Alaska Redistricting Trial Day 11 - Brena's Redistricting Expert Brace Closes Testimony

 Kimball Brace took the stand again.  He testified as a national expert on redistricting for attorney Brena in the Valdez case and again today for Skagway.  A lot of what we heard was rehashing of old points, but there were a few new ones.  Rather than tediously go through each line of the testimony, let me try to pull out the points I think are significant.

1.  Simpson intended to move Skagway out of Juneau from the beginning

red lines added

I don't recall seeing this from the deposition of Board Member and Valdez mapper Budd Simpson -

"It had always been my intention to make the district more compact and put Skagway and Haines with the north end."

"The north end" means putting Skagway and Haines with the Mendenhall Valley instead of with downtown Juneau.  

This raises two issues I can think of:

• It suggests Simpson had some reason of his own to do this, beyond his stated desire for compactness
• It shows that the public hearings were a sham because he'd already made up his mind and because  the people were overwhelmingly in favor of 
• putting Skagway, Haines, and Gustavus together with downtown Juneau and
• not splitting up the Mendenhall Valley

Compactness is one of the criteria for a Constitutionally acceptable district.  But there are a lot of other districts where compactness seems to have been much less important.

I'd note that it had always been Board Chair John Binkley's intent to keep Fairbanks unbroken, even if a little overpopulated.  But bowed to public pressure.  

2.   Brena posits that the map was done this way to increase likelihood of voters approving a

From AK DOT

road from Juneau to Skagway.  

In previous testimony, Brena raised the point that Simpson's wife had been a strong advocate of a road to Skagway - forming an organization to make it happen and writing articles supporting it and attacking those who opposed it.  And Simpson agreed that he supported the road too.  

Then Brena - who was born and raised in Skagway - had his witnesses over a lot of testimony how such a road would destroy historic Skagway, "The Gateway To The Klondike," and turn it into a truck stop.  They explained how the road from Skagway into the Yukon had taken all the freight business from the Skagway Railroad.  

There had also been testimony that showed in a close vote about whether to support the ferry or the road, the people of downtown Juneau voted for the ferry, but the parts of the Mendenhall Valley voted for the road.  

Kimball Brace, Brena's expert, offered precinct analysis of that vote today to argue that putting Skagway in with this part of Juneau,  and 4000 people from the Mendenhall Valley with downtown Juneau would water down the votes in favor of the ferry in both districts.  

3.  Showed other districts Simpson worked on that aren't compact at all 

Compactness was used as a justification when it was convenient and ignored when it wasn't, seemed to be the argument made here as they tried to show how tiny and compact D3 and D4 (the two Juneau districts) compared, particularly to D36.  This issue of throwing around redistricting criteria as it was convenient but totally inconsistently has been something I've observed from some of the Board members from the beginning.  

[I'd note that the D36 map they used - a redrawn map that Brace had done in response to previous criticism - got intervenor attorney Tanner Amdur-Clark to jump up and yell foul.  He pointed out the map wasn't one they'd seen before.  What I think got his attention is they started talking about the Cantwell cut out that he so carefully engineered and pulled off.  Singer joined the protests and later on when they were discussing exhibits, it was tossed.]

Brace said this was a classic case of cracking  - taking those (in this case pro-ferry) voters and dividing them into two districts would dilute their vote and allow a pro-road group to dominate.  (The Skagway people had argued yesterday and the previous day that being with the Mendenhall Valley, their votes would mean nothing to their legislator who would answer to the much larger group of Mendenhall Valley voters.)

4.  Argued that splitting the Valley and moving Skagway into the Valley destroyed both the socio-economic integration (SEI) of the Valley and the many critical common interests Skagway and downtown Juneau had.  

I've been making comments about the subjective and flexible ways different Board members have used the term SEI.  I did a whole post on the issue recently.  And their reliance on the 1982 [1993]Hickel case that said everything within a Borough boundary is SEI.  I think that declaration made sense when it was made, but there is reason to update that thinking now.  I'll try to make that case this weekend.  

But I think this is a pivotal point that the Board is relying on.  

5.  What I heard the last three days on Skagway

I heard the Skagway side produce a pile of evidence for Skagway being in the downtown Juneau district and for not splitting the Mendenhall Valley.  

• All the public testimony favored it
• The SEI between Skagway and Juneau makes keeping that linkage intact critical for Skagway, but also is very beneficial for downtown Juneau.  
• There was no evidence that anyone besides Budd Simpson favors his changes.
• Sealaska, the SE Alaska's biggest Native Corporation favored Skagway being in downtown Juneau's district.   They ok'd Simpson's realignment when he asked them to.  Oh yeah, he's been their attorney for 40 years. 
• Simpson ignored public testimony because he'd already made up his mind
• Given that testimony and the lack of a compelling reason for the Board's map of D3 and D4, Brena has offered the Simpson family's strong desire for the Juneau-Skagway road as a motive for the rejiggering of Skagway and Juneau districts
• Simpson was appointed to the board because he was a Republican.  That's just dangling there, but I did a post about how blatantly partisan the GOP picks were even though the Constitution says  "Appointments shall be made without regard to political affiliation."   Brena has done anything with that other than raise it, but I expect to see it in his closing argument.  

The Board's arguments were basically

• It meets the other criteria so it's legal
• "It's not a popularity contest"
• SEI is the same inside a borough, so we don't care if people wanted it the other way*
• Making the districts more compact
• Skagway is to the north, so it makes sense to connect them with the north of Juneau

*really, I'm not be snarky here.  This truly reflects Simpson's tone for most of his testimony.  He gave a treasure trove of examples on how to avoid answering a direct yes-no question. I'm thinking about doing a post on that one day.  And it's true that the other side had people who did the same thing.  But there was a difference.  The Skagway folks were trying to explain the nuances that a simple yes or no wouldn't reveal.  Simpson was not doing that.  He was trying to avoid revealing anything that might hurt his case.  That's a big difference.  

There is no slam dunk here.  The Board's district isn't a technical violation of the criteria, even if the evidence is that switching Skagway, Haines, and Gustavus back into downtown Juneau is a better choice and won't have a ripple affect on other districts.  Will Brena's pile of evidence be enough to give the judge enough to legally justify overturning the Board's map of districts 3 and 4?  

After the witness was dismissed, the attorneys wrangled over which exhibits could be entered into the record and which couldn't. 

They also continued a discussion about whether Calista attorney Schecter's offer of a program that would allow the judge (and each other) to overlay maps so they could see differences, say between ANCSA lines and new district lines.  Or school district lines, and other variables.  It was presented as a way to make it much easier to compare maps than looking from one to the other. 

Only attorney Brena balked at this.  He argued that the tool wasn't neutral as the others claimed, that, for example, it was biased by what information was in the maps.  The others countered they are only maps that have already been entered into the case. 

As someone who grew up with Marshall McLuhan's "the medium is the message" I'm sympathetic to Brena's position.  

In the end the judge ruled that since they had decided to keep out interactive evidence such as the Auto-Bound software the Board used to map - because it was dynamic and you couldn't save the record for the appellate court - he was going to say no because the group didn't agree unanimously.  He acknowledged that this tool wasn't interactive in the same way, but he wanted to leave a clear record for the Supreme Court.  After the ruling, if I caught it right, Brena offered to see if his expert could supply their information.  

If I understand this correctly, the attorneys have until February 9 to get their Findings of Fact and Findings of Law.  Closing arguments will be on February 11.  

Looking at Judge Matthews' Youtube channel I see there is a hearing set for Monday, Feb 7.  I have to admit I gave myself a bit of a break while they were talking about exhibits so if they said anything about the Monday hearing, I missed it.  

Alaska Redistricting Trial Day 10 - Budd Simpson On The Hot Seat

[Beware of typos.  Read at your own risk.  Too tired to clean this up anymore now.]

