It was really hard listening and typing today. There were some interesting points, especially in the afternoon when the plaintiff's attorney cross examined Board Chair Torgerson. I'm really trying to get up the energy to write about it. Since I attended most of the public meetings, I understood what they were talking about and I had my own opinions about some of the responses. But if I'm going to get up early enough tomorrow morning to listen in again, I just can't turn this out fast enough.
So, just to get something out, I'll put up a few of the things that caught my attention.
1. In the morning session, Torgerson talked about his career path from his time in Anchorage to the military and working for Louisiana Pacific, Union Oil, and getting into the legislature. (This was in the morning session and you won't find it in the notes below.)
2. His discussion of how he got onto the board - applied through the Boards and Commissions departments process, but also discussions with the heads of the Senate and House in case he didn't get appointed by the governor. All pretty standard, but we don't usually hear all this background stuff. We learned that Joe Balash was in on the talks and that Torgerson had beer with Balash around this time. But he didn't remember if they talked about getting on the board.
3. Hiring the Voting Rights Act (VRA) expert. I'd heard while blogging about the board, that they'd had trouble getting the VRA expert on board because in the previous redistricting process, the board had the power to hire. But this time, it had to go through the governor's office and they went by the book. But plaintiff's attorney Mike Walleri established that the staff attorney was hired in October while the VRA expert didn't come on board until April. So, the time between when all the board members had been appointed and they began doing things until the put out the Proclamation Plan was 9 months, and the VRA expert wasn't hired for seven of those months. Walleri asked questioned about when they first requested from the Governor's office that the VRA expert be hired. Torgerson couldn't remember. Then Walleri asked if they'd had to go through the Governor's office to hire the staff attorney. Yes. But he was on board in October and the VRA expert wasn't on board until April. Why the big difference? Torgerson didn't really answer this other than to blame the Governor's office and that the attorney was in-state and the VRA expert was out of state RFP. This becomes important because the Board worked off the old terminology and presumed benchmarks for native districts for their first draft plan. These were the standards they had to meet to get pre-clearance from the Department of Justice that they met the VRA standards. And the third party groups that also were coming up with alternative plans had to work from these standards. Once the expert got on board and checked the draft plans, she said the terminology and standards were different from last time.
Walleri wanted to know why they hadn't hired the VRA expert early on. She didn't need the new Census data to review the voting patterns for the last decade and she could have come up with the real target benchmark before the Census data came in. Then they wouldn't have wasted so much time with the wrong target benchmarks.
This is also an issue because, ultimately, the Board is claiming that none of the private groups that submitted plans met the benchmark standards, so this shows that it was too hard to meet AND meet all the Alaska Constitutional standards. But if the other groups didn't have the right benchmark information - it turns out the real numbers didn't come out until after all the plans were submitted - there was really no way they could have turned in acceptable plans. So if that holds, that would blow that argument for the defense.
3. Torgerson said that none of the 3rd party plans met benchmarks, but Walleri found places on the record where Handley said they did. But then the next day the staff attorney and the executive director both said, that actually Handley didn't have the right data and they really didn't meet the benchmarks. Walleri made a big deal about the fact that except when Handley spoke by phone or in person, all the board contact with her went through "the filters" of attorney White or executive director Bickford. Torgerson took issue with the word 'filter' but said White and Bickford were the ones who communicated with Handley.
I observed, last year at the board meetings, a lot of confusion over the terminology - it kept changing - and the number of required districts of each type (also changed several times), but that the Board and staff were trying really hard to pin down the numbers. There were several times during breaks where Mr. White and/or Mr. Bickford discussed at length with me and others the details of the terminology of effective district, majority-minority, influence, etc. I admit I'm not a political person. I may be interested in politics, but I'm much too open about what I think, so it is often hard for me to spot people who are the opposite. I take people at their word unless I catch them saying one thing here and something else there. Or what they are saying just doesn't match other information I have. But I certainly never had the impression that Bickford or White were plotting something on their own to hijack the Board. That doesn't mean I believed everything the board said, but I felt Bickford and White were pretty straightforward and eager to explain their positions and that they were feeling pressure from the Board at times to do things they weren't excited about. But it's possible I was fooled. But I would need more evidence.
Rough, very rough, notes warning:
Below are my running notes for the afternoon session where most of this was covered. Again, I had trouble either hearing or keeping up with (or both) for Michael White. He spoke very rapidly and was usually drifting from the mic. So don't take these notes as verbatim, but as a rough shot at what was actually said. I'll put a page break up - but as I checked yesterday, that only works on some browsers and not others. So if you want the afternoon notes, and you don't see them, look for the read more button. And again, I'm sorry this is so loose. Listening most of the day and trying to take notes fried my brain.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Redistricting Court Challenge: Twitter and Other Coverage
This morning, Alaska Redistricting Board Chair John Torgerson was the witness basically establishing what the Board actually did and how they did it. I took notes, but had to be away for an hour, so I'll got through my notes and try to summarize highlights.
But first a couple minor points.
1. The Board is Tweeting about when the court is in session. You can check at #akredistricting on Twitter. There's not much news there, but it's useful for people trying to figure out when things are going to start. It would help if they added who the witnesses were too. [UPDATE 1:23: I got a new tweet and it says the witness' name and so do some earlier ones. I was wrong here. Thanks Taylor.] Fairbanks News Miner reporter Matt Buxton is also tweeting on this. So far there isn't much in depth there.
2. The Anchorage Daily News had an AP article today on the opening arguments Monday. That was the part we couldn't hear over the phone line because they hadn't figured out yet how to keep the phone in the court room from beeping every time someone got on or off the line.
It's interesting listening to the witnesses accounts since I attended most of the meetings. For the most part I don't disagree with most of what's been said, though I have a few quibbles here and there. I'm trying to think about how it sounds to someone who wasn't there. Like the judge. That's one reason I kept a record here on the blog, so that anyone could go back and see what was happening and what was being said on any given day. Unfortunately, the time spent listening in and tracking the court is making it hard to do specific checking on items. But I don't think there are any serious errors. There are, certainly different interpretations.
More later.
But first a couple minor points.
1. The Board is Tweeting about when the court is in session. You can check at #akredistricting on Twitter. There's not much news there, but it's useful for people trying to figure out when things are going to start. It would help if they added who the witnesses were too. [UPDATE 1:23: I got a new tweet and it says the witness' name and so do some earlier ones. I was wrong here. Thanks Taylor.] Fairbanks News Miner reporter Matt Buxton is also tweeting on this. So far there isn't much in depth there.
2. The Anchorage Daily News had an AP article today on the opening arguments Monday. That was the part we couldn't hear over the phone line because they hadn't figured out yet how to keep the phone in the court room from beeping every time someone got on or off the line.
It's interesting listening to the witnesses accounts since I attended most of the meetings. For the most part I don't disagree with most of what's been said, though I have a few quibbles here and there. I'm trying to think about how it sounds to someone who wasn't there. Like the judge. That's one reason I kept a record here on the blog, so that anyone could go back and see what was happening and what was being said on any given day. Unfortunately, the time spent listening in and tracking the court is making it hard to do specific checking on items. But I don't think there are any serious errors. There are, certainly different interpretations.
More later.
Redistricting Court Challenge: Hardenbrook "Looking at Process or Payback?"
The second witness Tuesday was Sen. Joe Thomas' staffer Joe Hardenbrook. His testimony seemed aimed mostly at showing that Fairbanks districts, Senate districts particularly, were put together in a way that was not socioeconomically integrated, and that this was done for political reasons. He was a very strong and knowledgeable witness, though I'm not sure how important his testimony is.
As I understand it, it is already acknowledged by the court that these districts do not meet the Alaska constitutional requirements. What needs to be demonstrated is that Voting Rights Act compliance could have been achieved without violating the state requirements.
Another issue raised here (and in testimony Monday) was the issue of political gerrymandering to break the Senate working coalition and give power to the Republicans, particularly to get Governor Parnell's cutting of the taxes to the oil companies. There was a lot of persuasive discussion of how pairing the two urban Fairbanks districts with the more rural districts hurts the constituents by forcing representatives and Senators to have conflicting constituents.
There was also mention of a conversation Hardenbrook had in a Juneau bar with Board Chair John Torgerson about whether the Board would work.
Wednesday, I think I heard them say that Jim Holm would be the witness. He's the Fairbanks Board member who took the lead on redoing the Fairbanks districts. None of the other Board members was from Fairbanks. One advantage to the court case being in Fairbanks is that the Judge will understand the implications of how the lines were drawn and whether they make sense for Fairbanks or not. But he has to have legal grounds from invalidating the plan. There are many different ways to do this. The Board had the authority to do it. So unless they didn't perform their duty or there is clear evidence of wrong doing, it won't get changed. But the burden of proof is on the Board to show that they couldn't meet the Voting Rights Requirements AND the state constitutional requirements.
Below are my running notes from the last witness of the proceeding. (They adjourned early, just before 1pm.) Usual caveats - these are VERY ROUGH notes, there are gaps, typos, errors, places I couldn't hear well, places I just quit and got something to eat. But it gives some idea of what went on. I'll put a break here, if you want the detailed notes - and your browser recognizes the break - you can click where it says Read More.
As I understand it, it is already acknowledged by the court that these districts do not meet the Alaska constitutional requirements. What needs to be demonstrated is that Voting Rights Act compliance could have been achieved without violating the state requirements.
Another issue raised here (and in testimony Monday) was the issue of political gerrymandering to break the Senate working coalition and give power to the Republicans, particularly to get Governor Parnell's cutting of the taxes to the oil companies. There was a lot of persuasive discussion of how pairing the two urban Fairbanks districts with the more rural districts hurts the constituents by forcing representatives and Senators to have conflicting constituents.
There was also mention of a conversation Hardenbrook had in a Juneau bar with Board Chair John Torgerson about whether the Board would work.
I asked him, "Looking at process or looking at payback?" I can’t remember his exact words, but it was defintely the latter. [from my notes of the testimony, not exactly verbatimMy observations of how the Board created the Fairbanks districts, the board member who took the lead, and other information, some of which is showing up in the testimony about how representatives' and Senators' homes were targeted, causes me to believe that there was very clear intent to mess with the Fairbanks districts so that the coalition would be broken in Juneau. And probably also as revenge. But when I talked with Board attorney White after a board meeting last year, he said that since (I think the Voting Rights Act) no challenge based on political gerrymandering had ever been won. If that's true, that makes for a serious obstacle here.
Wednesday, I think I heard them say that Jim Holm would be the witness. He's the Fairbanks Board member who took the lead on redoing the Fairbanks districts. None of the other Board members was from Fairbanks. One advantage to the court case being in Fairbanks is that the Judge will understand the implications of how the lines were drawn and whether they make sense for Fairbanks or not. But he has to have legal grounds from invalidating the plan. There are many different ways to do this. The Board had the authority to do it. So unless they didn't perform their duty or there is clear evidence of wrong doing, it won't get changed. But the burden of proof is on the Board to show that they couldn't meet the Voting Rights Requirements AND the state constitutional requirements.
Below are my running notes from the last witness of the proceeding. (They adjourned early, just before 1pm.) Usual caveats - these are VERY ROUGH notes, there are gaps, typos, errors, places I couldn't hear well, places I just quit and got something to eat. But it gives some idea of what went on. I'll put a break here, if you want the detailed notes - and your browser recognizes the break - you can click where it says Read More.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Redistricting Court Challenge; Some Thoughts and Arrington Part 2
Let's see if I can pull back and give a sense of what's happened these first two days. As I've mentioned, there have already been summary judgments that four districts - 1, 4, 37, and 38 - do not meet Alaska Constitutional requirements. So it's up to the Board that devised the plan to make the case that there was no way to draw the lines AND meet the requirements of the federal Voting Rights Act without fudging with the state requirements.
One line of argument they've made is that none of the private parties that have submitted plans were able to meet both the state requirements and the Voting Rights requirements either, so that shows it couldn't be done.
The plaintiffs seem to be trying to make a number of points leading that would eventually prove that, in fact, both the Voting Rights Act AND the Alaska Constitutional requirements could have been met.
1. Packing Districts
Arrington defined packing:
They presented evidence to show that everyone began using the 2002 redistricting terminology. Then changed the terminology for the kinds and numbers of districts when she met with the Board in Anchorage. And then had yet new terminology in her Report in August. And then there were different numbers for how many districts had to be 'effective' even later.
3. There were other issues such as distinguishing among different Native groups and whether they could all be assumed to vote the same way. Reference was made to Florida where Puerto Ricans and Cubans are both lumped in as Hispanics, but vote differently.
The first two points seemed to be setting the stage for saying that YES, districts could have been created that would have met both the VRA requirements AND the state requirements.
1. None of the other groups presented plans that met both requirements because the final benchmark had been changed and changed again, long after their plans had been submitted. So the plans the board got were aimed at different criteria. Had they known the actual final benchmark requirements, they would have been able to meet them.
2. One example of this was packing. There were districts that had much larger percentages of Natives than necessary to be effective. Better use of these 'extra' Natives would have meant that different lines could have been drawn to make more compact districts and certainly Fairbanks wouldn't have had to have been cut up the ways it was. The counter to this is that the Natives live in very concentrated areas that are sparsely populated so it's hard not to pack them.
There are other issues as well, but those were some. There's also the issue of political gerrymandering in Fairbanks. This came up yesterday in the testimony of the two Fairbanks area State Senators and today's testimony by Joe Hardenbrook. But I'll hold off that discussion to a later post.
Observations of Testimony of Leonard Lawson (Monday)
Yesterday's testimony from Leonard Lawson tried to say that if the Board could have drawn the lines differently, particularly in Fairbanks itself, it would have been easy to keep the City of Fairbanks mostly within one Senate district. Defense had challenged Lawson's credentials to be an expert witness. Lawson had been the technical guy who did the mapping for the Rights Coalition which submitted alternative plans. So he knew a lot about how the Maptitude software works and he knew quite intimately all the districts of Alaska because he'd spent many months this year trying to make the districts work. Even yesterday White challenged Lawson's right to stray over from technical comments to policy comments. He also seemed to be trying to raise questions about his credibility because he works for the Democratic Party. My sense was that White came across as pretty hostile to Lawson, and Lawson stayed totally calm and answered the question as though he didn't even notice White's hostility. He knew details and was able to translate fairly complex material into understandable English. (Or maybe it's just that I went to enough Board meetings that I understood the context.)
Observations of Testimony by Dr. Ted Arrington (Tuesday)
Today's first witness, Dr. Ted Arrington, spoke about the kinds of analysis done to determine if the Voting Rights Act (VRA) requirements were met. How do you determine if a district is effective? Effective means that the minority group - in our case Alaska Natives - has the ability to elect the candidate of its choice. It involves things like block voting by Alaska natives, whether the whites in the district cross over and vote for the Native preferred candidate or whether they are polarized, meaning they vote for the other candidate. There's lots of analysis of voting by precincts and extrapolating how much of the Voting Age Population (VAP) is Alaska Native and how they vote and how the non-Natives in the district vote to figure out a minimum percentage VAP Natives in the district needed for it to be an Effective District.
A lot of White's cross examination aimed at getting Arrington to say he agreed with most of what the Board's expert, Lisa Handley, had done. And he did. (They are both working for the Department of Justice on the lawsuit over voting rights issues from Texas.) But Arrington also said he had problems with the terminology Handley used to describe different categories of districts needed by the state to meet the VRA requirements. He also took issue with her statements about the benchmark that Alaska had to meet. The benchmark comes from the last redistricting and is essentially the number of districts that have to have Native effectiveness, as described above. Early on Handley had talked about effective districts, equal opportunity districts, and Native influence districts. This terminology came after initial draft plans had been submitted where people used different terminology from the previous redistricting in 2001-2. Later, when Handley submitted her report, she said there had been even more changes and now there was new terminology. Basically Arrignton testified that the terminology was changed and the number of benchmark districts was changed.
There was also discussion of whether there was packing of districts.
Rough Notes: Normal precautions to take these as imperfect notes as fast as my fingers could go. I did have time to do some spell checking. Again there are different levels here. The Plaintiff's attorney, Michael Walleri speaks very slowly and in disjointed sentences. He starts, then changes his mind midsentence and tries to say the same thing a different way. Lots of pauses. And he stays close to he mic. This makes taking notes much easier.
