Shelby County Wants To Be Freed From Section 5 Of The Voting Rights Act - Supreme Court Decision Coming Soon

In Shelby County v  Holder, the Alabama county is asking the US Supreme Court to free it, and all other states affected, from Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) which requires them to get pre-clearance from the Department of Justice  (DOJ) when it does things that affect people's ability to vote.

Alaska is also required to get pre-clearance form DOJ.  The case was heard in the US Supreme Court last February.   People who know more than I expect the decision to be announced sometime this month.

The Alaska Redistricting Board is hoping the decision will overturn Section 5 which requires them to get pre-clearance for any new redistricting plan before it can become adopted.  Indeed, the State of Alaska filed an amicus brief on behalf of Shelby County.  The Board had postponed finishing their plan until after the decision was made.  The Superior Court told them to get moving, but they've dawdled long enough that it's likely the decision will come out before they finalize their plan. 

A previous post has audio of the oral argument at the Supreme Court and a link to the transcripts.


What exactly is Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) all about?

From the DOJ website:  (read this carefully, there will be a quiz)

Section 5 freezes election practices or procedures in certain states until the new procedures have been subjected to review, either after an administrative review by the United States Attorney General, or after a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This means that voting changes in covered jurisdictions may not be used until that review has been obtained. [That's the pre-clearance part.]

The requirement was enacted in 1965 as temporary legislation, to expire in five years, and applicable only to certain states. The specially covered jurisdictions were identified in Section 4 by a formula. The first element in the formula was that the state or political subdivision of the state maintained on November 1, 1964, a "test or device," restricting the opportunity to register and vote. The second element of the formula would be satisfied if the Director of the Census determined that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age were registered to vote on November 1, 1964, or that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age voted in the presidential election of November 1964. Application of this formula resulted in the following states becoming, in their entirety, "covered jurisdictions": Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia, In addition, certain political subdivisions (usually counties) in four other states (Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, and North Carolina were covered. It also provided a procedure to terminate this coverage.

Under Section 5, any change with respect to voting in a covered jurisdiction -- or any political subunit within it -- cannot legally be enforced unless and until the jurisdiction first obtains the requisite determination by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or makes a submission to the Attorney General. [Pre-clearance] This requires proof that the proposed voting change does not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. If the jurisdiction is unable to prove the absence of such discrimination, the District Court denies the requested judgment, or in the case of administrative submissions, the Attorney General objects to the change, and it remains legally unenforceable.

What are the issues in Shelby County v Holder?

(This will be what I got from listening to the oral arguments and some internet research.  I'm not a lawyer.  Nor have I read all the briefs.  So take this for what it's worth.  I'd also note that these issues are intertwined, so there is some overlap.)

First, note that the law was temporary - for five years.  That was back in 1965.  But it's been renewed various times, the last time being 2006 (under Bush) when the Senate approved it 98-0 and the House 390 -33.

1.  One key objection is that the law still uses the 1965 formula.  Shelby County argued that

• The laws and voting percentages in the formula are ancient history and none of the states still has them in place.  The problem is over.  Section 5 should be retired.
• The old formula is just a way to keep sticking it to the original covered states and that other states have worse problems.  All the states, or none, should be covered.

The DOJ argued that while the original problematic laws are gone, the jurisdictions covered keep finding "second generation" discriminatory practices that restrict or otherwise make it harder for Blacks and other protected classes to vote.   They argued the original formula is still a good proxy for the states with the biggest problems.

2.  Things have improved since 1965 and there is no longer a need for pre-clearance.  

DOJ points to a study of discrimination that found the problem still serious that was used by Congress to justify renewing the VRA in 2006.

3.  "On face review" or "applied"?

As I understand this distinction, an on face review looks at the formula in general, for all the states covered, and questions whether the formula is still a reasonable one.  An applied test would look at Shelby County and determine if Shelby County is still discriminating.  Shelby County chose to make an on face challenge, which allows it to focus on other jurisdictions rather than on Shelby County.

Justice Sotomayor challenged this approach:

"You're asking us to do something, which is to ignore your record and look at

everybody else's."

Justice Kagan questions this on the grounds that Alabama is number 1 in successful Section 2 suits and number 2 for Section 5 enforcement actions. (p. 5 15-22)


4.   Is Section 2 just as good as Section 5 for dealing with discriminatory practices?

•  Section 2's reactive remedies (you can file suit after the fact) works well enough making the extraordinary remedy of requiring pre-clearance of any voting law change unnecessary.

The DOJ argued that the deterrent effect was powerful and had made this an extremely effective piece of legislation.  Also, it was argued that while you could sue reactively to last minute changes such as moving polling places, the election would be over before it ever got to court and citizens would have been disenfranchised requiring far more disruptive and costly remedies than pre-clearance.

• Intent versus Effects - Section 5 looks at effects, Section 2 looks at an array of factors which you can see here.

This was discussed in an article in the National Review.  

"Section 5 bars changes in voting-related policies not only when they have a discriminatory purpose but also when they have a discriminatory “effect.” So, for example, a voter-ID requirement can be blocked even if it is nondiscriminatory in its terms, application, and intent — so long as a federal bureaucrat finds it might be more likely statistically that members of one racial group versus another will not have the needed identification. "

I'm sorry, but this seems to me a blatant attempt to discriminate.  He sees nothing wrong with a discriminatory effect as long as it wasn't intended.  The crux here is that it's extremely difficult to prove intent.  So legislators can make all the discriminatory laws they want, as long as they say it was not their intent and they haven't left any evidence of that intent.  I also don't see the relevance because as I read the Section 2 factors to be considered by a court, effects seem to be included. 

And,  I can't find this argument in the oral arguments.  There's discussion by Shelby County about results versus effects (which isn't clear enough for me to understand).  The NAACP speaking for upholding the VRA as it is, argued:

"What we've seen in Section 2 cases is that the benefits of discrimination vest in incumbents who would not be there, but for the discriminatory plan.  And Congress, and specifically in the House Report, I believe it's page 57, found that Section 2 continues to be an inadequate remedy to address the problem of these successive violations."

