- feige
- coward {adj}
craven {adj}
dastard {adj}
cowardly {adj} {adv}
cravenly {adv}
recreant {adj}
skulking {adj}
dastardly {adj} {adv}
lilylivered {adj}
lily-livered {adj}
fainthearted {adj}
faint-hearted {adj}
pusillanimous {adj}
sissy {adj} [coll.]
chicken {adj} [coll.]
gutless {adj} [coll.]
weak-kneed {adj} [fig.]
yellow-bellied {adj} [coll.]
chicken-hearted {adj} [coll.]
chicken-livered {adj} [coll.]
yellow {adj} [coll.] [cowardly]
chickenshit {adj} [Am.] [vulg.]- feige [niederträchtig]
- caitiff {adj} [archaic]
- Feige {f}
- bot. fig
Monday, February 06, 2012
German Word of the Day - Feige
From www.dict.cc German to English:
Anchorage Has Another Chance to Move Out of Dark Ages
I was reminded how far behind we are in Anchorage by a story in today's LA Times. It lists six states debating the legalization of gay marriage. And six more states, plus the District of Columbia, where same sex marriage is legal.
But in Anchorage we're still struggling to get a law making it illegal to discriminate against gays in housing and employment and other such situations. We would have such guarantees already had our current mayor not vetoes an ordinance passed by our Assembly just before he became mayor.
But there is a proposition on the ballot and a chance to show the world that the voters of Anchorage are not as intolerant and narrow minded as some of our politicians.
Why does this matter? As OneAnchorage, the group behind the initiative, posts:
But even when this initiative is passed in April, we still have a one man - one woman marriage clause that was added to our state constitution in 1998.
When I say far behind, I mean it in the way that people in the South were far behind other parts of the US when they still had legal segregation whereas Blacks had legal (if not de facto) equal rights in other parts of the country. As behind as those people who opposed voting for women and then other rights for women. One form of human progress is the gradual elimination of the legal props that support social prejudices against people who are different from the majority, props that give 'normal' people power over the 'other.'
But in Anchorage we're still struggling to get a law making it illegal to discriminate against gays in housing and employment and other such situations. We would have such guarantees already had our current mayor not vetoes an ordinance passed by our Assembly just before he became mayor.
But there is a proposition on the ballot and a chance to show the world that the voters of Anchorage are not as intolerant and narrow minded as some of our politicians.
Why does this matter? As OneAnchorage, the group behind the initiative, posts:
In Anchorage, all employees should be judged solely on their capabilities and job performance. Today, however, most – but not all – hardworking Alaskans are protected from being unfairly fired. For example, no one can be fired from a job solely because they are married or single. It is illegal to refuse to interview a job applicant because the business owner doesn’t like Christians, Jews or Muslims. You can’t be denied service in a restaurant because you’re African-American, Asian, from South America or Alaska Native. You can’t be turned down for a credit card or bank loan because you’re sight or hearing impaired.
However, these legal protections that most of us rely on everyday do NOT protect gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender workers.
But even when this initiative is passed in April, we still have a one man - one woman marriage clause that was added to our state constitution in 1998.
When I say far behind, I mean it in the way that people in the South were far behind other parts of the US when they still had legal segregation whereas Blacks had legal (if not de facto) equal rights in other parts of the country. As behind as those people who opposed voting for women and then other rights for women. One form of human progress is the gradual elimination of the legal props that support social prejudices against people who are different from the majority, props that give 'normal' people power over the 'other.'
Sunday, February 05, 2012
Balancing Postive and Negative - Alexander DCD Smith
Alex is the nephew of an old friend of J's and we ended up accidentally having dinner with him, his aunt, and his parents earlier this week. He invited us to his show Saturday night in Culver City and so we went.
There were giant commercial looking inspirational 'posters.' But looking close there was a lot more going on. Alexander
explained he used brushes, spray paint, and stencils on wood.
