Frosty Sunrise

We have a great view every morning where we're staying, but this  morning (Monday) it was particularly nice.  Those are bufflehead in the water. 

 
I thought it was supposed to get warmer in March, but we had frost for the second morning in a row.

This Is Going To Be Big: Eulerian Video Magnification Shows The Invisible

Screenshot from NY Times article

We tend to think of 'invisibility' as some magic trick that hides things we normally should  see, like Harry Potter's Cloak of Invisibility. 

But really, invisibility just means things that are beyond the range of our eyes to detect.  There are lots of things that we can't see.  From a promo for a BBC television show "What The Human Eye Can't See":

“The human eye is a remarkable piece of precision engineering, but all around us is an astonishing and beautiful world we cannot see. Some wonders are outside the visible spectrum, others are too fast, too slow, too small or too remote for our eyes and brains to interpret.”

Wavelength image from Universe by Freedman and Kaufmann, posted on NASA website

The chart to the right shows what a small range of colors the human eye can actually see. 



Throughout history humans have found or invented ways to see things the human eye couldn't see.  A simple example is a mirror, allowing people to see themselves.  More complex are microscopes, telescopes,  and X rays.

The New York Times article  "Scientists Uncover Invisible Motion in Video"
reports on a new process that finds tiny variations in color or motion that are too small for the human eye to detect.  The process then magnifies the variations so that they become visible to humans. 

The example in the video above (I couldn't find a way to embed the video, you'll have to go to the article to see it)  captures a very slight variation in the color of the baby's face - ever so slightly redder.  This variation is magnified 100 times so it looks bright red.  Then, bingo, you can see the baby's pulse.  They have another example of a baby breathing.  The actual breathing is barely visible, but when the movement is magnified, you can see it clearly.  There are other examples as well, but since I've been spending so much time with my new granddaughter, the baby examples resonate with me. 


Why is this big?

Any time you can see things that used to be invisible, there is a big potential to learn a lot more about the world we live in.  I'm sure there are millions of situations where there are variations in color or movement that humans don't see, but if we could see them, we would understand 'why' about many, many things.  This will allow us to see so many missing puzzle pieces.  Where we think there is no reaction, we now have the opportunity to see that there is.  We'll be able to detect minor changes sooner to alert us to events - something about to fall, catch fire, explode, spill - earlier.  The video suggests lots of medical uses.

And there will be ominous uses of this technology as well.  I'm sure that our faces give out lots of now invisible signals about how we feel or think that will be detectable in the future.  This can be put to good and evil use.

The researchers have made the code for using this method available so that anyone - with some, apparently, more than basic digital abilities - can experiment with this.  I predict using this process we will expand our knowledge of the world greatly and find many, many practical ways to use it to make our lives easier.  And there will be plenty of silly uses as well. 

Thanks to LL for the tip.

Mt. Si Hike on Sunny Seattle Day

A friend of my daughter visited yesterday.  He's here from Boston for work, but had today off and wanted to go for a hike.  So I took the ferry into Seattle this morning and to join him.  He picked me up at the ferry and together we went to Little Si. 

From Hikingwithmybrother:

        Little Si crouches in the shadow of Mount Si’s western slopes, both edifices named in honor of Josiah "Uncle Si" Merritt, who set up a cabin at the base of Si in 1862.

His comment at the end of his post seemed fitting:

Little Si is close, easily accessible, and just hard enough to feel like a hike, yet still gentle enough for the whole family.

 

It was one of the rare sunny days here.  And temps got into the mid 50's. Although yesterday morning when I got up and checked, it was 55˚F, today it was 35˚F and there was frost.  We even had some snow on the sides of the road going over a pass, but at the trail there was no snow.

View from end of Little Si trail

 However, there was snow on, what I'm guessing from the trail descriptions, was Big Si.

The view reminded me of the view we had of Mt. Roberts from our apartment when we were in Juneau.

There's a  massive rock behind the trees.  I think that might be Mt. Si and the view point was from the top. 

“This study is proof enough that sugar is toxic. Now it’s time to do something about it.”

The study is

"The Relationship of Sugar to Population-Level Diabetes Prevalence: An Econometric Analysis of Repeated Cross-Sectional Data" by Sanjay Basu, Paula Yoffe, Nancy Hills,and Robert H. Lustig



Here's the study Abstract:   (A simpler NY Times version is just below)

While experimental and observational studies suggest that sugar intake is associated with the development of type 2 diabetes, independent of its role in obesity, it is unclear whether alterations in sugar intake can account for differences in diabetes prevalence among overall populations. Using econometric models of repeated cross-sectional data on diabetes and nutritional components of food from 175 countries, we found that every 150 kcal/person/day increase in sugar availability (about one can of soda/day) was associated with increased diabetes prevalence by 1.1% (p <0.001) after testing for potential selection biases and controlling for other food types (including fibers, meats, fruits, oils, cereals), total calories, overweight and obesity, period-effects, and several socioeconomic variables such as aging, urbanization and income. No other food types yielded significant individual associations with diabetes prevalence after controlling for obesity and other confounders. The impact of sugar on diabetes was independent of sedentary behavior and alcohol use, and the effect was modified but not confounded by obesity or overweight. Duration and degree of sugar exposure correlated significantly with diabetes prevalence in a dose-dependent manner, while declines in sugar exposure correlated with significant subsequent declines in diabetes rates independently of other socioeconomic, dietary and obesity prevalence changes. Differences in sugar availability statistically explain variations in diabetes prevalence rates at a population level that are not explained by physical activity, overweight or obesity. 

