Thread by @mattbuxton

On the board testimony issues, Judge Matthews: "Both parties make arguments that are well-grounded."

He says Singer already had the chance to file testimony and supplemental affidavits for his witnesses. Singer doesn't get to call additional re-directs (additional questioning) but can file supplemental affidavits for consideration.

Plaintiffs would get opportunity for cross.

Wells apologizes for requiring Bahnke fly into Anchorage, says she will not be calling her for cross examination today

Matthews sums things up:

-So, Wells has rested* her case.
-Singer can filed supplemental affidavits that, if accepted, would give Wells a new opportunity to re-cross.
-Wells could also bring stuff up based on review of attorney-client privilege.
-Also, some exhibit issues.

Judge Matthews addressing the exhibit issues: "We're all running on adrenaline at this point."

Singer asks for a lunch break so they can get their ducks in a row on the exhibits. On at least one of them, Singer basically said they'd cede the issue and strike one problems.

Brena on Singer's attempts to get in additional testimony from the board members on the record: "I'm deeply disturbed. ... It's to convert re-direct into supplemental direct live."

Brena basically says it's bullshit that Singer is weaponizing all the testimony issues. Notes that East Anchorage didn't call witnesses because of Singer's actions and now Singer is getting another crack at direct testimony.

"That's ridiculous, your honor."

And that MAY be it for the day.

They're taking a break until 2 p.m. so plaintiffs and the board can attempt to sort out some exhibit issues among themselves.

If they get them resolved on their own, they might just call it without returning.

If that's it, the Mat-Su case would start on Monday.

That case has been paired with Valdez because they have the same issue: Neither wants to be paired with the other.

The Doyon group has intervened on that issue because any changes would impact the Interior district.

So quick takeaways:

The Alaska Redistricting Board's defense of the East Anchorage pairings seems to go back to the idea that anything within a municipality is automatically socio-economically integrated.

There's some merit to this but it was never definitively settled.

A lot of the meat of the whole argument, however, is contained in the briefings. All of which are here: courts.alaska.gov/media/case-fil…

The opening arguments for East Anchorage are here: public.courts.alaska.gov/web/media/MRCF…

I feel like the main point of the East Anchorage's case comes down to what exactly the Alaska Constitution means when it comes to creating Senate districts.

The board argues they just need to be touching, while East Anchorage argues for a more complete view of the issue.

Some of the issues raised by East Anchorage are the community connections between the two areas such as shopping and recreating (which they don't share, per the testimony) as well as the road connections, which Singer made a point about today.

Here's the argument laid out:

Whether any of this has to matter has not really been a settled issue. The matter of the city of Fairbanks getting its own Senate seat in the 2010 round was an important issue but was never ruled on because that plan was invalidated on completely different legal grounds.

East Anchorage also raises several process issues (as do other plaintiffs) and allege violations of Open Meetings Act and public notice.

Specifically, they argue that the public never had the opportunity to weigh in on Senate pairings and that the pairings were made in secret.

It looks like the trial is coming back together shortly.

Judge Matthews: So, what's up?

Wells, for East Anchorage: I think we're pretty good.

She acknowledges that they kinda erred on some of the exhibits lists that the board objected to. Says they're fine not challenging most of the claims.

Wells says some of the exhibits come from government websites and would be useful to be noticed to the court, but acknowledges they were not part of the testimony.

These are some of the documents that are being raised. Singer says they're fine with it as long as they're accurate. Agrees that they're useful for reference moving forward.

Documents illustrate the sudden and unexplained changes in Senate pairings adopted by the board.

The Alaska Redistricting Board had one set of pairings on the first night, spent several hours in executive session, and then came out and adopted a different plan without explanation.

At the time, Bahnke and Borromeo suggested a deal had been reached in executive session.

There's a lot of back and forth about whether Wells/East Anchorage will be able to enter into the record any of the emails revealed through the ongoing discovery that includes Judge Matthews' review of documents protected in attorney-client privilege.

Singer said that the East Anchorage plaintiffs shouldn't get to add new documents to records because Wells rested her case.

Judge Matthews notes that Wells did not, in fact, rest her case and she still has the right to at least attempt to enter new emails into the record.

Brena pops in to say requiring the plaintiffs to use part of their 6.5 hours to call the board members to authenticate the emails that were produced by the board.

He says they should just deal with them in one lump order outside of the 6.5-hour argument.

Brena argues that the reason they're taking this unusual path is because Singer and the board have resisted disclosure of documents, eating into the time.

Singer says he doesn't have an issue with authenticity. He says the Board should get an opportunity to have the witnesses (Board Members) confront the evidence on the record.

More back and forth.

Several parties are asking for staggered final briefings, noting it's hard to respond when you don't know what the plaintiffs' argument is.
More about emails. Plaintiffs argue they're part of the public record and board shouldn't get a shot at responding.

"Shot at responding" being having the board members respond via additional testimony.

Judge Matthews on what is and isn't public record: "One of the issues of doing this at lightning speed and perhaps not everybody is on the same page."

They're getting ready for Monday now when the Mat-Su will be up.

Singer and Amdur-Clark, the attorney for Doyon intervenors, suggest that the Valdez witnesses should also get started on Monday afternoon in the event Mat-Su gets done.

Brena objects to speeding up the trial. Says he's still waiting to see what comes of the attorney-client privileged emails and was preparing to start with his expert witness on Tuesday.

Judge Matthews says that if they want staggered briefings, they're gonna need to get them in earlier.

Matthews: "I'm trying to grab onto the tail of this tiger as you all ran off a mile ahead of me from the starting line."

And that is it.

See y'all on Monday at 9 a.m.

@threadreaderapp unroll