’t get one in SE?
McC: Deviance will be bigger. Smaller communities have lost population, so it’s tougher, but I think we can.
Holm: You talking about majority?
Torg: No, there’s an influence district now. It’s not going to be pretty. Always an island district.
White: Absent something extraordinary, were fairly free in terms of compactness.
Torg: We can skip around?
White: Always odd shape, need to comply with voting act.
Torg: Is this going to be contiguous? Using the water?
White: Always use water. My concern is using outside ocean for contiguous which is what the ER one does. State territorial waters. Saying 2 is contiguous because they cross between 3 and 3 in the middle where Hoonah is.
Torg: when you say go to the left, would we take Sitka in?
McC: yes
Greene: You say pushing, can you explain.
White: They’re saying contiguity from Hoonah.
Mc: I agree. You cut at Hydaburg and you can go west, it’s a much cleaner district than doing what they’ve done using the waterway as continuity.
White: I think they tried to do that to get Hoonah and Sitka together.
Bickford:
Mc: You have to look at SE differently. I tried to get geographic first, then socio-economically linked. Looked at color of the population. I made a decision I wouldn’t accept before - Ketchikan, Wrangell, and ??? separate. But now I do. It now catches the small communities that are primarily native. Yeah I’m off by couple 100. I willing to split up Hoonah, Sitka, Ketchikan. It’s not reasonable for such small towns to be split. So I’m ready for a 1% deviation to have more.
White: And you have an influence district?
Mc: Yes I do: 35%, just barely.
White: Does anyone think we can’t draw an influence district in the se.
You said they claim 37 as a majority. Not reflected. But they say by moving 37 up they get a majority-minority.
Torg: We have a 6 sort of 42%, 37 is - two senators that’s six, one influence, that’s seven.
White: they say that five is.
Torg: No, we have a cutoff of 35%, The plan may say it, but our data doesn’t say it.
What do they say 4 has now? This one has new numbers - it shows 26%
Let’s do it this way: potential for 2 and 5 and that would give us 9 minorities.
Holm: Then we’d have non-contiguous Senate
Torg: We have to change that. 2 is now 4.
Mc: Whoa!
Torg: That would work as 9 then, as long as the SE one butts up against 5 - takes in yakutat, whatever this is going to be. Two influence districts.
White: In theory it’s there, but I don’t agree with their numbers.
Bickford: But that leaves three districts in SE and you have to pair one up with someone.
Holm: South Anchorage.
MC: Thanks! (sarcastic)
White: I just don’t think they have the numbers.
Torg: This shows they don’t. What’s next?
AFFR plan? [this is unions, native group plan]
Bickford: This computer only counts white and native.
1:35pm MC: SE first?
Torg: 2 is their rural district it looks like, they got to 34%. This looks like what we did yesterday.
White: They’re claiming 8.
Torg: Cut Yakutat in half, I don’t know how many people there. Made 3
White: Almost exactly the same as Juneau plan.
Torg: Kecthikan; Petersburg with 2, Wrangell goes with Ketchikan.
Mc: Economically it makes sense for Wrangell and Ketchikan be split, but the towns themselves should not be split.
Torg: If we took Saxman out, it would be 35, I think.
Bickford: They used different categories to calculate natives
White: What board used last time - Native plus White.
Bickford: I believe if you added it it would take it over 35. This is just the math and it gets whatever ????
Torg: You would get 3261?
Bickford: Both total native and % native is Native and Native and White. There’s no way to import their data configuration, just the math. Just can’t do it. If we knew what categories they used, we can add it to ours.
Torg: How do we resolve that.
White: We have to see what DOJ counts as Alaska Native. Last time only Native and Native + 1. If we can count more as Native that would help.
Torg: Will our consultant help? We’ll have to wait for her to come on Friday.
Bickford: Not Native + Black, Asian, etc.
Torg: Our stuff is all consistent right?
Bickford: Right.
White: They have three districts at about 50 or above. 12 - [How did we get to Palmer?]
Ellis: It splits Palmer - right down the middle of the valley
Torg: They have Valdez is 12 and Cordova in 36.
[Today’s discussion seems more focused and considering more than numbers, but they are trying to get the Native majority and Native influence districts set up. I’ll try to get some video of this for contrast.]
Torg: 39 is Nome to Border down to McCarthy.
MC: What do you think about going across State like that. going across for different tribal areas.
Greene: Would be interested in the testimony we have. Would definitely be something new. I’ve lived there for years. ??? Has communication increased?
