A Woman Polish Doctor With A Czech Unit Fighting With The Soviets Against Germany in WW II

"Go tend pigs!"  howls Patak.  "You don't belong in the army."

The girls cast hate-filled glances in his direction, but remain silent.
They climb up and down the small slope.  Legs turn numb and ears begin to buzz.  Sweat runs from the corner of lips and between shoulder blades.  Shirts stick to skin.  Tongues are parched.  Yet, the women continue to walk, up and down, up and down, while the voice hammers relentlessly.
"You are on the battlefield, they're shooting at you;  grenades explode;  flatten up as if to creep back into the earth;  you crawl, you crawl;  you slip between the roots, through the brush, flat on your stomach;  I said, flat on your stomach;  your head hugs the ground;  your arms slide ahead, always close to the ground;  the body follows.  "Ah, what a bunch of dumbheads,"  moans Patak.  (p. 219)

When I was in LA with my mom, we were sitting around the dinner table and my mom's caretaker, Alma, was talking about a woman she'd worked for who had died a couple of years before at age 100.
She'd been a doctor when the Nazis came into her town and fled across the river into Soviet occupied territory.  That landed her and her infant daughter in a cattle car to Kazakhstan.  After the war she'd married a rich Frenchman and lived in Paris until he died.  Then she moved to one of their properties in Beverly Hills.  Which is how Alma came to take care of her.

'Wow,' I said, 'She should have written a book."
'She did,' replied Alma.

Photo from book - Ruzena Berler and Olga

These quotes are from the book  Cattle Car to Kazakhstan:  A Woman Doctor's Triumph of Courage in World War II by Ruzena Berler.   

Back to the training for Czech soldiers fighting with the Soviets after the Germans declare war on them.  

Katerine is having some trouble keeping her butt down.  

"'Hey, you, there.  Who are you showing your ass to?"
Katerine bounds up.
'You, you  . . .you are a rude bastard."
Half-strangled with anger, she runs to Patak.
'Swallow your tongue;  swallow your filthy tongue,"  she cries.
'Ha, the ladies are angry;  the ladies are willing to go to war, but only with gloves on and sitting in an armchari,' snickers Patak.  "We'll see about that;  we'll see.  Now, back to your place.  Step smartly and faster than that.  After the exercise is over, report to me."  

Drill is over and they are walking home.

"The group comes across a male detachment.  A few wolf whistles are heard.
'These can't be women;  they're more like camels,' mocks somebody.
All the men laugh.  The girls, pretending not to have heard, keep on martching, staring straight ahead.  Katerine, who turns her head, gets punched in the back.
'Oh, those bastards,' grunts Vlasta between her teeth.  'We must show we don't give a damn about them."
Yet the girls' feelings are hurt.  How can one not resemble a camel when uniforms are so oversized that you feel lost in them, with those pants that make hips twice as wide as they are?  Gathered at the bottom, too long, they corkscrew before disappearing into heavy laced boots.  Pants with a fly, yet, for girls!  And then, those waist-length blousons, instead of concealing the curve of hips, accentuate it even more.
Hours are spent sewing, cutting down, shortening, but skills are in short supply, and the results far from satisfactory.
And then, there are those who preach austerity - old maids, of course;  thirty-five years old, if they are a day!
Easy for them, thinks Vlasta [who is 17].  Who could they still hope to attract?  Milena is the worst of all.  She's making fun of us and turns everything to ridicule.  True, she isn't really mean, but after one of her barbs, you don't dare attempt anything to look a little better, for fear of being made a laughing stock, as it happened to Nadine."

Berler has a way of giving very detailed stories, in spare prose, so I feel like I'm there with her.  There's relatively little narrative, mostly it's the stories that drop us into one location after another.

These personal stories offer us a glimpse into a world and place, from a point of view, that we seldom hear. And Berler is a keen observer of behavior.  She's a woman I wish I had met.    A lot of this book is striking - the interactions of the passengers in the cattle car, how the group of once stylish Polish women cope in the dilapidated old barn they're given to live in at the rural Kazakhstan village they're dropped in, the workings of the hospital, and the different ways  these young women in exile deal with their sexual longings.

For this post I'm focusing on women who were in combat.  It seems appropriate now that US military - 70 years later - is allowing women soldiers in combat.  (I thought a better way to achieve male-female equality was to ban men from combat instead.)  And this book offers some pretty graphic battlefield scenes that would make anyone think twice about signing up to fight.  They're too long and complicated to include here.  Berler must have known about the combat from the women she writes about.  She was near the front, but as a doctor in a hospital at the urging of her  Czech officer boy friend.  (None of the women knew if their husbands, if they had one, were dead or alive and having male companions brought many benefits.)

