Why is Mark Begich Running For Governor? Tom Begich Explains

Like a lot of people, apparently, I was surprised and concerned when Mark Begich threw his name into the Governor's race.  A three way race could well give the office to the likes of Mike Dunleavy.  (I'm afraid my opinion of Dunleavy is not very positive, though I acknowledge it's based on one event - the hearings he chaired in Anchorage during a special session.  His committee's task was simply to pass a bill - Bree's Law, to teach kids to defend themselves from sexual predators -  that the Senate had passed unanimously the previous year but the House hadn't gotten too.  The House subsequently passed it and now the Senate merely needed to pass it one more time.  It should have taken five minutes.  It took days.  Dunleavy tried to water down bill and add his own - already rejected during the regular session - amendments.  Here's one of the posts that sums up much of those hearings.)

I consoled myself and others about Begich's decision by saying, "Mark is a good politician and candidate, he knows the issues and he is a real extrovert.  But much more important is that he wouldn't jump in this race without talking to his brother, State Senator Tom Begich. And Tom knows the numbers of Alaska politics better than just about anyone else.  I know this, and got to know Tom, when I was covering the Alaska Redistricting Board.  Tom was at most meetings along with his equally knowledgeable Republican counterpart Randy Ruedrich.

So, when I saw Tom at the immigration rally on Saturday, I gave him pretty much that preface I gave others.  Here's what he answered.  [It was noisy Saturday.  There was music and lots of people talking around us.  The audio is mostly understandable, but I've made a transcript.  There were a few parts I wasn't completely sure of, but nothing that changes the basic meaning.  The transcript follows the video.]



Reasonably close transcript:

Steve:  Tom
Tom:  Hey Steve, how’re you doing?
Steve:  I trust your judgment . . .
Tom:  I’m glad
Steve:  . . . But I’m really concerned about Mark jumping into the race, so tell me why this is happening.  Is this going to lose the race altogether?
Tom:  Not a chance.  When you look at the numbers we use  to analyze the race, what is . . . the key  here is to make sure a progressive is elected governor of the state of Alaska. I spent time talking to the Governor, the Lt. Governor, and others.  My brother.  Facilitating for the last week before the filing deadline.
And you know, it was our belief, based on the data, based on those discussions, that the governor wasn’t going to be in a position to win this race.  And, you know, we can’t sacrifice a progressive agenda, we can’t take that risk.  The imperative was to be sure that the strongest progressive candidate was in the race.  And that that candidate was part of our base party.  Try to remember, our primary is open to Independents and Democrats.  The Governor was ??? going to be in that primary and changed his mind.  That’s a problem.  There would have been another D probably if Mark hadn’t filed.  And Mark would have been, was, is the strongest D.
I never would have supported my brother getting into this race if I didn’t think he could win this race, and I’m certain that he can.  That being said, the question is how do we all come together as progressives?  There’s not a lot of hostility here between the Governor or between my brother.  What there is, is the need to have the strongest candidate face Mike Dunleavy.

Look, we’re talking about the situation now where the Supreme Court at the Federal level where you’re going to have Choice at risk, LGBT rights at risk.  There are a number of things that are going to take strong governance at the local level to ??? those issues.  Mark is the best candidate by far for that.
So with all that said, I believe Mark has the wherewithal to do it and the ability to do it.
Let me add one last thing.  Mark as the Democratic candidate brings other resources to the table.  The Democratic Governors’ Association resources, DFC resources that otherwise wouldn’t be coming to the state.  [http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org]   That’s going to help our down-ballot races, which matters a lot.
I know that both campaigns are going to continue to talk throughout this process, throughout the primary.  I’m certain that at the end of August, everybody will sit down and talk about who’s in third, who’s in second and make the right decisions.  I just believe that’ll happen.  But if it doesn’t happen, we have data that shows Mark wins a three horse race and he’s the stronger candidate in a two horse race.  And that’s what matters.  We have to win for progressives, we have to win.
Steve:  So you’re saying, if Mark didn’t get in the race, Dunleavy would have won anyway?
Tom:  I believe that to be true, yes.
Steve:  Thank you very much.
Tom:  You’re welcome.  

After I stopped the camera, I did ask Tom about the data he was basing this on.  He mentioned some polls, but pointed specifically to a poll that had been posted on Midnight Sun which showed, in a three-way race,  Dunleavy with 38%,  Mark Begich with 33%, and Walker with 23%.  These numbers were based on Begich having just gotten into the race and not having done any campaigning.   He also said that the Permanent Fund was really hurting Walker.  He also pointed out that Walker was a pro-life Republican.  He'd lost in a previous Republican primary so last round he entered as an Independent.  Walker and the Democratic candidate - Alaska Native and former head of the Alaska Permanent Fund Byron Mallott - realized that neither could beat the Republican Sean Parnell in a three way race.  So their Lt. Governor partners bowed out and Mallot joined as the Lt. Governor candidate with Walker as the candidate for Governor.  And they won.  Walker's main goal at the time was to build a natural gas pipeline, force the oil companies to release the natural gas they had on the North Slope, and ship the gas to Asia.  While there is action on that project and an agreement has been signed with a Chinese partners, there is also a lot of skepticism about whether it will ever be built.

If the poll numbers don't change much by August - or if Begich moves up - would Walker be willing to step out of the race?  The Democrats did that in 2014 to help Walker get elected.   I imagine he'd want Begich to commit to the pipeline and perhaps be given a position to lead that fight.  Walker has acted as a rational adult in Juneau- at least as I saw it, making decisions based on facts and practical realities rather than ideology.  But his cutting back the Alaska Permanent Fund while the Republicans blocked any other sources of revenue - recouping the oil taxes they cut earlier, an income tax, even a sales tax - doesn't sit well with Alaskans.  

ARB - Calista Presentation - live blogging

[This is really really rough.  And I'm having trouble downloading photos at the moment, but I'll put this up and try to clean it up later.]

Torg:  Asking for Powerpoint and tesitmony.
Marcia Davis:  General council and VP for Calista - our region of Alaska is critically impacted by redistricting.  Clarify we're working with - Ruederich said that on short time frame since Friday.
Calista Option 2 and resolved that after meeting with other Native Orgs which will facilitate Board's option.  Now Calista Option 3, sent to Board last night, hard copy on the wall and available online.  Different from Option 2 moves Shismareff from 40 to 39, moved Huslia, ??, and ??? from 39 to 40.  Did that and maintained total deviation to .9%.
One other change - working with Mr. Colligan who is knowledgable of Matsu and refining Matsu boundaries and alligning a Senate pairing.
Overview was on Supreme Court to follow constitution to have  - important, not only based on state, but also federal equal protection.  Umbrella under which all other constitution important.  Second, focused on compact, contiguous, and didn't mess with any city boundaries, though had some borough.  But our ANCSA boundaries are = to borough boundaries, met among ANCSA corporations and socio-economic issues.
Guided by deviation minimization.  Strived for cmpactness, contiguity, only balanace point where deviation is too much to get the others. 
Will be some points - Tom will point them out.  Very low deviation .97, which gives Board some wiggle room.
Fairbanks also has excess population.  Not just looking at Native side, need to look at interests of urban population.  Ester folks are longstanding urban population, to distrupt them and throw them as surplus population is wrong.  Using people on east - military?  - they move in and out, not long standing, had voting average of 5% compared to western FB that has one of the highest voting rates.  This pairing does the least harm to both sides.  Proud of Borough and ANCSA boundaries.  Calista with dominant with Kuskokwim drainage area - listing all but I can't keep up.  AHTNA ingonore in most maps - integrity minus Cantwell,  Koniak and Aleut preserved.  Doyon - they like Bethel have a split propulation - one cause large population the other because small. 

.....  Want to talk about doinut (yes, not donut) problem with Senate pairings.  FB core has five and pair extra with the donut that surrounds FB.  Allows future census cycles to have least disruption. 

Now turn it over to Steve Colligan at E-Terra who will speak to how the map was created and then Tom Begich who has worked on four redistricting process will talk about balance.

Steve Colligan - resident of Wasilla.  30 years ago thought I'd never do a redistricing again, using cards - using digital tools to enforce an analog process.  In this process with Calista and others, started with blank maps.  applied Native Corp boundaries, DDT????, then census blocks (???)  reaching across 100's of miles to find a couple of people. 