5.  Is the problem the original discriminatory voter tests or discrimination?

 There was some discussion about the problem that the VRA was aimed at.  Shelby County argued that the original problems - the ones in the formula such as voting tests - were long gone and thus Section 5 was no longer needed.  The DOJ argued that the problem was discrimination.  Voting tests were an indicator of discrimination, that were gone, but discriminatory practices were regularly created and updated. 

There were a couple of terms that were brought up by Justices Scalia ("racial entitlement") and Roberts and Kennedy ("reverse engineering") that I think are well worth commenting on and I'll try to do that in a future post.  

Although this legislation was approved in 2006 98-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House, court observers think there is a good chance the conservatives on the Court will overturn Section 5.  The oral arguments suggest a clear 4-4 split* with Justice Kennedy sounding skeptical of continuing the VRA Section 5, but at least open to change his mind.  And the oral arguments were just a 76 minute window in a case with lots and lots of documents, so we'll just have to wait and see. 

*This, of course, assumes that Justice Thomas will go along with the other conservatives, since he didn't ask any questions. 

It would be ironic because Shelby County and Alabama have a clear record of discrimination.

Shelby County is in Alabama, a state whose record makes clear that voting discrimination persists. During the last reauthorization period, Alabama had 240 discriminatory voting laws blocked by Section 5 or remedied by Section 2, another portion of the VRA that prohibits discriminatory tests or devices and applies nationwide. Today, even though African-Americans constitute more than one-quarter of the population, Alabama has no African-American statewide elected officials. For years, Shelby County relied on at-large districts to minimize black influence. Only after settling a lawsuit brought under the Voting Rights Act did the county agree to institute single-member districts. In 2008, Calera, one of the county’s six municipalities, submitted a redistricting plan that eliminated the town’s sole majority-black district, again in violation of the Voting Rights Act.   [From The Brennan Center.]

Their strategy was to sue, not on the facts of their situation, but by claiming the formula, for all the states and localities affected, was no longer valid. 


"Racial Entitlement" and "Reverse Engineering" were the ways that Antonin Scalia was framing the Voting Rights Act Section 5 that Shelby County was trying to get rid of.


Finally, I said there'd be a quiz and I try to keep my word:

1.  What are the two formulas from the 1965 Voting Rights Act that, if met, require states to get preclearance?
2.  What actions require preclearance?
(Answers above in post.)

Some Random Shots I Didn't Get To Post - Pelicans, My Sweetie, Glaciers, And Denali

As you can tell from the last post, I'm stalling here.  The weather's much too nice and I'm still letting the redistricting board meeting process in my head.  And I've got tasks to do after being away ten days.  And we had house guests arrive the day after we got home. 

But I do have some pictures to share that didn't fit in anywhere else. 

 

A pair of pelicans at Lake Merritt in downtown Oakland.  I left my new camera home on the trip - too big and bulky to lug around - so these are all with my trusty pocket sized Powershot.

 

I had a date in downtown Seattle between flights with my sweetie and her mom.  And no, my wife doesn't mind at all.  Like last time, I almost forgot to take pictures.  We were having much too good a time.  

 

 And this is looking back down at the scene of our tryst as we start back to Anchorage.  I thought about rotating this picture, but there really is no 'right' way up.  This is what I saw.  

 

While the sun was below the horizon when we left Seattle, it's June, and it was still up in Anchorage three hours later.  Here, we're over Prince William Sound, a couple of glaciers, on our approach to Anchorage.

 

And the mountain was out very clear - even with this camera.  Foraker on the left, Denali on the right, 150 miles to the North.  

And it's been sunny and warm - pushing 70˚F - and the mosquitoes are out in force. 

Cow Flies To Anchorage

While I was waiting for friends outside of security at the Anchorage Airport the other night, I was surprised to see a cow, a Holstein I think, walk out among the passengers. 

ADN Says Toss Em. Board Says They Did Nothing Wrong And Sets Schedule To Comply With Court

As a backdrop to today's Alaska Redistricting Board, this morning's editorial in the Anchorage Daily News had two points to make about the Board:

• It's too late for this board. They've had their chances. It's time to heed opponents of the redistricting plan who have said they'll ask the state Supreme Court to appoint independent masters to draw a new plan.
• That leads to the second point. Let's take the partisanship out of this process and create a more independent redistricting board law, for boards that have no eye to the results of the next election but aim to draw districts that abide by the Alaska Constitution first. Force of law should make these boards beholden only to the constitution and the people of Alaska.  [Yes, there's more than that, go to the link for the rest.]

Fortunately for me, I'm back in town, and on this beautiful day I was able to bike to the meeting.  Fortunately because the teleconferencing didn't work, though there was a phone in number to listen in.  

My rough running notes on the meeting are below.  Let's see if I can pull out the key points.

1. The Board set up a schedule for getting the Hickel Plan going. The schedule is flexible, but gets them done by July. (See schedule below)
2. There will be public hearings
3. Third party plans will be accepted by June 21.
4. Starting will not set a precedent of allowing the Court to set the Board's schedule because
1. The Court didn't actually give them a schedule, it just said to hurry up
2. They can still appeal this later
5. The Board is waiting still for the US Supreme Court's decision on Shelby County v. Holder.
6. They've got Voting Rights Act (VRA) consultant Lisa Hanley on contract again to advise them if the US Supreme Court doesn't go their way.
7. They've confirmed that the benchmark for VRA districts is the Interim Plan because it was used for the last election.  (That has to do with how many Native districts are required to meet VRA standards.  It's also one less, I think, than last time.)
8. The Board has done nothing wrong, several members' opinion is that the trial court and  Supreme Court are wrong.  Also wanted to clear up popular misconceptions:
1. There was no gerrymandering - the courts found no evidence and it wasn't in the complaints that were filed (though it was brought up at trial)
2. The whole plan is not unconstitutional, just a couple of districts
9. The Board gave the chair and the attorney the power to file any necessary appeal if there isn't enough time to have five days notice for a meeting and a deadline would be missed.

