Sunday, April 17, 2022

Redistricting Board Decision Day (Wed April 13, 2022) Video

The Board has posted the video of the April 13 Board meeting (embedded below) when the three Republican appointed majority members voted to approve the map Option 3B, submitted by long time Republican strategist (and past Republican Party Chair) Randy Ruedrich.  

They did these explanations because the Court found the previous map unconstitutional and had said that the Board needed to justify its decisions on the record, especially if they are contrary to public opinion.


As you listen, I remind you that Judge Matthews concluded  that contiguity simply means the two districts have touching boundaries in his order in the court cases - see pages 40-42.  He repeats it again on page 74-75, rejecting the concept of 'transportation contiguity.'

But he also notes that Marcum started the November approved Senate maps in Anchorage with the firm belief that JBER and Eagle River could not be pulled apart.  I'd note that D23 which includes most of JBER is also 1/3 off base areas left over from cutting downtown apart along 4th Avenue.  I mention that here because Simpson strongly defended the 23/24 pairing and he saw any attempt to split them as an attack on "our soldiers' and proof of partisan gerrymandering.  (Note how often Republicans these days are quick to accuse anyone who opposes of doing the exact same illegal or immoral thing they are doing.) He noted that protecting this pairing is what prevented the Board from pairing the two Eagle River districts which were shown to be communities of interest by the East Anchorage plaintiffs' expert witness, Dr. Chase Hensel.  

Enough preface.  I'm working the next post which will look at how their decision was based on unsupported assertions, anecdotes, and attacks on alternatives.  Not on any kind of professional decision making process.  

This is the video of that meeting.  My previous post reviewed member Budd Simpson's reasons.  That begins right about 20 minutes into the video and goes to about 45 minutes in.  This is followed by member Nicole Borromeo's critical response (beginning about 46) which includes asking the Court not to remand this back to the Board but to just finish the map because the Board will just continue with partisan gerrymandering.  

We also have much shorter (than Simpson) reasons from Marcum and Binkley.   Then there's the vote.  I like John Binkley as a person - he cheerful, has a ready smile, and genuinely seems to like people - all kinds.  And he has this amazing ability to keep that cordiality going even facing diversity.  Listen to him right after Borromeo blasts the majority decision. He couldn't be sweeter if she had praised the majority decision highly.  But also not how he tends to keep talking much longer than necessary - wanting to keep every possible option open as long as possible.  The procedural decisions that should have taken 15 seconds or more just go on and on.  


Joint Redistricting Board - 4/13/2022 - 1:00pm from AlaskaLegislature.tv on Vimeo.



Thursday, April 14, 2022

Alaska Redistricting Board: A Critical Look At Budd Simpson's Arguments Supporting Option 3B [UPDATED]



There's so much to write about following the Redistricting Boards 3-2 vote to approve Option 3B, the plan written by Randy Ruedrich and approved by the three Republican appointed Board members against the vehement objections of the two Board members who were appointed by people not affiliated with a political party in Alaska.  

In this post I'm going to go through Board Member Budd Simpson's reasons for supporting Option 3B.  His explanation was by far the best of the three explanations by the majority.  But first, let me give a little bit of background of the districts in question.  

[Let me first note and apologize.  I'm going to use the House numbers and Senate letters used in the November proclamation plan map.  Some of these got changed yesterday, but I think it would be more confusing if I used the new numbers.  For the points I'm making here, it doesn't matter.]

Both Options 2 and 3B paired north and south Muldoon districts.  That was what the Court pretty much told them to do.  

But that left D22 (Eagle River) orphaned.    Option 2, as I see it, had the most obvious pairings.  It joined districts that had been split apart right through neighborhoods.  Let me show you what I mean:



  

District 9 is a huge district that runs down Turnagain Arm to Girdwood and then on down to Whittier.  But in town, it connects to D10 via the Seward Highway and neighborhoods east of the highway. Neighborhoods along the coast line.  You can see that clearly in this map.  

These two districts were paired in the original map approved in November and in the Option 2 map.  





The two Eagle River districts are also large and cover lots of unpopulated land in Chugach State Park.  But the two districts 22 and 24 have closely joined populations near ER Valley and along the Glenn Highway.  They fit like puzzle pieces.  Neighbors nearby.  

Option 2 put them together in one Senate seat.