The NY Times article translates this into less academic language:

Sugar is indeed toxic. It may not be the only problem with the Standard American Diet, but it’s fast becoming clear that it’s the major one.
A study published in the Feb. 27 issue of the journal PLoS One links increased consumption of sugar with increased rates of diabetes by examining the data on sugar availability and the rate of diabetes in 175 countries over the past decade. And after accounting for many other factors, the researchers found that increased sugar in a population’s food supply was linked to higher diabetes rates independent of rates of obesity.

The Times reported just a few days ago that the Mediterranean diet helped prevent heart attacks and strokes.

About 30 percent of heart attacks, strokes and deaths from heart disease can be prevented in people at high risk if they switch to a Mediterranean diet rich in olive oil, nuts, beans, fish, fruits and vegetables, and even drink wine with meals, a large and rigorous new study has found.

People have known for a long time that fat and sugar weren't good for health.  Dean Ornish's  Dr. Dean Ornish's Program for Reversing Heart Disease, came out in 1990 arguing for a low fat diet.  The Mediterranean Diet Cookbook  came out in 1994.

It's hard to 'prove' that one political party has a more sensible program than another.  And it takes a certain level of scientific savvy to see why evolution and global climate change caused by humans make far more sense than alternative explanations.

But everyone understands that obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and strokes are not good things.  And it's not hard to understand that sugar and fat lead to those conditions and that the incidence of obesity and diabetes can be dramatically reduced by intelligent diet. 

This knowledge has been around for years.  So I would argue that many of the people who are obese and/or have diabetes probably also eat an unhealthy selection of foods.  Either because they don't know any better or because they don't have enough self control and discipline to resist the call of the junk food industry and buy and cook healthy food.   I also must acknowledge that junk food is often cheaper than healthy food, so some poor folks may eat junk food for economic reasons.  Though smart poor folks find ways to feed their family well. 

So I'd offer this chart of the ten most and least obese US states color coded to show how they voted in the last presidential election. Some might argue that the quality of their choices in food reflect the quality of their political choices as well. 

Most Obese U.S. States	Least Obese U.S. States
State % Obese 1. Mississippi 34.9% 2. Louisiana 33.4% 3. West Virginia 32.4% 4. Alabama 32.0% 5. Michigan 31.3% 6. Oklahoma 31.1% 7. Arkansas 30.9% 8. Indiana 30.8% 8. South Carolina 30.8% 10. Kentucky 30.4% 10. Texas 30.4%	State % Obese 1. Colorado 20.7% 2. Hawaii 21.8% 3. Massachussetts 22.7% 4. New Jersey 23.7% 4. Washington, D.C. 23.7% 6. California 23.8% 7. Utah 24.4% 8. New York 24.5% 8. Nevada 24.5% 8. Connecticut 24.5%

Devangelical and Debt - Newish Books at Eliot Bay Book Store

Browsing a good book store is one of the great pleasures in life.   A giant bazaar of ideas and adventure beckoning for one's attention.  It's the chance to climb into other people's brains and find out what the world looks like to them.  So when I was the designated driver on a doctor's visit in Seattle, I got to go to the Eliot Bay Book Company, a very good bookstore on Capitol Hill, for an hour of adventure.

So here are a few of the books that caught my attention.

Devangelical by Erika Rae

From an online interview at The Rumpus with another former Evangelical: 

"Not wanting to understand the Evangelical culture in our current political climate is a bit like not wanting to understand, say, the Mexican-American community in the middle of the immigration debates. But also, I believe that a lot of the issues I deal with in the book are a bit more universal to other religion—or religious culture—defectors. I have heard recovering Catholics, Jews, or even former members of the L.D.S. Church who say they can relate."

Rumpus also asks her about her somewhat provocative pose on the cover of the book.  The video below is about the photo shoot.

The discussion of the Rapture helps explain a lot of (to me) perplexing behavior:

"Rumpus: We both grew up waiting on the world to come to an end, and you make the point in Devangelical that Evangelical culture welcomes the end of the world. How do you think this paradigm express itself in today’s political climate?

Rae: The debate over global warming is a good example. This is because the general church has been approaching the issue from the angle that only God will destroy the earth, and not humans. This isn’t too different from the distrust of recycling back in the 1980s. Again, only God could destroy the earth, so we had better focus our time on saving souls rather than the Redwoods. Plus, it didn’t help that people who were into “saving the earth” were “a bunch of pagans who worshipped the earth as mother.” Luckily, a growing number within the church has realized that they can still take care of the “creation” without slapping the “creator” in the face.

It is also critical to understand that most Evangelicals (like other Christian branches) may be citizens in the world, but they do not consider themselves citizens “of” the world. For many, this essentially means that they do not feel this is their true home. Heaven is their true home. Therefore, they don’t really belong here, and they long for the day when they will be taken away to a place where they will be cherished and understood by a loving God. When they disagree with “the world” on certain issues, it really doesn’t matter since their citizenship is in Heaven. It is more important that their perception of God’s laws be enforced via legislation. It seems to me that this does not always open the door for peace or tolerance, which again, is not the goal. This may help to explain the current state of polarization our country finds itself in."

