Alaska Redistricting Board Meeting: Fight Over 800 People, Airing Of Board Grievances, And Other Board Actions

[First let me note that the Board voted to approve their proposed maps today and tomorrow's (Friday Sept 10) meeting was cancelled]

This post is going to look at some of the dynamics of the Board displayed.  I can't cover everything in this post.  These are some things I thought important today.  There's lots more and since the Board isn't meeting again until next Friday I can  probably get the most important things up during the week.

Playing Ping Pong With 800 Voters

Redistricting is a very partisan activity.  The ability to redo the maps to favor one party or another underlies this activity.  Three of the Board members were appointed by Republican politicians, one by a Democratic politician, and one by the Supreme Court Chief Justice.  

Up until today the fight over what the Alaska legislature is going to look like was below the surface.  The previous board that did the 2010 Redistricting was appointed by four Republicans and the Alaska Supreme Court Chief Justice.  There was almost no bickering in public meetings.  (There was some at the end but among Republicans and it was minor.)  The Supreme Court Chief Justice's appointee essentially looked after Native issues and as long as they were taken care of, she was fine with everything else.  And since that Board needed to get preclearance from the Department of Justice to assure Alaska Native power was not being diminished, the Board took care of that first.  Any partisan actions decisions could be made without conflict - such as putting half of Bettye Davis' district into Eagle River, which ended up costing both a minority Senate seat and a Democratic Senate seat.  

This time we have a bit more division and the Democratic appointed member is a lot more protective.  In terms of backgrounds, the seemingly most partisan member, really I think ideological is a better descriptor, but it translates to partisan on the Board, would appear to be Bethany Marcum who is the Executive Director of the Alaska Policy Forum whose values listed on their website are far right, libertarian ones, and the organizations goals are to promote the passing of laws that embrace those values.  It would make sense that her role on the Board would be to  help get that done by skewing the seats toward Republicans.  

Nicole Borromeo is  the Executive Vice-President & General Counsel of the Alaska Federation of Natives.  This organization's values and mission are to support the interests of Alaska Natives.  It doesn't the same explicit partisan goals as the Alaska Policy Forum, but often they align with more Democratic values and support Democratic candidates.  But they were also instrumental in getting Sen. Lisa Murkowski reelected in 2010.  They've maintained good relations with all the Alaskan Congressional delegation who have been, for the most part Republicans.  

800 People

Today there was what I'd call a long ping pong match where the ball went back and forth between Borromeo and Marcum.  It actually began yesterday when Marcum argued strongly for valuing compactness over deviation when mapping districts.  (Compactness being about keeping the districts as compact as possible and giving them as smooth and straight boundaries as possible. Marcum seemed to be playing whack-a-mole with any protrusions from straight lines.  I wrote about compactness with illustrations in yesterday's post.)  Borromeo would hit the ball back over the net swatting it hard with an anti-deviation paddle. (Deviation referring to how much - in people and in percent - a district deviates from the ideal district size which is 18,335.  That number is the result of dividing the 2020 official Census population of Alaska by 40, which is the number of seats in the state house.)  Borromeo was making the point that the Matsu districts as a whole were under populated - they had fewer than the 18,335 people.  In the end the Board deviated from a guideline they had adopted, to keep all the boroughs whole if possible.  Some are too small to be stand alone districts, but as much as possible they didn't want to divide boroughs.  But then they decided to move 800 people from south Knik (in the Anchorage borough) into Matsu borough.  

Today, the ping pong game was about those 800 people.  Borromeo argued strenuously against them being pulled from Anchorage and that this violated the goal of keeping boroughs whole.  Marcum argued strongly to move them into Matsu.  

There was far more time and passion devoted to this debate than, on the surface, it seemed to deserve.  There was clearly something more going on.  I talked to people who attended the meeting - there are people working on alternative maps there paying close attention.  One theory that seems possible is this:  

By moving 800 people out of north Anchorage, you cause a need for more people in those districts.  You end up with a ripple effect and you have to move people up the district north until you get to the more urban areas of Anchorage.  Then you can pull out 800 out of the east Anchorage Muldoon area that Senator Bill Weilochoski represents, either putting him in a district with a lot more conservative voters, or pairing his district with an Eagle River district.  The last Board did this with Senator Bettye Davis last time - moving one of her house districts to Eagle River and got her voted out of the Senate.  My quick look at the maps tonight made it hard to tell exactly what they'd done with Weilochoski's district.  Partly it's hard because there's a green district that seems to be partly in the Anchorage map and partly in the Eagle River map.  I can't verify this theory, but I'm putting out there because so far it's the best explanation I can find for the battle over the 800 people.  And it echoes what happened in the last round.  But also look at the maps of Anchorage to see what happened there.  Marcum was arguing that people had been telling her that they wanted Anchorage to be more horizontal than vertical.  That seems to have happened.  And I'm guessing the result is to have Democratic legislator in the north and midtown being put in districts where incumbents would be running against each other.  There may be the same affect in the south of Anchorage where there are Republican incumbents.  

Early on the Board chose not to have political party or incumbent information in the data they had to make maps.  The point was to avoid doing just such things.  I was reminded of this when, at the end of the meeting today, Board  executive director  Peter Torkelson, speaking to third parties submitting alternative plans, reminded them not to have any partisan information in their maps.   But I also know that both the Democratic and Republican advisors to Board members have that information.  In the previous Redistricting Randy Ruedrich who coordinated a third party called AFFER (Alaskans for Fair and Equitable Redistricting) had most of this data in his head and wasn't shy about sharing it with Board members during breaks and after meetings.  On the other side Tom Begich, now state Senator Begich, also had that information and he worked with various groups making alternative plans.  I'd note that Sen. Begich called in to give  public testimony and shared maps with the Board today.  

Clearing the Air in Public

Another critical event happened today just before lunch.  Board member Borromeo asked the chair, John Binkley,  to take time to raise an issue that she'd asked him to let her discuss yesterday, I think, in Executive Session.  But since he said he didn't think it met the requirements for Executive Session that they should do it in public session.  So she wanted to do it them.  And he agreed.  Basically it was a list of complaints about how the Chair was running the meetings.  Some people got kept to a short 3 minute time limit for public testimony and others, like Sen Begich that morning, were given a lot more time to present his maps.  It's best, I think for me to just post my notes here.  As always, I was typing as fast as I could, but that's not fast enough to get it verbatim or even to capture it all.  But you can get a sense of this unusual public airing of grievances by a public body.  I'd note that I was impressed by a) the respectful way it was presented  b) the respectful way the Chair acknowledged that he was guilty of some of the charges and would work hard to correct them and c) that they did this in full public view so that the world could evaluate.  There was nothing hidden under the rug. (Well probably there are lots of other things we don't know.)  

r-l  Chair Binkley, Member Borromeo,
Exec Director Torkelson at 11:05am during break

So here are my notes from today.  The video and transcript might be up soon.  This happened just before the lunch break.

"Nicole:  Thank the Board for hard work.  We talked yesterday about a discussion that I thought should be on Executive Session.  You said to do it on the record.  

When we first met, both our names were put out for chair.  But different perspective.  I think Board Chair presides over the sessions, but all members are equal.  Don’t mean to be critical.  Don Young says bring solutions.  I’m bringing solutions.  When it comes to public testimony there were allowances.  When Bethany wanted Eric to talk about Valdez and when I wanted something, there was no time to do it.  When Sen. Begich testifies, there was no time limit, but when AFFR wanted to testify, they were limited to 3 minutes.

In executive session.  Yesterday we ate up a lot of time on procedural issues which might not be private.  I wanted to discuss.. ..  It was yesterday that Bethany and I worked on separate things and brought back to board.  I’d like to see more consistency.  I respect the role of the chair and not asking for changes.

Concerned about email that perhaps the Board should set broad policy and let the staff work on it - like where should we put Valdez.  As expert as they are - and I think they are - they aren’t Board members.  The clicking [on the mapping software] draws lines that we have to defend as board members.  People say, don't waste of time.  If that’s the case, we don’t need to work as a Board.  Working together we have expertise about where the lines would be drawn.

John:  Let me apologize if inconsistent.  I strive to be consensual  and sorry when I wasn’t.  My job is to chair, but we are all equl.  I serve at your pleasure.  Appreciate being able to serve but if Board wants to make change, that’s fine.  Not sure of all the details of your concern.  Agree with you 100% we are all equal???   And on e-mail you mentioned.  Happy to talk to you one on one to see how I can improve.  Important that we all have ownership of this.  But have to use the public's time well as well as ours.  Appreciate the constructive nature of your comments.

Nicole:  It's culturally jarring to have this conversation.  Don’t want to change the chair.  When I was in the Board's office and saw staff talking to staff and you, that it should have been a meeting.  My request going forward, whenever Matt [the Board's attorney] is going to talk to the Staff. . .  Melanie today said she wants all the emails from the districts.  Appearance that there are small group discussions going on should be avoided.

John:  I agree with all you say.  At the meeting we’d been doing things and slipped in.  I do think as uncomfortable as this is, I think it’s important not to hide behind executive session.  Only should have ES when legally required.

Nicole:  I agree.  Should be public.  This doesn’t end Friday.  We’ll get there.  As chair of my corporation board, I know the challenges.  I think unilateral actions taken.  Willing to speak with you.  Firm believer we can have open discussion and we all depart as friends.

Melanie:  couple of things, since I’m not there.[She had called in]  Reiterate yesterday, that Board and staff conversations that are deliberative be on the record.  No discussions that are about mapping at lunch breaks.  Yesterday I came back and there were conversations I wasn’t privy to.  When I was questioning Socio-economic issues, Board member said culture was not an issue to review.  Analysis pointed to website.  Want board to look at that.  We have Voting Rights Act to consider.  There are cultural issues, including predominantly Native communities.  Want public to be aware and it’s on the website.  And no side conversations.

John:  Thank you Melanie.  We talked about that this morning.  If more than two members present we cannot talk about anything related to this.  And appreciate your help with this.  Thanks for pointing that out now.  Peter is scrolling through some of these definitions  All these are available on the website.  

Peter:  We put a short blurb on all these terms with links to source material.  

John:  He put a lot of work into the website [I think he's referring to this page] and I think it’s phenomenal and I hope public finds it informative and easy to navigate.  OK, break.  Say 1pm?  OK"

This is getting kind of long and there are other issues to raise.  As I said above, there are no more meetings until Friday September 17, so I have some time to catch up in the next week.  

Alaska Redistricting Board Finishes Proposed Redistricting Plan Today [Update with Map Links]

Although the Board had scheduled meetings until tomorrow to get the plan done, they surprised everyone - themselves included I think - by agreeing to two maps.  That allows for two Anchorage versions and two Fairbanks versions.  

They had 30 days from receiving the official Census data to complete the job.  They also expect third parties to submit plans as well - some full state plans and some for specific areas.  Those are due in by next Friday.  

At this point the maps are in the staffs computers.  I was able to get a couple of pictures, but you can't see much detail, but I offer them here.

The whole state.

Anchorage area.

Fairbanks area. 

The Board should be posting individual maps for each district by Saturday, I think they said.  There was discussion about the time it takes to convert shape files to pdf files and they need to do 40 for each version.  Well, maybe they can do one version of most of the state (geographically) and then two sets for Anchorage's 22 districts and two sets for Fairbank's five or so districts.  

There was a lot of interesting interactions today that I'll discuss in another post.  I'm impressed with the Board's ability to work through conflicts and to do it on the record, not behind closed doors.  A lot of credit goes to the chair, John Binkley.  And also to the Board members who have the skills to air their concerns respectfully and clearly.  

More later.  

[UPDATE September 9, 2021 9:15 pm:  The Board has posted some maps that appear to cover all the new districts.  As I understood it there are two versions of Anchorage and Fairbanks.  You can see them all here.  They two versions are labeled "Board Composite 1" and "Board Composite 2."  What that refers to are the versions that were approved by the whole Board.  Other versions were done by individual Board members and had names of the person who did them.]

 

Alaska Redistricting Board Meeting - Compactness v Deviation And Other Issues

I had trouble with the online broadcasts yesterday and today again they kept dropping off.  So I got to the Board Meeting around 10:30.  Here's an overview of the post:

OVERVIEW

• My observations of the day
• What they were doing - mapping Matsu, Kenai, and Anchorage for initial proposal due Sept 10
• Issues that Came Up 
• Census Block Issues - 45,000 blocks in 2010, only in 2020
• Balancing the State required criteria
• Socio-Economic coherence
• Compactness versus Deviation
• Aesthetic compactness versus meaningful compactness
• Deviation matters
• A few other things to consider
• My very, very rough notes of the meeting

My Observations

What they were doing - mapping Matsu, Kenai, and Anchorage for initial proposal due Sept 10

Background:  The State Constitution gives the Boar 30 days from the day they receive the official Census data from the Bureau of the Census to come up with the first draft proposal to present to the residents of Alaska.  This time the Bureau sent out data on August 12, but said it wasn't official yet.  Then later they said it was official.  Thus the Board lost a week or more while they were waiting for the official data.  

They didn't totally lose that time because they were training on the map software and the Board's staff was already working with the preliminary data (that turned out to be the official data).  But they were behind the 2010 Board which had their first big public meeting on the day they got the data on March 15, 2011. 

So the Board has tried to find a way to divide the parts of the state and have different members work on mapping them.  Apparently, yesterday, they agreed on much of the state, at least preliminarily, because today they were focused on Matsu, Kenai, and Anchorage.  

When I got to the meeting they were comparing different versions of Matsu prepared by Board Member Bethany Marcum and Member Nicole  Borromeo.  Later they moved on to Kenai which Board Member Budd Simpson had worked on with Executive Director Peter Torkelson.  And then they started looking at Anchorage - again maps from Bethany and Nicole.

Finally there was a Public Testimony - two people attending the Anchorage hearing live spoke - Robin  O’Donahue and Dave Dunsmuir  both from a group called Alaskans for Fair Redistricting that has  union and other support.  

Issues - Census Block problems

In the 2010 Census, Alaska was divided into 45,000 or so Census Blocks - the smallest units of geography as I understand it.  The 2020 Census divided Alaska into 28,000 Census Blocks.  So there are now fewer, but larger blocks for the Board to work with.  

Let me give you an example from Matsu - though for this example it doesn't matter where.  I was using the free public map making software available here on the Board's website.  

On the map below, the grey lines outline Census Blocks.  Some are much bigger than others.  Until you pick a block and add it to your map, you can't tell what the population will be.  So, I have picked  one fairly large block - colored in with blue.  On the right side you can get data.  Circled in red is where the population data goes.  But as you can see there is nothing there.  That means this census block has no population.  I'm guessing it's something like the Palmer Hay Flats.  It's a huge block with no population. 

Next, I've added a much smaller block - circled in red.  In the population column we've added 49 people.  

Now I've added to more small blocks (in the red circle) and now we have 261 people total of the four blocks.  

And now I've added this big squiggly block which added another 179 people for a total of 540.  

Now I've added one more block smaller than the last one (again circled in red) and that added 72 more people  and got the total to 712.

The point is that these census blocks are all sorts of shapes.  The Board staff says they're not sure how the blocks were drawn.  Small ones can have more people than much larger ones.  So when members are trying to make a smooth compact district that is as closely to the others in population, they are stuck with these odd shaped blocks that can make a district look weird to the average person.  Why is that jagged edge sticking out?  Well the answer could be - it was the only block we could pick that would get the right number of people into the district.  Remember, every district needs to be as close to 18,335 people as possible. (Total population divided by 40 districts.)

This final map looks at a much larger area than the previous maps.  You can barely see the districts I marked.   I did this to make the point that in the big picture, the blocks I picked out amounted to only 712 people out of a district that will need  18,335 people.  (This area which is mostly Matsu will have about six districts.)  And the Board will have to create 40 districts.  The real problems are where one district meets another.  That's when this sort of detailing has to happen.  

This is a very tedious process.  

Issues:  Balancing the State required criteri

• Socio-Economic comparability,  compactness, contiguity, and deviation (how much a district deviates from the 18,335 number that is the ideal size per district (total population divided by 40 House seats.)

The State Constitution requires the districts to have socio-economic compatibility.  That means the people in the district should have interests in common - they live in the same town or city or borough.  They face the same geographical and economic issues. This might be indicated by where they shop (they're was testimony in an earlier meeting about "people in our community got to the Fairbanks Fred Meyer, not the one in Palmer" and "cold for us is -40˚, not 10˚. Basically a representative from this area would be representing people who face the same issues.  So the Board is trying to get rural communities together and urban communities together.  Matt Singer, the Board's attorney told them today that Court cases have agreed that people in the same city and borough have socio-economic compatibility. Everyone in Matsu meets this.  Everyone in Anchorage meets this.  And when Member Bethany Marcum wanted to add a little bit of the northern Anchorage area into Matsu, Singer said the courts had said Matsu and Anchorage have socio-economic compatibility.  

I don't think that's a problem when you include places like Eklutna with parts of Southern Matsu.  But it would be more troubling if you were adding Sutton to Fairview (which would be hard to do because they're so far apart.  

But I also think we have a new measure for whether boroughs have socio-economic compatibility - vaccination rates.  Anchorage, as of today, has 65% of people over 12 with at least one vaccination.  Matsu is 44%.  That means Matsu has 66% unvaccinated!  That's a big gap that probably says more about compatibility than a lot of traditional measures.  

Issue:  Aesthetic Compactness versus Meaningful Compactness

Members Bethany Marcum and Nicole Borromeo both made maps for Matsu and for Anchorage and when they presented them, the two gave different weights to these two criteria.  Marcum was constantly trying to get rid of gaps and protrusions.  

These protrusions I've circle in red from this map of Matsu is what I mean.  The ideal of compactness means that you wouldn't have any of these things sticking out.  The ideal maps would be a bunch of square districts.  But topography is shaped by rivers and hills and marshes.  And populations aren't evenly divided into neat squares.  

Pennsylvania 
districts

The point of compactness in part is to make sure people in a district are compatible.  It's easier for a representative to get around the smallest possible district.  But in Alaska with its small population and huge physical size makes this impossible.  We have districts off the road where representatives can spend thousands of dollars to get to a remote village and districts where the representative can walk from one end of the district to the other in less than a day.  

But another key reason for compact districts without weird protrusions is to prevent gerrymandering.

On the right are silhouettes of some Pennsylvania districts.  These were designed in 2010 to tilt a state with more Democratic than Republican voters so that had majorities in most of the districts.  You can do this by cramming most Democrats into a few districts so that Republicans are competitive or have a majority in all the others.  But to do that you have to make very weird districts.

The protrusions on the Matsu map are there because of geography, population, and odd shaped Census blocks.  Getting rid of all the bumps makes the maps more aesthetically pleasing, but doesn't have a meaningful outcome.  Alaska's warts - at least on the maps we saw today of Matsu are not an issue.  

This link takes you to 538's page on Pennsylvania's extremely uncompact districts.  

Issue: Is Compactness More Important than Deviation?

The deviation standard derives from the US Constitution's requirement of one person - one vote.

Certainly it could be.  But in the maps we saw today, the answer is clearly no.  Deviation refers to deviation from the ideal district size of 18,335.  If all 40 districts have exactly that many people, then every representative and every senator would represent the exact same number of people.  Of course the Census' state population number was measured in 2020 and the population changes all the time (which is why the Census counts every ten years, so we can recalibrate.)

The deviation of any one district should not be more than 10%, and that's would be acceptable only in extreme cases.  Say a sparsely populated rural area where it was really hard to get enough people without grossly violating the other criteria of compactness, socio-economic, and contiguity.  (Contiguity didn't come up today.  It just means that all parts of the district have to be geographically connected to each other.)

The issue was that Matsu was about 2% under populated.  That means that six districts (Matsu has enough population with the Denali Borough to have six districts almost) will have the same number of representatives as six other districts but with a smaller population.  Two percent for any one district is well within the standards, but if you take a whole region that elects candidates of one party, it means other districts that are overpopulated aren't getting one vote per person.  It wasn't clear if the six districts in Matsu were cumulatively underpopulated by 2% or each district was 2% underpopulated. 

Issues - A Few Other Things to Remember

The maps the Board is now drawing will result in a proposed map for Alaska.  There will be several other maps submitted by other groups.  Then these maps will be shared with people around the state.  The Board will split up and travel around to meet with people and find out the issues that these maps present that are problems for local areas.    They have sixty days from September 10 to then develop their final proposed map.  

So there will be lots of feedback and lots of work before we get to the final proposed map.  Then they have to do things like pair up the 40 2House districts into 20  Senate districts.

NOTES

I did my best to record what people said.  I'm a reasonably good typist but I'm not court transcriber.  So there are lots of gaps and ??? where I wasn't sure.  And it's not verbatim.  But it will give you an idea of what was said.  I tried to put times in now and then.  When the tapes and transcripts come out, you  may have a better idea of what you're looking for.  

Ak Redistricting Board  Wed Sept 8, 2021

Arrived at 10:50

Taking about Denali Borough - only 1700?? People, has to be part of another district.

Which of the three Matsu’s should we use.  

Peter Tolkerson (Executive Dir)Matsu B would be under about 2%.  Reflects deviation  of Borough’s ??

Budd Simpson - all the community boundaries and local boundaries, ask Nicole that some of hers were not as tight. Otherwise easier to stick with these more compacts

Nicole - accepted city boundaries and didn’t let the rural creep into the city boundaries

Bethany - all had city boundaries in tact, but let some of rural in

Nicole - some rural areas  were put into cities

Bethany - you’ll see Wasilla and Palmer - green in between is a question of whether you add these to one side - core Matsu, suburban, not considered rural areas

Still feel Bethany’s version maintains socio-economic goals, cause hers seems more compact

Nicole - I think  our maps have more in common than not, she’s just gone out in a different direction to pull people in.  This is my first time looking at Bethany’s map.  Preliminary view I don’t see pitfalls, I get it, it looks prettier.

Peter:  This is a starting point and make adjustments from there

Nicole - wanted to be respectful of public testimony.  Heard from Delta Sutton area feel they are pulled in and they become Matsu Palmer seats and lose their distinction.  

Nicole - Way to overlay my map over Bethany’s?  

Peter:  Map overlay  [I had trouble figuring out what the map overlays showed]

John:  Within borders of borough, socio-economic ok, but next looking at compactness and one vote.

Nicole - I think my deviations are smaller than Bethany’s

John:  But compactness becomes important.  The more irregular looking, you potentially get into odd shapes that raise questions about compactness.  Within a percent or two of deviation, I think compactness becomes more important.  

Wraps around Wasilla

Nicole:  I see hers is more compact, Maybe I’m not seeing something.  Move on.

Nicole:  I’m fine with Bethany’s version.  And Anchorage creeps up into Matsu.

John:  When we put Denali Borough in, that won’t happen. 

Peter:  20 minute exercise to adjust it in, then wave of changes will probably touch every district.  

Palmer is one, Wasilla is one and Big Lake is one.  

John:  Let’s stand at ease.  20-30 minutes to integrate this into draft we’ve been working on.  Stand at ease.  

Break:  Bethany:  I like both of those better than the Anchorage stand alone.  Move ER, Eklutna up toward Matsu

11:16

Peter break  

45,292 census blocks to 28,000 blocks - makes fine tuning difficult.  Members want to add a little section and get some weirdly shaped block.  

11:42  Back in session

TJ:  Overview of Bethany’s map - added Denali B to Matsu, six districts 15, 16, 17 18, 19, 20

Added Anchorage north, but didn’t fill that out yet.  

SE, North, SW, Bristol Bay,  some discussion of inside Fairbanks, Finished Matsu area.  Haven’t discussed Kenai P. Or Gulf Coast, and Whittier is without a Borough.  

Peter:  Remaining:  reconcile new deviations by taking out Nenana and ????  - deviations have increased, B can refine those now or we can come back later for that.

5.92 districts - all will be under.  18 suffered loss when let Nenana go.  Equalize that loss when dealing with other district boundaries.  Does 18 abut to the north?  

That’s the Denali B line.  Stops around Houston.  

Bethany:  Where does Denali B. stop.  

Right here.  

John:  Greatest deviation?  A:  18 down 581  - they are all negative - [meaning they have more representation]

[They’re adding blocks to make things look cleaner - that is there aren’t strange spaces breaking up an area.  

19 and 20 deviation spread]

Bethany - we have that nice straight line though

Nicole, but if 

Made little change, doesn’t mess with compactness much.  Now they are just grabbing population and there is no consideration of neighborhoods being discussed.

John:  Let’s move on

Nichole:  Would like to see those numbers closer.  15 is too big.  Compared to 

Debate between Bethany and Nicole - Deviation is not part of the big three, 

John:  First look at socio-economical compatibility, then compact, then 

Melanie - we can still do this later.  

Attorney:  the change didn’t change compactness, but got more even deviation.  If you have odd shaped districts not good.  [Compact doesn’t mean smooth]

Peter:  

Bethany:  My preference.  Recommended not break B boundary in more than one direction.  South, including Whittier, still breaking to south

John:  I don’t recall that being critical importance

Bethany:  No problem with South Knik

Attorney:  Courts have said that Matsu and Anchorage are socio-economically the same.

Bethany:  Include Anchorage

Nicole:  John made strong argument for strong B boundary and here we have great deviation

John:  Difference between preservingAnchorage and Matsu with protecting Fairbanks

Nicole:  I don’t think so.  

Budd:  800 people leave in Anchorage or better used in Matsu.  

Peter:  word Better is something you can decide.  Anchorage is less underpopulated than Matsu.  

Budd:  Better area - it’s not in Anchorage Borough, nice line 

Bethany:  Equalization as opposed to deviations.

Attorney:  First is to have compact and then obligation one person one vote.  Where you feel that closer to equalize, create districts that are no longer compact.  

Bethany:  That last ??? completely changed compactness, but didn’t effect deviation that much.  Won’t be possible in Anchorage.  

Nicole:  Explain to me how that compactness.

Nicole:  The way that city is drawn is part of the problem.  

Melanie:  Time for a break, need to walk around even if lunch not here

12:11 

John - back, about 1pm  get finished by 3.   Lunch supposed to be here by now.

12:25 - everyone back in seats and discussing maps - CLEARLY this has become an illegal meeting and Peter is trying to scatter the Board members.  Several leave.  Now Budd is talking about coconut oil.  

Lunch arrived about 12:50

Back at 1:18

John:  Lunch late being delivered.  This room will have 3pm public meeting so we will get out by 3:45.  Should we move on to Anchorage?  Sounds like it.  Let’s move on

Peter:  Good to move to Anchorage, but we haven’t done Kenai and Anchorage will probably take a long time.

John:  Sounds ok.  

Peter:  Kenai Pen - goes to Yakatat Borough, Cordova.  Few members and I worked on this all day after last meeting.  Added additional members throughout following week.  Discovered the Cordova and Kodiak and NE Kachemak Bay have long time ties to Kodiak.  

Looking at 11, 12, 13, and 14.  Kenai-Cordova  3.3, 2.4   with Kodiak 4.09 districts.  Each is overpopulated by 1.2 to 2%.  Trying to spread that across the district.  Without Kachemak silo area, you can take city of Seward and give Kachemak back to Homer.  But then with Seldovia etc.  no one was happy.  But adding Cordova and Kodiak allows deviations that are reasonably close.   

This is just a starting point.  Could put Cordova with interior   or connect Seward and Homer.  Population comes out.  Kasilof Nikiski other options.  

Budd:  Comment, Peter and I spent a lot of time on this, seems really difficult coming up with rational explanation.  I think this is an elegant solution to difficult district.

Bethany:  Shape of appendage would be better if fixed.  Doesn’t change deviation.

Peter:  Want to improve that.  But hard to make a cleaner line.  Feature of underlying census geography government made.  

Melanie:  Socio-Economy pitfalls of this?  

Peter:  Critique Katchemak silo area, connections to Homer.  Not violating city boundaries, but just connections.  

Eric:  Fox River ???  Takes in several areas.

Bethany:  Part of map - 

Eric:  Katchemak Silo, ??? And ???  Not census blocks but are communities.

Bethany:  

Matt - North Kenai paired with Anchorage and that has passed Court rulings.  This Board seems to be going toward community boundaries.  Court has approved of Gulf Coast districts in the past.  Don’t see any show stoppers here.

John:  Let’s move on to Anchorage.

Peter:  How should we proceed.  We can show member versions.  

John:  Nicole?

Nicole:  Mine doesn’t work any more because I included Valdez.

Bethany:  I have one version.

Peter:  We can show the differences on the screen.  But merging, I think we should do tomorrow - long technical process.  Nicole’s Anchorage for her Northern portion 

TJ:  Bethany’s 

??  Bethany Markam on the left.  

Bethany:  Started with existing districts.  Then realized having existing districts in place misleading and then just turned them off.  I brought a map I’d worked on then kept getting odd shapes and still had a few appendages.  Let’s take this pop north and things would add up and get weird shape.  Then take it east and west instead.  Just by virtue of census block shapes that led to vertical rather than horizontal.  

Nicole - 

Bethany:  split east side and military.  Services and previous elmendorf and Richardson, split so they are socio-economic, not a big difference.  But also ER, trying to keep ER complete in one district instead of splitting it up.  Encompass ER, Chugiak, Eklutna - get more rural areas versus core of ER.  

TJ - two different maps - also Wasilla showed overlay one plan over the other.  Bethany versus Nicole Blue lines see differences.

District down 2%

Chukiak, Peters Creek, and ???  792 in there add to -256, added back to Matsu map.  

District 13  S. ER into one district

15 takes north and south forks with portion of east Anchorage.

Chugiak/Peters and majority of Fort Rich

Rest is self explanatory.  Nicole’s map on top

Nicole  - when I drafted didn’t have district boundaries and considering public testimony.  Didn’t get enough pop to make whole.  Wanted Chugiak, Peters whole without ER came down to border of ER proper and cover ER to be in own district.  Got much of base.  But service members all over community.

Inlet and Govt Hill (not Mt View) and tried to keep east districts in tact and not go into south Anchorage.  Census blocks made big differences.  West 17 and 15 are primary mid town districts and try to keep them east of Minnesota.  Then all the way over to Turnagain, Lake Hood, Spenard, then to Sandlake.  Follow creek boundaries.  14 needed to go into 15.  13 didn’t love this shape.  Once you get to end of mapping, have trouble.  Also, the way Census blocked this.  Some very wild census blocks.

10  big chunk of south Anchorage and hillside.  District 9 really deviates from map Board is producing.  Don’t look at 9.  Kitchen sink district.

John:  Hard for me.  I just don’t have an opinion on this.  Maybe Nicole and Marham work together and see what you come up with for those 16 seats.  OK    Do you want to take 20 minutes now.  We still have public testimony to hear.  In 20 minutes then get wrapped up to adjuourn.

Nicole:  I don’t think that’s realistic.  I think there’s a benefit for everyone participating.  

Fix Boundaries for Matsu and then 

Bethany:  Are we going to….

Matt Singer:  Going back to whether the 800 area of Knik.  AK Supreme Court said the two Boroughs are Socio-economically integrated.  If so, is moving those folks into Anchorage area to allow for less deviation is that practical.  We don’t combine communities where creates map that is not Socio-economically integrated.  So can’t use that as a strong justification for drawing the line.  Allow some blurring of line to get more population evenly distributed.  I know board focused on honoring political boundaries, but really one and the same. 

Peter:  Matsu districts are more underpopulated than Anchorage so moving that area to Matsu  improves the deviation.  Looking at the 22 seats rather than the 16 seats of Anchorage.

Matt:  I think that makes sense.  Try to balance pop among those 22 districts.  

Peter:  Will cause bringing Matsu district down into Anchorage because underpopulated.  

Bethany:  I’ve seen the court ruling that says Matsu and Anchorage are one socio-economic districts.  

Eric:  Anchorage, Denali Borough and Matsu together about 22 districts.  Every district down about 165.  

Peter:  But it will come up against compactness thing.  Still place for judgment.  We’re going to go south and get greater and greater underpopulation

John:  Let’s see what happens.  Let’s start at 18?

Matt:  Fair to say that board is being oversensitive to compactness when dealing with urban areas.  What’s a problem is weird corridors and appendages.  Intended to combat improper gerrymandering.  I’d say within these areas.  Is this generally a compact shape.  Does it make sense.  Not get overly caught up on jagged edge.  That’s a census block shape.  Wouldn’t concern yourself with that granular detail.  What’s troublesome, if you just focus on the numbers you can say, that looks like starfish or octopus.  Then courts say why.

John:  For the purpose of deviation we’re making them more odd shape.  Is it practicable to make odd shapes to get better numbers.  

Matt:  One side of the street or other side of street - does this make sense for the neighborhood.  If you’re down by 55 or 100 people that is a small deviation.  Good to make numbers match.  No court says you need exactly.  Why having computers do this versus experienced Alaskans.  A little more deviation ok.  

John:  Maybe this is a good time to take a break.  Need to get into public testimony.  Stop mapping for now.  Testimony until we need to vacate the room at 2:45.  

Testifying

Robin O’Donahue - Coordinate for Alaskans for Fair Redistricting and as life long Faribanksian.  

But Nicole’s question.  The split in Borough breaks community interest.  Does’t look at North south.  Ester, etc. connected to UA.  North Pole and ?  Are together.  Another way to think through school systems.  All feed to West Valley High School.  Don’t believe Chena Ridge and Salcha, you’d have to drive through all the others to get to that district.  Thank you.  

Nicole:  Is there anyway we can see your Fairbanks before next week?  If we have it in our binder before we finish.  

Robin:  Not bound to idea of keeping the Boroughs intact.  

John:  If asking AFFR giving us map early, then we should discuss with other groups.  

Peter:  If email map of just Fairbanks, in line with other groups

David Dunsmore:  Also AFFR, respectfully push back about historical ties of Kodiak to Kachemak .  The Old Believers split from New Believers.  Faced severe suppression and forced to Siberia.  Kodiak Island settled by Russians in 1784.  That split almost like Catholics and Protestants in Ireland.  The alternative would be Ninilchik.  Fox River has 634 Ninilchk has 845??  Ninilchik not a city but a census area.  Founded by Russians in 1700s.  

Peter:  Suggesting that old believers came over separately from Russians.  OB came in 1968 and founded Nikolias they shouldn’t be split into two different districts.  Stayed in Siberia until Soviet Union was oppressive, they moved to China, then Oregon, then Alaska. 

John:  There’s a good book on that 

Melanie:  Tried to find AFFR online  AKfariredistricting.org  Coalition of different orgs and individuals across the state.  AFL-CIO.  We’ve been internally meeting with Alaskans.  

2:39 - John:  No more testimony here or online.  Stand at Recess.

Alaska Redistricting Board: Meeting Tues-Fri Agenda and Documents - Testimony, Mapping Challenges

The Board is meeting today, basically they are mapping and for the most part that's not too exciting or revealing.  Though they will be asking questions and making comments as they go along which may be of interest.  There are also several agenda items that might be more interesting.  Unfortunately the Board is meeting for four days - Tuesday, Sept 7 through Friday Sept 10,  for almost full days.  But the minutes don't indicate when these more interesting actions are going to take place.  Perhaps they will say the at the meetings.  The proposed map surely won't be ready until Friday, which is the date they set for that to be done.  

"Live Video/Audio Web Stream: www.akl.tvTeleconference public testimony dial-in numbers:

Anchorage 563-9085, Juneau 586-9085, Other 844-586-9085

Agenda

1. Call to Order and Establish Quorum

2. AdoptionofAgenda

3. Public Testimony

   Dial into one of the phone numbers above and indicate to the operator that you wish to testify

   Review of Maps Submitted through Web Mapping Toolwww.akredistrict.org/create

4. StaffReport:MappingProcess,IdentifiedChallenges

5. Map Drawing Work Session

6. Public testimony

7. AdoptionofProposedRedistrictingPlan(s)

8. Guidance to Third-Party Map Drafters

9. Adjournment"

Hello Subscribers,

 

Sorry for the late start and distribution today.

 

the materials were, once again, too large to email, I have posted them on the Legislature’s Committee Document System at www.akleg.gov and the State’s Online Public Notice System at http://notice.alaska.gov/203559.

• The public testimony packet includes all testimony received to date.  There are dates in the upper right corner that note when the testimony was received and when it was first included in the board packet. While this may be redundant since these letters have been distributed before, this was to ensure that all public testimony was in front of the board as they began the mapping process. If you have submitted public testimony and it is not included in this packet, please let me know as soon as possible.  
• Per a motion this am, the agenda has been amended to add an Executive Session to receive legal advice following Agenda Item #4: Staff Report: Mapping Process, Identified Challenges.
• The reference table provided for Item #5: Map Drawing Work Session is based on the “Cities and Census Designated Places (CDPs), 2010 to 2020” spreadsheet published on the Department of Labor website at Alaska Population Estimates.  The 2010 data has been removed from the file that was provided to the board for reference.

 

Juli Lucky

Staff, Alaska Redistricting Board

(907) 563-0300 main office

(907) 251-9295 cell

From the Public Testimony packet here are the people who testified.  

Testimony Presented 9/7/2021 includes all testimony received through  9/6/2021

• Carolyn “Care” Clift 8/31/2021 
• Kimberly Collins 8/30/21
• Pamela Goode 8/16/21 
• Robert Hockema 8/23/21
• Hooper Bay 8/13/21.
• Don Larson 8/24/21 
• Sarah Obed 8/24/21
• Sarah Obed 8/30/2
• Bosco Olson 5/18/21  
• Yarrow Silvers 8/23/21
• Uta 9/1/21 

You can find the testimony (it's not clear if this was transcribed from oral testimony or it is only the written testimony.  I know for sure that some of these people gave oral testimony, but there are other who also gave oral testimony who are not on this list.  

You can see the slides for the overview of the mapping challenges here.

Here's the census data list.  It starts like this:

A Little Hannah Arendt For Labor Day

 "With the term vita active, I propose to designate three fundamental human activities:  labor, work, and action.  They are fundamental because each corresponds to one of the
basic conditions under which life on earth has been given to man.

Labor is the activity which corresponds to the biological process of the human body, who's spontaneous growth, metabolism, and eventually decay are bound to the vital necessities  produced and fed into the life process by labor.  The human condition of labor is life itself.

Work is the activity which corresponds to the unnaturalness of human existence, which is not imbedded in, and whose mortality is not compensated by, the species' ever-recurring life cycle.  Work provides an "artificial" world of things, distinctly different from all natural surroundings.  Wthin its borders each imdividual life is housed, which this world itself is meant to outlast and transcend them all.  The human condition of work is wordliness.

Action, the only activity that goes on directly between men without the intermediary of things or matter, corresponds to the human condition of plurality, to the fact that men, not Man, live on the earth and inhabit the world.  While all aspects of the human condition are somehow related to politics, this plurality is specifically the condition - not only the conditio sine qua non, but the  conditio per quam -  of all political life.  Thus the language of the Romans, perhaps the most political people we have known, used the words "to live" and "to be among men" (inter homines esse) or "to die" and "to cease to be among men" (inter homines esse desinere) as synonyms."

Later, she elaborates on the distinction between labor and work.

"THE LABOUR OF OUR BODY AND THE WORK OF OUR HANDS"

"The distinction btween labor and work which I propose is unusual.  The phenomenal evidence in its favor is too striking to be ignored, and yet historically it is a fact that apart from a few scattered remarks, which moreover were never developed even in the theories of their authors, there's is hardly anything in either the pre-modern tradition of political thought or in the large boy of modern labor theories to support it.  Against this scarcity of historical evidence, however, stands one very articulate and obstinate testimony, namel, the simple fact that every European language, ancient and modern, contains two etymologically unrelated word for what we have to come to think of as the same activity, and rtains them in the face of their persistent synonymous usage."

"Thus Locke's distinction between working hands and a labouring body is somewhat reminiscent of the ancient Gree distinction between the cheirotechnēs, the craftsman, to whom the German Handwerker corresponds, and those who, like "slaves and tame animals with their bodies minister to the necessities of life," . . .

I thought I would find an easy passage from Hannah Arendt's The Human Condition that would clearly distinguish between work and labor on this Labor Day.  But I forgot that Arendt makes my blog posts seem like extremely shallow tweets. But it seemed to be a fitting thought exercise for Labor Day.  

Texas Abortion Law Part II: What To Do Next

Part I was a look at parts of the law itself and the Supreme Court dissents.   

I was hoping here to start a list of things to do in response to the Texas abortion law ("The Texas Heartbeat Act"), but I still had questions that reading the law itself doesn't clarify. Articles and comments offer conflicting interpretations. So let me list some of my original questions:

1. What's a fetal heartbeat? 
2. What's the difference between a fetus and an unborn child?
3. Who may be sued?
4. Who may sue/prosecute someone for performing an illegal abortion?
5.  Can people be sued for helping Texas women get abortions outside of Texas?
6. What are the penalties for performing or aiding and abetting an illegal abortion?

Question #1 Since the law makes hearing a fetal heartbeat the point when abortion may not be performed,  medical opinions (which differ from what the law makers apparently intended) on when the fetal heartbeat can be heard may well be significant.  

#2 probably does not have significant legal consequences, though people will argue about this endlessly.

#3  The answer appears to be people who help people get abortions and doctors who perform them, but not the women who get abortions.  Though 'help' is pretty vague.

#s 4 and 5 are key issues.  #4 because the law was designed to avoid being blocked by courts because governmental entities can't prosecute.  #4 because the law doesn't seem clear on this.  

#6 I'm still having trouble figuring out.

Finally, I suspect that they threw all kinds of crap into this law to:

• See what would stick
• Jam up the courts
• Scare people out of seeking and offering abortions
• Because they could

What's a fetal heartbeat?

This piece From NPR says sonogram 'heartbeats' are really noises generated by the machine and aren't real heartbeats.

"The Texas abortion law that went into effect this week reads: "A physician may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman if the physician detected a fetal heartbeat for the unborn child."

"When I use a stethoscope to listen to an [adult] patient's heart, the sound that I'm hearing is caused by the opening and closing of the cardiac valves," says Dr. Nisha Verma, an OB-GYN who specializes in abortion care and works at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

The sound generated by an ultrasound in very early pregnancy is quite different, she says.

"At six weeks of gestation, those valves don't exist," she explains. "The flickering that we're seeing on the ultrasound that early in the development of the pregnancy is actually electrical activity, and the sound that you 'hear' is actually manufactured by the ultrasound machine."  [emphasis added]

So, will the time frame be challenged to when an actual heart beat and not a synthetic sonogram machine heart beat is heard?

 

What's the difference between a fetus and an unborn child?

The Texas law definitions include:

"(7)AA"Unborn child" means a human fetus or embryo in any stage of gestation from fertilization until birth."

But (again from NPR):

"In fact, "fetus" isn't technically accurate at six weeks of gestation either, says Kerns, since "embryo" is the scientific term for that stage of development. Obstetricians don't usually start using the term "fetus" until at least eight weeks into the pregnancy."

But, I guess legislatures can create legal definitions that differ from scientific definitions.  All you need is a majority.  

Who may be sued?

It's clear from the law that the physician performing the abortion and anyone aiding or abetting someone getting an abortion, including paying for the abortion may be sued.  But some people think the woman herself can't be prosecuted.  The law says:

("b)AA This subchapter may not be construed to:

(1)AA authorize the initiation of a cause of action against or the prosecution of a woman on whom an abortion is performed or induced or attempted to be performed or induced in violation of this subchapter;"

But is that only for that subsection of the law?   This AP article agrees that abortion patients can't be sued:

"It allows any private citizen to sue Texas abortion providers who violate the law, as well as anyone who “aids or abets” a woman getting the procedure. Abortion patients themselves, however, cannot be sued."

The following passage from a Texas Planned Parenthood site also suggests the woman herself is exempt:

"This provision lets anyone sue an abortion provider and anyone else who helps a patient access abortion care that is prohibited by SB 8. Anyone who successfully sues an abortion provider will be entitled to at least $10,000 and a court order preventing them from providing abortions in the future."

But what exactly does 'aid and abet' or 'help' mean?  If I tell someone where they can get an abortion, is that against the law?  Presumably not because the law states:

"(g)AA This section may not be construed to impose liability on any speech or conduct protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as made applicable to the states through the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or by Section 8 Article I,TexasConstitution."

Using the logic of Citizens United, people could argue that giving a woman money or an airplane ticket is a form of free speech.  (Of course you can argue anything.  But it has to persuade the judges.)

There are also some issues that arise because an abortion before the heartbeat is still legal in Texas.  What if aid is given earlier but the eventual abortion is later?

Who can sue someone for performing an illegal abortion?