(l-r) Stenographer, White, Corr, Torgerson, and Core

I'd also note that only Chair John Torgerson was present.  Three other members - Jim Holm, Bob Brodie, and PeggyAnn McConnochie - were there by phone.  Marie Green was caught by delayed flights between New Orleans and Chicago and only managed to send a message that she had to rush to her next flight because of the delay. 

Here's the scheduled copied from the handout at the meeting. 

Draft BOARD WORK SCHEDULE

June 7:  Notice Board work session (5 day notice requirement)  Notice tht third party plans will be accepted no later that 12:00 (noon) on June 21.
Wed:  June 12:  Start mapping sessions
Thur:  June 13
Fri:  June 14
Sat:  June 15
Sun:  June 16
Mon: June 17
Tue:  June 18
Wed:  June 19
Thur: June 20
Fri:  June 21; Board meeting to adopt draft plan or plans;  Staff will place all third party plans and board adopted draft plans on the we site for public distribution.
Fri:  June 28: Public hearing to present third party plans:  Anchorage testimony and state wide teleconference
Mon: July 1:  Public hearing in Fairbanks:  Teleconference for northern Alaska
Tue:  July 2: Public hearing Juneau:  Teleconference for south east Alaska
Thur:  4th of July
Mon:  July 8th*:  Board meeting Anchorage
Tue:  July 9:  Board Meeting Anchorage
Wed:  July 10: Board Meeting Anchorage
Thur:  July 11:  Board Meeting Anchorage
 Friday  July 12:  Board Meeting Anchorage

*I understood the Chair to say that board members had suggested preference for the weekend following July 4, and all this was flexible depending on Board members' needs and flight and hotel availability. 


Below are my rough notes.  CAUTION - these notes are a close approximation of what was said, but many words are missing, some are close but not exact.  This should, though, give an idea of what was covered until the official transcripts are available.  If I can escape the temptation of this gorgeous day, I'll try to add some of my own questions and thoughts about what happened at the meeting in a later post. [One more added to the list of posts to write up.]

Redistricting Board June 7, 2013  11am


11:01 - There is one Board member present - Chair John Torgerson.  Attorney Michael White is dressed for court - in a suit and tie, and it's horribly hot in here. Also here are his legal colleague Nichole Corr,  Mary Core, the Board's administrative assistant, the transcriber, and the other attorney. The All Caps numbered headings are from the official agenda handed out. 

1.  CALL TO ORDER [I don't actually remember this ever happening, it just started.]
2.  ROLL CALL
Bob Brodie is on the phone, PeggyAnn McConnochie, Holm,  Marie Green is on a plane from New Orleans and may or may not join us.

Please identify yourselves so the transcriber can keep track. 

3.  APPROVAL OF AGENDA
PeggyAnn McConnochie  I move to approve the agenda, Holm seconded. 
Torgerson: roll call since on the phone - all approve.
4.  LEGAL REVIEW
Last year SC approved the interim plan.  Then December 28 issued their decision.  Then Board appealed.  Court ruled Feb 15.  We asked for Clarification March 18.  SC ruled April 17?.  Plaintiffs filed seven days later.  Trial court issued order and set briefing schedule.  Trial court on May 30 disagreed with Board’s decision saying to start meeting and to hole public hearings.  Trial court anticipates an appeal and recommends a 30 day time schedule be set.  Next day, the Board began polling members and on June 3 noticed today’s meeting.  May 30 SC said it didn’t retain jurisdiction and sent to trial court.  Plaintiffs petitioned to have SC set a schedule.  Set to meet Monday June 10.
1. The Board could [I think he said do nothing yet]
2. It could appeal and file petition for review - for process
3.  Board could move forward and pursue the appeal.  Disagree about interpretation of constitution, not so much for this board, but for other boards.
4.  Board could move forward and not file petition for review, it could be done after the Board’s adoption of the plan

Torgerson: #2 again.  We could set a schedule and move forward, working on Hickel plan and following time line and at the same time pursue the appeal because we think the legal precedent is wrong.  We never said we wouldn’t hold hearings, but making constitutional point it’s not required.  I personally think that public input is important and this Board thinks public input is important.  I recall PeggyAnn McConnochie and Marie Green working so hard to meet the public concerns.
We can move forward, but need compliance. 

Torgerson:  I meant another one
#1.  Do nothing and appeal. 
#3  Was what I just said as #2.