White: They’re data different again. They have 50.1
Bickford: Show 39 53 people over populated. It takes part of Fairbanks and Tok, but you could take those out and still be within the deviation.
Brody: Require a lot of thought to take road system area and connect to roadless.
Torg: 7
Bickford: 7 takes in top of what used to be 12.
Torg: Valdez went with Kodiak? So 38 then is Bethel, and went into 6 and picked up their population. 87% Native. 37 is down the chain, fit in all they could - all - you think that will also be a minority. It’s 50 or 49.
Bickford: If not using three races it’s under 50%.
Torg: This wouldn’t be a bad map if not tied into border from Nome and Wade=Hampton area in Fairbanks. But other than that, their presentation is good. Basically four districts and one influence. 39 and 7 tough to swallow. Hoping we can get the good stuff from different maps.
Torg: To Bush Caucus Plan - 5 majority - one influence.
Looking at SE - I took some video -
Torg: We do have our influence district. Now up 39 - Mother of all mothers, north of McCarthy to Nome, goes down and picks up Unalakleet too. How do they deal with Fairbanks? Clear out of there Did they complete 6? Also a minority district.
Bickford: 6 comes over top of North Star Borough.
Holm: Leaves out Salcha and picks up Eilson.
Torg: Put Eilson in with 6?
Bickford: Not all, but have base, other areas just farm area, not many people.
Torg: 37 goes to Dutch I assume, takes in Tyonek. A lot of plans take in Tyonek. Kodiak is with Cordova?
Bickford: yes all the way to Cordova.
Torg: 35? Kenai Peninsula, including Seward.
Bickford: Will probably only gets 4 Matsu seats when their population gives them five. Splits them 3 ways.
Torg: Not their intent I don’t think. Just divide their population by 17,755 isn’t going to get 5. Zero in on Palmer.
Torg: What we’re doing now is racial gerrymandering. I don’t know how you get around it. Taking areas so we get the numbers.
Bickford: The native percentage is really high. We could give up 4000 here and make it up with population in this area.
Torg: Any more on Bush Caucus 4-2?
Holm: No 5-1.
Torg: I think mine is next. Load it. OK, take short break at 3:17pm.
Torg 3:20: what I was trying to do. This is district 4 here, really no one living here, but it touches SE
White: Your plan?
Torg: dealing with rural only. Trying to get rid of uglies. But this is also ugly. Puts Nome and Kotz together. 6 gets almost to Fairbanks
. . .
Looking at 37 - possibly could drop some villages and get it up to 50%
Torg: Real goal - can we get 9 districts that don’t take in Fairbanks. Conclusion - we can but it’s ugly.
Greene: Why do you have Bethel and Dutch Harbor together.
White: Continuity issues.
Torg: Not more than the Kodiak one. Also Kotzebue and Nome.
White: DOJ will look beyond just the numbers. Major SE difference. Some plans pair native incumbents against non-native incumbents.
MC: 3 in with Sitka
Miller: 4 in with 5
Torg: SE what I wanted to do is start in with Nichole??? Idea was to run 1 north and not make it a majority, came out of SE thru Yakutat along Canadian Border, and dropping 40 down - get a skinny 39 down the coast. But fallout is Kotz and Nome (pairing of incumbents) would this ease the pain of making this 37 go all the way up to Yukon-K area. I guess where we’re at. If were going to have 9 majority districts. we’re going to have to take urban populations. No other way to do it.
AFFER does that. But has other problems. I like parts of other plans.
Greene: Have staff work with those plans. Did you do SE too?
Torg: What remained? Anything? Started with Metlakatla.
Eric: I believe we got it up to - about 40% - we went all the way to Northway, Eagle, Chicken…
Torg: ONe time we did that, but didn’t leave that one. You said you got 46%.
What you do is eliminate the problem. Anyway, that’s our look at rural district. Not sure how to lead us thru the discussion of what to do next. If our goal is to have nine districts, lets do that and be prepared for them to take large chunks out of the urban areas.
How about tomorrow. Will you (Mc) have SE ready to go over? Keep in mind we’ll want two or three plans so folks will have a contrast, something else to look at, so be thinking about that also. I think I’ll hijack Eric and continue on the rural districts and take … everyone and see if we can come up with something with the rural. Jim, will we have Fairbanks to rock and roll tomorrow?
Holm: Depends on how the rural districts take parts of Fairbanks.
Torg: If we drop down one, we have retrogression. How to avoid?
White: Have to show no lesser retrogressive plan can be drawn.
Torg: I’m struggling with taking Matsu and Fairbanks down a district.
