Excess Population, Palmer and Wasilla = 2 Senate Seats?, Price of a Pint in Cold Bay

This was started between the morning and afternoon sessions, but not finished when the afternoon session began.  And I've dawdled trying to figure out whether I should combine the two or not.  This is mostly morning session.  And less detail than overview of a couple of issues that came up. 

Since they've added watching the meeting via GoToMeeting, I've toyed with the idea of staying home and testing it.  And since the streets were wet this morning, it seemed like a good idea.  Access to the maps on my computer was better than what you can see projected on the screen at the meeting.  And since I've been to enough meetings to know everyone's voices, listening to audio only was pretty easy.

I'd recommend Alaskans try the audio and GoToMeeting, even if it's just for a few minutes, to see how your state is being divided into new political districts.  The links are on their website as I showed in the previous post.  

I'm afraid I'm not going to totally clarify these issues because I don't grasp all the details myself, but I think it is still worthwhile to mention them and maybe the people who do get it can help me understand.

Excess Population and Deviation Anchorage, Matsu, and Fairbanks

1.  How to deal with Anchorage (the Anchorage City and Borough were combined in 1975 to become the Municipality of Anchorage) excess population.  Anchorage has enough people for 16 districts with and extra 7,744 people that would need 10,011 more people for a perfectly sized district.  That's 43% of a district. 

2.  Matsu Borough has 88,995.  Enough for 5.012 districts.  That .012 comes out to 213 extra people for five districts, or about 42 extra per district. 

3.  Fairbanks-North Star Borough has 97,581people.  That's enough for five districts with 8,804 people left over. That's half a district.

Fairbanks' excess people were given to a district to the North and one that goes down to Valdez and slips into the Matsu. 

Yesterday they were talking about taking the excess Anchorage population and dividing it up among the 16 full districts.   You can't do that in Fairbanks with only five districts to absorb the extra 8,804 people.  For Anchorage, it makes sense at one level, but at another level it means Anchorage residents 'lose' almost half a district.  More people will live in each Anchorage district than will live in each Matsu district.  484 people extra per district doesn't sound like that much, but as I said, for all 16 districts in Anchorage that totals 7,744 people or enough for .43 of another district.  Are they better represented by being parceled out among the other 16 Anchorage districts?  Or would they be better off put into a new district or two with people from Kenai and/or Matsu?  Except Matsu doesn't really have any extra people. . .
 
So, a little while ago, the Board voted to adopt Matsu Option 2 map.

double click to focus and enlarge

I'm pretty sure this map is Option 2 because it adds Lazy Mountain and Sutton, and allows giving Eilson back to Fairbanks at Jim Holm's request.  But what does that mean?  Since Fairbanks has 8,804 extra people, where will they go? 

When they took Eilson, they used the justification that they needed to add people into a Native district and since Eilson had about 3000 people, but only 20% voter turnout, the addition of 3000 basically non-Native population would get the district the needed population without diluting the Native vote.    But I didn't hear much argument for putting Eilson back in other than it belonged to Fairbanks.

Torgerson had some questions about the high deviation in Anchorage if they adopted Matsu Option 2.  But they voted for it 5-0.

Should Wasilla and Palmer Share a Senate Seat?

In the just adopted Matsu Plan, Wasilla and Palmer each have their own house district.  As I understand it, that's how it was before.  And Senate districts are made up of two contiguous house districts. (Well, trying to prevent Retrogression has led to the possibility of a non-contiguous Senate district, but that's another story.)  But one of the board members, I believe Chair Torgerson, mentioned that the Mayor of Wasilla requested that Wasilla and Palmer NOT be in the same Senate district in the new plan.  No reason was given that I heard. 

Who does the mayor represent here?  Does he have the support of the council?  Of the population?  Or is he speaking as an individual?  The board has tried to accommodate a number of requests to include or not include certain areas in the same district.  Some have had long explanations of how this affects socio-economic integrity, how the two communities are connected by transportation links, health systems, Native corporations, and a variety of other reasons.  In other cases, no reason is given.

In an earlier plan, when Wasilla was split along the Parks Highway into two districts, one of the staff members said it was because the request was from someone who had candidates in mind who didn't want to be in the same district.  Is that the same motivation for having Wasilla and Palmer in different Senate districts?

Just so you don't think it's all really serious, the Board gets into side issues now and then, like this one:

Price of  Pint in Cold Bay
Some board members are getting fairly comfortable at these meetings and there was a short discussion of the price of a pint in various rural districts. I think someone mentioned having to pay $40.

They adjourned until 2:30pm.

Listening In On Redistricting Board from Home or Office or . . .

The Alaska Redistricting Board meetings are available via audio streaming.  Today's (June 1) meeting began at 10am.  But they were scheduled to go into Executive Session and they said the public meeting would begin at 11 am.  Here's the link to the AlaskaLegislature.tv page.  Then click on 'watch' and you'll get the little black box with the audio.  But it won't start until 11.  Then, Chairman Torgerson said yesterday, they'd go until noon or 12:30 and then reconvene in the afternoon at 3.  None of that is writ in stone, but should be a good guideline.

You can also get into their GoToMeeting Webinar so that you can actually see the computer screen they are watching and talking about - of maps and lines they are drawing of the new districts in Alaska.  They made that available to the public the first time yesterday and since it's been raining today, I thought I'd listen to the morning session from home and try out the GoToMeeting version.

Click on Image to go to the Redistricting Website to Sign In

Here's the GoToMeeting Screen shot I'm getting at home.  This makes it easier to grab pictures of what they are doing.

It's sharper if you double click to enlarge

They have room for 100 participants - though they can expand that if necessary.  Yesterday they only had a bout 10 folks checking in this way.  This is all live now as I post at 11:18am.

May Day Tree Invasion - Obvious While Blooming

Riding home along the Chester Creek bike trail, it was clear that chokecherries - also known as May Day trees - were in bloom.  They were all white with blossoms, standing out starkly from the green birch and aspen and spruce.  Not only do you see them, but you can't help but breathe in their powerful fragrance.  Probably not fun for people with allergies.

They aren't native to Alaska, but do well here.  Too well as was clear along the bike trail.  

An Alaska Dispatch article  by Rick Sinnot from February gives more detail:

Chokecherry trees are not native to Alaska. We brought them here. Now tens of thousands of these trees adorn yards, parks, and roadsides in every part of the city. Three species are most common in Anchorage: Amur chokecherry, Canada red chokecherry, and May Day tree (or European bird cherry). May Day trees are highly invasive. They have escaped cultivation in Anchorage and are beginning to replace native trees, especially along waterways. A 2010 report on several municipal greenbelts by the Alaska Natural Heritage Program described dense thickets of bird cherry trees, in some areas replacing willows, which are a preferred forage for moose. Some riparian areas in Anchorage are already dominated by May Day trees in both the canopy and understory. Invasive plant specialists call this an infestation.

I had heard about this in past years, but what I didn't know is that they are poison for moose.

For all its imposing bulk and rugged good looks, a moose is a delicate creature. Its huge, four-chambered stomach, well adapted to digesting a winter diet of woody twigs, is particularly sensitive to physical and chemical agitations. Swallowing a few mouthfuls of chokecherry twigs, leaves or seeds can kill a moose in one to two hours. Calves are probably more vulnerable than adult moose because they are smaller.

The deadly ingredient in chokecherry foliage is cyanide gas: hydrogen cyanide or HCN. The cyanide is locked in plant cells, isolated from the enzymes that create the gas. However, wilting, freezing, crushing, and chewing (does this sound like what might happen to a plant eaten by a moose in winter?) releases the gas. So does digestion by the enzymes in a moose's rumen, the first of four chambers comprising its highly evolved stomach. A lethal dose of HCN causes rapid labored breathing, frothing at the mouth, dilated pupils, ataxia, muscle tremors, and convulsions. The moose usually dies within a few minutes of developing these symptoms. The cyanide stops cellular respiration, resulting in respiratory arrest. The moose suffocates.

On this gray day, the ones on the left don't come out as clearly as they do when riding by, but you can see the white near the front there.  They were scattered along the trail all the way I went from Valley of the Moon Park to Lake Otis.

Campbell Creek Trail website offers this suggestion for this and other invasive plant species:

Avoid purchasing, growing, or sharing invasive plants. For help contact the University of Alaska Cooperative Extension Service at 907-786-6300, or the Alaska Committee for Noxious and Invasive Plants Management at www.cnipm.org.

Board Meeting Tuesday: Possible Retrogression; Seldovia in House District with Bethel; Seward in Senate District with Anchorage

May 31 Alaska Redistricting Board Overview:
I missed Saturday when they approved in concept a Native Districts plan. I feel a little out of the loop. From the discussion today, it seemed:

1. There are concerns about whether they were able to avoid Retrogression - there was question about whether they had maintained the 4-2 3-0 Native district configuration. (That's 4 House Effective and 2 House influence districts, plus 3 Senate Effective districts. If that doesn't mean anything you can get some help in a previous post here.)
2. They will meet in Executive Session tomorrow at 10 to discuss possible litigation. I understood that to mean if they had Retrogression, as opposed to other possible reasons for a lawsuit. Since just about all the past redistricting plans ended up in court, the fact that they may be sued isn't unexpected.
3. Tuesday, they approved, in concept, a Kenai Peninsula plan called Nikiski to Seward.  This map (way below) reflects the Saturday Native plan that has part of the Kenai Peninsula - the south side of Katchemak Bay - in a district that goes all the way to Bethel. 
4. They've paired east Kenai Peninsula - including Seward - with a yet to be defined southern Anchorage district for a Senate district.  
5. Wednesday they begin at 10am, but will go into Executive Session immediately.  They expect to finish by 11 or recess until 11 if they are done earlier.  Their website doesn't indicate this, though it was nice of Chair Torgerson to go through the expected schedule tomorrow so people can plan a little easier.  (At bottom of notes below.)

I'm sure I missed some other noteworthy developments; sorry. 



Below are my notes from the meeting. As always - BEWARE - these are pretty rough notes which catch the general debate, but not all the details. But until the audio and transcripts get posted, this will have to do. (Audio is on the Board website through May 18. I don't see any of the transcripts.)

Alaska Redistricting Board meeting, Tuesday, May 31

2pm
All the members were there, Jim Holm by phone from Fairbanks.

I was plugging in my Macbook as the executive director Taylor Bickford began so I only got item number 2.

2. email from [Voting Rights Act Consultant] Handley re Sat plan, about senate pairings, two strongest were [they approved a board plan for Native districts on Saturday.]

Calculates 30% plus Native plus all >10% less than 42% - DOJ likely to object. Strongest ones we discuseed on Sat. Doesn’t think Kodiak/Dillingham would pass. Also SE influence district - thinks it’s ok. We might add Saxman to get another % - but she thinks it’s fine since Native community of Saxman opposes it - she thinks it would be a wash.
She needs time to analyze because different from what she had been looking at.
Possibly send team to DC to talk face-to-face with DOJ. Plan to talk to her tomorrow.

White: Any meeting would be after we file the plan and any lawsuits filed. Middle of July - 30 days from June 14.
Torgerson: She didn’t cover, maybe we didn’t ask. Does she consider [Senate pairing of?] 35-37 an influence? She said, not effective, but is it influence.
TB: I don’t know for sure, but my guess is she’d say yes.
Torgerson: Me too, but I want to be sure.
Questions:
1. Non-continguous - we’ve thrown that out.
2. Pair Kodiak and Bethel
3. 35 and 37 - but wouldn’t reach our ??? district We have either 4 or 5 house effective and one senate influence.
We’d have to declare retrogression if we dropped from three to one?
White: yes
Torgerson: I’d like Dr Handley’s opinion, then give it to legal counsel to walk us through the ramifications. I assume part or all of this in executive session.
White: I believe the litigation ramification is legitimate reason for executive session.
Torgerson: Then we should have executive session tomorrow morning or could do it in the afternoon.
TB: One more question:
1. Have her examine SE and 39 pairing. Bob thought it worth having her look at it.
Torgerson: Non-contiguous
TB: It was, but it has higher numbers now - interior now takes in Nome and is over 60%. It might be effective.
Torgerson: Trying for effective, not influence?
White: Then there’d be two non-contiguous Senate pairings.
Torgerson: Seems to be off the table in the board adopted plan for the rural areas.
35/36 - Bethel Kodiak
35/37 - Bethel Dillingham

Torgerson: Today a couple of Kenai Peninsula plans and Matsu.

Sandberg (staffer):
Bickford: See how Matsu borough’s proposal would fit into maps adopted Saturday. 14, 15, 16 completely unaffected by what we adopted Saturday. Left the rest of Matsu unassigned. Assigned it all to one district, except Chicaloon. Our 12 came to Chicaloon.

Board looking a Matsu Map - they'll do more Matsu Wednesday

11, mostly unchanged, except Chickaloon to Borough boundary. They’d made 11 a rural Matsu area. Because of our Saturday plan putting Chickaloon into 12, we didn’t touch that. Results in D11 being about 2000 people short, so we have to figure out how to make up for that.
Knik River area they’d given to Anchorage district. Add it in, then take that deviation and spread it around all the districts to be a little short.

Once you come into Anchorage there is no clean boundary until Peter’s Creek - about 5000. Before that you’d just be randomly be grabbing neighborhoods.
We’ve heard they want five districts only in their border. But we have over population in Anchorage and Matsu. Could be some sharing between Borough and Municipality.
Torgerson: Talking about 2% positive deviation?
Bickford: Negative 2% deviation.
Southern boundary with Anchorage. If doesn’t shed to Matsu, the Anchorage districts start off about 2% over.
Torgerson: You’d take about 2% of each and put them into 11.
Bickford: All of Wasilla in 13, all of Palmer in 14, but some of the greater area would not be in the Palmer district. Started about an hour before the meeting. Maybe we’d look at all the plans we received. This supposedly followed the Rights Coalition, so don’t have to look there. What are the impacts of crossing and not crossing the border.
Torgerson: 2-3 options for tomorrow? Yes. Questions?
White: Current 12 there?
Bickford: No,
White: ??
Bickford: Could take D12 and bring it farther into Matsu. Leeway to bring Matsu district far enough into MOA boundary to have logical boundary like Peters Creek.
White: [Something about 12 in Fairbanks and opposition there.]
Bickford: You don’t want to leave Matsu with 4.2 districts, better . . .
Torgerson: Not sure would want to do either.
Bickford: You can look at all the options
1. Cross the Anchorage boundary
2. …
You could shed another 2000 from (Fairbanks?)



Torgerson: What’s next?
Eric: Kenai
Torgerson: Pretty Self explanatory

Kenai Map

2:31pm
Bob: Pretty much the current boundaries.
Torgerson: Kenai/Soldotna D4 pretty much the same but shrunk up a bit
D5 is the rural district
We grew a couple thousand. Went to Seldovia, Nanwalek, lower peninsula to Bethel.

Switiching computers on the GoToMeeting cable. For Brody’s map

Torgerson: Did you figure when you’re coming down?
Holm: Tomorrow morning. Can you get me a ticket for early - 6am flight can come in and work a bit.

Brody: Changed to have Seward pair with Anchorage because it’s closer on the road system. Kenai- Soldotna just the same. Take North end of Kenai Pen. to pair with Anchorage.
PAM: Other one what would the pairing with Anchorage be?
Brody: Would have been lower Kenai instead of upper.
Torgerson: No, the other one. . .
Brody: The other plan had Homer and Seward.
Torgerson: This one ties Seward, easier case to show connection to Anchorage. Other plan taking Ninilchik and I’m not sure how far south and pairing.
Brody: I can move 300 people here then all the districts would be within 3 or 4%.
Bickford: Similar to Saturday plan?
Brody: No …[contraditions] OK.

….. quiet comments. . .

Brody - here I grabbed a few blocks from 3 to D4. Just a different block, how we want to go.
White:
Brody: Gave these people to Bethel - not sure who went to Bethel - maybe Seldovia, not sure.

Matsu: I went to the river here for the Palmer area. Big Lake and Pt. Mc I brought up all the way here. Rural areas to the west went N along the road system to top of Borough. We could switch it out.
Eastern boundary, sorry, I have to switch something here.
This reflects D12 coming in - all this stays the same, with some minor adjustments on the fringe to spread the loss out over here. [see why you need to see the maps?] A little bit of adjustment, they’ll all be minus 2. Main difference from Taylor’s - his did this and that and mine came here. Everything can be two or three under.

[I’m having trouble figuring out what is and isn’t significant about what’s being said. There are short interjections that don’t make much sense without seeing the map he’s pointing at ((“We pulled some out of here.”).]

Torgerson: Have Eric print this off. We have two concepts: ??
We’re going to take a 15 minute recess to print off maps to see if we can adopt Kenai Peninsula today. I want to have ‘em where I can look at them. Til about five after. I want to look at them.
PAM: Me too.

3:06 reconvened
Nikiski to Seward Option

Homer to Seward Option - this is the existing seat, brings some continuity
PAM: I’d argue that it is better socio-economic continuity
White: All within the Borough [As I understand it, anything within a single Borough is considered socio-economically integrated.]
PAM: I know.
Torgerson: I’m thinking about the Senate pairing. Possibly more integrated with Anchorage than Ninilchik and Clam Gulch.
PAM: I put into motion to accept the ?? to Seward Option. Seconded.
Makes more sense to me. Ninilchik, etc. all the way to Kasilov. Other side - Seward, Bear Creek, Moose Pass have more in common with Anchorage than the old pairing has.
Torgerson: This will change some because the deviation not nailed down. But all within the B boundary. In the bigger picture, moving Tyonek, Seldovia, Nanwalek conected to Bethel.
Holm: I’ve been kicked off.
Bickford: Eric is loading up the maps and didn’t want everyone to see his emails, he’ll get you back on.
Torgerson: Motion is to adopt the Nikiski to Seward option - in Concept - as everything is. Discussion is mainly about senate pairings and Seward is more compatible with Anchorage than the other district.
Holm: I would agree with that.
Greene: Is this in line with the testimony?
Torgerson: this wasn’t what we were thinking then. It was Seward to Kodiak. Rep. Seaton would like the seat to remain the same. That was clear. We were talking about such different maps.
PAM: It might be a good idea to get these people ??? so they know what’s happening.
Bickford: They said they were fine with Kodiak, but they rather be with Kenai.
Torgerson: This pairing never came up. Sen. from Kodiak currently represents them. They were happy with that. But not an option today. We’re still going to have a full house seat to match up somewhere.
Shatll the board adopt Nikiski to Seward plan?
Torgerson: yes, PAM yes, Brody yes, Greene, yes, Holm yes = Adopted

I think that concludes our business of today. For tomorrow review the Matsu maps. Was that passed by the Assembly or just the mayor?
Start the morning with Executive Session - how long? We’ll start the meeting at 10 and go public by 11? Then I can support public education. You’re welcome to come in and then leave. If we finish before 11 we will just recess to 11. Then to 12/12:30 to 3.

Stand adjourned at 3:17pm.

Rep. Kurt Olson (r) of Kenai looking at maps with board member Bob Brody after the meeting.

Redistricting Board Getting Modern

The Alaska Redistricting Board sent out emails Monday afternoon announcing that their meetings will be available online (they've been doing this already) and via GoToMeeting.  They started using GotoMeeting last week, but I think it was limited to board members calling in from out of Anchorage.  Or maybe I missed this happening last week. 

Gotomeeting will allow people to follow the map manipulation*.  This is a giant step forward in public access for the board, though it is limited to the first 100 people.

*I'm using this word in the positive sense as in (from MacMillan Online Dictionary):

2.  the process of skilfully handling, controlling, or using something

Scientists are attempting, by genetic manipulation, to produce more effective vaccines.

4.  COMPUTING: the process of changing, correcting, or moving information stored on a computer

Tuesday's meeting begins at 2pm.

• In person at 411 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 302
• Online at AlaskaLegislature.tv
• For GoToMeeting  -  The id necessary isn't available as I write this, check the Board's Website. (right hand column under Webinar Access.)  [UPDATE June 1:  The ID changes every day it seems.  It's best to go to the Board's website and link from there than depend on me keeping the ID current here.  Here's the link for June 1.  They're supposed to be in executive session at 10am and have their open meeting begin at 11am]

Garden Blooms and Bugs

Star Flower Visitor

These dime-sized white flowers are so small that I didn't see the yellow stamens until I enlarged the image.

Phlox

High bush cranberry flowers

High bush cranberry flowers closer

Jonquil Calisthenics

Jonquil from behind (but then front and back are arbitrary, aren't they?)

Image from AlaskaNaturalist

I'm not sure what this green and brown beetle is, but I realized recently that it's time to find an Alaskan insect book, and trying to figure out what this critter is inspired me to find such a book.  The Kenai Watershed Forum website says they are available in Anchorage at Title Wave and the Natural History Museum.  The website has locations in Fairbanks, Soldotna, Eagle River, Homer, and Whitehorse. 

Now don't go out and buy these all up before I get one.

Two People Chatting Doesn't a Conspiracy Make

Here's an interesting picture of a well-connected Democrat and the head of the Republican Party having a chat during a break at Friday's Redistricting Board meeting.

Tom Begich and Randy Ruedrich during break Friday May 27

It's always good to remember that just because two people talk to each other and you can't hear what they are saying, it doesn't mean there's a conspiracy going on. 

BTW, Anchorage Daily News reporter Lisa Demer has a good overview of the redistricting board in today's paper.

Boundary Setting And Terminology Around Minority Districts

[The doings of the Redistricting Board are not impossibly complicated, but there are lots of details that make it hard to grasp.  I wouldn't claim to grasp more than a small portion.  But in this post I've attempted to explain some of what is going on.  At the end I've posted some communications made to the Board as they got close to approving a map of the Native districts.  They should make a little more sense after you read the first part of the post.  I didn't go to the Saturday meeting and have heard they did approve a Native plan.  If they did, I can't find anything about it on the Board's website.  It would be nice, but I do sympathize with the staff and all the demands on them.]

Friday at the Redistricting Board Meeting, there was more pushing and shoving of pixels here and there in attempts to get nine Native districts that would meet jello-like criteria for standards whose names have also morphed since March.  There was one plan that Board members PeggyAnn McConnochie and Marie Greene worked on.  Another was created by Executive Director Taylor Bickford.

We began in March with the terms 'Majority-minority' and 'Influence' districts.  Majority-minority means districts that have a majority of Native voters in the belief that this would insure that Native Alaskan voters would be able to elect the candidate of their choice in those districts. 


Influence districts were ones that had enough Native Alaskan population that they would likely be able, with enough non-Native cross-over vote, elect candidates of their choice.

At the beginning of this process, based on the 2001 redistricting process, Majority-minority districts had to have 50% or more Native Alaskans.  Influence districts needed 35%.

Well, that wasn't all.  There's Total Native Population and Native Voting Age Population.  Somewhere during the process it was clarified - I think - that the key number was going to be Voting Age Population, known affectionately as VAP.

Think you've got it now?  Well, there's more.  Which Natives on the Census tabulation do we count?  People who just identified themselves as "Native?"

No.  (Actually, I'm not sure what exact label the census forms had, but at the Board they use "Native.")  But there are also options to mark off more than one ethnicity - recognizing mixed ethnicities.  So, there was talk for a while of just counting "Native plus White."  Then the term "Native plus One" meaning someone who chose Native plus one other option.  And then there are those who chose Native plus more than one other ethnicity.

So the private plans that came in, lacking specific guidance, used different terminology and different configurations of what made up a Native.

Then the Board had a phone discussion with Voting Rights Act consultant Lisa Handley after she'd analyzed the data from Alaska.  New guidelines emerged.  Majority-minority was out.  Effective was in.  She said that - and a lot of how the Department of Justice thinks about these things comes from Southern states where the minority population is mainly African-American - a minority could have a majority in a district, but depending on socio-economic conditions, that majority wouldn't be enough to 'effectively' chose the candidate of their choice.  So now the key word was Effective Districts.  And she said a better name for influence district is now Equal Opportunity District. 

And, here comes the kicker, you don't have to have 50% minority in a district to be an Effective District.  Well, what percent do you need?  Hah!  You don't think she's just going to give a number.  Of course not.  "It depends."

It depends on the results of the voting analysis she's done.  Was there block voting?  Did Natives tend to vote in a block for a particular candidate?  Did the non-Natives vote in a block?  Did the blocks vote for the same or different candidates.  If the whites in the district voted for the same candidate that the Natives voted for, then we have Cross-Over voting.  This is good if you're trying to set an acceptable Effective District because you need a lower percentage of Natives because the Native voters get significant help from the non-Native voters.  But if they vote in blocks for different candidates, then you have polarization.  This is bad for the board members because they need a higher percentage of Natives for a district to be Effective or Influence. (Though VRA consultant Handley was pushing Equal Opportunity over Influence, the board has tended to keep using Influence, though they've dropped Majority-minority and moved to Effective.)

Some districts have higher cross-over voting and they need a lower percentage of Natives.  The old District 37 - Aleutians - fit in this category.  The old District 6 - the huge district that loops from the Canadian border over Fairbanks down the Yukon - on the other hand, is polarized, so it needs a higher percentage.

There are more factors.  One is total population in a district.  No district can exceed a 10% deviation in total population from any other district.  That is, the largest district cannot be more than 10% larger than the smallest population.  And that is pushing the what is likely to be accepted under the one person, one vote rule.  And in the urban areas, staying closer to a 1% deviation is more acceptable.  The ideal district is 17,755 people. (The new total population figure divided by 40 House seats.)

As the board tries to make these nine Native districts [the same number of Native districts under the old plan - any less would be 'Retrogression' which is not allowed under the Voting Rights Act] not only do they need enough Native voters to qualify as 'equal-opportunity' or 'Effective' districts, those districts also need enough total voters to be within about 5% of 17,755 people.

But the Native areas of the state don't have quite enough people to get all nine districts up to an acceptable level.  So they need to get people from more populated areas.

So, the image above shows some screen shots of the computer maps changing rapidly as a board member or staffer moves census blocs in and out of districts trying to increase Native population, trying to get the total population high or low enough to stay within a few percent of the ideal 17,755 people per district, while determining if the White population they are moving in to give a Native district enough people are cross-over Whites or polarized Whites.  And Fairbanks has enough people for five whole districts with 8000 'excess' population that can be 'given' to districts needing people. 

And those pink, periwinkle, and green pieces of different districts on the edges of Fairbanks are just a tiny part of the whole picture.    The first Fairbanks maps drawn up by member Jim Holm had lopped off the northwest Fairbanks suburbs of Greenbelt and Ester - known as liberal bastions.  It turned out this put Democratic Rep. David Gutenberg into huge Native influence (now called equal opportunity) district and the old representative of that district (new Republican, Alan Dick) had been mapped out.  That map was being altered Friday.

Friday's justification for people putting the Democratic enclaves into the rural district was, "Since Natives vote Democratic, putting urban Democratic voters into the district would mean these are cross-over voters and thus would lower the percentage of Natives needed to make it an Effective district."

On the other hand, they justified taking a couple thousand mostly White, not Democratic, voters from Eilson on the grounds that only 20% of them vote.   So while they are probably not voting Democratic - and thus would be a 'polarized bloc' - since most don't vote, this too could be used to justify a lower needed Native percentage.  (What happens if Republicans do a serious 'get-out-the-vote' campaign at Eilson?)

Those little pieces on the edge of Fairbanks are just one tiny part of Alaska and the job of the Board.  The maps in the image up above fit inside the red circle on this map that Board executive director Taylor Bickford presented on Friday.

And this is just a big chunk of central Alaska.  I'm writing all this with the maps to give you a sense of what was happening the last several days at the board.  Moving different colored pixels trying to get Native VAP and Deviation percentages lined up among six House districts and three Senate districts, while keeping them in some sense of defensible socio-economic coherence.


I didn't go to the meeting on Saturday.  I just couldn't will myself to do it.  The board's website offers an agenda and an Executive Director's report for Saturday's meeting, but unfortunately, the links both take me here:

 
Hey, I make plenty of errors on my blog and the short-handed staff is making maps, doing the board members' bidding, and all the house-keeping of the website.  That's a lot of work.  But this is sort of important and maybe the Board should have hired someone to make sure the website was both up-to-date AND all the links were working.  I certainly don't blame the overworked staff for this.

But there are three attachments whose links do work.  These lead to PDFs from the Northwest Arctic Borough, the Calista Corporation, and the Bering Straits Borough.

In response to the two Board plans that looked like the most likely to be adopted, the Northwest Borough wrote (in part):

. . . Grouping Northwest Alaska with more urban communities near Fairbanks, tip [sic] the voting balance away from rural Alaska Native voters.  Consdier that the Northwest Arctic Borough by itself has a total population of just over 7,500 people, 6,548 of those voters are Alaska Native or part Alaska Native and only 4,868 people in the Borough ar over the age of 18.  The number of voers that our area is grouped with from a more urban area tied to Fairbanks includes 4,000 people.  Data shows that the communities in Northwest Alaska do not vote as frequently as those in urban areas, therefore the plan prepared by Taylor Bickford may show a majority Alaska Native district in Northwest Alaska, it does not actually represent a majority Alaska Native district . . .

Marcia Davis,  as General Council for Calista Corporation, writes (again, in part):

With regard to the two choices before the board, Calista prefers the Greene-McConnachie [sic] map. It is our understanding that this map places the majority of Calista's region within two house districts 37 and 38. We appreciate the recent change in the map that restored to District 37 the coastal towns of Kipnuk, Kwigilingok, and Kongiganak, and exchanged the high growth areas of Matsu and replaced them with Talkeetna, a slower growth community. It is important to Calista that District 37 remains strong as it is important that our incumbent Native , Senator Hoffman, who has high seniority be able to maintain strong Native support in this district. We also support the inclusion of the Native villages northwest of Kodiak along the coastline as this maintains the alignment of Native coastal communities in District 35. It is extremely important to Calista that the Alaska Native voting population not be reduced any further in District 38 (currently 46.98%) as this district does not have the favorable characteristics that Dr. Handley found to exist in the Bristol Bay Region, now part of District 36, that enabled the effective Native voting population percentage to be in the 38-41% range. In addition, because District 38 picks up some of the areas surrounding Fairbanks, this non-native population could grow and therefore dilute the Native population of District 38 over time, so the Native Voting Age percentage of District 38 needs to start off higher than the minimum needed for benchmarking it as an effective district.    Finally, we support leaving the NANA region and ASRC in the same house district 40.

Finally, Gail R. Schubert, President & CEO Bering Straits Native Corp, writes:

We understand that one of the plans under consideration expands the current District 39 to the South and SE, incorporating some of the middle and lower Yukon villages (Anvik, Grayling, Shageluk, and Holy Cross, among others), and also includes McGrath and Lime Village. This proposed district, while avoiding the East-West stretch BSNC has consistently opposed, has a significant and unacceptable flaw. We understand that it stretches the district to the south to incorporate Kodiak Island, and pairs the Bering Strait district with this southern district for a seat in the Alaska Senate. Given the Native/non- Native ratio in the Kodiak district, and the tremendous differences in subsistence lifestyles, economic scope and development between Kodiak and Bering Strait, BSNC cannot support this plan. We believe this plan threatens the continued, fair representation for the residents of the Bering Strait region, and significantly dilutes the Native population and our vote. We also believe that, over time, the non-Native population in the Kodiak district will grow, further diluting the Native population of District 39, and our Native voice and influence. For these reasons, we strongly oppose any redistricting map that pairs the Bering Strait district with the Kodiak district.

This is way too long and only covers a bit of what's going on.  But, enough's enough. 

Annie McDaniel Abrams In Anchorage - With Video

I got a chance to talk with Annie McDaniel Abrams today while she's in Anchorage for the Neighborhoods USA conference here.  I imagine there are a lot of people in Alaska who have no idea who she is.  In Arkansas, it's a different story.  She's been a force of nature there for almost 80 years. 

She's in the Arkansas Black Hall of Fame whose website says:

Annie M. Abrams was born September 25, 1931 [she told me she's going to be 80 this year, so I don't think I'm posting anything she wouldn't tell you herself] in Arkadelphia, Arkansas. Because of limited educational opportunities for African-Americans in this small rural town she moved to Little Rock, Arkansas, where she finished Dunbar High School, Dunbar Junior College, and Philander Smith College.

Her years of grassroots level activism and civic connections with historical personalities from around the world has made her an Icon in her own right. She has been interviewed by hundreds of local and national media outlets because of her reservoir of historical knowledge of many subjects and her outstanding community service. Ms. Abrams’ boundless energy and commitment for her cause in fighting for justice has caused her advice to be sought by candidates at every level of government. For many years she has also been a much sought after speaker for programs and conventions. For four years Mrs. Abrams hosted her own television show, State Press in Review. .  .

 When I asked about the integration of Little Rock's Central High, she told me that she had been the first black PTA President of Central High. 

Here's a bit of video of our conversation to give you a sense of how she thinks and expresses herself.  You can just imagine her cornering Governor Clinton and letting him know what was on her mind.




A website with a petition to change Little Rock's 18th Street to Miss Annie Abrams Street tells us:

Ms. Abrams has been a very active and vital part of the Arkansas Development. 
In an illustrated history of signal African-American events in the past half century, one person would be always in the picture: Ms. Annie Mable McDaniel Abrams.

She'd be by Daisy Bates' side in a tableau of the 1957 crisis. Presenting Gov. Winthrop Rockefeller a gift of buttermilk in 1971. In Little Rock's Martin Luther King Marade, which she founded in 1986. Whispering into Bill Clinton's ear, as she was in an Associated Press photograph. Whispering into Blanche Lincoln's ear, in another. And Gov. Mike Beebe's, in a third. . .

Sometimes you're just lucky, and I was today, because I got to meet living history, and we had a good time together.   Thanks P for the invite.

Why I Live Here - The Coastal Trail

The impetus for today's bike ride was a post, Have I Nagged You To Exercise Lately?,  on Peter Dunlap-Shohl's blog about a week ago.  He'd written about the importance of exercise for Parkinson's patients.  I'd asked about his exercise routine and he said he does a lot cycling so I suggested we go for a ride. 

I didn't say seeing them was easy, that's Mt. Susitna in the background

We finally got around to it today.  Since the Redistricting Board's meetings are unpredictable - you know when they will start, but not when they'll finish - I decided being outside on a bike would do me much more good anyway.  So after posting with the wifi help of the Westmark, I met Peter at Westchester Lagoon for a ride along the Coastal Trail.  On my way from downtown, I passed a couple of Sandhill Cranes working over the mudflat dining hall.  They're really big and were a ways out there. 

View North

We rode to the bottom of the hill from Kincaid, then locked the bikes and walked the path to a decent place to descend to the beach.  I'd never seen so many people down there. The closest car parking is about a mile away, so you have to want to come here.

And here's a view to the south.  That's a dog in the water.

But we also saw moose.  Actually, other people saw moose and pointed them out to us after we'd passed them.  I think we saw four or five altogether. 

I'm constantly amazed at how animals this big can manage to disappear in the background.

And here's Peter on a break on the way back.  I took the picture because even though I read his blog, I wasn't sure until he mentioned it, whether he could still ride a bike.  Or drive a car.  He said as long as the medication is controlling symptoms, he can. 

I'm normally more vague on the blog about friends I do things with, but Peter has a blog to help educate people - both with and without PD - about Parkinson's Disease.  His comment when I told him why I took the picture was, that he forgets what people know and don't know about what he's able to do.  We rode about 16 miles round trip from Westchester Lagoon


Peter's was interviewed as a cartoonist with Parkinson's Disease in the Washington Post recently.  There are extremely talented and amazing people all around us in Anchorage.  I hope the Board got a lot done this afternoon.  It was a great day to be in Anchorage.