Now, onto  Debt by David Graeber.  This one probably has the most audacious and exciting ideas to contribute.  It questions our modern notions of debt as something that must be repaid.  It contrasts ideas like the biblical jubilee and the modern bankruptcy as two methods of forgiving debt.

It's a big book. 

 From Benjamin Kunkel in the London Review of Books:

"Graeber’s first proposition is that debt can’t be considered apart from the history of money, when it is money that distinguishes a debt from a mere obligation or promise. Obligations are immemorial and incalculable, but until the advent of money such relations of mutual obligation evade mathematical specification. Only through money do nebulous obligations condense into numerically precise debts, which can and – according to ‘our accustomed morality’ – must one day be paid off." [emphasis added]

Think about this - the distinction between a debt and an obligation.

Then he talks about three  types of human economic relationships.  Again from Kunkel's London Review of Books review (I'm using his words, but reformatting them a little differently on the page so these concepts don't get lost):

"The theoretical core of Debt is a loose schema of three types of human economic relationship.

• Communism (Graeber admits his use of the word ‘is a bit provocative’), 
• exchange and 
• hierarchy 

don’t describe distinct types of society but different ‘modalities’ of behaviour that operate to a greater or lesser degree in all societies, monetised or not.

Graeber’s communism, which bears a resemblance to Kropotkin’s ‘mutual aid’, covers relationships answering to Marx’s dictum: to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities. People act as communists not only towards friends and family but often towards guests, neighbours and strangers: ‘What is equal on both sides is the knowledge that the other person would do the same for you, not that they necessarily will.’

Relationships of exchange, by contrast, entail that each party gets from the other a more or less exact equivalent to whatever it’s given. Because exchange ‘gives us a way to call it even: hence, to end the relationship’, it takes place mostly among strangers.

Hierarchy is, like communism, a mode of ongoing relationship, but between unequals. Enforced by custom, hierarchy requires that social inferiors make repeated material tribute to their betters in caste or status.

And about the author, Kunkel writes:

". . . the American press, content to ignore Debt when it first appeared (published as it was by a small press and animated by a radical politics), has hailed Graeber as the most intellectually imposing voice of Occupy. In person Graeber is brilliant, if somewhat hectic, plain-spoken, erudite, quick to indignation as to well as to laughter, and – minus the laugh – he offers much the same heady experience on the page. Debt is probably best considered as a long, written-out lecture, informal in style, not as a conventional work of history, economics or anthropology."

Here's Graeber with Charlie Rose:




I'm afraid I got carried away here.

There are ten more books I was going to share, but these two should give you more than enough to think about.





But I'll add two more titles that caught my attention and are relevant to the first book particularly - given the importance of religion in the US today, its divisive role, and Rae's warning that Americans should understand what drives Evangelicals (assuming people can be grouped like that.)  Clearly, religion serves important needs for people.

And it appears that religion plays a role in  Debt, as well. Judging from Kunkel's review, it alludes not only to Christianity, but also to Islam. 










Note on spelling:  When I pasted the quote on Devangelical that included the word 'worshipped,' Blogger's spellchecker flagged it and said it should only have one "p".  So I looked it up at Future Perfect:

Verbs ending in ‘p’

Most verbs ending in ‘p’, after an unstressed vowel, have no doubling of that final consonant in standard received British English or American English.
Here are some which follow the ‘most verbs’ rule: ‘develop’, ‘gossip’, ‘gallop’ – these become just ‘developing/developed’, ‘gossiping/gossiped’, ‘galloping/galloped’.

Even here, there are pesky exceptions: ‘worship’, ‘handicap’ and ‘kidnap’ become ‘worshipping/worshipped’, ‘handicapping/handicapped’ and ‘kidnapping/kidnapped’ in standard received British English.

The spellchecker doesn't mind handicapping or kidnapping, but it doesn't like worshipping. Obviously Blogspot and its owner Google are anti-religious.  :)


And finally, here's a shot as we leave Seattle on the 5:25 pm ferry for Bainbridge Island. 

Cool Stuff On the Internet - Clever Storage, Pencil Sharpening, Skullduggery, Typography Glossary

Here are some sites I found interesting and maybe some of you will too.




This site has a lot of ideas presented in pictures.  I thought this chair and table storage system was pretty clever.  Look carefully if it doesn't make sense right away.  It's very clever.  There are a lot of other interesting ideas on the page. 








Pencil Sharpening doesn't seem like that big a deal, but this site reminds us once again that anything done really well is interesting. Matthew James Taylor is an artist and the graphics in this post are great.

image from Matthew James Taylor

I would note that my daughter has helped me see - as in actually notice it for what it is and not let it pass by as if it were normal - all the minor episodes of violence against women in movies.  Can you name some major or minor films you've seen lately that didn't have at least one scene without a woman being at least hit or otherwise degraded by a man?  Think about it when you watch your next movie.  I tell you all this because there is a pencil sharpener in this post that could be seen as clever in a sick way, but is totally unacceptable. 