Tom Begich:  Resident of Anchorage.  socio-economic expert for state of Alaska in Hickel and also in Knowles, and contract to former Sen. Al Adams, and contractor to Calista, sole employer.  Deviation less than 1% honoring equal protection in Constitution, then compactness and contiguity.  Look at visual compactness.  We wanted to be sure where we had visible compactness also socio- ecomonic compactness.
Computer dropped to floor. 
District 6 on Eastern FB - Eilson and south, Moose river population kept with North Pole and city boundaries kept intact, no city boundaries violated.  Borough - one FB break, one Anchorage, one Matsu, 2 in Kenai.
Created FB city district, Boundary.  Per request to square it off added south part - two city house districts.  One around NPole and one College Chena Hills and connected by zero block along river.  Then older urban population North and west of the city.  One break of FB is here.  Mostly rural or more transient. 
South - area of interest, how take TCC and mesh with AHTNA, 20 years ago analaysis showed intermarriage connections. 
Valdez-Richardson district challenge.  Come in right under the Borough.  Only Matsu incorporated south of old Glenn - about 500 residents of Matsu.  So Matsu has all five of its house districts in tact.  Steve did this inline with some comments from Mayor of Matsu.  This only break, and becomes large district 10.  Not only has all 5 house seats and with Anchorage for Matsu Chugiak Sen pairing. 
In Anchorage with breaking senate pairings to north and south - keeps all pairings together.  Keeps ER together. 
I note four Board maps paired Sandlake and Ocean view so we copied that. 
I believe it's the same as the Anchorage house district maps.
White:  you changed some names?
Begich:  Steve will talk to that.  Had to change some numbers.
Kenai, now, see that Kenai Soldotna district, here - left 35 people out of Kenai City but back in.  Souther part unites with Kodiak, Cordova fishing district.  Twice a day plane service between Kodiak and Yakutat. 
SE briefly - similar to Ketchikan - with south of Prince of Wales - ethnicity of Haida/Tlingkit.  Also Haida people we didn't include.  Petersburg and Sitka boroughs maintained.  Split in Juneau - make as compact as possible.
Finally, take out of Kenai - Nanwalek, Tyonek, and Port Grapham and put in Bristol Bay borough.   . . . 

One exception with TCC Arctic Village for population 153 people incorporated with NWA - about 1/5 %.  Tried to get map as close as perfect for equal protection.
Colligan:  Each map different approaches to Matsu.  Some ??? that overlap. 
Stick to major roads, streams, Matsu with existing precincts has every assembly district split three times.  Adopted Assembly maps before, readjust and make reassignments, easier for public to understand and minimize deviation.  did cause some paring problems, so renumbered pairing north district to palmer, Chugach and rural with KGB, and norther lakes district with Wasilla (??????)

Torg:  Two questions, a little confused Kenai borough twice split?
Begich:  Tyonek, Nanwalek, Port Graham to
and also fishing district.  does maintain Homer in Kenai district.
Torg:  Delta?
Begich:  Current Deltas are kept together - used Highway as boundary - south of highway is ten and north as get toward Tok is in 6.  Tok and that area I think in 10 district. 
White:  Thanks, some questions: 
Fishing district.  I know you've been qualified as an expert.  Tell us how fishing district holds together.  Kodiak.
Begich:  Entire Kodiak borough.  Chugach Alaska Boundaries.  PWSound desire of Cordova to be locked into fishing district.  Whole linkage of commercial fishing district.  Also relationship between Yakutat and Cordova - mostly air relationship but also fishing. 
Fishing, Coastal Alaska, common  Alaska Native roots and two Boroughs complete.
White:  Based on your expertise in Socio-economic integration you say this is ok?
Begich:  Absolutely
White:  Spoke with them and got their agreement?
Begich:  No,  head of Chugach region said frustrating because step children of region because population used for one or the other.  About 350 people, so some flexibility.
White:  Could put the two villages into Kenai and keep deviations under 5%. 
Begich:  Kenai B entitled to at least 3 house districts, absolutel constitutional mandate.  Have to do something with excess population of kenai.  Sometimes geography forces you to broken twice.  We think no other B needs that.  Only 1800 people affected by breaks.
White:  How many live in Eilson?
Begich:  About 2600, to east 19 people - around 4095 people.  When even out FB districts about 10,000, we got down to 8,800 people.  plus or minus .5 deviation in FB and only take out 9000. 
White:  Out of FBNS B took out
Begich:  8,800, most from Eilson, a transient group.
Significantly smaller number comes from permanaent population when take from east side than out of west side. 
White:  You'd agree with me if east or west is within discretion of the B.
Begich:  yes, but if want socio-integrated want to disturb the permanent population less.
White:  Valdez - how many people out of Anchorage? 
Begich:  7548 out of Chugiak area, the ideal amount of Anchorage excess.
Matsu - 512 people and all south of Glenn.  full five house districts for Matsu. 
explaining socio-integration of Anchorage and Valdez - if any part of Anchorage connected to Valdez it is the northern part.  Dittman survey.  Old Glenn takes you to Palmer and out.  You can do this without respecting the B boundary.  You could follow the highway and take more from Matsu?????  Zero blocks there.  If trust our Constitution - socio-economically integrated - Matsu boundary should trump highway. 

White:  Steve can you help difference tween your Matsu map and what the mayor drew for us?
Colligan:  Mayor's map maintain portion of Palmer they give up.  Mayor's map takes this portion Lazy Mt.  in this map maintain Wasilla and portions of Palmer, but it is different mainly ??????
Begich:  Under Calista map, district out of Chugiak in mayor's map comes up into the Valley.  In the Mayor's map it is broken twice.  Under ours it is borken onece.  Have to give up Lazy Mt.  [This is lots of mapping and hard to understand from the words only]

Torg:  Go into public testimony - but a five minute recess first. 

Redistricting Board Meeting - Calista and AFFER and McKinnon Discuss Their Maps

[I'm listening to the Board online from LA, this is long.  I tried to summarize briefly after this note, then my very rough notes as I listened.]

Overview: 

• Board attorney White went over definitions of Socio-Economic Integration (SEI).  Seemed to be addressing last week's testimony from Cooper Landing (that North Kenai was not connected to South Anchorage) and Gazewood & Weiner testimony (that rural Alaska may be connected to Fairbanks, but had no connection to Ester).  Citing Court rulings that if Kenai is connected to Anchorage in general, then N Kenai could be connected to S Anchorage. 

There was a request to winnow down the many plans, though Board member Brodie said there were good parts of maps that otherwise were not good that might be useful.  They surmised that the latest maps of Calista and AFFER would be all they needed.  Then had them come to the table to explain where they were. 

• Calista had two maps.  Final Best plan is Calista Option 4 but if the Board was going to split Matsu two ways, then Calista Option 2 Revised.
• AFFER - New map submitted this morning at 9am, Board didn't have it.  Ruedrich went through the whole state.  Said mostly similar to Calista but different with Matsu double split and some Fairbanks, but mostly like Calista. 
• McKinnon - private citizen - deviation 9.6, but keeps all ANCSA Regional Corps intact and all Boroughs except Fairbanks and Anchorage intact.  

 Also some discussion of "Brave New World" after Shelby County v Holder decision that low deviation is now much more important than before.



Here are the very rough notes.  Don't quote, but use to get a sense of what happened.  Lots missing or paraphrased. 

ALASKA REDISTRICTING BOARD MEETING
411 W 4th Avenue, Suite 302
Anchorage, AK 99501
Phone:
907-269 -7402

JULY 5, 2013 FRIDAY
11:00 AM
Anchorage office
AGENDA
11:00 AM

11:00am - I can hear the Board, but clearly the meeting hasn't begun.
Brodie - summer weather in here
noises