There is just sooo much to look at today.  More than I have time for.  So today I'm going to try to outline the key areas that attorney Robin Brena tried to make.  

But first, my conclusion based on all the testimony of Simpson, Skagway Mayor Cremata, City Manager Ryan, and business owner Wrentmore.  The Doyon Map and the Senate Minority Map did as well.  The AFFER and AFFR maps did not - the AFFR map treated SE very differently puttSkagway with all the SE Islands down to the Canadian border and up the coast including Yakutat.

Judge Matthews (r),Brena (l) Simpson below

In all day yesterday and today there were lots of reasons - mainly the close ties between Skagway and downtown Juneau over many, many things from cruise line issues to that's where Skagway does all its business.  

There were no compelling reasons given for drawing the map the way Simpson drew it except to make it compact and to get the right number of people in the two districts because Juneau doesn't have enough people for two districts.  On redirect Simpson didn't dispute that it could work just as well  with the Skagway people in downtown and the Valley joined together.  He didn't deny that the overwhelming testimony was to keep Skagway in downtown and to keep the Valley together.  Singer, the board's attorney, to counter the public testimony asked, " Is redistricting a popularity contest?"  

Not sure if the judge can find a constitutional hook to overturn this pairing, but it really seemed that no one, except Simpson and the Board, are opposed to Skagway being with downtown Juneau and the Mendenhall Valley all together in its own district.  If there is opposition, it didn't come out in the trial.  

Points that Skagway attorney Brena seemed to have on his list.  I'll try to look at some of these in more detail over the weekend, because there  is a rich trove of issues.  

1.  Why was Simpson appointed to the Board and his ties to the GOP

In this section Simpson said that Sen. Giessel recommended him to the Governor and "she knew I was a Republican in SE and was interested in geographic diversity and knew me well enough to think I might be ok."  I've pointed out in a previous post that the Alaska Constitution says 

 "Appointments shall be made without regard to political affiliation."

  So already we have a constitutional violation if he was picked because he was a Republican.  Some discussion of holding GOP fundraisers and donating money to the party and to GOP candidates.  His wife very much a member of the party.  

2.  Simpson's connections to and knowledge about Skagway.

Partly this continues some of the political ties from #1.  Simpson hasn't spent a lot of time in Skagway.  Overnighted there once in the 1980s on Alcan trip.  More recently he stayed in a lodge outside of Skagway because he won an overnight  there at a political fundraiser.  They have a cabin near Haines so they spend more much more time there

3.  Sealaska is Simpson's biggest client

He's represented them for 40 years.  Brena pointed out that the district lines are closely to Sealaska boundaries in SE.  When pushed by Brena for how much they pay him, he said, "It's nobody's business."  Judge Matthews intervened and asked, Would it be accurate to say in the six figures?  Simpson said yes.  Brena asked, "Seven figures?"  Simpson said no.  

Brena also pointed out that Sealaska was part of the Doyon Coalition and their map had Skagway with downtown Juneau.  Did you get Sealaska's sign off to do it differently?  The gist was if he didn't get their signature, he did get their approval to change it.  

4.  A road from Juneau to Skagway

Brena spent some time on the fact that Simpson's wife had started a group that was pushing a road to Skagway.  He showed a Must Read Alaska column on the road.  [When I looked for the link to that article I saw there was a new article today "Redistricting sexism: Lawyer Robin Brena attacks wife of redistricting member because she favored Juneau Access Project."  Does that mean criticizing a woman is sexism?]

Brena got Simpson to say he agreed with the idea that a road is needed.  Brena asked Simpson if he could imagine why people might oppose the road and he said he couldn't.  

Then Brena walked him through a long explanation of how the road from Skagway to the Yukon put the freight business of the Skagway Railroad out of business and the people of Skagway know that a road from Juneau to Skagway would turn Skagway into a truck stop.  They were spending a lot of money building new port facilities to accommodate larger cruise ships but the road could ruin it all.  

The Skagway witness buttressed this when it was their turn.  Business woman (and sometime lobbyist) from Skagway added more to this argument.  She, as others had said, emphasized the need for a legislator who would understand Skagway's issues and downtown Juneau folks work with Skagway folks very closely on cruise line issues and many, many other issues.  But the people in residential Mendenhall Valley really are not connected with Skagway.  She gave an example of a Skagway issue she raised with another legislator in Juneau.  He was very sympathetic to her concern, but said she wasn't in his district.  Unless he got permission from her rep, he couldn't support her.  It was a courtesy among legislators.  So, if people continued pushing for a road to Skagway, and people in Mendenhall Valley thought, oh that would be nice, their rep would represent their interest and not the interests of the tiny fraction of his district in Skagway.  

5.  Testimony from Skagway and Juneau supported overwhelmingly keeping Skagway with downtown Juneau and not splitting up the Mendenhall Valley

Brena went through Simpson's handwritten notes person by person and got Simpson to confirm  all the Skagway people wanted Skagway and downtown in one districts.  All but one.  That one was Kathy Hosford.  Remember the lodge they stayed at outside of Skagway?  She owns it.  She's also the Republican District 3 chair.  And Simpson allowed that he may have already known her, that she may have been to his house, but he didn't remember for sure.  

Brena  went through Simpson's notes again on the Juneau public hearing.  Simpson allowed that those who spoke to Skagway wanted it with downtown.  Others didn't want to split the Valley (which has the same effect of putting Skagway with downtown, since the 4000 or so voters from the Valley put with downtown could be traded for about that number from Skagway, Haines, and Gustavus.

The Board's attorney's response to this when he questioned Simpson was, "Is redistricting a popularity contest?"  Can you get more cynical than that?  

6.  Why draw the line here?  

Some time was spent with Brena showing Simpson's line splitting Juneau and another line that would have split it at Sunny Point or at Fred Meyer.  Simpson didn't disagree that that could work too and keep Skagway with downtown.  He just said he started in Juneau south until he needed more people (Juneau is about 1.5 districts in population).  Brena pointed out that instead of splitting the Valley, he could move the white line (Simpson's D3/D4 split) to Fred Meyer (orange line) and add the Skagway group (Haines and Gustavus) into downtown Juneau and it would be even.  Simpson didn't disagree. (Which is as close to a yes as he came many times.)  

Another reason Simpson gave, when questioned by the Board's lawyer, was that Skagway was closer to Auke Bay than to downtown Juneau.  And when they looked at what he called the donut district (which put Skagway with downtown, by surrounding the valley with that other district, he complained it wasn't compact and - listen carefully - he said 

"[it's barely contiguous.  Northenr to Southern part almost has no people in it.  It’s basically a fiction."

I point this logic out because he and Marcum and Binkley say the opposite about compactness and contiguity when they defend the pairing of the Eagle River districts with south Muldoon and Government Hill.  

7.  Differences with Borromeo on Juneau maps

Brena began this session by asking if different Board members were given deference in decisions for the areas they were most familiar with.  Simpson agreed that they did that, and they did that with him and Southeast.  

When Brena first asked Simpson about the disagreement he had with member Borromeo over the Juneau districting, Simpson said there was no disagreement.  She merely made another map just as an exercise.  

But Brena went back to transcripts of the Board meeting.  It was clearly more than an exercise.  Borromeo wanted to know why it was different from the Doyon map.  Why he drew it that way even though the overwhelming testimony from Juneau and Skagway was against it.

In the end Borromeo says this givers her pause because of the Doyon maps. She also says she's heard from the Juneau residents (doesn't mention Skagway) and knows that the Juneau residents will be well represented, so she defers to Simpson.  