The Redistricting Board's attorney, Michael White, talks very fast and is often not talking into the mic, so it's much harder to capture his questions accurately.
January 10, 2011 Redistricting Board Court Challenge Fairbanks
Judge Michael P. McConahy, Superior Court
[I haven't been too successful with the Read More After the Break Feature, but there is so much here, this seems like a good place to try to put it. Hit the Read More button - if this works - to see my notes of the testimony.][Update: It works for me on Safari, but not in Firefox.]
One line of argument they've made is that none of the private parties that have submitted plans were able to meet both the state requirements and the Voting Rights requirements either, so that shows it couldn't be done.
The plaintiffs seem to be trying to make a number of points leading that would eventually prove that, in fact, both the Voting Rights Act AND the Alaska Constitutional requirements could have been met.
1. Packing Districts
Arrington defined packing:
One of DOJ’s criteria is packing. Is there a higher concentration of natives than is necessary for them to elect the candidate of their choice.
Two definitions2. Changing Terminology and numbers needed to meet the benchmark
1. evil, done on purpose
2. just higher than they need to be
They presented evidence to show that everyone began using the 2002 redistricting terminology. Then changed the terminology for the kinds and numbers of districts when she met with the Board in Anchorage. And then had yet new terminology in her Report in August. And then there were different numbers for how many districts had to be 'effective' even later.
3. There were other issues such as distinguishing among different Native groups and whether they could all be assumed to vote the same way. Reference was made to Florida where Puerto Ricans and Cubans are both lumped in as Hispanics, but vote differently.
The first two points seemed to be setting the stage for saying that YES, districts could have been created that would have met both the VRA requirements AND the state requirements.
1. None of the other groups presented plans that met both requirements because the final benchmark had been changed and changed again, long after their plans had been submitted. So the plans the board got were aimed at different criteria. Had they known the actual final benchmark requirements, they would have been able to meet them.
2. One example of this was packing. There were districts that had much larger percentages of Natives than necessary to be effective. Better use of these 'extra' Natives would have meant that different lines could have been drawn to make more compact districts and certainly Fairbanks wouldn't have had to have been cut up the ways it was. The counter to this is that the Natives live in very concentrated areas that are sparsely populated so it's hard not to pack them.
There are other issues as well, but those were some. There's also the issue of political gerrymandering in Fairbanks. This came up yesterday in the testimony of the two Fairbanks area State Senators and today's testimony by Joe Hardenbrook. But I'll hold off that discussion to a later post.
Observations of Testimony of Leonard Lawson (Monday)
Yesterday's testimony from Leonard Lawson tried to say that if the Board could have drawn the lines differently, particularly in Fairbanks itself, it would have been easy to keep the City of Fairbanks mostly within one Senate district. Defense had challenged Lawson's credentials to be an expert witness. Lawson had been the technical guy who did the mapping for the Rights Coalition which submitted alternative plans. So he knew a lot about how the Maptitude software works and he knew quite intimately all the districts of Alaska because he'd spent many months this year trying to make the districts work. Even yesterday White challenged Lawson's right to stray over from technical comments to policy comments. He also seemed to be trying to raise questions about his credibility because he works for the Democratic Party. My sense was that White came across as pretty hostile to Lawson, and Lawson stayed totally calm and answered the question as though he didn't even notice White's hostility. He knew details and was able to translate fairly complex material into understandable English. (Or maybe it's just that I went to enough Board meetings that I understood the context.)
Observations of Testimony by Dr. Ted Arrington (Tuesday)
Today's first witness, Dr. Ted Arrington, spoke about the kinds of analysis done to determine if the Voting Rights Act (VRA) requirements were met. How do you determine if a district is effective? Effective means that the minority group - in our case Alaska Natives - has the ability to elect the candidate of its choice. It involves things like block voting by Alaska natives, whether the whites in the district cross over and vote for the Native preferred candidate or whether they are polarized, meaning they vote for the other candidate. There's lots of analysis of voting by precincts and extrapolating how much of the Voting Age Population (VAP) is Alaska Native and how they vote and how the non-Natives in the district vote to figure out a minimum percentage VAP Natives in the district needed for it to be an Effective District.
A lot of White's cross examination aimed at getting Arrington to say he agreed with most of what the Board's expert, Lisa Handley, had done. And he did. (They are both working for the Department of Justice on the lawsuit over voting rights issues from Texas.) But Arrington also said he had problems with the terminology Handley used to describe different categories of districts needed by the state to meet the VRA requirements. He also took issue with her statements about the benchmark that Alaska had to meet. The benchmark comes from the last redistricting and is essentially the number of districts that have to have Native effectiveness, as described above. Early on Handley had talked about effective districts, equal opportunity districts, and Native influence districts. This terminology came after initial draft plans had been submitted where people used different terminology from the previous redistricting in 2001-2. Later, when Handley submitted her report, she said there had been even more changes and now there was new terminology. Basically Arrignton testified that the terminology was changed and the number of benchmark districts was changed.
There was also discussion of whether there was packing of districts.
Rough Notes: Normal precautions to take these as imperfect notes as fast as my fingers could go. I did have time to do some spell checking. Again there are different levels here. The Plaintiff's attorney, Michael Walleri speaks very slowly and in disjointed sentences. He starts, then changes his mind midsentence and tries to say the same thing a different way. Lots of pauses. And he stays close to he mic. This makes taking notes much easier.
The Redistricting Board's attorney, Michael White, talks very fast and is often not talking into the mic, so it's much harder to capture his questions accurately.
January 10, 2011 Redistricting Board Court Challenge Fairbanks
Judge Michael P. McConahy, Superior Court
[I haven't been too successful with the Read More After the Break Feature, but there is so much here, this seems like a good place to try to put it. Hit the Read More button - if this works - to see my notes of the testimony.][Update: It works for me on Safari, but not in Firefox.]
Redistricting Court Challenge: Dr. Arrington's Voting Rights Analysis Primer
This is a good way to learn some of the terminology of the Voting Rights Act analytic techniques. Dr. Theodore Arrington explains many of the terms.
These are rough notes from this morning. There is a short break until 10:15. The phone connection didn't kick in until 8:43.
Basically Mr. Walleri has been questioning Voting Rights Act Expert Dr. Arrington, who was originally hired by the Fairbanks North Star Borough to look at Dr. Handley's analysis. He and Dr. Handley have been working together for the Department of Justice on Voting Rights cases from Texas. The morning was focused on how voting rights experts do their analysis of the data.
The notes are as fast as I can type, which isn't fast enough. But it will give you a sense. There are times where I include answers in the questions and other times where I include the question in the answer - that is I don't clearly identify what part the attorney said, or what part the witness said - but you get the gist of the testimony. There are gaps where I couldn't keep up. I try to put question marks or three dots . . . to indicate if I'm not sure what was said or there's a gap.
January 10, 2011 Redistricting Board Court Challenge Fairbanks
Judge Michael P. McConahy, Superior Court
Dr. Arrington
8:43 begins mid sentence
Walleri: questioning about expertise on voting rights and how many cases he’s worked on and working for DOJ - about a dozen times - and size of the VRA experts pool - about 20.
You’re familiar with Dr. Handley? You’ve worked with her before?
Arrington: Yes, on the Texas case. Next week I’ll be in DC with Texas case where DOJ is suing TExas, actually it’s Texas suing DOJ. Four different courts involved in the Texas litigation.
Walleri: both you and Dr. Handley are working for DOJ on that? Your role?
Arrington: My role is to determine if state intended to discriminate against Hispanics. Handley’s role is to determine if they actually did discriminate. Intent v. Effect
Walleri: Law degree?
Arrington: No, political science.
Walleri: Handley, lawyer? But has PHD in poli sci.
Retrogression is legal term defined in the statutes. I’m not a lawyer, so I perform analysis and let the judges determine. Suppose you had a plan in which there were five districts where natives ha ability to elect candidate of choice. and one more where there isn’t a contest because whites vote the same.
If you hae a new plan and also five districts can elect candidate of their choice, but doesn’t have the extra non-polarized district. I can’t tell if that is regressive. Court has to do that.
Walleri: Been using effective and influence terms do they make sense to you?
We’ll be talking about a lot of stats, as I understand what you;re saying: You can tell us voting patterns, but the legal implications is someothing different?
Arrington: Yes
Walleri: In terms of statistical analysis you and Dr. Handley use - therea re different types of analysis?
Arrington: Standard ecological regression, inference, and extreme precinct analysis, Handley calls homogeneous precinct analysis. We can do estimates from precinct data and have to do iestimate nference from that? “Average trunout of Natives in last decade has been X% and whites, and Natives are cohesive at Y%. Y% for athe same candidate. Crossover whites - whites who voted for the Native preferred candidte. Those are all % not tied to individuals, estimates based on precinct analysis.
Walleri question:
Can I draw it on a chart? Easier.
is % Native in each precinct. So a precinct here would be a lot of natives, and on the left
vertical access you have vote for candidate.
On this chart you place a dot on each precinct here upper right a lot of natives and a lot of votes for that candidate. Scattered plot of this sort, it might look like this. Putting in lot of dots. Regression technique says, maybe there is a few outside this. What is the straight line that is the best estimate of
Where does that regressive line cross 100% on the horizontal. That’s the point where all the natives vote for that candidate. On the other hand, where does it cross the zero access, that’s the best guess of the white vote for that candidate. More complicated because you have one for each candidate. That’s what was used in the S? case, and hundreds of section 2 cases.
Judge: For every year?
Arrington: For every election for every year…
Walleri: Basic issues in regression analysis. All Alaska Natives have common voting pattern.
Arrington: No, the average, her figures are the average figures, but natives might differ from the average in different places. It picks this up by having lower cohesion level.
Walleri: Can you tell the cohesion level?
Arrington: What it can do and what Dr. Handley has done is determine the cohesion level for each election and then the average of those.
Walleri: Does it also … a uniform spread of native. Assuming that there are different types of native people or have different political preferences. In one area there’s a concentration of Native people that have one type, this way. Aware we have different types f antive poeple (Aware, but not studied) XEskimo people and Native people Differen in concentration in this district. And the vote differently. Would this analysis pick up this difference
Whte???
Overruled.
Walleri: Indian people, your precinct, 100%, are Indians, and the 40 and 50% precincts are Eskimo and they vote differently. How would this affect your analysis?
Arrington: It would lower the cohesion, but it wouldn’t pick it up. It would lower the cohesion numbers, but you wouldn’t pick up why. The Census date only identifies Native. In doing analysis experts sometimes have to go beyond that. In Florida, Census only talks about Hispanics, but Cuban or other makes a big difference, so the experts have to go further. In New Yourk we had to identify where the Puerta Ricans, Dominicans, and ?? are.
It can pick it up, but cohesion level is lower. For each election using three methods, we can determine:
1. % of Natives voting for the same candidate - high about 70%, Jingles? case sets bar at 60%, I like 67%.
Walleri: Endogenous and Exogenous - can you explan these types of analysis
Arrington: Endogenous means elections of interest to the cawe, Exoencous means other elections.
All in the last decade.
Ecological inference is much more complicated analysis. Based on the regression, but goes much further. Math far beyon me, just as a lawyer can use Lexus Nexus
Extreme ecological analysis - where more than 90% Native??????
Walleri: Those types of analysis will be used over tha last decade?
Arrington: Yes, because that’s whats relevant. Longer is interesting, but it’s history not political science.
Endogenous most probative. Problem is testing the new plan, there aren’t any endogenous elections to analyze because new district haven’t been used yet. So you have to use exgoneous and apply data from old elections to new districts. Hard to do, but that’s what we’re paid to do.
Turnout, Cohesion, Crossover are the three key factors. Tells you whether racial block voting is happening and the level.
???
In statewide elections, problem when you look forward to the new plan. You’ve been involved where there are only slight changes to a district.
Arrington: I’d hae to check, usually they get to court if they changed a lot. If I’m trying to predict if a newv district will perform, is effective, I look to see if it’s like an old district in terms of geography. If about the same geography, probably going to vote the same way. But if very much changed, you can’t use the geography to see if it will perform. Some of these districts are very different geographically, so it’s harder to predict.
Walleri: harder to hear - Exhibits ?? and J5 the benchmark plan. Can you tell us what you’re looking at when you say different
Arrington: Redistricting board plan, 38, there’s nothing on the old plan which resembles that. Starting here inf Fairbanks and going to the coast. Part of 6, 8, old 38, very different geography. No old district we can say would behave like the new one. Have to use other procedures, there are other procedures, but that one can’t be used here.
Walleri: There are other districts that are similar.
Arrington: Find 40 for me. This is a good example of a district you cans ee. That’s similar geography. On that basis alone, we can predict it will behave in the next decade as it has in the past.
Walleri: District 36 some similarities but not all?
Arrington: Unless similarity pretty close, have to rely on the numers. You can look to see where the people are, not just the land. if the people are in the same place, but just the physical geography is different, then you could say, it would be the same. Can’t just rely on the geography.
Walleri: Doing this racial block voting, trying to predict (yes) and doing that you said, here benchmark would performt he same, but something like 39 or 38 how do you predict how these would do
Arrington: Typically, we do what Dr H has done. Econological regression or inference, determine average across the state, turnoutout for whites and natives, cohesion for natives, and crossover for whites, and then determine who would be the ??? to determine if effective.
Walleri: measures of reliability of these?
Arrington: Not really. No statistically significant test for this. There is a test in ecological inference but not usually applied. Because the court itself has to make a ruling. These techniques gives you the best estimate. If Dr. H says 41*% is the best estimate. That’s fine. There may be things behind our numbers which we didn’t anticipate which causes us to make a bad call. Type 1 or Type 2 errors. I could say it was not effective and in ten years it turns out I was wrong, or that it is effective.
If geography the same no problem.
Walleri: has that ever happened?
Arrington: in my case? no.
Walleri: Have people ever found that with similar geography that it didn’t work out?
Arrington: No, but after the case is over, I don’t look back.
Type 1 and 2 - predict it will be effective an isn’t, or predict isn’t but it is.
Walleri: VRA regulations. Part 5157-5159 Federal Reg. page 21249, how does statistical analysis relates to these factors, how the DOJ looks at redistricting plans. Is the analysis you’re doing, extent to malaportioned districts right to vote for majority?? Is this what you’re looking at? SURE …. Extent of fragmentation, overconcentrated, alternative plans satisfy legit government interest NO Departs from objective redistricting criteria deviates from ??? Not what we’re talking about.
Walleri: compactness and contiguity are not addressed in these statistical analysis?
Arrington: yes
Walleri: fair to say, considers some of the DOJ factors but not all?
Arrington: yes
Walleri: We have racial block analysis, including cohesion analysis. What is benchmark analysis?
Arrington: How many districts in the old plan did natives have an ability to elect the candidate of their choice, even if the choice was a native.
Wallerite: We’ve been using the term native. When court in Texas, they used ability district.
Arrington: that reflects legislative language.
Wllerie: are we saying the same thing?
Arrington: I am. Effective isn’t my normal language. An ability district has to be more than a chance, but not a certainty. There are no certainties in politics.
Walleri: Using terms, does everyone using effectiveness mean the same thing as abilities?
Arrington? I don’t know. Have to ask. In Texas court said opportunity is different from ability. I think a legal distinction. You have to ask.
Walleri: Texas court looking analysis of certain districts giving Hispanics or Blacks an opportunity to elect and DOJ was looking at ability to elect.
Arrington: if the district might in the future offer the ability to elect because the Hispanic population is growing, Court says we have to know if they can now, not in the future.
Walleri: Who hired you in this case?
Arrington: FNSB - asked me to review Dr Handley’s report and testimony. I did.
Walleri: Did you independent analysis?
Arrington: Eventually I did because asked to review the demonstration plan and compare it to the proclamation and benchmark. We have the new precincts proposed by the proclamation plan, so we can take statewide elections to see what the results were in the new districts. Handley used that well in Texas to see how new districts would behave. Reconstructive data analysis.
