Board Meeting 3/28/12 10:00 Meeting was postponed because Attorney Michael White was unable to attend.

11:40 Jim Holm is on phone. Other members are in the room. Presentation by staff using Kenai Peninsula as source of needed population. Taylor Bickford : Hickel 4 This is Hickel 03, but backed out of Anchorage and went into Kenai instead. Show you what I did and the ramification. Torgerson: Does Kenai have enough excess Taylor Bickford: yes, but less. 3.3 districts 37 result of filling in after the other districts. Kenai Pen. into Tyonek. I grabbed the closest landing point, in concept no different if chose population from Homer or other parts of Kenai. I took population out of what was District 28 and built 37 into the Kenai until I was able to get just under the neg. 5% threshold. 6,587 out of Kenai. Impact was Kenai District was under populated and so I brought the others down so they were more even. HD 28 - short population, numbers not as good today, just finished up. Took chunk out of Anchorage - Whittier to Girdwood and Indian to South Anchorage. 28= -4.8?% Then try to smooth out Anchorage districts. Didnʼt optimize, but wanted to show it was possible. Huge chunk out of HD 27, and shifting to several others, and all within range. Similar to Hickel 03. Looking at this we seemed to cover everything that could be taken - Fairbanks, Matsu, Anchorage, and now Kenai to see if it could be done. Torgerson: You making any assertion about socio-economially integrated. Taylor Bickford: No, I figured in Borough ok. Torgerson: I meant Bethel, Kenai TB: No, I just figured, the Bethel ok, but no reason to know that Kenai is more soicioeconomically integrated with Bethel than any other. Still grabbing 5500 to ???? people, and some combo of Kenai and Anchorage. Whatever you do youʼll have a two or three split. No need to mess with Norther Anchorage border unless you wanted to Brodie?: Where is People Mine? White: Had a chance to look at it. I didnʼt realize - under this configuration, ??? heʼs talking really softly, hard to hear. Torgerson: Hold off. Mr. White reviewed yesterdayʼs maps - see memo - Mr. white put together an analysis of all 4 plans. 11:53 White: best put the maps back up. Start with this one 004 itʼs already up. Looked at all four plan what I believe is required of he board following this so called Hickel Process. (reading Hickel language) Plans started with Hickel template, population data that was up yesterday. Looking at 4 different districts. Population ideal I donʼt believe this plan will meet the AK constitutional standards for a couple of reason.

Urban Rural - undisputed record of board. You have to add urban population from somewhere in the rural to comply with the population requirements. Kenai plan serious constitutional issues. HD 39 not compact, and socio-economic issues as well. Using that standard, 39 would not comply. Problems with 38 as well all the way to the cost. 37 compactness, some weirdness at top, probably for population issues. Always a problem going over water - Cook Inlet - some water crossing ok, not sure what court would say. Real issues saying if Kenai B in general - hard time arguing Kenai socio-economically connected to Bethel. Itʼs not a hub like anchorage is. Heard in trial like I said yesterday go bear hunting there. I donʼt count that. This plan has serious Constitutional problems. Iʼd have real problems. Effort to go into Kenai establishes that you have to change the traditional configuration of Hickel1 and 2. In short I donʼt think Kenai complies and I canʼt recommend. Letʼs go to Anchorage. [Getting maps up] Mentioned in the memo, when you go to Kenai, they have less excess population that Fairbanks or Anchorage and . . . Hickel 03 - Same as Kenai plan for other districts. Stronger argument about integration with Bethel area - villages there will funnel into Bethel and then Anchorage. A is biggest native village in Alaska, unfortunately they are not geographically cohesive enough. You can make and argument. Itʼs stronger than Kenai and Matsu, Not as strong as Fairbanks Argue that Anchorage is transportation and economic hub, village and regional corps have offices in Anchorage. Argument could be made. Has same compactness and contiguity issues, potential . . biggest problem is how the rest of the state is configured in order to do this. ….. My opinion: I donʼt think this plan complies with the Constitution and wouldnʼt recommend it. Taylor Bickford: would you say contiguity jump is bigger problem than the last one. And problem with 37 and 38? White: Jump isnʼt that big - maybe 50 miles - I donʼt think the distance is legally significant, if ok with Anchorage, then ok with Kenai 2. 39 is not soc-econ integrated and ???? In the end, good effort to go into Anchorage. but in order go into anchorage, causes problems. Taylor Bickford: ARe you saying itʼs terrible or just a stretch. White: Well, small villages, people interact with Nome. I donʼt think itʼs like combining Valdez with N Slope or . Dealing only with Alaska Constitution - our blinders are on considering anything else - then later look at VRA. Some similarities - rural, small, without any rationale such as VRA, 39 doesnʼt work. You could make arguments, but wouldnʼt measure up in the end. Letʼs go to Matsu plan: Torgerson: I understand why you are saying these arenʼt constitutional, but our charge is to come up with a Constitutional map.