And remembering our dinner conversation the other night, it made sense that Alex would be pushing things like believe, dedication, productive, and success. He's dealt with some health issues and he now works from early morning until late at night.
But the edgier side of him balanced this show with four Stop Signs like this Stop War piece. Looking at the motivational work on the photos now, I'm seeing a lot more in the background than I originally saw.
He also does live paintings and Alex's blog has speeded up video of him creating these pieces. There were QR codes on each description card that took you to a video of him painting that piece. I can't locate those videos, but you can check out his blog for other videos.
You can get a sense of his excitement in the video below.
 |
| Dedication close up |
Saturday, February 04, 2012
A Chat with Treeman Near Venice Beach
We took advantage of the nice weather to bike down to Venice Beach. On the way back I saw a person I needed to talk to. Of course, I had my camera with me. Somehow I meet a lot of interesting people, but this certainly was one of the more unique people I've met.
Treeman's message might not resonate with everyone, but there is clearly a sense of being one with nature. When it was all over I thought that I had had a chat with a relative of the Na'vi.
Treeman, judging from his website Treemanity, is a character of someone who told me his father named him Lantis (I think) as in Atlantis. Perhaps in this character, Lantis is able to talk about things he normally wouldn't be able to. The character Treeman also made me think about Charles Wohlforth's book The Fate of Nature. Many people today, in their own ways, myself included, are concerned about humanity's loss of connection with the natural world. Perhaps I was transporting my concerns onto Treeman, but I do believe he too is concerned with our human relationship to other living things, to water, to the earth, and to the heavens.
Redistricting Court Challenge: Judge Sends 4 Districts Back To Board
Judge McConahy's decision on the Alaska Redistricting Board challenge came out Friday. The decision itself is 136 pages, plus nearly another 100 pages of appendices. You can get the whole decision here. The Judge has a whole list of terms at the beginning of the decision which might be helpful. I've discussed them in various previous posts and I won't redefine them here. Overall, the decision is quite readable. But then I've been immersed in this stuff since last March, so I'm not a good judge.
I've gone through it pretty quickly, but here are some key points I see.
Basically he sent back four districts to the Board to be redrawn. These are the four districts that were found to be unconstitutional in summary judgments before the trial opened - Districts 1 and 2 in Fairbanks, District 37 which splits the Aleutians, and District 38 which combines suburban Fairbanks with rural and roadless villages all the way to the coast.
Districts 37 and 38 are both effective Native districts. Both had more Native population than necessary to qualify as effective under the Voting Rights Act. He focused on the Board's reluctance to pair Democratic Native Senator Lyman Hoffman of Bethel with Republican Senate President Gary Stevens of Kodiak as insufficient reason to violate the state constitution's compactness and contiguity requirements. He concluded that the speculation that such a pairing might be seen as a violation of the Voting Rights Act by the Department of Justice was not strong enough grounds to violate the constitution.
This conclusion, coupled with the fact that both districts 37 and 38 had (plus neighboring district 36 had significantly) more Native population than they needed to be effective, led to the judge remanding 38 as well.
District 1 in Fairbanks was remanded because of the finger that protrudes into District 4. (See this recent post for a map.] While the judge rejected plaintiff's allegations of political gerrymandering here, he found the Board's reasoning for the irregularity (strange protrusions are a sign of lack of compactness in the redistricting standards literature) - to keep the deviations low - unpersuasive. He mentions the fact that plaintiff's witness, Leonard Lawson, could make minor adjustments to the district without affecting deviation.
The judge has little to say about District 2.
Will Affect More than the Four Districts, But First Going To Alaska Supreme Court
Although four districts have been remanded for redrawing, it will be impossible to redraw those four without affecting the districts around them. And while the Board staff might start playing around with maps this weekend, the Board will surely appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court. The judge's ruling even addresses the Supreme Court on occasion.
Below I've copied the conclusion points in the judge's decision from pages 134 - 136.