And D24 (this map just shows part of the off-base portion, which is attached to the JBER portion.  You can see Fourth Avenue is split in half.  The olive part is in D23, the purple in D17.  D23 also includes parts of Mountain View and goes east to Bartlett High School. Again, people across the street from each other are in different districts.  Reconnecting them in a Senate seat makes perfect sense to me.  That's what Option 2 did.



But when you pair them the way Option 3B does, you're connecting not the communities that have been split, but wilderness.  Below is a larger view of part of D9 and D10.  Option 3B splits them and pairs D9 with D22.  Across the uninhabited (by people) Chugach State Park.  To get from a populated area in D9 crossing the "contiguous" border" to a populated area in D22, you have to walk across mountain ranges and river drainages  - probably about 10-15 miles.  Eagle River Valley is not on this map, it's further north in the yellow part.  To get to the people in D10, many people in D9 could just walk down the street.  Just the same as between the two ER districts and downtown and Government Hill/JBER.  

But not between D9 and D22.







The same is true on the JBER side of D23 that connects to D24.  Wilderness.  The olive district is 23, the brighter green is 24.  

As many people testified, people in D9 would have to drive through four or more other house districts to get to the district they're paired with.  The same is true for people in districts 23 and 24.




I'm putting these maps here so it's clear that Option 3B is not the most obvious, the most natural pairing of house seats.  It would seem that the burden should be on the proponents to demonstrate why 3B is the better choice.  


At Wednesday's meeting each member of the majority did lay out their reasons in quite  bit of detail. The court had faulted them for not doing that last time.  Will the judge accept member Simpson's definition of  'reasonable'?   In his deposition he was asked for a definition and he said it meant you had a reason.  Does it have to be a good reason?  Apparently not.  

I was at the Legislative Information Office and took notes on my laptop.  (Only members Bahnke and Borromeo were also in the LIO.  The others were there by Zoom.)  Budd Simpson doesn't speak a lot and when he does, he speaks fairly slowly.  I mention that because that makes it easier for me to keep up with him.  Simpson's arguments were also the best of the three.  So, below are his words in black (as close as I could catch them) and then I comment in red.  


 

Budd Simpson's explanation of why he voted for Option 3B


Simpson:  Interesting to me between option 2 and 3B, there are a number of things in common.  Both options only change four districts.  A reasonable number.  Both independently came up with solution that only changes four districts.  Gives credibility to both.



They didn’t “both independently come up with a four district solution.”  First, there was only the Bahnke plan - Option 1.  Option 1 was the alternative plan that was proposed last November that had different Senate pairings throughout Anchorage from the pairings that were in the adopted plan, which was later ruled unconstitutional.  

Then the East Anchorage plaintiffs submitted a proposal to adopt another plan.  This would become Option 2.

Option 2 followed the rules of the Court to the T.  It only changed four districts and left the other four as member Marcum had paired them in the Proclamation Plan.   Meanwhile, the Ruedrich Plan was submitted.  It changed more than just the minimum number of districts affected by making the court corrections.  


Then Borromeo and Bahnke moved to withdraw Option 1 and just go with Option 2.  They did this because they recognized Option 2 more closely followed the Court’s orders which were to make other changes only if necessary because of taking apart D22 and D21.  (ER and Muldoon)


It was only then that Ruedrich submitted an amended plan which also limited the changes in Anchorage.  


So, this wasn’t independent.  The Republicans saw that their plan would be less likely to meet the Court’s approval if it had more changes than Option 2, so they then changed their map and Option 3B was born.  


Both dealt with Senate D to join 20 and 21 - best solution probably.  Also leave in place the pairings districts 11 and 12 and 15 and 16.


The Court specifically said to fix D 21 and talked about  keeping the Muldoon community whole.  The most obvious way was to connect it to 20.  


Left with ER Chugiak, S Anchorage Hillside,   JBER Military,  and Downtown.  

Bear with me as I . . . Whether we pair 17 and [this must be 23, but my notes had something else] or 23 and 24 - Military and Chugiak.  How you decide those two options, drives what happens with ER 22 and south side of Chugiak.  


He sets this up with a false starting point. 