8.  Brena Continues Search For Conflict of Interest Waiver for Singer

I've mentioned before that Brena asked Board Chair Binkley if he had been aware, when they were moving Cantwell out of Denali Borough to be with other Ahtna villages in District 36, whether he knew that Board attorney Singer was representing Ahtna in two cases pending before the Alaska Supreme Court.  He said he didn't.  Singer said this was all taken care of and the letters sent in.  But Brena pointed out that it still hasn't been produced.  And they have a letter that there is another letter about conflicts that the Board never signed saying they were aware.  Singer led Simpson through questions which basically said it doesn't matter.  They didn't know that Ahtna would be involved.

Not sure this is related specifically to the Skagway case, but it did come up

10.  Why did Simpson make these pairings? 

Simpson never answered the question about all the testimony being for Skagway being with downtown Juneau and the Mendenhall Valley not split.  The only answers were vague comments about numbers, compactness, and contiguity.  And they also mentioned it didn't matter which part of Juneau Skagway was paired with because everything in a Borough is socio-economically integrated. Therefore, if Skagway was socio economically paired with downtown, then they were socio-economically paired with Mendenhall Valley.  

Those are are technical reasons, but not any more true than pairing Skagway with downtown.  

So why do what everyone was opposed to them doing?  Simpson didn't give a real answer to that.  I'm guessing that Brena's brining up the road from Juneau to Skagway was an innuendo of why.  And his mention of Kathy Hosford as the only person testifying for putting Skagway in the Mendenhall Valley was another oblique hint for the judge, suggesting some personal ties there.  

OK, It's 10pm Anchorage time and I've been at this since 9 am Anchorage time.  This will have to do.  

I did include my rough notes of the today's court session.  Simpson and Brena speak slower than most of the others so I was able to catch more.  But still, this is not verbatim and things are missing.  It's just to have a sense of what they talked about.

ARB Trial Day 10 Feb 3, 2022 by Steve on Scribd

Trial Day 9: Skagway Explains Their Close SEI With Downtown Juneau

Judge Matthews, Mayor Cremata, Attorney Brena

The judge hadn't ruled on the East Anchorage petition and said he'd do so today.  It's now up and he's denied the East Anchorage amendments, but with some wiggle room.

We're onto the Skagway case now.  They don't like that their house district pairs them with the Mendenhall Valley part of Juneau instead of downtown as they are now in their present district.

We heard the Mayor of Skagway, Andrew Cremata, Brad Ryan, Borough Manager Municipality of Skagway Borough, and John Walsh, lobbyist for Skagway.  

Basically they all made the same argument:

Skagway's interests are very closely tied to downtown Juneau with whom they've shared a district these last ten years.  Those interests are most strongly connected by the fact that the cruise line industry has a huge economic impact on both communities.  Mayor Cremata pointed out that the long term lease of Skagway's port ends in March and Skagway will soon own and control the port.  He emphasized how important it has been to be able to work closely with the port people in Juneau in planning funding for expanding the port and dealing with the infrastructure needs of having so many passengers disembark downtown.  He mentioned they had to build Skagway's first crosswalk. Skagway's all year round population is about 1000 and it triples when a ship comes in.  

In addition to the socio-economic relationship with downtown Juneau because of the port, the witnesses testified that all the services Skagway government, businesses, and citizens use are in downtown Juneau -engineers, doctors, dentists, lawyers, shopping, government offices, and on and on.  

The Board's attorney, Singer, eventually gave up asking about connections the Mendenhall Valley Skagway (and Haines and Gustavus) residents have - hammering on the fact that the ferry terminal is in their new district.  They replied that the terminal is just a stop on the way to Juneau and pointed out that the airport is part of the downtown district.  

His next tack was to keep saying that all of Juneau borough is socio-economically integral because it's all in the same borough.  

It went on and on with examples of what specific things Skagway and downtown Juneau have in common and how little sense it makes to split the Valley in half to put Skagway there instead.  

Skagway is up against the ruling that every place within Borough boundaries is socio-economically integrated.  On the other hand, Skagway is outside the Borough boundaries.  The issue is to convince the judge and then the Supreme Court that they are more SEI with one part of Juneau than the other.  

Judge Matthews at one point asked John Walsh, the lobbyist, if the downtown Juneau legislator was already an enthusiastic supporter of Skagway's interest, wouldn't it be better to have two legislators instead of just one.  

Skagway lobbyist Walsh and
Board Attorney Singer on right

Walsh said that it was a presumption the Valley legislator would work hard for Skagway's interests, but it might work out.  If not they would have to find support elsewhere, like Ketchikan (also a cruise line port of call.) He was worried a Mendhall legislator would have maritime interests and wouldn't have the urgency a committed legislator would have.

Then Matthews followed up asking if the Mendenhall legislator would be opposed to Skagway's interests or just less interested in them?  The latter, was the response

Skagway's argument is similar to Valdez' argument that being paired with downtown means they have more clout in the legislature.  Except in the Valdez case, they didn't just argue they'd have more clout with communities along the pipeline corridor.  They also showed that they were actually in competition with Mat-Su on some very significant issues.  

While Skagway said a Mendenhall Valley rep wouldn't know their issues as well and thus wouldn't represent them as well, they didn't show any actual competing interests with the Valley.  I'd note that Brena is the attorney for Valdez and for Skagway.  

Singer, the Board's attorney, might point out that in the Valdez case, they argued that the Valdez port was in competition with the Mat-Su port, but in this case he's saying both having ports gives them a common interest.  I imagine Brena's response would be that it's a very different situation.  Mat-Su would be competing for the cargo shipping to the interior that Valdez currently has, and can put that cargo on a train rather than the road.  

But in the case of Skagway and Juneau, they are on the same cruise ship tour route so they aren't in competition.  They can work together as Alaskan ports for better port management and to learn from each other.  What wasn't mentioned was teaming up to get better terms from the cruise lines.  

Though no one made that argument and my suspicion is they are all very cosy with the cruise lines and that Skagway is making enough revenue from the cruises they are willing to give up the small town quaintness that makes Skagway a good place to live (and for cruise lines.)  While the mayor talked about all the impacts of the cruise line passengers - need for more infrastructure to handle them, more police, more fire fighters, more roads, more health care, more housing - he didn't say anything negative about that kind of growth. Only that they needed to work with Juneau to learn how to handle it.  

Tomorrow Board member Budd Simpson will be testifying.  He's from Juneau and drew the map.  Brena said he'll need a lot of time with Simpson.  

Board Attorney Singer Still Obstructing, Still Playing Victim

The attorneys in the Calista case decided not to cross* the Board members today, so there were no witnesses.  Instead the court went directly to the dispute between the East Anchorage plaintiffs and the Board.  And they were done before noon again. 

*or maybe it was redirect, it's hard to keep track in this case were direct was taken in documents.

The debate was reminiscent of most of the pre-trial hearings.  Plaintiffs complaining that the Board's attorney, Matt Singer, was holding up information they needed and Singer talking about attorney-client privilege, or saying he's doing things as fast as he can, or it's someone else's fault - like the transcription company for not having the November Board meeting transcripts ready yet.  

I went away scratching my head.  I've been avoiding writing anything all day because I'm conflicted between yelling and screaming what I think and trying to say what I'm thinking in a serious objective sounding voice.  And I'm never 100% certain I'm right.  

Actually, I think trying to present a reasoned, logical approach when one side is being unreasonable is not really an objective approach.  It's biased by some presumed journalistic or academic belief that one has to pretend to be 'professional' and ends up making the unreasonable person seem more reasonable.  Four years of reporting on Trump should have taught everyone that.    

On top of this, there has been a pause in posting the trial documents online.  The last document posted was dated January 20.  I got an email reply today from the clerk saying they should be up by this evening.  Well, they were today, earlier rather than later..  But now there's fifty or sixty - not going to try to count- new documents. [I went back and counted.  I guessed pretty well.  I counted 59 new documents since 1/20/22] The ones I've been most interested in seeing were Holly Wells' request which we've been hearing about to be able to use data that the Board only recently released and the Board's response that it shouldn't be released.  