[UPDATE 11am: I forgot to mention that the Board will meet Tuesday, February 7 at 10 am to discuss their next actions, though since this relates to litigation, I would guess much of the meeting will be off the record. Their January 24 notice said:
I've gone through it pretty quickly, but here are some key points I see.
Basically he sent back four districts to the Board to be redrawn. These are the four districts that were found to be unconstitutional in summary judgments before the trial opened - Districts 1 and 2 in Fairbanks, District 37 which splits the Aleutians, and District 38 which combines suburban Fairbanks with rural and roadless villages all the way to the coast.
Districts 37 and 38 are both effective Native districts. Both had more Native population than necessary to qualify as effective under the Voting Rights Act. He focused on the Board's reluctance to pair Democratic Native Senator Lyman Hoffman of Bethel with Republican Senate President Gary Stevens of Kodiak as insufficient reason to violate the state constitution's compactness and contiguity requirements. He concluded that the speculation that such a pairing might be seen as a violation of the Voting Rights Act by the Department of Justice was not strong enough grounds to violate the constitution.
"Ultimately the Board is asking the court to approve the split of the Aleutian Chain so that Native Senator Hoffman will not be paired because DOJ might not pre-clear the plan. The court does not find that this option was necessary under the VRA but rather is speculative. There will always be groups that are unhappy and they all have the option of objecting to DOJ. The Board cannot base the plan on fear of speculative consequences." [p. 127]You can read the specifics of the Judge's analysis on pages 123 - 127 of the decision.
This conclusion, coupled with the fact that both districts 37 and 38 had (plus neighboring district 36 had significantly) more Native population than they needed to be effective, led to the judge remanding 38 as well.
District 1 in Fairbanks was remanded because of the finger that protrudes into District 4. (See this recent post for a map.] While the judge rejected plaintiff's allegations of political gerrymandering here, he found the Board's reasoning for the irregularity (strange protrusions are a sign of lack of compactness in the redistricting standards literature) - to keep the deviations low - unpersuasive. He mentions the fact that plaintiff's witness, Leonard Lawson, could make minor adjustments to the district without affecting deviation.
The judge has little to say about District 2.
"The court previously found that Proclamation House District 2 was not compact. The Board did not argue that the Proclamation House District 2 was necessary under the VRA. No evidence was presented on Proclamation House District 2 at trial. The court remands Proclamation House District 2 to the Board to redraw." [Map of HD 2 at this post.]Significantly for the future of the Alaska State Senate, the Judge did not accept the plaintiff's arguments that pairing two Fairbanks Democratic Senators was done for partisan reasons and he did not rule against the allegations that underlay those charges.
Will Affect More than the Four Districts, But First Going To Alaska Supreme Court
Although four districts have been remanded for redrawing, it will be impossible to redraw those four without affecting the districts around them. And while the Board staff might start playing around with maps this weekend, the Board will surely appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court. The judge's ruling even addresses the Supreme Court on occasion.
Below I've copied the conclusion points in the judge's decision from pages 134 - 136.
[UPDATE 11am: I forgot to mention that the Board will meet Tuesday, February 7 at 10 am to discuss their next actions, though since this relates to litigation, I would guess much of the meeting will be off the record. Their January 24 notice said:
This meeting will be streamed at www.alaskalegislature.tv. In the event you can't listen on internet you may call 1-855-463-5009. This is a listen only meeting. Testimony will not be taken.]
Friday, February 03, 2012
Nobodyhere: Digital Genius - The Most Brilliant Website I've Ever Experienced
I stumbled upon a website like none I've ever seen. I can't find the name of the creator, so I'll just call him/her The Genius. It does all sorts of things I wish I could do. It uses code to put images and words on the screen just where The Genius wants. TG combines ideas and images and movements. It's the best use of the medium of websites I've seen.
I just discovered this website this morning so I'm still poking around through it. TG is a poet, an artist, and techie enough to make things do what he wants on the screen. (I'm sure TG will say there is much he/she can't do, but I'm still more than impressed.)