Why is the choice 17 and 24 or 23 and 24?  We should start with the new orphan district 22, that is left over after putting 21 with 20.  And the most obvious pairing is with the other half of ER - the two districts are a unit.  The house districts split them neighbor from neighbor, the Senate district can repair that split.  


How does Hillside come into the picture?  The first question is after separating 22 from 21, what do we do with 22?  The most obvious pairing is with 24.  Lots and lots of evidence for this.  But the Republicans on the Board want to keep Chugiak/Eagle River (24) paired with JBER/Government Hill (23) because that will pick up an extra Republican Senator.  So they make keeping 23/24 together the only option.  


When you make a decision you have fewer other options to choose from as you go forward.


As to motion for Option 2 - I find the pairing of 23 and 24 ER and Chugiak the more compelling solution.  Pairing JBER with downtown overlooks a conflict of interest and opens us to a challenge to that constituency.  Chugiak has developed as a bedroom community for the military families.  They send their kids to middle school and high school there.  That testimony was compelling to that pairing.


Lots of false assumptions here.  What conflict of interest is there with pairing JBER with Downtown?  And why do you refer to D23 as JBER.  Yes, 2/3 of the population lives on JBER.  But 1/3 lives in downtown adjacent areas.  The Board already paired JBER with downtown in the House district.  To say pairing JBER and downtown is a problem now, overlooks the fact that the Board already paired them.  

In fact, the Board split downtown along 4th Avenue when they created D23.  Right in the middle of downtown Anchorage.  And although the downtown parts of 23 only have 1/3 the voters of the JBER section, more downtown people actually vote than JBER people in that district.  I haven’t gotten all the details (and nor has the Board), but a significant percent of the population of JBER are actually residents of other states, only in Anchorage for their rotation.  

A former East Anchorage Rep testified that ER high school wouldn’t exist without JBER.   But another person testified with data that showed  ASD students who had JBER addresses actually came out this way: [UPDATE April 16 - I realized I described these numbers incorrectly.  Here's the description from Denny Wells:  

"JBER High School boundaries are not included in maps from the Anchorage School District, but if you look up JBER addresses via the Anchorage School District School finder, you will see that addresses in the Richardson portion of the base, accessed via the Richardson gate, are zoned to Eagle River, while the

addresses in the Elmendorf portion of JBER accessed via Government Hill, Boniface, and Muldoon gates are zoned to Bartlett. The Downtown and Government Hill portions of District 23 are zoned to West High School. In total, in district 23, the populations in the various High School boundaries are these:"]


Bartlett High School (inside District 23) – 8733 people

West High School (inside District 17) – 4802 people

Eagle River High School (inside District 22) – 4488 people


More JBER students go to West High School - in District 17 “the Downtown District” according to Simpson, than to Eagle River.  And twice as many go to Bartlett which is in D23!  So this argument is bogus.  The data was actually in the testimony but Simpson either decided to ignore it or didn't read it.    We don't have this data.  It's something the Board should have looked up before jumping to their conclusions.  (And I should have been more careful when I put the numbers up.]


And then, let’s check on how many students from the Hillside go to ER high school or vice versa.  Probably close to zero.  But no one mentioned those numbers.  Why are these issues relevant to one pairing but not the other. 

Further, if you look at the demographic data of people living on base and the downtown off base parts of District 23, they are quite different from D24 - income level, types of homes, ethnicity.  But Simpson doesn’t pay attention to any of that.  Just like they ignored those difference between D22 and D21 in the original plan.  


Heard the argument repeatedly that under the court ruling that ER should be with Chugiak.  Not what the court said.  ER was done at the expense of Muldoon.  Order told us to reconfigure District K, but didn’t say anything about L.  The plaintiffs asked that as part of their relief. But the court didn’t grant that.  Court told us to repair the problematic part of DK and both options made that repair.  That should be sufficient to meet the intent of the court.  


The court rulings  didn't say anything about District 9 or 10 either.  The court also was concerned about political gerrymandering.  And the only explanation that make sense out of these pairings is that it gives ER and the Alaska Senate one more Republican Senator.  


If ER paired together or split, either way does not happen at the expense of Muldoon, because Muldoon is taken care of in both versions.


As far as the pairings, there’s no real advantage either splitting or dividing them.  The house districts were approved.  They are all in the MOA and all contain the same people.  There will be 37,000 in it and all get a vote and have a Senator and representative. 