This is not a free speech issue.  He has the right to post what he wants.  But I'm just trying to point out the little things that normalize or desensitize us to portrayals of violence against women which leads to the appalling amount of actual violence against women in the US and the world.  And Alaska is one of the leaders in this grim statistic.  Good graphic design, very bad message about women.  Nevertheless, I'm linking there because I think that overall the post is worth seeing and with this message, perhaps some people will start 'seeing' such images for what they are and not accept them casually as we seem to do.

Anamorphic sculptures at Ignant. What does it take to think so that you can do this?  What if our eyes worked this way instead of how they do?  Stuff like this forces us to rethink what we take for granted, something we should do frequently. The artist, Jonty Hurwitz, talks about this sort of work at the link. 

"One of the commenters on Anamorphic  post linked to a West Highland Museum exhibit of Jacobean art which included a similar kind of work which was done this way with good reason:

"After the the Battle of Culloden in 1746, it was treasonable to support the Stuart claim to the throne. When the ladies and servants had left the room after dinner, the loyal friends of Prince Charles would place the tray on the table and raise their glasses in a toast to his likeness reflected in the cylinder (or in a goblet of claret). If there was a danger of interruption and discovery, the device could quickly be dismantled and the tray would appear as a meaningless blur, or be replaced by a similar decoy tray."

 Skull Appreciation Society -  If you created a website with that title, what would you post on it?   Everything skull.  Like this photo of a buffalo skull.

Image from Skull Appreciation Society

How do you make a living off of fonts?  I'm not exactly sure, but the Danish Playtype's website is beautiful a window into a company that apparently does.

Click to enlarge and read clearly

Locking Up Kids Doesn't Work

The same people whose mantra is 'cut the budget' also tend to have a simplistic model about crime and punishment.  There's an assumption that people who behave badly are best handled by punishment.  Jails and prisons are convenient ways to get the criminal element off the streets, and the more you do that, the less crime you'll have.

But a new study just out Wednesday, has monitored the data and says that's not really the case.  The Annie E. Casey Foundation sponsored research has found that the rate of juvenile incarceration in the US has gone down.  AND so has the rate of crime by this population.

But first, a short quiz.  Look at the chart below.  On the left is a list of countries.  On the right is a list of numbers.  I want you to try to match the countries with their incarceration rate.  You can copy and print the chart or just right down the countries and the numbers you think match each country. 

Match the Country and Rate of Youth Incarceration
Country	Your Guess	Incarcerated Youth/ 100,000 Youth
1. Australia		a.  51.3
2.  England/Wales		b.  11.3
3. Finland		c.  23.1
4. France		d.  33.0
5. Germany		e.  0.1
6.  Italy		f.  24.9
7.  Japan		g.  18.6
8.  Netherlands		h.  3.6
9.  New Zealand		i.  336
10. Scotland		j.  69.0
11.  South Africa		k.  46.8
12.  Sweden		l.  68.0
13. USA		m.  4.1

HTML Tables  - See chart at bottom for the answers




What’s Wrong With America’s Juvenile Corrections Facilities?

• Dangerous    
• Ineffective    
• Unnecessary    
• Obsolete    
• Wasteful    
• Inadequate    

Basically, the studies says that contrary to the expectations of many, when detention levels went down, so did crime.  

Kids that get into serious trouble tend to have serious problems.  The answer isn't prisons, it's finding ways to help the kids deal with the issues they're facing. 

Their recommendations?

Priority 1:  Limit Eligibility for Correctional Placements

Priority 2:  Invest in Promising Non-Residential Alternatives

Priority 3:  Change the Financial Incentives

Priority 4:  Adopt Best Practice Reforms for Managing Youth Offenders

Priority 5:  Replace Large Institutions with Small, Treatment-Oriented Facilities for the Dangerous Few

Priority 6:  Use Data to Hold Systems Accountable


Life isn't simple.  Doing the right thing, not the ideological thing, actually saves far more money in the long run than it costs.  Good treatment for the kids in the beginning, means far lower costs to deal with this population later on.  

Better yet, lots of programs for young kids and their parents so they never need to face juvenile detention facilities in the first place.  But, instead, we're facing the possibility of huge across-the-board federal cuts that will create huge costs in the future.  
 

To see the whole study, click here.  It fills in the details.

Oh, yeah.  The answers to the short quiz:

Click on Image to Enlarge and Sharpen

Shell Cancels 2013 Arctic Drilling

 In case you didn't hear, from Shell's statement today:

Shell announces pause in Alaska drilling programme

27 Feb 2013

Royal Dutch Shell plc (“Shell”) today announced it will pause its exploration drilling activity for 2013 in Alaska’s Beaufort and Chukchi Seas to prepare equipment and plans for a resumption of activity at a later stage.

