How Should The Redistricting Board Weigh The Public Testimony

This is a longish post that combines lots that's happening with the Redistricting process.  The hardest part was probably leaving out relevant, but not the most relevant, issues.   That still makes for a long and, for many, a complicated post.  In the end I am presenting Part I - how to do the evaluation.  I'm hoping next to do Part II which will look at the written testimony.  

Let me give you a sort of executive summary here at the beginning:

1.  The Basic Question:  How should the Redistricting Board use the public testimony in deciding whether to adopt Option 2  or Option 3B?

2.  Legal Background:  The Court ruled that the Board did not take adequate account of public testimony after the original plan was challenged.  The Board's attorney, in the appeal to the Supreme Court argued the judge wanted to substitute public opinion for the the Board's decision making.  He also claimed the judge's decision would make this a more political process.  He also said there was no procedure for evaluating public testimony.

3. Evaluating Public Testimony:  Qualitative Research has an established history and methodologies for measuring what people say that the Board can use to evaluate the testimony.

4.  Suggested Method and Examples:  I offer a relatively simple procedure the Board could use.  Noting attorney Singer's warning about this turning into a political rather than a rational decision making process, I offer ways the Board can avoid this.  

5.  Coming Next:  I'm hoping to follow this post with one that takes this methodology and takes a preliminary look at the written testimony that the Board has posted on its website.  

1.  The Basic Question  - The Board is now down to Option 2 and Option 3B. (You can see maps of the two - plus Cantwell - here.)

Option 2 was brought forward by the original plaintiffs who sued the Board over the pairing of Eagle River and South Muldoon in Senate Seat K.  Both courts agreed it was political gerrymandering - that it tried to give Eagle River two seats by 'cracking' south Muldoon.  That is, pairing a poorer more diverse district with an economically better off white community that always votes Republican and this would result in the South Muldoon voters not being equally represented.  This plan follows the Court's ruling and pairs North and South Muldoon together, then pairs the two Eagle River districts together, and then pairs JBER/Government Hill and downtown together.  

Option 3B was originally put forward by Randy Ruedrich, the former chair of the Republican Party of Alaska.  He also had a hand in the original plan that was thrown out by the court. 3B also pairs North and South Muldoon.  But then it pairs Chugiak/ER with JBER/Government Hill and the other Eagle River district with the Anchorage Hillside all the way south past Girdwood to Whittier.  The two Eagle River districts are split through neighborhoods and then paired with districts that do not have such neighborhoods in common.   House District 22 is 'contiguous' with House District 9, not with populated neighborhoods, but with the unpopulated Chugach State Park.  The residents of these districts have to drive 15-87 miles to reach each other.  The other ER House District 24 is paired with JBER/Government Hill (D23) - also along unpopulated areas, and again with the need to drive through several other districts to get to the other side of the district.  

If my description seems biased, well I'm only stating the facts.  Quite a few people who testified said that this is not a hard decision. That it's only hard because the three Republicans who voted 3-2 for the original unconstitutional pairing, seem to be headed toward doing the same thing, which will undoubtedly give Eagle River a second Senate seat and the State Senate an extra Republican Senator.  There isn't much hidden here.  It's pretty out in the open.  It's been noted that the 2011 redistricting plan set up a similar cracked Senate seat and in the following election Eagle River voters knocked off the only black State Senator.  

2.  Court Ruling on Public Testimony and the Board's Pushback

The trial court ruled, in part, that the Board did not pay enough attention  to public testimony when making some of its decisions.  

In the Redistricting Board's response to trial court Judge Matthews decision that the Board must take public testimony into account, Board's attorney Matt Singer argued:  

"the trial court’s rule asks the Board to compromise the requirements of Section 6 in order to do the bidding of a majority of public testifiers."(p.32)

He also wrote: 

"The trial court places quantity of testimony over quality" (p. 30)

Actually, the judge's ruling was a lot more subtle than that.  He explained his decision and reasoning in detail from page 131 - 143 of his ruling.  He concludes the discussion thus:

"If the Board adopts a final plan contrary to the preponderance of public testimony, it must state on the record legitimate reasons for its decision." (p. 143)

The Board's attorney went on to argue that the judge's ruling turns redistricting into a political popularity contest - the most votes win.  I've highlighter some parts of that argument:

"Contrary to the trial court’s intent, its new rule will further politicize the redistricting process and be harmful to Alaskans. The following foreseeable harms will flow from the new constitutional rule and duty:

 The trial court places quantity of testimony over quality. This provides incentive for political parties, partisans, and interest groups to pack public hearings and file volumes of pre-written testimony. The rule even encourages interest groups to pay participants, as is occurring already in other states.134 Dark money will be used to buy written testimony and will pay for the public testimony of political partisans.135

The judge did not put quantity over quality, but I can see that words like "preponderance" could lead Singer to think that. 

•   The rule places power in special interest groups who mobilize partisans to attend hearings and hijack the process. With Skagway, for example, the trial court emphasized in-person testimony over written testimony, suggesting that the Board should give special treatment to those who have time and resources to appear before it.136

Actually, this is how public participation works.  Different groups mobilize their supporters by letting them know what issues are being decided and getting them to attend meetings and write letters, etc.  Usually politicians can distinguish between legitimate personal testimony and partisan manufactured testimony.  Though in many legislative bodies it's lobbyists, not the public, who have sway anyway.  

  The rule turns a task of “Herculean” proportions into an impossible task. The Board will now be required to tally and quantify public testimony in real time. It will have to endure public hearings that could go for days, as competing interest groups each try to gain an upper hand in the quantity of testimony. And instead of balancing the demands of achieving a 40-district map that is compact, contiguous, and socio-economically integrated for all Alaskans, the Board will also have to adjust map lines because 23 out of 36,000 people in Districts 3 and 4 want a Skagway-Downtown Juneau district, 15 people in Fairbanks want the Board to use a specific road as a district boundary, 20 people in Wasilla want the hospital in its district and not the Palmer district, 8 people in Spenard did not want their district to stray into downtown, and on, and on, and on.

If by tally, he means, they need to look carefully at the public testimony - not just sit there appearing to listen until the meetings are over - then this is a good thing.  It's useful to sort through testimony to see what arguments were raised and rebutted and then to carefully determine the best route.  Since the Board's staff was not really equipped to research all the kind of issues that came up, it's useful to have an active and competent public to supply that kind of information.  It needn't be just a quantitative measure.  

•   There is no legal standard for determining the “clear weight of public comment.” If only one person testifies on a topic, is that the weight of public testimony that trumps the judgment of the five Board members?

Actually, there is a well developed field of qualitative research analysis to help review testimony in a more meaningful way than just counting those for and against.  This is particularly useful here because:

"Data collected in qualitative research are usually in narrative rather than numerical form, such as the transcript of an unstructured, in-depth interview. Analysis of qualitative data organizes, summarizes and interprets these nonnumerical observations." (From National Library of Medicine)

Evaluating public testimony doesn't need to be a complicated social science dissertation.  We can use simple principles of qualitative research to get something reasonably useful for the Board.  

The last two weeks at the Redistricting Board have been an incredible demonstration of the power of open government.  All the hearings have been available in person at the Legislative Information Office (LIO), via Zoom, and by phone through the LIO system.  There has been a steady stream of people testifying via the phone and in person.  Only one day were there some gaps between testifiers.  Chair Binkley looked at the lack of callers online and lack of people waiting at the LIO and asked the Board if they should call it a day.  Member Borromeo argued that since it was advertised until 2pm they should go to 2pm and offered to chair the meeting.  Binkley signed off and the lines were held open.  Four or five more people showed up after that.  

In addition, people have used the Board's online feedback page to write their comments and I guess others have emailed comments.  There's been a wide array of comments.  It's been amazingly frank and sometimes partisan.  A few people have made comments five or more times.  But cumulatively, it was a chance for different arguments to be presented and for others then to counter those arguments.  Much of the written testimony was one-liners.  Other testimony was longer thoughtful explanations of why the person felt that way.  Some testimony added lots of factual data to counter the mostly anecdotal testimony of many.  The Board has heard a lot more about the advantages and disadvantages of their two competing options.  (I originally wrote "The Board has learned" but we don't know that.  They did hear it though.)

3.  So How Should We Evaluate The Data?

A first step is to go through the testimony and identify the concepts/ideas/ points made and codify them.  This doesn't have to be as complicated as it sounds.  

Having heard most of the oral testimony and having looked at much of the written testimony I'd say we can divide the testimony into 

• For Option 2
• For Option 3B
• Other

Here, "Other" would include comments that don't choose an option or that discuss other redistricting issues than the Senate seat K pairing.  

Yes, that sounds a little like what attorney Matt Singer was warning about, but this is just the first step. While we divide the comments into those three categories, we won't stop there.   Then we'll go through them to see the extent to which they add information to the discussion that is relevant to the decision.  

The Board's attorney warned it would turn into a simple partisan drive to drum up testimony.  He obviously doesn't think that's a good idea and neither do I.   The Board shouldn't just make a pile for Option 2 and one for Option 3B, count how many in each pile, and then say that equals the preponderance of public testimony. ]I'd like to offer a way to think about the comments.  

This needs to be fleshed out more, but here's basic idea.  

Attorney Singer pointed out the dangers of quantifying public opinion.  This is not a vote, it's information gathering.  The Board is responsible for creating a plan that meets all the constitutional and other legal requirements.  

The purpose of public testimony is 

• To raise issues - often local ones - that the Board overlooked to add to their decision making
• To provide preferences that can be taken into consideration once the Board has some clear, constitutional plans. 
• To avoid making politically partisan decisions by creating districts that are less constitutional but favor one particular political party.  

Process for evaluating comments

First we divide the comments based on topics.  In some cases there will be several topics in one comment.  We can put those into a "multi topic' pile and then go through them later.

Second, divide the comments in each group based not on content, but how the content is conveyed.  For example: 

• Opinion - unsupported - basically "a vote"
• Opinion - Supported
• by Feeling
• by Facts
• by Concepts/Principles
• Legal
• Other
• by argument that combines principles and supporting facts to show how the principles are or are not supported by the facts. 
• Other factors that could be considered
• Does it add new data?
• Does it raise issues and data that have-not been discussed before?
• Does it add new data that supports or counters previous testimony?
• Is it accurate?

This is pretty much a technical job.  Sure, different objective people might categorize comments slightly differently, but the point is to organize that data for the decision makers.  If there are questions, Board members can help decide.  

Third,  is to review the information to see how it affects the decisions the Board is going to make.  When you put all the data together does it change assumptions that Board members made about a community or about whether a constitutional requirement is met?

Then the Board can make its decision based on the constitutional requirements supported by facts.  

If the Board has two or more options that appear equally good or at least equally constitutional, then the Board can assess whether there is an obvious public preference for one option over others.  

But remember, that the Board took feedback about Cantwell and then broke some basic redistricting rules - breaking borough boundaries and compactness - to accommodate the suggestion.  The Court overturned that decision.

Final Notes

One of the criticisms of the Board from the courts was that they made decisions based on personal preferences.  It was pointed out that the Board members are not professional redistricting experts.  They don't have special technical, professional training in this field.  Merely stating personal preferences is not enough.  They need to test the validity of those preferences.  Do the facts support them?  For example:  Is there a unique military connection between districts?  Personal perception needs to be tested against hard numbers about where military live, their age, income, ethnicity, etc.    For most districts meeting constitutional requirements that don't upset the communities was not much of an issue.  For a few it was and the Board was challenged.  And if the Board doesn't do it right this time the Court likely will reject their decision again.  

What about "the preponderance of public opinion" that Judge Matthews mentioned?  The judge wrote that a Board member's personal preference does not override a preponderance of public opinion.  