Let's look at a few pages. I've made them so they link to directly to the original Nobodyhere (that's the name of the website) page. So you can interact. Click on the image, you'll not regret it.
But Nobodyhere is also very interactive. This is from a page where you can fill in your accusation and apparently TG takes these and makes apologies for them. Here are some examples. Again, you can click on the image and go directly to the page on TG's website.
I would note that the figures are not static. Their movements display suitable supplication.
And, of course, there are the bugs.
Along with the bugs are these more hierarchical pages. I haven't figured out yet how these pages relate to the others - is this a filing system for the more whimsically displayed content? I don't know. But this is true internet genius. This website is a brilliant digital poem I'm looking forward to exploring more. And unlike when I studied 17th Century English poets, there's a chat page where I can possibly interact with TG. I haven't tried it yet.
You don't agree with my assessment? Then leave your pick for a better website - by that I mean a website that uses the full creative potential of a website. I'd love to see others this good or better. But don't pick sites simply because you agree with its message.
Taking Back The Word Liberal
The ad is short, turn off the sound if it bothers you, but listen to the video.
There's an important point in the video which doesn't show up in the poster. Some of the items - like the Clean Air Act - were passed under Republicans, and the response by Jimmy Smits is, "Yes, a liberal Republican. What happened to them?" It's a point I keep making - the whole country has moved so far to the right in the last 30 years that Republicans like Richard Nixon would be considered far left today.
Thursday, February 02, 2012
Redistricting Court Challenge: If I Were The Judge
No, I'm not going to predict the decision, but if I were the judge I would release the decision next Monday, February 6. Here's why.
[UPDATE Sat. February 4: But I'm not the judge and he released his decision yesterday (Friday). Despite the Friday release, the Board won't meet until Tuesday at 10 according to their website. See Feb. 3.]
At the end of the trial he said he'd have it out by the first Monday in February. That's Monday, February 6. The Board's attorney requested a Friday release because the board needs to give 48 hours notice for a public meeting.
Since that day the Board has posted tentative daily meetings starting last Monday and going through Feb. 10. (And each meeting has been cancelled the day before.)
So it seems they have found a way around the 48 hour notice and the need for a Friday decision, even if the Judge were inclined to make one, is gone. (They've cancelled each of the tentative meetings including tomorrow's.)
So, if I were the judge, I'd take advantage of the weekend to review my decision and the mountain of evidence it's based on.
As a blogger, I generally check my posts multiple times before posting. If there are only pictures and just a few words I can do it faster. If it's a longer, more disputed topic, I'll take much longer. I do this for several basic reasons:
1. Just being typographically and grammatically correct is a way of letting my readers know that I'm careful and they might have more confidence in the content as well. Despite this goal, when I look back at old posts, I tend to be dismayed at how many errors slip through.
2. The more clearly I write, the more readers are likely to take from my words the meaning I intended. But people's mental filters are so varied that this is never 100% foolproof. (As I typed that word I wondered about the etymology. I don't mean to imply that if people can't understand what I write they're fools. I know that's not the case.)
3. If it's a particularly contentious topic, I want to be as objective and accurate as possible so as to keep the discussion on track and avoid unnecessary noise.
Judge McConahy, I assume, has staff to check on typos and even do research and possibly drafts of sections of his decision.
He knows that this is a decision that will be read carefully by both the plaintiffs and the defendants and most probably the Supreme Court.
The Board will definitely appeal if the ruling doesn't favor their position.
And since the Plaintiffs know that, they must be prepared to go to the Supreme Court as well. I would assume then that if they lose in Fairbanks, they too are prepared to appeal.
So, if I were Judge McConahy, I would hold this as long as I could. Whatever he writes will be carefully scrutinized. Even if I were done on Friday, I'd want the weekend to reread it, go back through the voluminous pre-trial submissions as well as the testimony in court. I'd be checking to see if I missed an important point that supported one argument or another. If there were inconsistencies in the testimony that I'd missed. If there were clues that would help me decide if witnesses were forthcoming or not. And if they were, whether their judgment could be trusted.