“We’ve made progress in Alaska, but this is a long-term programme that we are pursuing in a safe and measured way,” said  Marvin Odum, Director, Upstream Americas.  “Our decision to pause in 2013 will give us time to ensure the readiness of all our equipment and people following the drilling season in 2012.”
Alaska holds important energy resources. At the same time, securing access to those resources requires special expertise, technology and an in depth understanding of the environmental and societal sensitivities unique to the region. Shell is one of the leaders in an industry move into offshore Arctic exploration. The company continues to use its extensive experience in Arctic and sub-Arctic environments to prepare for safe activities in Alaska.
Alaska remains an area with high potential for Shell over the long term, and the company is committed to drill there again in the future. If exploration proves successful, resources there would take years to develop.
Shell completed top-hole drilling on two wells in 2012 in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, marking the industry’s return to offshore drilling in the Alaskan Arctic after more than a decade. This drilling was completed safely, with no serious injuries or environmental impact.  After the drilling season ended, however, one of Shell’s drilling rigs, the Kulluk, was damaged in a maritime incident related to strong weather conditions. The Kulluk and the second drilling rig, the Noble Discoverer, will be towed to locations in Asia for maintenance and repairs.
“Shell remains committed to building an Arctic exploration program that provides confidence to stakeholders and regulators, and meets the high standards the company applies to its operations around the world,” said Odum. “We continue to believe that a measured and responsible pace, especially in the exploration phase, fits best in this remote area.

Many people were speculating that with the two Arctic oil rigs on the way to Asia for repairs, it wasn't likely they would be drilling summer of 2013. 


From the NY Times piece on this:

The Interior Department, the Coast Guard and the Justice Department are reviewing Shell’s operations, which have included groundings, environmental and safety violations, weather delays, the collapse of its spill-containment equipment and other failures. . .

“This is not a surprise, as Shell has had numerous serious problems in getting to and from the Arctic, as well as problems operating in the Arctic,” said Lois N. Epstein, Arctic program director for the Wilderness Society and a member of the Interior Department panel reviewing Shell’s operations.

“Shell’s managers have not been straight with the American public, and possibly even with its own investors, on how difficult its Arctic Ocean operations have been this past year,” she said. [Whole article here]

"I'm A Happy Lady" Famous People Born In 1913 Part IV

This is a special post in my Famous People Born in 1913.  It's the result of a chance meeting I had with Ruth Ungar Marx who turns 100 on May 26, 2013.  When she told me that I was blown away.  I'd have never guessed it.  She was out on her own taking a walk  on a rare sunny Bainbridge February day last week.  Here's the video.






 Post I gives background on the year 1913, including a link to an interesting video with a panel talking about the cultural situation of 1913.  It was very much a time of change.  

 Post II has video of the two folks that appear to still be alive (both opera singers), Risë Stevens and Licia Albanese.   It also has the list of all 44 that I chose in birth order.  So the 'oldest' born January 4, 1913, Rosa Parks, starts the list.

Post III includes short bios and images in the order of their deaths, beginning with Albert Camus (1960) and ending with William Casey (1987).  Since these posts are so long, I'll divide them up into shorter posts.

Alaska's Stake in Shelby County v. Holder - Before US Supreme Court Wednesday - Updated

[UPDATE Feb. 27 8:30am AK Time:  SCOTUSBlog's coverage of the arguments before the court today suggests a majority appears ready to invalidate Section 5.]

[UPDATE Feb. 28 7:00am AK Time:  Alaska US Senator Mark Begich released this statement on the Voting Rights Act:

“I hope the Supreme Court will carefully consider the case made by Alaska Natives that we still need protections of the Voting Rights Act. I am especially concerned about protecting VRA in light of recent steps by the State and some legislators to create new barriers to voting. Unfortunately, there are still many obstacles when it comes to voting in Alaska and especially in rural Alaska where Native languages are still the primary language for elders.  The Voting Rights Act has protected thousands of Alaskans from voter disenfranchisement that does still persist today.”]

Alaska is one of 16 states required to get pre-clearance from the Department of Justice for their redistricting plans.  It's one of just seven states who are covered in their entirety by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).  The other states only have some jurisdictions that are covered.  

Alaska's Redistricting Board has been ordered to redraw their redistricting plan (already used in the 2012 election) because they drew it first with the VRA as their guide rather than using the Alaska Constitution as their guide.   If Section 5 of the VRA were to be thrown out, it would signifiantly change the redidistricting proceaa in Alaska. 

On Wednesday, February 27, the US Supreme Court hears a case that challenges the continuing validity of Section 5.

Here's a case overview from the NAACP's LDF (Legal and Educational Defense Fund):

Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, et al.

On February 27, 2013, the United States Supreme Court will hold oral argument in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, et al.   Shelby County is challenging the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), one of our nation’s most effective civil rights laws. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (“LDF”) will argue before the court in defense of the Voting Rights Act and repre sents Defendant-Intervenors, including five Black ministers and a councilman from Shelby County whose district was eliminated, but later restored because of the VRA. Shelby County seeks to strike down the heart of theVoting Rights Act, Section 5, which requires jurisdictions with the worst histories of persistent racial discrimination in voting to obtain federal approval, or “preclearance” before any voting changes become legally enforceable. The process of preclearance ensures that proposed voting changes in these places do not harm the voting rights of voters of color. Shelby County seeks to invalidate Section 5 not only in Alabama, but in all of the 16 states that are covered either in whole or in part.

