[This is really really rough. And I'm having trouble downloading photos at the moment, but I'll put this up and try to clean it up later.]
Torg: Asking for Powerpoint and tesitmony.
Marcia Davis: General council and VP for Calista - our region of Alaska is critically impacted by redistricting. Clarify we're working with - Ruederich said that on short time frame since Friday.
Calista Option 2 and resolved that after meeting with other Native Orgs which will facilitate Board's option. Now Calista Option 3, sent to Board last night, hard copy on the wall and available online. Different from Option 2 moves Shismareff from 40 to 39, moved Huslia, ??, and ??? from 39 to 40. Did that and maintained total deviation to .9%.
One other change - working with Mr. Colligan who is knowledgable of Matsu and refining Matsu boundaries and alligning a Senate pairing.
Overview was on Supreme Court to follow constitution to have - important, not only based on state, but also federal equal protection. Umbrella under which all other constitution important. Second, focused on compact, contiguous, and didn't mess with any city boundaries, though had some borough. But our ANCSA boundaries are = to borough boundaries, met among ANCSA corporations and socio-economic issues.
Guided by deviation minimization. Strived for cmpactness, contiguity, only balanace point where deviation is too much to get the others.
Will be some points - Tom will point them out. Very low deviation .97, which gives Board some wiggle room.
Fairbanks also has excess population. Not just looking at Native side, need to look at interests of urban population. Ester folks are longstanding urban population, to distrupt them and throw them as surplus population is wrong. Using people on east - military? - they move in and out, not long standing, had voting average of 5% compared to western FB that has one of the highest voting rates. This pairing does the least harm to both sides. Proud of Borough and ANCSA boundaries. Calista with dominant with Kuskokwim drainage area - listing all but I can't keep up. AHTNA ingonore in most maps - integrity minus Cantwell, Koniak and Aleut preserved. Doyon - they like Bethel have a split propulation - one cause large population the other because small.
..... Want to talk about doinut (yes, not donut) problem with Senate pairings. FB core has five and pair extra with the donut that surrounds FB. Allows future census cycles to have least disruption.
Now turn it over to Steve Colligan at E-Terra who will speak to how the map was created and then Tom Begich who has worked on four redistricting process will talk about balance.
Steve Colligan - resident of Wasilla. 30 years ago thought I'd never do a redistricing again, using cards - using digital tools to enforce an analog process. In this process with Calista and others, started with blank maps. applied Native Corp boundaries, DDT????, then census blocks (???) reaching across 100's of miles to find a couple of people.
Tom Begich: Resident of Anchorage. socio-economic expert for state of Alaska in Hickel and also in Knowles, and contract to former Sen. Al Adams, and contractor to Calista, sole employer. Deviation less than 1% honoring equal protection in Constitution, then compactness and contiguity. Look at visual compactness. We wanted to be sure where we had visible compactness also socio- ecomonic compactness.
Computer dropped to floor.
District 6 on Eastern FB - Eilson and south, Moose river population kept with North Pole and city boundaries kept intact, no city boundaries violated. Borough - one FB break, one Anchorage, one Matsu, 2 in Kenai.
Created FB city district, Boundary. Per request to square it off added south part - two city house districts. One around NPole and one College Chena Hills and connected by zero block along river. Then older urban population North and west of the city. One break of FB is here. Mostly rural or more transient.
South - area of interest, how take TCC and mesh with AHTNA, 20 years ago analaysis showed intermarriage connections.
Valdez-Richardson district challenge. Come in right under the Borough. Only Matsu incorporated south of old Glenn - about 500 residents of Matsu. So Matsu has all five of its house districts in tact. Steve did this inline with some comments from Mayor of Matsu. This only break, and becomes large district 10. Not only has all 5 house seats and with Anchorage for Matsu Chugiak Sen pairing.
In Anchorage with breaking senate pairings to north and south - keeps all pairings together. Keeps ER together.
I note four Board maps paired Sandlake and Ocean view so we copied that.
I believe it's the same as the Anchorage house district maps.
White: you changed some names?
Begich: Steve will talk to that. Had to change some numbers.
Kenai, now, see that Kenai Soldotna district, here - left 35 people out of Kenai City but back in. Souther part unites with Kodiak, Cordova fishing district. Twice a day plane service between Kodiak and Yakutat.
SE briefly - similar to Ketchikan - with south of Prince of Wales - ethnicity of Haida/Tlingkit. Also Haida people we didn't include. Petersburg and Sitka boroughs maintained. Split in Juneau - make as compact as possible.
Finally, take out of Kenai - Nanwalek, Tyonek, and Port Grapham and put in Bristol Bay borough. . . .
One exception with TCC Arctic Village for population 153 people incorporated with NWA - about 1/5 %. Tried to get map as close as perfect for equal protection.
Colligan: Each map different approaches to Matsu. Some ??? that overlap.
Stick to major roads, streams, Matsu with existing precincts has every assembly district split three times. Adopted Assembly maps before, readjust and make reassignments, easier for public to understand and minimize deviation. did cause some paring problems, so renumbered pairing north district to palmer, Chugach and rural with KGB, and norther lakes district with Wasilla (??????)
Torg: Two questions, a little confused Kenai borough twice split?
Begich: Tyonek, Nanwalek, Port Graham to
and also fishing district. does maintain Homer in Kenai district.
Torg: Delta?
Begich: Current Deltas are kept together - used Highway as boundary - south of highway is ten and north as get toward Tok is in 6. Tok and that area I think in 10 district.
White: Thanks, some questions:
Fishing district. I know you've been qualified as an expert. Tell us how fishing district holds together. Kodiak.
Begich: Entire Kodiak borough. Chugach Alaska Boundaries. PWSound desire of Cordova to be locked into fishing district. Whole linkage of commercial fishing district. Also relationship between Yakutat and Cordova - mostly air relationship but also fishing.
Fishing, Coastal Alaska, common Alaska Native roots and two Boroughs complete.
White: Based on your expertise in Socio-economic integration you say this is ok?
Begich: Absolutely
White: Spoke with them and got their agreement?
Begich: No, head of Chugach region said frustrating because step children of region because population used for one or the other. About 350 people, so some flexibility.
White: Could put the two villages into Kenai and keep deviations under 5%.
Begich: Kenai B entitled to at least 3 house districts, absolutel constitutional mandate. Have to do something with excess population of kenai. Sometimes geography forces you to broken twice. We think no other B needs that. Only 1800 people affected by breaks.
White: How many live in Eilson?
Begich: About 2600, to east 19 people - around 4095 people. When even out FB districts about 10,000, we got down to 8,800 people. plus or minus .5 deviation in FB and only take out 9000.
White: Out of FBNS B took out
Begich: 8,800, most from Eilson, a transient group.
Significantly smaller number comes from permanaent population when take from east side than out of west side.
White: You'd agree with me if east or west is within discretion of the B.
Begich: yes, but if want socio-integrated want to disturb the permanent population less.
White: Valdez - how many people out of Anchorage?
Begich: 7548 out of Chugiak area, the ideal amount of Anchorage excess.
Matsu - 512 people and all south of Glenn. full five house districts for Matsu.
explaining socio-integration of Anchorage and Valdez - if any part of Anchorage connected to Valdez it is the northern part. Dittman survey. Old Glenn takes you to Palmer and out. You can do this without respecting the B boundary. You could follow the highway and take more from Matsu????? Zero blocks there. If trust our Constitution - socio-economically integrated - Matsu boundary should trump highway.
White: Steve can you help difference tween your Matsu map and what the mayor drew for us?
Colligan: Mayor's map maintain portion of Palmer they give up. Mayor's map takes this portion Lazy Mt. in this map maintain Wasilla and portions of Palmer, but it is different mainly ??????
Begich: Under Calista map, district out of Chugiak in mayor's map comes up into the Valley. In the Mayor's map it is broken twice. Under ours it is borken onece. Have to give up Lazy Mt. [This is lots of mapping and hard to understand from the words only]
Torg: Go into public testimony - but a five minute recess first.
Friday, June 28, 2013
ARB live blogging - Some pictures of the scene
[This is really rough, but it's current. They're on break. I'll try to add photos.]
Randy Ruedrich, AFFER Anchorage for Fair and Equitable Redistricting
BEen inivolved since the beginning.
Change only dealing with state constitution, minimize deviations to the extent that our largest neg. is -.74 in district in Western Alaska. Our largest postiive deviation is .7 in Kenai? overall 1.44 which I think we can reduce further.
Using state constitutional criteria some limits.
Basic architecture of a map under constitution.
When you recognize borough and city boundaries as significant
16 MOA
5+ Fairbanks
5 for Matsu
3+ for Kenai
<2 for Junea
Sitka, Kodia, under 1
Boroughs of the chain another opportunity for an identified districts
Those boroughs quickly sum up 36 sitings for our 40 seats
Bethel and Nome - 2 more
Leaves two unidentified districts. That's, based on previous maps leaves Richardson Highway and River area. So don't really start with blank slate. Start with 36 districts and the rest fills in.
Anchorage under ideal numbers is entitled to 16.4 house seats. If 16 only, the deviation would be 2.5% over 16 districts. Unconstitutional. Surplus can be dealt with in several ways.