PeggyAnn McConnochie - Motion to ?? they’re trying to impose timelines on us?  Is that right?  Riley Plaintiffs asked for a specific timeline and to hold hearings.  McConahy says that public hearings are required on the Hickel Process.  If VRA is removed, then I’m not sure we would still have to do that since we wouldn’t follow Hickel plan.  We will ask for clarification.  The Board is only required to hold public hearings on its draft plan, but not on its final plan.  Nothing after final plan is adopted. 
PeggyAnn McConnochie  One option is to do two things at once.  Some kind of plan for public hearings while we file the motion.
White:  Yes, we’d have to give notice, opportunity for 3rd parties to present plans, reasonable for them to have enough time to prepare. 
PeggyAnn McConnochie - lost me at the end - if we waited, until rule on Petersburg?
White:  We don’t have to file at all and could raise it later in appeal of any challenges.  Adopt our plan, expect legal challenges, get ruling, the go back to SC and then this issue could be raised.  Don’t have to do it on petition of review at this time. 
PeggyAnn McConnochie - Pros and cons of doing it now or later - maybe something for executive session.
White:  pausing - we don’t have Executive Session scheduled.  I think should be in Executive session.  It’s my understanding the Board always planned for public hearings anyway.  Waiting would only be for future Boards.  We know there will be litigation.  Perception percolating in public is that Board’s entire plan was thrown out.  That’s not the case.  First time only two districts he didn’t uphold, which we admitted because we could meet both VRA and Constitution and trial court said no, SC reversed it but said we can’t determine if you met the standard because you didn’t follow the Hickel Process.
Depending on the Board’s wishes, you might want to do it, or worth waiting, or fifth option to authorize the Chair to work with me and take appropriate action as necessary.
Torgerson:  We made a motion similar to that on something else.  Since we don’t have the court order coming out Monday.
Holm:  To Michael but part of discussion.  I’m more inclined to move forward and to do something as soon as practical.  But my concern about setting precedence that a judge can set the schedule for any Board outside the Constitutional requirements.  I’m concerned that our following this makes us complicit, not sure I agree with judge’s opinion in the first place.  Will it set a precedence for future boards.
White:  Good question, something I thought about.  If you proceed but then appeal, I don’t think you are setting any precedent.  Our opinion is that Court can set its schedule and follow the Constitution.  It can say ‘get to work’ and the judge hasn’t actually set a schedule yet.  If, when, and where, and how many, and that could be appealed as you move forward, so no precedent.  We need you to decide this and we aren’t setting a precedent because we need to move forward.  There are ways to move forward without losing our final appeal on this. 
Holm:  Thank you for the clarification.  I think I agree with that assessment.
PeggyAnn McConnochie I agree, this is the first thing we have to do.  I’m loath to do just one thing at a time.  I’d say, let’s set the schedule, it’s not because we are required to, but because we want to.  I don’t want any other board to have to deal with the stuff we have to deal with, without having some outsiders come in and dictate what we have to do.  Give the Chairman and Michael the latitude to figure out what needs to be done.
Torgerson: Mr. Brodie any comments?
Brodie:  Not at this time.
White:  I’d like to see you get the authority to work with me to determine any legal work we need to do.  We will have public hearings because we want to, and reply to Monday’s decision.  We have ten days appeal time, but changes when motion for reconsideration.  Court doesn’t have to rule, if not reaction after 30 days, it’s denied.  Under no time line now.
PeggyAnn McConnochie - I appreciate that Michael.  Make a stab, tell me if off-base.  I move Chair and counsel to work on appeal on the judge’s ruling, keep the Board informed, but they get to decide the timing of appeal. 
Torgerson: Was that a motion?
Holm:  Second for purpose of discussion.
White:  Motion well stated, but one little tweak - “if a petition should be filed and when.”
PeggyAnn McConnochie I agree wholeheartedly,
Holm:  Yes
Brodie:  My question. If there is a time we decide to file one day or another, is the 5 days notice for a board to meet prohibitive if we decide to wait several months and things need to be challenged or will you need to act sooner than five days.  I don’t see the urgency.
Torgerson:  good point.  Michael.  I don’t mind having another Board meeting.  A little difficult tog et people together for this one.  We have people in Chicago and all over the state.  How hard to do executive session over the hone.
White;  could be ES, but don’t see a reason to.  Whatever the Board wants to do, after we have ruling from the trial court, bottom line is we think everyone’s position is clear, fine that your raising the concerns that you are.  I think that can be done if that’s what you want to do.  If we file our responses Monday the 12th and Judge McConahy will respond quickly - shown his ability to do that.  Wait until later and determine to have another meeting    .
PeggyAnn McConnochie - John knows we all want to know what’s going on and we also need a schedule, what our needs for five days notice are, and you could determine the whether there is a need to file before we can meet . . . I’m comfortable.
Torgerson: If judge rules on 11h, there’s time . .
White:  yes
Torgerson:  Asking people to meet on the 21st - Friday June 21.  That’s 8 days, so we could go for approval then. 
White:  I would expect, I would like a couple of days for petition of review  . .
Torgerson:  I’d have you start before, but Bob wants to be able to look at.  If we couldn’t get together on the 21st I’d be bothered, but if you start, we could get Board’s approval on the 21st.
PeggyAnn McConnochie I’m comfortable with that.
Torgerson:  Want to remove your motion?
PeggyAnn McConnochie I see no need to remove it.  If we can afford the time for a notice, then we will.
Brodie:  I’m comfortable with that.  As long as we have a chance to look at it.
Torgerson:  We authorize the chair and legal to write an appeal, but want the Board to pull the trigger.
Brodie: If it proves impractical, then you should have the authority, but we’d like at least a cursory review. 
Vote:  All yes

Torgerson:  It seems like we’ve won some issues in the court, but they seem to keep coming up.  Even this one from McConahy isn’t against the Board.  Just because the Court doesn’t have time to do its job, not because we aren’t doing our job.
White:  Some issues hanging around:
1.  political gerrymandering - no political gerrymandering claim made in the filings.  In trial, Riley raised them.  I’ve looked at the orders.  SEpt. 23rd order - there is not evidence in the record to find partisan gerrymandering occurred.  . . . It finds the allegations regarding political motivation are speculative, but not persuasive.
Later:  allegations that John, you said, political paybacks.
Court agrees with Board, that alleged gerrymandering unpersuasive.
Torgerson, Holm, and Bickford all said proud and not persuaded by partisan… and court finds this persuasive.
Made changes for Native districts, result lowest possible deviation.  p. 134 proclamation plan is not based on impermissible partisan . . .  Court ruled over and over again.  Dean and not an issue.

2.  Somehow the whole plan was illegal.  The whole plan never declared illegal.  Specific rulings on specific districts.  SC said on HP by not following that, we can’t tell if you properly balanced between the VRA and constitution we can’t do our job.  Just a couple of districts - trial court said some issue on influence district, 2006 amendments and DOJ don’t rule out influence districts, SC you may want to look. 
Torgerson:  Told board this would just be an hour.
White:  Only two districts 32 in SE which we changed and SC said never mind use your original.  And 38 . . .. can’t keep up. 
Hear people saying things about illegal plan.  Only ten out of 60 challenged.  4 that were ?? and only 2 ????
Torgerson:  Any other questions
Brodie:  Thanks for the clarification.  Keep reading that the plan is unconstitutional.  They didn’t say unconstitutional, only that they couldn’t see how we reached our conclusion.  I think we did constitutional.
PeggyAnn McConnochie:  I agree. It was constitutional and good to hear that from you Michael.
5.  BOARD SCHEDULE
Torgerson:  I didn’t talk to any one of you if you can make it or not, but everyone has conflicts.  Eric Sandberg will be here June 12.  DNR GIS person, had two possible to loan, not sure which one we get.  That will happen.  That person will be here on the 12.  We’ll RSA money from our budget to DNR. 
We have Marie will be here 14,15, 16 Fri, Sat. Sun.  Dates she could be here to help formulate districts.
Ask Michael for update - contract with Dr. Hanley set.  Last time didn’t have that in place and lost time waiting on that data.  Trying to prepare that in case VRA is not thrown out, we’ll be ready to rock and roll.
White:  Working, I and Lisa, on what is now the benchmark now that we have a new plan and election held on it, and agreement appears to be the benchmark is now the 2012 plan.  What that means if the VRA is upheld and we have to go through other steps.  She’s crunching numbers, but nothing to work on.  Continues to be complicated, even more complicated based on . . . 
Torgerson:  I asked Eric to give her the data she needs.
Back to the schedule.  Court order on Thursday.  To Mary Core to set up meeting, five day  requirements.  five day notice, work sessions begin on the 12.  I plan to be here every day.  mr. Brodie you have pretty open period of time.  Anyone who can come, just talk to Mary for travel.  take home piece, this afternoon we’ll send out email to 3rd party groups to submit Hickel plans, they would be do on the 21st as well as our plan. 
PeggyAnn McConnochie Can we require that they submit with proper information to actually document what their variations and deviations are?
Torgerson:  I would hope they would, we can ask, but we have to do some quarterbacking, good idea.

White, Corr, Torgerson

White:  Clarification.  I don’t think the proposal has been distributed.
Torgerson:  I sent it to board and hour ago.
Hickel ??? about ten days we’ll be working - notice them all as work sessions.  on ?? a short time to adopt a plan to go out to public hearing and at the same time post the third party plan, then 28th public hearings - Anchorage, Juneau, teleconference to Fairbanks, Juneau, Board meet July 8, start drawing plan, taking into consideration the public testimony.  Somewhere around July 12 have board adopt a plan and have Eric do metes and bounds.  A couple of folks said they’d rather work on the weekend July 5,6,7, and I’m fine with that.  Sort of dropping this on everyone, just have to side a bit.  Haven’t called LIO or anything, it may slide a day.  21st shouldn’t slide much.  Public hearing might to find location and airlines.  Day trips out of anchorage to go to Fairbanks.  Done nothing on reservations.  4th of July worst day - middle of the week.  That’s my suggestion. 
Brodie:  I guess, plan draft plan, 21st, then the 3rd party plan.  Clarification for me - will the plan be drafted in deference to Constitution and then wait to change it to comply with VRA which could be a significantly changed plan.  Will third party do without consideration of VRA and then change theirs too?
Torgerson: I’m only talking Hickel process and we’d ask the third party proposals to also be Hickel Plans.  Never been required to have public hearing on Hickel plan.  I’m treating this as we did in the first 30 days.  As for the VRA even though the Court didn’t see the wisdom of waiting the judge’s plan waited 30 days.  By July 8 we’d have everything to meet the process.
White:  We are in the Hickel process phase.  1.  Just draw as if Alaska is own independent country and there is no federal law.  That’s what this is about and let the public do the same thing.  Then on 21st.  Get the 3rd party plans noon that day.  Week for public comment, and 28th public hearings.  When Board comes in on July 8, I believe conclusively the SC would have ruled.  If not we have to do VRA part of Hickel Plan. 
Torgerson:  Some dates may have to slide, but we needed a starting point.  Want to start Wed. the 12th? ?
PeggyAnn McConnochie:  I can come in 17, 18, 19, after that a few where I could do evening or call in.  Schedule works, but we have to be flexible.
Torgerson:  It may be the 20th works better for Board.  We need a draft plan before we go on the road. 
Legal says there might be another hour meeting, but need a starting point.
PeggyAnn McConnochie - I appreciate getting something on paper.  I move we accept the timelines, understanding it can and will be changed as necessary.
Holm:  second
Torgerson: other discussion?  I’ll send out email later today.  Remember planes are full and flying might be difficult.  Hotels full.  Another restraint.  Suns out. Tourists in town.  Other discussion? 
White:  We have two spare bedrooms, so if the wife oks, we have room. 
Torgerson:  Maybe we can all do that.  I plan on being most of these days.  Some other board meetings.  We’ll notice these as work sessions, not ?board meetings?.  Work here in the conference room.  Get GIS person and individuals can go in their offices.  Further discussion?  Roll call vote:
12:05  All vote yes.  Marie still missing.
Torgerson: Got message from Marie, apologies.  Plane got in late and rushed to get the next one.  Any other comments?  Mr. White?
White:  No, we can comply with this.  Summer time in alaska, doing our best. 

6.  BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
7.  ADJOURNMENT 
PeggyAnn McConnochie move to adjourn
Holm: second
All approve.  12:07
I’ll send out an email and try to get travel schedules set. 

Alabama and Alaska Waiting To Hear the US Supreme Court Shelby County v Holder Decision [UPDATED]

The Alaska Redistricting Board meets at 11am Friday to hear a legal report from its attorney Michael White.  Much of the discussion, surely, will relate to the Superior Court's recent decision telling the Board to get moving and stop delaying completing their plan.

Another part of the discussion will be about Shelby County v. Holder - a US Supreme Court case expected to be decided sometime this month.  It challenges section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act that requires Shelby County (and Alaska) to get pre-clearance before promulgating a redistricting plan.  Based on the discussion at a March Redistricting Board meeting, it would appear that the Board is hoping that requirement will be struck down for Shelby County and for Alaska.

Below is a C-Span recording of the one hour and sixteen minute Supreme Court hearing on Shelby County.  I also have links below that help explain the case in writing.  [UPDATE 6/9/13:  You can read the transcript of the oral arguments here.]






Cornell's Law Information Center has a good overview of the case and the issues.

This site seems to have most, if not all, of the documents filed in this case.

One more site which a good explanation of the VRA and the implications of the decision and analysis of the Court's politics on it.

For the Alaska Redistricting Board, there are several possible outcomes:

1.  The Court leaves the Voting Rights Act intact and does not end section 5's requirement for pre-clearance for Shelby County or anyone else.
Result for Alaska:  Nothing changes.

2.  The Court lifts the pre-clearance requirement for Shelby County, but leaves it for everyone else.
Result for Alaska:  Nothing changes.

3.  The Court lifts the pre-clearance requirement for all the jurisdictions currently required to get pre-clearance.
Result for Alaska:  The Board only has to use the Alaska Constitution to establish the new plan.  However, the rest of the VRA is likely to stand and if the Board violates the VRA, they are sure to be sued.  However, as I understand it, the level of proof of discrimination is much higher in the other sections than in section 5 which just looks at the outcome, not at intention.

There are other possible variations - say, the Court says that certain jurisdictions that meet certain standards are released from getting pre-clearance.

“The bullshit part of it, isn’t that part of the story too?”

“Billy wonders if Norm will run for office someday.  He’s as polished a public speaker as any of the politicians Bravo has encountered over the past two weeks.  He has the presence, the werds, plus he’s mastered the wounded, vaguely petulant tone that is the style of political speech these days.  If there’s a grating artificiality in the performance - Norm’s awareness of himself as performer, sneaking peeks at a mental mirror off to the side - it’s no worse than any other fixture of the public realm.  Billy has noticed that audiences don’t seem to mind anymore.  All the fakeness just rolls right off them, maybe because the nonstop sales job of American life has instilled in them exceptionally high thresholds for sham, puff, spin, bullshit, and outright lies, in other words for advertising in all its forms.  Billy himself never noticed how fake it all is until he’d done time in a combat zone."  (p. 131)

That's Norman  Oglesby, President of the Dallas Cowboys.  To catch you up, Bravo Squad, media heroes because an embedded Fox news crew captured their victorious counterattack of insurgents, are on a two week war publicity tour across the US, before finishing their tour of duty in Iraq.  They are now at a Dallas Cowboys game, the guests of Cowboys president Norman Oglesby. Norm is talking to the press about the exploits of the Bravo Company.  Billy, the title's hero, whose voice we hear alongside that of the narrator, is constantly thinking.

I’m still reading Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk, a novel, by Benjamin Fountain.  Almost done though.  He’s carefully pulling the facade off everything, trying to expose what he can find of 'truth.' 


Later Billy’s thoughts turn to the media.

“Norm merely smiles for the cameras, which click away like parakeets cracking seeds.  A few of the medias keep on about the stadium, but Norm ignores them.  Billy begins to get a sense of the dynamic here, a power equation along the lines of the CEO of a giant corporation vis-á-vis the urinal puck he so thoughtfully studies as it’s drenched with his mighty personal stream.  It is Norm’s job to maximize the value of the Cowboys brand, and it is the job of the media to soak up every drop, dab, and dribble of PR he sends their way.  As sentient human beings endowed with reason and free will they naturally resent such treatment;  perhaps this explains their sourpuss attitude, the karmic dampness that breathes off them like the towel hamper at a gym.  Tomorrow he’ll read the newspaper and wonder why this, too, isn’t part of the story:  that the press, however grudgingly, gathered as instructed to record in its stenographic capacity Norm’s presentation of Bravo Squad, a blatantly formulaic marketing event that enlightened no one, revealed nothing, and served no tangible purpose other than to big-up awareness of the Cowboys brand.

The bullshit part of it, isn’t that part of the story too?  But not a word, not a murmur, not a peep from the press about how thoroughly they’ve been used, and no hint of their personal feelings toward Norm, which, as Billy infers from the body language, consist in roughly equal measure of resentment and fear.  If he so wished, Norm could probably get any one of them fired.  .   .” (pp. 144-145) [emphasis added]

I try here, as best I can, when in situations like that, to report the bullshit and not ignore it.  Or sometimes I just lay it out there with the assumption that it's so obvious that readers will figure it out. 



The previous post on the book is here. 


[UPDATE Nov 4, 2015:  A report requested by US Senators McCain and Flake:

"Americans deserve the ability to assume that tributes for our men and women in military uniform are genuine displays of national pride, which many are, rather than taxpayer-funded DOD marketing gimmicks," Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake, the report's co-authors, wrote.

 Also, I see a movie of the book is due out in 2016.]

UAA Sports Program Provides More Excitement Than The Teams And Regents Don't Like It Public

Our ride home from the airport last night mentioned the brouhaha over the firing of the hockey coach at UAA.  All this happened after we left and despite the ADN subscription folks assuring me that I could follow the ADN online, while it has some things the print version doesn't (like nasty comments), it's harder for me to peruse the news stories. Besides, I prefer reading the newspapers where I'm traveling.

So I looked online, and found Wednesday's story in the sports section (where it belongs, but not where I'd look online.)  I was struck by the concern for keeping things from the public expressed by Regents:

"Regent Gloria O'Neill of Anchorage called the events 'extremely unfortunate, because it was so public.' 

"'As you think forward, what kind of communication strategy (can you) employ in the future ... so this nastiness does not have to play out in the community?' she asked Case."

Really?!  The university doesn't belong to the regents.  It belongs to the residents of Alaska.  It's not the regents job to hide things from the press and the public.  It's important that the public see the bad as well as the good so they can better judge how well the Regents and the President and the Chancellors are doing.  Here's another regent's comments:

"I don't like to read things in the newspaper before I hear about them (from you)," [Regent Fuller Cowell] said. "In this case I had a dozen emails before I heard anything from the university whatsoever.

"We've got to a figure out a way to communicate instantly with the Board of Regents, or at least keep us in the loop so we're aware this problem is developing so we can seem coherent when people ask us what is happening."

I can understand not wanting to be blind-sided, but exactly how much and about what does this Regent want to be told in advance?  Or is it just this one item because it's become a hot political potato?  It seems like, at least the way the ADN quoted him, his main concern is not to be embarrassed.

Then: 

After 25 minutes of public discussion, the board took the rest of the conversation behind closed doors. 

From the Board's by-laws:

"B.      Executive Sessions.
To the full extent allowed and pursuant to procedures provided by AS 44.62.310, the board or a committee of the board may go into executive session upon majority vote. Voice votes are authorized on all motions made during executive sessions. At any time during executive session, without regard to how the regent voted, a motion to reconsider the motion to go into executive session may be made by any regent, and discussed by the board or committee in executive session. If the board makes findings during an executive session, the findings will be made a part of the record of the proceedings and will be open to inspection by the public at reasonable times."

AS 44.62.310 discusses what can be discussed in executive session:

(b) If permitted subjects are to be discussed at a meeting in executive session, the meeting must first be convened as a public meeting and the question of holding an executive session to discuss matters that are listed in (c) of this section shall be determined by a majority vote of the governmental body. The motion to convene in executive session must clearly and with specificity describe the subject of the proposed executive session without defeating the purpose of addressing the subject in private. Subjects may not be considered at the executive session except those mentioned in the motion calling for the executive session unless auxiliary to the main question. Action may not be taken at an executive session, except to give direction to an attorney or labor negotiator regarding the handling of a specific legal matter or pending labor negotiations.

(c) The following subjects may be considered in an executive session:

(1) matters, the immediate knowledge of which would clearly have an adverse effect upon the finances of the public entity;

(2) subjects that tend to prejudice the reputation and character of any person, provided the person may request a public discussion;

(3) matters which by law, municipal charter, or ordinance are required to be confidential;

(4) matters involving consideration of government records that by law are not subject to public disclosure.

(d) This section does not apply to

(1) a governmental body performing a judicial or quasi-judicial function when holding a meeting solely to make a decision in an adjudicatory proceeding;

(2) juries;

(3) parole or pardon boards;

(4) meetings of a hospital medical staff;

(5) meetings of the governmental body or any committee of a hospital when holding a meeting solely to act upon matters of professional qualifications, privileges or discipline;

(6) staff meetings or other gatherings of the employees of a public entity, including meetings of an employee group established by policy of the Board of Regents of the University of Alaska or held while acting in an advisory capacity to the Board of Regents; or

(7) meetings held for the purpose of participating in or attending a gathering of a national, state, or regional organization of which the public entity, governmental body, or member of the governmental body is a member, but only if no action is taken and no business of the governmental body is conducted at the meetings.  [If anyone can tell me what's in the html code that is making this all bold, please do.  I copied it from the statutes.  It doesn't show bold in the compose page, but does in my preview.]

The ADN article does not tell us what the motion to go into executive session said, so it's not clear why they went into executive session.  Of the four, the only possible two, would be:

(2) subjects that tend to prejudice the reputation and character of any person, provided the person may request a public discussion;

(3) matters which by law, municipal charter, or ordinance are required to be confidential;

(2) would generally have to do with personnel issues which this is, but it seems to me the discussion was less about Cobb than about the process that led to his firing and possibly pressure applied to the university.  (3) most likely here would also be personnel issues, but there could be other things.  But the motion to take the issue to executive session should have clearly stated the reason.  

What person's reputation and character might have been prejudiced?  It seems the key people involved were Chancellor Case and ex-Athletic Director Cobb.  Case was there and could have asked for the meeting to be public.  Cobb, presumably, wasn't there, so he couldn't.  I'm guessing he well might have.  Or was it because they wanted to discuss the roles of President Gamble and Governor Parnell in the firing of Cobb?  [See Anchorage Daily News May 29, 2013] Those shouldn't have been shielded by an executive session, but I'm not positive. 

Looking at both articles, including some of the comments, it seems to me that the hockey supporters were strongly opposed to Cobb and that supporters of other sports thought he was ok to good.

It also looks like this decision might not have been made by Chancellor Case.  I don't believe that executive session is legitimate if the purpose is to hide the role of University administrators and the governor.  And Cobb's character couldn't be prejudiced any more than it already has been publicly by his opponents and by his own comments given to the ADN.

In a blistering statement given to the Daily News, Cobb said Gamble didn't speak to him or anyone in the athletic department before the university's decision to fire him. He also took aim at Ashley Reed, a lobbyist who was among those who encouraged Parnell to get involved.

"Patrick Gamble may be mentally ill," Cobb said in the statement, "when you give away the university to Ashley Reed and a few local scoundrels, you are by definition insane and I intend to prove it in court.

"Gamble made the decision to fire me without speaking to one employee of the UAA Athletic Department, not one staff member, not one coach, not one student-athlete and certainly not me. Apparently Ashley Reed is the final authority.

Taking this a slightly different direction,  I also want to point out how easy it is for us to read something in newspaper article and remember selected parts.  It was only the Regent statements expressing concern about keeping nastiness out of the public view and not wanting to be embarrassed that I remembered.  Where were the substantive comments about the actual problems raised about sports?  Well, in a second reading, I found that they were there all along.

Regent Jo Heckman of Fairbanks seemed to be referencing that incident when she asked about policies addressing the behavior of authority figures.

"Do we have very stringent policies on acceptable behavior of the heads of different arenas, whether it's hockey or basketball coaches or athletic directors or assistant coaches?'' she said. "Do we have good policies we can hang our hats on?"

 And

Regent Mary Hughes of Anchorage urged the chancellors at UAA and UAF, Alaska's only schools with intercollegiate sports, to stay on top of what's happening in their athletic departments and to make sure those departments don't become too separate from the rest of the university.

Visiting The Cathedral of Christ the Light in Oakland

We got to the cathedral just in time to join the daily 1pm tour. 

Here's the insides.  The outside is mostly glass and the building is shaped like a fish - an early Christian symbol.

The Christ image is from a computer image of an ancient sculpture that is created by putting many, many holes in the aluminum.

You can get lots of details about the cathedral from this site which appears to be notes for a class on the cathedral.  For instance:

Baptismal pool at entrance

"The new Cathedral, which replaced the Cathedral of St. Frances de Sales after it was damaged in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, is located in downtown Oakland at the northern edge of Lake Merritt. The cathedral complex includes the public plaza, rectory (Bishops residence), chancery offices, conference center, a medical clinic, a bookstore as well as a café."

Here's the "reconciliation room" the modern version of the confessional.  The space was quite open and one woman on the tour with us said she could never confess there. 

There were bronze plaques for the stations of the cross at eye level around the cathedral and people were encouraged to touch them.

There was a similar set of organs above me when I took this picture.

The mausoleum above, and a closer view of the crucifix below.

They just ordained their new bishop last week.  From the National Catholic Reporter:

"In a joyful celebration that incorporated the many gifts of the diverse communities that make up the Oakland diocese, Bishop Michael Barber was ordained and installed as Oakland's fifth bishop May 25 at the Cathedral of Christ the Light.
With his brother Jesuit Fr. Stephen Barber and another brother, Kevin Barber, serving as lector, Bishop Barber, 58, became the first Jesuit to become the bishop of Oakland. He also is the first priest to be named bishop of Oakland. All previous bishops had already been ordained bishops."

The Cathedral has a healing garden outside so that people will not forget the ""those innocents sexually abused by members of the clergy."


The former Bishop of Oakland, who was appointed Archbishop lacross the Bay in San

Francisco, may not have forgotten those sexually abused, but he's strongly in the camp of those opposing the rights of gays.  Because of his strong stance against Prop. 8, his appointment to probably the gayest city in the US caused quite a stir last fall.


From the Christian Science Monitor:

He also led Church support for the 2008 voter-approved California state constitutional amendment, Proposition 8, that banned gay marriage.
While taking his place as the archbishop of San Francisco and two other area counties, Cordileone called the drunken driving incident a "regrettable mistake."
Pope Benedict appointed Cordileone to preside over the Archdiocese of San Francisco in July.

But there are some positives too:

"The archbishop is an advocate for immigrants and an opponent of the death penalty, but he comes here perceived as a one-issue bishop," Brian Cahill, former San Francisco Catholic Charities executive director, wrote in an editorial published in the San Francisco Chronicle on Wednesday.

Our plane is about to board as we head for another short visit with Z and M in Seattle - cut even shorter by a 50 minute delay of our flight.  So I'm going to post this now and correct errors later. 

And I discovered, looking up things for this post, that Yelpers review churches.  Here are the Yelp reviews of the Oakland Cathedral.

Taylor Bickford To Work Part Time For Alaska Redistricting Board To Help With Mapping

After being pressured by the Anchorage Daily News into announcing the candidates for their Executive Director position, the Board publicly interviewed the three remaining candidates and then decided, in executive session, to not hire for the position at all.  I've posted about this already and my belief that they had a preferred candidate and when things went public, they couldn't choose him because he was so clearly less qualified than the other candidates.

I've heard a rumor for two weeks now that they would hire Taylor Bickford, who was the Executive Director before the Board went on pause last year,  in a more technical position than executive director and today a press release from the Board confirms that.  

They will also meet on Friday at 11 am.   For details of the hire and the meeting, see the press release below:

Anchorage, AK - The Alaska Redistricting Board will meet via teleconference at 11:00 a.m. on Friday, June 7, 2013. The purpose of the meeting is to receive a report on legal issues and discuss a schedule for future Board work sessions and meetings.

"The Board is committed to proceeding on a reasonable timeline to ensure we have a constitutionally acceptable redistricting plan for the 2014 state legislative elections," said Board Chairman John Torgerson. "The Superior Court judge presiding over this case has recognized our process as the most open and transparent in the history of Alaska redistricting, and we intend to continue with that tradition." 

All Board meetings are public meetings. Members of the public may listen to the teleconference at the Board's Anchorage office (411 West 4th Avenue, Suite 302, Anchorage, AK 99501), by calling 1-855-463-5009, or via live stream at www.aklegislature.tv.

Anyone needing special accommodations is requested to call 907-269-7402 or email info@akredistricting.org.

Additionally, the Board announces that its former executive director, Taylor Bickford, will be returning on a part-time, as-needed basis to assist with the drawing of a new plan.

"Taylor understands the process and what needs to be done," Torgerson said. "We are thankful to have him back."

 My experience with Taylor when he was deputy director and then executive director of the Board was mostly positive.  He's a bright and decent young man and was almost always responsive to my requests.  He's also part of the team at the Board and I'm pretty sure he will do what he's asked.  As the chair, John Torgerson, said, "Taylor understands  .  .  . what needs to be done."

Ludie Mitchell, Ollie Hawkins, and Ruth Powers - Three Rosies

Rosie the Riveter was the symbol of the women who worked to support the military effort in World War II.  The Historic National Park honoring these women, and the other workers, is full of information and I'm going to just offer a bit over several posts.  I don't want to load people down so you skip things.  These are personal stories that tell a lot more than the facts.  But I'll give a few facts too.

Sorry, it's too small to read.  Here's a bit from this description of Ollie Hawkins who was born in 1913 and would be celebrating her 100th birthday this year:

"Ollie felt the urge to help out during the war, which is one of the reasons why she came from out of state (Flagstaff, Arizona) as many others did, to work in the Kaiser shipyards in Richmond.  She recalls that it was really hard for women alone to find a place to stay.  Sometime, one woman would sleep in a bunk during the day and at night another woman would take her place.  It was a problem on their days off!  She went to the Housing Bureau and insisted on her own place, threatening to go back home if she didn’t get one and, of course, she got one.  By the time the war ended she had become a journeyman welder.  The welding lines weighed about 200 pounds each -- a person had to have lots of strength and endurance."

Ruth Powers worked at day care centers for the men and women working at the shipyards.

“Being strong-willed, Mrs. Ludie Mitchel told us of the pride she felt while working in the war effort.  “Like all learning,” she said, “welding was difficult.”  and she cried often when she was unable to do it correctly.  Eventually she mastered the craft and was allowed to work on high corners and main joints.”

It also says she went on to appear in

“many television commercials and was an extra in the Clint Eastwood film True Crime.”

I think this info plaque gives a sense of the impact of the war on women working.

I'll add more in a later post.  There are also stories about Blacks working in the war effort.  And the high death rate among defense workers - they said more died at home in the war effort than in battle!

Here's another post on this National Historic Park.