The soldiers were part of a Czech brigade of about 900 - 30 were women -  that was fighting with the Soviets.  Milena, also a Czech, is a Party official who fought in the Spanish civil war and was assigned to indoctrinate the Czech women so that after the war they will welcome the Party into Czechoslovakia.  The women, most of whom had been in horrible prison camps in the East under brutal conditions, are not particularly interested.

Back to Nadine and Milena.

"One evening, Milena came back, just as Nadine was examining her hair in a small pocket mirror.  She'd first shampooed it, then carefully, strand after strand, wound it around torn bits of newspaper.  The operation was lengthy and demanding, considering the mass of hair, the shortage of paper, and the minuscule dimensions of the mirror.
Milena considered Nadine's curly head for a long time, turning this way and that.
Finally, shaking her head, she dropped, with a thin smile, "I see on that head enough frizz for three poodles;  perhaps not enough for a star, but certainly much too much for a soldier."

After another run in with Milena over lipstick and feminine underwear, the women rebel.

"'Milena, why do you say that?" ask Nadine and Katerine at the same time.
'Because the time is past for being girlish,' explains Milena.  'The world is crashing down;  Russia's bleeding.  Each day, thousands of men die. . ."

Things progress.

"Where they'd been striving before to enhance their value as women,  they now strive to be admired as women soldiers.  They feel capable of excelling there, and are eager to prove themselves.  So, they manage to be near the men during range practice, and sneer audibly when counting the missed targets.  This unnerves the men.
'Bragging, as usual,' they retort.  'You already look ridiculous behind a simple gun;  you'd be frightened to death behind a cannon.'
'How would you know about that?' replies Nadine.
'Try it then.'
'Why not?'  May I?'
The officer is caught in the game, just like his men.
'Go ahead and try,' he allows.
Nadine squats behind an anti-tank gun, and carefully locates her target in the scope.  She shoots.  The shell hits the bull's eye.
'Hurrah!' cry the girls.
The men only shrug
'A lucky shot, that's all.'
She shoots again and again.  Even without the scope, she manages to hit the target - even as it is progressively moved father and farther away.
'The road to success is often opened through chance,' comments Milena, philosophically.  'Who would have thought that plump Nadine, curly as a poodle, had it in her to be an artilleryman?'
'Big deal," interjects Vlasta with a tinge of jealousy.  'Some success - being promoted into the art of killing!'
But enthusiasm is contagious, and now they find themselves incorporated into the complete program of target practice.  Like the men, they learn to handle machine guns, to hit a moving target, to strike an armored vehicle with an anti-tank cannon, to arm a grenade and throw it, and to dig a foxhole while remaining flat on their stomach.
The women do find an opportunity to get back at Patak. 

And they get back at Patak.

Katerine was punished for insubordination after the incident during the exercise in the steppe.  Nothing but bread and water, and a twenty-four hour confinement at the bottom of a hole dug inside the casern perimeter - no fun at all, particularly at night, for she dreads the dark, and recoils from bugs and rats.  How long such a lonely night can be, and how bitter the anger it fosters!
The girls are deeply moved by Katerine's distress.
Vlasta declares resolutely, 'Something must be done.  We can't allow ourselves to be treated that way.'
Milena, who never misses a chance to preach her party line, smiles soothingly.
'This is only an example of the old fascist methods.  Such things could never happen in the Soviet Army.  Rapport between soliders and officers is humane and based on comradeship.  Discipline is willingly accepted, and one relies upon awareness of a shared goal, as well as a common duty to the country. . .
'I've had it with Miss Guiding Light.  She's a pain.  If she'd been through what we went through, she'd sing a different tune,"  grouse the girls. . .
Nevertheless, the girls have lodged a complaint with the colonel about the uncouth way their lieutenant treats them.  Meanwhile, they prepare their own personal revenge.

It's a dark night.