Districts 23 and 24 is a pairing already in place.  Under option 3b, that isn’t changed.  If there are folks who have thought about running or not running, that stays in place and there is less to change.


But Districts 9 and 10 were also already paired and neither of them have populated areas that are anywhere near the populated areas of D22. But D10 has  an adjoining neighborhood to 9 and the Seward  Highway runs through them.  Just as the Glenn Highway runs through D22 and D24.  People in one district live across the street from people in the other district.  But pairing 22 rips them asunder and has the same detrimental effects Simpson ascribes to splitting 23 and 24.  Only in the case of 9 and 10, the effects are real.

The most obvious pairing is the two house districts that are in Eagle River.  There was testimony by at least two people that identified all the organizations that call themselves “Chugiak Eagle River”.  Nobody talks about the Eagle River Glen Alps community.  Both districts 22 and 24  are part of the EagleExit movement.  If you put ER back together with ER as Option 2 does, then you can also repair the splitting of downtown along 4th Avenue.  




That leaves us to pairing of 22 and 9 and there has been a lot of testimony and discussion on that on both sides.  When making the  pairing described for JBER and ER, that leaves us with 22 with no place to go except 9.  That just flows naturally from the 23/24 decision



Slick.  The only reason that leaves us 22 and 9 is that you magically decided that the JBER/Government Hill district had to be paired with 24.  You never give us a direct comparison between  22/24 Senate seat versus 22/9  or versus a 9/10 Senate seat.  The far more natural pairing was ER with ER/Chugiak.  And then the logic would be the only “natural pairing” would be JBER/Government hill together with downtown, which then matches the puzzle pieces of Fourth Avenue.  




.  Most discussion about contiguity and the concept of ‘nearly as practicable’ has been discussed.  The concept has been misconstrued a lot of the mite in those discussion. Practicable means possible or able to be done.  The way used in constitution it doesn’t mean you have to have the best pairing, but rather as an exception, when you have two districts that aren’t touching.  Intended as an exception of the contiguity rule.  Not the best, most compact whatever.  The pairing of house districts is not the same rule as for house districts.  While we have fought to find pairings to have reasonable rational standard, there is nothing wrong with the pairing of 9 and 22.  They are contiguous.  They have a 35 mile border.  Two districts SEI and demographically similar in many ways.  And of course are included in MOA and therefore are legally SEI base on precedent.  People mentioned you had to drive out of the district.  The concept of transportation contiguity debunked as constitutional requirement.  Contiguity question is a visual, binary question.  Look at map, these are contiguous, they touch.  We heard the concept of false contiguity brought up and my name was invoked.   What I brought up was what community of Skagway Borough, they used water where nobody was and went around the main part of Juneau.  It was not compact.  And that ended up prevailing and the false contiguity rejected.  9 and 22 have 35 miles of real contiguity.


Continuity works for him when he wants it to but not if it isn’t in his favor. Am I stretching it?  Possibly, but surely not as much as he's been stretching things.   The courts have clearly said contiguity over water works and compactness IS NOT a criterion for Senate districts.  Contiguity has been a key issue in the 3B map because it is the only Constitutional requirement for Senate districts.  


There’s no question that the two districts (9 and 22) are geographically contiguous.  But by using that boundary, the 3B map is breaking apart two districts that connect neatly through streets and neighborhoods for two districts that are, as people testified, 15 to 87 miles (I think) apart by road.  


It’s been interesting how the advocates for this map have talked about all the similarities between the populations of these two districts.  Simpson even does it with D23 and D24 even though at other times they turn around and tell us that all of Anchorage is socio-economically integrated, so none of that really matters.  Nor does the alleged military connections between JBER and Chugiak/Eagle River matter.  Again, he’s using one line of logic when it suits him and saying it doesn’t matter when it doesn’t suit him.  Swapping out criteria for convenience or merely changing their weight, has been something the Board - particularly the majority - has done since they started making maps.     


A key question here is whether the Courts will accept the 35 miles of cross roadless state park to connect two distant neighborhoods in the state’s most populated borough.  Even when there are much more obvious options where pairing is like putting together two matching puzzle pieces that neatly connect neighborhoods, connect neighbors who live across the street from each other.  