1. Call to Order
Torgerson:  Call to order.  Five after 11.

  
2. Roll Call of Members
Roll call - all members present
3.Approval of Agenda  - approved
4.Discussion of Social-Economic Integration
White:  Compact and contiguity clear.  Go over SEI - Constitution
where people work together, ?? together, earn their living together.  Can't be defined with math precision.  Can be figured.  Economic unit inhabited by people.
Courts have said - proof of actual interaction and interconnectedness more than mere homogeneity.  Other things;  common interests in ??;  transportation, ferry, Native characteristics, geographical proximity, ferry.  services hub.  Court has said 'relative' not minimal, but some flexibility, given the sheer size geographically.
One of the issues raised in ???, idea of how to measure SEI, when have to combine two different areas - like Kenai and Anchorage.  Court has said they are.  In Kenai case in late 80s.  combined N Kenai with Anchorage - challenged.  No connectedness with N Kenai and South Anchorage - maybe with Anchorage, but not S Anchorage.  Court clear, don't look at specific areas, but can look - let me get exact wording:  will be upheld if reasonable not arbitrary.  Previously upheld comparison.  .  . Issue here whether interaction with hd7 and not just n Kenai, and surrounding areas as well.  Kenai as a whole and Anchorage as a whole.  Since then no dispute, Kenai and Anchorage a clearly SEI.  Not just N K and SA, but surrounding area.
Questions?
Torgerson:  No questions for Mr. White?  Anything else?
PeggyAnn McConnochi:  If people in N Kenai go to Dr. in S Anchorage?  Some indication.  But if go to Dr. in N Anchorage or Airport not in S Anchorage, still there.
Sufficient of N Kenai and S Anchorage results from interaction with Anchorage.  . . .Actual is minimal, but nexus between Kenai and Anchorage.  That nexus is what's important, not the two areas of N. Kenai and S. Anchorage.
Same argument was raised last in 2001 - Valdez challenged S anchorage SEI, trial level upheld.  SEI not tied just to S Anchorage area, but Anchorage-Valdez nexus.
Torgerson:  Other Questions.  Alright.  Brings us to 4 Discussion of draft plans.
5.Discussion of draft plans
McConnochie:  Is there  a way to reduce the number of plans?
Brodie:  difficult in that one plan treats one part of the state better, but we don't like another part.  Looks like it will be a mix and match.
Green:  Thank you for raising that.  It would be helpful to focus ?? limited time we have, throughout our hearing this has been mentioned - why we have so many maps.
 Holm:  Maybe we should just go thru the options, like Calista 1-4, if offering all four maybe we should assume 4 is the latest and look at that and remove the others.  Same with Board.  We have ABCDEF and I don't know which we think 2 or 3 most appropriate.  Way to eliminate some of those.  Then Gazewood & Weiner and AFFER and Gateway and that gets us down to 5 or 6 and work from there.
Brodie, Hard.  Some have attractive small portions tho the rest we don't want.  So take a look at start with A and see if there is a portion of that, or knock out the whole plan.  If we want to do that, I'm willing to knock out C the one I drew.  Things I would change, particularly N. Slope drawn to get numbers even.  Not knocking out SE portion or city portions. . . .
McConnochie.  Since four from Calista.  Not clear, hard to pull map off the computer.

 Torgerson :  Would you like to hear from Calista to see what they intend.  Not planning to open hearings again, but . .  One filed 21st which was our deadline for filing maps.  AFFER also because they have 3 or 4 plans.  Let me take a small break and we can pull up table and let people talk.

11:25am Rustling of papers, some talking, waiting for Brodie to return from bathroom
11:27am  Back to order, invite Marcia Davis and Tom Begich
??:  We got another this morning?
Davis:  Just Southeast . . .
Torgerson :  We need another mike, bring that table to center.  Teleconference mics.
My name is Marcia Davis - Calista general counsel
My name is Tom Begich - consultant to Calista
Davis:  to avoid confusion start with punchline.  Where we stand today, we've been listening to testimony, evolving like the Board, based on testimony and concerns and knowledge we acquired, Our final best plan is Calista Option 4, there is another SE that we sent over today.  Meets our ANCSA corporation need, political boundaries to max extent possible.  Considered that AFFER was pushing double split of Matsu, not sure, we wanted to have  double split that allowed the Native interests.  That's our option - changes to Native areas - Shish to Bering Strait and Arcti Village to 39, needed ot move Koyukuk??  If Board goes to dobule shift in Matsu want to be prepared. 
Either Calista option 4 with whatever SE  or Calista 2 Revised
Begich:  ???  Opiton 2 one worked with AFFER group  - disagreement in FB and some Senate pairings.  essentially the same of 36 of 40 house district. 
Marcia:Just to respect to house districts, but not senate pairings.
PAM repeat
Tom Begich:  If Board does double Matsu split - our 2 revised matches AFFER close, they have Juneau to Hobard Bay, assume B wants to keep hold, we honor B there.  Same split with J.  Fairbanks - AFFER aligned more moves Eilson to rural, NP different, fundamental difference pairings

Bethel 37 up into Doyon - Coastal Native and Interior - prime objection, we paired Native Interior to Interior rural/FB district.  Taken with comment that Natalie Landreth made about Coastal Natives have such strong focus on fisheries and Coastal delivery and we feel really strongly that Western Coast Natives need to stay linked in Senate pairings too.  Does real injustice, have no issues in common, tail wagging dog.  Common issues fuel delivery, transportation, shopping.  We realize that if they're contiguous good enough, but 37 doesn't touch 3?  - not contiguous.  Don't have native preclearing issue but doesn't mean we can ignore it.  They came up highway with Valdez - we linked to seven, we linked to 5.
Begich:  Ruedrich - all three of Senate seat five that FB is entitled to should be paired together. 
Davis:  Only if Board feels comfortable breaking Matsu twice,
Begich:  Very low deviations.
Brodie:  N and W Alaska same as four.
Begich:  Six is virtually identical, Delta?? together.  Don't break Matsu 2x  - then 10E has to be paired either to Matsu or Anchorage.  Easier to pair to Anchorage break - there's the break right there, incorporates 500 Matsu residents.  Maintains Chugiak district Anchroage has had and pairs it to the road district with Matsu to Valdez.  Only way to have only one Matsu break.  You can link Valdez to Anchorage - by law - and this seems to be the best way.  If break Matsu just once, this is the only way.  Tried to match lines Mayor proposed as Colligan said to follow Mayor's.  Couldn't match exactly.
Torg:  Kenai still divided twice.
Begich:  All maps take ?? out of B.  Know we have to break twice.  Tried to take Native pop in Nanwalek and to lower coastal district - Halibut Cove and Far eastern part of Homer, but not Homer.  Three fully populated borough districts (H Kena Soldotna)  Three Boroughs in Kenai . . .
Brodie:  Took Nanwalek for Native population?
Begich:  Yes.  Neither community likes to be connected to Kenai.  Driven by deviation.
Brodie:  ??? 32 along the Coast  . . .
Begich:  Blocks red and green, huge blocks make the water connection.
White:  Only contiguous by water 32 - connect across the bottom.
Begich: Could, but creates crazy angles - by Seward - no population.  Board's ability to draw straight line. 
White:  what happens to deviation if pick part of Matsu and put . .
Begich:  About 550 people - about 3%.  If you did that a wholly enclosed Matsu.  But we were shooting for low deviation.  Case law political boundaries can be reason for higher deviation.  Overall, minus to plus is 1.37%  40 goes down to -.88, still under one percent.  to .48 positive. 
Torg:  Homer group? 
Begich:  Still dealing with about 3%, but because underpopulation one and overpopulating another comes to 6%, but Board can do this.
White:  are there villages you moved into 40 where population was a factor?
Begich:  You could take Koyukuk and take back in 6 is a coherent group of village.  As long as keeping groupings together, they are comfortable.  Villages around ruby and Galena, McGrath villages together,  Relationship between Ahtna and upper Tanana, Matt Ganley also testified on that.  Short answer is, all Athabascan.  Always bring more Athabascan in, but changes deviation.  this puts all villages together but pops the deviation a bit.
Brodie: ???? North Slope hard to hear him.
Begich:  More than 3 now.  Can't speak for TCC or Doyon.  As long as groupings together they were satisfied.  Would put more Ath villages together but throw deviations out
Brodie:  Well worry about that.
Begich:  Sure, but upper Koyukuk about 700 people . .
Brodie:
Begich:  Shishmareff represented about 550 people.  Bering Straits didn't want Shish out.  The others were taken to balance Shish to Bering Straits.  Bettles addition keeps upper part together.  Start drawing the map very differently if you do that.  Letter from NWAB at this point, may speak to that. 
Holm:  I'm curious, Mr. White, how we defend SEI compatibility between Fairbanks and Barrow, Metlakatla and Barrow if that is challenged?  Concerned with SEI and with the different groups wanting to be grouped.
White:  Public testimony with what they would like to see, not always compatible with law.  Comes down to if we can move these villages here and meet their needs, but raises deviation above allowable.  1990 case called Athabascan and ?? possible combination.  30 years ago.  Might be an issue there about SEI, Marie, Marcia.
PAM;  Would like to hear from Marcia.  Marie and I did a lot of work in that area, got a lot of testimony.  Why do you feel comfortable with that.
Davis:  Working villages a long time, listened to folks, Lawyer in me plus the person having all this discussion answers:  1st US and Alaska Constitution dictates maximum deviation.  If you move off it, need to justify.  Excuse to move off deviation needed.  Presumption established.  Not unique we have Athabascan cultures intermixed in other cultures.  It exists in multiple place.  Because region so huge but sparsely populated, so necessary.  Doyon's testimony so huge that they have operated in clusters, ability to travel and communicate across every cluster impossible.  If clusters are intact, they're ok.  With that objective met here.  Then how comfortable in context of larger district.  Pipeline corridor, economic, similar lifestyle - subsistence, caribou, moose managed for subsistence.  Positive thin, when we went back, Lime Village, Calista, but they go to McGrath for shopping.  Even those Calista, has Athabascan connection.  Same with Middle Yukon villages.  Highest order - Athabascan with other Athabascan - not possible, but can honor it at cluster area. 
Holm:  I bring this up because I spent a lot of time in ?? pass and ??? river.  All their relatives are in Ft. Yukon, not North Slope.  They have the connections with the eastern Athabascan families.  Just seems as if they really don't have any connection to N Slope at all.  Hard for me to believe they can do it for SEI connections.  Just for deviations, that's my concern at this juncture. 
Davis:  One thing Board has to face.  it's a new world for you.  In past battle around VRA,  VRA said other things have to yield to VRA.  With that missing, battle more around deviations.  You definitely got hammered hard on SEI because deviations weren't the weak points.  But now those are gone and now pure hand of equal protection.
White:  Holm has good memory, Trial court from last Feb.  While the B think deviations necessary, simply said, the Board must meet low deviations. 
If that deviation caused by making more compact or SEI that will be acceptable.  Now more safe harbor at 10%.  Before only applied to Anchorage, now to most urban areas with large districts that can be shifted.  If now applied to rural areas - Davis says, this is a brave new world.  Does that mean you should have lower deviations?  If put villages there - if you feel not SEI with other part, if go from 1 to 6% probably be acceptable if making it more compact. 
Brodie:  We could carry deviation in extreme we could divide Ft. Yukon in half.  Same in urban area, go down highway and grab 3 houses across the street to get low deviations.
White:  Deviation a laudable goal, but US and Alaska SC recognize - urban and rural different standards.  In the States, given 10% leeway, even our court has allowed above 10%, but I don't think that's allowable any more.  Playing between 10 and 1, if have rational reasonable justification.  Wish we could be 1.4, but want this SEI.
Begich:  reason for grouping, don't take one or two of the villages, move them as a group.  Your comment about splitting Ft. Yukon is reason why we did this.  Maintained all the city boundaries.  North Pole for example.  Don't want to split neighborhoods.  Sadly struck down by Court ten years ago, didn't care about neighborhoods in larger area. 
????: 
Begich:  Toatal, from my head, about including Eilson, about 8500, Salcha and about 4000 to the north. . .
White:  If Board feels SEI needs, deviation in FB pretty close too.
Begich:  Yes, in urban core the better off for rural FB.  Two Rivers Road below 6c, ????
3b anywhere there, a population more closely integrated with NP,  You have options.  Begins to become rural quickly if go to Hot spring road.
Torgerson:  Thanks, Randy, you be ready  We want to eliminate some plans, you have four I believe, Calista had 5 and now down to 2.
Ruedrich:  Morning Mr. Torgerson, guess it's afternoon.  to assure you world is dynamic, we have filed another plan this morning which eliminates all the rest.  Adopts slight variations between Calista and ours, They will now be identical except for some zero blocks.  Emailed this morning about 9 o'clock.  Current version of option 2 modified slightly.  Let's talk about SE initially.

