Redistricting Board Looks at Bethel-Anchorage Senate Pairing But Seems Headed For Another Plan

I got to the meeting about ten minutes late - there was another story in front of City Hall as I was walking over that I'll get up as soon as I can.  When I got in they were talking about issues raised by pairing Senator Hoffman with another incumbent.  Actually, any Native Senator with any other incumbent.  Board member Green said she'd just gotten an email from the Alaska Village Council Presidents protesting such pairings.  So the Board was trying to find other ways to get both constitutional and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act (VRA).

Board Executive Director Taylor Bickford had already been working on alterantives.  They thought the Bethel - Matsu pairing would solve the problem, but that would have paired Bethel (and Hoffman) with a sitting Matsu Senator.  (Leonard Lawson, who drew the Rights Coalition map with a Bethel and Matsu senate district, leaned over and said theirs paired Bethel with an open senate seat district.)

In any case, Bickford was not looking back at pairing Bethel and Anchorage in a Senate seat and he found a House district in an open Senate seat.  When I say to board members of staff how ridiculous it seems to me to be pairing a midtown Anchorage house with a Bethel house district, they say, "That's how Fairbanks feels."  But they now have urban City of Fairbanks in one Senate seat and such an urban area of Anchorage paired with a district that's completely off the road system seems absurd.  And I think the Board knows that, but are doing it to show they tried to take population from Anchorage.  Here are the maps.

Top: Whole Bethel-Anc map; Middle: HD 36 paired with Bottom: HD 35 Midtown Anchorage

The pinkish semi-circle in the middle image above is the link from HD 36 over Cook Inlet into Anchorage.  Bickford said he wanted to pair it with 19, but it has an incumbent Senator.  HD 35 the circled orange district is the one that would be part of a senate seat with Bethel.  Actually it's a whole swath of Alaska from across the inlet to the Bering Sea.


Then the moved on to a more likely map, but one that still looks pretty amazing.  This one goes back to the original Proclamation Plan rural districts, but rejoins the Aleutians, and then has to make a whole series of adjustments to other rural districts to get the deviations (in population from district to district) under 10% statewide.  To do this they also had to make what Bickford said were minor changes to the Fairbanks districts they presented yesterday.  But look at the yellow District 39 that goes from Gamble and Savoonga in the West across Alaska to the Canadian border and then down to McCarthy and the Copper River area.  I know the old HD 6 was nearly as big.

Map 3/30 -1  - After tweaking they'll send this one to check about VRA compliance

The Board broke around noon and will reconvene at 2pm.  Bickford and GIS guy Eric Sanford will work on getting the deviations down and getting a map that is good enough to send to Lisa Handley, the VRA expert, to see if she can endorse this as in compliance with the VRA.    I know this maps looks similar to the Bethel-Anchorage, but it doesn't go into Anchorage and it's labeled 3/30 - 1. 

It seems to me that the Board has spent so much time focused on having their baseline Hickel Process constitutional map as a starter, they have forgotten that the changes have to be the minimal changes (from the constitutional requirements) possible to get VRA compliance.  But I'm wondering about the PAM-E plan that the courts used last time as an example of a plan that was both constitutional and VRA compliant.  Won't they again point to it and say it meets both sets of requirements while the new map the Board is working up  has to violate the constitution - not to meet VRA requirements - but to avoid pairing a Native incumbent with another incumbent.  And I'm thinking of Lisa Handley's testimony the other day [sorry, I have a lot of it on audio and I'm trying to get it up soon] where she said that pairing a Native incumbent wouldn't prevent Department of Justice approval (that it complies with VRA.)  Maybe I misunderstood something, but I thought they had to have the least possible variance from the constitutional requirements as possible.  I'll see if I can ask someone.  Or maybe HD 39's lack of compactness and lack of socio-economic integration will be seen as minimal and the other districts are ok.  Certainly, as Bickford said today, rural Alaska isn't easy to make small districts with. 

It's almost 2 so I need to get back.  Don't have time to do anything with my notes except spell check.  SO BEWARE - these are rough and approximate. 



ROUGH NOTES BOARD MEETING MARCH 30, 2012 MORNING

10:09 I arrived late
Alaska Village Council Presidents - email opposing rural Senator pairings. 

Taylor Bickford:  the other day saw Bethel-Matsu pairing and were excited with that possibility.  But it contains an incumbent Senator.  Our goal has been not to pair the Bethel Senator with another Senator.  But checked numbers, and couldn’t get the Senate to more than 42%, but with the outgrowth of rural areas and growth of Matsu, it would lead to future problems of [Native effectiveness].  Tried to remove the Senator, reached a low point, would have totally changed the nature of Matsu.

Started looking at another option - focused on Bethel - Anchorage.  Letting you know what I worked on and why I’m not showing a Bethel-Matsu option. 

Bethel-Anchorage - started with Hickel plan - had Native horseshoe which Lisa said was too low VAP.  Had to take that district as drawn and figure out how to unpack the other districts to raise the VAP. 
Step 1.  39 is necessary to unpack the interior district.
Step 2.  run it into Nome to unpack the Native
3.  Have to get urban population.  38 has to do this.  39 and 38 are unavoidable result of getting a fifth Native district.
The need to build two more house districts that can be paired for VRA and avoid pairing the sitting Senator Hoffman.  And get 3rd effective Senate district.

I built Bethel and Aleutian districts so Aleutians back together.  Similar to ours and similar to some of third parties.  Can’t combine Kodiak and Aleutians.  If pair Bethel and Kodiak, back to incumbent pairing.  So, where do you take the Bethel House District?  And so here’s what we have, connecting Bethel with an Anchorage district.  Found the closest district - 19.  But that has a sitting Senator. 
then 16, sort of a midtown, west district, touches water, has Native percentage similar to Kodiak, 18%. 
White:  Midtown?  That’s where I live.
Taylor Bickford:  Yes we targeted Michael White.  We’re jumping the water to go into Anchorage.  If you were to do that, the Senate district VAP would be 42%.  Unlike Matsu didn’t have to carve out incumbents and shifting the rest of the map 
Three effective Senate districts at

This plan accomplishes our goals of figuring out what to do with Bethel and Aleutian region. 
Other problems?  Pretty big jump to Anchorage.  If I’m looking for an issue, that’s it.  Didn’t have to do anything with 36 or 37.  Real issue is the jump to Anchorage. 