"There is no moon, and the sky is overcast on the night Jarmila is on watch duty in front of the casern's entrance leading to Headquarters and Bachelor Officers' Quarters.  A driving rain begins to fall, and periodic blasts of wind rattle tightly closed doors and windows.
'Hey, here comes Patak,' rejoices Jarmila, watching a dark shadow hastening to the gate.  'I guess our intelligence services are well-informed.'
Through indirect channels, the girls had learned that Patak, sent two days before to Kujbishev, wouldn't probably be back before midnight.  And rain started to fall as if on order.
'Stop!' she shouts, aiming her gun. 'Give me the password.'
'I don't know it,' replies the newcomer.  'I was away on orders, but you know me; let me in.'
It is Patak, all right, and is he mad!
'One more step, and I shoot.'
'Come on;  don't be an idiot.'
'Stay where you are, or I shoot,' warns Jarmila, her finger on the trigger.
'Call the officer of the day,' demands Patak.
'No.  I have to wait until my relief comes.  I can't leave you here unwatched.'
'You've got to be out of your mind!' shouts an exasperated Patak, taking a step forward.
The barrel of the gun comes to rest firmly against his chest.
'Don't you dare move,' orders Jarmila, who, sheltered under the small roof protecting the gates, watches Patak as if he were a huge bug pinned to a cork.
He stops, at a loss, then tries to reason with her.
'Look, I know you're doing your job, and I understand.  Only you mustn't overdo it.  I am an officer.  I outrank you, and you must listen to me.'
'Stop!' yells Jarmila.  'Don't take another step.'
The wind is howling now.  Fine slanted cords of rain whip against the man's head and body.  Having left in glorious weather, he didn't bother with a coat.  His feet sink deep in the mud, and he is soon soaked to the bone.
No one is in sight;  nothing, but the howls of the wind and the patter of the rain, that gun pressed against his chest, and rage burning in his eyes.  Minutes pass slowly.
Soon, we'll have been in that stand-off for half an hour, rages Patak inwardly.  Face to face with the insolent girl and her mocking eyes.  I'll be the laughing stock of the entire unit.  But what can I do?
Another half hour drags on as though it would never come to an end, before the relief sentry appears at last and Patak can return to his quarters.
'Hurrah, we got him!' shout the girls, awakened by Jarmila's arrival.  They gather around her, warm up some tea for her, and rub her hair dry.
'He'll remember it,' they repeat, very pleased.
He did remember it, and for a long time - especially in the hospital where he was sent to nurse his pneumonia. (p. 227)

The book is available online.  I found a copy through inter-library loan.  A fascinating World War II story and just one degree of separation between me and the author.

I forgot to mention that the book is copyrighted 1999.  So the author would have been in her late 80's at that time.  The images, nevertheless, are very vivid.

Scalia: "That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives."

After quickly looking at Scalia's dissent in today's case, I was ready to jump all over him for the apparent contradiction between his dissent today in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and his position in yesterday's Voting Rights Act (VRA) decision.

He writes, with passion:

"This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America. .  ."

Then he goes on a little later to say the Majority is saying it has the power to decide the case "because if we did not, then our “primary role in determining the constitutionality of a law” (at least one that “has inflicted real injury on a plaintiff ”) would 'become only secondary to the President’s.'  .   .”

"That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives. It is an assertion of judicial su- premacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and everywhere “primary” in its role." [emphasis added]

My reaction was that Scalia's comment is jaw-dropping.  Just yesterday the Court ruled Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional.  The Voting Rights Act passed 98-0 in the US Senate and 390-33 in the House.  Yet Scalia, who mocks today's majority for overturning a section of the 1998  Defense of Marriage Act, had voted to invalidate the 2006 overwhelming decision of the Congress in passing the Voting Rights Act.  There's nothing in the opinion that worries about the Supreme Court overstepping its power.  Instead there is a plaintiff (Shelby County) with a record of curtailing the voting rights of Blacks, compared to today's case where the surviving spouse had to pay a huge tax on her inheritance from her partner of over 30 years, simply because her legal spouse was not a man.

Later in his dissent, Scalia cites James Madison's Federalist Papers comments on separation of powers and from that concludes:

"For this reason we are quite forbidden to say what the law is whenever (as today’s opinion asserts) “‘an Act of Congress is alleged to conflict with the Constitution.’” Ante, at 12. We can do so only when that allegation will determine the outcome of a lawsuit, and is contradicted by the other party. The “judicial Power” is not, as the majority believes, the power “‘to say what the law is,’” ibid., giving the Supreme Court the 'primary role in determining the constitutionality of laws.'”  

He then chides the majority for perhaps thinking they were bound by the constitutions of foreign countries

"In other words, declaring the compatibility of state or federal laws with the Constitution is not only not the “primary role” of this Court, it is not a separate, free-standing role at all. We perform that role incidentally—by accident, as it were—when that is necessary to resolve the dispute before us. Then, and only then, does it become “‘the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.’”

I didn't quite understand what he was saying here, but as I read on, it becomes clear that he is making a distinction between cases  in which the Court must make a decision between two competing claims and this case, in which both the plaintiff and the government (the original defendant) now agree.  And where the plaintiff already got relief in the lower court.  In this case, he's arguing, the Court's purpose is not to adjudicate a disagreement, but to declare DOMA unconstitutional, which the appeal court had done already in the Second Circuit, and now the Supreme Court is doing nationally.