Walleri: Looking at statewide office elections - exogenous elections - not the actual rep and senate analysis. It can give different insights in how the districts would behave
You don’t disagree with her racial block voting analysis. Correct. Or measurement of cohesion? Don’t disagree.
What do you understand the benchmark in the old plan
Arrington: 5 effective in house and 3 in the Senate
Three answers: most of state 41.8% but two exceptions
1. Substantial overlap in benchmark district 6, might need more. In HD6 in benchmark, much more racially polarized than rest of the state. White crossover is lover. So if big overlap between new district and HD6 benchmark of whites, then higher.
2. In Aleutian Islands and SE where voting is not usually not racially polarize according to Handley’s analysis, we can have an effective district with lower %.
Walleri: In these areas the Native effective, lowest, we can go to still have effective?
Arrington: I think there is no lower limit. I can describe a district that doesn’t have polarized voting, but don’t know how to explain that in l???. If no polarization, then Natives will be able to elect candidate of their choice,
Walleri: You talked about significant levels of white population into the new district. How do you know if a portion of 6 in the new district. How do you know which part of HD6 has the polarization?
Arrington: Using the census, we can determine how many whites in that district that were also in old district. We have to determine how many whites ????
Ne has 1000 whites who lived in old 6, then 48.6 is not enough. If 100 whites from old 6, especially if a lot of natives from old 6, 48.6 would be fine.
I need to know concentration of natives plus overlap with HD6, whether have white districts, and polarized?????
Walleri: Old HD6 has to be 49 ok half, to be effective. We don’t exactly know in Bristol Bay what the lowest number is. In rest of state, round to 42 or above. In terms of looking at the new districts, which standards, we have to figure out critical HD6’s white population is going into the new district. Does it matter if large portions of natives going into the new district.
Arrington: irrelevant. they have high cohesion. It’s the whites that matter.
Walleri: Yo agree, I think, that 6 was an effective district. What about new plan 38?
Arrington: By the numbers, the analysis I do, the answer is yes.
Walllerie: I understand from your deposition you said it was iffy. Not ideal. How confident just on the numbers it’s effective.
Arrington: very confident.
Wallerei: But using other factors?
White objection: didn’t do any analysis of this.
time for morning break, back at 10:05
These are rough notes from this morning. There is a short break until 10:15. The phone connection didn't kick in until 8:43.
Basically Mr. Walleri has been questioning Voting Rights Act Expert Dr. Arrington, who was originally hired by the Fairbanks North Star Borough to look at Dr. Handley's analysis. He and Dr. Handley have been working together for the Department of Justice on Voting Rights cases from Texas. The morning was focused on how voting rights experts do their analysis of the data.
The notes are as fast as I can type, which isn't fast enough. But it will give you a sense. There are times where I include answers in the questions and other times where I include the question in the answer - that is I don't clearly identify what part the attorney said, or what part the witness said - but you get the gist of the testimony. There are gaps where I couldn't keep up. I try to put question marks or three dots . . . to indicate if I'm not sure what was said or there's a gap.
January 10, 2011 Redistricting Board Court Challenge Fairbanks
Judge Michael P. McConahy, Superior Court
Dr. Arrington
8:43 begins mid sentence
Walleri: questioning about expertise on voting rights and how many cases he’s worked on and working for DOJ - about a dozen times - and size of the VRA experts pool - about 20.
You’re familiar with Dr. Handley? You’ve worked with her before?
Arrington: Yes, on the Texas case. Next week I’ll be in DC with Texas case where DOJ is suing TExas, actually it’s Texas suing DOJ. Four different courts involved in the Texas litigation.
Walleri: both you and Dr. Handley are working for DOJ on that? Your role?
Arrington: My role is to determine if state intended to discriminate against Hispanics. Handley’s role is to determine if they actually did discriminate. Intent v. Effect
Walleri: Law degree?
Arrington: No, political science.
Walleri: Handley, lawyer? But has PHD in poli sci.
Retrogression is legal term defined in the statutes. I’m not a lawyer, so I perform analysis and let the judges determine. Suppose you had a plan in which there were five districts where natives ha ability to elect candidate of choice. and one more where there isn’t a contest because whites vote the same.
If you hae a new plan and also five districts can elect candidate of their choice, but doesn’t have the extra non-polarized district. I can’t tell if that is regressive. Court has to do that.
Walleri: Been using effective and influence terms do they make sense to you?
We’ll be talking about a lot of stats, as I understand what you;re saying: You can tell us voting patterns, but the legal implications is someothing different?
Arrington: Yes
Walleri: In terms of statistical analysis you and Dr. Handley use - therea re different types of analysis?
Arrington: Standard ecological regression, inference, and extreme precinct analysis, Handley calls homogeneous precinct analysis. We can do estimates from precinct data and have to do iestimate nference from that? “Average trunout of Natives in last decade has been X% and whites, and Natives are cohesive at Y%. Y% for athe same candidate. Crossover whites - whites who voted for the Native preferred candidte. Those are all % not tied to individuals, estimates based on precinct analysis.
Walleri question:
Can I draw it on a chart? Easier.
is % Native in each precinct. So a precinct here would be a lot of natives, and on the left
vertical access you have vote for candidate.
On this chart you place a dot on each precinct here upper right a lot of natives and a lot of votes for that candidate. Scattered plot of this sort, it might look like this. Putting in lot of dots. Regression technique says, maybe there is a few outside this. What is the straight line that is the best estimate of
Where does that regressive line cross 100% on the horizontal. That’s the point where all the natives vote for that candidate. On the other hand, where does it cross the zero access, that’s the best guess of the white vote for that candidate. More complicated because you have one for each candidate. That’s what was used in the S? case, and hundreds of section 2 cases.
Judge: For every year?
Arrington: For every election for every year…
Walleri: Basic issues in regression analysis. All Alaska Natives have common voting pattern.
Arrington: No, the average, her figures are the average figures, but natives might differ from the average in different places. It picks this up by having lower cohesion level.
Walleri: Can you tell the cohesion level?
Arrington: What it can do and what Dr. Handley has done is determine the cohesion level for each election and then the average of those.
Walleri: Does it also … a uniform spread of native. Assuming that there are different types of native people or have different political preferences. In one area there’s a concentration of Native people that have one type, this way. Aware we have different types f antive poeple (Aware, but not studied) XEskimo people and Native people Differen in concentration in this district. And the vote differently. Would this analysis pick up this difference
Whte???
Overruled.
Walleri: Indian people, your precinct, 100%, are Indians, and the 40 and 50% precincts are Eskimo and they vote differently. How would this affect your analysis?
Arrington: It would lower the cohesion, but it wouldn’t pick it up. It would lower the cohesion numbers, but you wouldn’t pick up why. The Census date only identifies Native. In doing analysis experts sometimes have to go beyond that. In Florida, Census only talks about Hispanics, but Cuban or other makes a big difference, so the experts have to go further. In New Yourk we had to identify where the Puerta Ricans, Dominicans, and ?? are.
It can pick it up, but cohesion level is lower. For each election using three methods, we can determine:
1. % of Natives voting for the same candidate - high about 70%, Jingles? case sets bar at 60%, I like 67%.
Walleri: Endogenous and Exogenous - can you explan these types of analysis
Arrington: Endogenous means elections of interest to the cawe, Exoencous means other elections.
All in the last decade.
Ecological inference is much more complicated analysis. Based on the regression, but goes much further. Math far beyon me, just as a lawyer can use Lexus Nexus
Extreme ecological analysis - where more than 90% Native??????
Walleri: Those types of analysis will be used over tha last decade?
Arrington: Yes, because that’s whats relevant. Longer is interesting, but it’s history not political science.
Endogenous most probative. Problem is testing the new plan, there aren’t any endogenous elections to analyze because new district haven’t been used yet. So you have to use exgoneous and apply data from old elections to new districts. Hard to do, but that’s what we’re paid to do.
Turnout, Cohesion, Crossover are the three key factors. Tells you whether racial block voting is happening and the level.
???
In statewide elections, problem when you look forward to the new plan. You’ve been involved where there are only slight changes to a district.
Arrington: I’d hae to check, usually they get to court if they changed a lot. If I’m trying to predict if a newv district will perform, is effective, I look to see if it’s like an old district in terms of geography. If about the same geography, probably going to vote the same way. But if very much changed, you can’t use the geography to see if it will perform. Some of these districts are very different geographically, so it’s harder to predict.
Walleri: harder to hear - Exhibits ?? and J5 the benchmark plan. Can you tell us what you’re looking at when you say different
Arrington: Redistricting board plan, 38, there’s nothing on the old plan which resembles that. Starting here inf Fairbanks and going to the coast. Part of 6, 8, old 38, very different geography. No old district we can say would behave like the new one. Have to use other procedures, there are other procedures, but that one can’t be used here.
Walleri: There are other districts that are similar.
Arrington: Find 40 for me. This is a good example of a district you cans ee. That’s similar geography. On that basis alone, we can predict it will behave in the next decade as it has in the past.
Walleri: District 36 some similarities but not all?
Arrington: Unless similarity pretty close, have to rely on the numers. You can look to see where the people are, not just the land. if the people are in the same place, but just the physical geography is different, then you could say, it would be the same. Can’t just rely on the geography.
Walleri: Doing this racial block voting, trying to predict (yes) and doing that you said, here benchmark would performt he same, but something like 39 or 38 how do you predict how these would do
Arrington: Typically, we do what Dr H has done. Econological regression or inference, determine average across the state, turnoutout for whites and natives, cohesion for natives, and crossover for whites, and then determine who would be the ??? to determine if effective.
Walleri: measures of reliability of these?
Arrington: Not really. No statistically significant test for this. There is a test in ecological inference but not usually applied. Because the court itself has to make a ruling. These techniques gives you the best estimate. If Dr. H says 41*% is the best estimate. That’s fine. There may be things behind our numbers which we didn’t anticipate which causes us to make a bad call. Type 1 or Type 2 errors. I could say it was not effective and in ten years it turns out I was wrong, or that it is effective.
If geography the same no problem.
Walleri: has that ever happened?
Arrington: in my case? no.
Walleri: Have people ever found that with similar geography that it didn’t work out?
Arrington: No, but after the case is over, I don’t look back.
Type 1 and 2 - predict it will be effective an isn’t, or predict isn’t but it is.
Walleri: VRA regulations. Part 5157-5159 Federal Reg. page 21249, how does statistical analysis relates to these factors, how the DOJ looks at redistricting plans. Is the analysis you’re doing, extent to malaportioned districts right to vote for majority?? Is this what you’re looking at? SURE …. Extent of fragmentation, overconcentrated, alternative plans satisfy legit government interest NO Departs from objective redistricting criteria deviates from ??? Not what we’re talking about.
Walleri: compactness and contiguity are not addressed in these statistical analysis?
Arrington: yes
Walleri: fair to say, considers some of the DOJ factors but not all?
Arrington: yes
Walleri: We have racial block analysis, including cohesion analysis. What is benchmark analysis?
Arrington: How many districts in the old plan did natives have an ability to elect the candidate of their choice, even if the choice was a native.
Wallerite: We’ve been using the term native. When court in Texas, they used ability district.
Arrington: that reflects legislative language.
Wllerie: are we saying the same thing?
Arrington: I am. Effective isn’t my normal language. An ability district has to be more than a chance, but not a certainty. There are no certainties in politics.
Walleri: Using terms, does everyone using effectiveness mean the same thing as abilities?
Arrington? I don’t know. Have to ask. In Texas court said opportunity is different from ability. I think a legal distinction. You have to ask.
Walleri: Texas court looking analysis of certain districts giving Hispanics or Blacks an opportunity to elect and DOJ was looking at ability to elect.
Arrington: if the district might in the future offer the ability to elect because the Hispanic population is growing, Court says we have to know if they can now, not in the future.
Walleri: Who hired you in this case?
Arrington: FNSB - asked me to review Dr Handley’s report and testimony. I did.
Walleri: Did you independent analysis?
Arrington: Eventually I did because asked to review the demonstration plan and compare it to the proclamation and benchmark. We have the new precincts proposed by the proclamation plan, so we can take statewide elections to see what the results were in the new districts. Handley used that well in Texas to see how new districts would behave. Reconstructive data analysis.
Walleri: Looking at statewide office elections - exogenous elections - not the actual rep and senate analysis. It can give different insights in how the districts would behave
You don’t disagree with her racial block voting analysis. Correct. Or measurement of cohesion? Don’t disagree.
What do you understand the benchmark in the old plan
Arrington: 5 effective in house and 3 in the Senate
Three answers: most of state 41.8% but two exceptions
1. Substantial overlap in benchmark district 6, might need more. In HD6 in benchmark, much more racially polarized than rest of the state. White crossover is lover. So if big overlap between new district and HD6 benchmark of whites, then higher.
2. In Aleutian Islands and SE where voting is not usually not racially polarize according to Handley’s analysis, we can have an effective district with lower %.
Walleri: In these areas the Native effective, lowest, we can go to still have effective?
Arrington: I think there is no lower limit. I can describe a district that doesn’t have polarized voting, but don’t know how to explain that in l???. If no polarization, then Natives will be able to elect candidate of their choice,
Walleri: You talked about significant levels of white population into the new district. How do you know if a portion of 6 in the new district. How do you know which part of HD6 has the polarization?
Arrington: Using the census, we can determine how many whites in that district that were also in old district. We have to determine how many whites ????
Ne has 1000 whites who lived in old 6, then 48.6 is not enough. If 100 whites from old 6, especially if a lot of natives from old 6, 48.6 would be fine.
I need to know concentration of natives plus overlap with HD6, whether have white districts, and polarized?????
Walleri: Old HD6 has to be 49 ok half, to be effective. We don’t exactly know in Bristol Bay what the lowest number is. In rest of state, round to 42 or above. In terms of looking at the new districts, which standards, we have to figure out critical HD6’s white population is going into the new district. Does it matter if large portions of natives going into the new district.
Arrington: irrelevant. they have high cohesion. It’s the whites that matter.
Walleri: Yo agree, I think, that 6 was an effective district. What about new plan 38?
Arrington: By the numbers, the analysis I do, the answer is yes.
Walllerie: I understand from your deposition you said it was iffy. Not ideal. How confident just on the numbers it’s effective.
Arrington: very confident.
Wallerei: But using other factors?
White objection: didn’t do any analysis of this.
time for morning break, back at 10:05
Monday, January 09, 2012
Redistricting Court Challenge: Leonard Lawson - Were There Other Ways to Draw the Districts and Meet VRA Requirements?
OK, there's a break now. They are questioning Leonard Lawson who was the computer person for the Rights Coalition (which was one of the groups that submitted alternative maps to the Board). He's also an employee of the Democratic Party. I got to know him because he came to just about every redistricting board meeting and was a person I could get answers to technical and mapping issues.
Some key points that I'm trying to pull out without much time to think and before they come back into court:
I didn't make it. They're back. So here are the rough notes and I'll try to do an overview later. These are very rough notes.
2:15 - Leonard Lawson - Mathematics and Physics major from ?? College. I work for the Alaska Democratic Party. Their primary data base manager. I keep track of voter data bases, that's the biggest part of the job. When elected officials want to know about a district.
Wallerie: When you were deposed it was pointed out that you were listed as a political director for the Alaska Party. Was that a surprise to you?
Lawson: No, I give information. My boss is Kay Brown, ED of Democratic Party Alaska. Before that it was Deborah Williams.
Wallerie: Poltical background before with Dems.
Lawson: New Hampshire Democrats.
Wallerie: Gilford County?
Lawson: Center of North Carolina, volunteer for Al Gore?
Wallerie: Coming from NC, you've had some experience with redistricting?
Lawson: Laughter. I went to National Conference on STate Legislators conerence on redistricting. I think 4 day conference. I saw John Ferguson and I I think Michael White.
Cover a wide variety of topics, but redistricting was big topic this year.
Other training: Software, trained by company that makes map software. To help understand better how to use the software. Already had a lot of experience, but wanted more.
Other: Also took GIS class at UAA, but as it was starting I had to leave because redistricting was starting. GIS is Geographic Information System. Anything with geographic component - merges numbers and maps.
How does GIS relate to these maps: It's what's use for most of these maps. I think they were all made with GIS software. Allows you to use Census data and realte the to maps. Includes ethnicity, over and under 18, etc. and can be displayed visually.