And since the Judge committed to getting his decision out by the first Monday of February, I'm guessing he will, unless he finds something so important at the last minute that requires he rethink the case.
So I'm guessing the decision will be released on Monday and that Monday afternoon Board will not cancel its Tuesday meeting.
There is some urgency here. There are less than five months between now and the June 1 filing deadline for candidates in the Alaska 2012 state primary election. If the judge's decision requires changes in the district maps and the Supreme Court agrees - those changes have to be made and approved before June 1, 2012. The clock is ticking.
A quick trial trivia note: The judge and both attorneys share the first name - Michael.
[UPDATE Sat. February 4: But I'm not the judge and he released his decision yesterday (Friday). Despite the Friday release, the Board won't meet until Tuesday at 10 according to their website. See Feb. 3.]
At the end of the trial he said he'd have it out by the first Monday in February. That's Monday, February 6. The Board's attorney requested a Friday release because the board needs to give 48 hours notice for a public meeting.
Since that day the Board has posted tentative daily meetings starting last Monday and going through Feb. 10. (And each meeting has been cancelled the day before.)
So it seems they have found a way around the 48 hour notice and the need for a Friday decision, even if the Judge were inclined to make one, is gone. (They've cancelled each of the tentative meetings including tomorrow's.)
So, if I were the judge, I'd take advantage of the weekend to review my decision and the mountain of evidence it's based on.
As a blogger, I generally check my posts multiple times before posting. If there are only pictures and just a few words I can do it faster. If it's a longer, more disputed topic, I'll take much longer. I do this for several basic reasons:
1. Just being typographically and grammatically correct is a way of letting my readers know that I'm careful and they might have more confidence in the content as well. Despite this goal, when I look back at old posts, I tend to be dismayed at how many errors slip through.
2. The more clearly I write, the more readers are likely to take from my words the meaning I intended. But people's mental filters are so varied that this is never 100% foolproof. (As I typed that word I wondered about the etymology. I don't mean to imply that if people can't understand what I write they're fools. I know that's not the case.)
3. If it's a particularly contentious topic, I want to be as objective and accurate as possible so as to keep the discussion on track and avoid unnecessary noise.
Judge McConahy, I assume, has staff to check on typos and even do research and possibly drafts of sections of his decision.
He knows that this is a decision that will be read carefully by both the plaintiffs and the defendants and most probably the Supreme Court.
The Board will definitely appeal if the ruling doesn't favor their position.
And since the Plaintiffs know that, they must be prepared to go to the Supreme Court as well. I would assume then that if they lose in Fairbanks, they too are prepared to appeal.
So, if I were Judge McConahy, I would hold this as long as I could. Whatever he writes will be carefully scrutinized. Even if I were done on Friday, I'd want the weekend to reread it, go back through the voluminous pre-trial submissions as well as the testimony in court. I'd be checking to see if I missed an important point that supported one argument or another. If there were inconsistencies in the testimony that I'd missed. If there were clues that would help me decide if witnesses were forthcoming or not. And if they were, whether their judgment could be trusted.
And since the Judge committed to getting his decision out by the first Monday of February, I'm guessing he will, unless he finds something so important at the last minute that requires he rethink the case.
So I'm guessing the decision will be released on Monday and that Monday afternoon Board will not cancel its Tuesday meeting.
There is some urgency here. There are less than five months between now and the June 1 filing deadline for candidates in the Alaska 2012 state primary election. If the judge's decision requires changes in the district maps and the Supreme Court agrees - those changes have to be made and approved before June 1, 2012. The clock is ticking.
A quick trial trivia note: The judge and both attorneys share the first name - Michael.
Birds Sing, Another Nice Day in LA
Maybe one of my birder friends can tell me what this small chirping bird is in the agave like tree. Here's another view
There were several chirping from this Evergreen Pear tree (Pyrus kawakamii) below - my mom knew the name of the tree in her yard. She'd planted it. But they hide well in the tree.