"Windsor’s injury was cured by the judgment in her favor. And while, in ordi- nary circumstances, the United States is injured by a directive to pay a tax refund, this suit is far from ordinary. Whatever injury the United States has suffered will surely not be redressed by the action that it, as a litigant, asks us to take. The final sentence of the Solicitor General’s brief on the merits reads: “For the foregoing reasons, the judg- ment of the court of appeals should be affirmed.” Brief for United States (merits) 54 (emphasis added). That will not cure the Government’s injury, but carve it into stone. One Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 5 SCALIA, J., dissenting could spend many fruitless afternoons ransacking our library for any other petitioner’s brief seeking an affir- mance of the judgment against it.1 What the petitioner United States asks us to do in the case before us is exactly what the respondent Windsor asks us to do: not to provide relief from the judgment below but to say that that judg- ment was correct. And the same was true in the Court of Appeals: Neither party sought to undo the judgment for Windsor, and so that court should have dismissed the appeal (just as we should dismiss) for lack of jurisdiction. Since both parties agreed with the judgment of the Dis- trict Court for the Southern District of New York, the suit should have ended there. The further proceedings have been a contrivance, having no object in mind except to ele- vate a District Court judgment that has no precedential effect in other courts, to one that has precedential effect throughout the Second Circuit, and then (in this Court) precedential effect throughout the United States."

As I understand this case, the US government chose NOT to appeal the Appeals Court decision.  Instead, Congressional Republicans took on that task.  Perhaps the appropriate action, given Scalia's line of reasoning, would have been for the Supreme Court to not ever hear this case, or, if they did, to reject it, as they did with the Perry case on Prop. 8, because the party bringing the case didn't have standing.

But it does seem that the Republicans who brought the case were the ones asking the Court to overturn the lower court decision and to say that same-sex marriage is NOT guaranteed by the Constitution.  So, if the Court declined to hear the case, it would, de facto, agree with the lower court that DOMA wasn't constitutional.  But only in the Second Circuit.  That would mean the issue would still be unsettled in the rest of the United States.

It is ironic that it was the Republicans who brought the case and were trying to overturn the lower court decision and Scalia says the case has no business at the Supreme Court.  One wonders if Kennedy had not agreed with the liberal side of the court on this case whether Scalia would have had a problem overturning the lower court decision.  If so, that would make all this legal smokescreen for his personal emotional aversion to homosexuality.

As I suggested the other day when reporting his comments at the North Carolina Bar Association, perhaps the passion he exhibited there reflected that he had lost his argument in the Court and so he was repeating his argument to the North Carolina lawyers.  It seems that was the case.  I also wondered how genuine his anguish over being the 'moral arbiter' was.  I still think that's a role he doesn't mind playing.  It's losing on a decision he has strong personally feelings about that bothers him, I suspect.

In Another 7 Hours We'll Know If The Supreme Court Was Saving The Best For Last

At 10am (East Coast time) tomorrow (it's still Tuesday as I write here in Anchorage - we'll know whether the US Supreme Court has chosen to use the Constitution and its demands for equal treatment and state's rights or the Bible to move us along or hold back our nation's progress toward recognizing full rights for gays and lesbians.

In the DOMA case, they would have to strike down a federal law that doesn't recognize gay marriage and prevents married same-sex couples from enjoying the same benefits as hetero couples.   But after invalidating legislation that was passed unanimously in the US Senate and 330 - 37 in the House, that shouldn't be a problem.

The conservatives are strong proponents of less federal government and state's rights.  At least when it suits their needs.  Here, a federal law negates state laws that recognize same-sex marriage and marriage laws are typically reserved for the states.  So it would be easy for the Court's conservatives to defer on this to the states.

In the Prop. 8 case, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, again this is typically something states have jurisdiction over, so again, it would make sense to defer to the state decision on this.

Of course, it all depends on whether you see this as a moral issue or an equal rights issue.  Well, actually, on those grounds, we can count on the conservatives on the Court to go with morality against equal rights.

As I see things, same-sex marriage is the future.  We'll increasingly recognize that sexual orientation is basically not something that people choose.  And that all the 'sanctity of marriage' talk is all religiously, not Constitutionally based.  And as same-sex couples become more common and open people will see that they are just people like everyone else.  Their marriages will prove to be as wonderful and difficult, as successful and hopeless, as heterosexual marriages.

So, if the Court rejects same-sex marriage tomorrow, they are only prolonging the inevitable and making a lot of people's lives more difficult.  If they allow same-sex marriage, a lot of people's lives will be easier and happier, and they will also have to face the reality of marriage and all the work it takes to make one work.

I know there are many people who will be devastated if the Court rules for same-sex marriage.  But I still don't quite understand why.  It doesn't affect their own marriages.  Churches won't be required to marry same-sex couples.  The only thing I can think of that might explain their objection is this:  their children and their flocks will be confronted with an alternative opinion to their stance on marriage.  And that will be a rip in their ideology.   One more biblical abomination that the rest of the world accepts - like eating pork and shellfish or doing business on the Sabbath.