This map, we filed this am, district 33 as Calista has we have not modified in any way shape or form.  then left - Juneau north D31, intact over these many maps.  Reduced its deviation, put those people back into 32, south of the airport.  Main change is Hobart Bay area, and island ???? on in 34.  34 larger bulk visually, but doesn't change population, puts entire Petersburg in 34.  Green area bigger, southern portion of rust color go way, makes S district more compact.  Think of those 33 people west of Hydaburg - they would be better served in D33.  No people on island west of Hydaburg.  Makes a better map, but worse deviation.  If want more compact, that's the place.
Torg:  Can you back up and tell me diffs between Calista and your new one.
Ruedrich:  in SE no differences.  All I've spoken to so far.
Now lets go to Western Arctic, High Arctic.  Our map is again, virtually identical when we talked about N Inupiat district. Western Nome District, D37 and D36 identical.  Only dealing with House.  Pairings meaningless now.
Agree with Calista concept.  Had to increase size in all because no longer reason to maximize Native districts.  ?? on perimeter.  I've worked with Doyon and TCC more than other groups and I understand reason.  When they recruited for roustabouts, they recruited in those villages.  Had direct tie to their areas.  I was hesitant to take Huslia and rest of Koyukuk valley, Realized that Arctic Village didn't fit.  Matt Ganley convinced me what we did was back idea.  Koyukuk, ??, Upper Kuskokwim, all TCC sub regions, in different district.  They still work together, as we try to populate Coastal region where we run out of people if we don't take them.
PeggyAnn McConnochie:  In your talks with them . . .
Ruedrich:  I haven't talked to them but I lived there years ago, it's valid what Davis says.
White?  Senate pairings?
Ruedrich:  Tried to scrub letters but didn't work
White:  Not defending non-contiguous.
Ruedrich:  Please disregard the letters.
Back to South Kenai and other portion of the world.  Breaking boundaries is something we pay close attention to Constitution recognizing political entities.  Kenai B has been split - Hope has been taken out in past, Seldovia, often not part.  In this case, with view to bring deviations down and bring SEI into play, we have again split the Kenai B significantly.  West side in 36, historically attached to some district on West side.  took significant # of people out , sorry put in a sig number in to 35 and allowed us to drop Yakutat.  Beluga and Tyonek and Port Graham and Nanwalek, breaks the boundary in two places, is proper....  took from S kenai, Katchemak Bay, Fox River and ??? Creek to replace the surplus population and put into 35, smaller than before and put Yakutat back in.  Almost identical to Calista and I think serves Kenai well.  Single southern of Homer, Anchor River, and ??
Brodie:  Upper Katch Bay - east end road?
Ruedrich:  Some of the last ones on east are attached to road system.  Don't believe people on West . .
Brodie:  For deviation - if some can't drive to Homer, to their voting place???
Ruedrich:  I think we've done that, not sure.
Brodie:  Whittier?
Ruederich:  Surplus pop problem,  detail could be revisited.  Whittier is kind of a unique small population, definitely PWS, not Anchorage, though once were.
Holm:  36, Port Graham?
Ruedrich:  ????
?  How many people?
??: Native villages, not connected by road at all?
Ruedrich:  Seldovia not attached by road, there is a small area that is more native, but larger non-native pop in general area. 
Moving into Anchorage.  No changes, except editorial in beginning.  There were some map in 25 boundary, but eliminated we found a better way.  Some tiny tweaks unless questions.  Deviation under 1% for city.  Probably about .9.  Some toward Matsu, we reduced populations from original.  In city from 13 to 27, no net change.  Moved small population on perimeter of 27 to ???13??
Ruedrich:  Let's look at valley.  matsu.  used 2002, 2012, most rapidly growing part of state of Alaska, paired on S side surplus with Anchorage and also with highway corridor to Valdez.  Highway communities have sued i the past wanting to stay together.  Delta, etc. Valdez is not paired with Anchorage in any way shape or form.  Valdez has asked not to be paired with Anchorage.  Picks up surplus population with eastern portion of Matsu B.  From SEI those villages are like eastern villages of Matsu B.  Maybe they'll draw a better Borough i the future.
White:  Help us understand split with anchorage and Valdez.  Splits Matsu twice.  Rational? 
Ruedrich:  Find no way to put Anchorage surplus population elsewhere.  Solid boundary on Anchorage Kenai front.  Courts have looked before said this is ok.  Only think Matsu did is grow one more full district.  Did in 1990, 2000 cycle and will again in 2020 probably.  More people more SEI than the highway commuters driving from chugiak, Palmer, or Wasilla to Anchorage caught i the snow.
Brodie:  ??? Calista plan eastern border of Alaska with Anchorage and N. Kenai - treated different way of moving around the population. 
Ruedrich:  Begich reminded me their double split Matsu is identical to ours (not totally clear.)
building map starts north of Yakutat, putting Y into 35, no population north of that.  So gttig to Ahtna, combined with Indian pops of upper Tanana fit together with traditional Athabascan groups of upper and middle Yukon.  Keeping Doyon and Ahtna people to south, those four groups in D38.  You'll find we built the urban population for 38, go back to other one and expand, zoom in please, easier to see.  38 wraps around FB, villages on the West, Upper Tanana villages to the east, middle Tanana is right there in front of you.  Rural areas to the east to S. boundaries of NPole to Chatanika precinct.  Rough equal urban NSB resident and non- NSB resident.  9000 something and 9000 something.  Bringing other FB districts to truly minimum deviataion,  .4% .3% 3 people under if look at FB map. 
Takes Wainright bombing range and north.  Come up into FB, have the City of FB only in D4, eastern NSB of fB added and gives us a compact city district, which probably would share a senator - one of the litigation issues earlier,  No FB district S FB district surrounding FB.  Broken once along purple red interface.  closed to Denali on south and district 38 on this map???
White:  Help us understand, on right hand side bottom border with 38, split some population there.  Why there instead of elsewhere.
Ruedrich:  Tried to keep people live on that road system, there, together.  That's there way back to civilization.  Corridor of interest.  River.  Chatanika, more rural, and needed significant population to do this.  Respected NPole and north of there to gain population.
White:  Maps you offered i past.  No dispute, all courts said, have to go with rural-urban. In past you did from west side.  What's your change on that?
R:  Not a big difference.  People on east equally rural to people on west side.  Maybe more a matter of how you try to create d 1 and 2 that makes sense.  Northwest borough makes sense this way.  If shift further wind up with undesirable 1&2 Boundary, gives clear division for ?? Borough
White:  You made some choices but other reasonable choices?
R:  Absolutely,  I kind of like the one we had before.
PAM:  Zoom in on 3 and 4? 
R:  All thee people by def are SEI within a Borough.  Makes no difference where you draw the lines.  People have some reason to be together.  Who works and plays together.
White:  Only changes from this map in SE? 
R:  yes, I have to look, we've drawn enough maps.
White:  Thank you.
We have a map given us Friday.  Mr. McKinnon ??? is here.  Worried about timeline?
MAP?  ????
John McKinnon - presenting this as private individual.  Has overall deviation of 9.6% in FB, Anchorage, Juneau less than 1%.  Principle feature it adheres to Borough boundaries. only Anchorage and FB are broken.
White:  Not broken at all, or not more than once?
McKinnon:  Not at all.  Either whole B in one district, or if multiple seats, all seats are within the B.  Also more than others, it adheres to ANCSA boundaries.  People ask what Doyon wants, I think this is what Doyon wants.  All but few Doyon villages there.  Bering Straits from Calista.  Bristol Bay, Aleutian district.  Kenai Borough, Matsu has population for five seats, Kenai for three.  This gives them their 3 and 5.  Doesn't carve out Nanwalke and Seldovia.  Does create one aspect Board might want to look at.  Kenai is self contained, leaf from Kodiak to Cordova - about 145 miles running from east of tule island to Johnstone Bay on Montague, but same magnitude with interim plan, District 9 from Nunavak Island to ??? also about 139 miles,  Same order of magnitude.  If Board is uncomfortable, I've identified three unoccupied islands, that would violate geography of Kenai Borough would still keep population of Kenai in three boroughs.  Takes Valdez ??? becomes part of the highway district.  Begich in earlier testimony last week explained justification.  Includes most of Ahtna district.  SE forms district out of Ketchikan and Wrangle.  Sitka and Petersburg. . .. . [missed this.]
Fairbanks - wither district that , based primarily, two city districts combine for senate district, takes West population Ester and U and forms district there, and then north of city, then another based on North Pole.  Maintains a Doyon district out Chena Hot Springs Road, more rural areas of Borough.  Eilson.  Rational - Tom argued in his presentation - less connected with FB area, potential, that population could be moved to Anchorage if fighter right developed and would strengthen Doyon villages. 
I think that covers it.  It is 9.6% deviation.  Based on existing law.  Talk about more mathematical precision.  Now the standard is 10% outside of urban Boroughs.  Once inside Borough boundaries no longer dealing with SEI.  In rest of the state, SC acknowledged a lot of SEI factors need to be adjusted for. 
White:  You said 5.6
McKinnon -5.6 is Bethel, +4 is Homer based.
White:  How many people out of FB put in . . .
McKinnon:   half the people, about 8500.  Valdez about ???
White:  All the rural districts underpopulated?
McKinnon:  yes.  Bush districts -4.6 about -5  - allows you to maintain regional corporations
White:  Thank you very much.