And finally this one on the neighbors' old television antenna.
Wednesday, February 01, 2012
Alaska Redistricting for the Masses Part 3: The Trial - The Disputed Districts
Gnashing of teeth, Tearing of hair. This post is hard. So many details. How to do an overview yet reflect the complications? And I'm only talking about the parts that I think I understand somewhat. I'm still leaving stuff out. And how to do this before the decision comes out, which the judge said he'd get done by the first Monday of February? The Board has announced meetings, tentatively, starting Monday, January 30, so they could have adequate public notice in order to meet as soon as the decision is in. And they cancelled Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday's meetings because the decision isn't out yet.
So, I've decided to break Post 3 down into more than one post. This one focuses on the districts that have been challenged as unconstitutional. There are six. Five directly connected to Fairbanks and one indirectly. [This post ended up only being about districts 1 and 2 and 37.]
The basic question to be decided by the judge is this:
Could the Board have created a redistricting plan that met BOTH the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA) and the Alaska constitutional requirements?
The burden of proof rests with the Board.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has approved the plan as meeting the VRA requirements. Four of the districts challenged, were determined to NOT meet Alaska constitutional requirements - House Districts (HD) 1, 2, 37, and 38.
Districts 1 and 2
[The numbers on the map refer to the house district and the letters refer to the senate district. Two house districts are combined to make a senate district.]
The key problem the Judge found in HD 1 was the "appendage" that goes into HB 4. (It's the brown finger that points left between the blue of 4 and the green (of 3). The judge's order that found districts 1, 2, and 37 NOT compact is here. This actually got settled before the trial began. The order reads, in part:
The importance of this appendage is further spelled out as an example of alleged political gerrymandering. Again from the Judge's order:
The Defense rebuttal to this was that their need to comply with the VRA forced them to make changes in the Fairbanks area - in the trial they talked about a ripple effect that made this appendage unavoidable. They also said that Mr. Holm was following natural boundaries and that this was simply a complete census block and that population was needed in HD 1. They also denied 'the conspiracy theory' saying that Mr. Holm knew where Mr. Kawasaki lived. You can read the details in the order.
My own observation is that when the Fairbanks draft plan was introduced to the Board, it happened too quickly and too vaguely for anyone to know how it affected incumbents before the board approved it. Board member Brodie asked how it affected incumbents and member Holm replied: "I haven't made an incumbent analysis yet." But in the defense reply they said that Mr. Holm knew where Mr. Kawaski lived. In the trial, Mr. Holm was able to answer most questions posed by the Board's attorney, but when the Plaintiff's attorney asked him questions he, as I wrote in a previous post wrote, either didn't know, couldn't remember, or resented the implication.
Moving along to District 2, from the Judge's order again:
Then the Judge cites the Board's response:
Second, Mr. Holm testified several times about his interest in keeping the farmers in the area together because they had common interests. But when the Plaintiff's attorney asked him how many farmers there were, he said he didn't know the actual numbers. Mr. Walleri (the attorney) suggested there might be as many as 6 farmers and Mr. Holm said nothing. So it appeared that the farmer issue was a total red herring.
A quick look at district 37.
District 37 is half the Aleutians. A Supreme Court decision on a previous redistricting plan (Hickel v. Southeast Conference) found:
The Judge found these three districts (plus 38 for other reasons) unconstitutional and left the burden of proof on the defense (the redistricting board) to prove they had to violate the constitution to comply with the Voting Rights Act.
And remember - some of the key concepts about the Voting Rights Act and the Constitutional requirements were covered in Post 1.
OK, these posts were supposed to be overviews, but I've fallen deep into the details. But the principles without the details mean nothing. I've got notes that outline the principles, but as I write, that seems less important in understanding what went on and on how the judge will determine whose arguments on principles were most persuasive. For now, I'll stop here because this is complicated and long enough. I'll add at least one and probably two more overview posts on the trial.