Kenai to south, not cmpact or socio-economically integrated when compared to linking to southern Matsu. Pairing Anchorage surplus we wind up with a compact and socio-economic district that meets constitution and mimics 1994, 2002, and 20012 maps.
During those three mapping cycles, the surplus from Matsu has been paired with Richardson Highway. To Valdez linked to Matsu - traditionally done.
What we have actually done in various parts of the state.
Looking at map, a lot of things that look familiar -
Anchorage first:
Torg: For the record, you're looking at AFFER revised plan, not the original.
Ruedrich: Anchorage map product of mayor's office, Assembly work group, Clerk.
From Girdwood to north of Muldoon, no change. We made some minor changes to bring things into balance. Dog bite. District 24 - center - we removed a very small commercial ara and put it into 22. And then Seward and Tudor brings district 23 within .5% and the district to the North also. 22 removed small population along the railroad along Tudor and put it ito 16, adding population in SE and removing in NE leaving it in .5% bound.
Next change even more subtle. Instead of using Fish Creek in Spenard, we used Barbara Street, that leaves .5% Took a few people south of Chester on the 16/18 border and put them into district 18. We have 16 in the 1/2% bound. Those changes creates a map that meets the ?? That's how close we are that starts with the map first done in the mayor's office.
Changes in ER, we made major changes, slightly over 1% each. That created a slightly larger district 11 component in Matsu bridge district.
Kenai - made some changes - by bringing ??? we removed significant out of 28, some into 30 and some into 29, hanged from 2.5% over population, by adding Tyonek/Beluga, that allows us to free 11% of the district from Kenai and allows us to put that into Kodiak district that already had Southern Kenai villages. Bring 35 to ideal population. Got free space to get Yakutat going to the North.
Larry can speak about Matsu - Larry DeBilbiss, Mayor of Matsu Borough.
Thank you for your patience in this domino game we call redistricting. I did review the AFFER Revised map and satisfied with the way we are situated. I called Assembly members twice and twice I got no response from any Assembly members. That tells me the Assembly does not want major changes from the map you did before and very satisfied witht he representation that came out of that map. We don't want to see any changes. Some changes around Palmer area that won't have impact.
I was in a lawsuit over this in the past - they tried to whack out two legislators - me and Ogan. Glad someone else is doing the hard work.
Torg: Questions?
White: Clarification. Mr. Mayor welcome, thanks for your testimony. Clear - colors are the current map and boundaries are new lines?
Larry: I don't know about the colors
Ruederich. This map does reflect the latest work the people of Matsu did yesterday.
Whtie: Does orange represent the current?
Ruedrich: No idea.
Larry: I think you're right. Glad you caught those.
White: Understood your testimony right. Yourself and assembly didn't raise any objections and dividing the borough twice is ok with you?
Larry: Yes.
Ruedrich: Let me continue. SE map is very simple. D 33, added metlakatla. Left for historic reasons, ?? Cove, for added population. But Ketchikan would work ok. Thorn Bay which has been paired with ??? so Ketchikan's proposal might be better.
We left 31 Juneau as it is. Since Skagway was already in 32 we added Haines, since no Native districts to consider at this time, added Pelican to make a hook, to balance population only.
Torg: When you refer to they, you mean K Borough?
Ruedrich: Yes, the proposal we heard today from K.
In Kenai where we had excess population. Also in FBNS borough. Reduced D1 essentially a smaller fareast district. D4 totally inside City of FB leaves a little to incorporate the rest of FB and then ??? to get second house seat. Excess from D3 north of that added to 2 moves it further to east. D5 south and ruther east. 2000+ more surplus relative to previous plan we drew and similar to plan that was drawn by the board. That gives us 10,000 to be integrated into 38 that starts in Yakutat and around north through upper Tanana and Upper Yukon and back into Denali Borough. Much more compact than 39 was in prior map. Added more inupiat to keep consistent 40 to historic 39. Kuskokwim and upper Yukon and KKKK? and 36 is balance of chain and Yupik peoples of the SW Alaksa thru Nondalton and Lime Village which are actually Athabascan, but found this to do the least harm we can anticipate.
Map has deviation of 1.4%, we can probably work on it a little bit. Can create a map that's a little better for you in the next few days.
Torg: Thanks. Questions? Dividing FB once or twice?
Ruederich: It's open in the west - to 38.
Torg: That's where you were talking about 10,000.
Ruedrich: We have about 7000 in prior plan. By shrinking all the districts in FBNS borough by about 3% that frees about 2000 people. Everything compressed to the east. Freed individuals are on the Western frontier. Ester precinct had been split, part in 38 and historic in 5. This map puts all in 38 together. Also allows small portions of University hills district are no in 38 and finally, took part of Farm Loop precinct into 38. Those Western elements taken and addd because they were surplus.
Torg: Other questions?
White: Help us understand socio-economic integration thinking - 38?
Torg: When you build a map and work as hard as you can to get districts that work, you have elements of population that doesn't necessarily fit. has pipeline as theme, but other things vastly different. Mostly rural Alaska native folks. Just don't have enough of them to form rural distric. Have some urban population surplus. End up with this piece that you have t put together. I see this as the least troubling. Have much in common with FB, which is center of their trade world. Don't see why they can't be?
White? 37?
Torg: That troubled me greatly. If we try to keep Chain together and Yupik north with it, we have 39 as blend for years. Need to add folks to get to antoher 10% as we go to full 1 person 1 vote representation. Native villages going up the Yukon, Koyukuk villages together, Upper Kusko together, middle Yukon villages, and significant Yupik villages in south. Entire Kuskokwim in this distric with some more changes. Not enough districts to put all these people in separate boxes.
White: Courts been clearn not if adding urban, but where.
District connects over water?
Ruedrich: PWS, also takes Cordova who voted to be combined with Kodiak. Fits because all fishing population.
White: Thank You.
Randy Ruedrich, AFFER Anchorage for Fair and Equitable Redistricting
BEen inivolved since the beginning.
Change only dealing with state constitution, minimize deviations to the extent that our largest neg. is -.74 in district in Western Alaska. Our largest postiive deviation is .7 in Kenai? overall 1.44 which I think we can reduce further.
Using state constitutional criteria some limits.
Basic architecture of a map under constitution.
When you recognize borough and city boundaries as significant
16 MOA
5+ Fairbanks
5 for Matsu
3+ for Kenai
<2 for Junea
Sitka, Kodia, under 1
Boroughs of the chain another opportunity for an identified districts
Those boroughs quickly sum up 36 sitings for our 40 seats
Bethel and Nome - 2 more
Leaves two unidentified districts. That's, based on previous maps leaves Richardson Highway and River area. So don't really start with blank slate. Start with 36 districts and the rest fills in.
Anchorage under ideal numbers is entitled to 16.4 house seats. If 16 only, the deviation would be 2.5% over 16 districts. Unconstitutional. Surplus can be dealt with in several ways.
Kenai to south, not cmpact or socio-economically integrated when compared to linking to southern Matsu. Pairing Anchorage surplus we wind up with a compact and socio-economic district that meets constitution and mimics 1994, 2002, and 20012 maps.
During those three mapping cycles, the surplus from Matsu has been paired with Richardson Highway. To Valdez linked to Matsu - traditionally done.
What we have actually done in various parts of the state.
Looking at map, a lot of things that look familiar -
Anchorage first:
Torg: For the record, you're looking at AFFER revised plan, not the original.
Ruedrich: Anchorage map product of mayor's office, Assembly work group, Clerk.
From Girdwood to north of Muldoon, no change. We made some minor changes to bring things into balance. Dog bite. District 24 - center - we removed a very small commercial ara and put it into 22. And then Seward and Tudor brings district 23 within .5% and the district to the North also. 22 removed small population along the railroad along Tudor and put it ito 16, adding population in SE and removing in NE leaving it in .5% bound.
Next change even more subtle. Instead of using Fish Creek in Spenard, we used Barbara Street, that leaves .5% Took a few people south of Chester on the 16/18 border and put them into district 18. We have 16 in the 1/2% bound. Those changes creates a map that meets the ?? That's how close we are that starts with the map first done in the mayor's office.
Changes in ER, we made major changes, slightly over 1% each. That created a slightly larger district 11 component in Matsu bridge district.
Kenai - made some changes - by bringing ??? we removed significant out of 28, some into 30 and some into 29, hanged from 2.5% over population, by adding Tyonek/Beluga, that allows us to free 11% of the district from Kenai and allows us to put that into Kodiak district that already had Southern Kenai villages. Bring 35 to ideal population. Got free space to get Yakutat going to the North.
Larry can speak about Matsu - Larry DeBilbiss, Mayor of Matsu Borough.
Thank you for your patience in this domino game we call redistricting. I did review the AFFER Revised map and satisfied with the way we are situated. I called Assembly members twice and twice I got no response from any Assembly members. That tells me the Assembly does not want major changes from the map you did before and very satisfied witht he representation that came out of that map. We don't want to see any changes. Some changes around Palmer area that won't have impact.
I was in a lawsuit over this in the past - they tried to whack out two legislators - me and Ogan. Glad someone else is doing the hard work.