The courts use different deviation standards for cities and rural areas and they stretch socio-economic matches more in rural areas, and compactness in rural areas has a different standard too.  The nature of Alaska’s geography makes those compromises necessary.  But it’s not necessary to do that in rural areas.  The courts could take the easy path and say, yes they are contiguous, end of story.  Or they could ask why the three most obvious pairings - obvious because neighborhoods are split into two house districts - are abandoned for this technically complying, but really meaningless pairing.  Will they ask if there were better options?  If they do, these pairings will be thrown out.  If they say, as they did in the Skagway case,  it’s constitutional and we won’t substitute a ‘more constitutional’ pairing, they’ll leave it be.  


But there are other considerations which Simpson brings up next. 


Finally I want to address the charge of partisan gerrymandering.  Two Republican senators and a member from Gov. Dunleavy’s admin spoke out against Option 3B.  I’m an appointee of the Governor and I’m lined up with Option 3B.  If Option 3B is a naked partisan attempt, then why did Reinhold and Holland argue against it.  They think something in Option 3B harms them.  That goes against the argument that it attempts to protect or enhance Republican attempts.


This was a clever ploy, I admit.  If two Republicans disagree, then ipso facto, it’s not partisan.  Unless logic matters.  


Partisan gerrymandering would be the other reason for the courts to overrule Option 3B.  On its face, if you knew nothing else, the idea that several prominent Republicans objected to this map proves it’s not partisan might make sense.  But let’s also remember that this is the map drawn by Randy Ruedrich, Alaska’s most practiced Republican strategist and mapper for the last 30+ years.  He’s a former head of the Republican Party.  Nobody is even hiding this.  


Let’s also remember that political parties have competing factions as well.  Lora Reinbold, the Senator from ER opposed this pairing because, presumably, it pits her against the Republican Senator on the Hillside.  But Reinbold is one of the wild Republicans who thumbs her nose at the governor.  She’s someone that would be nice for the Governor to get rid of and replace with a more controllable Republican.  And ER will elect a Republican, there’s no doubt. Sen Holland doesn’t always follow the governor’s orders either, but again, Hillside is a reliably Republican area.  Pitting these two together doesn’t risk losing a Republican seat. It simply might replace an unreliable Republican with a more pliable one.  But pairing Chugiak/ER with JBER/Government Hill, insures an extra Republican seat.  But is Reinbold really just protecting her seat?  Is it possible she knows that Eagle River just naturally belongs as one community?  After all, if 22 and 24 were joined, then she'd get another fiery Republican opponent.  I'm not sure whether Jamie Allard lives in 22 or 24, but she worked hard for Option 3B.  Maybe she doesn't want to run against Reinbold.   


The judge said they couldn't have the 22 and 21 pairing.  But they are going to cling to the 23/24 pairing.  That is political gerrymandering.  And again, what the three Republicans on the Board call the “JBER district” is actually one third downtown-ish Anchorage - and that southern edge of the district fits neatly with the rest of downtown where it was split right along Fourth Avenue.  So, this is an empty argument about partisanship.  Ruedrich doesn’t draw maps that don’t give Republicans an edge.  He plays to win.  They weren’t even subtle about this.  


I’d also note that the majority here ignored the testimony of the two sitting Senators from the districts they are pairing - people who in other situations they would give great deference to - and they are also ignoring  two other past Senators, all of whom say Eagle River should be paired as one Senate seat.  It’s a neat trick to turn around and say this proves they are not partisan. The fact that they are ignoring the testimony of four Senators who have represented this area shows how much they need to keep the 24/23 pairing.  


The most partisan is the proposed pairing of JBER and downtown.  This would diminish the voice of our valued military personal.  I can’t accept that.  I will vote for 3B.  


Oh please.  First, as I’ve said above, this is a seat whose population is 2/3 on JBER and 1/3 urban neighborhoods directly attached to downtown.  One side of Fourth Avenue has been put in one district and the other half in another district. Joining them in a Senate seat makes perfect sense.   Meanwhile the JBER part of the district has no neighborhoods that connect it with D24 - just woods.  


Then Simpson plays on patriotism and our natural admiration for the military. Let’s get the statistics - how many of the military living on JBER are even Alaska voters?  How many vote in other states?  The 1980 Redistricting Board spent a lot of time deciding whether they should even count the Military personnel who were actually residents of other states.  In the end, they included them because they couldn’t figure out how to accurately count them.  That’s all described in detail in the Hickel decision.  


And, as pointed out earlier, more JBER students go to D17’s West High School than go to ER High School.  And twice as many go to Bartlett which is D23.  Because as people have testified, people on JBER are connected to the neighborhoods near the Muldoon and Government Hill exits.  


I’d also point out here that the military is one of the best represented groups in our State legislature and they receive more special benefits than probably any other group of people.  I’ve spelled this out here.   There’s no chance that the military personnel will be diminished in Juneau no matter what district JBER is paired with.  This is a very red herring.  


As the judge weighs political gerrymandering in this case, I'd point out that the Board had no problem dispatching the Cantwell issues.  They all worked easily on it and agreed quickly. No one had a stake it the outcome and the Court's directions were clear. They also complied  with half of the judge's instructions for fixing Senate seat K - pairing north and south Muldoon.  But like with the original pairings of D22 and D21 there was no compromise.  There was acrimony. No one said anything like, "You guys are really upset.  Let's see if we can work something out."  


Instead, it was basically, we have three votes and you have two votes.   You don't act that way unless you have a very specific objective you need to achieve.  There was nothing in what Simpson said that would justify the callousness of the final vote.  There was a mission on the part of the Board majority.  And as one testifier pointed out, there is nothing to lose.  They were able to power this past a very adamant minority and it either gets accepted by the Superior Court or not.  If not, they will appeal it.  They don't have to pay for the attorney.  And if they lose at the Supreme Court level, they have no personal liability.  They will be patted on the back and rewarded by their party colleagues.  But probably not in ways that the public will see.


Simpson spoke at other times at the meeting, but this was the argument he laid you for voting for 3B.  The judge said the Board members' personal preference should not trump overwhelming public opinion.  While this was an organized narration of reasons, most were assertions that were not backed up by facts and are more about giving the Judge reasons  - even if their shaky at best - for choosing Option 3B.  The reasons of Marcum and Binkley are much looser than Simpson's.  Marcum is the Chief Executive Officer of the Koch affiliated Alaska Policy Forum whose goals are to pass legislation that favors a libertarian view point.  She truly believes that getting more Republicans in the Senate is one of her missions.  


I'll try to put up the Marcum and Binkley testimony, but no promises.  

Wednesday, April 13, 2022

Redistricting Board Votes 3-2 To Approve Option 3B

 The Board listened closely to some things the Court said - like explain your reasons for your choice.  The three Republican appointees did this at length.  Some of what they said is clearly wrong or only partially right.  I'll get into that tomorrow, but I'm redistricted out for now.  So, here's a map I got at the end that show's the numbers of the Anchorage House districts and the letters of the Senate districts in the new map.  

click on image to enlarge

The Senate Rotation they used is the same they used last November.  Starting with A then B with the revised numbers put into the rotation.  This was not discussed or agreed on by the Board.  The staff did this.  There's no change in the truncation - all but one seat is truncated.


click to enlarge

I haven't had time to go through this carefully, but you can figure out the districts from the map above, for example House Districts 11 and 12 are Senate Seat F;  9 and 10 (was 22 in the 2021 plan - Eagle River - is Senate Seat E.  

More tomorrow.  

Next, the judge has to decide if it satisfies his order.  The three Republicans believe it will because it satisfies his concerns with pairing South Muldoon with Eagle River.  (South Muldoon is now paired with North Muldoon in Senate Seat K).  The two Board members who voted for Option 2 think it will not because it splits Eagle River and they don't think the new Seat F (Eagle River and Hillside)  as 'contiguous as practicable.  

If the judge doesn't like it he could send it back with new instructions.  Or, he could, as Board member Borromeo asked him to do at the meeting today, repair it himself.  In either case, I suspect court challenges will follow.  

People have raised the concern that this won't be settled by the June 1 date for candidates to submit their applications to run for the state legislature in the November election.  I did address that issue in a post one week ago, looking at what happened prior to the 2012 election.  

No meeting tomorrow.  The Board is done for now.

Good night.  Sleep well.  As we move into the bottom of the ninth with the possibility of extra innings.  

Tuesday, April 12, 2022

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.  


Monday, April 11, 2022

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.  


Friday, April 08, 2022

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 
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.