So, I've decided to break Post 3 down into more than one post. This one focuses on the districts that have been challenged as unconstitutional. There are six. Five directly connected to Fairbanks and one indirectly. [This post ended up only being about districts 1 and 2 and 37.]
The basic question to be decided by the judge is this:
Could the Board have created a redistricting plan that met BOTH the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA) and the Alaska constitutional requirements?
The burden of proof rests with the Board.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has approved the plan as meeting the VRA requirements. Four of the districts challenged, were determined to NOT meet Alaska constitutional requirements - House Districts (HD) 1, 2, 37, and 38.
Districts 1 and 2
 |
| HD 1 and HD 2 - Double click to enlarge |
[The numbers on the map refer to the house district and the letters refer to the senate district. Two house districts are combined to make a senate district.]
The key problem the Judge found in HD 1 was the "appendage" that goes into HB 4. (It's the brown finger that points left between the blue of 4 and the green (of 3). The judge's order that found districts 1, 2, and 37 NOT compact is here. This actually got settled before the trial began. The order reads, in part:
. . . the Plaintiffs argue that House District 1 contains a classical appendage on its western side, which protrudes west from the Steese Highway along the Slough. The far western tip of the appendage contains a small portion of Aurora area south of College Road and north of Noyes Slough.It goes on to say that the Plaintiffs argue that it would be easy to switch a different portion of the map so that there is no appendage. In the trial, Leonard Lawson, who was a technical witness for the plaintiffs, and had drawn the maps for the Rights Coalition, demonstrated how this could be done, showing he could adjust the lines to get rid of the appendage without affecting the number of population in each district which is important in keeping all the districts close to the same size and ensuring one person - one vote.
The importance of this appendage is further spelled out as an example of alleged political gerrymandering. Again from the Judge's order:
The Fairbanks Districts were drawn by Board member Jim Holm. Jim Holm is the former Republican State Representative from West Fairbanks City. In 2004 and 2006, Mr. Holm ran for re-election against Democrat Scott Kawasaki, with Mr. Holm winning in 2004 and Mr. Kawasaki winning in 2006. Mr. Kawasaki is the current representative of West Fairbanks. The Plaintiffs argue that the 2006 race was close and hotly contested.
The Plantiffs allege that Mr. Holm drew the appendage in House District 1 in an effort to move Mr. Kawasaki from his current West Fairbanks District to East Fairbanks, where he would be forced to run for re-election in a district that was substantially different from his current district, and against a popular former City Mayor and Republican House Incumbent. who would be running in a district that would be substantially similar to his current district. The Plaintiffs argue that Mr. Holm believed that Mr. Kawaski lived in what is in actuality his sister's home. The Plaintiffs base this argument on the following: Ms. Kawasaki (Mr. Kawasaki's sister) indicated her address as 224 Spruce when she signed in to attend a Board Hearing; Ms. Kawasaki is often mistaken as Mr. Kawasaki's wife. Ms. Kawaski's home was located in the West Fairbanks City District under the Board Option Plans; and Ms. Kawasaki's home is now in the East Fairbanks City District under the Proclamation Plan when the district's western appendage was created.
The Plaintiffs also argue that after the Board's Proclamation Plan, Mr. Pruhs, the Republican Party District 10 Chair, filed a letter of intent to run for the legislature. Under the Board Option Plans Mr. Pruhs' home was in East Fairbanks City and under the Proclamation Plan, Mr. Pruhs' home is located in West Fairbanks. Under the Board Option Plans, Mr. Pruhs would have had to face the current incumbent for East Fairbanks City, Mr. Thompson, who is also Republican. Under the Proclamation Plan Mr. Pruhs will be running against Mr. Kawasaki. Also if Mr. Kawasaki lived where his sister's home is, Mr. Pruhs would be running in a district without an incumbent.
The Defense rebuttal to this was that their need to comply with the VRA forced them to make changes in the Fairbanks area - in the trial they talked about a ripple effect that made this appendage unavoidable. They also said that Mr. Holm was following natural boundaries and that this was simply a complete census block and that population was needed in HD 1. They also denied 'the conspiracy theory' saying that Mr. Holm knew where Mr. Kawasaki lived. You can read the details in the order.