So this process reviews that public opinion, tests the assertions and the facts presented, then writes up the reasoning for making the decision the Board makes.  It's not a popularity contest.  It's not a vote.  It's not an invitation for political parties to get their supporters to simply say they support one plan or another without any reasons given.  The point is for the Board to make a more informed and defensible decision and document how they did it, so the court can review it.

Next 

I'm hoping in the next post to look at the written comments that came in to the Board and try to apply this.  But it's sunny out, I've got a long todo list,  and I'm more than tired of looking at a screen.  But I'll try.  

Is Getting WORDLE On Second Try Just Luck? What Are The Most Likely Letters?

 

How much of WORDLE is luck?  [This is a fairly long and detailed post.  But before you ditch it for something more interesting to you, I'd recommend scrolling to the end.]

Here are my stats (end of February).  The streak break was when I used my laptop instead of my phone.  Now I just use the phone.  The Sixes were fairly recent.  In both cases I goofed.  In one I used a letter I already knew was not in the word.  In the other case though I should have thought a bit more before trying out a word.  That left me with several possible first letters and not enough rounds.  I lucked out in round six.  If I'd have chosen the other possible word, I'd have gone over the Wordle cliff.  

A discussion with my daughter was the catalyst for this post.  I've got eight right guesses in round 2. (One more since then.) While luck plays a role, I would argue that strategy lowers the odds so that a second row pick isn't purely luck.  (But mostly)

So after February ended, I pulled up all the words for February 

If you look for patterns you can probably find what you're looking for.  How many days in a row do they use one or more letters from the previous day's word?   February 11 and 12 they had two words in a row that began with UL!  And they had had U's in the previous two days.  The lesson:  don't assume anything can't happen.  

THE DISTRIBUTION OF LETTERS (for February 2022)

Vowels

• A = 12 times in 11 different words
• E = 12 times in 12 different words
• I  = 9  times in 7 different words
• O =12 times in 12 different words
• U = 5 times in 5 different words
• Y = 1 time in 1  word

Here are some more observations about the vowels (Remember this is just February 2022):

WORDS WITH JUST ONE VOWEL - 6/28

WORDS WITH TWO DIFFERENT VOWELS - 19/28

WORDS WITH THE SAME VOWEL USED TWICE - 2/28 (ELDER and VIVID)

WORDS WITH THREE VOWELS - 1/28 (ONE DOUBLE) (AROMA)

IF A WORD HAD ONLY ONE VOWEL - IT WAS ALWAYS THE MIDDLE LETTER

VOWEL IS FIRST LETTER - 6/28   (A=2  E=1  I=0  O=1  U=2)

CONSONANTS (FROM MOST TO LEAST FREQUENT)

• L=  All three L's in 4th spot were words with LL at the end.(SKILL, SWILL, SPILL)
• T =  Note:   FIRST AND LAST = 1 (TACIT)
• H = Note:  2 TH..., 2 SH... 2 CH....words

• C = 7
• D = 5
• K = 5
• M= 4
• N = 4
• P = 3
• V = 3 (Twice in VIVID)
• M = 3
• B  = 2
• F = 2
• G = 1
• W = 1
• J, Q, X, Z = 0

THOUGHTS

1. This was just for February, a short month.  It doesn't mean these letter frequencies will hold up into other months.  But they might be pretty close.
2. I was surprised by L and R.  But on reflection, it makes sense for them to show up often in five letter words.  They form consonant clusters.  That's a term I learned when I taught English as a foreign language.  It just means two consonants together.  BR, BL, CR, CL, DR, FR, FL, GR, GL etc.  They also work as the first letter in a consonant cluster with many letters:  scaRF, chaLK, fauLT, smaRT, etc.  
3. Words that have the same letter twice are tricky.  They aren't frequent, but in February it happened three times with vowels and a number of times with consonants. So remember that possibility.  They're tricky because once you get a green one, you think you're done with that letter.  And because to check you have to get the second one in the right spot, otherwise you'll think it's the one you already found. Would a blue square for a letter used twice be helpful?  Yes, but what happens when it's in the right place and would normally be green?  Something to think about.  Did the original inventors rule that out or just not think about it?
4. Sometimes you get stuck with three or four correct letters and with LOTS of letters that could fit, but not enough rounds to try them all.  That's when using a strategy is really important.
5. Wordle doesn't seem to pick plurals (CRABS, FORKS) or 3rd person verbs (JUMPS, FLIES). I think there'd be a lot more S's if they did.  

Strategies

1. First word should be mostly or all words made up of the most common vowels and consonants.  Words like ROAST, LATER, TRIAL, STEAR, etc.  This helps in two ways:
1. Increases your odds of getting one or more correct letters
2. It eliminates frequent letters, thus improving the odds when picking the next words
2. Second word will, of course, depend on the first word results.  You want to go for another word with as many frequent letters as possible.
1. If the first word gives you one green letter, that's really helpful.  More green or yellow letters is useful.  You can use the letters a couple of ways:
1. Think of words with the green letters in the right spot.  If you can only think of one or two, then try one of them as your next word.  It might be the right word or it might force you to think of more possible words.  Ideally you will eliminate common letters or change some yellow to green.
2. If you can think of lots of such words, then try to use the most common letters again to 
1. figure out which letters are in the word or NOT in the word.  If you pick your words well, you'll find that a lot of words won't work because you've already eliminated one or more important letters. 
2. For example:
   
   
   If the T were yellow, I might just go for a totally different word with as many unused common letters as possible. Or keep the T in the word to try to make it green.   But with a GREEN T, I made a list of words ending in T.
   
   
   MOIST   COUNT   CLOUT  MOUNT  FOUNT  FLINT  STINT
   BLUNT   UNLIT   BUILT   SCOUT  JOINT   POINT  SWIFT (but not ERUPT because E and R were eliminated in HEART)
   
   
   Then I counted the letters: N9, O8, I8,  U7, L5, S4,  C3, M2, B2, J1, P1, W1
   Then I picked the word that had the most frequent letters.
   
   But there are 8 Os and you have no O, you say.  If you look, all the words with O also had U or an I.  UNLIT got rid of ALL the words I'd guessed at. Got rid of words with L and I, words without U or N, and words where U or N were in the wrong place.  So I had to think of new words - ones with a U in the 3rd or 4th spot. The closest word I had was SCOUT.  But N is the second letter.  So my next word was
   
   

   

   
   

   I was lucky that they hadn't picked another word I hadn't thought of. 

   You don't want to get in the position where you have three or four green letters but there are ten possible letters for the missing space(s).  You don't want to find yourself picking for row 4 with green - -OWN at the end.  Your options would be:

   BLOWN, BROWN, CLOWN, CROWN, FLOWN, 

   FROWN, DROWN, GROWN, SHOWN

   This is why you want to confirm or eliminate Rs and Ls early. 
3. Try to be clever or go for broke?
1. Should you try to guess the word on the second try or use a longer term strategy. like the one above?    If you can only think of 1-3 words that work with the letters you've discovered in round one, go for it.  Ideally one of the possible words will help eliminate all or at least most of the others.  
2. Should you keep a GREEN letter where it is?  In the HEART case I did because there were so many possible words and I could get a word that might eliminate all the others.  And it could be the right word.  If it's yellow, keep it to find its proper spot, or at least eliminate ones where it doesn't fit.   But sometimes it's better to cast your net for as many letters as you can, and you already know where the GREEN letter goes.  

Does this sort of strategy eliminate all the fun?  I guess it depends on how you define fun.  Just finding the right words without thinking too much is great fun.  But for me, going beyond the sixth row is to be avoided as much as possible.  And so far I've only gotten to row 6 twice.  And both times got the WHEW that goes with it.

So to answer the title question about luck or skill, I'd say it's a combination of both.  

You can increase your odds by using the most common letters - either finding out they are in the word, or eliminating them (and many possible words that have them.)

According to wordmom, there are 6445 five letter words in the English Scrabble dictionary.  I don't know how many are plurals or 3rd person singular verbs, but for ease, let's say there are 6000 words you could choose from.  Your odds are one chance out of 6000.  Way better than most lotteries.  But not anything I'd bet money on.  Wordmom also lets you do other interesting searches.

"Five letter words with S - 1745

Five letter words with T - 1630

Five letter words with E = 2960

Five letter words with A = 2845

Five letter words with L = 1760"

Getting rid of the letter E cuts your odds in half almost.  And getting rid of A does almost as much.  If you get rid of words with all those letters, you improve your odds greatly.  

I haven't made a list of March words yet, but I'd like to just to see if it changes the most used letters significantly.  I suspect not.  

When I Google "good luck happens" it gets me to  “Luck Is What Happens When Preparation Meets Opportunity,"  That's a little moralistic for my taste, but I do think that doing a little exploration can increase your odds in WORDLE.  

Doing posts like this is why my todo lists never get done.  But it's fun to figure things out.  

I'd note that my Chilean friend says there's a Spanish version and I guess a lot of other languages have it too.  What about languages like Thai or Hebrew where the vowels can go above or below the consonant?  Or Chinese that use characters?  I'll let someone else check that out.  

Redistricting Board Conflict: Expeditiously Or Take Time?

My issue today is timing.  

One conflict between the Republicans and the other two members of the Board*  is whether the Board should respond to the remand 'expeditiously' as Borromeo, Bahnke, and the public testifying in support of what is now Plan Option 2 (that pairs the two Eagle River House districts) prefer, or to slow the process down, give more time for people to think and come up with options, and use up all the time the Judge gave the Redistricting Board - about two weeks.  This second strategy has been supported by the Republicans and the members of the public opposed to pairing the Eagle River districts together.  

Why does this matter?   I had memories of what happened in the previous redistricting round.  Because of court challenges, the Board's final redistricting plan was not complete in time to be used for the election of 2012.  I recalled that what happened was that the original proclamation plan that had been ruled unconstitutional by the court was used.  

So I was concerned that that would happen this time if the Board didn't act expeditiously.  I asked the executive director of the Board and others involved with the process this year about the deadline for getting a completed map to the Division of Elections for the 2022 election.  What I heard was: The filing date is June 1 so the map needs to be done by May 1.  

If that were true, taking as much time as possible would give the Republicans the chance to delay long enough that the 2021 unconstitutional map would be used for the 2022 election.  

My next question was:  When does this new map they're working on become "the new map"?  If they vote for a new map next Thursday, is that the date of the new Proclamation Plan?  Or, since it was remanded to the Board by the Superior Court judge, does he have to approve it?  

I emailed the director of the Division of Elections and when I didn't get a response after two days, I called.  Someone named Donna said she didn't know the answer and would have Michaela get back to me.  I called again the next day after not hearing from Michaela and Donna told me she didn't know.  I asked, is there anyone who knows?  And she said, I told you that's all I know.  I asked her to transfer my question to the Director.  That was Thursday and I'm still waiting.  

When I first called Donna, I also emailed Merideth Montgomery who was listed as the media liaison at the appellate level of the State Court system.  She was the one I'd talked to about getting media credentials for the Supreme Court hearing.  She had approved that overnight and was very helpful when I arrived for the hearing back on March 18.  

I did get an email back from her the next day.  These were my questions:

"I'm trying to figure out

a) when the new 2022 plan needs to be officially adopted - I'm waiting for Div of Elections to get back to me on that - and

b) how this new plan becomes official.  If the Board adopts a new Proclamation Plan next week, does that become the new plan?  Or does Judge Thomas Matthews have to approve it before it becomes the official new plan?  Or is there some other option I haven't thought of?"  

I emailed my questions at 3pm on Wednesday April 6 and her response was dated 8:20am on April 7. 

"I would say for question (a) that the plan needs to be "official" by the candidate filing deadline for the next general election (I think this might be June 1).  

For question (b) my general response would be that a plan becomes "official" when litigation ends, which is technically the day after any appeal or petition could be filed.  For example, if the Board puts out another plan, and no one comes to the superior court within the time allowed under Civil Rule 90.8, the plan is final.   If a lawsuit is filed, then "officialness" occurs when all appeal avenues have been exhausted.  As to the second part of your question this specific case and whether Judge Matthews still needs to do anything, I'm not sure, because I don't know what his instructions were after the supreme court sent the case back.  I suspect, though, that he has maintained jurisdiction of the case, in which case, yes, he would need to approve before the new plan is final." 

I was confused.  If the candidates have to file by June 1, how can the deadline be June 1?  People need to know what their district is more than a few hours to file.  The Division of Elections surely has to have paperwork and maps ready for people coming in to file.  

Part b was confirming my concerns.  If the Board delays long enough - say til the  15th of April and the judge doesn't accept it (whatever that might entail - like remanding it again?) it could drag on into May.  If the judge accepts it, someone could wait 25 days and then file a court challenge putting it beyond the June 1 deadline.  And then would the unconstitutional plan adopted in November be the map for 2022?  Like what I recalled happening in 2012?

Fortunately, I blogged the 2011 process - as yesterday's post shows - so I could go to the index page (see the tabs up top, right below the orange banner).  In fact, I wrote yesterday's post because I was going through what happened in 2011 looking for the posts that talked about adopting the unconstitutional plan.  

What I found is a reminder that we shouldn't rely on our memories.  The following comes from my May 22, 2012 post 

Supreme Court Chooses Amended Proclamation Plan, With Original, Not New, SEast Districts

What actually happened was this:  The Board had been asked to redo the maps a couple of times and had now submitted several options to the Court.  

"The Supreme Court issued an order today in response to the Redistricting Board 

"It is ordered:

1.  The Amended Proclamation Plan adopted by the Redistricting Board on April 5, 2012, including the Southeast Alaska districts as configured in the plan of that date, shall serve as the redistricting plan for the 2012 elections."

So, after ordering the Board to reconfigure Southeast Alaska to only consider the state constitution and not the Voting Rights Act at all, the Board met and worked hard to comply, though they all said they were not pleased with the result.    Now the Supreme Court is telling them to just use the Amended Proclamation Plan with the Southeast districts as they were on April 5.

The reasoning?  The court was concerned about the numerous objections they got over the Southeast Alaska districts and that the Department of Justice wouldn't find the plan in compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

"The court has accepted the Southeast districts as configured in the plan of April 5, 2012 rather than the reconfiguration submitted by the Redistricting Board to the court on May 14, 2012 because of the numerous objections to the reconfigured districts that this court has received.  While the reconfigured districts may comply with the redistricting criteria of article VI. section 6 of the Alaska Constitution, there is a risk that the United States Department of Justice would decline to pre-clear them under the Voting Rights Act.  Notice of the failure of the Department of Justice to pre-clear the new districts would come so late in the 2012 election cycle that a great disruption to the election process would result.  In order to avoid this possibility, the court will not require the use of the May 15, 2012 reconfigured districts for the 2012 elections." 

Two of the judges dissented - Winfree and Stowers - who thought the May 15 districts should have been adopted."

(Here's a link to the ADN article on this.)

So I was wrong.  They did not adopt the original unconstitutional plan.  The Court took part of the revised plan and for Southeast they used an earlier revised version.  And the date of the post is May 22, 2012.  So that's only a little more than a week before the June 1 deadline.  

So what does that suggest for 2022?

1.  The deadline for getting a plan to the Division of Elections can be well past May 1.  

2.  The Supreme Court can tinker with the maps and decide they which one should be used.  

Can the Superior Court judge decide on a map to use?  I don't know, but if he did, I'm sure the losing side would immediately appeal to the Supreme Court.  

Other considerations:

Timing:  

1. All the House districts have been approved except for the ones affected by the Cantwell cutout, which the Board fixed and unanimously approved with no objections from the public.  That doesn't seem like a problem.  
2. All the Senate districts except, maybe six in Anchorage are settled.  
3. So most of the map is essentially finished and the potential candidates for those districts know what their districts will be.  That can be passed on to the Division of Elections by the time Judge Thomas Matthews gets the Board's decision.  

What happens if the Judge doesn't like the changes to Senate Seat K?

1.  He could send it back again with new directions

2.  He could fix the map himself. 

3.  Either way there could be an appeal to the Supreme Court.  

It seems there is enough time to send it back with instructions and a deadline.  If the Court makes changes to the map for the 2022 election, I suspect it has to be backed by the Supreme Court.  

From the Board's discussions this week, I think that at least member Simpson would comply with a Supreme Court instruction.  But that's a just a guess.  But he spoke about following the law on a couple of occasions - Binkley's decision to vote no on the Cantwell revision because he disagreed with the Court's ruling and when he voted no on accepting the Craig Campbell proposed Senate K fix that would have required changing a House seat.  

These are the potential next steps.  It appears that the courts can take their own action to determine what map the Division of Elections will use and that there is enough time to get a map for the regular primary in August and the November 2022 election.  

I would just add that Andrew Gray testified today and made the point that there are no negative consequences for trying to politically gerrymander the map.  It could go through without a lawsuit. But even if a lawsuit were filed, and successful, there are no negative consequences to any members of the Board for trying to abuse the process.

* The two other members are not identified with any particular party.  Whether they have leanings - well they aren't leaning with the Republicans on the Board on the issue of political gerrymandering that the state Supreme Court found.  For some of the people testifying, that seems to automatically make then lean Democratic.  But there are other options.  They don't have to lean toward a party.  They could  lean toward other issues and one that they appear to take seriously is the Alaska Constitution and the idea that the interests of ethnically diverse (I guess that's a euphemism mainly for non-White, but also includes non-Christian, and LGBTQ, and people with disabilities, etc.) should have their voices heard in the legislature.  

Redistricting - Some History To Consider What Could Happen Next

Because I blogged the 2011 Redistricting Board and have a tab at the top of this blog with an index of all the posts, it's easy to see what happened back then to compare to now.  I'd note there is also an index of all the posts I've done this round at AKRedistricting 2020-2022, under the banner above.   That 2011 process dragged out until 2014.  And there were a number of new plans that were written and rejected before the final plan was approved.  

This time round, the problems were much more focused:  

• Cantwell, which I think they have satisfactorily addressed, and
•  Senate Seat K.  Here, they are currently down to two choices.  One which will easily be approved by the Judge.  The other, which seems to be favored by the majority of the Board, stands a chance of getting rejected for the same reasons the first one did - political gerrymandering.  

That 2011 Board got its Census data on March 15, 2011 and had 90 days to approve its proclamation.  They got it done on June 13 and not two weeks later there was a legal challenge from Fairbanks.  By July 14 there were two more. 

Tuesday, June 13, 2011
Board Approves Proclamation and Other Documents, Then Goes Into Executive Session
The board members congratulate themselves on doing a great job and approve their work.  


Sunday, June 26, 2011
Fairbanks to Sue Over Redistricting  - I comment on a Fairbanks News Miner article.

July 14, 2011

Three Challenges To Redistricting Plan Arrived By Deadline - Cases Attached-Brief overview of the three challenges, one from the Fairbanks North Star Borough, one from a resident of Goldstream and a resident of Ester, and one from the City of Petersburg.  Copies of the cases are embedded in the post.  

The Board wanted the trial moved to Anchorage, but the judge denied that.  There was something of a gap and staff took other jobs while waiting for the trial.  As I recall it was in Fairbanks in January and I was glad I was listening in by phone.  

The results of the trial didn't come until January 2012.  

Monday, January 9, 2012
Four Districts Found Unconstititional  - quick look at court documents

Sounds of Silence - The court proceedings are on audio teleconference, but can't hear anything.

Paskvan Testifies - Sen Paskvan, one of two Democratic Fairbanks Senators put in the same district testifies.

Plaintiffs Trying to Show Gerrymandering - Sen. Thomas (who is paired with Paskvan) is describing strange loops moving legislators in or out of a district.

Senator Thomas Continues - More of the same.

While blog posts are still up ten years later, the pages that held the documents are no longer working.  In fact all the material from the 2011 Board's website and other state links that had documents are gone.  Peter Torkelson, the Board's Executive Director this time, says he's doing all he can to make sure that doesn't happened again with the current Board's website.  

In 2011 it took from June until February to go from Proclamation Plan to trial outcome. And then to the Supreme Court which sent the plan back to the Board for repairs on March 15 - NINE months after their proclamation and ONE YEAR after they got their Census data.    

In 2022 it took from November 10, 2021 to February  16, 2022 to go from Proclamation to trial outcome.  And it was March 25, 2022 when the Supreme Court ruled. 

This time the gap was just a little over FOUR months.  But remember, the Census data was delayed in 2020 because of the Trump administration's attempt to ask citizenship questions and because of the pandemic.  So the current Board didn't start mapping until August.  =

Here's a bit more on what happened.  Not expecting anyone to read it all, but it's there for your perusal.  You'll find some similarities to this decade's process.  

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

• Alaska Redistricting for the Masses Part 3: The Trial - The Disputed Districts  - This post looks at the disputed districts and the reasons they are disputed.  With maps.

Saturday, February 4, 2012

• Redistricting Challenge:  Judge Sends 4 Districts Back To Board - Post reviews the judge's decision.

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 

• Alaska Redistricting Board To Appeal Ruling on Districts 37 and 38   -  Notes on the board meeting where the board decided to appeal the judge's ruling on house districts 37 and 38. I listened to this meeting on line from Los Angeles. 

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

• Meet You At the Alaska Supreme Court This Afternoon   - Announcement of hearing with maps of districts challenged by petitioners.

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

• Alaska Supreme Court Hears Redistricting Board Petitions  - Overview of the court hearing with photos

Thursday, March 15, 2012

• Alaska Supreme Court Sends Redistricting Plan Back To Board  Initial report on Supreme Court decision focused on what the Court required the Board to do. 

Saturday, March 17, 2012

• A Guided Tour Through the Alaska Supreme Court's Redistricting Decision - Hickel Lives On - Goes through each of the 14 sections of the decision and attempts to explain the meaning and implications.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

• Alaska Redistricting Process - What Happens Next? - Looks at the questions:
• The Board will have to make a new plan and that has lots of possibilities.
• What are the parts they have to change?
• Can they be fixed without messing with the rest of the districts?
• Do they start completely fresh or leave most of the existing plan intact? 
  
• Are there any candidates obviously affected?

Then they come up with a new plan April 5, 2012.  I'd note that the previous Board still had to get pre-clearance from the federal Department of Justice to be sure they complied with the Voting Rights Act.  That pre-clearance requirement was gutted by the Supreme Court until the next year, when, as you'll see, the Board was still working on another plan.  

Thursday, April 5, 2012 

• Board Formally Adopts New Plan and Backup Plan - Final meeting for now as they get things ready for submission to DOJ and courts. Links to reports and maps.  My rough, detailed, notes.

 Friday, April 20, 2012  

• Way Too Busy With AQR, Press Club, Confucius Institute, and More Redistricting Stuff- After the picture of Wei Jaijiang, there are links to the objections submitted by various private parties. 
• Judge Rejects Redistricting Board's Amended Proclamation Plan - Describes the main objections and an update attaches the Judge's order.

They come up with more options;

May 1, 2012

• Redistricting Board's Supreme Court Appeal - First I wonder out loud why the board didn't tell us how they were able to come to agreement so easily without discussing many details at the public meeting.  Second, I try to explain what I think the court had asked for and what the board needed to do.  

May 7, 2012 

• The Supreme Court Substitutes Amended Proclamatio for Redistricting Board's Interim Plan - Hearing Thursday 10am  

May 11, 2012 

• Redistricting Options Narrow At Supreme Court - Overview of attorneys' presentations in court and the basic questions the court seemed to want answered.

May 14, 2012 

• Southeast Maps - Redistricting Board Offers 5 Options - The Board's five maps for SE are posted.

The Supreme Court doesn't like them.  

May 22, 2012

• Supreme Court Chooses Amended Proclamation Plan, With Original, Not New, SEast Districts -  Describes the court's decision. 

 

Things drag on.

Dec. 29, 2012   

• Alaska Supreme Court Orders Redistricting Board to Start Over  - Discusses SC ruling and links to it.  

 

Feb 1, 2013
What's At Stake If Redistrict Board Has To Start Over? - Looks at:

• Form over Substance
• The Board's Task
• The Court's Task
• What Happened?
• Form Over Substance?
• My Conclusion 
  
• Impact Of Redoing The Plan From Scratch
• A Lot of Work
• Should the job be given back to the Board?
• Impact on the balance of Democrats and Republicans in the legislature
• Impact on voters' connection to their legislators  

I'm going to skip on ahead.

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

• Court Again Rules For Plaintiff Against Alaska Redistricting Board...  Brief overview of the Order which is posted in full. 

Monday July 8, 2013

• Here's The Map The Redistricting Board Approved Sunday Compared To The Old One  - I post the 2012 election map along with the new one approved Sunday for 2014 for Alaska and Anchorage.
  

Sunday, July 14 , 2013

Notes from the Last Alaska Redistricting Meeting.  Everyone Hopes So 
- My very rough notes of, what many hope, was the last Alaska Redistricting Board (unless there are legal challenges)  meeting, where they approve the Proclamation and the findings and the metes and bounds.   

Photos of the Last Redistricting Board Meeting - The Board, some of the audience, AFFER and CALISTA folks, Board's signatures.  

Such hopes!  Quickly dashed.

Thursday, August 29, 2013

• Court Sets Out Issues And Schedule For Alaska Redistricting Court Challenges - This post outlines the basic parts of the Court's order in which the Court outlines the issues and scheduling.  

But the end is in sight.

Monday, Nov 18, 2013 

• Court Rules On Redistricting: "The court accepts the 2013 Proclamation Plan"
  Title sums it up.  Judge's complete decision is included in the post.   

Dec 20, 2013

• Alaska Redistricting Plan Now Final Just the Bill Left to Settle - This post has links to the Proclamation Plan and all the maps and a copy of the court order.

 

Redistricting Board - Ups And Downs - I Try to Sum Things Up And Comment on Loose Ends

Key substantive accomplishments:

• Board adopted their revised Cantwell map - putting it back into Denali Borough as directed thy the Court.  This was easy and there was no real debate because everyone agreed. 
• Narrowed the number of plans the Board is considering from three to two.
• Option 2  remains the same - The East Anchorage Plaintiffs plan which just changes four Senate pairings
• Option 3b (I think that's the agreed on label) replaces Option 3 -The Ruedrich plan which keeps North Eagle River/Chugiak connected with JBER and Government Hill and North Anchorage and pairs South Eagle River with South Anchorage Hillside down to Girdwood.  Ruedrich offered some changes today which leave more Senate pairings that were in the original proclamation plan.

Option 1 - The Bahnke Plan - was discarded.  Presumably because it changed more than just the just those districts directly affected by fixing Senate seat K as directed by the Court, which said only to change those other districts immediately affected by the change.  

Beyond that there was a lot of tension at times and a lot of making nice trying to smooth over the tensions.  I can talk about those things - maybe in a later post - but they are more of interest regarding interpersonal relations, listening, trying to do things without acknowledging what you're trying to do - than with where the Board is now in terms of getting their job done and what that final package might look like.  

But I would like to comment on a few things:

Law School helps with logic and dealing with reality

I've called the Board's attorney, Matt Singer, out for his manner of presenting things during the Court hearings.  I want to say that he's a much nicer person when he's in his role as advisor to the Board.  Perhaps that comes from having five bosses some of whom strongly disagree with each other.  And despite my prior criticism of his courtroom manner, he won three out of the five cases against the Board in the Superior Court and the same number at the Supreme Court.  Though they weren't the same cases.  

In the last few days he's been an important voice for reason and reasonableness.  He's tactfully tried to pull the Board back from some problematic decisions.  

For example, Craig Campbell submitted a new map that created a new Senate district that wasn't contiguous, but had a solution to this.  The Board just needed to take some unpopulated census tracks and swap them from one district to another to make the new Senate seat contiguous.  

Singer calmly advised (paraphrased since I didn't catch it verbatim)

"Could Board adjust House map?  It would need a very good explanation for the Court.  Because there are other alternatives before you.  Would be a real push.  Adding Mr. Campbell’s to add non-populated census blocks, the sound of it raises question of compactness.  Making it less compact would raise eyebrows.  Not my first choice or recommendation."

He didn't use words like "absurd" but rather when he was saying no he delicately strung his words together so as not to offend.   

I would say the same for Simpson as well.  When Binkley proclaimed that he wouldn't vote to approve the Cantwell map ordered by the Supreme Court because he disagreed with the ruling, (again, an approximation of what he said:)

"We all voted in favor of the Cantwell extension, whatever, all though it was a good idea. We were trying to accommodate residents of the area, I certainly agree with you regarding the corporation boundaries.  Feel it should be a consideration, not requirement, mapping of legislative districts.  However the order of the SC is clear on this point and my vote will be in favor, rather than continue to create heat over this issue.  Should heed the court’s decision and move on."

He did this a few other times.  Is this a less partisan Simpson?  I don't think we should assume that, but he is a trained and successful attorney and he understand the rule of law and how the system works.   

[Added about midnightr:  Borromeo is also an attorney and has been generally direct and and logical.  And I don't mean to imply that you need to go to law school to get logical and understand the rule of law.  Bahnke has stayed close to the key issues and been logical in her comments and actions as well.] 

Why Were Borromeo's Conflicts Ignored During the Scheduling?

The  Court gave the Board about a two week window to work on fixing the maps.  April 1 through 15.  On the first day, member Simpson said he'd cleared his calendar and was available.  I believe member Marcum mentioned a conflict and Bahnke mentioned  she couldn't meet on Friday.  Then the Board set up dates for this week - Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday I think.  Borromeo was pushing to get things done right away.  She said it could be done in 15 minutes.  

Tuesday, new dates were proposed - Thursday, Saturday.  Then Binkley, I think, said they should finish things on Wednesday and Thursday April 13 and 14.  At this point Borromeo said she had all day meetings those days.  Simpson said he couldn't make it on Saturday, Sunday or Monday.  Someone mentioned that he'd said he cleared his calendar for two weeks.  He responded that when the schedule was set the first day, he adding activities on the off days.  Bahnke wanted to meet on Tuesday and that's when we learned that Binkley had a conflict on Tuesday.  

Several more times Borromeo mentioned she had a all day meetings on April 13 and 14.  

Eventually they worked out that they could have public testimony without all the members being there and since they were recorded, people could watch the recordings when they were free.  

But that still left a tug of war between those who wanted to finish things earlier (the B Team - see yesterday's post) and those who wanted to take their time and pointed out that the Judge didn't ask for a new plan by April 15, just a status report (The R Team).  So today there was more debate.  Borromeo wanted to finish things on Saturday and the R Team wanted to give the public and themselves more time to get up to speed.  Binkley repeated that they'll spend the time they need on the 13th and 14th.  I was thinking - but Borromeo said she had all day meetings those days.  And then she said it herself:  "Why are other people’s conflicts taken into account, but not mine?"  

Why?  Was Binkley so set on holding off until the 13th and 14th that he didn't want to hear what she said, so he didn't?  He seemed to have those dates set from early on.  Was the conflict between dealing with her request and what he'd decided too much to handle so he just ignored it?  Usually Binkley is the flexible man.  Anything can be changed at the last minute.  Let's not lock ourselves in.  Even though the Board specifically decided yesterday that the first public testimony today would be reserved for people talking about Cantwell, Binkley let three people talk about Anchorage.  He didn't politely say, "We're just doing Cantwell first" and ask them to wait.  And when someone mentioned this, he said, well they called in and I didn't want to cut them off.  So as willing as Binkley is normally to be extremely flexible - to the point that it makes the Board less efficient - in this case he was dead set on April 13 and 14.  Given the R team's consistent mantra of taking the time we need, there's not that much rush, plus the public testimony from those opposed to the Bahnke plan also saying the process should be delayed until later, I can't help but think that this is a coordinated effort.  No proof, just looking at the bits of evidence out there.  

I'm still gathering information on this issue so I'll stop here and just leave it for people to consider.  

Don't Forget Senate Rotation and Truncation

One of the issues I want to talk about is expediency vs. taking our time, because it's been an issue debated by Board members and by members of the public testifying.  I'm working on this topic, trying to get answers no one has been able to definitively give me. 

But part of this debate came up earlier, I think, when member Bahnke said she was disturbed about not meeting to make the decisions until next Wednesday and Thursday (April 13 and 14) because the court wanted an update by April 15.  She asked about whether metes and bounds would be necessary for the changed Senate seats.  Chair Binkley responded that for Senate seats that isn't necessary because they are made up of House seats which have already had their metes and bounds done. (That is creating a verbal description of the boundaries of each district.)  That is true, though today Binkley wanted to add the Craig Campbell map to the Options and it would have required changes to a House district and that would have then required metes and bounds for that newly adjusted district.  That's not going to happen because the Board rejected that idea.  

But once the new Senate seats are approved, there will need to be an assessment of whether the new Senate seats need to be truncated (probably, because all but one were truncated the first time round) and then how the new seats will fit into the Senate Rotation system. (One third of the senate must be up for election each year, so the Board has to determine which year each of the new seats will need to run in which election cycle.)  Last time round, the Board managed to do this in a way that forced Republican Senators who hadn't been strong supporters of the Governor into extra elections. I wrote about this last November 26, 2021.

So, post Senate pairings will not be quite as 'home and clear' as Chair Binkley suggested.  Though since there should only be four or so Senate seats affected, this might not take too long, but I would hope people look at this process more carefully to be sure there isn't a hidden political twist to this as there was last time.  

Concluding Remarks

As you can probably tell, the meetings have been packed with undercurrents and I could write on half a dozen or more but there isn't enough time.  And with daily meetings, more comes in each day.  

I would note an email I got as a subscriber to the Board's email announcement this evening that also summarizes what happened today and where you can find the public testimony.  I'll just copy it to the end here.  

Thursday's meeting starts at noon.  

Good evening subscribers,

The Board met today with the following key action points:

1. The Board adopted proposed revisions to House Districts 29, 30 and 36 in response to the Alaska Supreme Court's order that Cantwell should be placed with the Denali Borough. A new House district shapefile has been produced, error checked and is being utilized to craft revised metes and bounds.
2. 
   
3. The Board received substantial public testimony regarding Senate pairings in Anchorage.
4. 
   
5. The Board unanimously adopted a revised version of Senate Pairing Option 3, now labeled 3B for the purposes of public feedback and review.
6. 
   
7. The Board unanimously withdrew Senate Pairing Option 1, originally adopted for purposes of public feedback on Monday, April 4th.

The 2022 Proposals webpage has been updated with larger scale, higher resolution Senate Pairings Option maps for Option 2 and Option 3B. The original Anchorage bowl focused maps remain. All maps are click-to-enlarge.  

• https://www.akredistrict.org/2022-proposed-revisions/

The Meeting Info (Minutes & Audio) page linked from the website footer has been updated with yesterday's public testimony and audio recordings of recent meetings.

• https://www.akredistrict.org/board-audio-minutes/

Today's written testimony submissions will be compiled and delivered to board members late this evening, then redacted to protect personal contact details and posted to the Meeting Info page tomorrow as time permits.