What a census block is: Small geographic area, created by the Bureau of, Is Census part of Commerce? divides the us into georgraphic subunits so they can count the population.
How does that relate to Tiger files and shape files? Tiger files are essentially US Census bureau's shape file. Shape files are privately owned files - company owns about 65% - just a brand name like Microsoft word. Other software can read shape files. I use maptitude which can read shape files.
Can you imagine doing this with paper and pen? No. laughing. But I can't imagine doing a lot of things wihtout computers.
Two different programs - White saying something in bakground. Other type Arcview software. Board is using Arcview and Div. of elections is using maptitude.
Wallerie: Let's fire up the computer to see what you're talking about.
Lawson: looking at different plans - this is hard to follow just the oral
This is the proclamation plan the only thing I moved out is the southern range connected to Ft. Wainright.
W: Can you show us what a census block looks like?
Lawson: They're really small, hold on. OK each one of these is a census block. I'll highlight one.
BASICALLY - Lawson is showing how to use the software. Some of these blocks are only 19 people, or there could be only one or none. the other thing that maptitude does well is to show me what happens when I make changes - it shows me that if I take this block out I will take out 24, it shows me the ideal size 17,755, and what the deviation is from the ideal size. We can see here if the census block doesn't distinction between Native and Indian so IND represents both. Here no one identified self as black or Indian, but in this district there are some. You can also see whether over 18. If we move this block out we'd take away 18 voting age people from the district.
I've only added Indian and Native, but there are lots of different potential breakdowns. They are really numerous. Other states would have % as non-hispanic black and hispanic black.
Wallerie: For Natives what does VAP stand for.
Lawson: Voting Age Population. Any percent Native - White Native Hawaian, and Other - that person could be counted in Native.
Native +one = full blooded native or Native + White in the past. We were reasonably sure from the past that Native+one (either full blooded or Native+1 other). But later the board said any combination with Native would count.
Wallerie: What other attributes can you key in on the map?
Lawson: You can see, this is airport - I don't have street names turned on because there would be so many of them - Outline of city limits of Fairbanks. Generally follow city limits. You can cut smaller than census blocks because you wouldn't know how many people there are. Most are inside the city boundaries. There are a couple places because there was an annexation after the Census bureau drew their maps. So it doesn't really match because annexation after the shape files drawn.
This pink are is downtown Fairbanks.
Wallerie: Border of 5 and 4.
Lawson: I can move the annexed area back into the city, I can figure out how far I want to go - census blocks, voting districts, or the whole county - depending on purpose or need.
Wallerie: Demonstration for the court.
Lawson: I'm going to select these three census blocks. Even before I move them in, I can check what the changes would do. I would be moving 253 people from D5 to D4 - that would affect the deviation to 5.065% - you can see in real time without having to make guesses.
Wallerie: kill two birds with one stone. With this district, if you just wan t to move this annexed area.
Lawson: Not matching with the local boundary because annexed after the map made. The total people in the block is change of 111 people - 94 white 2 American Indian, one mix of white and Indian. I cannot break the census block. With technology you could, but not allowed to unless a zero census block. You'd have to guess what the results were which is why you can't do it.
Wallerie: Sometimes you have to move Census blocks even if you don't want to.
Lawson: Yes. I'll move a census block and you leave areas not connected with the rest of the districts. It will pull up area I as two different areas - something is 3/100 of a square mile. Some are islands. In district 5 you know there's no islands, so you know something is wrong. this is how to correct the non-contiguous, so go back and correct them
Wallerie: You actually have three separate blocsk.
Lawson: I'm moving them now by clicking on individual census blocks. It didn't highlight these because they are already in district 4. Anything touching the circle gets listed. Circle touched various census blocks.
Wallerie: How, if we go to Tanana Flats area.
White questions. Judge says: You're just trying to demonstrate the software so I understand how it works. Not working on the plan?
Lawson: No, and not sure we'll get to the plan today. Magnifying glass means the elements and features will zoom in. These are large blocks because there are no people here. How many people? No one.
Wallerie: did you have any questions about how program works?
You can actually go pretty small. Here there are lots of empty precincts south of the river.
Wallerie: These islands here?
2:49pm Lawson: Each island is its own census block, each lake too. Not sure why, but they are.
Wallerie: OK, I'll close that down. Wait, how does this show you if a district is compact.
Lawson: We can go to reports, and one is measure of compactness. Which report to run or all of them. The top one is accepted.
Wallerie: Can you do a compactness test on one of he districts?
Lawson: You can look at a particular district but it's designed to look at the plan as a whole.
Wallerie: You can shut down the computer and then retake the stand. How are you familiar with the redistricting process?
Lawson: I went to most of the board meetings. Missed the first couple and the ones out of town. I also worked on the plans for the Rights Coalition. Getting more community input it would be better. Leadership included: Jake Metcalfe, attorney Myra Munson, ??? had traveled the state. I'm not sure I can name them all.
Wallerie: Most were Democrats?
Lawson: Not sure, probably a lot were. I don't know all of them. A couple were non-partisan, I know because I had to ask them questions about SWest region. Someone who worked in fish politics said people had ompeting interests adn I should look out for them.
Wallerie: So not just computer based plans, I guess you were interviewing people?
Lawson: I guess that's a good way to talk about it. I called people around the state. Asked them about things. Sometimes someone would say, "You can't do that. . ."
Wallerie: Other groups. Who led AFFR?
Lawson: Kay Brown.
Wallerie: She's your current boss? Were there differences among Democrats?
Lawson: We're a big tent group, lots of different issues.
Wallerie: What about AFFER?
Lawson: I understand - White Objects, sustained.
Wallerie: You loaded board plan on your computer too?
Lawson: Requested them from the Board and some were on their websites. The shape files.
Wallerie: This is a report you did on compactness. Move for admission.
White: I think all joint exhibits are already ...Judge yes.
Wallerie: This is two different reports, correct?
Lawson: One I did and one generated by the computer software.
Wallerie:
Lawson: Two reports computer shoots out. One on the proclaamation plan and one on the modified rights plan. Proclamition was final plan the board released.
Wallerie: This report would tell us what the compactness of Dsitrict 5.
Lawson: In this one I ran all 8 tests in the Maptitude software including the ??? test. I honestly don't know if areas of Fairbanks have enough population to actually test.
White: Protest about his areas of expertise - not on political analysis.
Judge and White talking hard to hear White. He can talk about data on Reod??
Wallerie: In terms of District 5 you mention the popualation test and the accuracy.
White object and Judge overrules.
Lawson: not accuracy of test but how it's applied. Software says test draws a convex polygon around the district and looks at population in the polygon that is not in the district. Each test is good for somethings and not others. What would this test miss. I cannot say whether or not you should apply that test when applying to Anchorage. I'd be more comfortable applying it in Anchorage area.
Wallerie: can you tell whree parts of the population concentrated and other's not? For example here in these areas ????
Lawson: pause. Not that specific thing. I could look at it, and I know from having drawn the maps so I know where the population is, but I don't think the software could. I was looking at how the REod test affected by having that area of non-population in it.
White: now he is doing analysis of politics of this. Judge: I'll over rule. I'm the one who will be judging ompactness. He can draw maps and talk about what he's doing and how he did it.
Lawson: To explain the Reod test - the perfect score is one. Zeor is worst. Draws the smallest circle it can around the district and looks at how much of the area in the circle was out of the district.
Wallerie: What wold the .39 mean?
Lawson: The mean of the scores for the districts was .37, so this is better than than mean. Higher mean and lower standard deviation.
Wallerie: What happens when you take the unpopulated area out?
Lawson: Score drops from .39 to .25 (?) beyond standard deviation. Less compact by significant level, right on the border of standard deviation. Judge asking questions - two measures. I was supposed to know this was modified rights plan? The MRP is actually less compact than the boards?
Lawson: No, because the districts aren't numbered the same.
Judge: OK, fair enough.
3:12 Wallerie:
Lawson: Indicates it's part of military ground. .... Also a military base. Two different bases - testing range for Wainright and test firing range for Eilson.
Wallerie: playing aorund with this area. Does it make any difference in SEnate pairings where you ???
Lawson: you could go with 38, 1,2, 5, 6.??? I'm familiare to know which districts they are in, but not what their street addresses.
Wallerie: What happens if you move this around?
Lawson: Affects District 5 because only connected by the military range. District 5 could only be paired with District 3 or 4.
Judge: You have to put the empty area somewhere.
Lawson: Where you put the empty area affects the pairing. If that empty area is not in 5 it changes everything and two senators wouldn't be paired. If empty area were in 38, you'd 3:16 have to pair 5 with 4 or 6 (I think that's what he said.)
Judge: how does a 3rd party not connected to the board understand. How does anyone know what the benchmark is without .... no one knew what the benchmark was until very late and in fact when the benchmark came down finally was after when the board finished their plan was Thanksgiving. How did people know what the benchmark was - the rest of the population had to come in with plans that met the benchmark, but people didn't know what the benchmark was. Dr. Arrington agreed .....?? in the records of the Baord meeting on May 17 Dr. Handley ..
Judge goes back to to Lawson.
White, modified benchmarks ... can't quite hear.
Wallerie, it's a very clear issue. Judge: you can use your time wisely, but I'm looking for the connection.
Wallerie: When did you first submit plan to the board.
Lawson: Late March. then guessing on benchmark based on previous redistricting. Looking at Majority and minority disticts. In May Lsia Handly made presentation to board and said drop Majority and Minority districts and start using effectiveness.
May 17 teleconference? I think we needed 4 3ffective house districts and 3 and Senate districts and given a week to change that.
Judge 4 effective house and 3 ffective Senate districts. How did you know what was effective district?
Lawson: 4.17 VAP except fo district 6 which neeeed just under 50% 49,something and 39 that could be much lower about 39%.
Wallerie: When did you learn that Dr. Handley was not using that standard of 4 and now was using 5.
White: I'm confused.
When did you learn benchmark was now 5?
Lawson: Maybe in late November.
Wallerie: whole idea of influence districts, you undertand benchmark included influence districts and mapping on that assumption from the board? Yes.
Five wasn't until final plans submitted?
Not until December of 2011 when I read Arrington's report and I saw the board was saying five was the number needed.
Wallerie: What were you trying to do with the Rights plan.
Lawson: Respect for local boundaries. Should break local boundaries only if you had to. We wante to show you could meet the VRA without breaking the city and borough boundaries.
Wallerie: For senate pair - what's the population needed?
Lawson: 33,000 and some was the number for Fairbanks. We tried to build one that was just the city of Fairbanks. We tried to draw what was left of the city in a single district and pair that with the city house district into a Senate district.
Wallerie: How many house seats can you fit in FB borough?
Lawson: 5.5
Wallerie: How many in Matsu ?
White - object, Judge, where are you going?
Wallerie: How things different in different parts ????
Judge - ten minute break, back at 3:40 and done at 4:30 on the dot.
Some key points that I'm trying to pull out without much time to think and before they come back into court:
I didn't make it. They're back. So here are the rough notes and I'll try to do an overview later. These are very rough notes.
2:15 - Leonard Lawson - Mathematics and Physics major from ?? College. I work for the Alaska Democratic Party. Their primary data base manager. I keep track of voter data bases, that's the biggest part of the job. When elected officials want to know about a district.
Wallerie: When you were deposed it was pointed out that you were listed as a political director for the Alaska Party. Was that a surprise to you?
Lawson: No, I give information. My boss is Kay Brown, ED of Democratic Party Alaska. Before that it was Deborah Williams.
Wallerie: Poltical background before with Dems.
Lawson: New Hampshire Democrats.
Wallerie: Gilford County?
Lawson: Center of North Carolina, volunteer for Al Gore?
Wallerie: Coming from NC, you've had some experience with redistricting?
Lawson: Laughter. I went to National Conference on STate Legislators conerence on redistricting. I think 4 day conference. I saw John Ferguson and I I think Michael White.
Cover a wide variety of topics, but redistricting was big topic this year.
Other training: Software, trained by company that makes map software. To help understand better how to use the software. Already had a lot of experience, but wanted more.
Other: Also took GIS class at UAA, but as it was starting I had to leave because redistricting was starting. GIS is Geographic Information System. Anything with geographic component - merges numbers and maps.
How does GIS relate to these maps: It's what's use for most of these maps. I think they were all made with GIS software. Allows you to use Census data and realte the to maps. Includes ethnicity, over and under 18, etc. and can be displayed visually.
What a census block is: Small geographic area, created by the Bureau of, Is Census part of Commerce? divides the us into georgraphic subunits so they can count the population.
How does that relate to Tiger files and shape files? Tiger files are essentially US Census bureau's shape file. Shape files are privately owned files - company owns about 65% - just a brand name like Microsoft word. Other software can read shape files. I use maptitude which can read shape files.
Can you imagine doing this with paper and pen? No. laughing. But I can't imagine doing a lot of things wihtout computers.
Two different programs - White saying something in bakground. Other type Arcview software. Board is using Arcview and Div. of elections is using maptitude.
Wallerie: Let's fire up the computer to see what you're talking about.
Lawson: looking at different plans - this is hard to follow just the oral
This is the proclamation plan the only thing I moved out is the southern range connected to Ft. Wainright.
W: Can you show us what a census block looks like?
Lawson: They're really small, hold on. OK each one of these is a census block. I'll highlight one.
BASICALLY - Lawson is showing how to use the software. Some of these blocks are only 19 people, or there could be only one or none. the other thing that maptitude does well is to show me what happens when I make changes - it shows me that if I take this block out I will take out 24, it shows me the ideal size 17,755, and what the deviation is from the ideal size. We can see here if the census block doesn't distinction between Native and Indian so IND represents both. Here no one identified self as black or Indian, but in this district there are some. You can also see whether over 18. If we move this block out we'd take away 18 voting age people from the district.
I've only added Indian and Native, but there are lots of different potential breakdowns. They are really numerous. Other states would have % as non-hispanic black and hispanic black.
Wallerie: For Natives what does VAP stand for.
Lawson: Voting Age Population. Any percent Native - White Native Hawaian, and Other - that person could be counted in Native.
Native +one = full blooded native or Native + White in the past. We were reasonably sure from the past that Native+one (either full blooded or Native+1 other). But later the board said any combination with Native would count.
Wallerie: What other attributes can you key in on the map?
Lawson: You can see, this is airport - I don't have street names turned on because there would be so many of them - Outline of city limits of Fairbanks. Generally follow city limits. You can cut smaller than census blocks because you wouldn't know how many people there are. Most are inside the city boundaries. There are a couple places because there was an annexation after the Census bureau drew their maps. So it doesn't really match because annexation after the shape files drawn.
This pink are is downtown Fairbanks.
Wallerie: Border of 5 and 4.
Lawson: I can move the annexed area back into the city, I can figure out how far I want to go - census blocks, voting districts, or the whole county - depending on purpose or need.
Wallerie: Demonstration for the court.
Lawson: I'm going to select these three census blocks. Even before I move them in, I can check what the changes would do. I would be moving 253 people from D5 to D4 - that would affect the deviation to 5.065% - you can see in real time without having to make guesses.
Wallerie: kill two birds with one stone. With this district, if you just wan t to move this annexed area.
Lawson: Not matching with the local boundary because annexed after the map made. The total people in the block is change of 111 people - 94 white 2 American Indian, one mix of white and Indian. I cannot break the census block. With technology you could, but not allowed to unless a zero census block. You'd have to guess what the results were which is why you can't do it.
Wallerie: Sometimes you have to move Census blocks even if you don't want to.
Lawson: Yes. I'll move a census block and you leave areas not connected with the rest of the districts. It will pull up area I as two different areas - something is 3/100 of a square mile. Some are islands. In district 5 you know there's no islands, so you know something is wrong. this is how to correct the non-contiguous, so go back and correct them
Wallerie: You actually have three separate blocsk.
Lawson: I'm moving them now by clicking on individual census blocks. It didn't highlight these because they are already in district 4. Anything touching the circle gets listed. Circle touched various census blocks.
Wallerie: How, if we go to Tanana Flats area.
White questions. Judge says: You're just trying to demonstrate the software so I understand how it works. Not working on the plan?