White: I donʼt think - Iʼm talking this way because I have four plans to . Is the charge from SC to eliminate ??? Since I had four plans, Iʼm analyzing them all. Do we need four? No, but going through them shows …. Matsu - Hickel 02, pretty much like Hickel 01 except it goes to Matsu to deal with rural excess. Closer than the other two plan. Main issue is HD 36 which takes from Matsu and put that in with rest of HD 36. Matsu is not a transportation hub, doesnʼt have the other ties with rural Alaska. Matsu has no excess population - 5.1 REst looks good, essentially like Hickel 01 Fairbanks. Taylor Bickford: Are you aware of anything on the record that points to ties between Matsu and rural areas White: I donʼt think there is anything on the record . People donʼt fly in and out of Matsu to get to rural Alaska. I donʼt believe there is anything on the record to support socio-econ links. Torgerson: Itʼs like bear viewing. White: On to Hickel 01. I believe H1, does in fact meet the requirements of the AK Constitution. We know, established on the record that Fairbanks is hub for rural Alaska, the people who live int hose villages there, itʼs the hub - HD 6. thatʼs the only real question. The rest of the plan has no issues at all. No proportionality issues. 5,809 Fairbanks has most excess population in the state and given its geographic location and socio-econ ties. Any argument that the people in Fairbanks donʼt have ties, is not the legal standard used. Arguments made once that south Kenai has not ties with Anchorage, but argument is look at all of area you are connecting with. We know 40 is shaped that way because it has to be. Chain and Aleutians are what they are. In short I think in order to meet the baseline plan, that this plan does it. Based on the four, I would recommend this be the plan we adopted and that is forwarded to Lisa Handley to see if it complies with VRA. Torgerson: In all four presentations we never mentioned SE once. White: As I read the decision - Petersburg said not compact - to the extent it might be, it needed to be drawn. Trial court decision and what he said afterward, he said it was compact and I donʼt believe thereʼs a requirement to change it. That said, you can change anything you want. But you arenʼt required to. We can take anything that wasnʼt affected by a legal challenge, because we drew these districts solely to comply with the Constitution, not the VRA. My advice, I donʼt see the need to do that unless the board wants you to. Torgerson: I asked you that yesterday, but I just wanted to put it on the record. I read the opinion again. He makes some references to district 24. Bill Thomas district, we wanted to protect his district. . . ???? White: Relatively compact. Nothing done because of VRA. Torgerson: I know going down least preferred. Is there a reason we should spend time on deviations? Under 10%, need to spend more time on? White: I havenʼt seen nor looked at numbers for VRA. My guess is that particularly given ??? there will be two potential issues.

Torgerson: Weʼre not supposed to talk about that. Just deviation. White: Youʼre ok. 8.93% it strictly complies with Constitution. Anchorage low, you had remaining population. 1600 in 6 before was taken out and put back into Fairbanks and spread out in the other five districts. It didnʼt increase the range. All Fairbanks about +3 , but only 1% difference between Fairbanks districts. I read the opinion from last time, if you have excess population, even with requirement to draw urban areas as small as possible, itʼs ok to make them as equal as possible among like minded people. In 2001 case there were 8 or 9 districts that were all .39 to ? range of 8 or 9% in the Anchorage bowl and that challenged and court said they should be much closer. In urban areas make them as close as possible, but there are other factors. As long as under 10% overall, deviation, just numbers and not range, need some flexibility. I think Fairbanks is fine, dealt with proportionality issues. Iʼd recommend Senate pairings put together. While we treat this as one plan, but DOJ and Alaska treat them as two plans House and Senate. Senate - contiguous, Issue of City of Fairbanks not resolved - the SC only rejected idea that you needed 100% for district. I recommend ??? Fairbanks city houses paired.???? Torgerson: Iʼd like to see a chart of where we are to where weʼre going. BEfore break, your recommendation to adopt Hickel 1? White: Yes, and Lisa is available to review it. Torgerson: Could she get it back to us tomorrow if we send this today? Taylor Bickford: You touched on, in the record, finding about Fairbanks ties, can you explain what. . . Torgerson: Thatʼs not Germane to AK White: McConahy said - population, excess population, and VRA. The reason Torgerson: We arenʼt asserting the VRA for this. Taylor Bickford: I remember him finding Fairbanks socio-economically integrated with rural in various ways. White: Hard pressed to deny Fairbanks is integrated with rural AK. Torgerson : You need 5 minutes? Iʼll give you ten. Come back in 15 minutes and weʼll entertain 4 motions. Adopt Hickel, Lisa Handley, computer error report?, Like to get this to her today. Itʼs already 4:30 dc time. 2 our time is 6pm her time. Pushing to get it back to us by 10am tomorrow. Stand in recess. 12:32. No later than ten to one. 1pm Return Torgerson: Got table staff prepared. Taylor Bickford: Didnʼt have time to put spreadsheet on web. Senate Pairings reflect the numbers on the map. Torgerson: STart with one you didnʼt change. Taylor Bickford: Sen. pairings in SE. Same senate pairings for SE, not changed. Torgerson: 31, 32, 33 Taylor Bickford: and 34. Same for Kenai and Anchorage Torgerson; 26- 10 all the same. Now Fairbanks Taylor Bickford: Fairbanks changed because house districts changed. City is paired together. One and two constitute and City of Fairbanks senate seat. City has - pairing city has over 80% of seat. 3 and 4 (Eilson) - District 5 will pair with 6 - no change.

