The Alaska Redistricting Board is currently hearing public testimony for new Anchorage Senate pairings. This is after the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that pairing an Eagle River House district with a Muldoon House district was unconstitutional.
A lot of the public testimony so far has supported the so called “Bahnke map,” which was offered by board member Melanie Bahnke. Many have claimed her map is “nonpartisan” and encouraged quick adoption by the board. But Bahnke’s map is identical to a map Senator Tom Begich (D – Anchorage) texted to board member Nicole Borromeo on November 5 – days before the Senate pairings were adopted by the board. The text messages between Begich and Borromeo were produced in the litigation. The Landmine obtained them via a public records request.
Begich, who is up for re-election this year and is the Senate minority leader, was actively involved in the redistricting process, even offering his own maps under the Senate Minority Caucus plan. When asked for comment about his map being identical to the “Bahnke map,” Begich responded by text, “Only in so much as, based on House maps that had been adopted, those pairings made sense. I’m fine with any map as long as it pairs the two Muldoon Districts and the two Eagle River Districts, as the Superior Court determined and the Supreme Court affirmed.”
Two other proposed Anchorage Senate pairings have been adopted by the board, including one by Randy Ruedrich. During today’s meeting, Bahnke said she had not worked with Begich or Scott Kendall on her Anchorage Senate map. This was in response to a member of the public who claimed she had. But Bahnke did not address whether or not she had worked with Borromeo, who Begich sent an identical map to in November.
The lesson here is the redistricting process is a partisan process, and anyone who says otherwise is naïve or lying.
I did not collaborate with Nicole, Begich, Kendall, or anyone else other than I invited Budd to map it with me during a work session. He watched me draw what I said I felt was the preferred map and compromise map and didn’t say much. There were only 8 senate pairings, and my focus on the constitution and most logical pairings was not influenced or informed by anyone. I did not know that Begich had texted that to Nicole, nor did I have contact direct or indirect with him other than I heard him testify like everyone else did on… Read more »
And I will state this on the record so it’s clear.
https://www.juneauempire.com/news/redistricting-board-takes-public-input-on-potential-fixes/ I did actually already state it on the record.
So why wasn’t your “focus on the constitution and most logical pairings” done on the first map?
We never got a chance to discuss or debate the maps I had drawn. The map that the court has deemed unconstitutional passed by a 3-2 vote. I was not in favor of that map.
If you want to look like you feel guilty, then jump into the comments section on an online article in the way you just did.
The notion that pairing Girdwood with Rabbit/Bear valley is some kind of partisan plot is so laughable. Landfield loves to stoke division.
If we are to take seriously the claim that the fact that Begich’s and Bahnke’s maps are the same is evidence of collaboration, I think we need to identify another equally non-partisan pairing.
I don’t see a better option, even if I squint real hard.
It is true that the process is partisan, but the evidence of partisanship is the fact that the board didn’t adopt the Bahnke map the first time around. I really don’t undetstand Landfield’s perspective on this one.
Jesus Jeff — first your crap twitter post last night about the ruble and now this…. seriously, think about the damage you’re doing to your credibility.
Maybe I’m biased, Ms. Banke being from my town and all, but I also listened to her on several occasion during the redistricting process and find her to be a credible, no-nonsense kind of individual. She’s the exact kind of person you’d want working on matters such as this.
What credibility?