Holm: I’m not fine with that. But one man one vote. If we say they have enough for five districts, then we have to do that.
White: Not really, there was a Kenai case. US Constitution trumps state law. There is some room. There isn’t going to be violation unless there is intentional discrimination. If there is the court won’t allow and deviance from proportionality.
Holm: You’re saying racial gerrymandering is ok.
White: No, racial gerrymandering is not allowed
Holm: If you are moving people around aren’t you doing that?
White: Laughing, If I could answer that I’d been on the SC.
Holm: that’s as good an answer as any because I don’t expect you to be a SC justice. Folks in Willow will have the same concern. I don’t know how you’re going to draw it. We can live with these, then this is how you draw your populations to make things whole. Then the differential between one percent and ten percent, will really make a difference in the size of the districts. It’s possible we can take less people from the majority area with 16,000 people instead of 18,000.
Torg: Exactly what Eric and I were doing.
White: I think you would be justified. Decide, for the numbers game, in the rural areas we’re going to have larger deviation, under 10%, then I could probably defend that. If we say we did it because of the voting rights act, they would say it is trumped by one man one vote. But you could say we need to have 5% deviation in rural areas so that we don't mess with the rural areas.
Brody: So far we’ve been going north and south. What if we go east and west.
Torg: I think taking out of Anchorage is worse than in rural areas.
Brody: people are people.
Torg: I think rural Wasilla is more rural than Anchorage.
White: There is excess population in Fairbanks you have to do something with.
Torg: We grabbed it. Including Dutch Harbor with bethel was just an experiment. I just wanted to see what it looked like.
Brody: Quarter of the state.
Torg: Put NW arctic back in the way it was.
Bickford: What you did, didn’t save Fairbanks.
[Then I switched to video and I’ll get that up soon {wishful thinking?)] [There's only a couple of minutes and I'll add it later. Sorry. Nothing crucial, it's the winding up of the meeting and dividing of work and staff for tomorrow morning, but you get a flavor of the meeting you can't get from the notes.]
UPDATE Midnight: Here's the video of the end of the meeting. It gives a sense of style of the meetings.
I generally add 'just' in front of mallard, because the ducks are so common. But every now and then I am reminded how beautiful they are. That happened yesterday. Maybe it was the light, maybe their feathers are more brilliant as they get ready for mating season. But these birds were brilliant.
And I was going to take a picture of our tulips popping up through the mulch of old leaves in front of the house yesterday. But I didn't get around to it. It's a totally different picture today.
As we got several inches of fresh snow and it's still coming down.
Why? Because I've outlined the very basics with a map, some numbers, and video to give you a sense what it's about and why you might want to let the Board members know about your district. If nothing else, watch the video.
This afternoon was the first meeting where the board got together with a computer and looked at the maps with the Census Data and the software for playing with the maps. The video below will show you the level of analysis going into this.
The Objective
So here's the basic game they're playing. They have a part of Alaska on the screen. This is Eagle River - including Districts 17 and parts of 16, 18 and 32. The board's job is to create 40 House Districts with each as near to 17,755 as possible. There are other rules they must meet. This earlier post covers other criteria. But let's just deal with the numbers now.
17,755 comes from dividing 2010 Census Alaska population of 710,200, by 40 House districts.
So they have the state on computers by Census districts down to 'blocks.' The data base also has information on the political district boundaries, and race, as well as topographical information.
So, this afternoon, they wandered around the state by computer looking at different districts. Below the maps are numbers. I'm sorry this picture isn't as clear as it could be, but I think you can get the idea.
On the far left are the current district numbers. (This map is for downtown Anchorage.) Then comes the current population of that district.
Then the ideal of 17,755.
Then the deviation from the ideal number as a % and then as a real number.
I think that's enough for you to understand what they were doing. The were going through districts, say, District 20, and seeing that it had 18,540. It's 4.42% above the ideal number, so they were trying to get rid of as many of the extra 785 people as possible.
The next district, 21, is about 8% below 17,155, and needs 1,452 people.
So they would look for the smallest blocks they could move in this computer program, and move them from District 20 to District 21. Then another chunk. Each time the computer would recalculate the map and give new numbers.
That's how they spent the afternoon. At least until I left at about 3:30 pm. At first glance it was pretty casual and the only factor they were really looking at (in non-Native districts - that's another story I'll tell later) was numbers.
There are no board members from Anchorage, and they moved chunks of districts willy-nilly to see how close they could get the numbers to 17,755 without any understanding of the which neighborhoods fit most closely together.
I think this may be ok for today. They were sort of test driving the software to see how this is going to work. If they keep up like this in the next few days, it will be problematic, but if this is just test driving, then ok.
To get a sense of it, you can watch this video clip of them playing around with Eagle River.
One interesting thing today is that Kodiak member Robert Brodie sort of took over the afternoon part of the meeting. He's the one who objected the first meeting when Chair Torgerson suggested morning time for individual board members to work on their own plans. Brodie wanted to do it as a group. Well, today they did, but it was almost as though Brodie was doing it alone with everyone else watching him. Except for Juneau member PeggyAnn McConnochie, the other members were pretty quiet. So, the two real estate brokers were busy carving up real estate.
In the video you can hear that they don't understand the neighborhoods and which parts naturally fit together. At the hearings last week, one of the issues that came out very clear was that both the Eagle River folks and the Muldoon folks want to be separated. But since no one on the board is from Anchorage they really had no sense of what they were hearing. No one - not even the staff - referred back to that testimony to say, "Well, clearly we should take out this part of Muldoon."
Instead, we get a comment like (paraphrased), "It's amusing to hear people who live ten miles apart say they have nothing in common, while we have [in some districts] people hundreds of miles apart." While this is true, and I thought it myself when the Muldoon folks were complaining, at this point they need to split people out of Eagle River and people did tell them which ones to take out. To her credit, McConnochie did mention the testimony, but she said it was conflicting. I don't remember that it was. In any case splitting Muldoon from Eagle River seemed to be agreed to by all.
But my eyes glazed over when Fairbanks people went street by street explaining how to divide things, so I understand their confusion. But I did take notes and I could go back and see what that Fairbanks man said, and I have his name and could call him if I were on the board. These folks didn't take a lot of notes. They are waiting for the transcripts.
It will be interesting to see the dynamics between Brodie and Torgerson as things proceed One's a realtor who's chopping up real estate by the numbers. The other is a former politician who I'm assuming sees each precinct as a living and breathing entity. Brodie seems very task oriented. Torgerson doesn't seem to like to change things once they're set, but he does.
And they have ten more days to do this for the whole State of Alaska. The draft plan is due on April 14, 30 days after they got the Census data. Then there are 60 more days for people to present suggestions for changes.
By the way, they did add a lot of stuff to the website and Facebook today.
The Board met from a bit after 10am and went into executive session at 11:15 to discuss
DOJ strategies for pre-clearance and potential litigation.
They came back at 12:25pm to add Barrow to list of Post-Plan stops and then adjourned until 1:30pm
Key decisions/topics:
Lisa Handley of Washington DC has been chosen to help with pre-clearance work and they are waiting for her to sign the contract. She did this last time and also prepped the committee preparing for redistricting this year.
Set up deadlines for post-plan public testimony (May 6) and submissions of plans written comment (May 13). After that they will not be 'obligated' to review things submitted, but they may.
Discussed logistics of how they want to meet and discuss plans they create - in pairs or alone when not at the 2pm meetings. Decided to start together and look at current map and discuss issues.
Learned that the computer software isn't doing all the whizbang things they had hoped. Their GIS person, Eric, said when he put in parameters it didn't do anything.
Attorney White needs to check on the exact deadline for plan - at the same time they received it or at midnight?
Legal Issues
Military population - has to be counted where they are based. But they will double check on non-resident military. Wasn't significant number in 2001 but maybe it's more now. Probably not an issue.
Prisoner population - Randy Ruedrich has been pushing Board to count prison population at their homes not at prison to help with retrogression issues. Census data will not be available in time to do this.
Added Barrow to Post-Plan stops
Below are my running notes on the meeting. As always, be warned, there are gaps, I missed words, but it should give you a general sense of the meeting until there are transcripts.
Open meeting at 10:08am
All members present.
Call to Order
Roll Call
Roll Call STaff
Approve Agenda
Chairman’s Report
- Name of Voting Rights , but haven’t signed contract yet. It’s in her hands waiting to be signed. It’s in the Governor’s office. Someone did rfp, unsuccessful
Lisa Handley, Mrs. Handley was voting rights expert for 2001 efforts and I believe she did some work for the 1990s. She’s excited. Hopefully she’ll sign off. Hoped to have her on teleconference today, but she has to sign.
She’s out of DC area. Lot of historical data from 2001. Eric has put together most of what she needs as soon as she signs.
Brodie: How many applied?
2
Brodie: Who was the committee?
??, Myself, Ron, and ??
Ron Miller: her mentor Bronfman?, did it in 1991.
T: We’re behind schedule a bit, she’s very familiar. Not trying to simplify this, but hoping just have to update the files.
Ron Miller: She was here last April to meet with Redistricting committee and she provided the needed data. Let you know when Sean Henderson says the contract is signed.
Executive Director’s Report:
Ron: I’m bringing on new staff tomorrow to help Mary with travel. A person I’ve worked with in the past, a good addition.
What do Board members need as we start intensive sessions.
Eric is in the corner. Dept. of Labor picks up his salary, does our computer work.
Person who’s helping Mary can stay up to three months.
Discussion on Public Deadline for Post-Plan Period
Brodie: question when we’ll have them ready. If done before the 14th, can we just hold them.
Torgerson: Not familiar. Draft plan preparing now for release on 14th. We cut off public input on March 31. Now talking about Post-plan. I’ve proposed that we end at our Statewide teleconference. We are missing two board members on 8th and 14th, so second week of May we’ll have three Board members and continue drawing, but not taking any action. May 6 date for statewide teleconference on draft plan. Last board chastised for not picking a date.
White: Last time they just adopted the AFFR plan, submitted at last moment without any public comment. Court said, maybe you want to set a time deadline for not accepting more plans. Different from public input. Give them a week after the public comment. Say, not public testimony after 6th, not consider any additional plans after 13th. Court said, let public know and have a deadline.
Torgerson: thinking about 16th because we’re going to be missing board members.
White: There won’t be any more public hearings after May 6, so not an issue. People will be revising plans as they hear public comments. 13 or 16 either is ok. Public comment done on the 6th. Last date to accept plans if you want to consider them - they can send in anything any time.
Torgerson: Our goal is to be wrapped up by June 3rd. Staff needs time - about ten days - to print documents, seek pre-clearance and other things that need to be done. Time line is only 3 weeks after 14th to draw plans. Not the six week it may look like. Unless there is a way to push back into those three weeks. Need time to publish geographical data. Ten days last time Michael?
White: Have to write geographical descriptions, time to clean up plans, little editing, get it to publisher, etc.
Torgerson: Timeline for release to public.
White: If set deadline as June 3rd soft, board would vote on or about that date - here’s our final plan subject to minor cleanup. Then back from staff no later than 14th. Last time voted 3-2. 2 submitted a minority report. That gives an opportunity for that.
Need to provide staff at least ten days. At least 7 to 10 days to wrap it up.
Torgerson: 4th is Saturday. That leaves ten days. Meet on 14 I’d guess to adopt resolution.
White: You’ll have the actual final product, that you’ve approved.
Brodie: Motion May 6 last day for testimony, May 10 last day for submission of written comments, after which Board is under no obligation to consider things.
Torgerson: question about obligation
Brodie: Only said that because if someone does submit something with good idea, we could consider, but don’t have to.
White: Set a date after which the Board has no obligation, but doesn’t want to preclude itself for considering. Don’t want people to sue because we considered it, but then you did. Bob’s motion is probably good, because setting last date board is obligated to consider info.
Seconded by McConnochie.
Repeating motion: May 6 will be the deadline for public hearing and May 13 deadline for written public comments, plans. I’m not sure how you put obligated in.
Discussion:
Passed unanimously.
Torg: 6th is teleconference, we’ll be back at LIO.
I asked staff to split shift. Taylor coming in around noon til 8 or 9 to do cleanups on plans we present. Don’t need people working 12 hour days. Eric and Jim will be assigned to members to help draw plans. Hoping we get into discussion of how to go forward. Do it in teams of two or individually. Or global issues that need to be answered. SEt 2pm every day as board meeting to discuss where we’re at. Hopefully will have board draft plans to present. Project on the wall, make presentations and show people thoughts. How board things it should unfold.
Marie you’re gone on April 13.
Yes.
Here all day 12th? Yes
Good, to get draft plans out and get ready for hearing on 18th.
Greene: Only day missing is 13th, will be here on 14th.
Torgerson: Midnight on the 14th?
White: That’s how I understand it, but I’ll check
Torgerson: We may need the 14th, nice to have it in our back pocket if we need it. Staff may need it for cleaning up our boundaries. Mr. White please check.
White: 9:45 on the 15th is when we got it?
cc : Official receipt from Census bureau.
White: Never seen it that we would have to be done by 9:45am, I think midnight is good.
Torgerson: General discussion - team approach, individual? Taylor is cleanup hitter every night. SEries of plans. Southeast, maybe minority districts? Some tweaking, Have Taylor tweak at night. Maybe staff do their own plan, another set of eyes. More possible if have Taylor do that, stagger his time, at night no phones.
McConnochie: I’d like two days to complete my plan. Can I use the computer to check all the Constitutional parameters in there and spit something out, I’d like to see what that is.
Taylor: As far as we know it’s not possible. The program shuts down . Let me get ERic.
Torg: Is the software capable of producing a plan for us if we put in the Voting Rights Act and other parameters? It’s supposed to do something like that.
Eric: There is something called Automated ?>>>>> that is supposed to work, but I can’t get it to work. I’ll check with Fred. I’ve left it on and it keeps running and running. ONly parameters I could do is incumbent addresses. Threshold of % of census group, I couldn’t do that.
Torg: Have you tried it regionally?
Eric: I’ve tried the whole state. But problem that it takes the whole statewide data and would divide that by the whole state.
Taylor: Could you try a single borough? Anchorage would be helpful.
Eric: I’ll Try.
Brodie: Thinking about how to kick start this. We’ve all be doodling plans, I’ve made 5 or 6. Fisherman came over to house. I’d like to see us project the current districts now. PeggyAnn may have some understanding of SE I don’t understand. I don’t know if I’m dividing in the middle of a neighborhood. SE we have 2 or 3 ideas presented. Is that the way we want to lean. I’d like to see us altogether look at the same map at the same time.
Torgerson: We did that in training. Michaels thought everyone working on same plan at the same time very efficient. I’m not comfortable, but we can do that. I spent time trying to run district all the way to Arctic village to make a minority district. It’s possible, but ugly. Part of our 2pm meetings. If we all take SE and come up with ideas of how to do it. There are no right or wrong answers on how to do that.
PeggyAnn, you think you need a couple of days? Bob’s suggestion to lay it out. Some general thoughts. Going to be a mess to record isn't? Thinking about the poor transcriber.
McConnochie: That’s my preference, but I’ll do whatever everyone else wants to do.
Torgerson: We’ll meet at 2 today and start that way.
White: You might consider having it right here in the room. Don’t have to figure out who is talking. If group discussion people talking ideas.
Torgerson: How did the minutes look last time?
White: They did transcription off the tapes. Lots of indiscernibles. If you know who is doing it, bring them in once so they can get to know the voices.
Torgerson: When talking in the group, people talking over each other.
White: Sometimes just said board member.
Torgerson: ARe we using just one transcriber? We had four?
Miller: Just one right now.
Torgerson: If using one, that would work - having someone come in to learn who’s who.
Miller: Last time members helped with the transcripts. We have several transcribers
Torgerson have to keep in mind and once in a while say your name. I don’t know how else to do it. Idea of using six transcribers, is so they have time to get it done and up on the website.
Taylor: Bob suggested starting with plans submitted Thursday. Do you want staff to prep those?
Brodie: Today, just throw a map up and talk about how to approach this. Maybe look at stuff submitted. Just talk about it how to approach it.
Torgerson: Actual mapping situation, projector, anything else in mind?
Taylor; no, laughing.
Miller: You (Brodie) want to start with existing house districts?
Torgerson: One question is whether SE is four or five districts.
In my experience half a dozen trouble spots. You can create them by where you start drawing.. Be in work session when finish our board meeting.
Legal Issues:
White: Yes, I want to go into exec. session to talk about various
Prisoner situation … Military is pretty clear, constitution requires. Whether or not board should instruct staff to inquiries to know how many non-resident military there are for retrogression. Last time said so small - 8900 - couldn’t have any affect on retrogression and didn’t have time to come up with data. Have to count resident military.
Prisoner population.
Brodie: Clarification: Non-resident military and what other term.
White: Military stationed in Alaska but do not consider themselves as residents. don’t vote here etc. Census counts them. Last time 8900 people.
Brodie: You used another term, military stationed overseas at the time.
White: If overseas, you are counted at last US station, they will be counted. Constitutional charge, - purpose not to discriminate whether you are or not in military. State can’t not count military.
Torgerson: Last time you said board asked for those numbers.
White: I’m waiting for voting rights expert before making that inquiry.
Torgerson: Not that important for our draft plan, or post plan.
White: It was pre-cleared in 1990 and 2001 when they did count non-resident military. Only reason we should do it. We may have more now and we should know.
Prisoner population: Discussed with Catherine Clark McCully - Census Bureau. In first of May they will release block quarter data - large institutional settings where people reside. It just tells us the block quarter and how many, but no characteristic data attached to that data. Race not released in first week of May. In June it will roll out an F1 which will have those characteristics. We had a request from Mr. Ruedrich that prisoners identified and reallocated to place of resident prior to incarceration. My sense is we don’t have the authority to reallocate prisoners. Constitution makes it clear we are to use unadjusted census data. That would require us to use adjusted census data. In any case, we won’t have the data to make those decisions.
Ruedrich’s assertion that allocating natives back to home districts would help prevent retrogression. But even if we had the data bay June, too late. It would mean we’d change all the data across the state. Census doesn’t provide with addresses, we’d have to go to DOC and ask them for all the addresses.
Greene: Any numbers floating, breakdowns, of Alaska Natives
White: I think D of Labor might have some, we could check. Not sure what DOC keeps. John might now more than I.
Greene: It was stated in the testimony.
Torgerson: I did call DOC, need to check on legal part, before asking for a run - no names and addresses. We could gut generic about where they are from. Also confident it would take time for them to make that data. If it is a Constitutional issue, that’s a high bar. When we see Michael’s opinion, if a statutory change - get something through the legislature.
Brodie: I don’t have a good idea of how many people were talking about. IN paper talking about Wasilla prison. 1000. If 50% that would be 500, and if spread out over 40 districts, it would be about 15 per district.
Torgerson: We have 12 prisoners in Alaska. Out of state we have no authority. Instate are housed as close as possible to homes. If from Nome, they try to house in Nome. I’m not sure the allocation, because of regional assignments, it might not be great - maybe between 40 and 39. The only one with a big impact would be Spring Creek - maybe 400-600, That prison would have the most scattered population. I can still make a call to see how much trouble it would be.
White: I don’t think it would hurt to make that follow up.
Torgerson: I’m intrigue d by the possibility if it did make a difference to one of our six minority districts.
White: This whole thing is part of a national gerrymandering movement. Districts have 30 or 40% of their populations as prisoners. 4 states where this was addressed by statutes. This is the first go around. NY and Colorado say not reallocate???, Maryland has followed . Have to work with software provider. All earmarked money for litigation because matter hasn’t been addressed in court. Bottom Line: I don’t think we have the authority anyway.
Taylor: Only significant increase in Spring Creek. Wouldn’t that be non-regressive. Voting age population. Don’t know if they have the right to vote. We need to think what the Native groups think. I don’t think we have the authority to consider it.
Torgerson: There are under 21 prisoner. Used for revenue sharing. Go into a community with 500 prisoners and allocate that out of there, then you are reducing their revenue sharing dollars. Could impact their redistricting. If we reallocated, they would be bound by our decisions on reallocation If we start with prisoners where do we end up? Do we go to Pioneer Homes, hospitals, long term care? Where do we stop.
White: Reallocation purely for redistricting. Would have no impact on revenue sharing. Would be limited solely to redrawing lines for election districts.
White: Litigation strategy regarding Dept. of Justice pre-clearance.
11:16 am They went into executive session and
opened back at 12:25pm.
Adjourned at 12:28 after adding Barrow to the Post- Plan hearings.
To return at 1:30pm.
I forgot my gadget to upload pictures, Maybe I'll add them later.
[UPDATE April 4, 2011: The staff was still nice to me after this post and they've corrected just about everything I've pointed out. They've just been really busy and only needed someone to say something and they got right on it.]
How would a member of the public find out that there was an Alaska Redistricting Board meeting Monday, April 4, at 10am at their office at 411 Fourth Avenue Suite 302?
You could look on their website. Here's what I found on Sunday, April 3, 2011 at 10pm. On their home page, labeled News and Updates:
double click to enlarge and make clear
The last update was March 18 and it's about the public hearings they held around the state March 20-30. It does not include the March 31 teleconferenced hearing from Anchorage.
Let's check press releases:
double click to enlarge and make clear
Last press release is dated March 8, 2011.
How about public notices?
The most recent one is March 18, 2011 which takes you to the State of Alaska Public Notice Page notice of the Statewide hearings March 20-31. (Yes, this one includes the March 31 meeting.) But nothing about the Monday meeting.
How about the Calendar page?
Nothing is scheduled except the draft report being due on April 14.
The Photo page says, "coming soon." The Frequently Asked Questions page is coming soon too. If you are in the Calendar page (and only in the Calendar page) and you click on Media - the drop down window shows Social Media as the fifth option. (It doesn't show from any other window besides the Calendar window.) It looks like this:
But you do have an option to link to their Facebook page. (And you can see from some of the other screenshots, you can get to Facebook from those too.) If you go to the Facebook page, you get this:
Nothing here either. Their FB Info page has the Board's address, Constitutional requirements for the Board, and list of Board members.