Lawson: No, and not sure we'll get to the plan today. Magnifying glass means the elements and features will zoom in. These are large blocks because there are no people here. How many people? No one.
Wallerie: did you have any questions about how program works?
You can actually go pretty small. Here there are lots of empty precincts south of the river.
Wallerie: These islands here?
2:49pm Lawson: Each island is its own census block, each lake too. Not sure why, but they are.
Wallerie: OK, I'll close that down. Wait, how does this show you if a district is compact.
Lawson: We can go to reports, and one is measure of compactness. Which report to run or all of them. The top one is accepted.
Wallerie: Can you do a compactness test on one of he districts?
Lawson: You can look at a particular district but it's designed to look at the plan as a whole.
Wallerie: You can shut down the computer and then retake the stand. How are you familiar with the redistricting process?
Lawson: I went to most of the board meetings. Missed the first couple and the ones out of town. I also worked on the plans for the Rights Coalition. Getting more community input it would be better. Leadership included: Jake Metcalfe, attorney Myra Munson, ??? had traveled the state. I'm not sure I can name them all.
Wallerie: Most were Democrats?
Lawson: Not sure, probably a lot were. I don't know all of them. A couple were non-partisan, I know because I had to ask them questions about SWest region. Someone who worked in fish politics said people had ompeting interests adn I should look out for them.
Wallerie: So not just computer based plans, I guess you were interviewing people?
Lawson: I guess that's a good way to talk about it. I called people around the state. Asked them about things. Sometimes someone would say, "You can't do that. . ."
Wallerie: Other groups. Who led AFFR?
Lawson: Kay Brown.
Wallerie: She's your current boss? Were there differences among Democrats?
Lawson: We're a big tent group, lots of different issues.
Wallerie: What about AFFER?
Lawson: I understand - White Objects, sustained.
Wallerie: You loaded board plan on your computer too?
Lawson: Requested them from the Board and some were on their websites. The shape files.
Wallerie: This is a report you did on compactness. Move for admission.
White: I think all joint exhibits are already ...Judge yes.
Wallerie: This is two different reports, correct?
Lawson: One I did and one generated by the computer software.
Wallerie:
Lawson: Two reports computer shoots out. One on the proclaamation plan and one on the modified rights plan. Proclamition was final plan the board released.
Wallerie: This report would tell us what the compactness of Dsitrict 5.
Lawson: In this one I ran all 8 tests in the Maptitude software including the ??? test. I honestly don't know if areas of Fairbanks have enough population to actually test.
White: Protest about his areas of expertise - not on political analysis.
Judge and White talking hard to hear White. He can talk about data on Reod??
Wallerie: In terms of District 5 you mention the popualation test and the accuracy.
White object and Judge overrules.
Lawson: not accuracy of test but how it's applied. Software says test draws a convex polygon around the district and looks at population in the polygon that is not in the district. Each test is good for somethings and not others. What would this test miss. I cannot say whether or not you should apply that test when applying to Anchorage. I'd be more comfortable applying it in Anchorage area.
Wallerie: can you tell whree parts of the population concentrated and other's not? For example here in these areas ????
Lawson: pause. Not that specific thing. I could look at it, and I know from having drawn the maps so I know where the population is, but I don't think the software could. I was looking at how the REod test affected by having that area of non-population in it.
White: now he is doing analysis of politics of this. Judge: I'll over rule. I'm the one who will be judging ompactness. He can draw maps and talk about what he's doing and how he did it.
Lawson: To explain the Reod test - the perfect score is one. Zeor is worst. Draws the smallest circle it can around the district and looks at how much of the area in the circle was out of the district.
Wallerie: What wold the .39 mean?
Lawson: The mean of the scores for the districts was .37, so this is better than than mean. Higher mean and lower standard deviation.
Wallerie: What happens when you take the unpopulated area out?
Lawson: Score drops from .39 to .25 (?) beyond standard deviation. Less compact by significant level, right on the border of standard deviation. Judge asking questions - two measures. I was supposed to know this was modified rights plan? The MRP is actually less compact than the boards?
Lawson: No, because the districts aren't numbered the same.
Judge: OK, fair enough.
3:12 Wallerie:
Lawson: Indicates it's part of military ground. .... Also a military base. Two different bases - testing range for Wainright and test firing range for Eilson.
Wallerie: playing aorund with this area. Does it make any difference in SEnate pairings where you ???
Lawson: you could go with 38, 1,2, 5, 6.??? I'm familiare to know which districts they are in, but not what their street addresses.
Wallerie: What happens if you move this around?
Lawson: Affects District 5 because only connected by the military range. District 5 could only be paired with District 3 or 4.
Judge: You have to put the empty area somewhere.
Lawson: Where you put the empty area affects the pairing. If that empty area is not in 5 it changes everything and two senators wouldn't be paired. If empty area were in 38, you'd 3:16 have to pair 5 with 4 or 6 (I think that's what he said.)
Judge: how does a 3rd party not connected to the board understand. How does anyone know what the benchmark is without .... no one knew what the benchmark was until very late and in fact when the benchmark came down finally was after when the board finished their plan was Thanksgiving. How did people know what the benchmark was - the rest of the population had to come in with plans that met the benchmark, but people didn't know what the benchmark was. Dr. Arrington agreed .....?? in the records of the Baord meeting on May 17 Dr. Handley ..
Judge goes back to to Lawson.
White, modified benchmarks ... can't quite hear.
Wallerie, it's a very clear issue. Judge: you can use your time wisely, but I'm looking for the connection.
Wallerie: When did you first submit plan to the board.
Lawson: Late March. then guessing on benchmark based on previous redistricting. Looking at Majority and minority disticts. In May Lsia Handly made presentation to board and said drop Majority and Minority districts and start using effectiveness.
May 17 teleconference? I think we needed 4 3ffective house districts and 3 and Senate districts and given a week to change that.
Judge 4 effective house and 3 ffective Senate districts. How did you know what was effective district?
Lawson: 4.17 VAP except fo district 6 which neeeed just under 50% 49,something and 39 that could be much lower about 39%.
Wallerie: When did you learn that Dr. Handley was not using that standard of 4 and now was using 5.
White: I'm confused.
When did you learn benchmark was now 5?
Lawson: Maybe in late November.
Wallerie: whole idea of influence districts, you undertand benchmark included influence districts and mapping on that assumption from the board? Yes.
Five wasn't until final plans submitted?
Not until December of 2011 when I read Arrington's report and I saw the board was saying five was the number needed.
Wallerie: What were you trying to do with the Rights plan.
Lawson: Respect for local boundaries. Should break local boundaries only if you had to. We wante to show you could meet the VRA without breaking the city and borough boundaries.
Wallerie: For senate pair - what's the population needed?
Lawson: 33,000 and some was the number for Fairbanks. We tried to build one that was just the city of Fairbanks. We tried to draw what was left of the city in a single district and pair that with the city house district into a Senate district.
Wallerie: How many house seats can you fit in FB borough?
Lawson: 5.5
Wallerie: How many in Matsu ?
White - object, Judge, where are you going?
Wallerie: How things different in different parts ????
Judge - ten minute break, back at 3:40 and done at 4:30 on the dot.
Redistricting Court Challenge: Sen Thomas Continues
They are finished with Sen. Thomas now and there's a 15 minute break until the next witness who wasn't named yet. I didn't catch anything particularly new in this last portion. It continued to go along the lines that the districts in Fairbanks were politically motivated to get rid of one Democratic Senator and thus bust the Senate's bi-partisan coalition.
By the way. Mr. Wallerie, if you haven't figured it out, is the attorney for the plaintiffs, Riley and Dearborn, one a resident of Ester and the other of Goldstream, as I understand it. Those two communities were put into District 38 which includes Bethel. Click here see a map of the Fairbanks districts. You'll get a much bigger one than I can put in here and you can see what the issue is. Districts 1 and 3 which represent the east and west sides of the City of Fairbanks are NOT paired. Rather each is paired with a much larger and more rural district. And even on this map you can only see parts of districts 38 and 3, 5, and 6.
Here are my very rough notes. Think of them as just giving you the sense of the questioning and don't rely on them for all the details to be totally accurate. Attorney White was easier to hear this time round.
1:30 Continue
Wallerie: Have you ever seen that article before?
Sen T: I've seen some, Sean Cockerham, yes, I've seen this.
We get the papers in Juneau and we read them.
Wallerie: In the article it reports that Randy = Who's Randy Ruderich?
Sen. T: He's the head of the Democratic Party
Wallerie: Democratic Party?
Sen. T: No, Republican
Wallerie: He says Fairbanks is the best chance to gain seats.
Sen. T: An indication of what others believe about what redistricting can do.
Wallerie: Asking for your opinion. the plan would allow the Republcians to make gains based on the redistricting.
Sen. T: You gain one district by putting two Democratic Senators together.
Wallerie: If they pair two members of the Coalition - you and Paskvan and Kookesh and Stedman, that takes out two, ten percent of the senate. How do you think the effect will change the organization of the Senate.
Sen. T: You get the numbers down, lack of funding help among Republicans for those in Coalition now, and that gets them back in line.
Wallerie: Fractures in party now?
Sen. T: Yes, they aren't paying attention to party lines, same numbers and different people. lasted long enough to frustrate Republican party - they can't control their troops.
Wallerie: Any Republicans expressed this to you?
Objection - sustained.
Wallerie: Republicans say the 1992 redistricting favored the Democrats, your opinion?
Sen. T: Not in Fairbanks. A Democratic representative lost immediately. It wasn't until the corruption trials began and people changed. That's when I won, Paskvan won, Bob Miller won. Independents changed. Not result of redistricting. Right after, Dems lost seast and Republicans gained seats. It wasn't until the corruption that things changed.
Wallerie: Look at the infamous Tanana Flats. Show where the Tanana Flats would be.
Sen. T: hard to show, Just south of Fairbanks.
Wallerie: In current configuration, that's now part of Denali borough district. You know what that area is, right?
Sen. T: A big vacant area all the way to Denali National Park.
Wallerie: Why is the bridge going in there?
Sen. T: We're hoping it will help retain the military in the interior. They are about 40?% of economics of the Interior, want to keep them.
Wallerie: You're familiar with Creamer Field, right?
Sen T: We wouldn't have District B. Before things ran east and west and now they run north and south.
Wallerie: Without that connection there wouldn't be the conflict between you and Paskvan's districts.
Sen. T: yes.
White: A few questions. You have a personal stake?
Sen. T: I'd say more of a community stake, but sure I have a personal stake.
White: You have already decided to run. You have no right to be drawn into any particular districts.
Sen. T: Yes, I don't.
White: Would you say that two senators would be mroe effective than one representing Fairbanks.
Sen. T: Depends on what the house districts look like and how those people would represent.
White: Comments from your deposition? ?? Page 72 of deposition. Line , I apologize for not having the exact . . .
Sen T: that's true
White: If you are elected you could effectively represent that district can't you?
Sen. T: Yes.
White: Agree that city is entirely in the borough of FNS?
Sen. T: Yes.
White: You had not contact with the redistricting board?
Sen. T: No I didn't.
White: You would agree it's important to protect the Alaska Native voice in the legislture?
Sen. T: Yes
White: You are aware, you are aware.....about Alaska Native bill . . .That Alaska Natives usually vote Democratic?
Sen. T: Not the case in the last election - Sen. Murkowski.
White: That's unique. Article on Ruderich. True that Demcrats said that Ruderich's words are fantasy? As I understand it . . . aware of political make up of ....????
Sen. T: Either I told you that or my staff member did.
Wallerie: White ask if two was better than one. Some qualifications?
Sen. T: When you stretch the districts as they are, you could theoretically do whatever you want. We're working to get one Democrat out of the picture. Just talking about numbers. But if you're talking about being in the minority, it doesn't matter. Two isn't necessarily better than one. Or if your house district stretches down to Palmer, then there is an extreme dilution of the power and where the money has to go. In District 28 there are some 30 fire districts, where there were only 8 in the old district.
Wallerie: Wouldn't the inclusion of 38 would bring us up to 3 Senators from Fairbanks?
Sen. T: I don't see that Senator spending much time in Fairbanks?
Wallerie: That is an effective native district, so do you think anyone in Ester or Goldstream could ever be elected in that ditrict.
Sen. T: The population extracted and put into that district is not a native population.
Wallerie: White asked if the political tendancy of Goldstream/Ester area tends to be deomocratic?
Sen. T: Yes, those were democratic leaning parts of the old District 8. Putting all the Democrats into one district is something that's done in South American states or in the old south?
White: You're not saying that Lyman Hoffman would ignore Fairbanks?
Sen. T: I don't know how much time he's going to spend in Fairbanks. He's got big majorities in the loal areas. Not sure which are Yupiks, Athabascans, etc. Just as there was concern about how much time Kookesh was going to spend up here. Yes, I understand that's part of the sparse population in some areas of Alaska.
Done with Senator Thomas. 15 minute break until 2:15.
By the way. Mr. Wallerie, if you haven't figured it out, is the attorney for the plaintiffs, Riley and Dearborn, one a resident of Ester and the other of Goldstream, as I understand it. Those two communities were put into District 38 which includes Bethel. Click here see a map of the Fairbanks districts. You'll get a much bigger one than I can put in here and you can see what the issue is. Districts 1 and 3 which represent the east and west sides of the City of Fairbanks are NOT paired. Rather each is paired with a much larger and more rural district. And even on this map you can only see parts of districts 38 and 3, 5, and 6.
Here are my very rough notes. Think of them as just giving you the sense of the questioning and don't rely on them for all the details to be totally accurate. Attorney White was easier to hear this time round.
1:30 Continue
Wallerie: Have you ever seen that article before?
Sen T: I've seen some, Sean Cockerham, yes, I've seen this.
We get the papers in Juneau and we read them.
Wallerie: In the article it reports that Randy = Who's Randy Ruderich?
Sen. T: He's the head of the Democratic Party
Wallerie: Democratic Party?
Sen. T: No, Republican
Wallerie: He says Fairbanks is the best chance to gain seats.
Sen. T: An indication of what others believe about what redistricting can do.
Wallerie: Asking for your opinion. the plan would allow the Republcians to make gains based on the redistricting.
Sen. T: You gain one district by putting two Democratic Senators together.
Wallerie: If they pair two members of the Coalition - you and Paskvan and Kookesh and Stedman, that takes out two, ten percent of the senate. How do you think the effect will change the organization of the Senate.
Sen. T: You get the numbers down, lack of funding help among Republicans for those in Coalition now, and that gets them back in line.
Wallerie: Fractures in party now?
Sen. T: Yes, they aren't paying attention to party lines, same numbers and different people. lasted long enough to frustrate Republican party - they can't control their troops.
Wallerie: Any Republicans expressed this to you?
Objection - sustained.
Wallerie: Republicans say the 1992 redistricting favored the Democrats, your opinion?
Sen. T: Not in Fairbanks. A Democratic representative lost immediately. It wasn't until the corruption trials began and people changed. That's when I won, Paskvan won, Bob Miller won. Independents changed. Not result of redistricting. Right after, Dems lost seast and Republicans gained seats. It wasn't until the corruption that things changed.
Wallerie: Look at the infamous Tanana Flats. Show where the Tanana Flats would be.
Sen. T: hard to show, Just south of Fairbanks.
Wallerie: In current configuration, that's now part of Denali borough district. You know what that area is, right?
Sen. T: A big vacant area all the way to Denali National Park.
Wallerie: Why is the bridge going in there?
Sen. T: We're hoping it will help retain the military in the interior. They are about 40?% of economics of the Interior, want to keep them.
Wallerie: You're familiar with Creamer Field, right?
Sen T: We wouldn't have District B. Before things ran east and west and now they run north and south.
Wallerie: Without that connection there wouldn't be the conflict between you and Paskvan's districts.
Sen. T: yes.
White: A few questions. You have a personal stake?
Sen. T: I'd say more of a community stake, but sure I have a personal stake.
White: You have already decided to run. You have no right to be drawn into any particular districts.
Sen. T: Yes, I don't.
White: Would you say that two senators would be mroe effective than one representing Fairbanks.
Sen. T: Depends on what the house districts look like and how those people would represent.
White: Comments from your deposition? ?? Page 72 of deposition. Line , I apologize for not having the exact . . .
Sen T: that's true
White: If you are elected you could effectively represent that district can't you?
Sen. T: Yes.
White: Agree that city is entirely in the borough of FNS?
Sen. T: Yes.
White: You had not contact with the redistricting board?
Sen. T: No I didn't.
White: You would agree it's important to protect the Alaska Native voice in the legislture?
Sen. T: Yes
White: You are aware, you are aware.....about Alaska Native bill . . .That Alaska Natives usually vote Democratic?
Sen. T: Not the case in the last election - Sen. Murkowski.
White: That's unique. Article on Ruderich. True that Demcrats said that Ruderich's words are fantasy? As I understand it . . . aware of political make up of ....????
Sen. T: Either I told you that or my staff member did.
Wallerie: White ask if two was better than one. Some qualifications?
Sen. T: When you stretch the districts as they are, you could theoretically do whatever you want. We're working to get one Democrat out of the picture. Just talking about numbers. But if you're talking about being in the minority, it doesn't matter. Two isn't necessarily better than one. Or if your house district stretches down to Palmer, then there is an extreme dilution of the power and where the money has to go. In District 28 there are some 30 fire districts, where there were only 8 in the old district.
Wallerie: Wouldn't the inclusion of 38 would bring us up to 3 Senators from Fairbanks?
Sen. T: I don't see that Senator spending much time in Fairbanks?
Wallerie: That is an effective native district, so do you think anyone in Ester or Goldstream could ever be elected in that ditrict.
Sen. T: The population extracted and put into that district is not a native population.
Wallerie: White asked if the political tendancy of Goldstream/Ester area tends to be deomocratic?
Sen. T: Yes, those were democratic leaning parts of the old District 8. Putting all the Democrats into one district is something that's done in South American states or in the old south?
White: You're not saying that Lyman Hoffman would ignore Fairbanks?
Sen. T: I don't know how much time he's going to spend in Fairbanks. He's got big majorities in the loal areas. Not sure which are Yupiks, Athabascans, etc. Just as there was concern about how much time Kookesh was going to spend up here. Yes, I understand that's part of the sparse population in some areas of Alaska.
Done with Senator Thomas. 15 minute break until 2:15.
Redistricting Court Challenge: Plaintiffs Trying To Show Political Gerrymandering
In this portion Senator Paskvan was cross-examined by defense attorney Michael White who was pretty aggressive and with a clear antagonistic tone. "Are you aware..." is how he started most questions, though he seemed to have been moving around because sometimes he was audible and other times it seemed like he had strayed from the mike. He was going after Paskvan's characterization of a great difference between representing the City of Fairbanks and the Fairbanks North Star Borough. When White asked Paskvan if he was aware that the City was actually in the Borough and that Paskvan was, in fact, a resident of the Borough as well as the City, Paskvan sounded genuinely surprised at this idea and said, he'd never considered that, because he always thought of himself as a city boy. I'd say that while White was emphasizing legal distinctions, Paskvan clearly represented the mental maps that people really have about their identity.
Then Senator Joe Stevens took the stand and the questioning has been along the same lines.
With both Senators (Paskvan earlier, covered in the previous post) there were questions about how the maps were drawn which raised questions about gerrymandering. Paskvan pointed to the
Below are my rough, running notes as I could catch things off the phone. The Board's attorney, Michael White was hard to hear as he seemed to move in and out of mic range and he also spoke very quickly.
11:40am
White (attorney for the Board): You know that the maps that showed where Fairbanks was came from the Census data and not the Board? [Paskvan had mentioned that part of the City of Fairbanks had been misidentified on the maps.]
Sen. P: Yes, but I would have assumed that the Board representative from Fairbanks would have caught this.
White: You are aware that Marie Greene was on the board and is a Democrat? And she voted for this.
Sen. P: I was not aware.
Do you think Brodie was scheming againt you? [Missed stuff here, not sure what his point was, Brodie is a Republican as I understand it.]
Would you agree - hard to understand, not close enough to the mike?
Sen. P: Not my job to judge.
White: Would you agree that the city of FB is entirely in the NSFB borough? Yes
And all residents of FB are also residents of NSRB? I guess, never thought of that. Think of myself as a Fairbanks boy?
Aware there is no socioeconomic distinction? A: There must be consideration of government boundaries. To the extent that it fractures the city of Fairbanks, it fractures the socioeconomic integration of the city.
White: You are aware? that the Borough by law ???
Sen P: I believe that when people vote to belong as something, they have common beliefs When the people in NSB voted to create themselves they were identifying as a group.
White: ARe you aware that by law . . . A: People voted [for political subdivision] to say that they were similar.
White: Mentioned, Paskvans have long illustrious history, you'd agree that Fairbanks is hub for rural Alaskans? Certainly.
Fairbanks are connected to people around the state? Yes.
Aware of a bill - you voted for it? Yes to preserve rural native vote statewide
White seems to be moving around so that he gets away from the mike and it's hard to hear. Judge jsut asked him to take the Diana Ross microphone. Still hard.
He's talking in a very aggressive and hostile style.
Sen P: Concerned that native voice would be drowned out.
White: Alaska Native community tends to vote Democratic? Yes.
You have not filed for reelction? Correct.
You don't intend to file? Not, I haven't made up my mind.
White: ???? A: We've been targeted.
White: You mentioned Kookesh, Stevens, Stedman. ARe you aware. . .
Sen P: I understand that because of population loss in SE Alaska, there would be a need to adjust both Kookesh and Stedman's districts, so the questions discussed was whether that would be a pairing. Both are in the bi-partisan working group.
White: Are you aware . . ..??
Sen P: I don't know, Don't pay attention to those kind of details?
White: Have you seen the ??plan the plaintiffs are offering? No
White: Should you run in district B, you would be able to represent your constituents? You won't ignore constituents because theya re in the city or borough.
Sen P: It comes up with issues like annexation when there is a conflict between the City and Borough's interests. I don't like to use the term ignore, but it raises issues that are conflicted in the ability to represent two conflicting interests fairly Trying to be allegiant to two entities at the same time.
White: ????
Sen P: I said I try to do the best that I could do, but it creates conflicts with how one represents the City's interests while also trying to represent the Borough's interests, where the conclusion one would reach are incompatible.
White: ????
Sen. P: My testimony, is that it's wrong to put any Sen into a position, that the integrity of the FB city limits should be maintained,
White:??? lots of fast talk, but can't undertand.
Sen P: Talking about FB my home town. That's my district.
White: Kookesh has bigger district and has to balance different interests right?
Sen P: I assume Sen. Kookesh does what he can do. I believe he works hard.
White: As one of 20 Senators in the state, rep your district and ??
Sen P: yes.
White: Inerior delegats work together right for best representation, right?
Sen P: We hear from groups at the same time about the interest of those groups - 7am every other groups, social groups and chamber of commerce, get updates from Interior delegation, as a cohesive entity.
White: ???
Sen P: FMATS are capital dollars used on road projects. There are dollars used outside the city limits of FB as I said earlier.
White: ???
Sen P: The logic is there.
White: One more question. You agree the areas Ester and Goldstream are Democratic areas of Borough?
Sen P: Yes.
Wallerie followup? No
12:04pm Sen. Excused.
Another witness. Man with a camera, who are you with? ????
Joseph James Thomas the 2nd.
Wallerie (attorney for plaintiffs) What is your district?
Sen Thomas: District B
Wallerie ??
Sen T: This yellow area here
Wallerie: Different districts? This area here that runs off the map to Cantwell.
How long in legislature? Elected 2006 and took office in 2007.
Wallerie: Municipal govts in your district?
Sen T: No. FNSB. In district 8 Healy and Cantwell and Anderson. Denali Borough
Communities - Two Rivers, Fox, Ester, Goldstream, areas that have a definition.
Wallerie: What languages spoken?
Sen. T: Predominantly English.
Judge - we're doing things here that have nothing to do with you, just answer.
Wallerie: How is the Sen. organized?
Sen T: You mean the bi-partisan coalition? Six Republicans and ten Democrats. Need a certain number to have a majority, people who more or less see eye to eye.
Wallerie: We'll move along and refere to Sen Paskvan's testimony.
Does it make a difference if you are in the majority or not?
SEn. P: Refere to a member who is not in the majority talks about me and Paskvan: These are the guys you need to talk to if you want to get anything done.
Wallerie? Does it affect committee assginments?
Sen. T: Absolutely.
Wallerie: Whats the Bush Caucus?
Sen. T: Members from the Bush who talk about their issues?
Wallerie: ARe you a member? no Are they all native? No
Are there issues that might divide the Bush Caucus from the Interior Caucus? Yes, But they also work together? Yes
Wallerie: Aware of opposition to Sen Coalition?
Sen. T: Yes. Mainly related to the oil taxation. The house passed a bill last session in a few short meetings. But the senate slowed that down. We aren't giving back $2 billion without some discussion. Chamber of Commerce graded us on the oil issue. Low grades to the Sen. majority and high grades to the minority which has no power and accomplished nothing. Leaders - Stevens and Stedman - given F's and removed from the Republican party website. I skated by, somehow, with a C. Major motivation to changing redistricting that is taking place.
Wallerie: Here's a map of Fairbanks.
Sen. T: As relates to me. The inclusion of this area Chena Hot Springs Road to CH - this was in a different district. District 7. Changed drmatically. 38 all the way from the coast all the way to this area. HD 7 and 8 now ... changed dramatically. Now running because of a connection here connecting 3B and 4B and pitting two Democratic Senators pitted against each other. Good opportunity to eliminate one.
White: Objections -
Judge: All your objections raised work here too.
Wallerie: How many in current senate structure how many Dems (10) and REp(10).
So you couldn't voe on party lines because no majority.
So pairing of senators who happen to be members of the bi-partisan working group. Get ride of two Dems, then it would be 12-8 and I'm sure the Republicans could organize, and they would pick up a few Democrats from the rural committee. Have to get to 16 to keep the minority totally out.
Wallerie: In terms of other Senators in this plan. The pairing of Kookesh and Stedman. They are also both in the majority. Aware of proposal that would have put Stevens and Hoffman together?
Sen. T: All are indications of what could possibly happen. SE a potential one more Democrat losing which would tip things.
Wallerie: Aware of earlier board proposals that would affect your seat?
Sen. T: Yes. Went up Summit Drive and around ?? Loop where my house was. No other parts of Summit Drive included.
Wallerie: How were you aware?
Sen. T: It was in the newspaper.
Wallerie: When you saw this article, ...this isn't the current plan? NO. What was it about this article that made you concerned about redistricting process.
Sen. T: The way that people said they didn't know where the incumbants lived, but you would have had to know where I lived. I'm at 879, the only 800 number on the street. Apparent done for a particular purpose. The other houses on Summit Drive were excluded.
Wallerie: When you heard about this. Saw the map went to where your house should have been where all the other 800 houses were, the line would have gone straight. But it had to go this way. It would have put me in the other district.
What did you do? What can you do? I merely laughed and it was more evidence they were trying to change to coalition?
Wallerie: Were you aware people complained? And the eleimianted this bump?
Currently where is your house?
Sen. T: In this area here.
Wallerie: Connection between house district 3 and 4. Does that give you any impressions?
Sen. T: Not sure what you mean. Now connected city house district with a suburban district? Competing interests for funding. City very different. Competing interests in 106 road districts already among themselves, and they compete with the city. Different dynamic in terms of types of money you are looking for.
Wallerie: Fire districts in the borough?
Sen. T: In mine at least 8. Ivovled with them? Oh yeah. Always checking on what they need.
Wallerie: How do you work with 106 road districts.?
Sen T: No way to please all. Try to get chunk of money for the borough and let them dole it out.
Judge: 12:30 Lunch break, back promptly at 1:30.
Then Senator Joe Stevens took the stand and the questioning has been along the same lines.
With both Senators (Paskvan earlier, covered in the previous post) there were questions about how the maps were drawn which raised questions about gerrymandering. Paskvan pointed to the
- the splitting up of the City of Fairbanks into two different Senate districts even though there are two adjacent house districts that pretty much make up the city of Fairbanks. Instead each of those districts (1 and 4) are paired with districts that are mainly outside of the City. Much of his testimony was about why the city and borough have many competing interests in the legislature and how this splits the loyalty of the representative
- how the final map has the two house districts in Senate District B contiguous by what he described as a matter of feet, while the two City districts (1 and 4) were contiguous for miles.
- The fact that two Democratic Senators were paired even though this left an open seat with no incumbents adjacent to them.
- That getting rid of just one Democrat would tip the balance of 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans in the state Senate which would result in a Republican majority that would be much more likely to reduce oil taxes - the key issue for the governor.
 |
| Click to enlarge - red circle shows were districts 3&4 touch |
Below are my rough, running notes as I could catch things off the phone. The Board's attorney, Michael White was hard to hear as he seemed to move in and out of mic range and he also spoke very quickly.
11:40am
White (attorney for the Board): You know that the maps that showed where Fairbanks was came from the Census data and not the Board? [Paskvan had mentioned that part of the City of Fairbanks had been misidentified on the maps.]
Sen. P: Yes, but I would have assumed that the Board representative from Fairbanks would have caught this.
White: You are aware that Marie Greene was on the board and is a Democrat? And she voted for this.
Sen. P: I was not aware.
Do you think Brodie was scheming againt you? [Missed stuff here, not sure what his point was, Brodie is a Republican as I understand it.]
Would you agree - hard to understand, not close enough to the mike?
Sen. P: Not my job to judge.
White: Would you agree that the city of FB is entirely in the NSFB borough? Yes
And all residents of FB are also residents of NSRB? I guess, never thought of that. Think of myself as a Fairbanks boy?
Aware there is no socioeconomic distinction? A: There must be consideration of government boundaries. To the extent that it fractures the city of Fairbanks, it fractures the socioeconomic integration of the city.
White: You are aware? that the Borough by law ???
Sen P: I believe that when people vote to belong as something, they have common beliefs When the people in NSB voted to create themselves they were identifying as a group.
White: ARe you aware that by law . . . A: People voted [for political subdivision] to say that they were similar.
White: Mentioned, Paskvans have long illustrious history, you'd agree that Fairbanks is hub for rural Alaskans? Certainly.
Fairbanks are connected to people around the state? Yes.
Aware of a bill - you voted for it? Yes to preserve rural native vote statewide
White seems to be moving around so that he gets away from the mike and it's hard to hear. Judge jsut asked him to take the Diana Ross microphone. Still hard.
He's talking in a very aggressive and hostile style.
Sen P: Concerned that native voice would be drowned out.
White: Alaska Native community tends to vote Democratic? Yes.
You have not filed for reelction? Correct.
You don't intend to file? Not, I haven't made up my mind.
White: ???? A: We've been targeted.
White: You mentioned Kookesh, Stevens, Stedman. ARe you aware. . .
Sen P: I understand that because of population loss in SE Alaska, there would be a need to adjust both Kookesh and Stedman's districts, so the questions discussed was whether that would be a pairing. Both are in the bi-partisan working group.
White: Are you aware . . ..??
Sen P: I don't know, Don't pay attention to those kind of details?
White: Have you seen the ??plan the plaintiffs are offering? No
White: Should you run in district B, you would be able to represent your constituents? You won't ignore constituents because theya re in the city or borough.
Sen P: It comes up with issues like annexation when there is a conflict between the City and Borough's interests. I don't like to use the term ignore, but it raises issues that are conflicted in the ability to represent two conflicting interests fairly Trying to be allegiant to two entities at the same time.
White: ????
Sen P: I said I try to do the best that I could do, but it creates conflicts with how one represents the City's interests while also trying to represent the Borough's interests, where the conclusion one would reach are incompatible.
White: ????
Sen. P: My testimony, is that it's wrong to put any Sen into a position, that the integrity of the FB city limits should be maintained,
White:??? lots of fast talk, but can't undertand.
Sen P: Talking about FB my home town. That's my district.
White: Kookesh has bigger district and has to balance different interests right?
Sen P: I assume Sen. Kookesh does what he can do. I believe he works hard.
White: As one of 20 Senators in the state, rep your district and ??
