Thread by @mattbuxton

Meanwhile, the Superior Court has its final pre-trial briefing. The Alaska Redistricting Board is refusing to make members Borromeo and Bahnke available to testify on Senate pairings.

Singer: "I don't have any obligation" to provide witnesses who didn't support the plan.

#akleg

Singer, board's counsel, says the depositions are fine.

It sounds like they're going to be putting up Budd Simpson, not Bethany Marcum—the member who came up with the pairings.

Judge Matthews seems to agree with Singer. "What more different information am I likely to get?"

Attorney Holly Wells, the attorney arguing the Senate pairings, says that Singer prevented Borromeo and Bahnke from speaking about executive sessions.

She says they're prejudiced, here.

Judge Matthews seems to suggest there's some merit to that argument.

Follow along here:

Brena, the attorney for the Sitka/Valdez challenges, says he doesn't think the board "should be able to avoid all the bad statements" that don't support their case.

Brena says he doesn't believe they should be barred from calling board members because they did affidavits.

Brena says Singer/Alaska Redistricting Board don't get to avoid the negative things said by Borromeo and Bahnke that undermine the board's position: "That's not justice."

Singer: It's all in the record (except for the parts where he barred them from speaking on some points)

Brena says that they didn't get the opportunity to depose any of the board members on the affidavits provided by the board. He notes that he questioned the executive director for three hours based on the affidavit.

Judge Matthews calls it a "touchy situation" and says that he wants to be creating the best record and best decision possible.

Judge Matthews sides with the plaintiffs. He says hearing cross-questioning of the board members is critical to understanding the case: "Those witnesses need to be available."

Says if they need to take some witnesses out of order, then that'll be how it has to be.

Now they're not sure about the ordering of the trial, which is set to begin on Friday.

Brena thinks it's:
East Anchorage
Skagway
Calista
Mat-Su
Valdez

Judge Matthews and Singer:
East Anchorage
Mat-Su
Valdez
Skagway
Calista

Now they're asking the plaintiffs.

There's much back and forth about this.

Judge Matthews: We're all working on little sleep.

Aaand they just got a stay from the Alaska Supreme Court on some issue that I'm not entirely familiar with.

Stacey Stone, attorney for the Mat-Su plaintiffs, suggests that given that they should delay the lawsuit by one day. Moving it from Friday to Monday.

Ah, it sounds like it has something to do with the privilege on the executive session documents and communications.

The board has been firm in keeping them mum while the plaintiffs have argued that the Judge should at least double-check their claims of privilege.

Judge Matthews says they should stick to the currently set trial schedule. He says they can recall witnesses if the Supreme Court's actions really shake things up.

Stone's oral motion is denied.

Here's the Supreme Court motion staying Judge Matthews' order requiring production of communications.

I think this is starting to go the way of the Legislature's judiciary committees. Atty Singer: "Is time a use it or lose it situation?"

(Everyone has a bank of 6.5 hours to argue their case)