Torg: Questions?
White: Clarification. Mr. Mayor welcome, thanks for your testimony. Clear - colors are the current map and boundaries are new lines?
Larry: I don't know about the colors
Ruederich. This map does reflect the latest work the people of Matsu did yesterday.
Whtie: Does orange represent the current?
Ruedrich: No idea.
Larry: I think you're right. Glad you caught those.
White: Understood your testimony right. Yourself and assembly didn't raise any objections and dividing the borough twice is ok with you?
Larry: Yes.
Ruedrich: Let me continue. SE map is very simple. D 33, added metlakatla. Left for historic reasons, ?? Cove, for added population. But Ketchikan would work ok. Thorn Bay which has been paired with ??? so Ketchikan's proposal might be better.
We left 31 Juneau as it is. Since Skagway was already in 32 we added Haines, since no Native districts to consider at this time, added Pelican to make a hook, to balance population only.
Torg: When you refer to they, you mean K Borough?
Ruedrich: Yes, the proposal we heard today from K.
In Kenai where we had excess population. Also in FBNS borough. Reduced D1 essentially a smaller fareast district. D4 totally inside City of FB leaves a little to incorporate the rest of FB and then ??? to get second house seat. Excess from D3 north of that added to 2 moves it further to east. D5 south and ruther east. 2000+ more surplus relative to previous plan we drew and similar to plan that was drawn by the board. That gives us 10,000 to be integrated into 38 that starts in Yakutat and around north through upper Tanana and Upper Yukon and back into Denali Borough. Much more compact than 39 was in prior map. Added more inupiat to keep consistent 40 to historic 39. Kuskokwim and upper Yukon and KKKK? and 36 is balance of chain and Yupik peoples of the SW Alaksa thru Nondalton and Lime Village which are actually Athabascan, but found this to do the least harm we can anticipate.
Map has deviation of 1.4%, we can probably work on it a little bit. Can create a map that's a little better for you in the next few days.
Torg: Thanks. Questions? Dividing FB once or twice?
Ruederich: It's open in the west - to 38.
Torg: That's where you were talking about 10,000.
Ruedrich: We have about 7000 in prior plan. By shrinking all the districts in FBNS borough by about 3% that frees about 2000 people. Everything compressed to the east. Freed individuals are on the Western frontier. Ester precinct had been split, part in 38 and historic in 5. This map puts all in 38 together. Also allows small portions of University hills district are no in 38 and finally, took part of Farm Loop precinct into 38. Those Western elements taken and addd because they were surplus.
Torg: Other questions?
White: Help us understand socio-economic integration thinking - 38?
Torg: When you build a map and work as hard as you can to get districts that work, you have elements of population that doesn't necessarily fit. has pipeline as theme, but other things vastly different. Mostly rural Alaska native folks. Just don't have enough of them to form rural distric. Have some urban population surplus. End up with this piece that you have t put together. I see this as the least troubling. Have much in common with FB, which is center of their trade world. Don't see why they can't be?
White? 37?
Torg: That troubled me greatly. If we try to keep Chain together and Yupik north with it, we have 39 as blend for years. Need to add folks to get to antoher 10% as we go to full 1 person 1 vote representation. Native villages going up the Yukon, Koyukuk villages together, Upper Kusko together, middle Yukon villages, and significant Yupik villages in south. Entire Kuskokwim in this distric with some more changes. Not enough districts to put all these people in separate boxes.
White: Courts been clearn not if adding urban, but where.
District connects over water?
Ruedrich: PWS, also takes Cordova who voted to be combined with Kodiak. Fits because all fishing population.
White: Thank You.
Redistricting Board Public Hearing Anchorage - Ketchikan Wants Prince of Wales - live blogging
Got here a little late, but meeting hadn't started. Chair announced the situation - approved of 7 Board options and three private options plus Ketchikan. Then they got three more from Calista and AFFER. And another today
[Basically Ketchikan wants part of Prince of Wales Island.]
Ketchikan - Dan
Carefully consider the 8 page letter. All to happy to provide additional information and supporting materials. As I understand rules of redistrict, especially in the hickel process, contiguity, one-person one vote etc. Similar to Board Option A.
Torg: When we had hearings in Prince of Wales - they said they didn't want PoW divided. Have you talked to them about this?
Dan: We have not. It is mathmatically impossible 1 person 1 vote. Population characteristics impossible to keep Prince of Wales intact. VRA change is certainly a game changer. We have very strong ties to Metlakatla and PoW. More than with northern communities on the island. I understand PoW desire to keep all communities int he same election district. It just can't happen in my opinion, given
Torg: Have you looked at map G?
Dan: Mostly A
Torg: Option G does keep PoW in one piece, so please look at that and give us your opinion.
AFFER - Mr. Ruedrich
[He's setting up his powerpoint - there's a break here so I'll post this for now.]
What Does Darrel Issa Have In Common With Car Alarms?
It seems that car alarms are a good metaphor for Representative Darrel Issa. Bear with me as I play this out.
A 2005 New York times article says that
Rep. Darrel Issa has been in the news lately. He's chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which, among other things, keeps track on the President. His committee has been setting off a bunch of false alarms lately. It's his committee that held hearings on Benghazi and most recently on the IRS targeting Tea Party folks. And now we've learned that he ordered a very narrowly focused audit focused only to look at Tea Party and other conservatives, but no others. It now turns out that liberal groups were targeted too.
Immoral Minority posted a Chris Mathews video segment charging that Issa's been shooting blanks for weeks now. In the interview he's corrected - for years now.
Darrel Issa is, according to NPR, the wealthiest member of Congress, worth $450 million.
The NPR piece also reports:
There are 435 members of Congress. I don't know about you, but I don't know all that much about most of them, but I do have google and it didn't take long for me to find out a little about Darrel Issa.
Apparently, he's pretty good with electronics and made about $450 million on his car alarm company. That business that is a
An eight page New Yorker article in 2010 investigated the many allegations that have been raised about Issa - and which apparently caused him not to run for Governor of California after he successfully got Governor Davis recalled.
Things like
Issa's district is north of San Diego and includes the Pendleton Marine base, Oceanside, Carlsbad, San Inofre, San Clemente (where Nixon's California White House was) and San Juan Capistrano. He won last November by 35,000 votes - 59% - 41%.
"Car alarms are a terrible urban blight with obvious social costs - noise pollution, increased stress, wasted police manpower dealing with broken alarms - and it's not clear there are any benefits in return," says Lawrence Sherman, director of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology at the University of Pennsylvania. "No study has demonstrated that they reduce auto theft."16The above quote is from Transalt a group trying to ban car alarms in New York City.
A 2005 New York times article says that
"nearly all of the burglar alarms investigated by the county's highly paid police are false. . ."
Car alarms, the bane of suburban neighborhoods, barely show up in the false alarm figures because they are rarely reported except as noise complaints, authorities said."Why am I telling you this? Keep going a little further.
"Two companies, Directed Electronics of California and Audiovox of Hauppauge, dominate the car alarm industry and produce alarms under several brand names. Spokesmen for the companies said the alarms, augmented by new innovations, were highly effective in preventing theft."
Rep. Darrel Issa has been in the news lately. He's chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which, among other things, keeps track on the President. His committee has been setting off a bunch of false alarms lately. It's his committee that held hearings on Benghazi and most recently on the IRS targeting Tea Party folks. And now we've learned that he ordered a very narrowly focused audit focused only to look at Tea Party and other conservatives, but no others. It now turns out that liberal groups were targeted too.
Immoral Minority posted a Chris Mathews video segment charging that Issa's been shooting blanks for weeks now. In the interview he's corrected - for years now.
Darrel Issa is, according to NPR, the wealthiest member of Congress, worth $450 million.
Issa made his fortune building and selling Viper car alarms. [As your eyes read this sentence, if Blogger had the technology, you would now hear alarms.]Viper car alarms are made by Directed Electronics, Inc (Darrel Issa's initials are DEI). The same company mentioned above as one of the two main car alarm manufacturers.
The NPR piece also reports:
"For years I used to tell everyone that I went into it because my brother was a car thief. Then they found out when I ran for office my brother did spend time in prison as a car thief, and it ruined the whole joke I'd had for 20 years in business," Issa said during an interview with whorunsgov; .It seems Darrel Issa has been accused of car theft himself - a couple of times. Where the police and courts and indictments were involved. He seems though to have either talked or paid his way out of trouble.
There are 435 members of Congress. I don't know about you, but I don't know all that much about most of them, but I do have google and it didn't take long for me to find out a little about Darrel Issa.
Apparently, he's pretty good with electronics and made about $450 million on his car alarm company. That business that is a
". . . terrible urban blight with obvious social costs - noise pollution, increased stress, wasted police manpower dealing with broken alarms - and it's not clear there are any benefits in return,"He apparently has lots of street smarts and is a good talker.
An eight page New Yorker article in 2010 investigated the many allegations that have been raised about Issa - and which apparently caused him not to run for Governor of California after he successfully got Governor Davis recalled.
Things like
- driving the wrong way on a one way street and having concealed weapons in his glove compartment (in Ohio where that wasn't legal.)