Lets take a ten minute break before we go to work session.  You can ask questions of presenters, then we'll be back about 1:10. 

Finished here before working session. 

6.Board work session
7.Executive Session on litigation strategies (if Necessary)
8.Adjourn

Gubernatorial Debate - Walker, Begich, Toien, But No Dunleavy [UPDATE - Walker's Lt. Gov Resigns] [2nd UPDATE]

UAA, the ADN, and a few others sponsored a debate at UAA's Wendy Williamson Auditorium, Monday evening from 5;30pm to 7pm.


It was a pretty low-key affair with each candidate showing courtesy and significant agreement with each other.  My quick crowd estimate (counting people in a few rows and then counting how many rows) gave me a 200-300 estimate.  

Current Governor Bill Walker, Independent, was sincere, practical, sounding a bit frustrated that the legislature wouldn't do the responsible thing and create an overall fiscal plan including new revenues.  He was critical of the fact that they had used up, I believe he said, 80% of the budget reserves in the last four years.

Former US Senator and Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, Democrat, had similar themes though he also argued strongly that the Permanent Fund needs Constitutional protections or politicians will use it up.  He also called for new revenues.

Libertarian candidate Billy Toien's take was a little different.  He pointed to stacks of documents - 30 years of budget data he claimed - and said there is no crisis.  He argued that there were various special funds - I think he said about 50 - that should all be put into the general budget and the deficit would go away.  Some were mentioned - like the Alaska Aerospace Corporation and the Alaska Railroad.  I'm skeptical that moving them all into the general budget would solve our fiscal problems, but it raises the issue of whether these units get considered for cuts during budget time in the same way that regular government agencies do.

Toien, unlike Walker and Begich, was opposed to all new taxes and existing taxes and seemed to believe that the additional revenues generated by putting the independent units' funds into the general budget should be distributed to the people of Alaska.

Republican Mike Dunleavy, we were told, had a conflicting engagement and wasn't there.  His presence probably would have added some lively debate.  And he was criticized by the other three - they said he was making short term promises with no eye on the future and that all the things he promised - maintaining the permanent fund and current services, plus cutting the budget, and no new revenues - were impossible to achieve.


I thought Begich and Walker treated Toien with the sort of condescending respect one would use for a little kid who participates in an adult activity.   But everyone was very cordial.

There were three ADN journalist who were given a chance to ask question.

Tegan Hanlon.

Annie Zak and Tom Hewitt.  I wasn't taking notes, but all the questions were pretty routine.  Things like, what is on the top of your list of things to cut?

I was waiting for one of the candidates to mention KABATA (the Knik Arm Bridge And Toll Authority), but no one did.

Toien came across to me as the kind of guy who has latched on to a couple of ideas that may, by themselves, have some merit.  But that they were utterly untethered from the bigger picture.

Walker is sincere and has 'the adult in the room' sort of tone.  He takes his job seriously but it seemed all process - we have to do things reasonably, take the revenues seriously - and little content, and he didn't spell out why he would be more successful with the next legislature than he has been so far.

Begich was able, as he always has been, to talk fluently about facts on all sorts of issues and tie things together.  He has the enviable ability to smile and respond with humor to anyone, even those whose ideas he is totally opposed to.  I would have like to see how he interacted with Dunleavy.

Dunleavy appears to believe, as do many Alaskans, that he has the election in the bag because Begich and Walker will cut into each others' vote count.  So he can just skip forums like this one.  If that's true, Alaska is in for a rough next four years.  Begich's strategy on entering the race - that he or Walker would drop out after the primary when it was clear which had the better chance against Dunleavy - hasn't worked out.

[UPDATE Oct 16, 2018 4pm:  Walker's Lt. Gov Byron Mallott resigned last night, apparently due to comments made about women or to a women.  The Governor has replaced him with Valerie Nurr’araaluk Davidson, Director of Rural and Native Affairs.  See ADN for more details.  It's amazing how quickly many Democratic men step down after an incident like this compared to Republican men.]

[UPDATE Oct. 16, 2018 5pm:  A FaceBook post 15 minutes ago::
Kate Laird: This is the most interesting bit: Asked whether Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mark Begich could replace Mallott on the lieutenant governor ticket, akin to the formation of the 2014 “unity ticket” between Mallott and Walker, Heckendorn [Walker's campaign manager] said, “We have been in conversations with Begich about the best way to move forward for Alaska, and those conversations will continue. We’ve been in conversations before we had any idea of what had happened with Byron. We’ve been in conversations with Begich for a few days about how to move forward in a way that’s best for Alaska.” <nevermind my minor question about why they couldn't have had that chat before ballots were printed ...>]

Board Gets Interesting Testimony And Works On Mapping Skills

 Morning so far has included 

Board discussing how they want to learn the mapping software during the day today

Testimony by:

James Squires Gulkana

Tom Begich - State Senator and very involved in past two redistricting processes

Rhonda Pitka -  Village of Beaver

Aaron Shutt - CEO Doyon

It's 10:38 now and the Board members are working together and individually on their computers to create districts in SE Alaska.  Basically, this is a learning exercise so they can get skilled on the mapping software.  They are each asking questions and staff are giving suggestions for what to do.  

Here are my notes from this morning.  Of most substantive interest is the testimony.  Regular disclaimers:  these are rough notes, a guide to what's happening at the Board, but not verbatim and not without errors.  

AK Redistricting Board Notes

Aug. 24, 2021

Meeting 

9am - 10:15am

9:17  Peter Torkelson demonstrating online website.

9:44 Board has been talking about the new software and how they want to learn the software.  

9:48  Board is going to take public testimony - looking for people on line who might want to testify.  Two people in line

9:50 James Squire, Gulkana District 9 describing district.  Even to Whittier - we have little in common - people living in Super Cold down to Whittier.  Delta to Valdez - north of Alaska range to Whittier and Palmer.  Distance to travel from one part to another.  Need something more reasonable, similar climates, life style.  They drive to Fairbanks, NOT Palmer.  Alaska Range is important boundary.  I understand you need to get population.  Alaskans in Palmer have little to do with what goes on here.  We go to FB and FB comes to us for recreation.  

John:  Thanks very much appreciate the detail and brevity.  If you’ve been looking online, can you give the online mapping project 

Nicole - Thanks for excellent, precise testimony.  

James Squire - We don’t go to Fred Meyers in Palmer, Go to Fairbanks.  Difference between -4 and -50.  

Sen. Tom Begich, from Anchorage - Thanks for letting me testify.  Couldn’t yesterday.  Commend you on your process.  I’ve served in 2001 and 2011 cycle.  First - caution, if you separate into group you’ll run into  interlocking puzzle problem when you put them together.

1. Two piece criteria - Federal and Constitutional guidance.  There are no existing districts.  They are built by scratch.  We start by looking at Burroughs because they are by definition socio-economic integrated.  You talked about starting with SE because has only one direction to go.  Having done that, there is a way to have a core district with Yakutat.  
2. Mr. Squires says Delta should be connected with FB.  He’s right.  No reason for Delta or Valdez to be connected with FB.
3. Matsu has to find that .6 percent and Anchorage will too, while Kenai and FB have to shed population.  Anchorage 15.8 will have to go south to get the extra population.  It can be done.
4. Matsu won’t be able to go south to Anchorage.  
5. Heard Doyon testimony.  Areas of Doyon region required by 39 can be returned to Doyon.

Starting with Socio Economic first, existing districts are irrelevant.

Start with SE

Take testimony.  

John:  Thanks Senator, that was a lot to absorb.  Couldn’t follow it all.  You have a lot of experience.  

Melanie:  Thank you.  For those not familiar with this, we have to follow Alaska Constitution, that we start with blank slate, look at Constitution.

Nicole:  Specific recs for Delta and Valdez.  Repeat?

Tom:  Palmer has grown.  Control of six seats.  Valdez, the largest pop center and Delta neither required by Palmer.   Move Cordova into broader district with Valdez.  Another thing:  Courts fairly strict of socio-economic relationship.  We tried to use community councils but courts said no, the whole city.  But because Fairbanks City was an elected govt. inside the Borough so it was given consideration.

Including Valdez in anchorage district struck down in 2001 because they had no relationship.  

John.  Thanks. You said not be relying on existing districts, just socio-economic aspects.  To me it’s intuitive because they’ve passed Court scrutiny.  They were binding.  Why not use that as a starting point.  

Tom:  Court ruled that Anchorage by definition is socio-economic area so line can be drawn anywhere.  In that criteria, massive deviation with new data.  In outlying areas .  No inherent right of district to exist.  But socio-economic unit does have right.  You do have natural districts - Nome area - but if you start there you ignore the socio-economic as most important.  You can use the districts to guide you.  You can have deviation within 5 points.  Start with Constitution criteria - socio-economic integrated, contiguity, compactness.  

Ronda Pitka from Village of Beaver  - Testifying on behalf of Beaver Village council.  Heavily rely on.  Support of strong consideration of work of Sealaska, ?????, to advance or suppress political power of Alaska Natives has been considerable.  We should be able to hold reps accontable.  In past, we’ve been fractured in deference to Fairbanks.  If map of unfractured representative.  Doyon and partners have looked at river systems, local boundaries.  ??

Melanie:  Thanks for calling in and testifying.  

John:  Audience wish to testify?

Mr. Aaron Shutt CEO Doyon  (https://www.doyonutilities.com/leadership/aaron-m-schutt)- Thanks mr. Squires.  The work we (Doyon) are doing supports Mr. Squires.  Interior is one socio-economic unit.  Rural parts of Alaska always come together.  Also share with Board, resources to board.  If you have questions for us we’re here to help.  We have a great team.  

John:  natural time for break.  Till 10:30

1:20pm

I decided to go home during the lunch break to see how this works online.  You can watch here: http://akleg.gov/index.php#

There were some redistricting board sessions done via phone last time, but I don't remember any live stream video.  It makes the meetings much more accessible to the world, and my blogging not quite as important.  

No, No, No - Bill Walker's Not A Progressive - Confusing Rational For Progressive - Updated

This was in a letter to the editor Sunday in the Anchorage Daily News (ADN):

"Instead, the three-way race pits two progressives against each other, encouraging them to battle it out between themselves while the conservative has no real opponent."

The Republican Party has been mean and nasty and obstructionist and focused on narrow partisan hardball tactics, particularly since  Obama was elected.  (Of course, it has nothing to do with race, wink, wink.)  A prime example was McConnell's,

"Our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term."

And despite bringing the approval of judges to a near standstill, and blocking even debate on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland completely, they have the nerve to complain that the Democrats want to get documentation before considering Brett Kavanaugh now.  Senators used to refer to each other as the Honorable Senator from ...  Now they make personal attacks:

'I question their sincerity. ... What more do they need to know?'

[I assume I needn't mention the elephant in the White House because everyone is fully aware of his total lack of any kind of social decency or conscience.]

This all leads to how people are now confusing someone being polite and rational as being Progressive.  Maybe that augurs well for Progressives in November, but I would like to point out that being Progressive isn't simply about being rational and well mannered.  It's about policy that include all Americans, about taking care of those who have greater hardships and obstacles, about having access to affordable health care, about focus on the community AND the individual, about breaking down legal and social structures that help the rich get richer and insure that poor stay poor.  It's about America as the democracy that sets an example to the world and recognizes that it's immigrants who have kept the US vital and creative and economically strong.

Bill Walker was a Republican until the day he filed as an Independent to run for the Alaska governorship.  He did this to avoid running in the Republican primary where he'd lost the primary four years earlier.  Compared to Dunleavy?  Walker is definitely a better choice, but for a Progressive there can't really be a question between Begich and Walker.  Walker told us in 2014 he was running for Governor to get his gas pipeline put in.  That's been his focus.  And he has seemed often to be the only adult in Juneau.  Though the other Republicans have refused to take the state's financial dilemma seriously and the Democrats didn't have the power to get other revenues sources.  But Walker is also a pro-life Republican.  And  even with his dedication to the pipeline project, it hasn't happened and more and more people are skeptical it ever will.  His Chinese 'partners' are known to be corrupt.  And even with Trump pushing coal, alternative energy is the future, and not the distant future.  Close enough that the cost of the pipeline is likely to be unrecoverable by the time it's built.  The Chinese are sending their first experimental cargo ship to Europe through the Northwest Passage because global warming is making that viable.  And I'm pretty sure that tankers will be able to take North Slope LNG directly from Prudhoe Bay by the time any pipeline is finished.

If I had to pick a Republican to be Governor, Walker would be probably one of the least harmful.

But he's not a progressive.  He's about as progressive, as Richard Nixon, under whose watch we got The Clean Air Act, The Clean Water Act, The Environmental Protection Agency, the opening of China, and the Privacy Act.  And Roe v Wade was decided by the Supreme Court while Nixon was president.  Nixon didn't talk publicly about Roe v. Wade, but when his office tapes were released much later, he'd acknowledged the need for abortion at times (in case or rape or a black and white baby.)

Decency and rationality are important qualities in politicians.  When I watched the Watergate Hearings live back in the 1970s, all the members of the House Judiciary Committee displayed those characteristics - whether Republicans or Democrats.

The attention to John McCain's various memorials this past week reflect this same hunger for decency and rationality on the national level.  It didn't used to be a Progressive monopoly.   If McCain had died on the campaign trail in 2008 after selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate, I assure you Democrats wouldn't have been fawning all over McCain.  It's only now, seeing McCain's principled stands in contrast to a truly awful Republican president, that his passing has been honored so lavishly.  Democrat after Democrat has said, "I honor him as a genuine human being and statesman, even though we disagreed on most issues."

I asked Tom Begich (and to Mark) in July why Mark decided to run.  Their polling data at the time showed Dunleavy winning in a head to head race with Walker, so jumping into the race, as they saw it, wasn't 'giving the election to Walker.'  Tom was hoping that after the primaries, they could look at the polls and decide which one should run.  So rather than splitting the vote, Begich felt his entering the race was the only way to block Dunleavy.  That post with video is here.  

The deadline to withdraw a name from the ballot is any day now.  But if both stay in the race, no one should be confused about there being two progressives.  There are two decent candidates, two conservatives, and one progressive.

[UPDATE a little later:  Jeanne at Mudflats spells out Walker's conservatism in much more detail.]

[UPDATE Sept 4, 2018:  And the idea that Begich and Walker are both progressives is exactly the message the Republicans want Alaskans to believe.  This, from Must Read Alaska, the blog of Suzanne Downing*:

"Begich and Walker both occupy the same space in the electorate — the progressive, Bernie Sanders Democrats and others on the political left. Dunleavy has the political right locked down."]

* Downing is identified in some older opinion pieces as the Communications Director of the Alaska GOP, but I can't find any mention of her on the current AK GOP website.

USA v. Thomas Anderson Day 5 (only day 2 for me)

U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
Court Calendar for Friday, June 29, 2007
Current as of 06/29/20http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif07 at 8:00 PM


9:00 AM 3:06-CR-00099-JWS Judge Sedwick Anchorage Courtroom 3
USA vs. THOMAS ANDERSON
TRIAL BY JURY - DAY 5

[For those who aren't going to read all this - most of you I imagine - I'll just slip in what I found most interesting today. When Prewitt was being cross examined and he denied that doing this work for the government was in exchange for dropping other charges (he claimed there was nothing out there that could stick), Stockler (Anderson's attorney) asked, "How many other cases are you volunteering to assist? The Prosecutor objected, but the judge allowed it, and Stockler told him not to reveal any names. Prewitt said, six or seven. Let's see, we know of four indicted legislators, that leaves two or three more cases. Ben Stevens? John Cowdery? Who might seven be?]

I got there just after the afternoon session began. Prewitt was still on the witness stand, the Prosecutor was still showing tapes and transcripts, and asking Prewitt to interpret what was said in the tapes. At one point the judge addressed the government's attorney as Mr. Marsh, so my assumption yesterday that Bottini was the attorney was wrong. I'm guessing Mr. Bottini was the older (Mr. Marsh appears to be in his mid 30s or less) gentleman sitting at the government table. There were around 20-30 people in the observer section of the court this afternoon.

From what I could tell, the prosecutor was trying to establish

1. Anderson's eagerness to help Prewitt and Cornell with whatever they needed in the legislator. There's video tape of Rep. McQuire (now Anderson's wife) explaining how she to pressed Commissioner of Health and Social Services Joel Gilbertson to split the Certificate of Need process for imaging services from the process for Juvenile facilities (I think that was it) because they'd been lumped together and the whole process was being delayed because of problems in the imaging situation, not the juvenile facilities situation. Anderson also whispered to Prewitt while McQuire was talking to someone else that he hadn't told her about their arrangement. Of course, one could ask why he wouldn't tell her if he thought it was all on the up and up. And if he had told her, might she have stopped him? We'll never know.

Anderson was also asked to assist in getting a bill to change the requirement that the State Troopers had to do the transporting of prisoners, because they didn't want to and had 'subcontracted' that to Corrections who also didn't want to. In Anchorage Corrections subcontracted transport of Municipal Prisoners to the Anchorage Police Department, who also didn't want to do it. So Bobrick after talking to Mayor Begich came up with the idea to start a company to transport prisoners, but that would need legislation to allow the Troopers to subcontract that task. And Tom agreed to make that happen. No word about whether he did.


2. Anderson's need for additional money from Prewitt (He asked for and got another $2000 in addition to the money that was being passed on through Bobrick's Pacific Communications (I think that was the final name) Company. We saw photocopies of two checks he handed to Anderson, one directly to Anderson, the other to Bobrick. There was a long discussion that seemed to be initiated by Tom, that if he got money from a company that didn't have a lobbyist and it was less than $5000 he wouldn't have to report to to the Alaska Public Offices Commission. So he wanted to be sure this money came from a subsidiary of Cornell that didn't have a lobbyist. Prewitt, Cornell's lobbyist offered to write a personal check, Anderson said no, and Prewitt gave him the $2000 cashier's check. The video showed Anderson, hands out in front of him at the restaurant table making two mock bows to Prewitt after he gave him the check and saying, "I love it." At another point, Anderson says something like, I have no trouble raising campaign money, but what I really need is a job.


Paul Stockler, Anderson's attorney, was getting antsy, and after the jury left for the afternoon 15 minute break he addressed the judge about the schedule and when he would get to start cross examining Prewitt. He clearly didn't want the jury going home for the weekend without ever hearing anything from the other side. He was offered an hour today. His manner was much more aggressive than Marsh's, who is very deferential, but articulate. However, Marsh was clearly losing focus a bit this afternoon - having to go back to cover a tape or document he'd skipped over, and at one point someone walked into the courtroom and he turned to look over his shoulder to see who had come in. Stockler even addressed the judge as "Judge" at one point. I don't spend much time in courtrooms, but Marsh's "Your Honors" sound a lot more respectful to me.

When Stockler finally did get to start his cross examination of Prewitt at 3:45pm, he lit right into him and then he began to try to show Anderson's behavior in a more positive light. First he hit Prewitt with a series of incidents that he suggested he could have gone to prison for.

1. A $30,000 loan Prewitt, while Commissioner of Corrections, got from Allvest another firm that subcontracted with the Department of Corrections (I think that's what he said.) Prewitt said he got the loan and paid it back. Stockler: Is there anything in writing? Isn't it true it was a bribe? No. How did you pay it back? I worked for Allvest for four months - $7500 per month. Did you pay taxes on the $30,000? No, it was a loan. But you say you worked for it. No, I was paying him back. So, all of us could avoid paying income taxes by having our employer loan us our pay before, and then we'd repay it by working and not have to pay taxes?

2. Something about getting a job for a Mr. [DonStahlworthy (sp?) Stolworthy] who in 2004 was Deputy Commissioner of Corrections. Prewitt promised him a job when STahlworthy[Stolworthy] was fired.
I couldn't follow the specific details here. It was getting late and it appeared Stockler wanted to leave the jury with some questions about Prewitt before the weekend. [See Sunday, July 1 post post.
for update on Stolworthy.

3. Funneling $30,000 in campaign contributions from Cornell, a Houston based company,
to Alaskan legislative candidates who were friendly to private prisons. This was illegal because there was a limit on how much money candidates could get from contributors from Outside (of Alaska), so he would give it to them as an Alaskan.

4. Then raised questions about what deal he made with the Government so that he was now in the witness stand instead of the defendant's seat. Prewitt said that after working closely with the FBI for a month, and consulting with his attorney, he realized that he wasn't going to be subject to prosecution because of statute of limitations issues and I'm not sure why about the funneling contributions. And that he had volunteered to work for the government; he didn't have to. And it has been at great cost to his reputation and future employment to have all this publicly aired. Stockler kept challenging his claim there was no deal and said he needn't have volunteered and he would have spared himself all the humiliation.

5. An interesting bit of information emerged when he was asked how many other investigations was he cooperating on. Stockler told him not to mention any names. Marsh objected, but the judge allowed it. After a pause, Prewitt said, six or seven.

6. Established Prewitt was making $150,000 a year from Cornell to lobby, then asked whether Prewitt told Cornell he was working for the government. No. You didn't let them know you were in criminal trouble? I wasn't. You mean when the FBI knocked on your door, you didn't think you were in trouble? I don't think this was a good line of questioning since Stockler's client also had the FBI knocking at his door. If he's suggesting the FBI doesn't knock until they have something, then he could be hurting his own client. He also asked if Prewitt asked the government to pay him. He said yes, but they wouldn't.

Then Stockler focused on changing the jury's image of Anderson.

1. He wanted to show that Anderson was friendly and eager to please, not because Prewitt was paying him, but because that's his natural style. He asked Prewitt questions about an early meeting with Anderson before they knew each other at all, where Anderson called him FP (suggesting this was very familiar even though they didn't know each other well) and offered him assistance. And he didn't do that for money, but because he was that kind of guy and the issues were consistent with his principles. He didn't know Prewitt, hadn't gotten campaign contributions from him, and hadn't asked him for anything. Even though Bobrick had raised the notion of a campaign contribution, and Prewitt had said something like Tom shouldn't raise that now (because it is illegal for legislators to solicit campaign funding during the legislative session), Tom never asked you for a campaign contribution? Again, I don't think this was a good way to go, since Tom had earlier said that he didn't need campaign money, he needed a job. Prewitt's response was, that while he hadn't done anything for Tom, Bobrick, who was also a Cornell lobbyist, had done stuff for Tom and he was the one that introduced them here. (They'd had one prior meeting where Tom couldn't help Prewitt because he was supported by the prison employee's union that was opposed to private prisons. But when they split from the larger union, it was no longer a problem for him.)

2. He tried to portray the problem as Prewitt entrapping (he never used that term)Anderson. You and Bobrick concocted the sham company to funnel the money, Tom didn't. And he kept asking you to confirm that this money wasn't being paid him to do the legislative work. Stockler to Prewitt, "You could have said, Yes, the money is for you to fix my problems, and then Tom would have refused, and you wouldn't have had to humiliate yourself with all the publicity of this trial." The gist was, Tom was pushed into this by these older, more experienced mentors, at least one of whom is going to go scott free. But earlier they had established that Tom had a masters degree and law degree. In my opinion, a legislator should know better than asking lobbyists for legal advice.

And then it was 4:38 on the courtroom digital clock. The jury seemed much more interested in what was going on than they had been while the government painstakingly went through all the hard to hear and see tapes and transcripts.

Stockler asked for all of Monday to cross examine Prewitt. And then the Prosecutor will bring Bobrick to the witness stand.

[NOTE: YOU MAY HAVE TO HIT "OLDER POSTS" BELOW RIGHT TO GET THE FIRST ANDERSON POST - JUNE 28, 2007]

Alaska Redistricting Board - What Happened Friday at Anchorage Public Hearing?

There's a 50 page analysis of what's happening with the Alaska Redistricting Board floating through my head.  Much too much for a post.  I'm hoping to find ways to reduce it to the most critical issues and explanation.  I'm thinking of a series of shortish posts, each covering a different point, though they all overlap to some extent.

Meanwhile here's my raw data from Friday's public hearings in Anchorage and two things that struck me Friday - the new emphasis on very low deviations and Randy Ruedrich's discussion of the source of AFFER's Anchorage map.   I'll talk about these at the end.

Other posts will look at what's not working right at the Board.



The Facts:

 Friday, June 21, 2013 at noon was the deadline the Board had set at their previous meeting for third parties to submit their redistricting plans.  It was also when the Board last met before the public hearings.  At that the Board meeting approved 11 plans:

• Seven Board plans (Options A - G)
• Three third party full statewide plans
• AFFER (Alaskans for Fair and Equitable Redistricting, essentially the Republicans) - presented by Randy Ruedrich, former Chair of the Republican Part of Alaska with a cameo role by Matsu mayor Larry DeVilbiss
• Calista (Bethel area Native Corporation) - presented by Calista attorney Marcia Davis along with the contracted GIS person, Steve Colligan, (who also did the Republican maps), and political consultant, generally Democratic, Tom Begich
• Gazewood and Weiner, representing the Riley plaintiffs (who successfully challenged the original plans in court) will be presented on Monday at the Fairbanks public hearing. 
• One partial plan
• Ketchikan's plan of Southeast that had Ketchikan in a district with the southern part of Prince of Wales Island

Thursday, June 27, 2013 the Board posted three more plans on their website

• AFFER revised
• Calista revised
• Calista 2

[NOTE:  All the plans, plus additional ones mentioned below, as I write this, are available on the Board's website here.  You can get the maps, the GIS files, and the population data.] 

Friday, June 28, 2013 - When the Board opened the public testimony, it was announced that there were still more plans. 

• Calista 3 (which I think they used in their presentation)
• Matsu Plan 
• South Lakes Community Council (Matsu) Plan

Each stack is a different plan

At the meeting there were piles of maps for each Plan - with Statewide maps and more
detailed maps of Anchorage, Fairbanks, Eagle River/Matsu, Kenai, Southeast, and Western Alaska.  Plus the deviation numbers for each plan. 

• Public testimony - began with three presentations by third parties
• AFFER - (Randy Ruedrich (former long time Republican Statewide chair) and David DeVilbiss (Mayor of Matsu)
• Calista - (Marcia Davis, attorney for Calista Native Corporation, Steve Colligan, GIS expert, and musician, (mostly) Democratic political consultant, Tom Begich)
• Ketchikan (I only caught "Dan," but the internet shows that Dan Bockhorst is the Ketchikan city manager, so that would be a good bet.)  They wanted the southern half of Prince of Wales Island.

• I took notes on testimony by 27 people, not in this order (links go to posts that gives a little fuller account of their testimony.) Some might quibble whether my gist of each person should be considered under 'facts.'  Maybe not:

• Roger Jenkins - neutral some good, some issues
• Peter Goldberg - Board doing great
• Kelly Walters - Board Incompetent need master
• Bruce Schulte - (phone)  Support AFFER
• Brian Blessington - questions about NE districts - Muldoon
• Lois Epstein -  Board needs to be professional, explain maps to public
• John O’Day (phone)- AFFER good
• Leila Weisz (phone) - Board should do its job, hire a director
• Jerry Ahwinona (phone) - Thank you Board for your service
• Pat Abney -  Comply with court orders, hire full staff, make maps more accessible
• Steve Strait - (phone?) Leave things like last election, AFFER great
• Hope Nelson (Phone?)  I like what we have
• Rebecca Kurtz (phone) Cuts my neighborhood - Airport Heights - in half, shouldn’t
• Deborah Williams - Include Rights Coalition.  No intact Matsu map.  No Analysis Hire a master to finish this.
• SJ Klein - (phone) Fairview Community Council - Fairview shouldn’t be split in half, a whole community needs single representative
• David Morgan (phone) AFFER map good for my neighborhood Rogers Park
• David Cobb - Valdez Mayor wanted Valdez connected to Richardson Highway
• Ernie Weiss - Aleutians East Borough
• Matt Ganley - Bering Straits 
• Natalie Landreth - Native American Rights Fund - Likes Calista map 
• Susan Olsen -? - Anchorage concerned Board process not good.
• David Nees -  ? -Cooper Landing shouldn't be with Anchorage (Senate)
• Sen Kevin Meyer - Likes AFFER
• Brian Hove - Likes AFFER
• Scott Hawkins - Likes AFFER
• Tom Klinkner - Attorney for Petersburg - Plan A good; Plan E not good
• Frances Bennet - Live in D19, like AFFER

[I posted more detail of their testimony as it was happening on Friday, June 28, 2013.  You can click on the links at their names.  Most posts include several presenters.]

The Third-Party presentations explained how they went about making their maps, which criteria had higher priority, and explained where they had problems and had to make decisions - like having to break up Fairbanks borough because it had excess population, but not enough for a whole new district, and where they took the population from and why.


For now, I'll limit my comments to two things that caught my attention Friday:

• Keeping Deviation Low
• Ruedrich's Comment on The Source of the AFFER Anchorage Map

Keeping Deviation Low -  Deviation refers to each district's number of voters more or less than the ideal sized district of 17,755 (The 2000 Census reported Alaska state population divided by 40 districts.)   AFFER and Calista emphasized the low deviation their maps had - below 1.5%.  The basic idea is that if one district is much bigger than another, then the people in the big (by population) district have more people per representative than the people in the smaller district. Calista's deviations show their smallest district with -142 people and their largest with plus 168 - a difference of about 300 people from the biggest to the smallest.

But low is a relative term here.  In the previous round, the deviations for the state were much higher and the absolute maximum - only to be approached if there was no other way to meet the other criteria - was 10%.

I just got concerned here about the sudden sanctity of extremely low deviations.  This is good, but only if other issues are NOT being sacrificed.  Like keeping cities and boroughs intact.  Like not splitting neighborhoods like Fairview and Airport Heights.  I kept wondering what I wasn't being told about the other criteria as they kept emphasizing low deviations.

Again, the lower the better, all other things being equal.  But a statewide 5% deviation was well within the acceptable limits the first time around, and there's room for a little more deviation if needed to keep communities together in districts.

One reason that the plans can have such low deviations is that the planners are no longer worrying about pre-clearance from the US Department of Justice.  However, although Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which calls for pre-clearance for Alaska,  is still in tact, Section 4 of the Act has been invalidated by the US Supreme Court (in a 5-4 decision) because they didn't think the formula for determining which states should get pre-clearance was any good today.   This despite the fact that it was renewed in 2006 by 98-0 in the US Senate and 390 - 33 in the House. Until there are new criteria for Section 4, there won't be any states required to get pre-clearance.

However, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act still stands and still protects Alaska Natives from having their access to voting curtailed.  So, even though pre-clearance isn't required, the Board can be sued if there is retrogression that cannot be avoided because of loss of population or other such justifications.

That said, Calista is a Native Corporation and they say they consulted with other Native Corporations.  One would hope that means at least their maps will be consistent with the Voting Rights Act.  And their deviation is low too. 


The Source of the AFFER Anchorage Map - When Randy Ruedrich got to talking about Anchorage he said:  (from my rough notes)

Anchorage map product of mayor's office, Assembly work group, Clerk.
From Girdwood to north of Muldoon, no change. 

The point he was making was that they just took what Anchorage had made for themselves.  But I recall two years ago when it came out that the Anchorage map was one that AFFER gave to the mayor.  He approved it.  Debbie Ossiander, then the Assembly Chair, testified that the Assembly approved it.  But it turned out that other Assembly members had not seen the map, let alone approved it.    It's probably not a big deal, but to someone without the history, it would seem like the AFFER group had nothing to do with the Anchorage maps, they came from the Assembly and Mayor and Clerk.  But, the way I heard the story, AFFER gave Anchorage the map in the first place.