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.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Matt Acuña Buxton

Matt Acuña Buxton Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @mattbuxton

Jan 21
The first day of the trial challenging the Alaska Redistricting Board's work is underway. Today, they'll be kicking it off with the East Anchorage plaintiffs, who are challenging the Senate pairings with the conservative Eagle River.

#akleg #akredistrict

It's going to be an unusual trial because the direct testimony has already been filed. The opening arguments, too. They'll be starting out with cross examination and then direct testimony.
First, they're taking up several objections raised by the Alaska Redistricting Board against lay testimony and expert testimony brought by East Anchorage.

Judge Matthews rejects both motions, adding that he'll take the hearsay testimony as it comes.
Read 87 tweets
Jan 20
The House Finance Committee is underway with an overview hearing on Gov. Dunleavy's budget proposal.


Watch: akleg.gov/includes/_play…
Presentation: akleg.gov/basis/get_docu…
Steininger explaining how the state's budget has been reduced by ~5% since Dunleavy took office with most of the cuts coming to the University of Alaska and a few other areas. Notes quite a bit of it, though, has been eaten up by more spending on public safety, corrections.
Rep. Foster asks why Steininger chose FY19 as the starting point, asking whether it's intended to make the budget look better.

Steininger says it's to "focus on the achievements of this administration."
Read 36 tweets
Jan 20
S. Finance is underway. They're taking a look at the revenue forecast with DoR's Chief Economist Dan Stickel. Stedman prefaces by saying investments have surpassed oil, but "that might be switching around."


Watch: w3.akleg.gov/includes/_play…
Docs: akleg.gov/basis/Meeting/…
Stedman says they all need to start settling into a base number for oil price. The state has started to update it more regularly, which Stedman suggests is not particularly helpful because it can make for big swings in the budget outlook.
How's the state's economy doing? "Still a ways to go," Stickel says.
Read 21 tweets
Jan 20
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.

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.
Read 16 tweets
Jan 19
For the afternoon #akleg, we've got concurrent hearings of the S. Finance Committee on Senate President Micciche's alcohol rewrite bill: w3.akleg.gov/includes/_play…

House Judiciary on a bill dealing with access to MJ conviction records by Rep. Kreiss-Tomkins: w3.akleg.gov/includes/_play…
JKT on his legislation, says it would remove some records of convictions for simple marijuana possession from the public record. You'd have to have been 21+ at the time with no other crimes committed in the act to have your record sealed.

He says it matches the current times. Image
Over in Senate Finance (I'm not sure why I'm doing this to myself), Sen. Micciche says not everyone agrees with everything in his alcohol bill but says it has broad support from the industry associations.

He's been carrying it since 2015. It's been sunk by industry many times.
Read 16 tweets
Jan 19
The Senate Finance Committee is underway. On today's agenda is a look at the state's production forecast (which plays into revenue and therefore the budget).

Watch: ktoo.org/gavel/video/20…
Docs: akleg.gov/basis/Meeting/…

#akleg Image
Sen. Stedman is opening up with an introduction of committee staff as well as legislative aides. When he gets to Sen. Bishop's team, Stedman says: "His duties are whatever his boss assigns him."
Sen. Stedman on the budget process: "We will pull out of the non-reoccurring funds ... and boil it down to the base budget."

"It's very important that we have a base document to go through" instead of the Gov's budget that he claims "is balanced when it's not."
Read 23 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!