My own observation is that when the Fairbanks draft plan was introduced to the Board, it happened too quickly and too vaguely for anyone to know how it affected incumbents before the board approved it. Board member Brodie asked how it affected incumbents and member Holm replied: "I haven't made an incumbent analysis yet." But in the defense reply they said that Mr. Holm knew where Mr. Kawaski lived. In the trial, Mr. Holm was able to answer most questions posed by the Board's attorney, but when the Plaintiff's attorney asked him questions he, as I wrote in a previous post wrote, either didn't know, couldn't remember, or resented the implication.
Moving along to District 2, from the Judge's order again:
The Plaintiffs argue House District 2 is not compact under the Reock Test. The Plaintiffs also argue that House District 2 is one large corridor that connects three major population areas: Badger, North Pole, and Eilson/Salcha and at the same time divides these population areas among four districts (1, 2, 3, and 6). The Plaintiffs argue that this is an odd shape, which the Hickel Court held to be indicative of gerrymandering. The Plaintiffs additionally argue that narrow highway corridor districts are indicative of gerrymandering and that the Richardson Highway Corridor District runs for 40 miles and is about 1/35th the population. The Plaintiffs content there is no justification for this non-compactness.
Then the Judge cites the Board's response:
The Board contends that House District 2 was designed to accomplish the legitimate goals of redistricting - that of equal population distribution and socio-economic integration. The Board argues that the type of corridor districts Alaska courts are concerned with are corridors of land that extend to include a populated area but not the less populated area around it. The Board also argues that there is not a single shred of evidence that the configuration of House District 2 is partisan in nature.There are several issues here that came up again in the trial. Although Eilson and North Pole were put together because all the military have a common bond, Ft. Wainwright was left in District 1 and Ft. Wainwright's bombing range which has no population at all, was put into District 5. Without the bombing range, District 5 would not be contiguous to District 6 and they couldn't have been paired for a Senate District and then the two Democratic Senators in Fairbanks couldn't have been paired into a single district.
The Board argues that House District 2 largely consists of North Pole and Eilson Air Force Base because "many of the people that live in North Pole are retired military" and "there's a real close tie between Eilson Air Force Base and North Pole, that's where the people that don't live on Base live." Mr. Holm did not include land that is farmland because he believed the farmers had more in common with the extensive population in House District 6 and it was not possible to stretch the boundary of House District 2 towards House District 4 because he needed the population for House District 4.
Second, Mr. Holm testified several times about his interest in keeping the farmers in the area together because they had common interests. But when the Plaintiff's attorney asked him how many farmers there were, he said he didn't know the actual numbers. Mr. Walleri (the attorney) suggested there might be as many as 6 farmers and Mr. Holm said nothing. So it appeared that the farmer issue was a total red herring.
A quick look at district 37.
 |
| Double Click to Enlarge - HD 37 is Green |
Although the parties did not raise this issue, the separation of the Aleutian Islands is so plainly erroneous that we address the issue sua sponte. Thus, in exercise of our authority under article IV, section two of the Alaska Constitution, we hold that the separation of the Aleutian Islands into two districts violates article VI, section six of the Alaska Constitution.
The Judge found these three districts (plus 38 for other reasons) unconstitutional and left the burden of proof on the defense (the redistricting board) to prove they had to violate the constitution to comply with the Voting Rights Act.
And remember - some of the key concepts about the Voting Rights Act and the Constitutional requirements were covered in Post 1.
OK, these posts were supposed to be overviews, but I've fallen deep into the details. But the principles without the details mean nothing. I've got notes that outline the principles, but as I write, that seems less important in understanding what went on and on how the judge will determine whose arguments on principles were most persuasive. For now, I'll stop here because this is complicated and long enough. I'll add at least one and probably two more overview posts on the trial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)