In 2008, Calera, a city in Shelby County, conducted a legally unenforceable election after it redrew its political boundaries without receiving the required preclearance. As a result, the city’s only Black councilman, Ernest Montgomery, lost his seat. Councilman Montgomery’s district consisted of 70% registered Black voters before Calera redrew its political boundaries. After the district was redrawn, registered Black voters were just 29.5% of the population. Because it did not comply with the Voting Rights Act, Calera was required to draw a nondiscriminatory redistricting plan and to conduct another election with the legally - approved plan. In this lawful election, Calera’s voters re-elected Mr. Montgomery

SCOTUS Blog discusses this case and explains that in a previous case - NAMUDNO - the Court did not invalidate Section 5, but it did hint that Congress should revisit the need for it, which Congress has not done. SCOTUS continued:

Moreover, the Court continued, the Act’s role in improving minority voting in the past does not, standing alone, mean that the preclearance requirement can or should remain in effect going forward:  rather, “the Act imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs.”  And in particular, the Court emphasized, because the formula that the Act uses to determine which state and local governments must obtain preclearance appeared to the Court to be outdated, the problems that Section 5 was enacted to prevent are not necessarily most prevalent in the states that are required to obtain preclearance.  To the contrary, the Court explained, states that are covered by Section 5 have a lower gap between voter registration and turnout for white and black voters than the national average.
In response, Congress left the statute unchanged; it did not modify the coverage formula.  That set the stage for Wednesday’s case.
Shelby County, Alabama, is required to obtain preclearance for any changes to its voting procedures because Alabama has been covered by the Act since 1965.  In 2010, Shelby County filed papers asking a federal court to issue the ruling that the utility district did not get in NAMUDNO:  that Section 5 is unconstitutional.
- See more at: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/court-to-return-to-constitutionality-of-voting-rights-act-in-plain-english/#sthash.PMHNvI0F.dpuf

Moreover, the Court continued, the Act’s role in improving minority voting in the past does not, standing alone, mean that the preclearance requirement can or should remain in effect going forward:  rather, “the Act imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs.”  And in particular, the Court emphasized, because the formula that the Act uses to determine which state and local governments must obtain preclearance appeared to the Court to be outdated, the problems that Section 5 was enacted to prevent are not necessarily most prevalent in the states that are required to obtain preclearance.  To the contrary, the Court explained, states that are covered by Section 5 have a lower gap between voter registration and turnout for white and black voters than the national average. 

In response, Congress left the statute unchanged; it did not modify the coverage formula.  That set the stage for Wednesday’s case. 

Shelby County, Alabama, is required to obtain preclearance for any changes to its voting procedures because Alabama has been covered by the Act since 1965.  In 2010, Shelby County filed papers asking a federal court to issue the ruling that the utility district did not get in NAMUDNO:  that Section 5 is unconstitutional.

The kink in the current Alaska redistricting process stems from the fact that Alaska is also required to get pre-clearance for redistricting because of Section 5.  If the Board hadn't needed to maintain the existing number of Native districts in Alaska, they wouldn't have the conflict they now have between meeting the VRA and the State Constitutional requirements.  (That doesn't mean they wouldn't have had other problems.) 

So one issue that came up at the last Board meeting was the possibility that Sec. 5 would be thrown out by the US Supreme Court and they should wait to redraw their lines until that decision is published.

Of course, that doesn't prevent them from doing the first part the Alaska Supreme Court ordered - making a plan that complies with the Alaska State Constitution.  That would be step one in the Court mandated "Hickel Process."  Then, if Sec. 5 of the VRA is upheld, they could go on to make the necessary changes to their plan to comply with the Voting Rights Act.    If Sec. 5 is thrown out, I'm not sure what the next steps are.  Other sections of the VRA are not being challenged in this case.

If the Board did not retain the same number of Native districts, presumably Native organizations would go to court arguing that even though they didn't need pre-clearance, they are still are forbidden to discriminate.  Except the other parts of the VRA, if I understand this, are about intentional discrimination, which is harder to prove.  If they didn't come up with the same number of Native districts, it would also strongly suggest that they were less interested in not discriminating than in not having their plan rejected by the DOJ.  Once that threat was gone, well, we should just wait and see.

More on Shelby from Scotus Blog:

In its brief in the merits, Shelby County echoes the Court’s admonition in NAMUDNO that Section 5 imposes “current burdens,” which must be justified by “current needs.”  Even if the states covered by Section 5 may have discriminated in the past, it argues, that does not automatically mean that they are still discriminating now, and Congress shouldn’t have passed new legislation renewing Section 5 until 2031 unless it put together evidence showing that the extension of the law was actually necessary – which it did not.  And if some isolated problems do remain, there are other, less draconian remedies to combat them, such as filing a lawsuit under another provision of the VRA to challenge the discriminatory practice or procedure.  Finally, even if Congress did accurately identify some instances of racial discrimination in voting, Shelby County asserts, there is no guarantee that Section 5 will help:  because the criteria used to determine which states must comply with Section 5 use voter registration and turn-out data from the early 1970s, states that adopt discriminatory practices now may not be subject to Section 5 at all and vice versa. - See more at: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/court-to-return-to-constitutionality-of-voting-rights-act-in-plain-english/#sthash.PMHNvI0F.dpuf

In its brief in the merits, Shelby County echoes the Court’s admonition in NAMUDNO that Section 5 imposes “current burdens,” which must be justified by “current needs.”  Even if the states covered by Section 5 may have discriminated in the past, it argues, that does not automatically mean that they are still discriminating now, and Congress shouldn’t have passed new legislation renewing Section 5 until 2031 unless it put together evidence showing that the extension of the law was actually necessary – which it did not.  And if some isolated problems do remain, there are other, less draconian remedies to combat them, such as filing a lawsuit under another provision of the VRA to challenge the discriminatory practice or procedure.  Finally, even if Congress did accurately identify some instances of racial discrimination in voting, Shelby County asserts, there is no guarantee that Section 5 will help:  because the criteria used to determine which states must comply with Section 5 use voter registration and turn-out data from the early 1970s, states that adopt discriminatory practices now may not be subject to Section 5 at all and vice versa.