For  more of an insider analysis see this SCOTUS blog analysis, which expects that the Court might just avoid ruling by using legal technicalities about whether the parties who appealed to the Court  had standing to do so.

"We issue no holding on §5 itself, only on the coverage formula." Shelby County and Alaska Redistricting

If you eliminate all the argument and get to the nitty gritty of the this morning's Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act (Shelby County v Holder) , it's this, from the end of the opinion:

"Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nation- wide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in §2. We issue no holding on §5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions. Such a formula is an initial prerequi- site to a determination that exceptional conditions still exist justifying such an “extraordinary departure from the traditional course of relations between the States and the Federal Government.” Presley, 502 U. S., at 500–501. Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed."

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

Meaning of Section 2 - Section 2 prohibits discrimination in voting practices (from the Department of Justice (DOJ)):

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups identified in Section 4(f)(2) of the Act. Most of the cases arising under Section 2 since its enactment involved challenges to at-large election schemes, but the section's prohibition against discrimination in voting applies nationwide to any voting standard, practice, or procedure that results in the denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. Section 2 is permanent and has no expiration date as do certain other provisions of the Voting Rights Act. [emphasis added]

Meaning of Section 5 - Section 5 requires pre-clearance for election law and procedure changes in states that have a history of discrimination (from DOJ):

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

The section of the Voting Rights Act the Court struck down was Section 4 - this section sets the criteria that determine which states are required to get pre-clearance.   Again from DOJ:

Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act

When Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it determined that racial discrimination in voting had been more prevalent in certain areas of the country. Section 4(a) of the Act established a formula to identify those areas and to provide for more stringent remedies where appropriate. The first of these targeted remedies was a five-year suspension of "a test or device," such as a literacy test as a prerequisite to register to vote. The second was the requirement for review, under Section 5, of any change affecting voting made by a covered area either by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or by the Attorney General. The third was the ability of the Attorney General to certify that specified jurisdictions also required the appointment of federal examiners. These examiners would prepare and forward lists of persons qualified to vote. The final remedy under the special provisions is the authority of the Attorney General to send federal observers to those jurisdictions that have been certified for federal examiners.

This part on minority language groups particularly applies to Alaska:

Section 4 also contains several other provisions, such as Section 4(e) and Section 4(f), that guarantee the right to register and vote to those with limited English proficiency. Section 4(e) provides that the right to register and vote may not be denied to those individuals who have completed the sixth grade in a public school, such as those in Puerto Rico, where the predominant classroom language is a language other than English. In Section 4(f), the Act addresses the ability of those persons who are members of language minority groups identified in Section 4(f)(2), to register and vote as well as to get information relating to the electoral process in a manner that will ensure their meaningful participation in the electoral process. The Department has embarked on a vigorous program to enforce the Act's language minority provisions.

HOW DOES IT CHANGE ALASKA REDISTRICTING RULES?

As the Alaska Redistricting Board gets close to wrapping up its second 2010 redistricting plan (the first was rejected by the Alaska Supreme Court), there are two key sets of standards (beyond the basic US Constitutional requirements of one person- one vote, etc.)  that have been required:

• The Alaska Constitution
• The US Voting Rights Act

The Alaska Supreme Court has required the Board to first develop a map that meets the requirements of the Alaska Constitution and then second adjust those maps to meet the Voting Rights Act.

The Board has adopted seven optional plans that they believe conform with the Alaska Constitution and will have public hearings in Anchorage (Friday June 28), Fairbanks (July 1), and Juneau (July 2).

The US Supreme Court decision today on the Shelby County case, as I understand it, does not invalidate Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act or Section 2.  But, by invalidating the formula used in Section 4 to determine which states would be required, in Section 5, to have their plan pre-cleared by the DOJ, it effectively makes Section 5 moot until there are new criteria in Section 4.  

Therefore, 

1.  The Board still needs to meet the standards of Section 2
2.  But they do not need to get pre-clearance

So, the Board's plan:
1.  Must comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
2.  Does not need to be pre-cleared by the Department of Justice

What Does Comply With Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act Mean?

This is the tricky question I've been trying to figure out for the last couple of weeks.

What seems to be clear is that Section 2 requires proof of intent of discrimination while Section 5 only requires proof of discriminatory effect.  Exactly what that means for the Board is not clear to me.  Proving intent, obviously is much harder than proving effect.  And because Section 5's pre-clearance required scrutiny before a voting process change could go into effect, it means that violations will be dealt with after the fact.  Meaning after an election.  And the candidates who win because of later demonstrated voter repression will still be in office and making laws.  (I think.)