[An attorney friend pointed out, when I used the word 'prosecute' that citizens can sue, but not prosecute.  Only governmental units can do that.  And probably, but I'm not sure, agencies like Departments of Justice or Legal Departments.] 

I think this is relatively clear.  No governmental entities can prosecute.  Only private individuals anywhere can sue.  From Planned Parenthood again:

"That means anyone, anywhere in the country — from anti-abortion protesters to out-of-state lobbyists — can sue an abortion provider, abortion funds, or anyone who “aids and abets” someone seeking an abortion that is prohibited by SB 8, regardless of whether they are directly involved or even know the patient."

Here's the law:

"shall be enforced exclusively through the private civil actions described in Section 171.208. No enforcement of this subchapter, and no enforcement of Chapters 19 and 22, Penal Code, in response to violations of this subchapter, may be taken or threatened by this state, a political subdivision, a district or county attorney, or an executive or administrative officer or employee of this state or a political subdivision against any person, except as provided in Section171.208. 

Preventing the state or state subdivisions from prosecuting was done to avoid the law from being blocked by the courts.

However, although they can't prosecute:

(h)AANotwithstanding any other law, this state, a state official, or a district or county attorney may not intervene in an action brought under this section. This subsection does not prohibit a person described by this subsection from filing an amicus curiae brief in the action.

  I don't completely understand this, but my understanding is a court could block a government entity from taking action.  But it can't block all potential people who might sue, before the fact.  That's the logic argued by the five member majority of the Supreme Court.  

Can people be sued for helping Texas women get abortions outside of Texas?

My assumption has been 'no.'  How could they forbid Texans to do something that's legal in another state?  That would be like saying gambling and smoking marijuana are illegal in Texas and Texans can't do those things in states where they are legal. I've searched the new law for the word "Texas" and it shows up 16 times - mainly before Constitution and various Codes.  Since women having abortions can't be sued by this statute.  They could do this.  And since the doctors and clinics aren't in Texas, it doesn't seem likely Texas would have jurisdiction over them.  That leaves people who might help pregnant women get out of Texas for an abortion.  I'm guessing they just left it vague and are leaving it up to their vigilantes to test this in court.  I haven't been able to find this exact question addressed online.  

If an attorney or two can clarify this that would be helpful.

What are the penalties for performing or aiding and abetting a women to get an abortion? 

There's a minimum $10,000 per abortion performed by doctors for the doctors.  And for people who aided and abetted.

(2) statutory damages in an amount of not less than $10,000 for each abortion that the defendant performed or induced in violation of this chapter, and for each abortion performed or induced in violation of this chapter that the defendant aided or abetted; 

It gets even stickier:

(2) knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise, if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of this chapter, regardless of whether the person knew or should have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in violation of this chapter;

So, first we get "knowingly engages in conduct" but at the end we get "regardless of whether the person knew."   Perhaps they mean if you knew you were taking someone to get an abortion, but even if you didn't know it would be an illegal one.  So, if you take someone to get a legal abortion, but it turns out there's a fetal heartbeat and the abortion is performed anyway, you would be liable.  There is language that says it's "an affirmative defense" if the defendant can prove they conducted research that led them to believe that the doctor would comply with the law.  But the proof "with a preponderance of evidence" of that the research is on the defendant.  

That can only be intended to stop people from getting legal abortions as well as illegal abortions.    

Defendants who win their cases cannot be awarded legal fees.

(i)  Notwithstanding any other law, a court may not award costs or attorney’s fees under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure or any other rule adopted by the supreme court under Section 22.004, Government Code, to a defendant in an action brought under this section.

So if you're wrongfully accused, you still have to pay all your attorney fees.  I don't think, though, that if an organization provides free attorneys, they could be sued for 'aiding and abetting.'  But maybe only because the legislators didn't think of it.  

Conclusions 

• The intent of this law was to make it as difficult as possible for women to get abortions in Texas by making it illegal
• to perform an abortion after a fetal heart beat can detected
• to assist anyone trying to get an abortion
• The law was written so that Governmental entities couldn't prosecutors and allowing ordinary citizens to sue.  This was done to avoid having the law blocked by a court. (It worked with the Supreme Court's initial ruling.)
• The penalties $10,000 per abortion are high enough to discourage most doctors from performing proscribed abortions and to scare most people from helping women to get an abortion
• Unclear to me is whether the legislators think this will also prevent Texas women from getting abortions outside of Texas
• They probably don't have jurisdiction, but since ordinary citizens will file the lawsuits, there's a good chance that many will even for abortions outside of Texas
• We can only start imagining some of the consequences:
• I've already seen one Tweet where a guy was going to get women pregnant and then claim the $10,000 award for turning them in.  (He didn't realize you can't sue the women.) 
• This adds to the encouragement of vigilantes that Trump began and we can see predators pursue pregnant women and the people around them
• There will be a surge of revenge law suits filed against people whether they've been involved in a legal abortion, illegal abortion, or no abortion at all
• Planned Parenthood's income will rise steeply
• Rape and incest are not excepted in this legislation.  Any man who wants to father as many children as possible will be tempted.  
• Relations between sexual partners will change
• perhaps birth control use will go up for women and some men
• men could sue or threaten to sue anyone they think might help their pregnant girl friend or spouse get an abortion, including her parents
• Underground abortions will increase and more women will die from them
• There will be a market for bogus, but profitable, abortion potions/techniques that 
• probably won't work
• could harm the mother and/or fetus
• There will be political consequences because a fairly large majority of US citizens approve of abortion.  They will become more active running for office and voting

That's just a couple minutes of conjuring up ideas.  I'm sure you can think of many I've missed.  The next step is determine the most effective ways to fight this law and to help Texas women who need an abortion to get one.  

[NOTE:  I'm not an attorney.  I'm trying to glean from the law itself and from what reputable reporters have to say about the law.  I understand that statues are complicated and may seem clear in one section, but there may be another section that voids it.   Don't base any medical or legal action on this blog post.  It's just my way of sorting out some of the issues.]

A Cloud Break

Sun finally came out late this afternoon.  I've been on the laptop way too long.  So I got in another bike ride.  But I quickly realized the sun might be short lived.   Those clouds surely had a lot of water in them.  

Just about halfway and I passed through a tour group getting prepared to return south.

On the way back the clouds was even more ominous.   It started raining.  Not too hard.   I was briefly back in the sun, but couldn't find a rainbow.  

And it was sunny again when I got home.  I'm 11 kilometers closer to Bangkok.  17 km to Ayutthaya and then 30 more to Bangkok.  To understand these last travel reference see this post from May this year when I started this bike 'tour.'