- burning down his factory (after removing the computer with all the data and quadrupling his insurance)
- firing an employee by putting a box with a gun on his desk
- stealing an army buddie's Dodge Charger
- stealing a Maserati from a Cleveland dealership
- padding his biography with false awards, falsely claiming to have protected President Nixon, and lying about his military record
- reporting his car stolen and collecting the insurance after his brother sold it to a dealer
- hit and run
Issa told me that he did not set the fire at the Quantum factory in 1982, and he is furious that the story has dogged him. He lashed out at Eric Lichtblau, the New York Times reporter who, in 1998, while working for the Los Angeles Times, first aired allegations from Issa’s former business partner Joey Adkins. Lichtblau, Issa charged, “is a notorious hatchet man.” (“Everything in that story was accurate,” Lichtblau told me in response. “The picture that emerged of his early start in Cleveland was very different from the Horatio Alger story he had adopted.”) (p.7)
Issa seemed unfamiliar with the insurance company’s fire-analysis report concluding that the fire was arson, and said that, as far as he knew, it was officially declared accidental. He blamed the local fire department for letting the fire get out of hand.
Adkins, both Issa brothers said, is not credible. William told me that Adkins was “a lowlife.” The morning after the fire, Darrell said, Adkins took most of the Steal Stopper merchandise that wasn’t damaged, hauled it away, and set up a rival business across town. (Adkins told me it was his understanding that the inventory would be scrapped, so he took it.) It was that theft of merchandise, Darrell pointed out, that caused the insurance company to deny his claim on the Steal Stopper inventory. There was one more twist. Adkins’s brother, Gary, sold the merchandise back. Issa paid with a check that he cancelled before Gary Adkins could cash it.The New Yorker article by Ryan Lizza, called "Don't Look Back" is well worth reading.
Issa's district is north of San Diego and includes the Pendleton Marine base, Oceanside, Carlsbad, San Inofre, San Clemente (where Nixon's California White House was) and San Juan Capistrano. He won last November by 35,000 votes - 59% - 41%.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Alaska Redistricting Board Adds Three New Third Party Maps - 6 Days After Last Week's Deadline
Today the Alaska Redistricting Board sent out an email to people who have subscribed to their email list with an amended Agenda for tomorrow's (Friday, June 28) public hearing in Anchorage.
The basic agenda change is that Gazewood and Weiner will present their plan on Monday in Fairbanks instead of in Anchorage. Gazewood and Weiner is the law firm that represents that Riley plaintiffs who challenged the Board in court. Their office is in Fairbanks.
At the bottom of the email is a notice that there are three new plans:
AFFER - Revised
Calista - Revised
Calista Option 2
The deadline for all plans was Friday, June 21 at noon. That was six days ago - actually the time that the Board meeting opened last week. At the meeting there was no vote to extend that deadline, nor any announcement that it would be extended. There was a hint that the Board wasn't necessarily firm about the deadline when the Board chair asked Board member Marie Green about a plan from Sealaska and said that they could get it in even though the deadline was over. But she checked and said there was no plan coming in from them.
Also, for the first 11 options, the Board voted to adopt them. There hasn't been a meeting since then, at least not one that was announced to the public, so how did these three plans get on the list?
Although the plans were only posted on the Redistricting Board website "as of noon today" according to the 3:10pm email, the three (3) new plans, along with the original 11 adopted by the Board last Friday, were displayed at the Haines Assembly meeting last [Tues]night (Wednesday) and discussed.
From KHNS' radio's report on the meeting:
Usually, when public agencies have deadlines for submissions of any kind, late submissions are not accepted. While you want as many good submissions as possible, accepting them after the deadline isn't fair to people who actually trust the Board to honor their deadlines, and thus don't turn in late proposals. One might also consider some extenuating circumstances, such as a group that is not already represented or is a marginalized group that doesn't understand how the process works.
But in this case, the new plans (two revisions and one new plan) come from the Alaska Republican Party (AFFER) which already has four representatives on the Board itself, and from Calista, a Native Corporation that uses the same GIS expert to do their maps that the Republican Party uses. Steve Colligan's resume (on his Colligan for Assembly website) shows long experience with GIS going back to 1984 where he worked for the Municipality of Anchorage through now as president of the firm E-Terra, LLC. He's also served as Vice President of the Alaska Republican Party.
Ultimately, is this going to make any difference? I suspect not. The Board is probably feeling pretty good now that they don't have to worry about pre-clearnace from the Department of Justice due to the Supreme Court ruling on Shelby County Monday. They will do what they want with the maps - as is legal - as long as they meet the Constitutional requirements. Political gerrymandering is illegal though, but it is be hard to prove.
Even if this won't significantly effect the final plan, it does show how poorly the Board is being run now that it doesn't have an Executive Director. Deadlines are sloppy. Official notification seems to lag behind some other form of notification (that got the maps and data at leasta [two] day[s] ahead to the Haines Assembly.) Even if Haines got the extra three options from the Republican Party, why did they think the extra three ones were official ones approved by the Board since they weren't among the original 11 and the Board hasn't met to approve them since last Friday?
Below is the email from the Redistricting dated 3:10pm today, June 27.
The basic agenda change is that Gazewood and Weiner will present their plan on Monday in Fairbanks instead of in Anchorage. Gazewood and Weiner is the law firm that represents that Riley plaintiffs who challenged the Board in court. Their office is in Fairbanks.
At the bottom of the email is a notice that there are three new plans:
AFFER - Revised
Calista - Revised
Calista Option 2
The deadline for all plans was Friday, June 21 at noon. That was six days ago - actually the time that the Board meeting opened last week. At the meeting there was no vote to extend that deadline, nor any announcement that it would be extended. There was a hint that the Board wasn't necessarily firm about the deadline when the Board chair asked Board member Marie Green about a plan from Sealaska and said that they could get it in even though the deadline was over. But she checked and said there was no plan coming in from them.
Also, for the first 11 options, the Board voted to adopt them. There hasn't been a meeting since then, at least not one that was announced to the public, so how did these three plans get on the list?
Although the plans were only posted on the Redistricting Board website "as of noon today" according to the 3:10pm email, the three (3) new plans, along with the original 11 adopted by the Board last Friday, were displayed at the Haines Assembly meeting
From KHNS' radio's report on the meeting:
“The State Redistricting Board is now considering 14 different maps. Mayor Scott created a chart with some of the different options on the table, showing what communities Haines would be grouped with. Under most of the maps, Haines, Skagway and Klukwan are grouped together as they used to be. Most options also include grouping the upper Lynn Canal Haines with other small like Gustavus, Hoonah, Kenakee Springs and others. But each option also includes of either parts or all of Juneau.It would be interesting to know how they got the maps and who else got them early. Maybe it wasn't from the Board, but directly from the Republican Party, but then all 14 plans (including the three that weren't up on the Board's website until this afternoon) were presented as the options the Board was using.
Assemblyman Dave Barry said the best option for Haines is is likely the option that includes the upper Lynn Canal communities, Gustavus, Hoonah, Elfin Cove, Pelican, Kenakee Springs, and north Juneau.
Barry: “I think the one that would benefit us the best would be E, the mere fact that the more communities we have that are similar to ours, is the less amount of population that north Juneau could put in so we wouldn’t be drownded by their thoughts.
Usually, when public agencies have deadlines for submissions of any kind, late submissions are not accepted. While you want as many good submissions as possible, accepting them after the deadline isn't fair to people who actually trust the Board to honor their deadlines, and thus don't turn in late proposals. One might also consider some extenuating circumstances, such as a group that is not already represented or is a marginalized group that doesn't understand how the process works.
But in this case, the new plans (two revisions and one new plan) come from the Alaska Republican Party (AFFER) which already has four representatives on the Board itself, and from Calista, a Native Corporation that uses the same GIS expert to do their maps that the Republican Party uses. Steve Colligan's resume (on his Colligan for Assembly website) shows long experience with GIS going back to 1984 where he worked for the Municipality of Anchorage through now as president of the firm E-Terra, LLC. He's also served as Vice President of the Alaska Republican Party.
Ultimately, is this going to make any difference? I suspect not. The Board is probably feeling pretty good now that they don't have to worry about pre-clearnace from the Department of Justice due to the Supreme Court ruling on Shelby County Monday. They will do what they want with the maps - as is legal - as long as they meet the Constitutional requirements. Political gerrymandering is illegal though, but it is be hard to prove.
Even if this won't significantly effect the final plan, it does show how poorly the Board is being run now that it doesn't have an Executive Director. Deadlines are sloppy. Official notification seems to lag behind some other form of notification (that got the maps and data at least
Below is the email from the Redistricting dated 3:10pm today, June 27.
|
|||||
|
|||||
| |||||
A Woman Polish Doctor With A Czech Unit Fighting With The Soviets Against Germany in WW II
"Go tend pigs!" howls Patak. "You don't belong in the army."
The girls cast hate-filled glances in his direction, but remain silent.
They climb up and down the small slope. Legs turn numb and ears begin to buzz. Sweat runs from the corner of lips and between shoulder blades. Shirts stick to skin. Tongues are parched. Yet, the women continue to walk, up and down, up and down, while the voice hammers relentlessly.
"You are on the battlefield, they're shooting at you; grenades explode; flatten up as if to creep back into the earth; you crawl, you crawl; you slip between the roots, through the brush, flat on your stomach; I said, flat on your stomach; your head hugs the ground; your arms slide ahead, always close to the ground; the body follows. "Ah, what a bunch of dumbheads," moans Patak. (p. 219)
When I was in LA with my mom, we were sitting around the dinner table and my mom's caretaker, Alma, was talking about a woman she'd worked for who had died a couple of years before at age 100.
She'd been a doctor when the Nazis came into her town and fled across the river into Soviet occupied territory. That landed her and her infant daughter in a cattle car to Kazakhstan. After the war she'd married a rich Frenchman and lived in Paris until he died. Then she moved to one of their properties in Beverly Hills. Which is how Alma came to take care of her.
'Wow,' I said, 'She should have written a book."
'She did,' replied Alma.
 |
| Photo from book - Ruzena Berler and Olga |
These quotes are from the book Cattle Car to Kazakhstan: A Woman Doctor's Triumph of Courage in World War II by Ruzena Berler.
Back to the training for Czech soldiers fighting with the Soviets after the Germans declare war on them.
Katerine is having some trouble keeping her butt down.
"'Hey, you, there. Who are you showing your ass to?"
Katerine bounds up.
'You, you . . .you are a rude bastard."
Half-strangled with anger, she runs to Patak.
'Swallow your tongue; swallow your filthy tongue," she cries.
'Ha, the ladies are angry; the ladies are willing to go to war, but only with gloves on and sitting in an armchari,' snickers Patak. "We'll see about that; we'll see. Now, back to your place. Step smartly and faster than that. After the exercise is over, report to me."
Drill is over and they are walking home.
"The group comes across a male detachment. A few wolf whistles are heard.
'These can't be women; they're more like camels,' mocks somebody.
All the men laugh. The girls, pretending not to have heard, keep on martching, staring straight ahead. Katerine, who turns her head, gets punched in the back.
'Oh, those bastards,' grunts Vlasta between her teeth. 'We must show we don't give a damn about them."
Yet the girls' feelings are hurt. How can one not resemble a camel when uniforms are so oversized that you feel lost in them, with those pants that make hips twice as wide as they are? Gathered at the bottom, too long, they corkscrew before disappearing into heavy laced boots. Pants with a fly, yet, for girls! And then, those waist-length blousons, instead of concealing the curve of hips, accentuate it even more.
Hours are spent sewing, cutting down, shortening, but skills are in short supply, and the results far from satisfactory.
And then, there are those who preach austerity - old maids, of course; thirty-five years old, if they are a day!
Easy for them, thinks Vlasta [who is 17]. Who could they still hope to attract? Milena is the worst of all. She's making fun of us and turns everything to ridicule. True, she isn't really mean, but after one of her barbs, you don't dare attempt anything to look a little better, for fear of being made a laughing stock, as it happened to Nadine."
Berler has a way of giving very detailed stories, in spare prose, so I feel like I'm there with her. There's relatively little narrative, mostly it's the stories that drop us into one location after another.
These personal stories offer us a glimpse into a world and place, from a point of view, that we seldom hear. And Berler is a keen observer of behavior. She's a woman I wish I had met. A lot of this book is striking - the interactions of the passengers in the cattle car, how the group of once stylish Polish women cope in the dilapidated old barn they're given to live in at the rural Kazakhstan village they're dropped in, the workings of the hospital, and the different ways these young women in exile deal with their sexual longings.
For this post I'm focusing on women who were in combat. It seems appropriate now that US military - 70 years later - is allowing women soldiers in combat. (I thought a better way to achieve male-female equality was to ban men from combat instead.) And this book offers some pretty graphic battlefield scenes that would make anyone think twice about signing up to fight. They're too long and complicated to include here. Berler must have known about the combat from the women she writes about. She was near the front, but as a doctor in a hospital at the urging of her Czech officer boy friend. (None of the women knew if their husbands, if they had one, were dead or alive and having male companions brought many benefits.)
The soldiers were part of a Czech brigade of about 900 - 30 were women - that was fighting with the Soviets. Milena, also a Czech, is a Party official who fought in the Spanish civil war and was assigned to indoctrinate the Czech women so that after the war they will welcome the Party into Czechoslovakia. The women, most of whom had been in horrible prison camps in the East under brutal conditions, are not particularly interested.
Back to Nadine and Milena.
"One evening, Milena came back, just as Nadine was examining her hair in a small pocket mirror. She'd first shampooed it, then carefully, strand after strand, wound it around torn bits of newspaper. The operation was lengthy and demanding, considering the mass of hair, the shortage of paper, and the minuscule dimensions of the mirror.
Milena considered Nadine's curly head for a long time, turning this way and that.
Finally, shaking her head, she dropped, with a thin smile, "I see on that head enough frizz for three poodles; perhaps not enough for a star, but certainly much too much for a soldier."
After another run in with Milena over lipstick and feminine underwear, the women rebel.
"'Milena, why do you say that?" ask Nadine and Katerine at the same time.Things progress.
'Because the time is past for being girlish,' explains Milena. 'The world is crashing down; Russia's bleeding. Each day, thousands of men die. . ."
"Where they'd been striving before to enhance their value as women, they now strive to be admired as women soldiers. They feel capable of excelling there, and are eager to prove themselves. So, they manage to be near the men during range practice, and sneer audibly when counting the missed targets. This unnerves the men.And they get back at Patak.
'Bragging, as usual,' they retort. 'You already look ridiculous behind a simple gun; you'd be frightened to death behind a cannon.'
'How would you know about that?' replies Nadine.
'Try it then.'
'Why not?' May I?'
The officer is caught in the game, just like his men.
'Go ahead and try,' he allows.
Nadine squats behind an anti-tank gun, and carefully locates her target in the scope. She shoots. The shell hits the bull's eye.
'Hurrah!' cry the girls.
The men only shrug
'A lucky shot, that's all.'
She shoots again and again. Even without the scope, she manages to hit the target - even as it is progressively moved father and farther away.
'The road to success is often opened through chance,' comments Milena, philosophically. 'Who would have thought that plump Nadine, curly as a poodle, had it in her to be an artilleryman?'
'Big deal," interjects Vlasta with a tinge of jealousy. 'Some success - being promoted into the art of killing!'
But enthusiasm is contagious, and now they find themselves incorporated into the complete program of target practice. Like the men, they learn to handle machine guns, to hit a moving target, to strike an armored vehicle with an anti-tank cannon, to arm a grenade and throw it, and to dig a foxhole while remaining flat on their stomach.
The women do find an opportunity to get back at Patak.
Katerine was punished for insubordination after the incident during the exercise in the steppe. Nothing but bread and water, and a twenty-four hour confinement at the bottom of a hole dug inside the casern perimeter - no fun at all, particularly at night, for she dreads the dark, and recoils from bugs and rats. How long such a lonely night can be, and how bitter the anger it fosters!It's a dark night.
The girls are deeply moved by Katerine's distress.
Vlasta declares resolutely, 'Something must be done. We can't allow ourselves to be treated that way.'
Milena, who never misses a chance to preach her party line, smiles soothingly.
'This is only an example of the old fascist methods. Such things could never happen in the Soviet Army. Rapport between soliders and officers is humane and based on comradeship. Discipline is willingly accepted, and one relies upon awareness of a shared goal, as well as a common duty to the country. . .
'I've had it with Miss Guiding Light. She's a pain. If she'd been through what we went through, she'd sing a different tune," grouse the girls. . .
Nevertheless, the girls have lodged a complaint with the colonel about the uncouth way their lieutenant treats them. Meanwhile, they prepare their own personal revenge.
"There is no moon, and the sky is overcast on the night Jarmila is on watch duty in front of the casern's entrance leading to Headquarters and Bachelor Officers' Quarters. A driving rain begins to fall, and periodic blasts of wind rattle tightly closed doors and windows.The book is available online. I found a copy through inter-library loan. A fascinating World War II story and just one degree of separation between me and the author.
'Hey, here comes Patak,' rejoices Jarmila, watching a dark shadow hastening to the gate. 'I guess our intelligence services are well-informed.'
Through indirect channels, the girls had learned that Patak, sent two days before to Kujbishev, wouldn't probably be back before midnight. And rain started to fall as if on order.
'Stop!' she shouts, aiming her gun. 'Give me the password.'
'I don't know it,' replies the newcomer. 'I was away on orders, but you know me; let me in.'
It is Patak, all right, and is he mad!
'One more step, and I shoot.'
'Come on; don't be an idiot.'
'Stay where you are, or I shoot,' warns Jarmila, her finger on the trigger.
'Call the officer of the day,' demands Patak.
'No. I have to wait until my relief comes. I can't leave you here unwatched.'
'You've got to be out of your mind!' shouts an exasperated Patak, taking a step forward.
The barrel of the gun comes to rest firmly against his chest.
'Don't you dare move,' orders Jarmila, who, sheltered under the small roof protecting the gates, watches Patak as if he were a huge bug pinned to a cork.
He stops, at a loss, then tries to reason with her.
'Look, I know you're doing your job, and I understand. Only you mustn't overdo it. I am an officer. I outrank you, and you must listen to me.'
'Stop!' yells Jarmila. 'Don't take another step.'
The wind is howling now. Fine slanted cords of rain whip against the man's head and body. Having left in glorious weather, he didn't bother with a coat. His feet sink deep in the mud, and he is soon soaked to the bone.
No one is in sight; nothing, but the howls of the wind and the patter of the rain, that gun pressed against his chest, and rage burning in his eyes. Minutes pass slowly.
Soon, we'll have been in that stand-off for half an hour, rages Patak inwardly. Face to face with the insolent girl and her mocking eyes. I'll be the laughing stock of the entire unit. But what can I do?
Another half hour drags on as though it would never come to an end, before the relief sentry appears at last and Patak can return to his quarters.
'Hurrah, we got him!' shout the girls, awakened by Jarmila's arrival. They gather around her, warm up some tea for her, and rub her hair dry.
'He'll remember it,' they repeat, very pleased.
He did remember it, and for a long time - especially in the hospital where he was sent to nurse his pneumonia. (p. 227)
I forgot to mention that the book is copyrighted 1999. So the author would have been in her late 80's at that time. The images, nevertheless, are very vivid.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Scalia: "That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives."
After quickly looking at Scalia's dissent in today's case, I was ready to jump all over him for the apparent contradiction between his dissent today in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and his position in yesterday's Voting Rights Act (VRA) decision.
He writes, with passion:
Later in his dissent, Scalia cites James Madison's Federalist Papers comments on separation of powers and from that concludes:
As I understand this case, the US government chose NOT to appeal the Appeals Court decision. Instead, Congressional Republicans took on that task. Perhaps the appropriate action, given Scalia's line of reasoning, would have been for the Supreme Court to not ever hear this case, or, if they did, to reject it, as they did with the Perry case on Prop. 8, because the party bringing the case didn't have standing.
But it does seem that the Republicans who brought the case were the ones asking the Court to overturn the lower court decision and to say that same-sex marriage is NOT guaranteed by the Constitution. So, if the Court declined to hear the case, it would, de facto, agree with the lower court that DOMA wasn't constitutional. But only in the Second Circuit. That would mean the issue would still be unsettled in the rest of the United States.
It is ironic that it was the Republicans who brought the case and were trying to overturn the lower court decision and Scalia says the case has no business at the Supreme Court. One wonders if Kennedy had not agreed with the liberal side of the court on this case whether Scalia would have had a problem overturning the lower court decision. If so, that would make all this legal smokescreen for his personal emotional aversion to homosexuality.
As I suggested the other day when reporting his comments at the North Carolina Bar Association, perhaps the passion he exhibited there reflected that he had lost his argument in the Court and so he was repeating his argument to the North Carolina lawyers. It seems that was the case. I also wondered how genuine his anguish over being the 'moral arbiter' was. I still think that's a role he doesn't mind playing. It's losing on a decision he has strong personally feelings about that bothers him, I suspect.
He writes, with passion:
"This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America. . ."Then he goes on a little later to say the Majority is saying it has the power to decide the case "because if we did not, then our “primary role in determining the constitutionality of a law” (at least one that “has inflicted real injury on a plaintiff ”) would 'become only secondary to the President’s.' . .”
"That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives. It is an assertion of judicial su- premacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and everywhere “primary” in its role." [emphasis added]My reaction was that Scalia's comment is jaw-dropping. Just yesterday the Court ruled Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. The Voting Rights Act passed 98-0 in the US Senate and 390-33 in the House. Yet Scalia, who mocks today's majority for overturning a section of the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, had voted to invalidate the 2006 overwhelming decision of the Congress in passing the Voting Rights Act. There's nothing in the opinion that worries about the Supreme Court overstepping its power. Instead there is a plaintiff (Shelby County) with a record of curtailing the voting rights of Blacks, compared to today's case where the surviving spouse had to pay a huge tax on her inheritance from her partner of over 30 years, simply because her legal spouse was not a man.
Later in his dissent, Scalia cites James Madison's Federalist Papers comments on separation of powers and from that concludes:
"For this reason we are quite forbidden to say what the law is whenever (as today’s opinion asserts) “‘an Act of Congress is alleged to conflict with the Constitution.’” Ante, at 12. We can do so only when that allegation will determine the outcome of a lawsuit, and is contradicted by the other party. The “judicial Power” is not, as the majority believes, the power “‘to say what the law is,’” ibid., giving the Supreme Court the 'primary role in determining the constitutionality of laws.'”He then chides the majority for perhaps thinking they were bound by the constitutions of foreign countries
"In other words, declaring the compatibility of state or federal laws with the Constitution is not only not the “primary role” of this Court, it is not a separate, free-standing role at all. We perform that role incidentally—by accident, as it were—when that is necessary to resolve the dispute before us. Then, and only then, does it become “‘the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.’”I didn't quite understand what he was saying here, but as I read on, it becomes clear that he is making a distinction between cases in which the Court must make a decision between two competing claims and this case, in which both the plaintiff and the government (the original defendant) now agree. And where the plaintiff already got relief in the lower court. In this case, he's arguing, the Court's purpose is not to adjudicate a disagreement, but to declare DOMA unconstitutional, which the appeal court had done already in the Second Circuit, and now the Supreme Court is doing nationally.
"Windsor’s injury was cured by the judgment in her favor. And while, in ordi- nary circumstances, the United States is injured by a directive to pay a tax refund, this suit is far from ordinary. Whatever injury the United States has suffered will surely not be redressed by the action that it, as a litigant, asks us to take. The final sentence of the Solicitor General’s brief on the merits reads: “For the foregoing reasons, the judg- ment of the court of appeals should be affirmed.” Brief for United States (merits) 54 (emphasis added). That will not cure the Government’s injury, but carve it into stone. One Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 5 SCALIA, J., dissenting could spend many fruitless afternoons ransacking our library for any other petitioner’s brief seeking an affir- mance of the judgment against it.1 What the petitioner United States asks us to do in the case before us is exactly what the respondent Windsor asks us to do: not to provide relief from the judgment below but to say that that judg- ment was correct. And the same was true in the Court of Appeals: Neither party sought to undo the judgment for Windsor, and so that court should have dismissed the appeal (just as we should dismiss) for lack of jurisdiction. Since both parties agreed with the judgment of the Dis- trict Court for the Southern District of New York, the suit should have ended there. The further proceedings have been a contrivance, having no object in mind except to ele- vate a District Court judgment that has no precedential effect in other courts, to one that has precedential effect throughout the Second Circuit, and then (in this Court) precedential effect throughout the United States."
As I understand this case, the US government chose NOT to appeal the Appeals Court decision. Instead, Congressional Republicans took on that task. Perhaps the appropriate action, given Scalia's line of reasoning, would have been for the Supreme Court to not ever hear this case, or, if they did, to reject it, as they did with the Perry case on Prop. 8, because the party bringing the case didn't have standing.
But it does seem that the Republicans who brought the case were the ones asking the Court to overturn the lower court decision and to say that same-sex marriage is NOT guaranteed by the Constitution. So, if the Court declined to hear the case, it would, de facto, agree with the lower court that DOMA wasn't constitutional. But only in the Second Circuit. That would mean the issue would still be unsettled in the rest of the United States.
It is ironic that it was the Republicans who brought the case and were trying to overturn the lower court decision and Scalia says the case has no business at the Supreme Court. One wonders if Kennedy had not agreed with the liberal side of the court on this case whether Scalia would have had a problem overturning the lower court decision. If so, that would make all this legal smokescreen for his personal emotional aversion to homosexuality.
As I suggested the other day when reporting his comments at the North Carolina Bar Association, perhaps the passion he exhibited there reflected that he had lost his argument in the Court and so he was repeating his argument to the North Carolina lawyers. It seems that was the case. I also wondered how genuine his anguish over being the 'moral arbiter' was. I still think that's a role he doesn't mind playing. It's losing on a decision he has strong personally feelings about that bothers him, I suspect.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
In Another 7 Hours We'll Know If The Supreme Court Was Saving The Best For Last
At 10am (East Coast time) tomorrow (it's still Tuesday as I write here in Anchorage - we'll know whether the US Supreme Court has chosen to use the Constitution and its demands for equal treatment and state's rights or the Bible to move us along or hold back our nation's progress toward recognizing full rights for gays and lesbians.
In the DOMA case, they would have to strike down a federal law that doesn't recognize gay marriage and prevents married same-sex couples from enjoying the same benefits as hetero couples. But after invalidating legislation that was passed unanimously in the US Senate and 330 - 37 in the House, that shouldn't be a problem.
The conservatives are strong proponents of less federal government and state's rights. At least when it suits their needs. Here, a federal law negates state laws that recognize same-sex marriage and marriage laws are typically reserved for the states. So it would be easy for the Court's conservatives to defer on this to the states.
In the Prop. 8 case, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, again this is typically something states have jurisdiction over, so again, it would make sense to defer to the state decision on this.