Sen P: yes.
White: Inerior delegats work together right for best representation, right?
Sen P: We hear from groups at the same time about the interest of those groups - 7am every other groups, social groups and chamber of commerce, get updates from Interior delegation, as a cohesive entity.
White: ???
Sen P: FMATS are capital dollars used on road projects. There are dollars used outside the city limits of FB as I said earlier.
White: ???
Sen P: The logic is there.
White: One more question. You agree the areas Ester and Goldstream are Democratic areas of Borough?
Sen P: Yes.
Wallerie followup? No
12:04pm Sen. Excused.
Another witness. Man with a camera, who are you with? ????
Joseph James Thomas the 2nd.
Wallerie (attorney for plaintiffs) What is your district?
Sen Thomas: District B
Wallerie ??
Sen T: This yellow area here
Wallerie: Different districts? This area here that runs off the map to Cantwell.
How long in legislature? Elected 2006 and took office in 2007.
Wallerie: Municipal govts in your district?
Sen T: No. FNSB. In district 8 Healy and Cantwell and Anderson. Denali Borough
Communities - Two Rivers, Fox, Ester, Goldstream, areas that have a definition.
Wallerie: What languages spoken?
Sen. T: Predominantly English.
Judge - we're doing things here that have nothing to do with you, just answer.
Wallerie: How is the Sen. organized?
Sen T: You mean the bi-partisan coalition? Six Republicans and ten Democrats. Need a certain number to have a majority, people who more or less see eye to eye.
Wallerie: We'll move along and refere to Sen Paskvan's testimony.
Does it make a difference if you are in the majority or not?
SEn. P: Refere to a member who is not in the majority talks about me and Paskvan: These are the guys you need to talk to if you want to get anything done.
Wallerie? Does it affect committee assginments?
Sen. T: Absolutely.
Wallerie: Whats the Bush Caucus?
Sen. T: Members from the Bush who talk about their issues?
Wallerie: ARe you a member? no Are they all native? No
Are there issues that might divide the Bush Caucus from the Interior Caucus? Yes, But they also work together? Yes
Wallerie: Aware of opposition to Sen Coalition?
Sen. T: Yes. Mainly related to the oil taxation. The house passed a bill last session in a few short meetings. But the senate slowed that down. We aren't giving back $2 billion without some discussion. Chamber of Commerce graded us on the oil issue. Low grades to the Sen. majority and high grades to the minority which has no power and accomplished nothing. Leaders - Stevens and Stedman - given F's and removed from the Republican party website. I skated by, somehow, with a C. Major motivation to changing redistricting that is taking place.
Wallerie: Here's a map of Fairbanks.
Sen. T: As relates to me. The inclusion of this area Chena Hot Springs Road to CH - this was in a different district. District 7. Changed drmatically. 38 all the way from the coast all the way to this area. HD 7 and 8 now ... changed dramatically. Now running because of a connection here connecting 3B and 4B and pitting two Democratic Senators pitted against each other. Good opportunity to eliminate one.
White: Objections -
Judge: All your objections raised work here too.
Wallerie: How many in current senate structure how many Dems (10) and REp(10).
So you couldn't voe on party lines because no majority.
So pairing of senators who happen to be members of the bi-partisan working group. Get ride of two Dems, then it would be 12-8 and I'm sure the Republicans could organize, and they would pick up a few Democrats from the rural committee. Have to get to 16 to keep the minority totally out.
Wallerie: In terms of other Senators in this plan. The pairing of Kookesh and Stedman. They are also both in the majority. Aware of proposal that would have put Stevens and Hoffman together?
Sen. T: All are indications of what could possibly happen. SE a potential one more Democrat losing which would tip things.
Wallerie: Aware of earlier board proposals that would affect your seat?
Sen. T: Yes. Went up Summit Drive and around ?? Loop where my house was. No other parts of Summit Drive included.
Wallerie: How were you aware?
Sen. T: It was in the newspaper.
Wallerie: When you saw this article, ...this isn't the current plan? NO. What was it about this article that made you concerned about redistricting process.
Sen. T: The way that people said they didn't know where the incumbants lived, but you would have had to know where I lived. I'm at 879, the only 800 number on the street. Apparent done for a particular purpose. The other houses on Summit Drive were excluded.
Wallerie: When you heard about this. Saw the map went to where your house should have been where all the other 800 houses were, the line would have gone straight. But it had to go this way. It would have put me in the other district.
What did you do? What can you do? I merely laughed and it was more evidence they were trying to change to coalition?
Wallerie: Were you aware people complained? And the eleimianted this bump?
Currently where is your house?
Sen. T: In this area here.
Wallerie: Connection between house district 3 and 4. Does that give you any impressions?
Sen. T: Not sure what you mean. Now connected city house district with a suburban district? Competing interests for funding. City very different. Competing interests in 106 road districts already among themselves, and they compete with the city. Different dynamic in terms of types of money you are looking for.
Wallerie: Fire districts in the borough?
Sen. T: In mine at least 8. Ivovled with them? Oh yeah. Always checking on what they need.
Wallerie: How do you work with 106 road districts.?
Sen T: No way to please all. Try to get chunk of money for the borough and let them dole it out.
Judge: 12:30 Lunch break, back promptly at 1:30.
Redistricting Court Challenge: Paskvan Testifies
11:30 - they are on break. Sen. Paskvan has been testifying, basically that he thinks there was political gerrymandering to match himself and fellow Democratic Senator Thomas. He discussed the differences between the city and the borough areas - police powers, garbage collection, fire, building codes - and showed how now they have split up the two halves of the city of Fairbanks into two different Sen. Districts which will also represent large chunks outside the city. He also pointed to the fact that House Districts 3 and 4 are barely connected, really only a matter of feet, to be joined as one Sen. District, while 1 and 2 (the two main City of Fairbanks house districts) are connected by miles of common boundary, but are not connected as was the old Senate district. On the map, House District 4 (Sen seat B) is blue, the green is District 3. The red circle shows where they are connected.
Below are my notes. They are starting again. I'll clean up the notes later, but for those who want them now. These are NOT official transcripts by any means. They're just to give you a sense of the proceedings.
10:21 It's working.
Sen. Joe Paskvan -
Attorney: Current district?
Sen P: Sen District E
Attorney: Where on this map is it located? Describe district.
Sen. P: Fairbanks and Ft Wainwright basically.
Attorney: Exhibit J11 - Red outline is City Boundary, Roughly your dustruct?
What did you do before politics?
Sen P: attorney. Born and raised here. My grandfather came in 1909 then during 10's 20's and 30's traveled back and forth to Minnesota. Permanently stayed in interior AK in 30s. Dad went to UA in WWII and joined army. Opened business in FB after WWII. 25 cousins in family born here after the war.
Attorney: Good working knowledge of Fairbanks? Yes. Seen Maps of redistricting? Yes.
Current proclamation did you see problems with the maps?
Sen P - where the 4p to the west, there's a part omitted from City of Fairbanks. Annexation in 2008, city limits as changed by annexation not reflected in the redistricting map. Here and here. (I can't see it either). This area wasn't contested, but this area was and was focus of a lot of legislative discussion two years ago in Juneau. I live right here and I drive this street every day. This used to be outside of Fairbanks, but in 2010 all came in. Subject to main debate, south of Airport Road and West of Fred Meyer area. Political debate I was forefront in.
Attorney: Annexation. How did it end in legislature?
Sen. P: Apparently legislature can throw out annexation approved by planning board.
Attorney: Some resistance to annexation? YES Who resisted? Before got to legislature the FBNS borough resisiting and City of Fairbanks advancing. I was a resident of Fairbanks. When in legislature, FBNS borough passed resolution against. Rep. Wilson of North was spearhead to crush the annexation and I was spearhead to keep it. Primarily the debate played out in Rep. Bob Heron's committee and when I testified, Rep. Wilson was presenting hostile testimony. I was happy my side prevailed.
Attorney: Why did they oppose annexation?
Sen P: 3/4 million dollars in property and sales taxes from Fred Meyer west facility and some residents and also, ambulance response times from UA compared to downtown fire department from City of Fairbanks.
Attorney: Why an issue?
Sen P: I think borough made it more of an issue than necessary.
Attorney: Has to do with tax base? Correct. Service to people?
Sen P: For annexation to work, City had to show it could provide services, which it did.
Attorney: Why were you advocating for the annexation?
Sen P: Important to recognize that city of fairbanks has continuously expanded throughout my life time. Dad would say Fairbanks grows despite itself. This is aprt of the growth of the city of Fairbanks. As the elected Sen. for city of Fairbanks, my duty to represent interests of the City rather than the borough.
Attorney: Future annexations coming?
Sen P: Yes, and annexation south of airport road, will continue toward the airport and businsses and homes south of Chena River and north of Tananana and Johanson expressway, NE Fairbanks, all within the city of Fairbanks.
Attorney: Would you expect opposition on those expansions too?
Sen P: I would expect opposition, but as part of the natural growth of city limits over the decades, the annexation will eventually occur.
Attorney: What type of services offered by the city.
Sen. P: Incorporated in 1903, First Class city, has police powers including professional police, fire, garbage curbside pickup, city street maintenance, building codes going back many, many years. Less potential to burn down. City engineering makes sure codes complied with. More like a true city. I remember statehood and mid-60s and NSBorough incorporated, B residents always had significant problem with police powers, but people in Fairbanks used to police powers and two different states of mind. Borough relies on state troopers.
Attorney: How does fire protection compare.
Sen P: B. has volunteer fire connected to service districts.
A: Garbage?
Sen P: City has weekly curbside pickup and they take it to the dump. Borough has dumpster stations where people can deposti their garbage.
A: In Juneau, do these differences make a difference in representation in legislature?
Sen P: Certainly beyond the annexation battles, every year negotiations on capital budgets, allegations to FMATS which can service City and Borough and distinct from that capital budget appropirations solely to the city. As Fairbanks Sen. I want to focus on funding for the city of Fairbanks. Last year Sen. Thomas and I worked together on FMATS capital budget and a chunk of that wne to Fairbanks, since FB is the hub. If people in the are want to move, they have to go through Fairbanks.
. . .
Air quality is an issue that's different between the two. City has been able to ban the hydronic ?? boilers.
A: Controversial?
Sen P: Not in city, but concern in the borough if there would be boiler police and hotly contested.
Attorney: would being from the city affect how you work in Juneau?
Sen P: pause, not sure how to answer. We are trying to bring natural gas to lessen the whole issue. 1100 businesses and residents on natural gas - in the city.
[Clearly they are tyring to establsih that there is a different set of interests between the city and borough to justify having different legislators for each rather than merging them]
A: When you were deposed, there was a discussion on fracturing. What do you mean?
Sen P: Troubled me when the boundaries between 4 and 1, I live in here in the city and parts are to the east, but on this north south basis generally is where one part of the city is split from another part. That exists in my current Sen district, but kept east part of FB with the west Part.
10:50 - Currently using Steese Highway n/s - connects with Richardson Highway by Ft. Wainright gate. Learned the pairings split the east and west part of Fairbanks, term came to mind of fracturing the city. Puts FB at risk, maintaining the integrity of everything I've known all my life of what FB has been. Not just fractured to the east, where not paired with the one district, but also to the West where they didn't considere the annexation. The Board didn't care about at all the actual city boundary of FB. Thought the city should be a cohesive political voice because we do have differences from the area around.
Fractured to the west - 100s of voters - and to the east - 1000's of voters.
There is a risk to potential future annexation issues. Someone not a resident of city of Fairbanks and allegiance not to the city, you risk stifling the natural progression of the expansion of Fairbanks over the decades. As to capital projects within the city. There are capital projects different int he City limits different from Chena Hot Springs Road - just unique entities.
. . .
10:55 - A: Other cities in borough?
Sen. P: North Pole about 2,000, city of Fairbanks something north of 30,000 people. There's been talk of consolidation between Fairbanks, the borough, North Pole, and Ester, but haven't. Anchorage has. For us Police power is forefront in all this. The B population is extremely hostile to police powers for as long as I can remember, back to the late 70s - alcohol tax on area wide basis. Hotly contested as creation of police power in FNSB.
Also bar hours. I was born and raised in the bar business = owned Tommies - since the 30s til now. Bar hours issue, goes back to when city limits different from now. Bars open just outside city limits, mad dash to outside the city limits after city bars closed.
A:In terms of Sen. pairings, what are your thoughts on discriminatory impacts?
Sen P: getting away from fracturing discussion on east and west. When I became aware the pairings not east and west of Fairbanks, but with massive area north of Fairbanks - blip where 4B touches 3B what came to mind was gerrymandering. Infuriating.
Protest, overruled.
Sen. P will be leaving for Juneau this weekend.
Saw that two districts connected by area stretching for feet whereas 1 and 2 connected by miles. Clearly saw it as a way to get two Democratic Sen against each other.
I'm a Democrat. Joe Thomas is also a Dem. Sen. Q: What is Bi partisan working group?
Sen P: coalition in the Sen. hoping to address the issues of Alaska without getting bogged down in the extremes of either party. I've been a member since day 1. Set up in Dec. 2008 and I was sworn in Jan. 2009. Is Sen. Thomas also a member? Yes.
A:Who are the Republican members?
Sen P: Stedman, Stevens, Meyers, McGuire, Wagoner, and
A: What is Stevens position? Pres.
A: Kukesh? Democrat
A: Stedman: Co-cahir of finance, and sits on resource committee which I chair.
A: Other finance chair? Sen. Hofman - Democrat.
A: When you heard about the pairings in your district, did you know that you were the only Sen. pairings.
Sen. P: We were wondering where it was going to came at us from. I never figured it would be us. Concern was Kookesh and Stedman and Stevens and Hoffman. Both of those Republicans are less favored than others.
A: You never testified did you? No.
A: Were you aware of other proposals to pair Senators, other than those who were members of the bipartisan working group?
Objection, hearsay.
Sen. P: No.
A: What were you saying about other Republican Senators.
Sen P: Talking about decoupling of tax structure for oil and gas. May 2010 change for tax under AGIA pipeline. Sen. Stedman and I led the drive to decouple natural gas from the oil tax. With shale gas going on, we saw the drop of natural gas prices, BTU equivalency in pricing was basis of tax, but natural gas price dropping so not equivalent. We would have lost a lot of revenue. Passed the Sen. Failed in house, then passed in house, then vetoed by the governor. First time Stedman and I worked on keeping highest possible tax for Alaskans, as required by the constitution. Current hot issue is production tax. Stedman and I have been leading this issue - HB 110. We both have strong thoughts that we have to maintain revenues to State from our oil, especially given the credit structure. This makes Sen. Stedman to some extent a disfavored Republican. Neither Stedman nor Stevens pictures were on the Republican website.
Resource Development Council, the Alliance have given us report cards - I got a D, Stevens and STedman got F's, minority in Senate all got A's. All because of the bi-partisan working group trying to address these important issues. The majority favoring giving billions of dollars away are receiving A's.
A: Are you aware the plan actually opened a vacancy that doesn't have an incumbency?
Sen P: Yes, forcing two Dems to run against each other, and then creating an open seat to allow someone else to run. First Seekins and and then Higgins, both of whom were defeated by Thomas.
A: How do ??? vote? Mainly Democratic.
A: How about North Pole? Mainly Republican.
A: Military voting patterns?
Sen. P: When I was campaigning in 2010 presidential year, I came to learn the military has a low voter turnout even in election year.
A: Putting the tow military basis together how does this affect political party? (hard to hear)
Sen. P: much lower political voice can dominate because of low political turnout.
A: This part here?
Sen P: Ft. Wainright training grounds. When we got capital budget for bridge across the Tanana, to get strikers across the river for their training.
A: away from mike
Sen. P: More registered Republicans than Dems, but even more undeclared. Like me - I was undeclared until just before I decided to run. 1.4 - 1 R to D district.
A: How did you get elected as a Democrat in this district?
Sen. P: MY qualis, born here, raised here, family for generations, not interested in short term, but long run, and strong business background, many Republicans find me to be an attractive candidate. I am a capitalist, but have social issues some may disagree with.
A: In terms of the Sen. plan. Aware of any legitimate reason for breaking apart the city?