Let's stop here and look back at what I posted on January 19, two days before the trial began:

"Observation:  It's gotten clearer and clearer that the Board's attorney's strategy has been to keep the plaintiffs from getting the information that they need.  The plaintiffs have been asking for these emails for a month now and when they are finally delivered to the judge the Supreme Court puts a stay on them."

"These emails"  in the quote are the many emails of the Board members and staff.  The Board's attorney claimed attorney-client privilege protected many of them, so his office had to go through the tens of thousands of pages to determine which were protected and which could be released.

The other attorneys protested that 

• this would take much to long and
• how would they know he had properly determined which should be protected

They wanted Singer to turn them over to the judge and let him evaluate them.  There was a motion to that effect.  Singer opposed it.  The judge finally ruled in favor of releasing the emails for the judge's review.  Singer asked the judge for a stay until Singer could appeal to the Supreme Court.  Judge Matthews did not grant the stay.  Singer asked the Supreme Court for a stay, which he got.  But then the next day the Supreme Court vacated the stay and upheld Judge Matthews decision.  

But that meant that Holly Wells and the Anchorage plaintiffs had already had their day in court (Friday January 21) before the judge had a chance to even start looking at the emails, let alone release the approved ones for attorneys to look at for things that would be useful to their case.  

Singer has a set of stock excuses.  

• And now at the last minute
• Just before the trial is about to begin
• They could have done this long ago and only do now they . . .

Today we heard:

"I’ve been accused about everything but being mean to puppies.  Counsel wants to make this about the board’s attorney, not the Board.  ... come in after case is concluded and makes false accusations based on counsel's mistakes.  No new information, no new data."

Wells' motion, which I only got access to today, cites documents and data sheets about race the Board seems to have had all along,  

"Shortly after trial on January 21, 2022, the Board produced email correspondence providing evidence that the Board was considering, or was at least presented with, race data regarding Anchorage districts. Despite receiving this data, the Board did not produce this data or acknowledge the Board’s reliance or even awareness of such data during discovery.4 The data table provided to East Anchorage Plaintiffs from the Board, and relied upon by East Anchorage Plaintiffs’ expert, and the tables contained in Exhibits 1013 and 1014 indicate that a unified Muldoon senate district would have a minority voting age population of 49.31 percent, just under the threshold for a majority minority district. The Board’s Exhibit 1007, however, resulted in a minority “Voting Age Population” of 51.28 percent."

I couldn't make out clearly from the discussion today or the motions, whether these documents had important information or not.  But note, that Wells' didn't even get this information until after her 'day' in court.  [She did reserve the right to raise new points if the documents that had been withheld provide important new evidence and the judge granted that.] Today, when she tried to take advantage of that, Singer, true to form, in his opposing document and in testimony today, fought tooth and nail to block it.

I don't claim to know what was said, what data about the ethnic make up of Anchorage districts were discussed, or how any of that was or wasn't used in deciding the Eagle River Senate pairings.  But I do know that Matt Singer doesn't want Holly Wells to know either.

And I do know that Board Member and attorney Nicole Borromeo, after the Eagle River Senate pairings were passed, publicly stated that they were unconstitutionally paired and also talked about vote dilution among other things.  I posted that four page statement on November 10, 2021.

She also said she couldn't wait to be deposed.  But all we know about her deposition on the East Anchorage case is that Singer told her not to respond numerous because of attorney-client privilege.  

But those statements as well as Board member Melanie Bahnke's suggest things happened in the Executive Session that the public ought to know.  

The Judge said he would decide on Wells' motion later today.  It's 8:30pm in Anchorage now and there is nothing new posted.  The judge has been leaning toward getting more information rather than less for his decision so he can leave as complete a record as possible for the appellate court (that's what he says, but in non-legal jargon it's for the Supreme Court.]  So I suspect he'll say yes, but nothing is certain.  When they were talking about scheduling the rest of the trial days, Wells did request time on Saturday if the judge approves her request for an amended. [I just got to see these documents today. The first was titled:

"MOTION TO AMEND APPLICATION TO EXPAND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIM TO INCLUDE DILUTION BASED UPON RACE DUE TO NEWLY-DISCOVERED INFORMATION"

The second is an amended version of the first one.  

Valdez attorney Brena raised another point today, alerting the judge he was filing a motion relating to Singer's letter about conflicts of interest.   

This came up because Brena had questioned Board chair Binkley about the decision to move Cantwell into D36 so that all the Ahtna communities would be in one district.  When you were advised by your attorney on this, "did you know that he represents Ahtna in two cases that are currently before the Alaska Supreme Court?"  Binkley said he wasn't aware of that.  In redirect Singer revealed that his firm had sent a Conflict of Interest disclosure letter when they were chosen to represent the Board.

Brena apparently asked to see the letter and now there was some confusion if there even was such a letter.  Singer, it seems from the conversation had told the plaintiffs attorneys it was in the emails and to just look for it.  Stone, Mat-Su's attorney, said they had gotten a bunch of individual emails so you couldn't search the whole file.  The judge put it back on Singer to have someone in his firm at least find the date of the email because they have them searchable. [See why it's so hard to write these?  There's trivia and a bit of meat mixed in.  I'm trying to get something out before trial starts again tomorrow.  

Brena had clearly gotten under Singer's skin with this.  He responded:

"This is manufactured nonsense.  Trying to make it about me.  My representation about unrelated matters.  Nonsense."

Matthews:  You questioned your own witness about conflict letter.  Only to convey to court, we understand 1.7 conflict with Ahtna and don’t have such a letter.  He can ask. 

Matthews:  You answered first question about whether there is a letter.   

Singer:  My firm has relations with Calista.  We have conflict letters.  My client relationships were discussed with the Board at my interview.  Not obligation in the middle of the case  [to disclose] on an unrelated [matter.]  

As you can see, there are missing words, which is one reason I've been reluctant to post my notes.  

But first he said there was a Rule 1.7 Letter.   Now he's saying it was disclosed in the interview (which wasn't open to the public.)

Brena kept up on this a bit and then Singer said:

"Mr. Binkley was informed, it just wasn’t important to him.  I’ve been accused about everything possible."

Do we hear a hint here that Singer is frustrated with Chair Binkley? 

It was at this point that Brena followed up on Singer's earlier comment on puppies,  

"I don’t know how you treated your dog.  But I'm sure you’re a good dog owner."

At that point Judge Matthews intervened 

"I recognize this puts a strain on everyone.  Nerves get frayed and it's easy to make accusations.  But as professionals you treat each other with courtesy and try to make the about the issues, not about clients [I thought he said each other but my note says clients.]  [But, of course, when] appropriate to your clients' rights and then appropriate."  

In Singer's behalf, and I've mentioned this before, he's got five plaintiffs - some of whom have more than one attorney's sitting in - and five cases that he's defending against.  Sort of like one chess player playing five simultaneous games.  The plaintiffs only have to worry about their own cases, but they get to listen in and ask questions of other people's witnesses.  It can't be easy.  

It makes me think of long ago when I played on the Econ Department's softball team - The Invisible Hand.  One player would regularly get called out and he'd jump up and down and yell at the ump and make a big spectacle before coming back to the bench.  Back with his team he'd smile and admit he'd been out by a mile.  

Singer reminds me of that guy.  This is a game about winning and losing.  It will go on his win-loss record and he's going to pull out all the tricks he knows.  In this case, apparently the evidence isn't in his favor, so he's doing his best to block access.  I understand that attorneys are obligated to do all they can to win for their client.  But his client is not going to go to jail if they lose this case.  At worst they're going to be required to make some changes on the maps and they'll have to have more meetings.  