Of course, it all depends on whether you see this as a moral issue or an equal rights issue. Well, actually, on those grounds, we can count on the conservatives on the Court to go with morality against equal rights.
As I see things, same-sex marriage is the future. We'll increasingly recognize that sexual orientation is basically not something that people choose. And that all the 'sanctity of marriage' talk is all religiously, not Constitutionally based. And as same-sex couples become more common and open people will see that they are just people like everyone else. Their marriages will prove to be as wonderful and difficult, as successful and hopeless, as heterosexual marriages.
So, if the Court rejects same-sex marriage tomorrow, they are only prolonging the inevitable and making a lot of people's lives more difficult. If they allow same-sex marriage, a lot of people's lives will be easier and happier, and they will also have to face the reality of marriage and all the work it takes to make one work.
I know there are many people who will be devastated if the Court rules for same-sex marriage. But I still don't quite understand why. It doesn't affect their own marriages. Churches won't be required to marry same-sex couples. The only thing I can think of that might explain their objection is this: their children and their flocks will be confronted with an alternative opinion to their stance on marriage. And that will be a rip in their ideology. One more biblical abomination that the rest of the world accepts - like eating pork and shellfish or doing business on the Sabbath.
For more of an insider analysis see this SCOTUS blog analysis, which expects that the Court might just avoid ruling by using legal technicalities about whether the parties who appealed to the Court had standing to do so.
In the DOMA case, they would have to strike down a federal law that doesn't recognize gay marriage and prevents married same-sex couples from enjoying the same benefits as hetero couples. But after invalidating legislation that was passed unanimously in the US Senate and 330 - 37 in the House, that shouldn't be a problem.
The conservatives are strong proponents of less federal government and state's rights. At least when it suits their needs. Here, a federal law negates state laws that recognize same-sex marriage and marriage laws are typically reserved for the states. So it would be easy for the Court's conservatives to defer on this to the states.
In the Prop. 8 case, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, again this is typically something states have jurisdiction over, so again, it would make sense to defer to the state decision on this.
Of course, it all depends on whether you see this as a moral issue or an equal rights issue. Well, actually, on those grounds, we can count on the conservatives on the Court to go with morality against equal rights.
As I see things, same-sex marriage is the future. We'll increasingly recognize that sexual orientation is basically not something that people choose. And that all the 'sanctity of marriage' talk is all religiously, not Constitutionally based. And as same-sex couples become more common and open people will see that they are just people like everyone else. Their marriages will prove to be as wonderful and difficult, as successful and hopeless, as heterosexual marriages.
So, if the Court rejects same-sex marriage tomorrow, they are only prolonging the inevitable and making a lot of people's lives more difficult. If they allow same-sex marriage, a lot of people's lives will be easier and happier, and they will also have to face the reality of marriage and all the work it takes to make one work.
I know there are many people who will be devastated if the Court rules for same-sex marriage. But I still don't quite understand why. It doesn't affect their own marriages. Churches won't be required to marry same-sex couples. The only thing I can think of that might explain their objection is this: their children and their flocks will be confronted with an alternative opinion to their stance on marriage. And that will be a rip in their ideology. One more biblical abomination that the rest of the world accepts - like eating pork and shellfish or doing business on the Sabbath.
For more of an insider analysis see this SCOTUS blog analysis, which expects that the Court might just avoid ruling by using legal technicalities about whether the parties who appealed to the Court had standing to do so.
"We issue no holding on §5 itself, only on the coverage formula." Shelby County and Alaska Redistricting
If you eliminate all the argument and get to the nitty gritty of the this morning's Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act (Shelby County v Holder) , it's this, from the end of the opinion:
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
Meaning of Section 2 - Section 2 prohibits discrimination in voting practices (from the Department of Justice (DOJ)):
HOW DOES IT CHANGE ALASKA REDISTRICTING RULES?
As the Alaska Redistricting Board gets close to wrapping up its second 2010 redistricting plan (the first was rejected by the Alaska Supreme Court), there are two key sets of standards (beyond the basic US Constitutional requirements of one person- one vote, etc.) that have been required:
The Board has adopted seven optional plans that they believe conform with the Alaska Constitution and will have public hearings in Anchorage (Friday June 28), Fairbanks (July 1), and Juneau (July 2).
The US Supreme Court decision today on the Shelby County case, as I understand it, does not invalidate Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act or Section 2. But, by invalidating the formula used in Section 4 to determine which states would be required, in Section 5, to have their plan pre-cleared by the DOJ, it effectively makes Section 5 moot until there are new criteria in Section 4.
Therefore,
1. The Board still needs to meet the standards of Section 2
2. But they do not need to get pre-clearance
So, the Board's plan:
1. Must comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
2. Does not need to be pre-cleared by the Department of Justice
What Does Comply With Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act Mean?
This is the tricky question I've been trying to figure out for the last couple of weeks.
What seems to be clear is that Section 2 requires proof of intent of discrimination while Section 5 only requires proof of discriminatory effect. Exactly what that means for the Board is not clear to me. Proving intent, obviously is much harder than proving effect. And because Section 5's pre-clearance required scrutiny before a voting process change could go into effect, it means that violations will be dealt with after the fact. Meaning after an election. And the candidates who win because of later demonstrated voter repression will still be in office and making laws. (I think.)
The Board had worked very hard to not have 'retrogression' in its plan. Retrogression means that there are fewer Native districts than in the previous (2000 Census based) plan. If I recall, that originally meant nine Native districts. Because of changes in how DOJ determined Native Districts, the Southeast Native District was no longer viable.
Pulling up the the old maps and population statistics from the Alaska Redistricting Board's website is difficult to impossible because much of that is no longer there. However, they are still somewhere and the links from my old posts do still get to some maps and stats.
This map (below) is I'm 90% sure, the Amended Proclamation Plan adopted April 5, 2012 and used as the Interim Plan (with later changes to Southeast.) I'm using this to show the Native District implications.
White believed - he wasn't certain - that Districts 36, 39, and 40 - were the three with over 50% Native population that would have to be preserved as Native Districts, that the three all had over 70% Native population.
As I pulled up the Population Statistics chart that was also from the April 5, 2012 meeting, I found that there were two more districts with over 50% Native population. The chart below shows that districts 37 and 38 have 51% and 52% respectively.
One problem for the Board all along was that these districts are relatively isolated. In a sense, one could argue that all the Alaska Natives are 'packed' into a few districts, leaving other districts with a lower percent of Natives in other districts, thus diluting their voting strength. But these districts are geographically isolated and in areas with low population density making it more difficult to get contiguous, compact districts of 17,755 people (the state population divided by 40 districts).
IMMEDIATE EFFECT OF SHELBY COUNTY DECISION ON ALASKA REDISTRICTING
The Board will have its public hearings this week and next and then on July 12 they will meet and select a plan that meets the Alaska Constitutional requirements. Because they are no longer required to get pre-clearance from the Department of Justice, they will proclaim that as the new plan.
However, they are still required to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and if they diminish the voting power of Alaska Natives, there is sure to be a law suit filed. At this point, I just don't understand exactly what standards the Court will use to determine if they comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or not.
As I find out more, I'll let you know.
Meanwhile, if you want to look at the Options the Board is taking to the Public Hearings Friday, Monday, and Tuesday, go to the Board's website. News and Updates has all the plans - maps and data. On the right you can get the details for the meetings - Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau.
If you want to compare the new options to the existing Interim plan you can go to my post of April 5, 2012. There I have links to the statewide map (the one posted above) and to each of the district maps and the population stats (also posted above in this post.)
HOWEVER - Southeast Alaska's districts were changed and you can see those changed districts here.
If you haven't notice, at the top of the blog (under the orange header) is a tab for the Alaska Redistricting Board. It has a list - in chronological order - of all my posts on the redistricting board with a brief description of each post. Or you can get to it here.
"Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nation- wide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in §2. We issue no holding on §5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions. Such a formula is an initial prerequi- site to a determination that exceptional conditions still exist justifying such an “extraordinary departure from the traditional course of relations between the States and the Federal Government.” Presley, 502 U. S., at 500–501. Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed."
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
Meaning of Section 2 - Section 2 prohibits discrimination in voting practices (from the Department of Justice (DOJ)):
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups identified in Section 4(f)(2) of the Act. Most of the cases arising under Section 2 since its enactment involved challenges to at-large election schemes, but the section's prohibition against discrimination in voting applies nationwide to any voting standard, practice, or procedure that results in the denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. Section 2 is permanent and has no expiration date as do certain other provisions of the Voting Rights Act. [emphasis added]Meaning of Section 5 - Section 5 requires pre-clearance for election law and procedure changes in states that have a history of discrimination (from DOJ):
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 incovered jurisdictions may not be used until that review has been obtained.The section of the Voting Rights Act the Court struck down was Section 4 - this section sets the criteria that determine which states are required to get pre-clearance. Again from DOJ:
This part on minority language groups particularly applies to Alaska:Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act
When Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it determined that racial discrimination in voting had been more prevalent in certain areas of the country. Section 4(a) of the Act established a formula to identify those areas and to provide for more stringent remedies where appropriate. The first of these targeted remedies was a five-year suspension of "a test or device," such as a literacy test as a prerequisite to register to vote. The second was the requirement for review, under Section 5, of any change affecting voting made by a covered area either by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or by the Attorney General. The third was the ability of the Attorney General to certify that specified jurisdictions also required the appointment of federal examiners. These examiners would prepare and forward lists of persons qualified to vote. The final remedy under the special provisions is the authority of the Attorney General to send federal observers to those jurisdictions that have been certified for federal examiners.