When I talked to Michael White (the Board's attorney) last week about what this would mean, he said (at least this is what I heard him say) that Section 2 requirements mean that the new plan must preserve the same number of  Native Districts with 50% or more Native population.  Section 5 required, additionally, those with lower Native districts to also be preserved.  He thought the Board  would be required to preserve three of four Native House districts (and two Senate districts). But I can't find language that does explains that.  And, in fact, the Board had to hire a Voting Rights Expert to help them understand exactly how many districts they needed to preserve and how to determine if they met the standards.  The actual rules tend to be pretty fluid and this ruling is going to cause me to mix metaphors here if I'm not careful.  DOJ does prosecute based on 

The Board had worked very hard to not have 'retrogression' in its plan.  Retrogression means that there are fewer Native districts than in the previous (2000 Census based) plan.  If I recall, that originally meant nine Native districts.  Because of changes in how DOJ determined Native Districts, the Southeast Native District was no longer viable.

Pulling up the the old maps and population statistics from the Alaska Redistricting Board's website is difficult to impossible because much of that is no longer there.  However, they are still somewhere and the links from my old posts do still get to some maps and stats.

This map (below) is I'm 90% sure,  the Amended Proclamation Plan adopted April 5, 2012 and used as the Interim Plan (with later changes to Southeast.)   I'm using this to show the Native District implications.

White believed - he wasn't certain - that Districts 36, 39, and 40 - were the three with over 50% Native population that would have to be preserved as Native Districts, that the three all had over 70% Native population.

As I pulled up the Population Statistics chart that was also from the April 5, 2012 meeting, I found that there were two more districts with over 50% Native population.  The chart below shows that districts 37 and 38 have 51% and 52% respectively.

One problem for the Board all along was that these districts are relatively isolated.  In a sense, one could argue that all the Alaska Natives are 'packed' into a few districts, leaving other districts with a lower percent of Natives in other districts, thus diluting their voting strength.  But these districts are geographically isolated and in areas with low population density making it more difficult to get contiguous, compact districts of 17,755 people (the state population divided by 40 districts).


IMMEDIATE EFFECT OF SHELBY COUNTY DECISION ON ALASKA REDISTRICTING

The Board will have its public hearings this week and next and then on July 12 they will meet and select a plan that meets the Alaska Constitutional requirements.  Because they are no longer required to get pre-clearance from the Department of Justice, they will proclaim that as the new plan.

However, they are still required to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and if they diminish the voting power of Alaska Natives, there is sure to be a law suit filed.  At this point, I just don't understand exactly what standards the Court will use to determine if they comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or not.


As I find out more, I'll let you know.

Meanwhile, if you want to look at the Options the Board is taking to the Public Hearings Friday, Monday, and Tuesday, go to the Board's website.    News and Updates has all the plans - maps and data.  On the right you can get the details for the meetings - Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau.

If you want to compare the new options to the existing Interim plan you can go to my post of April 5, 2012.  There I have links to the statewide map (the one posted above) and to each of the district maps and the population stats (also posted above in this post.)

HOWEVER - Southeast Alaska's districts were changed and you can see those changed districts here.

If you haven't notice, at the top of the blog (under the orange header) is a tab for the Alaska Redistricting Board.  It has a list - in chronological order - of all my posts on the redistricting board with a brief description of each post.  Or you can get to it here.

What Do Alaska, Kentucky, and Texas Have In Common?

Seem To Be The Only States Still Without Redistricting Plans.

I got to wondering how many states, like Alaska, still don't have redistricting plans.  That wondering got me to redistrictingonline.org.  They don't exactly say, but I thought they might know and emailed their comment line and got a quick email back.

"After Maine approved its legislative districts recently, only Alaska, Texas and Kentucky have redistricting business to finish. You can check Prof. Justin Levitt's site  http://redistricting.lls.edu for detailed info on all the states."

Levitt's site has a map that shows the status of litigation in all the states. It lists 15 states still in court. That's much more than the "Alaska, Texas, and Kentucky" answer I got above, but it doesn't appear to have been kept current. (The latest Alaska update was last November.)  Plus not all the litigation is about state redistricting plans. 

However, he did Tweet a few days ago:

Justin Levitt @_justinlevitt_

ME gov signs state #redistricting map. Would've been last in country, if not for AK, KY, TX redo. redistricting.lls.edu/index-state.php

3:26 PM Jun 14th

.Kentucky's legislature has been sued for not finishing and if they don't move on it a three judge panel may be appointed to finish it up.

On June 20, Kentucky's governor called a special session for five days beginning August 20 to get redistricting finished. 

Texas might be close to completion.  From a Texas Redistricting And Election Law blog:

The vote on the redistricting bills has been added formally to the Texas House’s calendar for Thursday morning.
The House will be voting on the Senate version of the three map bills (SB 2, SB 3, and SB 4).
Assuming there are no amendments - and no successful points of order - the bills then could go straight to Gov. Perry’s desk for signature.
Thursday morning could be big in another way as well. An hour before the House meets, the Supreme Court will be releasing more opinions. Those could include a decision in Shelby Co.   Jun 18, 2013 5:40 pm

The Texas situation is evolving quickly.  Here's the picture from Saturday June 22.