Wells, on the other hand, seems like she's really fighting for what she sees as an injustice.  She's not calling Singer names, though she has called out his tactics and even questioned whether he was he was being straight with her over whether things exist or not.  She stays on track citing the law and facts and doesn't make expansive claims.  

Brena is probably closer to Singer's style, but he's a lot smoother.  When he throws a curve ball, he keeps a straight face and even tone of voice.  

I do also want to say that I'm impressed the way Singer's partner Lee Baxter questions witnesses.  He's quiet and respectful and sounds genuinely concerned about the welfare of the witness and the truth. 

Sorry this rambles a bit.  Am I biased against Singer's clients?  I did follow the Board's activities from early on.  I had cordial contacts with the staff and most of the Board members.  And I'd point out that two of the Board members argued Wells' case at the Board meeting right after the Senate pairings.  But my comments about attorney strategy and demeanor are based solely on what I've seen in the pre-trial and the trial.  Just my impression.  

 

Day 7 AK Redistricting Trial: Calista Challenging Board's Maps So They Can Control A Senate Seat

[The title is more provocative than normal here, but this was said very clearly yesterday and today in the trial.  Read on.]

What are findings of fact and conclusions of law and what is their purpose?

Findings of fact take the place of a jury’s verdict and provide the factual framework for the court’s judgment. In cases tried without a jury, findings of fact delineate the facts that support the judgment. As they are often described, findings of fact in a bench trial have the “same force and dignity” as a jury’s answers to jury questions. . . . Conclusions of law, as the name suggests, identify the legal basis for the judgment based on the facts found.  From "How To Draft Good Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law"

Court started with 'housekeeping' items, a key one was when findings of facts and conclusions of law would be due to Judge Matthews.  February 9.  Closing arguments will be February 11.  

Then there was testimony from Calista witnesses:  Harvey Sundown and Myron Naneng, plaintiffs in this case.  They testified from Scammon Bay and Bethel respectively.  Testimony for the two was less than an hour including technical difficulties hooking up and getting unmuted.  We learned that all the villages in the area are closely linked to Bethel, all speak Central Yup'ik, and basketball is big.  For the nearby villages the families and players go by snow machine, if further, the players fly.  

From what I could tell the Board's attorney was just trying to establish that all the villages are socio-economically integrated.  Calista is trying to switch three villages into the Bethel district  (38) and three out of 38 and into D37.  Speciically tthat Scammon Bay, Hooper Bay, and Chevak be included in District 38 and that Kwigillingok, Kongiganak, and Quinhagak be included in District 37.

The reason for all this didn't become clear until Randy Ruedrich was on the stand.  Eventually was clearly stated that the goal was to increase the percentage of Calista shareholders in District 37 so that Calista would have more power to elect (between the two house districts) the Senator of their choice.  Ruedrich was clear that while Calista has enough population for 1.5 districts, they are spread over three districts.  The Calista map Ruedrich made gave Calista 10% of D37 while the Board's map only made the 1% of the district.  

Singer pointed out that Sen. Hoffman is the longest serving Senator in Alaska history and won his last election with 90% of the vote.  Ruedrich countered with what Andrew Guy had said Friday, that Hoffman wasn't going to be the Senator forever.  He added that once a well know and popular incumbent is gone, it's risky and no telling what will happen.

Singer pursued other parts of the AFFER map for Alaska trying to point out that it would have ripple effects all over the state map.  

Ruedrich was on the longest - over an hour I think - [I used PT when I started because that's what my computer is on, but I think I switched to Alaska time part way into the hearing].  

The final witness was Thomas Leonard, Calista Corporate Communications and Shareholder Services.  His questioning didn't last more than five minutes. 

I'd recommend a look at the Calista website. It's much more focused on corporate business than culture and history found on the Doyon and Ahtna websites I linked to the other day.  

Today they clearly said what I've been thinking about for several weeks now:  what does it mean to have a corporate district?  I don't know, just asking the question.  Clearly, Native Corporations have social obligations to their people, but they are also large for profit corporations that are driven also by the need to make profits for their shareholders - for dividends and for social services.  

How would people react if Exxon wanted its own district?  Well, that's a silly question since they have their own Senators without needing to bother with elections - just the elimination of caps on campaign contributions.  Calista's website strongly supports building the Donlin Gold mine.

“Calista Corporation’s priority is supporting Shareholders by protecting our land, our traditional way of life and promoting economic opportunities that benefit our people. We support the Donlin Gold Project because strict environmental oversight, good-paying jobs and affordable energy brought by the project will allow us to grow healthy communities.”

Robert Beans, Calista Corp. Board Chair

I don't want to second guess Calista's corporate leaders.  I know they believe that they have the best interests of their people in mind.  But the promise of huge wealth often makes it easier to overlook the damage that acquiring it causes.  It's a human failing world wide.  So far the fear of of the impact on salmon has kept Pebble Mine at bay, but backers haven't given up. I listened to their engineers who said they'd learned from previous mining failures.  But I know before those previous mining failures happened, there were engineers who had said the same thing about those mines that came before them.  Canadian mining doesn't have a great environmental record.  

I'm excited that Alaska Natives are gaining more power and control over their lands. I think that's a good thing.  My concerns are the same I have for any large for profit corporation.  I know that requiring Alaska Natives to become capitalists meant requiring them to acquire a way of seeing the world that is antithetical to traditional native culture.  I'm sure Andrew Guy could tell me why I'm wrong. And he might have a good balance of values.  But the corporations pushing the Donlin mine don't.  

And given what I wrote yesterday about Valdez' case, aligning socio-economically integrated populations into districts so they can elect legislators who will strongly support their interests is why that criterion is in the Constitution.  Valdez' complaint was that Mat-Su would own their Legislator, not Valdez.  

Redistricting Board members will be on the stand tomorrow.     

Follow Up Making Sense of Redistricting Trial Post - "Socio-Economic Integration"

[NOTE:  This post is trying to dig a little deeper into the meaning and purpose of the redistricting criterion of 'socio-economically integrated.'  That takes me to some of the testimony on what SEI means, the Hickel decision, what Boroughs are.  It's a little behind the scenes of the trial.  And I'm rushing it out because tomorrow starts another day in court.  So excuse the typos and other errors and just focus on the basic points.  Thanks.]

 In Thursday's post, there were some issues I raised but didn't say much about at the time, but promised  I'd address them soon. Two - 

• 4000 pop exchange between Fairbanks and Valdez into 36
• Importance of hearing the wishes of Alaska Natives and understanding the cultures relationships, and differences 

I discussed a little further in the previous post on the four districts and two district clusters and how they're all intertwined.  

That leaves three more and I think the one on Socio-Economic Integration (SEI) is the most important given that that criterion is the hardest to prove, yet every one of the cases is based at least partially on it and the Valdez/Ma-Su cases are based heavily on it.  

Here's how I left it in the Thursday post:

Bahnke pretty much tells us that SEI (Socio-Economic Integration) is in the eye of the beholder - SEI has been used to support and to challenge districting decisions by just about every party so far.  SEI is one of the Constitutional requirements for districts in Alaska.  One Supreme Court ruling concluded that everyone within a Borough boundary can be considered SEI.  That seems like a pretty broad conclusion.  The Fairview neighborhood (with a high level of diversity and relatively low income) is socio-economically integrated with the much whiter and wealthier hillside or other south Anchorage neighborhoods?   I don't think that's true. 

So, does that mean my interpretation of SEI is wrong?  Is merely different from the Supreme Court's?  Or that the decision of the court which is now 30 years old, is ready for a fresh look?  

First, what did Melanie Bahnke say on Thursday.  From my very imperfect notes.  The Board's attorney, Matt Singer, is following up on the questions from the previous attorney, Tanner Amdur-Clark (who is intervening on behalf of the Board) who had asked Bahnke the difference between issues that were statewide issues (ie everyone in Alaska no matter where they lived would agree on) such as salmon, by-catch, oil revenues, and whether these would count as SEI since everyone in Alaska would agree.  [That in itself is a big assumption.] And it by-passes the fact that Valdez' oil concerns are different from Mat-Su's.  But Bahnke agrees there are issues that are too generally held by most Alaskans to be used to assess SEI connections for redistricting.   Then we get this  

Bahnke: It was all relative to the part of the state we were looking at, do best we could without doing harm to other places.  May not live together, but live similarly.  Urban/rural;  subsistence, REAA [Regional Educational Attendance Area]  school district, cultures, customs, traditions.  Many factors going into this,  Short hand is live, work, and play together, but many factors that go into this.  

Singer:  Is it possible to come up with a utopian plan where everyone is in equal districts where everyone is happy?   

Since the definition of utopian is 

"having impossibly ideal conditions especially of social organization"

the answer to this question is clearly a 'No' and that's what Bahnke gives him. 

Bahnke:  No, we’re the biggest state geographically."

I'm not faulting Bahnke here.  In fact her answer is refreshingly candid.  While the attorneys kept asking "Do the people in X live, work, and play with the people in Y?"  Bahnke tells us that it's more complicated than that.  And as it gets more complicated and there isn't much guidance, then it sounds like it boils down to the opinions of the Board members.  

But it points out the problem of taking such vague concepts and trying to apply them.  Is there a better definition?

Attorneys refer frequently to The Hickel Decision in the trial.  When it comes to SEI we learned early in the redistricting process that the Hickel Decision says that inside a Borough, everyone is socio-economically integrated.  So I thought I should pull out that language from that case in 1992. [However this comes from a later case.]

From Justia Law - 2001 (Alaska) Redistricting Cases footnote 8

"[8] See In re 2001 Redistricting Cases, 44 P.3d at 146 ("Anchorage is by definition socio-economically integrated."); see also Hickel v. Southeast Conference, 846 P.2d 38, 52 (Alaska 1992) ("[A] borough is by definition socio-economically integrated."); id. at 51 (quoting AS 29.05.031) ("By statute, a borough must have a population which `is interrelated and integrated as to its social, cultural, and economic activities.'")."

Let's backtrack a bit further to that statue about Boroughs:

"Section 29.05.031 - Incorporation of a borough or unified municipality

(a) An area that meets the following standards may incorporate as a home rule, first class, or second class borough, or as a unified municipality:

(1) the population of the area is interrelated and integrated as to its social, cultural, and economic activities, and is large and stable enough to support borough government;" 

This probably was true when Alaska established boroughs, but how long ago was that?  I did find  a document from the Local Boundary Commission  that suggests it was 1961:

To ostensibly carry out the constitutional mandate that the entire state be divided into boroughs, organized or unorganized, the 1961 Legislature enacted a law providing that all areas not within the boundaries of an organized borough constitute a single unorganized borough. (AS 29.03.010)

In 1960, the population was just over 200,000.  I would imagine that the writers of the Constitution envisioned that the interests of various boroughs were relatively unified.  Though I suspect they weren't taking in to account of the  interests of Alaska Native groups within the state.

In fact, that Local Boundary Commission (LBC) document which was written in 2004  raises this very question about the unorganized borough area in Alaska in a footnote.

"Most recently, the LBC recently expressed the view that the 1961 law creating the single residual unorganized borough, “disregarded the constitutional requirement that each borough must embrace an area of common interests.” , Local Boundary Commission and Department of Education and Early Development, School Consolidation: Public Policy Considerations and a Review of Opportunities for Consolidation, February 2004, p. 30."

They are saying the areas of Alaska in the unorganized borough did NOT have common interests.  

I dare say that most Alaskans who don't work with local governments have only the haziest notion of Boroughs.  Maybe they know 'it's like a county in other states.'  I myself wasn't sure how many boroughs Alaska has.  I did find this list and this map in a Local Government Primer put out by the Alaska Municipal League (can't find the date):  [The format is different in the original]

Alaska has 18 organized boroughs and a single unorganized borough. The organized boroughs are:

1. Aleutians East Borough
2. Bristol Bay Borough
3. City & Borough of Juneau 

4. City & Borough of Sitka
5. City & Borough of Wrangell

 6. City & Borough of Yakutat

7. Denali Borough
8. Fairbanks North Star Borough 9. Haines Borough

10. Kenai Peninsula Borough 

11. Ketchikan Gateway Borough 

12. Kodiak Island Borough

13. Lake & Peninsula Borough 

14. Matanuska-Susitna Borough 

15. Municipality of Anchorage 

16. Municipality of Skagway

17. North Slope Borough

18. Northwest Arctic Borough 19. Petersburg Borough

Source: DCCED

 

I'd note on January 26, Amdur-Clark asked Valdez expert witness Brace about whether he thought Valdez was in a Borough. Perhaps the Chugach Borough? (He and others also asked about whether you could drive from Cordova to Valdez - presumably to prove they weren't connected - and no one ever brought up the fact that while there is no road, the marine highway connects them, so technically, you can take your car from Cordova to Valdez.  That's a side issue but it does show the attorneys asking misleading questions.)

The point Amdur-Clark was suggestion, I'm guessing, is that perhaps Mat-Su going to Valdez was not breaking a borough boundary.  Or maybe that Cordova and Valdez are not in the same Borough. Or in any borough?  Or he was just setting Brace up for an Alaska gotcha.  From the map above, it does appear that Cordova and Valdez are in the unorganized Borough.  Brace responded that on the census maps they are in a borough.  Wikipedia says:

"Valdez–Cordova Census Area was a census area located in the state of Alaska, United States.[3] As of the 2010 census, the population was 9,636.[4] It was part of the Unorganized Borough and therefore has no borough seat. On January 2, 2019, it was abolished and replaced by the Chugach Census Area and the Copper River Census Area"

But back to my point about SEI and Boroughs.  Let's look at what the Supreme Court has said in more detail: 

From Hickel v Southeast Council 1992

"3. Socio-economic Integration.

In addition to preventing gerrymandering, the requirement that districts be composed of relatively integrated socio-economic areas helps to ensure that a voter is not denied his or her right to an equally powerful vote. 

[W]e should not lose sight of the fundamental principle involved in reapportionment truly representative government where the interests of the people are reflected in their elected legislators. Inherent in the concept of geographical legislative districts is a recognition that areas of a state differ economically, socially and culturally and that a truly representative government exists only when those areas of the state which share significant common interests are able to elect legislators representing those interests. Thus, the goal of reapportionment should not only be to achieve numerical equality but also to assure representation of those areas of the state having common interests."  [emphasis added]

 This was my point when I said (yesterday) that the most persuasive SEI argument that I've heard is from Valdez.  They point out that their interests in oil are different from Mat-Su's interest in oil.  Board members have argued this is a common interest between the two communities that have been put in the same district.  They say "Valdez has the pipeline and Mat-Su has oil workers."  Valdez responds, "Valdez people work on the pipeline and Mat-Su oil workers work on the slope."  Valdez also says that they get over 90% of their revenues from taxes on the pipeline and Mat-Su has other sources of revenue.  And most persuasive to me is that Mat-Su and Valdez are competitors on two major infrastructure projects where they compete for money from the state: on ports and on a competing natural gas pipeline corridors.

That seems to be the point that was being made in the Hickel decision:  

". . . a recognition that areas of a state differ economically, socially and culturally and that a truly representative government exists only when those areas of the state which share significant common interests are able to elect legislators representing those interests."

Valdez' key argument is that they don't share mutual significant common interests.  Most of the other arguments about SEI don't talk about how their interests need unified support from their legislators.  They are more about people feeling a district doesn't represent the neighborhood they self identify with, not how that would hurt them in the legislature.

But Valdez made that argument loud and clear:  If 76% of the voters in their district live in the suburbs of Palmer and Wasilla, then their representative is a) not going to be from Valdez  and b) not going to put Valdez' interests over Mat-Su's interests on key issues.

Truly, I don't have vested interests in Valdez.  I'm just pointing out what I see after all is said and done about socio-economic integration, the most logical arguments I've heard so far come from Valdez.  

There are two left over issues from the Thursday post:  

A lot of communication between the Board and the public was not on the record - Bahnke said that, Simpson said that, Torkelson said that, and we had the text message put on the record yesterday from Amdur-Clark to Borromeo and other emails.  Mostly they said there was just a lot of communication through conversations with the public and between Board members while traveling that ever got recorded.  Partly that's the tension between gathering enough information and documenting it.  For me the test is whether there were communications that were not documented or otherwise publicly acknowledged, that changed the outcome of the maps.  

^Reporting and the relationships you develop with your subjects - Another point I want to save for later, but it particularly relates to someone like me reporting on a governmental body over a long period of time - long enough to develop at least a professional relationship and getting to know people as more than just a role on a Board.  It's particularly apt today because of  my comments about Peter Torkelson.  This one can probably wait until after the trial is over.

I'll address these later.  Probably the last one after this part of the trial is over.   Tomorrow is more Calista.  

Day 6 AK Redistricting Trial: Putting The Puzzle Pieces Together

I've spent over a year now attending on line or in person almost all the Alaska Redistricting Board meetings.  An old overview of the Redistricting project and an index of all my posts is here and also at the AK Redistricting tap under the blog banner up top.  

Today we heard the end of the Valdez case and the beginning of the Calista case. 

• Stephen Colligan, Mat-Su's Redistricting Contractor again
• Sheri Pierce, the Valdez City Clerk on the stand again
• Kimball Brace, the Valdez Redistricting Expert again
• Andrew Guy, President and CEO of Calista, Calista Witness

The first three have all been on the stand before.  This was Guy's first appearance as we move into the Calista part of the trial.  But I'm going to hold off on that until I catch up  with other things.  This post is intended to try to make sense, from a macro view, of what's going on.

The Puzzle Pieces - D36, D29, Mat-Su and Fairbanks pieces

[There are three other areas of complaint (Eagle River senate pairings, Skagway, and Calista villages), but they don't seem to spill over into other areas so much.  So I'm not focusing on them right now.  I'd also note, if there is significant partisan consequences to this fight, I haven't figured that out yet.]

The trial is bringing out some of the things that weren't so obvious in the mapping process we saw.  I'm still trying to make sense of what was going on behind the scenes.  It's sort of like putting a jigsaw puzzle together with two exceptions:

1. All the pieces have to be within 3 or 4% of 18,335 people
2. The images on the pieces aren't that obvious 

Those images on the pieces are only slowly becoming visible - sort of like rubbing a pencil on a paper to get the image of a coin below.  They're showing up as the socio-economic ties that exist among the people in the districts, or at least that mappers claim exist.  

So let me tell you what's becoming clear.  There are two districts (D29 and D39) and two clusters of districts (Mat-Su and Fairbanks) whose population needs and  socio-economic integration claims conflict and are competing for the same territory.  The losers in this competition - Mat-Su and Valdez - have challenged the plan.  

Piece 1:  District 36 - Doyon Trying to Get Doyon and Ahtna Villages All Into One District 

The Doyon Coalition has been part of the redistricting process from early on.  They had a team that was preparing maps of the state well before the Board got the final census numbers in August and they submitted one of the Third Party maps that were adopted by the Board and taken around the state for comments.  

But what was their goal?  Through the testimony it's now clear that the goal was to get all their shareholders - Doyon and Ahtna - into one district.  If I understand this right, these are basically Athabascan villages.  

D36 & surround districts 29, FB, and Mat-Su

This has come out clearly in the testimony.  

D36 is, according to the redistricting expert for Valdez, the largest election district in the United States.  If it were a state it would be about the 8th largest in the US by size.  It goes from Holy Cross on the lower Yukon up and around Fairbanks and then back down the other side with a long straight edge against the Canadian border including Glennallen and the Copper River and the Richardson Highway communities but not Valdez.  And at the end they were able to carve out an arm reaching along the Denali Highway to reach Cantwell which as Michelle Anderson, President of Ahtna, explained has "about 30 shareholders with a Cantwell address." (It was later mentioned that there were more Athabascans in Cantwell, just not Ahtna shareholders.) 

D36 contains 4000 'excess' Fairbanks people, so it's one of the Fairbanks districts in a sense.  The others are circled in white. The Magenta outlines the Mat-Su districts and the Denali Borough, except the Cantwell cutout.  I'd note there were questions like how are Holy Cross and Glennallen socio-economically integrated?  I did notice doing this that Ahtna's headquarters are in Glennallen.  Another fact about this district: despite getting all the Doyon and Ahtna villages in, the population is 30% Native and 70% non-Native.  

Note:  You can see all the districts I write about in this post on the D36 map.

Piece 2:  District 36 - Valdez Cut Off From Traditional District With Richardson Highway Communities Partners Up Toward Fairbanks and/or PWS and now Paired With Palmer-Matsu Suburbs Instead 

This is the piece of the puzzle that doesn't fit according to the Valdez court challenge.  They argue they were the last piece for the Redistricting Board  and forced to fit in ways they argued against but lost.  75% of the population is in the Mat-Su, particularly the suburbs of Wasilla and Palmer.  Valdez has about 4000 people.  A key number in this story.  

In previous decades the Valdez district  had various parts of the Richardson Highway corridor and sometimes were joined with Prince William Sound. But in this map all the Richardson Highway communities were cut out and they have to drive over 100 miles outside the district to get to Palmer and Wasilla on the other side.  I'd note D29-0 (Valdez) is paired with 30-O to form a Senate seat.  30-O is the green district on the left and goes all the way to the edge of Fairbanks.  So after you drive to Palmer, it's another 300 mies or so to the other end of their Senate district.  

Valdez has made the most persuasive (to me) argument about why they are economically (if not socially) integrated with the pipeline corridor and that they are actually in competition with Palmer.  They argue that the port at Point McKenzie is competitive with the Valdez port for state money.  And they have competing natural gas pipeline proposals.  Thus having a Palmer/Wasilla based representative means their interests won't be represented as strongly (if at all) by their rep in Juneau.

Piece 3:  Mat-Su Cluster: Mat-Su Wanted To Keep All Their Districts In Mat-Su and Denali Boroughs - Did Not Want to be paired with Valdez

Mat-Su Borough had enough population for 5.84 districts.  They testified they'd been planning for this for five years.  They knew how to do this.  They said they gave their map to the Board, but it was ignored.   They wanted to be paired with Denali Borough to the north and along the Glenn Highway out to about Glennallen and surrounding communities.  (Can you see where this is going?)

Cantwell was eventually cut out of Denali Borough and  put into D36, though that's only about 200 people.  On the other end, Glennallen and the nearby Ahtna villages along the Glenn Highway also went to D36.  And so Mat-Su got paired with Valdez to fill out their numbers.  

Note:  You can see all of the Mat-Su/Denali/Valdez districts on the D36 map at the top of this post.

Piece 4 - Fairbanks Cluster - Board Chair John Binkley, of Fairbanks, Wanted To Keep All Five Fairbanks Districts Inside The Borough Boundaries Even Though They Were Overpopulated By 4000 People

While Mat-Su gained population, Fairbanks lost population.  They were down to enough population for 5.2 districts.  They had about 4000 people more than five districts.  Remember that number?  According to a few people who testified, Board Chair John Binkley, who was born and raised in Fairbanks and lives there now (though he spent some time in St Mary's and Bethel), didn't want to break the Fairbanks Borough boundaries.  Which meant that the five Fairbanks districts in his original map, were overpopulated.  They all were well over the 18,335 ideal size for a district, but not unconstitutionally over.  But probably too much for an urban area.  That means they would be underrepresented in the House because districts with more people have one rep and other districts with fewer people also have one rep.  Board member Nicole Borromeo and others reported Binkley was firm about this. 

Binkley testified he wanted to keep the Borough intact because, "Would I like to be moved out into a large rural district?"  

So that was the choice he saw.  People in Fairbanks would be taken out of the Borough and put into a large rural district -  D36.  But there were other options.  There had been districts in the past that paired Fairbanks to Valdez along the pipeline corridor. I don't know how much Binkley knew about Doyon's plan to have a district with all the Ahtna and Doyon villages. There was even a text presented in court from a Doyon team member to Board member Borromeo that seemed to show that they'd orchestrated a resolution from the Fairbanks Borough Assembly asking that the 4000 excess votes be moved to another district.  The question was from where in Fairbanks do you take the people?   

So when Fairbanks was broken on the west - causing an uproar from the people of Goldstream who were being moved into D36 - 4000 people went to D36.   Valdez' chances of their own 4000 people being put into  either D36 or a pipeline corridor district with the excess Fairbanks population were dashed.  

Conclusions

From what I can tell, and I'm far from certain, these are some of the consequences.

Athabascan Identity and Pride Was A Winner

Doyon and Ahtna won in the sense that their goal was to get all their villages into one district.  I think they've done that.  The main benefit that I see is symbolic and maybe even spiritual:  their territory, so to speak, is represented in a political subdivision of the State of Alaska. The political map matches the ANCSA (Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act) map.  As Ahtna president Michelle Anderson testified about the people of Cantwell, they don't feel excluded from their people any more.  While white urban folks might see a protuberance jutting into the Denali borough, that clashes with their ideal of district compactness, Athabascans see their brothers and sisters back as part of the family.  It's an important connection that is invisible to most people living in Anchorage.  

One thing that became clear to me in this trial is that most non-Native (particularly urban) Alaskans don't have a clue about rural Native Alaska. Even Judge Matthews had to be corrected on his pronunciation of the the word Calista (A ch sound, not a k sound.)  When most non-Native urban folk look at rural Alaska, we don't see all the differences between languages, dialects, family ties, types of traditional foods, and a myriad more factors that are important to the people urban non-Natives  lump together as "Alaska Natives."   These are similar to the religious, national origin, economic, racial, educational, political differences urban folk see among ourselves. Sometimes these are merely interesting, at other times they are significant.  

In this round of redistricting Alaska's Native peoples have had more input and impact on how Alaska's political maps treat the socio-economic factors that are important to Alaska Native peoples than ever before.  

A couple of notes here:

1.   While I'm pretty sure that Doyon is mainly Athabascan, I believe there was mention in the testimony that there are people from other groups mixed into the Doyon area.  Looking at Doyon's website (which everyone should do), I don't see claims that all their members are Athabascans, though it does include Athabascan history.  Ahtna's website explicitly tells us:

"Ahtna, Inc. shareholders are mainly comprised of the Ahtna Athabascan people of the Copper River and Cantwell regions of Southcentral Alaska."

2.  My spellcheck thinks Athabascan should be spelled Athabaskan.  I was confused when it changed my spelling, but I let it be.  But now as I look at the Doyon and Ahtna websites, I'm adding Athabascan with a c to my laptop's dictionary and taking out Athabaskan with a k.

Valdez Was The Biggest Loser

In yesterday's trial session, Intervenor attorney, Tanner Amdur-Clark, questioned Valdez City Clerk Sheri Pierce.  He challenged her assertion that the Board didn't really consider Valdez until the very end when everything else was locked in and there weren't any options left that Valdez wanted.  

He asked her if she had been to the September 17 session or the September 20 session.  Like any normal person, she couldn't tell for sure about random dates like that, but didn't recall hearing discussion of Valdez.  

But fortunately I have all my posts about the 2020 Redistricting Cycle indexed on a tab on the top of this blog.  So I went there, scrolled down, and checked those dates, pulled up the posts, and searched for 'Valdez.'   September 17 was when the third parties presented their maps and were questioned by the Board.  I don't have any details, just links to the proposals.  Mostly the third parties made presentations.  On September 20 the board questioned the third parties about their maps.  Amdur-Clark asserted that Nicole Borromeo talked about Valdez that day.  She did.  But she was merely questioning Tom Begich about the Senate Minority's decision to put Valdez in with Cordova and Kodiak. (The Board's final map puts Cordova with Kodiak, but leaves out Valdez which is also on Prince Willam Sound..)  When the Board spoke about Valdez, it was in the context of other districts.  The focus wasn't on Valdez until the end.  

Valdez made the best case I've heard at the trial on socio-economic integration (one of the Constitutional requirements for districts and a topic covered exhaustingly in this trial).  While others talk about why people are similar or different, Valdez is the only one I've heard that argues why it matters for their district.  The argue there are key economic issues - competing ports and competing natural gas pipeline proposals - where Valdez and Mat-Su are in competition.  A legislator representing both communities will be hard pressed to represent the interests of both communities fairly.   75% of the population of D29 live in the suburbs of Palmer and Mat-Su.  Valdez knows that means 

• it will be almost impossible for someone from Valdez to become the representative and 
• on the key issues of major infrastructure funding, the D29 rep will lean for the Mat-Su proposals.  

In a pipeline corridor district that Valdez wanted to be part of, the whole district would have the same interests as Valdez in these major projects.  (Valdez lists a lot of other issues they have in common with the pipeline corridor folks.)

Mat-Su Didn't Get What They Wanted, But Didn't Lose That Much Either  

I don't really see any serious legislative problem for Mat-Su.  It's true they are over populated by an average of 2-3% overall, but that's well within the limits.  There are some issues about parts of districts that, say Palmer thinks belong to them (the hospital) but are in another district.  However, they didn't make clear how that would hurt them in the legislature.  

They don't want to be paired with Valdez, and it certainly makes it trickier for a representative to have such spread out population centers, but Mat-Su has 75% of the voters in that district and should get what they want from their legislator.  

Some of the complaint I heard from Steve Colligan, their mapping expert, was frustration that although Mat-Su had begun planning for this five years, had gotten professional mappers and software, had prepared districts that met with their local needs (the hospital was together with Palmer, roads were divided in ways that made sense to the population living on them, etc.) the Board seemed to ignore all  that and did what it wanted, creating less perfect districts.  There's may well be more that I missed or wasn't stated.  

The pairings may also impact who runs for office.  Mat-Su has some of the most conservative legislators in the state, including lifetime Oath Keepers Member, David Eastman, whom the Alaska legislature is investigating for belonging to a group that advocates overthrowing the government  

Where the lines are drawn affects which potential candidates are in which districts, but I'm not up on those details and couldn't tell you.   

Fairbanks 

I know the least about the implications of Fairbanks.  The fact that the population that went to D36 came from the west Fairbanks community of Goldstream seems like a political decision.  Goldstream itself has almost 3600 people (notice how close that is to the 4000 number that keeps popping up) and it's a left leaning community.  In the testimony they said they were a short drive from the University, and many people work there.  Dermot Cole, a journalist from Fairbanks, says that cutting off the Goldstream community takes a strongly liberal leaning community out of the Fairbanks voting mix and puts them into the rural district that Doyon created, diluting liberal voting in Fairbanks.  The Division of Elections shows that the two Goldstream precincts voted for Biden 54%- 46% for Trump.

OK, that's enough for people to chew on.  It's just my take and I may have missed things.  Doing all this online and not in person means I can't easily chat with people mingling around the courtroom to get other insights.  But it also lowers everyone's risk of COVID.  But since we're near Seattle now being grandparents, the electronic connection is the only way I can keep track.