Sen. P: I can think of no legitimate reason for fracturing FB. A great deal of harm in moving people to the east and west. Now divided among three different house districts. Only rational contiguous boundary is to conect the east and west parts of Fairbanks so they hae a singular unified voice.
11:30 Judge - ten minute break, then we'll go to 11:40.
Below are my notes. They are starting again. I'll clean up the notes later, but for those who want them now. These are NOT official transcripts by any means. They're just to give you a sense of the proceedings.
10:21 It's working.
Sen. Joe Paskvan -
Attorney: Current district?
Sen P: Sen District E
Attorney: Where on this map is it located? Describe district.
Sen. P: Fairbanks and Ft Wainwright basically.
Attorney: Exhibit J11 - Red outline is City Boundary, Roughly your dustruct?
What did you do before politics?
Sen P: attorney. Born and raised here. My grandfather came in 1909 then during 10's 20's and 30's traveled back and forth to Minnesota. Permanently stayed in interior AK in 30s. Dad went to UA in WWII and joined army. Opened business in FB after WWII. 25 cousins in family born here after the war.
Attorney: Good working knowledge of Fairbanks? Yes. Seen Maps of redistricting? Yes.
Current proclamation did you see problems with the maps?
Sen P - where the 4p to the west, there's a part omitted from City of Fairbanks. Annexation in 2008, city limits as changed by annexation not reflected in the redistricting map. Here and here. (I can't see it either). This area wasn't contested, but this area was and was focus of a lot of legislative discussion two years ago in Juneau. I live right here and I drive this street every day. This used to be outside of Fairbanks, but in 2010 all came in. Subject to main debate, south of Airport Road and West of Fred Meyer area. Political debate I was forefront in.
Attorney: Annexation. How did it end in legislature?
Sen. P: Apparently legislature can throw out annexation approved by planning board.
Attorney: Some resistance to annexation? YES Who resisted? Before got to legislature the FBNS borough resisiting and City of Fairbanks advancing. I was a resident of Fairbanks. When in legislature, FBNS borough passed resolution against. Rep. Wilson of North was spearhead to crush the annexation and I was spearhead to keep it. Primarily the debate played out in Rep. Bob Heron's committee and when I testified, Rep. Wilson was presenting hostile testimony. I was happy my side prevailed.
Attorney: Why did they oppose annexation?
Sen P: 3/4 million dollars in property and sales taxes from Fred Meyer west facility and some residents and also, ambulance response times from UA compared to downtown fire department from City of Fairbanks.
Attorney: Why an issue?
Sen P: I think borough made it more of an issue than necessary.
Attorney: Has to do with tax base? Correct. Service to people?
Sen P: For annexation to work, City had to show it could provide services, which it did.
Attorney: Why were you advocating for the annexation?
Sen P: Important to recognize that city of fairbanks has continuously expanded throughout my life time. Dad would say Fairbanks grows despite itself. This is aprt of the growth of the city of Fairbanks. As the elected Sen. for city of Fairbanks, my duty to represent interests of the City rather than the borough.
Attorney: Future annexations coming?
Sen P: Yes, and annexation south of airport road, will continue toward the airport and businsses and homes south of Chena River and north of Tananana and Johanson expressway, NE Fairbanks, all within the city of Fairbanks.
Attorney: Would you expect opposition on those expansions too?
Sen P: I would expect opposition, but as part of the natural growth of city limits over the decades, the annexation will eventually occur.
Attorney: What type of services offered by the city.
Sen. P: Incorporated in 1903, First Class city, has police powers including professional police, fire, garbage curbside pickup, city street maintenance, building codes going back many, many years. Less potential to burn down. City engineering makes sure codes complied with. More like a true city. I remember statehood and mid-60s and NSBorough incorporated, B residents always had significant problem with police powers, but people in Fairbanks used to police powers and two different states of mind. Borough relies on state troopers.
Attorney: How does fire protection compare.
Sen P: B. has volunteer fire connected to service districts.
A: Garbage?
Sen P: City has weekly curbside pickup and they take it to the dump. Borough has dumpster stations where people can deposti their garbage.
A: In Juneau, do these differences make a difference in representation in legislature?
Sen P: Certainly beyond the annexation battles, every year negotiations on capital budgets, allegations to FMATS which can service City and Borough and distinct from that capital budget appropirations solely to the city. As Fairbanks Sen. I want to focus on funding for the city of Fairbanks. Last year Sen. Thomas and I worked together on FMATS capital budget and a chunk of that wne to Fairbanks, since FB is the hub. If people in the are want to move, they have to go through Fairbanks.
. . .
Air quality is an issue that's different between the two. City has been able to ban the hydronic ?? boilers.
A: Controversial?
Sen P: Not in city, but concern in the borough if there would be boiler police and hotly contested.
Attorney: would being from the city affect how you work in Juneau?
Sen P: pause, not sure how to answer. We are trying to bring natural gas to lessen the whole issue. 1100 businesses and residents on natural gas - in the city.
[Clearly they are tyring to establsih that there is a different set of interests between the city and borough to justify having different legislators for each rather than merging them]
A: When you were deposed, there was a discussion on fracturing. What do you mean?
Sen P: Troubled me when the boundaries between 4 and 1, I live in here in the city and parts are to the east, but on this north south basis generally is where one part of the city is split from another part. That exists in my current Sen district, but kept east part of FB with the west Part.
10:50 - Currently using Steese Highway n/s - connects with Richardson Highway by Ft. Wainright gate. Learned the pairings split the east and west part of Fairbanks, term came to mind of fracturing the city. Puts FB at risk, maintaining the integrity of everything I've known all my life of what FB has been. Not just fractured to the east, where not paired with the one district, but also to the West where they didn't considere the annexation. The Board didn't care about at all the actual city boundary of FB. Thought the city should be a cohesive political voice because we do have differences from the area around.
Fractured to the west - 100s of voters - and to the east - 1000's of voters.
There is a risk to potential future annexation issues. Someone not a resident of city of Fairbanks and allegiance not to the city, you risk stifling the natural progression of the expansion of Fairbanks over the decades. As to capital projects within the city. There are capital projects different int he City limits different from Chena Hot Springs Road - just unique entities.
. . .
10:55 - A: Other cities in borough?
Sen. P: North Pole about 2,000, city of Fairbanks something north of 30,000 people. There's been talk of consolidation between Fairbanks, the borough, North Pole, and Ester, but haven't. Anchorage has. For us Police power is forefront in all this. The B population is extremely hostile to police powers for as long as I can remember, back to the late 70s - alcohol tax on area wide basis. Hotly contested as creation of police power in FNSB.
Also bar hours. I was born and raised in the bar business = owned Tommies - since the 30s til now. Bar hours issue, goes back to when city limits different from now. Bars open just outside city limits, mad dash to outside the city limits after city bars closed.
A:In terms of Sen. pairings, what are your thoughts on discriminatory impacts?
Sen P: getting away from fracturing discussion on east and west. When I became aware the pairings not east and west of Fairbanks, but with massive area north of Fairbanks - blip where 4B touches 3B what came to mind was gerrymandering. Infuriating.
Protest, overruled.
Sen. P will be leaving for Juneau this weekend.
Saw that two districts connected by area stretching for feet whereas 1 and 2 connected by miles. Clearly saw it as a way to get two Democratic Sen against each other.
I'm a Democrat. Joe Thomas is also a Dem. Sen. Q: What is Bi partisan working group?
Sen P: coalition in the Sen. hoping to address the issues of Alaska without getting bogged down in the extremes of either party. I've been a member since day 1. Set up in Dec. 2008 and I was sworn in Jan. 2009. Is Sen. Thomas also a member? Yes.
A:Who are the Republican members?
Sen P: Stedman, Stevens, Meyers, McGuire, Wagoner, and
A: What is Stevens position? Pres.
A: Kukesh? Democrat
A: Stedman: Co-cahir of finance, and sits on resource committee which I chair.
A: Other finance chair? Sen. Hofman - Democrat.
A: When you heard about the pairings in your district, did you know that you were the only Sen. pairings.
Sen. P: We were wondering where it was going to came at us from. I never figured it would be us. Concern was Kookesh and Stedman and Stevens and Hoffman. Both of those Republicans are less favored than others.
A: You never testified did you? No.
A: Were you aware of other proposals to pair Senators, other than those who were members of the bipartisan working group?
Objection, hearsay.
Sen. P: No.
A: What were you saying about other Republican Senators.
Sen P: Talking about decoupling of tax structure for oil and gas. May 2010 change for tax under AGIA pipeline. Sen. Stedman and I led the drive to decouple natural gas from the oil tax. With shale gas going on, we saw the drop of natural gas prices, BTU equivalency in pricing was basis of tax, but natural gas price dropping so not equivalent. We would have lost a lot of revenue. Passed the Sen. Failed in house, then passed in house, then vetoed by the governor. First time Stedman and I worked on keeping highest possible tax for Alaskans, as required by the constitution. Current hot issue is production tax. Stedman and I have been leading this issue - HB 110. We both have strong thoughts that we have to maintain revenues to State from our oil, especially given the credit structure. This makes Sen. Stedman to some extent a disfavored Republican. Neither Stedman nor Stevens pictures were on the Republican website.
Resource Development Council, the Alliance have given us report cards - I got a D, Stevens and STedman got F's, minority in Senate all got A's. All because of the bi-partisan working group trying to address these important issues. The majority favoring giving billions of dollars away are receiving A's.
A: Are you aware the plan actually opened a vacancy that doesn't have an incumbency?
Sen P: Yes, forcing two Dems to run against each other, and then creating an open seat to allow someone else to run. First Seekins and and then Higgins, both of whom were defeated by Thomas.
A: How do ??? vote? Mainly Democratic.
A: How about North Pole? Mainly Republican.
A: Military voting patterns?
Sen. P: When I was campaigning in 2010 presidential year, I came to learn the military has a low voter turnout even in election year.
A: Putting the tow military basis together how does this affect political party? (hard to hear)
Sen. P: much lower political voice can dominate because of low political turnout.
A: This part here?
Sen P: Ft. Wainright training grounds. When we got capital budget for bridge across the Tanana, to get strikers across the river for their training.
A: away from mike
Sen. P: More registered Republicans than Dems, but even more undeclared. Like me - I was undeclared until just before I decided to run. 1.4 - 1 R to D district.
A: How did you get elected as a Democrat in this district?
Sen. P: MY qualis, born here, raised here, family for generations, not interested in short term, but long run, and strong business background, many Republicans find me to be an attractive candidate. I am a capitalist, but have social issues some may disagree with.
A: In terms of the Sen. plan. Aware of any legitimate reason for breaking apart the city?
Sen. P: I can think of no legitimate reason for fracturing FB. A great deal of harm in moving people to the east and west. Now divided among three different house districts. Only rational contiguous boundary is to conect the east and west parts of Fairbanks so they hae a singular unified voice.
11:30 Judge - ten minute break, then we'll go to 11:40.
Sounds of Silence - Redistricting Board Court Challenge Teleconference
[This is a strange post - A log of a silent teleconference to the Fairbanks Court where the challenge to the Alaska Redistricting Board is being heard.
Think of it as documentation, but for whom? The techies? The Board? I applaud the Board for making the effort to put the court proceedings online. When you do something new (for them) you take a risk. So far it isn't working, but I'm hoping it will get figured out.]
8:30am
I've called the conference number listed to listen in. It seems there is just one other participant - Matsu Borough. We're on pause while the judge comes into the court room. It says there is room for 150 participants, so anyone who wants to listen in can call:
I feel a little silly posting all this. Clearly they've asked someone to do something that is out of her area of expertise. I don't mean to call attention to it. But this is a pretty public event and I was poised to blog it live. And this is what was on. I really want to get into the substantive matters of the proceedings which will determine if the Board's plan will stand or will have to be revised.
Think of it as documentation, but for whom? The techies? The Board? I applaud the Board for making the effort to put the court proceedings online. When you do something new (for them) you take a risk. So far it isn't working, but I'm hoping it will get figured out.]
8:30am
I've called the conference number listed to listen in. It seems there is just one other participant - Matsu Borough. We're on pause while the judge comes into the court room. It says there is room for 150 participants, so anyone who wants to listen in can call:
Conference Number: 866-231-8327 (Limited to the first 150 participants)
Conference Code: 9074529311#
8:40 - someone else joined, but I couldn't understand who it was. Otherwise we're still hearing nothing.
Instructions: We've been muted and need to press #6 to unmute line. I wasn't planning on talking anyway.
8:48 - that last person left the conference - Fairbanks Court?? left the conference - Aleutian Research? joined
9:01 - There was a clicking sound.
9:05 I've never been on a conference call before to listen to a court proceeding. In court, the people in the gallery can listen in to whatever is happening. I'm not sure what limits there are on people listening in via phone. But it would be helpful if someone could tell us once in a while why we are hearing nothing but silence interrupted by someone joining or leaving the teleconference.
I realize this is new ground for the Board (they did some teleconferencing of their hearings, but this is in the court room in Fairbanks) and I applaud their attempts to allow people from around the state to listen in. And I'm sure this will improve as they figure it out. But it is frustrating.
9:11am I've called the Alaska Redistricting Board office in Anchorage and Mary Core there is going to check on what's happening.
9:13 am - Someone else just joined - Liz I think; Mary Core (from the Board) Now she left. I guess she was just checking.
9:21am - Nick McDermot (?) has joined.
9:24am - Mary Core's back. Mary Core left. Fairbanks Superior Court joined. Fairbanks Superior Court left.
Mary called me to tell me she'd contacted them and has to call others who called in to say they couldn't hear anything. She said the second time she called she could hear Board attorney
Michael White presenting his argument. And I hear something faint in
the background. Now the sound is gone again.
9:29am - I hung up and called back to see if that would help. But no. Still silent.
9:33am - Mary Core joined again. Nick and Liz have left.
9:34am - KTVA and Liz Clemens have joined.
9:40am - Mary Core left.
9:51am I'm posting this now and maybe something will start soon. Meanwhile, check the last post to get a sense of what is supposed to be happening.
Last thought: I assumed when she said we'd been muted, it meant no one could hear us if we spoke. What if she muted the court? Can you do that?
So I called Mary back at the Board in Anchorage and asked. She said they were getting lots of feedback from people on the phones - dogs barking, etc. - so they muted everyone and that seems to have messed things up and they are working on it. A fair number of folks - including TV stations - have called in and are upset. It's up to the Court system to make it work is what I understood.
UPDATE 10:16am -
10:07am - I can hear something in the background. No, it was someone joining the conference.
Operator joined the conference. Fairbanks Court is talking to the operator. We want to mute the other lines. Can we silence the announcement that people are coming on and off line. She said hit *3. Operator left. Someone else left.
Is this really the first time a court has had a teleconference and they can't figure out how to do it without the courtroom hearing people getting on and off?
10:10 Fairbanks court is talking again. It's very quiet. But she's talking to someone clearly trying to make it work. "Tell me what to do and I'll do it. I don't get it." The person she's talking to is hard to hear.
10:15am - She's checking who is online. "Recess now until about 10:20am, and trying to make it work so the comings and goings aren't interrupting the proceedings."
UPDATE 10:16am -
10:07am - I can hear something in the background. No, it was someone joining the conference.
Operator joined the conference. Fairbanks Court is talking to the operator. We want to mute the other lines. Can we silence the announcement that people are coming on and off line. She said hit *3. Operator left. Someone else left.
Is this really the first time a court has had a teleconference and they can't figure out how to do it without the courtroom hearing people getting on and off?
10:10 Fairbanks court is talking again. It's very quiet. But she's talking to someone clearly trying to make it work. "Tell me what to do and I'll do it. I don't get it." The person she's talking to is hard to hear.
10:15am - She's checking who is online. "Recess now until about 10:20am, and trying to make it work so the comings and goings aren't interrupting the proceedings."
I feel a little silly posting all this. Clearly they've asked someone to do something that is out of her area of expertise. I don't mean to call attention to it. But this is a pretty public event and I was poised to blog it live. And this is what was on. I really want to get into the substantive matters of the proceedings which will determine if the Board's plan will stand or will have to be revised.
UPDATE 10:21am - It's working. Sen. Paskvan is the current witness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)