Torgerson:  Does Fire Island in the district make it look a little better? 

White:  Would have to reconfigure Anchorage Senate Seats. 
Torgerson:  Mike, is that going to raise problems.
White:  Some water jump allowed.  House districts Contiguous, compact, SE I.  Senate seats only Contiguous.  Across the water isn’t that far.  Not like 1000 miles or 100 miles. 

Torgerson:  Could be an issue?
White:  Going across Cook Inlet, not like going across seas???
Torgerson:  Compactness issue?
White:  Done for population reasons?  Relative compactness.  Coming down like that, a little concern. 
Taylor Bickford:  I can say from practical, not legal, perspective, when you get to rural Alaska you have to throw compactness out the window.  Not realistic to expect perfect compactness. hd 6 in Benchmark certainly not compact.  Given what we have in front of us to avoid an incumbent pairing, we have Bethel and Matsu. . .
One district goes under -5%   - 9.1% variation.

Torgerson:  Other questions?  Let’s look at other ones you worked on.  We can hop back and forth. 

Taylor Bickford:  This plan - 3/30-1 
People can’t find maps,  Recess 5 minutes (10:33)

Taylor Bickford:  Talking a lot about incumbent pairings.  Only talking about this as a Voting Rights Act issue.  You know about briefs from Native organizations, and Marie’s email, and the effort is to not have a native incumbent pairing if possible.

Drawing of 39 and 38 is result of Lisa saying Hickel plan saying these not effective house district (6) and so that’s what we are doing.  That leaves you with everything underneath. 

Start with pan similar to Proclamation plan, and not have a Native incumbent paired. 
Bethel is, starts with Bethel and works its way down.  The other day all frustrated and thinking no way to work it out.  I think we can.

Started by reuniting the chain.  We considered Aleutians east and west.  Originally cut off and paired with Bethel over span of water.  Reunited Chain and ran them as far up the Peninsula as far as I could.  This goes from Bethel into unified Chain.  Contiguity similar to what proposed by 3rd party groups.  I don’t see this as a stretch Lincoln-Penn to Dillingham.
Torgerson:  It doesn’t really go to Dillingham.
Taylor Bickford:  Into Dillingham census area but not into city of Dillingham.  D is actually located here in HD 36.  Native preferred incumbent in Dillingham and one in Bethel, so we want to not pair them. 
Torgerson:  Most of the connection is uninhabited.
Taylor Bickford:  Major change.  36 absorbed ??? had to pick up a couple of villages from 38 to 36 (Holy Cross ……)  Similar to Proclamation.  Corrected Chain splitting.  Unpacking the old 6 district.
Senate pairings.  40 and 39 = 65%
37-38  43.9%
Kodiak and Bethel Region without Bethel 47.6%
House - 5 effective.  Only one slightly below 46.2% but a lot of benchmark 37 so ok.
Problem in last plan from Tyonek into Anchorage.
Here, picks up Nunivak Island, goes across the water.
Lake and Penn B is divided. 
White:  Not enough population to support a district.  >50%.  Borough has less than 2000. 
Torgerson:  Majority live in Chignik.
Sandberg:  Most in Iliamna area. 
White:  This plan does not incorporate the Fairbanks ???.  For deviations.  Tweaking.  Bethel Anchorage does include Fairbanks. 
Need some clean up.
Taylor Bickford:  If the board were to ask us to look more, could take Rural Districts out and put them into the Hickel plan.  Could take them out of Proclamation and put them into Hickel plan.  ?????
Torgerson:  What are you referring to Fairbanks?
White:  The map you did yesterday.
Torgerson:  OK.
Taylor Bickford:  I would have taken Rural districts and put them in Hickel Template with Fairbanks, but didn’t have enough time to do that. 
Torgerson:  My sense to send these to Lisa to let her look at them at break.  Hickel Plan, most constitutional plan ever made…..???
Torgerson:  How long would it take to do that?  More concerned if not going to change much, get her ok on the concept.
Taylor Bickford:  If we recessed to 11:30, I could come back with the Fairbanks fix.  Lisa won’t be back to her desk til 12:30 our time.
Torgerson:  You have a lock on your door?  You can get it done in half an hour.
PeggyAnn McConnochie:  I’d like to thank you Taylor for coming up with something we hadn’t thought of. 
10:56  Torgerson:  Let’s recess.  Try to get our deviations down.  Stand in Recess until 11:30. 

11:32 - Reconvened
Torgerson:  We took a break for Taylor to incorporate the Proc Plan started plan into Hickel Template.
Taylor Bickford:  To clarify, I did start with rural from Proclamation, but did start with Hickel.  Because the Fairbanks deviations were a little higher, we had to do a little adjusting to get the whole thing under 10%. 
Torgerson:  Can we identify your changes by map.  3/30 - 1 so we’re clear? 
Taylor Bickford;  Went into Fairbanks and made minor tweaks, didn’t affect anything we talked about yesterday.  Tweaked the ?? district, got the overall deviation down.  Had to bring our highest district down to be under 10%. 
Torgerson:  Can we back up.  I’m sure Jim in Fairbanks would like to know.
Taylor Bickford:  Shifted pop from 2 into 3 and a little from 3 into 1.  Just, cant tell yo exact blocks, switch of less than 100 people.  This block is enormous - 242 people, just the nature of the shape of the blocks.  Asked Eric to see if he could bring - neg 5.99 in district 36 - could he get that lower.  Started with Anvik and Grayling.  Added them both and that brought 36 under 5%, but a tenuous connection between 38 and Wade-Hampton.  Said add Grayling back and kept Anvik, deviation down to 5.51.  We’ll clean the zero blocks to make it cleaner - no population.  Reducing most overpopulated district and underpopulated district brought over all to 9.1%.
Torgerson:  Remind me?
Taylor Bickford:  I think about 8.7 for Senate and 8.? for House.
Torgerson:  Concerned about Grayling connection? 
Taylor Bickford:  No not now.
Torgerson:  You could make the corridor look better because this area is empty. 
Sandberg:  Anvik would have been an island. 
Taylor Bickford:  We’ll clean it up.  Same as we’ve been discussing, got Statewide deviation better by slight fixes in Fairbanks.
Torgerson:  Dividing Kenai twice now?
Taylor Bickford:  .3 excess - Kodiak takes part and remember two villages in 36 and that was in proclamation plan and that was never an issue - Nanwalek and Port Graham.
Nothing can be taken out of 37.  Existed in Proc plan.  Population deviation…
Torgerson:  As goal for analayis from Dr. Handley, enough for her to review?
Taylor Bickford:  Eric and I can get this together.  She won’t be back until 12:30 and we can get it done by then. 
Sandberg:  She needs the recompiled election results for these districts. 
Taylor Bickford:  We may find small technical details, but for her analysis this is all she needs.
Torgerson:  How will we handle her report.
Taylor Bickford:  Mike’s the one who has been communicating with her.  I assume she can.  Asking to check this plan, Anchorage-Bethel plan?????
Brodie:  Her computer spits it out, we’ll ask for that verbally with follow up in writing?
Torgerson:  I agree, curious if they had already asked her about that.  In my opinion, just want a yes-no, on the right path or totally off.  I’m very comfortable with a verbal and something in writing tomorrow.  She doesn’t do finals til we adopt it,  Then we get the final-final.  Any other questions or discussion?  She said two hours, that’d be 3:30.  I’m thinking about recess til 1:30.  I know we won’t have Lisa’s, but we have other work.
Taylor Bickford:  2 o’clock would be better. 