Their Future Events page looks like this:
Their past events page lists all the various meetings they had around the state.
So, given the absence of anything on their website to tell the public that there is a meeting tomorrow, how could a member of the public know?
You could be subscribed to their email service as I am, but I haven't received an email about the Monday event.
If you were in the room when it was announced at the beginning and end of a seven hour meeting on Thursday, March 31, you could know.
Or if you asked the Chair as I did on video on March 20, you would know that announcements are on the State of Alaska Public Notice website. But even if you know that, you have to find it.
I knew about the site and I knew about the meeting and I'm relatively google savvy, but it still took a few tries.
The first one is for Workplace Alaska, so I skipped it. (It turned out to be the best link.) I skipped the court one for the same reason. (It turned out to be only for the Court system just as I thought Workplace Alaska would only be for Workplace Alaska.) If the Governor's page had it, I didn't find it. The Home, State of Alaska has a tab on top for notices. If you click on that, and fill in the search window right, you get this:
And if you click on the dim Alaska Redistricting Board Meetings April 4-10, 2011 below the second yellow line you finally get this information:
Alaska Redistricting Board Meetings April 4-10, 2011
Category: Agency Meetings
Department: RedistrictingBoard
Publish Date:03/31/2011 Event/Deadline Date:
Location:Statewide Coastal District: N/A
Could It Be More Difficult?
I'm not sure that they could make it more difficult to find out that this meeting is happening and still be in compliance with the Public Notice Law.
If you simply go to the Alaska Redistricting Board's website there is no notice.
Worse, the website suggests there is no meeting. The Calendar for April is blank. The public notice page only takes you to a notice for last Thursday's meeting. The Facebook future events page says "You have no upcoming events."
The last Board email I got (you can subscribe to get email notices from the Board) was dated March 31 and announced the March 31 meeting in Anchorage.
The board spent eleven days in a row - with one day off - traveling around the state holding seven hour meetings each day. That means on some days, they had to get up at 4am to be at the airport in time to catch planes that got them to their hearings and then they caught planes back after the end of their meetings (7pm). They've had a busy schedule. I don't think they are trying to hide. Furthermore, this is a very new, temporary organization that has to figure out how to do everything and then close shop in 90 days.
The staff members have been more than nice to me, getting me handouts, answering questions, etc.
But whatever the reason, if there is only the most obscure notice of meetings, the idea of public meetings is a sham.
Given the very political nature of this activity - that the outcome will affect who gets elected to the State Legislature for the next ten years, it behooves the board to make sure the public knows when it's meeting. Yes, those groups that have a vested interest and a budget will find out when the Board is meeting. And there's no assurance that public members would show up at any meetings even if there was an ad in the Anchorage Daily News each day. But as it stands, the website gives every indication there are no meetings scheduled.
When all this is done, I hope that someone assesses the things that fell through the cracks because of their high pressure schedule and in ten years when this is repeated, that the next group gets some advice on how to avoid falling into the same traps. A key purpose of this post - and the others on the Board - is to help keep track so the next team has a record of what happened - not just from the Board's perspective, but from an outsider perspective.
I had plenty of time to think while cleaning out the burnt beans in this pot.
How about a stove that let's you know something is burning? Or better yet, shuts off the burner if something is burning? If that's too hard, how about a stove that shuts off burners after say, ten minutes, or 15, or whatever you set it for? If you need it to cook for a long time you could set it for however long you wanted. We have irons that automatically shut off, why not stoves?
Not only would that have prevented this burnt pot, but it would mean we wouldn't have to return home when someone says, "I don't remember if I turned off the stove?"
Maybe I was thinking about inventions because I'd read a blog post at cracked.com about seemingly absurd inventions:
Dry water
A pedal-powered wheel chair
An ejection seat for helicopters
A solar flashlight
An inflatable anchor
Goggles for dogs (doggles)
You can see why the author decided these were not gag gifts. Of course, I always like situations where the ridiculous turns out to make sense. They remind us we always need to keep open minds and not close off possibilities.
Before posting this, I decided to check to see if such a stove exists. I didn't find a stove, but I found a gadget you can connect to an electric stove (we have gas). Apparently this product is aimed at "those with dementia who still have good stove skills and judgment." I think their marketing is way too limited, and stove manufacturers should offer this sort of feature. Here's how it works:
Electric Stove
works normally when person is in cooking area
Automatic timer begins countdown when person leaves cooking area [it has a motion sensor]
Stove turns off when preset time has elapsed
Stove turns on again when sensor detects person or when dial is manually turned, depending on the model