The adopted version of the state house map: Plan H358

Assuming no changes by the Senate (and none are expected), the version of the state house map that will go to Gov. Perry’s desk is Plan H358.
The changes made by the House on the floor were minor, but, in any event, here are the updated demographic stats for the map.

Plan H358 - CVAP
Plan H358 - Spanish surname 2012 voter turnout 

On Sunday it was updated again to say three redistricting bills are on the governor's desk.



Meanwhile, compared to Wisconsin, Alaska looks really good.  [UPDATE Nov 1, 2013: There was a bad link for Wisconsin so I've put a more current link in.]

I don't know how long people have, in other states, to challenge the new plans in court.  In Alaska it's 30 days.  


Meanwhile, today's Supreme Court decisions did not include Shelby County (the voting rights case) nor the same-sex marriage cases, but SCOTUS Blog predicts more decisions tomorrow.

Snowden Chase Modern Day Version of OJ Televised Car Chase

[Think of this as a quick jump into the river of data flowing out over the internet.  A short swim.  Then we get out, dry off, and go about our business.]

There's a lot we don't know and jumping to firm conclusions on any side is clearly premature.  One's gut reactions are probably more related to one's basic belief system than to the actual facts at this point.  But, eventually, we'll know which first impressions proved to be more accurate.

My reaction is in the title - this reminds me of the OJ Simpson car chase coverage.  That one used helicopters to follow Simpson and the police through Los Angeles.  This one is using the internet and who knows what else to give us less direct and less verifiable information.  The OJ chase led to a trial that left White observers shaking their heads and Black observers smiling.  The later may not all have believed in OJ's innocence, but the fact that a Black defendant had been able to get out of a charge of murder of his White girlfriend showed that enough money to get a great attorney now worked for Blacks as well as Whites.  But it didn't end there and everyone seemed to hold to their pre-trial conclusions.  We'll see if that foreshadows what's going to happen here where the stakes are so much higher.  

I went to Twitter to see what was happening there.   Snowden isn't even in the top 10.  Here's what Tweeters think is important at this moment in time*:

Trends 

• #MagnaCarta
 Promoted

• Jim Carrey 

• Adams Morgan

• #Berlusconi

• #SCOTUS

• #questionsforteganandsara

• Deng

• #SB5

• #zimmermantrial

• Fed's Fisher

I searched Snowden (not the hashtag #Snowden.)  Tweets are rushing in.  Most seem sympathetic to Snowden.  Here are just two:

Nancy Kricorian ‏@nancykric4h"He who tells the truth must have one foot in the stirrup." - Armenian proverb #RunSnowdenRun

Occupy Wall Street ‏@OccupyWallStNYC6hIrony in the US getting upset about #Snowden going to Cuba to avoid the law, which is exactly why Bush put Guantanamo there. #RunSnowdenRun

I decided to look for the negative tweets and searched "Snowden traitor" (not the hashtag #snowdentraitor.) Here too it seems tweeters are pretty supportive of Snowden though if you wait a few minutes you get a stream of 'he's a traitor' tweets. From search for "snowden traitor":

Jonathan C ‏@jcpolitech15m

I initially thought Snowden was a whistle blower, but if he is sharing NSA secrets with China & Russia, then he is a traitor 

.POLITICO ‏@politico18 JunMichele Bachmann says Edward Snowden is ‘clearly’ a traitor: http://politi.co/16G31s5 GORKA DE ZAMACONA ‏@GORKAZP18 Jun@politico Traitors r those who swore 2 uphold & defend the constitution & trample it Those who warn U your rights being taken away R heroes
ExpandCSMonitor.com ‏@csmonitor17 JunDick Cheney calls Edward #Snowden a traitor, says fleeing to China suspicious, implies he may a spy for China: http://ow.ly/m6iv6 

The Atlantic Wire ‏@TheAtlanticWire2hThe growing consensus that #Snowden is a terrible traitor, or 'America's #1 fugitive' http://theatln.tc/14T7BmS 

But another tweet took me to newsguild (the newspaper guild, communications workers of America)

which has an online poll:

Snowden Survey

Thank you for taking our survey.*

results

*I had to vote to see the results.