It Couldn't Be Easier - Just Click Here To Listen In at 10am

You're in your office or at home or in a coffee shop.

Just click here and get to the Legislative TV website with the link to the Redistricting Board online.  Just watch ten minutes to get a sense of what it's like.

Or check out the legislature while you are there.  The House Finance Committee is live now.

Board Finds Fault With Third Party Plans

I came back for the 2pm reconvening.  That was pushed back to 2:30 and they actually got started again at 2:37.  This section of the afternoon was spent

1. reviewing the third party plans that were submitted and then 
2. approving the modified (to fix HD 1 and 2) Proclamation plan as a backup in case they can't get a new plan ready soon enough for the 2012 election.

Board Attorney Michael White began first with the Rights Coalition plan which he dismissed out of hand because it didn't follow the Hickel process, that is, they didn't prepare first a plan that met the state constitutional requirements and then go from there to  modify it to meet the Voting Rights Act (VRA) requirements.  There were lots of ironies in this.  White has expressed his disagreement with the Court's requiring the Hickel Process and now he was using that as a standard to knock down the plan worked up by Rights Coalition tech expert Leonard Lawson who was an expert witness (after the Board's protest was denied) for the plaintiffs at the trial in Fairbanks which led, eventually, to the Supreme Court imposing the Hickel Process on the Board.   White acknowledged that the Rights Coalition argued that they didn't need to present an original constitutional plan because their plan was both constitutional and in compliance with the VRA.  But White went on to point out parts of the plan that he said were not constitutional and those breaches could only be justified, if at all, by following the Hickel Process and showing they had to violate the constitution to meet the VRA.

Then he went on to question whether they even complied with VRA.   Here's the Rights Plan below.  A couple of commenters in the previous post asked me to post it and I had just gotten hold of an electronic copy of it during lunch.

Rights Coalition Plan - click to enlarge

[You can get pdfs of all the submitted maps here.]

Next White (and executive director Taylor Bickford) used the checklist -

___Hickel Plan (Did they have a plan that was constitutional first and then a plan that also complied with VRA?)
___Constitutional?
___Meet the VRA?

to get rid of the two Calista plans and the AFFR plan.  The Calista plan was the only one that had followed the Hickel Process. 

Then they reviewed their own revised proclamation plan - the changes to Fairbanks.  Instead of looking for what was wrong as they did with the others, they only explained what was right.  And the Board looked at the Fairbanks map it created and the Board saw that it was good. 

Up until late yesterday the board's policy was:  If you want to send us something, we're a public agency, so you can.  We may or may not look at it.

Yesterday they agreed to look at the third party plans, but didn't give a checklist of what they were going to look for.  I think it had to be obvious to the third parties that their plans would have to meet the Constitutional and VRA requirements.  Not so obvious was the need to have a Hickel map, though any map that the Board eventually uses will have to meet both the VRA and constitutional requirements.  If they don't meet the constitutional requirements they will have to have a first draft of their plan that does so the court can see why they had to violate the constitution to get the VRA approval.

But both the AFFR and Rights Coalition believed their plans were constitutional.  Thus they didn't need to have a benchmark constitutional plan so the Court could judge the need for their deviations.  There were, in their minds, no deviations.  The Board found various constitutional deviations (and with the Calista plan too) which I can't really evaluate.  Compactness and socio-economic integration are so subjective.  But I'd wager that if a third party had submitted one of the Board's old plans from earlier in the process, a plan the Board then thought was Constitutional, today they would have rejected it as unconstitutional.  They just seemed to have a much less generous eye when looking at other people's maps than when looking at their own. 

I would also note that Calista, the only third party to submit Hickel Plan maps,  has worked closely with Randy Ruedrich, chair of the Republican Party, and who has spent a lot of time sharing his opinions with the Board members and staff during breaks.  I didn't ask Randy why AFFER (the key group he was working with to submit plans earlier in the process) didn't submit a plan this time round. 

Basically, after rejecting the idea of soliciting plans until yesterday, it seems the Board decided it would be a good idea to get them in and then put on the record what was wrong with each one of them before moving on to approve their own plan.  The way they dispensed with the maps suggested to me that they weren't looking to find a third party plan in compliance.  In fact the existence of other plans that met both the Constitutional AND VRA requirements is what derailed them the first time round.  They had what they thought was such a plan, but rejected it because it paired Native Senator Hoffman with Senate President Stevens.  They decided that it would be rejected by the Department of Justice.  But it was considered constitutional.  And its existence was a reason the trial court said that such a plan could be drawn.  Would it have been considered constitutional had it been submitted by a third party today?  I doubt it.  And, curiously,  yesterday when their VRA expert Lisa Handley spoke to them over the phone, she said that pairing a  Native incumbent in a plan with high VAP would be a stronger bet than not pairing, but having a lower VAP.  Basically she said the one they didn't send in because of the pairing, probably would have been ok. 