Now maybe there is a higher standard for laws that require states to get permission from the federal government before they can do something like redistricting.  But I don't think that Congress is required to justify their laws through research.  If that were the case, it seems like the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which is challenged in another case coming up before the Supreme Court would stand little chance of surviving.

But then there's the government's strategy (still from SCOTUS):

When Solicitor General Don Verrilli goes to the Court on Wednesday to defend Section 5, the government’s pleas to “trust Congress” may fall flat with a majority of the Court, which is likely to be genuinely frustrated that Congress hasn’t heeded the warnings that it issued in NAMUDNO four years ago.  Moreover, the oral argument comes just a few months after Chief Justice administered the oath of office to the nation’s first African-American president for the second time, which opponents of Section 5 read as an indication that the strict measures of the Voting Rights Act are unnecessary. - See more at: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/court-to-return-to-constitutionality-of-voting-rights-act-in-plain-english/#sthash.PMHNvI0F.dpuf

When Solicitor General Don Verrilli goes to the Court on Wednesday to defend Section 5, the government’s pleas to “trust Congress” may fall flat with a majority of the Court, which is likely to be genuinely frustrated that Congress hasn’t heeded the warnings that it issued in NAMUDNO four years ago.  Moreover, the oral argument comes just a few months after Chief Justice administered the oath of office to the nation’s first African-American president for the second time, which opponents of Section 5 read as an indication that the strict measures of the Voting Rights Act are unnecessary.

Irony after irony.  In the DOMA case, the government will definitely not being arguing to trust Congress.  But the Obama argument seems to fall flat, because of the 16 states that need pre-clearance, most voted against Obama.  Based on a formula which included whether the states had 'tests' which served as obstacles to voting and looked at the percentage of eligible voters who actually voted.  Seven states are covered in their entirety:  Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia.  Only Virginia voted for Obama.  The other nine states are have only a portion of their states covered by Sec. 5:  Arizona,  Hawaii, Idaho, North Carolina, California, Florida, Michigan, New York, South Dakota. Of these nine, five - California, Florida, Hawaii, Michigan, and New York voted for Obama.


In California's case,  Kings, Merced, Monterey, and Yuba counties are covered because, according to the California State Senate (I think) website:

Results of the 1970 census led to four California counties – Kings, Merced, Monterey, and Yuba – triggering Section 5 voter thresholds and falling under the protection of the Department of Justice. What did these counties have in common? Each was a largely rural county that housed a US military base. High numbers of minority soldiers drafted and mobilized for deployment to Vietnam, with low rates of voter participation skewed voting statistics and triggered Section 5 protections.

Three of the four counties voted for Obama.   There is a provision in the Act that allows for jurisdictions to bail out of Section 5.  According to the Leadership Conference:

The VRA rewards progress in these covered jurisdictions by allowing them to “bail out” or have their coverage under Section 5 terminated after achieving a clean record of nondiscriminatory voting practices for ten years.  This flexibility ensures that the geographic reach of Section 5 applies only to jurisdictions that continue efforts to discriminate in voting based on race. Not a single jurisdiction that has sought the opportunity to leave Section 5 coverage since 1982 has been turned down. 

The Supreme Court previously clarified the bailout provision in its ruling on NAMUDNO v. Holder in 2009. Since then, more than 125 jurisdictions have bailed out.

 They had a press conference with the author of an amicus brief in the Shelby County case who they describe this way:

"Gerry Hebert, attorney to 174 bailed out jurisdictions and author of an amicus brief filed by jurisdictions that have bailed out"

When Solicitor General Don Verrilli goes to the Court on Wednesday to defend Section 5, the government’s pleas to “trust Congress” may fall flat with a majority of the Court, which is likely to be genuinely frustrated that Congress hasn’t heeded the warnings that it issued in NAMUDNO four years ago.  Moreover, the oral argument comes just a few months after Chief Justice administered the oath of office to the nation’s first African-American president for the second time, which opponents of Section 5 read as an indication that the strict measures of the Voting Rights Act are unnecessary. - See more at: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/court-to-return-to-constitutionality-of-voting-rights-act-in-plain-english/#sthash.PMHNvI0F.dpuf

Just three years ago, in a case called NAMUDNO v. Holder, the Court considered a challenge to the constitutionality of the preclearance requirement brought by a small utility district in Texas.  Although the utility district did not itself have any history of racial discrimination in voting, it was still required to get “preclearance” under Section 5 for any changes because it has an elected board.  When the Court issued its opinion, it declined to decide whether Section 5 was constitutional.  Instead, it held simply that the utility district could and should apply for a “bailout” from the preclearance requirement – that is, a declaration that it was no longer subject to Section 5 because it no longer discriminated against minority voters – which in turn eliminated the need for the Court to weigh in on the constitutionality of Section 5 in that case. - See more at: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/court-to-return-to-constitutionality-of-voting-rights-act-in-plain-english/#sthash.PMHNvI0F.dpuf