I'm not sure what this all means, but the basic questions falling out are:

• Snowden's motives  - I don't see much about Snowden being motivated by money or any other reason to sell out his country.  Some say he's doing this for the attention.  Most say he's exposing the ugly side of America.  Some say he's helping China and Russia (and other countries with terrible free press records) to score points against the US.  It seems that most people writing think that he, at least, thinks he's doing this as a whistleblower, not as a spy.  
• Traitor/Spy - This charge seems to come more from the act and specific violations of the law and the contract he signed to keep information confidential than from belief that he has been paid to do this by some foreign government - the usual notion of a spy.  The idea is, he broke the law and is doing harm to America therefore he is a traitor.  Implied, I guess, is that he is just a mere cog in the process and therefore doesn't understand the big picture of why the surveillance needs to be done.
• Hero - There are a lot of folks (on Twitter) who see Snowden as part of the Daniel Ellsberg, Julian Assange tradition of whistleblowers who expose government's evil ways.  
• Just a troubled man - Beate Clever ‏@ArtClipsDesign
  22m
  Ex-CIA Chief: Snowden neither hero, nor traitor but very troubled young man http://fb.me/2Fblk6H8J 

Technology may give us access to more data faster, it doesn't make us wiser. It does give us more of a sense of what people are thinking and with that we can start to assemble the ways people are framing the situation and the questions that need more facts to help reach more justifiable conclusions. (Conclusions can include: "We don't have enough information to conclude.")


*  As I towel off and get back to other things, here's the Twitter Top 10 as I'm about to hit the publish button:

Trends 

• #MagnaCarta

 Promoted

• Jim Carrey

• #SCOTUS

• Adams Morgan

• #TWLHangout

• #LarryIsLove

• #smarTrike

• #SB5

• Andrew Gaugh

• Fed's Fisher

· Change

When Did Teal First Get Used As A Color Name? Potter Marsh Stop Leads Me To The Answer.

Actually, I never even thought of the question, until I started googling to gets ome background information for these pictures.  


After an anniversary party with friends, we went over to Potter Marsh, not far away.  We got there around ten and stayed an hour.  I'm still learning how to do things on the new camera - which I usually leave home and stuff my old one in my pocket.  Let's say, I have mastered almost nothing in terms of how to control my camera.  Yet despite that, I got far better pictures than I could have with my little Powershot.  But given it was cloudy and late,  I really messed up the lighting with the terns and had to revive the images after the fact in photoshop. 

Green winged teal

From Wikipedia:

"Teal is a deep blue color; a dark cyan.
Teal gets its name from the fact that it surrounds the eyes of the common teal, a member of the duck family.
The first written use of Teal as a color name in English was in 1917.^[1] "

These birds are pretty common throughout the US and Canada according to All About Birds.

Potter Marsh is just south of Anchorage (the city part - Anchorage boundary goes on another 50 miles or so) and was formed when they built the Seward Highway and blocked the water from just flowing out into the inlet.  I was trying to find a link to confirm this history but most google links go to tourist posts on Potter Marsh, but I did find this post about a contractor who was fined for destroying a stream and wetlands that feed into Potter Marsh.  

Beginning in 2005, D'Amato used heavy equipment at the Hunter Heights subdivision to illegally excavate 1,300 feet of streams, then filled nearly an acre of wetlands on a 29-acre property with the stream material, according to the EPA. D'Amato performed this work without obtaining needed permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, a violation of the Clean Water Act, the EPA said.

The excavation caused erosion in the streams and sediment flowed into nearby Little Rabbit Creek, which is used by salmon to spawn. The sediment flows on through the creek to Potter Marsh, where it threatens salmon and bird populations, said Heather Dean, environmental scientist at the EPA.

The EPA sent D'Amato warnings over the years but he never fixed the problem, Dean said. In 2007, the EPA issued D'Amato a compliance order requiring him to restore the damaged wetlands and streams. He hasn't yet taken care of it and continued to dredge and fill the streams and wetlands on his property until at least July 2008, the EPA said.  

I found this story covered in several places but didn't find any stories that followed up on what happened.

 

An Alaska Railroad passenger train  went noisily by while we were at the Marsch.

Arctic Terns are one of my favorite Alaska birds, but they've always been a little tricky to photograph because the move so fast.  I'm posting these shots so when I get better ones, I can go back and remember how bad these were.  These are photoshop enhanced - made much brighter because when I set it at a speed to get these very fast birds in focus, the aperture didn't go along.  These terns fly from the Antarctic to Alaska and then back each year.   And they fly and hover and dive for fish.  Very sleek and beautiful to watch. 

The Arctic Tern Migration Project website this Bird of the Sun:

"Bird of the sun

The Arctic tern is known to make the longest annual migration in the animal kingdom. During its breeding season, it is found far to the north where summer days are long, and it winters far south in the southern hemisphere, where the days are longest during November to February. This means that the Arctic tern probably experiences more sun light during a calendar year than any other creature on Earth. The long-distance travel of the Arctic tern is well-known both amongst researchers and in the broader public. Now, for the first time, technological advances allow us to follow the Arctic tern on its immense journey, practically from pole to pole.