My head's starting to hurt trying to think through all this. 

They finished the first part of the afternoon about 4.  I was getting groggy and decided to go home and listen in via internet.  The 4:30 return was pushed off to 5:30.  When I tried to hook in online about 15 minutes late, it said the next meeting was 10am Friday.  They've also announced meetings for Sunday and next week.  It doesn't mean they'll use all those days, but they need to get public notice out in advance just in case.  They have put up a link to some "board maps", but I'm not sure what these are.


Here are my rough notes from today's meetings.  They are particularly rough, but it's better than nothing until the official transcripts become available.  So, read them knowing there are serious gaps and paraphrasings. 

ROUGH NOTES (see warning above ⬆)


Redistricting Board March 29, 2012

10:03  Open
Roll Call
Agenda approved
Third party plan offered option of stretching Bethel to Matsu, so Taylor will try this with the PAM_E.  This is Suggestion for AFFR?
Taylor Bickford:  AFFR and Rights Group.
Torgerson:  I’ve talked to Taylor to also look at including Anchorage.  We have a lot of Natives in Anchorage.  If we try to Matsu, we can try Anchorage too. 


Board Discussion of Draft Timeline
We had talk about the timeline.  Start with the court ordered timeline, that was vacated.  But a good start.

Compares the Court to the Chair’s

1.  Board start work - 3-26
2.  Board Drafts Constitutional Plan   2-27
3.  Plan reviewed by VRA expert - 3-28
4.  Board Adopts Amended plan - 3-30
5.  Board Adopts proclamation - 3-31
6.  Board Submit plan to Court - 4-04

Had Taylor call Republican and Democrat Party to find out how much time they needed = both said two weeks for notice to public of actual plan so people can ??

Mr. Ruedrich suggested we petition the court to adopt our plan so we know what we go back to and that we continue our work so we get it done.
Kay Brown’s response just got, basically very aware of board’s time crunch, not opposed to delaying candidate June 1 deadline or even delaying the election, but there should be a two week notice. 
Oddly enough we found agreement within the parties.

Instructed legal to give us a draft motion to the SC to draft the proclamation plan.  Very draft document, other things will probably be added to it, but don’t want to be in a crunch on when the time comes.

White:  Still not sure if it has to be pre-cleared before hand.  I do believe if it is submitted it would be pro-forma. 

Torgerson:  Possibly the board needs to adopt two plans.  We’re adopting the Proclamation Plan with the Fairbanks fixes.  On a parallel course we would have a different plan as we’re going along. 
White:  Let SC know we have the fixed Proclamation plan as a back up ??? [Not sure what they were saying.] 
Torgerson:  If we make the decision by the 15th, the timeline is right on the nose with the two week notice.
We’re two weeks ahead of the last redistricting board, but they didn’t have the Native pre-clearance issues we have. 
I’ve tried to get answers, but they are so elusive, especially DOJ pre-clearance.  One thing I picked up on is that people are assigned to us, 5 DOJ folks, they’re familiar with our earlier submission.  they don’t have to start from scratch. 
White:  The board needs to have Lisa look at any plan prior to submitting for VRA. 
Torgerson:  I figure if we give her a plan tomorrow, she’ll stay up all night long to get it back.  If she can’t do it Friday night and we can’t get our work done, I’ll roll this to Sunday.  We’re going to notice meetings all next week.  We don’t know what we’ll need.  We can keep going and not have an issue with open meetings. 
Back to agenda.  Board will take

STaff will review 3rd party plans submitted and compile a report when we get back.  Have them present their findings and if their are Constitutional and VRA issues.  Also instructed Taylor to look at coming concept of AFFR plan that takes Bethel into Matsu that solves a lot of problems.  I’ve instructed Taylor to look at the same pairings, but bringing that into Anchorage.  Matsu is 17.1 VAP and Anchorage is almost 18. 


Then we’ll look at Fairbanks 1 and 2.  We’ll take a look at that and then staff presentations and mine on the conceptual Bethel - Matsu.

Taylor Bickford:  Plans we received this week, a lot of stuff moving around.  Not necessarily organized.  By 2pm we’ll have them organized to pass out.  For people on line some questions about being able to follow along.  We’re getting a lot of things on the fly, we’re doing the best we can.  Trying to get stuff on the website.  Hope people online will

Received:
Hickel Plan from Calista
Rights Coalition
AFFR
Last night two more Calista plans

I’m assuming at this point we don’t need to look at Calista’s Hickel Plan, or do we need to look at them all?
Torgerson:  I can call the Chief Justice.  Just look at them all.
Taylor Bickford:  Last night’s AFFR plan had an issue with it, I’ll check if they will get us a new one by 2pm.  The AFFR plan had an issue.  Talked to them last night to give them a heads up.  They said they are working on something and I’ll check after this meeting and.  They’re total deviation was too high - 11.8.

Brodie:  Nothing stops us from adopting the Proclamation Plan????
Marie:  I want to express my appreciation that we are going to review the different private plans. 
Torgerson:  We’ll stand at recess until 2pm.  time now 10:27. 





Afternoon is pushed back to 2:30pm

2:37pm  Reconvening - Packet of maps and deviation numbers are being passed out. 
Torgerson:  Assigned legal and staff to review 3rd party plans and see how far they could get and we’ll start with that.
then move to adopt Fairbanks 1 and 2
Then other plans.
After Fairbanks take another 30 minute break to let staff work on their Bethel-Matsu and Bethel-Anchorage attempts.

White:  Took Calista, AFFR, and Rights Coaltion and put them through the same analysis  and then VRA and Constitution.