Section 4 also contains several other provisions, such as Section 4(e) and Section 4(f), that guarantee the right to register and vote to those with limited English proficiency. Section 4(e) provides that the right to register and vote may not be denied to those individuals who have completed the sixth grade in a public school, such as those in Puerto Rico, where the predominant classroom language is a language other than English. In Section 4(f), the Act addresses the ability of those persons who are members of language minority groups identified in Section 4(f)(2), to register and vote as well as to get information relating to the electoral process in a manner that will ensure their meaningful participation in the electoral process. The Department has embarked on a vigorous program to enforce the Act's language minority provisions.
HOW DOES IT CHANGE ALASKA REDISTRICTING RULES?
As the Alaska Redistricting Board gets close to wrapping up its second 2010 redistricting plan (the first was rejected by the Alaska Supreme Court), there are two key sets of standards (beyond the basic US Constitutional requirements of one person- one vote, etc.) that have been required:
- The Alaska Constitution
- The US Voting Rights Act
The Board has adopted seven optional plans that they believe conform with the Alaska Constitution and will have public hearings in Anchorage (Friday June 28), Fairbanks (July 1), and Juneau (July 2).
The US Supreme Court decision today on the Shelby County case, as I understand it, does not invalidate Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act or Section 2. But, by invalidating the formula used in Section 4 to determine which states would be required, in Section 5, to have their plan pre-cleared by the DOJ, it effectively makes Section 5 moot until there are new criteria in Section 4.
Therefore,
1. The Board still needs to meet the standards of Section 2
2. But they do not need to get pre-clearance
So, the Board's plan:
1. Must comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
2. Does not need to be pre-cleared by the Department of Justice
What Does Comply With Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act Mean?
This is the tricky question I've been trying to figure out for the last couple of weeks.
What seems to be clear is that Section 2 requires proof of intent of discrimination while Section 5 only requires proof of discriminatory effect. Exactly what that means for the Board is not clear to me. Proving intent, obviously is much harder than proving effect. And because Section 5's pre-clearance required scrutiny before a voting process change could go into effect, it means that violations will be dealt with after the fact. Meaning after an election. And the candidates who win because of later demonstrated voter repression will still be in office and making laws. (I think.)
When I talked to Michael White (the Board's attorney) last week about what this would mean, he said (at least this is what I heard him say) that Section 2 requirements mean that the new plan must preserve the same number of Native Districts with 50% or more Native population. Section 5 required, additionally, those with lower Native districts to also be preserved. He thought the Board would be required to preserve three of four Native House districts (and two Senate districts). But I can't find language that does explains that. And, in fact, the Board had to hire a Voting Rights Expert to help them understand exactly how many districts they needed to preserve and how to determine if they met the standards. The actual rules tend to be pretty fluid and this ruling is going to cause me to mix metaphors here if I'm not careful. DOJ does prosecute based on
The Board had worked very hard to not have 'retrogression' in its plan. Retrogression means that there are fewer Native districts than in the previous (2000 Census based) plan. If I recall, that originally meant nine Native districts. Because of changes in how DOJ determined Native Districts, the Southeast Native District was no longer viable.
Pulling up the the old maps and population statistics from the Alaska Redistricting Board's website is difficult to impossible because much of that is no longer there. However, they are still somewhere and the links from my old posts do still get to some maps and stats.
This map (below) is I'm 90% sure, the Amended Proclamation Plan adopted April 5, 2012 and used as the Interim Plan (with later changes to Southeast.) I'm using this to show the Native District implications.
White believed - he wasn't certain - that Districts 36, 39, and 40 - were the three with over 50% Native population that would have to be preserved as Native Districts, that the three all had over 70% Native population.
As I pulled up the Population Statistics chart that was also from the April 5, 2012 meeting, I found that there were two more districts with over 50% Native population. The chart below shows that districts 37 and 38 have 51% and 52% respectively.
One problem for the Board all along was that these districts are relatively isolated. In a sense, one could argue that all the Alaska Natives are 'packed' into a few districts, leaving other districts with a lower percent of Natives in other districts, thus diluting their voting strength. But these districts are geographically isolated and in areas with low population density making it more difficult to get contiguous, compact districts of 17,755 people (the state population divided by 40 districts).
IMMEDIATE EFFECT OF SHELBY COUNTY DECISION ON ALASKA REDISTRICTING
The Board will have its public hearings this week and next and then on July 12 they will meet and select a plan that meets the Alaska Constitutional requirements. Because they are no longer required to get pre-clearance from the Department of Justice, they will proclaim that as the new plan.
However, they are still required to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and if they diminish the voting power of Alaska Natives, there is sure to be a law suit filed. At this point, I just don't understand exactly what standards the Court will use to determine if they comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or not.
As I find out more, I'll let you know.
Meanwhile, if you want to look at the Options the Board is taking to the Public Hearings Friday, Monday, and Tuesday, go to the Board's website. News and Updates has all the plans - maps and data. On the right you can get the details for the meetings - Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau.
If you want to compare the new options to the existing Interim plan you can go to my post of April 5, 2012. There I have links to the statewide map (the one posted above) and to each of the district maps and the population stats (also posted above in this post.)
HOWEVER - Southeast Alaska's districts were changed and you can see those changed districts here.
If you haven't notice, at the top of the blog (under the orange header) is a tab for the Alaska Redistricting Board. It has a list - in chronological order - of all my posts on the redistricting board with a brief description of each post. Or you can get to it here.
Monday, June 24, 2013
What Do Alaska, Kentucky, and Texas Have In Common?
Seem To Be The Only States Still Without Redistricting Plans.
Texas might be close to completion. From a Texas Redistricting And Election Law blog:
The Texas situation is evolving quickly. Here's the picture from Saturday June 22.
On Sunday it was updated again to say three redistricting bills are on the governor's desk.
Meanwhile, compared to Wisconsin, Alaska looks really good. [UPDATE Nov 1, 2013: There was a bad link for Wisconsin so I've put a more current link in.]
I don't know how long people have, in other states, to challenge the new plans in court. In Alaska it's 30 days.
Meanwhile, today's Supreme Court decisions did not include Shelby County (the voting rights case) nor the same-sex marriage cases, but SCOTUS Blog predicts more decisions tomorrow.
I got to wondering how many states, like Alaska, still don't have redistricting plans. That wondering got me to redistrictingonline.org. They don't exactly say, but I thought they might know and emailed their comment line and got a quick email back.
"After Maine approved its legislative districts recently, only Alaska, Texas and Kentucky have redistricting business to finish. You can check Prof. Justin Levitt's site http://redistricting.lls.edu for detailed info on all the states."
Levitt's site has a map that shows the status of litigation in all the states. It lists 15 states still in court. That's much more than the "Alaska, Texas, and Kentucky" answer I got above, but it doesn't appear to have been kept current. (The latest Alaska update was last November.) Plus not all the litigation is about state redistricting plans.
However, he did Tweet a few days ago:
ME gov signs state#redistricting map. Would've been last in country, if not for AK, KY, TX redo. redistricting.lls.edu/index-state.php
.Kentucky's legislature has been sued for not finishing and if they don't move on it a three judge panel may be appointed to finish it up.
On June 20, Kentucky's governor called a special session for five days beginning August 20 to get redistricting finished.
On June 20, Kentucky's governor called a special session for five days beginning August 20 to get redistricting finished.
Texas might be close to completion. From a Texas Redistricting And Election Law blog:
The vote on the redistricting bills has been added formally to the Texas House’s calendar for Thursday morning.
The House will be voting on the Senate version of the three map bills (SB 2, SB 3, and SB 4).
Assuming there are no amendments - and no successful points of order - the bills then could go straight to Gov. Perry’s desk for signature.
Thursday morning could be big in another way as well. An hour before the House meets, the Supreme Court will be releasing more opinions. Those could include a decision in Shelby Co. Jun 18, 2013 5:40 pm
The Texas situation is evolving quickly. Here's the picture from Saturday June 22.
Assuming no changes by the Senate (and none are expected), the version of the state house map that will go to Gov. Perry’s desk is Plan H358.
The changes made by the House on the floor were minor, but, in any event, here are the updated demographic stats for the map.
Plan H358 - CVAP
Plan H358 - Spanish surname 2012 voter turnout
Meanwhile, compared to Wisconsin, Alaska looks really good. [UPDATE Nov 1, 2013: There was a bad link for Wisconsin so I've put a more current link in.]
I don't know how long people have, in other states, to challenge the new plans in court. In Alaska it's 30 days.
Meanwhile, today's Supreme Court decisions did not include Shelby County (the voting rights case) nor the same-sex marriage cases, but SCOTUS Blog predicts more decisions tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)