 The link takes you to the amicus brief which discusses the bail out process.  Here's a short excerpt of the page brief:

Petitioner denies that there is a “nexus” between
bailout under the current Act and the coverage for-
mula, but this claim is contradicted by the structure
and history of the bailout provisions. Pet. Br. at 57.
The current requirements of the bailout provisions
reflect the criteria of the coverage formula: both
inquire as to the use of discriminatory “tests or
devices,” and look to voter registration rates and
voter turnout. 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(a), (b).  See Section
I.B. infra. Furthermore, throughout the history of the
Act, jurisdictions in different states of varying sizes,
political compositions and demographics have suc-
cessfully bailed out of Section 5, belying Petitioner’s
contention that bailout serves to tailor the scope of
[page]4
the coverage formula “only at the margin.” Pet. Br. at
54-55.  See  Section I.A.  infra
.
Petitioners also claim that the bailout option is in
fact illusory, and too burdensome and expensive for
most jurisdictions to achieve.  Pet. Br. at 54. But this
is decidedly not the experience of amici.

Amici Bailed Out Jurisdictions found the bailout
process both administratively feasible and cost-
effective.  Amici simply had to gather the necessary
information and data supporting bailout from records
we maintained in the ordinary course of business,
submit these materials to the U.S. Department of
Justice, and publicize the bailout in our community
media and post offices. After we were notified by the
Department of Justice that our jurisdiction had met
the bailout requirements, our legal counsel filed suit
and the necessary bailout papers in court. As for
expense, our experience is that the total cost of ob-
taining a bailout was approximately $5,000, which
includes staff time gathering the relevant data and
the filing of bailout documents in court.  See Section II
infra.
Further, contrary to Petitioner’s suggestion,
bailout is also achievable even if a jurisdiction discov-
ers during the bailout process that one or more of its
political subunits is not in full compliance with the
Act. In the course of the bailout process, numerous
jurisdictions have discovered that some of their
political subunits had inadvertently failed to timely
submit minor voting changes for Section 5 review, but
[page] 5
were able to resolve this issue with a prompt pre-
clearance submission of the changes to the Depart-
ment of Justice.  See Section III  infra

You can see the whole brief here.

Of course, this is an attorney who has expertise in bailing jurisdictions out from Section 5.  So if Section 5 were thrown out, he presumably would lose some business.  However, that doesn't invalidate what he writes.

But even if Alaska were to be released from Section 5 of the VRA, I would guess that the Board would still be required to redo the plan based on the standards of the Alaska Constitution.  

return to constitutionality of Voting Rights Act: In Plain English

On Wednesday, the Court will hear oral argument in a potentially historic case that has both civil rights activists and conservatives on the edge of their seats:  Shelby County v. Holder, a challenge t
- See more at: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/court-to-return-to-constitutionality-of-voting-rights-act-in-plain-english/#sthash.PMHNvI0F.dpuf

Another provision of the Act, Section 5, was intended to prevent discrimination against African-American voters through more subtle means:  it prohibits specified jurisdictions – selected because they have a history of discrimination – from changing their election procedures unless and until they receive permission from either a special three-judge panel of a federal district court in Washington, D.C., or the Department of Justice – a provision known as the “preclearance” requirement. - See more at: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/court-to-return-to-constitutionality-of-voting-rights-act-in-plain-english/#sthash.PMHNvI0F.dpuf

Another provision of the Act, Section 5, was intended to prevent discrimination against African-American voters through more subtle means:  it prohibits specified jurisdictions – selected because they have a history of discrimination – from changing their election procedures unless and until they receive permission from either a special three-judge panel of a federal district court in Washington, D.C., or the Department of Justice – a provision known as the “preclearance” requirement. - See more at: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/court-to-return-to-constitutionality-of-voting-rights-act-in-plain-english/#sthash.PMHNvI0F.dpuf

Another provision of the Act, Section 5, was intended to prevent discrimination against African-American voters through more subtle means:  it prohibits specified jurisdictions – selected because they have a history of discrimination – from changing their election procedures unless and until they receive permission from either a special three-judge panel of a federal district court in Washington, D.C., or the Department of Justice – a provision known as the “preclearance” requirement. - See more at: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/court-to-return-to-constitutionality-of-voting-rights-act-in-plain-english/#sthash.PMHNvI0F.dpuf

Another provision of the Act, Section 5, was intended to prevent discrimination against African-American voters through more subtle means:  it prohibits specified jurisdictions – selected because they have a history of discrimination – from changing their election procedures unless and until they receive permission from either a special three-judge panel of a federal district court in Washington, D.C., or the Department of Justice – a provision known as the “preclearance” requirement. - See more at: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/court-to-return-to-constitutionality-of-voting-rights-act-in-plain-english/#sthash.PMHNvI0F.dpuf

Another provision of the Act, Section 5, was intended to prevent discrimination against African-American voters through more subtle means:  it prohibits specified jurisdictions – selected because they have a history of discrimination – from changing their election procedures unless and until they receive permission from either a special three-judge panel of a federal district court in Washington, D.C., or the Department of Justice – a provision known as the “preclearance” requirement. - See more at: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/court-to-return-to-constitutionality-of-voting-rights-act-in-plain-english/#sthash.PMHNvI0F.dpuf