Rights did not start from Hickel plan the Board adopted.  From our analysis that by itself disqualifies.  Their conviction is they don’t have to apply a Hickel plan because it meets the Constitution and so they don’t need a Hickel.  I think that’s wrong.
No Hickel - we couldn’t adopt this and take it to the SC.
VRA compliance - on it’s face appears to meet 5 effective, one  and one.  One is just one % above the minimum. 
41.8%  Statewide
in old six 50%
Chain - maybe to 35-37% range
Any time you move off exact configuration of those two 37 and 6 - then the numbers change. 
Taylor Bickford:  We did get the maps on the website if you are listening online. 
White:  3rd point, they did change SEast, pairing Kookesh and also pair Thomas with Northern Juneau (Munoz)
State compliance.  Under the 10% so that’s ok.
Start at top and work down.  HD 39 Only way to justify it is by citing VRA.  Departure.  Close to Proclamation Plan.  McCarthy to Nome. 
HD 38 BEthel District - how they solved urban population shortfall go across the water to Home and Kenai.  I think no question would not be relatively Socio-econ integrated.  mr. Lawson proffered some justification for the connection, as a whole, I can’t see getting that part of Kenai to Northern portion, I don’t see it.
Compactness issues possible. 
HD 37 Chain district - running it up - maybe some compactness issues, but not major issues. 
HD 36 - Wade Hampton - shape, dragonish, maybe some compact.  Designed that way to comply with VRA, but
HD 31 - Yakutat, Cordova, Kenai Cooper Landing to Anchorage to Rabbit Creek - not socio-economically integrated.  Yakutat to Kenai hard.
HD 18 - in anchorage.  Appendages - haven’t looked in detail,
HD 10 in Matsu - questionable compactness
HD 5 - Richardson Highway - serious compactness and SE Integration.  Nor Compact.
Proportionality - Kenai Borough split three ways. 
Court found complied with Constitution but not VRA.  3rd thing then minimal change to be in compliance.  Looking at Rights as a whole - there has to be at least one SE-Integreation problem and at least one compactness problem.  If you look at this plan and give them the benefit of the doubt that the deviations relate to the VRA, I think it’s easy to say this wouldn’t pass Supreme Court muster. 
Taylor Bickford:  No way to tell that their constitutional deviations were necessary to VRA since there is no Hickel Plan. 

Calista 1:  Breaks up Traditional NS district and takes it down to McCarthy. 
Started with Hickel plan we adopted and so it seems it complies with the Hickel process.
Solved problem by taking population out of Fairbanks. 
VRA - does appear to meet - 5 ability to elect (effective)  3 senate seats - one in R is 41.8%, but it’s in the Aleutians.
Constitution  -
40 NSlope - compactness, SE Integration, Mix of different Native groups
39 compact - assume both required by VRA
36 - similar to our proclamation plan - Keeps chain split with one difference - puts Akutan back into Aleutian borough. contiguity issues. 
Other than Sen Kookesh doesn’t pair any other Native incumbents. 
4 departures from the constitution - I think the least amount.
Taylor Bickford:  37 and 36 and splitting of Chain is their own issue and separating to protect incumbent is different issue. Same rationale we argued in Proclamation. 

3:09 Eterra does mapping for Calista

Calista 2 - looks a lot like the Proclamation Plan, starts with Hickel template.
Solve rural population shortfall by going tinto Fairbanks.  VRA exact same as first plan. 
…… missed a bit……
Problems due to VRA. 
Three areas not totally constitutional necessitated by VRA. 

Calista VRA mod 2
Marcia Davis - based on Hickel 1made VRA adjustments.  HD 5, lowest slightly under 41% is an Aleutian district.
Torgerson:  You lost me
Taylor Bickford;  36 includes Change and Bethel - 41.41% Native VAP, but no polarized voting in the chain, so this will work. 
37 and 38 ok
Aleutians with Kodiak is 38?%  OK.  Does not have a third effective Senate district and we think wouldn’t get preclearance.
40 - potential SE Integration and compactness issues - NS + Athabascan
39 - almost identical to others SE I and Compactness
38 - combine urban-rural so know SEI problem, but since urban-rural needs to be somewhere
37 - I didn’t see issues here, maybe some compactness

AFFR Plan -
within 10% after fixing some computer problems
Did not start with a Hickel Plan so under the process it would be disqualified
Population shortfall - used Fairbanks and Kenai
VRA - appears to be retrogressive because only 2, not 3 Effective Senate seats, 5 effective house.  3rd Senate seat is 39.1  (39 and 40)  Bethel with Matsu.  More than 3% under the standard.  In House seats have concern, if problems - need more analysis
35 - contains much of same area of HD6 is at 45.31 so 3% over, but HD 6 needed 50%, don’t know if different enough. 
Taylor Bickford:  chunk of 35 out of urban, our VRA testimony - if you’re going to add urban population to rural you should take Democrats over Republican because more likely to cross over.  They take Republicans and because of how close they are I think this is a problem. 
White:  If you had 60% VAP wouldn’t be a problem.  Here it’s too close.  That’s why we took from the other side of Fairbanks. 
Taylor Bickford:  Focus on 45% - average for state is 42, but HD 6 was 50% - so should be higher
38 - Down around that area where Lisa starts fidgeting in her chair. 
Taylor Bickford:  Given Lisa had heartburn with Chain district below 38%, I suspect this would cause her even greater concern.
Brodie:  I thought you had concern with Valdez going into Anchorage. 
State Constitutional - Split NW Arctic Borough.  Maybe not a problem doesn’t have enough population to have own district. 
HD37:  First time I’ve seen this, unique, maybe compactness.  Potential long skinny district. 
Proportionality - NStar Borough 2 ways.  Kenai 3 ways
White:  this is quick and dirty, more time, maybe more issues.  Thank the third parties for putting these in.  Ideas that will help the Board. 

Torgerson:  After finish Fairbanks we’ll take 30 minute break

Brodie sitting at the computer: 
First thing Taylor did was take lower end of FNSB the highway district out.  City District split a couple of ways.  Put all of this district (4) into city of Fairbanks.  Talked about yesterday the Base issue, I think that’s ok.  I thought I had the right numbers for the City, but not sure.
All of 4 in City of Fairbanks. 
HD 3 takes in all the eastern part of Fairbanks.  Cleanest way.  Still has 38 into western outskirts.  A few minor adjustments here to make the numbers pretty equal.  Close to making all the districts the same size. 
White: Borough now only split one way.  Deviations in the 3 and 4%.
Taylor Bickford:  That was unavoidable.  Only our former 1 the court didn’t like (the appendage)  Had to fix former #1 and that affected the boundary of both. 
2 Up here stayed the same to pick up some trading population.  Adding back in the highway district.  Numbers here do not correspond to Proclamation Plan.
White:  I suggest you use the same numbers as proclamation plan. 
Brodie:  it depends on how we pair them.  If we pair the two City districts, we have to pair them.
White:  No requirement since that is not resolved.
Torgerson:  Jim, you ok with this?
Holm:  I think so, not sure about the senate pairings.  City paired. 
Torgerson:  Goal of the board to keep city intact and open whether proportionality is an issue.  As long as we have it, it’s an easy fix. 
Brodie:  I think this satisfies the courts concerns.  Fixed 2 by squaring it off.  Instead of the narrow corridor.
Torgerson;  and we added the bombing range.
White:  5 didn’t cross over . . .
Torgerson:  We should adopt this in concept.
White:  We’re doing this for the Supreme Court in case we can’t finish the other plan.
Torgerson:  Why don’t we adopt this as the amended proclamation plan.
Don’t ask technical questions.  I’m too tired to ask. 
White:  In order to comply, we have to say these districts are compact and meet. 
Torgerson:  I’m not working for an interim plan.  But if we have to, I’m not sure the SC said we had to have constitutional issues within boroughs.  I find those pretty darn compact.  Thanks Bob.
White:  When done, I have to submit to trial court.  We’ve complied with your order for 1 and 2.  Maybe your explanation on the record is sufficient. 
Torgerson:  Have to make findings on portion of the plan . . . . put something on the record. 
White:  humor me
Torgerson:  We did away with the Kawasaki finger.  Moved the bombing range out of the district, and made it not reflect the highway corridor. 
Roll Call vote: 
Five yeahs  0 nays  adopted amended Proclamation Pan, Fairbanks 6,1,2,
Take a recess until 4:30 or thereabouts so Taylor can finish his plan on Bethel Matsu.  Probably

Redistricting Board Back on Track

I likened the board yesterday to a graduate student having a meltdown late into a major semester long project.  And today, like such a student,  the board seems to have gotten their frustrations out of their system, gotten a good night’s sleep, and this morning were proceeding with renewed energy and professionalism. They began with timelines for the Board to finish.

1.  Board start work - 3-26
2.  Board Drafts Constittuional Plan   2-27
3.  Plan reviewed by VRA expert - 3-28
4.  Board Adopts Amended plan - 3-30
5.  Board Adopts proclamation - 3-31
6.  Board Submit plan to Court - 4-04


New Love for 3rd Party Plans and The Bethel-Matsu Senate Pairing

The third party plans that were disparaged yesterday were cited today as giving the board possible new options.  Chair Torgerson said that the AFFR’s and (with prompting from executive director Bickford) the Rights Coalition’s pairing of Bethel and Matsu House Districts to get the third Native Senate district looked promising and that he’d instructed staff to see if they could adjust the plans they are working on to achieve that. [I put up a video of AFFR Rep Joe McKinnon talking about this plan in the previous post.  I couldn't figure out the third Senate pairing.  It turns out to be the Bethel-Matsu pairing.]

AFFR Plan

Working On Two Plan Strategy

The Board is now working on two plans to move forward.  One is their new plan that has gone through the Hickel Process mandated by the Supreme Court.  But there have been concerns about whether they can pull off a plan that will get both DOJ approval and Supreme Court approval soon enough for the 2012 election deadlines. 

So, they are also planning to submit a copy of the original Proclamation plan with the two Fairbanks districts that were ruled unconstitutional (HD 1 and 2) cleaned up.  The Supreme Court has given the Board the option of using the Proclamation plan as a fallback for the 2012 election if they can’t get a new plan created and approved in time for the election.  This would allow them to have a fallback in case the new plan doesn’t get approved in time.

Break Until 2pm



The board recessed until 2pm to give the staff time to work on the plan that would pair the Bethel and Matsu districts.  Chair Torgerson also asked them to look at pairing Bethel and Anchorage, though taking precincts like Kincaid or Inlet View as they talked about yesterday seems particularly bizarre to me and others who were watching.

Joe McKinnon Video on AFFR Redistricting Plan

The Redistricting Board is trying to find a plan that will meet both the Alaska constitutional requirements and the Voting Rights Act (VRA) requirements. The initial plan they drew up did get pre-clearance from the Department of Justice (DOJ) on the VRA, but there were districts that didn't meet constitutional standards. The VRA takes precedence over the Alaska Constitution, but if there must be violations of the constitutional standards, they must be minimal.

The Supreme Court said they couldn't evaluate the Board's submitted plan because they had no benchmark against which to measure whether the constitutional violations were the least they could be. So now the board is doing what it can to develop a new plan. They are having trouble getting to one.

 Meanwhile, I know, from talking to people at the board meetings, that there are at least three groups that have developed plans:

•  Calista has submitted one or two plans. 
• The Rights Coaliton (a group which includes the Democratic Party) has submitted a plan. 
• AFFR (Alaskans For Fair Redistricting made up of union and Native Corporations) 

In the video below, Joe McKinnon talks about the AFFR plan.  I've looked at the plan since we made the video and I need Joe to show me the third Native Senate seat.  It's hard to evaluate the constitutionality from the page size maps, but the compactness and contiguity seem to be ok for the larger districts.  For the smaller districts, there's not enough detail to know. 











Joe expresses some concern about the process - the lack of interest expressed by the board for third party plans.

Redistricting Board Hits Low Point In Process

When my grad students worked on their semester long capstone projects, there came a time, not far from the end, when it would all become too much and they'd throw up their hands and want to give up. 

The Redistricting Board seemed to reach that point this afternoon.  They couldn't make the PAM-E plan - that paired Senators Hoffman and Stevens - work  out in any other configuration.  The numbers weren't there.  The time frames for getting a plan before the June 1 filing deadline, what with getting VRA clearance and court approval, just looked impossible to them.

Should they tell the Supreme Court to just use the Proclamation Plan for this year's elections - an out the Supreme Court offered them?  Or should they try something, anything else?  Then board member Marie Green, who doesn't talk much, said she'd like to get more public participation, allow the private groups to submit plans.  The Chair has always been polite and respectful to Marie Green and he was when he said he'd decided to not open things up to outside groups.  And then he went on a rant about the people out there who said they had plans but never gave any numbers.  From my rough notes - not verbatim, but sort of the gist - he said, in part:

  "We have the save the Democrats in Fairbanks plan.  It was introduced to the court, but not to the board.  We’ve had three or four given to us that have been sent.  The ones making noise now haven’t sent us a plan.  They want formal presentation time.  I hesitate to give. If they were that excited why didn’t they send it Jan 17 the day after the court?  I understand they gave us 8X11, but no shape files.  That looks good, but no numbers.  I understand how you feel Marie, but I’m not sure about opening up."

Leonard Lawson, who presented the "Rights Coalition" plan ('save the Democrats in Fairbanks" plan) was sitting next to me and said they'd turned in the shape files (that have all the numbers) to the court and when he found out earlier today that the Board didn't have the numbers,  he brought them in.

Then Marie Green said she had a couple of plans emailed to her and she thought they had numbers.

And then Executive Director Taylor Bickford said that the Rights Coalition plan had come in about 20 minutes ago and it appeared to have the numbers and there was also the Calista plan.

One thing I admire about Chair Torgerson is that while he has gone on a couple rants like this before, he is also able to back up and change course once he gets it out of his system.  He worked through this and at the end when he was saying the meeting would reconvene tomorrow, he said, "Unlike your chair, try to have patience."





I'll try to put up more details on the meeting later and some video.  It was a very interesting afternoon. 

Board Gets VRA Expert Report, Breaks into Work Groups

The Board convened, reported on what they heard from VRA expert Handley, then broke into two groups of Staff and members to work on the Hickel 01 plan and the old PAM-E plan which was found to be constitutional (by the board) but they didn't use it because it paired Senators Hoffman and Stevens and they speculated it would have trouble with the Department of Justice. The key points from Lisa Handley:

• The Proclamation Plan is the new benchmark (The Proclamation Plan is the one they submitted but got turned down by the courts.  The Department of Justice (DOJ) measures retrogression from the last plan they approved.  Since the approved the Proclamation Plan (though the Alaska courts did not) it becomes the new benchmark plan.  So the number of effective native districts and the percentages of Native Voting Age Population (VAP) in that plan become the new norm, the new benchmark.  Though attorney White said he's still checking on this because the language includes "Last legal plan enforceable and in effect" and it's questionable if this plan was ever 'in effect' because the state courts rejected it.  No legal precedent for situation where state courts rejected a plan.  But Lisa Handley's interpretation is the most conservative interpretation.
• If they use the PAM-E plan, the lowest Native VAP would have to be 38%, though it would be better to be higher.
• If they DOJ had to choose between a plan with over all lower Native VAP's or higher Native VAP's but with a Native incumbent pairing, they would choose the latter. 

Then they broke up into two groups to work on the plans.

Here are my notes from the meeting.  CAUTION:  They are very rough notes, good for getting a sense of what happened, but not to be relied on. 

PHOTO NOTE:  Photos are from after the meeting when they were working on the plans.

Board Meeting 3/27/12  

10:02  Open
All there, Holm by phone.

McConnochie, Sandberg (GIS expert), Green

Torgerson: explaining what we are doing.  Eric Sandberg is back - GIS expert  - they will go to work session in two groups.  They will go ahead using the PAM-E plan as the base = put the Senator from Kodiak and Bethel together and Torgerson and ?? will work on Hickel 001 plan.

If ready, we’ll start adopting the new proclamation plan.  Otherwise push to tomorrow.  Exec. Session is listed in case we think we need one.  So far no need.
Approval of Agenda

Torgerson:  Letter from Handley.  Roll back everything a little bit.  Say this again because I’m building a record.  SC sent this back because we failed to follow the Hickel process, because we didn’t just focus on Constitution.  Last couple of days we engaged int hat process.  We adopted Hickel 01 plan and send the files to Dr. Handley, VRA expert, she worked late.  Her expertise is only whether we comply with VRA, not if comply with Constitution.  That is Board decision. 

Received this morning Dr. H’s report.  Handed out.

3 state house districts that meet requirements.
Interior Village - reconstructed HD 6 has NATIVE VAP of 33.3??%  this area needs at least a 50% VAP,   Other short district = Senate R  - Chain plus Kodiak.  her rec is 41.8%, we can come down lower because Chain is least polarized, but Hickel plan was 29.74% which is substantially below.  Conversation this morning, her lowest rec for R is 38%, so that’s our target.  She’d have to do an analysis, but she’d consider that probably ok.   ONe less effective House and Senate districts.  New BM plan is last one DOJ approved.  That’s our new benchmark.  Proclamation plan is now the Benchmark - the last plan DOJ reviewed and approved. 
So, our plan is retrogressive.  Because plans exist that are not retrogressive, it takes away the excuse that it can’t be done.  I believe it doesn’t not comply with Sec. V of the VRA and thus would not be approved.
PeggyAnn McConnochie: If we submit plan that doesn’t meet approval from DOJ?
OK< then back to us?
Torgerson: If you establish a bar at 46% and then come back with 42 you are below the bar.  But Handley said we can come up with lower.  We have a little more leeway.

Board Chair Torgerson and Member Brodie

lowering the #s - ability to elect or not - not any magic number.  Targets DOJ will rely on, but if lower, she’ll have to do new analysis to see if effective or not. 
Benchmark now is the Proclamation plan.  When I looked at that, looked at CFR on cases and asked her to check if that was the standard they use.  she did check, she was taking the most conservative approach.  Last legal plan enforceable and in effect - whether our is in effect.  There is not state plan that has been pre-cleared and State court that had problems under state law.  By doing the approach here, she’s taken most conservative approach.  If retrogressive after proclamation plan, it will surely be retrogressive on 2002 plan. 
Taylor Bickford:  She said if the 3rd Sen district was over 42% no further analysis would be necessary.  If in 38% range, she would have to do another analysis.
PeggyAnn McConnochie: The only way we got R up to where we did - trial court said it was not legal, if court said it was not legal and weren’t able to do that, is DOJ going to say that the plan, can she make an argument that the 38% would work,
Taylor Bickford: yes, it is riskier, but the argument can be made.  If plan at current range that pairs Hoffman and STevens, or plan that does not pair them, but is lower %, the DOJ would prefer the higher %.  The pairing alone wouldn’t hurt.  35% that doesn’t pair them and something like we have that does pair them.  DOJ would not except the lower %, the pairing itself wouldn’t be enough to kill it. 

Brodie working map on computer

Torgerson:  Jim’s Item 5.
White:  She’ll be available after 2pm our time to talk.
Torgerson:  I wanted her minimums, the rest if hypothetical.  We’ll work sessions.  Stay in this room.  Hooked up two projectors, we’ll work independently, but together.  Under open meetings act.  Open process as far as watching, but warn people not to engage the Board members.  Rather not lobby board members during the process.  We will take breaks, and you can talk them. 
Going off the record cause there is no way to have this on teleconference because two teams working.  We’ll come back around 1:30pm.  Or just work through rest of the afternoon and or evening.
Ask board members and staff, make findings as you go along.  If you bring forward a plan, that you have some sort of indication of why you did that process.  SC ruling, because it didn’t follow the process the court couldn’t demonstrate the Constitutional violations were necessary.  So you have to make that trail.  Also conforms to footnote 15 - that board make findings etc.  So that’s what we want to do to make a few notes.  A little more cumbersome than we did in the past. 

10:25  Take a 10:35 short recess and we’ll come back together.  Stand in recess.

Redistricting Board Adopts "Hickel" Plan 001 (With Fairbanks Maps)

Overview of What Happened

Monday they unveiled a plan template and three "Hickel" plans based on the template.  The template had the proclamation plan (the one sent back by the Court) districts - Southeast, Anchorage, North Slope, Matsu, and Kenai - that were not challenged and that people believe to be constitutional.  The rest of the map - interior, Fairbanks, and Western Alaskan and the Aleutians - was blank.

The three plans they presented - Hickel 001, 002, and 003 - filled in the white section with redrawn districts.  In each case the rural districts had excess population that didn't make up a whole district.  The 'whole' district in Hickel 001 was created by taking population from Fairbanks.  Hickel 002 with similar rural districts, took excess population from Matsu, and Hickel 003, with reconfigured rural districts, took excess population from Anchorage.

Tuesday they added Hickel 004 with rural areas similar to Hickel 003 which took the excess population from Kenai and Anchorage.

Then attorney White evaluated the constitutionality of each of these four plans.

• Kenai, no.  
• Anchorage, no.  
• Matsu, no.  
• Fairbanks, yes. 

Then the Board approved Hickel 001 (Fairbanks) as their constitutionally compliant plan to be sent to VRA expert Lisa Handley for her to evaluate whether Hickel 001 will be VRA complaint.

They know it will not.  And then they will start making those adjustments.  None of the printed maps was big enough to see the details of the urban areas, though the shape (GIS) files now available (see one of the two March 27 posts)  to people who had the software programs that would enable them to see the maps in detail.  I did take some pictures of the Fairbanks area from the computer before I left.  They are at different levels of detail so people can see how the district maps were drawn.  You can click on the images to enlarge them. 

 They also have a table showing how the house districts are paired to make Senate districts along with the population and deviation numbers for all the districts.  [I don't see it on the Board's website.  A staff member told me to take the odd number and the next even number - 1+2 - to figure out which seats are paired.]

 Staff confirmed that:

• Goldstream and Ester population were put into the rural district
• 80% of the City of Fairbanks is contained in two house districts that are paired in a single senate district

 Staff was going to send the shape files to Lisa Handley who was going to make a preliminary review in time for the 10am meeting Wednesday and then follow that up with a formal, written evaluation. 

 Below are my rough notes of the meeting as I took them.  USUAL WARNING:  These are rough notes, not at all verbatim, and you should use them to get a rough idea of the discussion, but don't assume that they are accurate or complete.


I'll try to put my notes for Monday on SCRIBD too for those with insomnia. Rough Notes: Alaska Redistricting Board March 27, 2012 You can make the SCRIBD window full screen for easier reading. It's the icon on the bottom left.

Mayor Sullivan Brings Coffee To And Chats With Sidewalk Sitter John Martin

[UPDATE 3/30/12 - Hear protesters describe the Thursday night bust.]

Sometimes you are at the right place at the right time.  As I got off the bus downtown I saw that John Martin had not been ousted by the police during the night, despite the notice posted at his 'camp' in front of City Hall.  [I just posted about this in the last post.] As I said good morning to John, he told me to wait a second and there'd be some good video.

Shortly Mayor Dan Sullivan came out of the Kaladi Brothers across the street with two cups of coffee.  He gave one to John and they chatted a few minutes about homeless policy.  John had told me beforehand that he was lobbying for a homeless camp at 3rd and Gambell.

In the video, it's hard to hear John, though the mayor is a audible.  It's hard with the traffic noise.  Although I've opposed the mayor's policies on occasion, this was not done for the cameras.  I just happened to show up after he told John he'd get him a cup of coffee.

[UPDATE Aug 3, 2018:  Some of my old videos stored at Viddler no longer work.  Sorry.][UPDATE Jan 31, 2019:  The Viddler videos seem to be working again.]




Meanwhile, the Redistricting Board meeting was postponed an hour so I had time to work on this.  But I've gotta get back there.

John Martin Back Camped In Front Of City Hall

Click to Enlarge

[I set the timer wrong for this, it was supposed to be posted earlier.  Sorry.]

After the redistricting board meeting I walked past City Hall and saw a small encampment and John Martin.  I'd videoed John at the Assembly meeting when they passed the law to prevent sitting on the sidewalk downtown because John had been camped in front of City Hall and the mayor didn't like it.

After the anti-sitting-on-the-sidewalk ordinance bill was passed, John said, they allowed him to pitch his tent on the Park Strip, but they took it away recently and now he's back at City Hall.  When I mentioned the law and asked if he could still stay here, he pointed to the notice, which expired March 25.




The video is very short since I ran out of room on my sound card.





We'll see if he's still here tomorrow.