Clear Roof Snow Easily With Snow Chute

[UPDATE Sat 3:53 pm: I couldn't remember my student's last name when I posted this.  But I got an email from a reader who looked up the patent and asked if Leroy Groat was the man with the patent.  Yes he is.  And I've now left a message with his daughter's business and hope to find out soon if the snow chute is still available to buy.  Or if you know how to get hold of Leroy, email me .]


A long time ago I was paired as a mentor for a student at the University.  I've lost touch with her over the years, but I thought about her today as I went looking in the garage for my Snow Chute.  This is a patented device her dad had invented.  It's so obvious and simple and easy to use.  So I bought one.  I haven't used it for a long time, but this year with all the snow, and stories of roofs having trouble in Cordova, I decided it might be a good idea to get some snow off the roof.  So today I decided to find it and experiment with the lower roof over our 'greenhouse.'

The device is a rectangle with a long plastic tail attached.  You put the metal as close to the end of the roof as you can and then pull it up the roof.  It neatly slices the snow and sends it down the plastic tail and off the roof.  I know that's hard to imagine from that description, so I took my camera out with me and made a video.

The video shows how easy this is because I had to do it one handed to use the video.  With two hands it's nothing at all to do.  Brilliant in it's simplicity and effectiveness. 

Does this mean those people were right about Palin too?

The Alaska Dispatch is reporting that the Director of the Alaska Division of Wildlife Conservation  was arrested on 12 counts of illegal hunting today. 

A former predator control officer for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rossi is a longtime friend of Chuck and Sally Heath, Palin's parents. After Palin took office in 2007, Sally lobbied her daughter to have Rossi named commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The commissioner oversees all wildlife and fisheries management in the state. Sally Heath, in an email to Palin, noted that almost everyone would object to Rossi as unqualified, but added those "are the very same people who said the same thing about you."

So, does this mean those same people were right about Palin too?

Rossi did not get the commissioner's job, but a special job -- assistant commissioner for abundance management -- was created for him within state government. .  .

. . . His qualifications have repeatedly been called into question. He lacks a college degree and his prime professional association with wildlife has involved killing rats and foxes in the Aleutian Islands.

 You can read the whole article at the Dispatch.  

Redistricting Court Challenge: Bickford Filling In Many Details

Taylor Bickford has been testifying. I'm conflicted about how to report this. There's barely any time during the breaks to review my notes or say much at all. Basically, he's answering some of the issues raised by the plaintiff's yesterday, like why he and Mr. White said that Lisa Handley's numbers were wrong - because they'd sent her the third party plans without converting them to Native VAP* - and a few other things. He's coming across as he did throughout the process. Open, knowledgeable, and sincere. It's also somewhat strange to have Mr. White be the attorney here. Yes, he's the attorney for the Board, but because of that he was a key player and really should be a witness. It's emphasized here as Taylor keeps saying "You did this" and "You did that" to Mr. White when they are discussing what happened.

They are going into detail about why they couldn't use different plans and issues. I think this puts some things to rest in a broad sense. But it still doesn't deal with some of the micro changes to the Fairbanks districts that really weren't impacted that minutely by the Native districts. And while they emphasize how they needed to do SE and the Native districts first and then focus on the urban areas, they aren't mentioning how little time they had on the urban areas, so that members really didn't have a detailed understanding of how incumbents were impacted. Nor did the public. As Holm said earlier today, something like, "We did this on the last day." They come back on in three minutes.

If you want to listen in to get a flavor you can call

Conference Number: 866-231-8327 (Limited to the first 150 participants) 

Conference Code: 9074529311# 

It will continue to 4:30pm today and start again tomorrow at 8:30am.

*VAP is voting age population. And the third party plans had sent in data with total native population which would be higher than the VAP. So it would misrepresent the number of native voters in a district until converted to VAP.

Still More Snow

Last night I had the top half of the driveway clear down to the pavement and the rest just needed some scraping of the hard packed down snow.  Today there were nearly seven more inches.  Well it depended where in the driveway I measured.  The picture is up top near the house.  I managed to get the driveway clear during the court's lunch break.  Not much time left.  Our neighbor cleared the sidewalk from their driveway to ours. 




The garbage trucked inched along between the parked cars and the garbage cans. 

Let's hope there isn't a fire.  The fire trucks will also have a problem.  There just isn't anywhere to park any more because the berms are so wide.  I at least have kept my van's parking space cleared out.


I'll try and get some video up soon of our neighbor with his snow blower.  But it's time for the court again.

Redistricting Court Challenge: On Critical Points, Holm Doesn't Know, Can't Remember, Or Resents the Implication

Board Member Jim Holm, from Fairbanks, where the court challenges to the Redistricting Board's Proclamation plan are centered, was the witness this morning so far.  There's a short break now, but whenever plaintiff's attorney Walleri got onto the issues of why incumbents were paired, or whether he knew where people lived, or whether the two Democratic Senators could have been paired if he hadn't stuck an unpopulated area into one district, his answers were repeatedly, I don't remember, I don't know, and a couple of times, I resent the implication.  I have to go through my notes, but it does seem to me there were some inconsistencies or things he didn't know that he had to have known.  Such as the fact that Sen Stedman is in the Senate bi-partisan coalition.  First he just said he didn't know.  Only after some more prompting did he know.  There were other issues like that - had he spoken to people outside the process about redistricting.  No he hadn't.  The Walleri gave a list of Republicans that there was documentation he'd spoken to and he said he had talked to them. 

This part of the testimony does need more scrutiny.  And it's a real contrast to the questioning of Leonard Lawson the other day.  While the Board's attorney White is pretty aggressive, Lawson answered all the question without hesitation and without getting upset.  On the other hand, the plaintiff's attorney, Walleri is very low key and polite, yet Holm took offense and regularly couldn't remember things or didn't know. 

They're coming back on so I have to quit.  More details later.

Redistricting Court Challenge: Tedium Squared - But Some Interesting Developments

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. 

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.

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.

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 verbatim

My 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. 

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:

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 definitions
1.  evil, done on purpose
2.  just higher than they need to be

2.   Changing Terminology and numbers needed to meet the benchmark
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