Rural districts White No City population in 6 correct? Taylor Bickford: 5 is over populated and 6 is underpopulated so FNSB will have majority. Have two Sen districts in their boarders and majority in two more = 2.5 sen districts. 39-40 - NS and Nome and Wade Hampton Interior district - horseshoe 37 - and here paired with Bethel 38. Only options are 38 and 36. Chain Dillingham paired with Kodiak. Spread Sheet has deviations. If adopted would have to send everything to Lisa, but now we do not have Native VAP. And in my mind this was done without considering Native VAP. White: overall deviation seems to be ??? 3.98% over populated 4.4095% under PeggyAnn McConnochie: Motion to adopt Hickel 01. Green: Second. White: Working through this process. You might want to start process by finding that Hickel 1 meets constitutional requirements. PeggyAnn McConnochie: Then we could move we adopt Hickel 1 which meets constitutional requirements . . Holm: We believe . . Torgerson: To the best of my ability. Canʼt we assume people will get there? White: Iʼm not assuming anything. I just wanted to get it on the record. Torgerson: to further the record, the board has worked hard, hours and hours of work, we decided that Hickel 1 is the most constitutionally ok plan we could come up with, we did come up with . . . . Roll Call: Torgerson: yes, PeggyAnn McConnochie: yes Green: yes Brodie: yes Holm: yes. Torgerson: We adopted Hickel 1 as our most constitutional plan PeggyAnn McConnochie: next we have to look at the little errors on the maps and clean them up and Lt. Govʼs military base issues. Torgerson: Iʼm not sure the military base issue applies to this one, but have to fix the polling places. Authorizing Taylor to work on Hickel 1. Software will figure this out if you treat it right. Authorize Taylor to do that and fix it. All vote yes. PeggyAnn McConnochie: Adopt the Senate pairings listed in Hickel 001. Torgerson: For those on teleconference, this will be on the web. Majority not changed 7-34 seem to be the same pairings. Some changes in Fairbanks and 35-40. Taylor: And that all Senate pairings are made up of contiguous house districts. Torgerson: CAn we say this enough? Vote: all yes. PeggyAnn McConnochie: Our final act, forward the plan adopted and request the plan be evaluated as in compliance with the VRA. Torgerson: This is straightforward. Send to Lisa not for constitutionality because we all know this is probably the most constitutional in Alaska history, but sheʼll evaluate compliance with VRA. Vote: All yes.

Torgerson: Our attorney walked out of the room, but as far as I know, weʼre done for now, but I want to check with counsel. I think heʼs on the phone with Lisa (Handley, VRA expert), so lets stand at ease until he gets off the phone. 1:21 Back White: Talked to Handley. Her schedule is tight tomorrow, might be able to get an informal, something more formal by 4pm our time. What do you want? Not like DOJ analysis, but solely on - not a report like for DOJ - but just her opinion if it complies with VRA. Torgerson: What are the chances of her prelim report changing the outcome of the report - in my mind none. Torgerson: has to take the numbers, doesnʼt have to do racial profile analysis. She though she might - has appointment tonight - but maybe something informal tomorrow am before meeting. Chance of anything changing, I would think it would. Torgerson: I would think - to keep with our posted schedule of ten tomorrow - I think 9am her time. Informal before her 9am. For us to continue, Iʼd like a preliminary report. I donʼt see it changing. She canʼt make up native VAP. Sheʼs not looking at constitutionality. Those numbers from prelim to actual written report canʼt change much. I think we can do that. Keep to our schedule at 10am tomorrow. Or … the golden spike and have perfect plan. Taylor has note she might call in. I would like the report at least an hour before our meeting. White: Iʼll call her back and say Lisa, we want the formal report as soon as you can and the final report by 4 and are you available sometime after 4 to call in. Torgerson: I cant say Iʼd have any questions for her. Some of her writings are a little above my head. White: Good to have her call in. Torgerson: Homework she though staff should work on tonight? Taylor Bickford: Iʼm sure a lot of people will want shape files. In a couple of hours weʼll send out a blast with the shape files and maps. Iʼll get all the data she needs in the next 30 minutes. White: when you do the maps put the ??? on the maps. Taylor Bickford: I donʼt know thereʼs a clean way to do that? White: Just 40 A and 40 B?

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful