Exhibit Letter Description Exhibit A Preclearance Submission of the 2011 Alaska State House and Senate Redistricting Plan By the Alaska Redistricting Board Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (August 9, 2011)

Exhibit B Report of Dr. Lisa Handley, A Voting Rights Analysis of the Proposed Alaska State Legislative Plans: Measuring the Degree of Racial Bloc Voting and Determining the Effectiveness of Proposed Minority Districts

Exhibit C Letter from DOJ Assistant Attorney General T. Perez to M. White, October 11, 2011 Exhibit D Virginia Current Senate Districts: District Population Summary Exhibit E Virginia HB 5005 Senate Plan (Passed 4/28/11): Population Totals Exhibit F Letter from DOJ Assistant Attorney General T. Perez to Virginia Solicitor General the Hon. Duncan Getchell, Jr., June 7, 2011

Exhibit G BVAP Comparison Chart Showing All South Carolina Senate Districts

Exhibit H Letter from DOJ Assistant Attorney General T. Perez to Speaker of the South Carolina House of Representatives the Hon. Robert Harrell, Jr., October 11, 2011 Exhibit A

PRECLEARANCE SUBMISSION OF THE 2011 ALASKA STATE HOUSE AND SENATE REDISTRICTING PLAN BY THE ALASKA REDISTRICTING BOARD UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT

August 9, 2011

Taylor Bickford, Executive Director ALASKA REDISTRICTING BOARD 411 West 4th Ave., Suite 302 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Phone (907) 269-7402 • FAX (907) 269-6691 [email protected]

Michael D. White, Counsel PATTON BOGGS LLP 601 W. 5TH Ave., Suite 700 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Phone (907) 263-6300 • FAX (907) 263-6345 [email protected] Preclearance Submission Alaska Redistricting Board Page 2

This submission statement is arranged pursuant to the order of the Justice’s published rules for submission in 28 C.F.R. Part 51 §§ 51.27, 51.28. The information and data accompanying this submission is provided under separate cover and arranged by numbered volumes and folders. When needed, an explanation of the contents of each folder is included.

The Change Affecting Voting, 28 C.F.R. § 51.27(a)-(c)

The Board's "Proclamation of Final Redistricting and Accompanying Report" contains new legislative districts for the Alaska House of Representatives (40 seats) and the Alaska Senate (20 seats). [The Proclamation and Accompanying Report (“Proclamation Plan”) are found in Volume 3, Folder 1.] The Plan was developed and issued in accordance with Article VI of the Alaska Constitution, and the results of the year 2010 decennial United States Census. [Copies of the constitutional and statutory provisions governing Alaska's redistricting process are found in Volume 1, Folder 5.]

Pursuant to Article VI, Section 10 of the Alaska Constitution, the Proclamation Plan replaces the current Alaska legislative districts created by the Alaska Redistricting Board in its 2001 Redistricting Plan. [A copy of the current (Benchmark) plan which is being repealed can be found in Volume 2, Folders 1 through 4.]

All Alaska House of Representative and Senate districts are changed to varying degrees by the proposed plan, which utilizes new numbering (House) and lettering (Senate) systems. Many districts are changed substantially from the current plan. The plan also truncates the seats for nine of ten incumbent state senators who would be mid-term in the 2012 general election because of substantial changes to their districts. This was done in accordance with the criteria established by the Alaska Supreme Court in Egan v. Hammond, 502 P.2d 856, 873- 874 (1972). [Maps of the current (Benchmark) legislative districts are provided in Volume 2, Folders 3 and 4. Maps of the proposed (Proclamation) legislative districts can are included in Volume 3, Folders 3 and 4.]

Submitting Authority, 28 C.F.R. § 51.27(d)-(f)

This submission is made by the counsel for the Board, pursuant to Article VI, Section 9 of the Alaska Constitution and Alaska Statute 15.10.220(1):

Michael D. White, Counsel PATTON BOGGS LLP 601 W. 5TH Ave., Suite 700 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Phone: (907) 263-6300 Facsimile: (907) 263-6345 E-mail: [email protected]

Preclearance Submission Alaska Redistricting Board Page 3

The submitting authority is the Alaska Redistricting Board. The Board's office location and mailing address is 411 West 4th Ave., Suite 302, Anchorage, Alaska 99501. Its contact information is as follows: phone (907) 269-740, fax (907) 269-6691, and email [email protected].

The Constitutional Process for Redistricting, 28 C.F.R. § 51.27(g)-(i)

The authority to redistrict is vested with the Board pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 of the Alaska Constitution. Pursuant to Article VI, Section 10 of the Alaska Constitution, the Board was required to adopt a draft plan or plans 30 days after the reporting of the decennial census of the United States, and a final plan and proclamation no later than 90 days after the reporting of the census. Block level census data was received by the Board from the U. S. Bureau of the Census on March 15, 2011. Thus, the deadline for adoption of a draft plan or plans was April 14, 2011, and the deadline for adoption of the final plan was June 13, 2011. Both deadlines were met by the Board.

The members of the Redistricting Board were appointed pursuant to Article VI, Section 8(b) of the Alaska Constitution. Governor Sean Parnell appointed John Torgerson of Soldotna, Executive Director of the Kenai Peninsula Economic Development District and former State Senator, and Albert Clough of Juneau, a retired commercial pilot on June 25, 2010. Albert Clough resigned on February 23, 2011, when he accepted full-time employment with the State of Alaska. Governor Parnell appointed PeggyAnn McConnochie, a real estate broker from Juneau, to replace Mr. Clough on the same day. Senate President Gary Stevens appointed Robert Brodie, a real estate broker and former mayor of Kodiak, on June 25, 2010. The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mike Chenault, appointed Jim Holm of Fairbanks, a business owner and former state representative, on July 8, 2010. Alaska Supreme Court Chief Justice Carpeneti appointed Marie Greene of Kotzebue, CEO of Nana, Inc. (an Alaska Native Regional Corporation) and an Alaska Native (Inupiat), on August 31, 2010. Board member John Torgerson was elected Chair.

The Alaska Constitution sets forth the principles for redistricting. Article VI, Section 4 requires the Board to establish 40 single-member House districts and 20 single-member Senate districts, each composed of two House districts. Article VI, Section 6 requires House districts to be contiguous and compact and to contain, as nearly as practicable, a relatively integrated socio-economic area. Senate districts are required to be composed as near as practicable of two contiguous House districts.

The Board published its “Alaska Redistricting Board 2011 Redistricting Guidelines” on March 16, 2011, with the understanding that proponents of proposed plans would follow the traditional redistricting principles adopted by the Board. The Board’s Guidelines called for adherence to federal and state constitutional and statutory requirements. [The Board’s Guidelines can be found in Volume 1, Folder 4, and are also included as Appendix 2 to the Board’s Proclamation Preclearance Submission Alaska Redistricting Board Page 4

of Final Redistricting and Accompanying Report, located in Volume 3, Folder 1 of this submission.]

The Board held its first meeting on September 13, 2010, and met regularly through June 14, 2011. During a meeting on April 13, 2011, the Board adopted a total of five statewide plans to be submitted for public comment plus a number of regional and single district plans. Two of the five draft statewide plans were prepared by the Board and staff. These plans were designated Board Option 1 and Board Option 2, and included regional alternatives for the Mat-Su Borough and Southeast Alaska. The three other draft statewide plans adopted by the Board were submitted by private interest groups Alaskan For Fair Redistricting (“AFFR”), Alaskan For Fair and Equitable Redistricting (“AFFER”), and the RIGHTS Coalition. Draft regional and single- district plans adopted by the Board were submitted by the City and Borough of Juneau, Bristol Bay Borough, the City of Valdez and the Alaska Bush Legislative Caucus. [The shape files for these adopted draft plans can be found in Volume 7, Folder 2.]

Over the course of the next 60 days, the Board reviewed and took public comment on the draft plans. During this time period, the Board received a number of revised and new proposed plans from various entities and individuals, including new and revised statewide plans from AFFR, AFFER, the RIGHTS Coalition, and Calista Corporation, as well as new regional plans from the Municipality of Anchorage, the Fairbanks North Star Borough, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough and the Mat-Su Borough.

Between 1984 and 2002, election districts in which Alaska Natives constituted at least 35% of the voting age population had always elected Alaska Native preferred candidates to office. Accordingly everyone, including the Board, relied upon this historical “effectiveness” standard in developing its draft plans. The Board relied upon this “effectiveness” standard, as did other entities, because in the past two redistricting cycles (1990 and 2000), legally significant racial bloc voting did not exist in most of the state.

In mid-May, however, Dr. Lisa Handley, the Board’s Voting Rights Act consultant, completed her preliminary racial bloc voting analysis for this redistricting cycle, finding that voting in Alaska had become more polarized over the past decade (2002-2010). Accordingly, she reported to the Board on May 17, 2011, that the overall statewide standard for creating an “effective” Alaska Native district had increased from 35% Alaska Native voting age population (“VAP”) to a minimum of 41.8% Alaska Native VAP. Dr. Handley also found that a more district-specific analysis was warranted in two areas: Benchmark House Districts 37 and 6. Because most contests in Benchmark District 37 were not polarized, it consistently elected minority-preferred candidates despite being less than 41.8% Alaska Native VAP. On the other hand, Benchmark House District 6, which is well over 41.8% Alaska Native VAP, failed to elect the Alaska Native preferred candidate in the 2010 election due to higher incidents of racially polarized voting and lower than statewide average of white crossover vote. Accordingly, in Benchmark District 6, Dr. Handley’s analysis found that 49.7% Alaska Native VAP is needed in order to offer Alaska Natives an opportunity to elect candidates of choice. Preclearance Submission Alaska Redistricting Board Page 5

In light of this new standard, the Board invited all groups that had previously submitted plans for the configuration of Alaska Native districts to participate in a public work session at the Board’s office in Anchorage. The purpose of the work session was to provide these groups the opportunity to present any final thoughts, ideas, revisions, or amendments to their plans. A number of groups responded to the invitation and made formal presentations to the Board at a public meeting on May 24, 2011, including AFFR, AFFER, the RIGHTS Coalition, and Calista Corporation. The Board also received new and revised plan submissions from the Bering Straits Native Corporation and Tom Begich, a consultant to several Alaska Native interests. Dr. Handley analyzed these plans and determined that they were all retrogressive and therefore did not comply with the Voting Rights Act. After careful deliberations and discussion, the Board adopted its final redistricting plan on June 13, 2011 by a unanimous 5-0 vote, as is authorized by Article VI, Section 10(b) of the Alaska Constitution.

The final redistricting plan has an overall population deviation of 8.47% between House districts and 7.54% between Senate districts, the lowest of any redistricting plan in Alaska history. House District 39, the least populated, has a population deviation of –4.86% below ideal district size. House District 6 is the most populated, with a population deviation of +3.61% above ideal district size. The configurations of both these districts were largely influenced by Voting Rights Act compliance.

The Effective Date of the Redistricting Plan, 28 C.F.R. § 51.27(j)-(k)

This proposed redistricting plan was adopted on June 13, 2011, and will first apply, upon preclearance, to the 2012 elections for the state legislature. The 2012 statewide primary is to be held on August 26, 2012, and the next general election is November 6, 2012. It shall remain in effect until after the next official reporting of the decennial census of the United States. Otherwise, this proposed redistricting plan has not yet been enforced or administered.

The Scope and Reasons for the Change, 28 C.F.R. § 51.27(l)-(m)

This proposed redistricting plan affects the entire jurisdiction of the State of Alaska. It is a statewide redistricting plan as required by Article VI of the Alaska Constitution. Article VI, Sections 1 and 3 require the boundaries of all Alaska House and Senate districts be redrawn following the official reporting of each decennial census of the United States. This proposed redistricting plan is in accordance with the Alaska Constitution, and follows the official reporting of the year 2010 decennial census of the United States.

Preclearance Submission Alaska Redistricting Board Page 6

Foundational Basis of the Proposed Plan

The Board used unadjusted 2010 Census population data released by the Bureau of the Census for redistricting pursuant to Public Law 94-171, 13 U.S.C. 141(c). Unadjusted census data was used to develop Alaska's current districting plan that was precleared by the Attorney General in 2002. The 2010 Census revealed a total statewide population of 710,231 people, yielding an ideal House district size of 17,755 [710,231 ÷ 40].

The Board did not adjust the census figures for the non-resident military population. Alaska law prohibits the Board from excluding non-resident military personnel from the census population for purposes of redistricting. Article VI of the Alaska Constitution requires redistricting be based on the population “as reported by the official decennial census of the United States.” Alaska Constitution art. VI, § 3. Alaska Statute 15.10.200(b) specifically prohibits the Board from adjusting the census numbers “by using estimates, population surveys, or sampling for the purpose of excluding or discriminating among persons counted based on…military or civilian status….” None of the proposed Redistricting Plans submitted to the Board from the public adjusted the official census population figures.

Effect on Racial or Language Minority Groups, 28 C.F.R. § 51.27(n)

Alaska Natives are the only minority group covered under the Voting Rights Act (“VRA” or “Act”) of sufficient size and geographic concentration in Alaska that qualify as a language minority of potential concern for purposes of redistricting. The proposed redistricting plan is free from discriminatory purpose and will not result in retrogression in the position of Alaska Natives with respect to their exercise of the electoral franchise because it maintains the same number of effective Alaska Native legislative districts as the Benchmark plan.

Because Section 5 preclearance in Alaska involves the voting rights of only one minority group, the Board defined “Alaska Native” as those who self identified as being in any part Alaska Native. Thus, the Alaska Native population percentages (total and voting age) in each electoral district as discussed below (and as set forth in various attachments) are based on all persons who indicated on the census form that they were either single race Alaska Native or Alaska Native in combination with some other race or races, including Alaska Native plus white. The Board used this definition of Alaska Native because (1) Alaska Native groups encouraged the Board to use this approach and count as an Alaska Native any person who self identified in any part as such; and (2) it substantially complies with Part II of OMB Bulletin 00-02, the Justice Department’s “Guidelines Concerning Redistricting Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act,” published in the Federal Register (Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011), and the US Supreme Court’s opinion in Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461, 473 n. 1 (2003)(where a case involves an examination of only one minority group’s effective exercise of the electoral franchise it is proper to look at all individuals who identify themselves as part of that minority group.)

Preclearance Submission Alaska Redistricting Board Page 7

A. The Benchmark Plan

Dr. Lisa Handley, the Board’s Voting Rights Act expert, conducted an analysis of voting patterns in Alaska since implementation of the current redistricting plan in 2002. Her report, “A Voting Rights Analysis of the Proclamation Alaska State Legislative Plans: Measuring the Degree of Racial Bloc Voting and Determining the Effectiveness of Proposed Minority Districts” [found in Volume 1, Folder 6], concludes Alaska legislative districts with an Alaska Native population of 41.8% or more have generally been effective in electing Alaska Native candidates in the past decade.

The Benchmark Plan reflects the current legislative districts with the 2010 Census population data. Using the target “effectiveness’ standard derived by Dr. Handley, the Benchmark Plan contains four “effective” Alaska Native House districts (Districts 37, 38, 39 and 40) and three “effective” Alaska Native Senate districts (Districts R, S and T) that consistently elect Alaska Native-preferred candidates even when voting is polarized. Additionally, there is one “equal opportunity” House district (District 6) that contains substantial Alaska Native voting age populations but did not always elect the minority-preferred candidate, and one “influence” district (District 5) that has consistently elected an Alaska Native even though not always the Alaska Native-preferred candidate. [A table comparing the 2000 population data against the 2010 population data for the current districts can be found in Volume 2, Folder 6; Volume 2, Folders 3 and 4 contain the district, regional, and statewide maps of the Benchmark Plan.]

In Benchmark House Districts 6, 38, 39 and 40, Alaska Natives constitute a majority of the total population (although all are substantially under populated). Only three of the four, however, have a majority Alaska Native VAP. Benchmark District 6 is only 49.97% Alaska Native VAP. Based on Dr. Handley’s analysis of voting patterns, Benchmark House Districts 37, 38, 39, and 40 create four “effective” Alaska Native House districts – that is, districts that consistently elect Alaska Native-preferred candidates even when voting is polarized. District 37, although not a majority Alaska Native composition, consistently elected an Alaska Native-preferred candidate during the last decade, even when voting was racially polarized) despite being only 45.04% total Alaska Native population and 37.79% Alaska Native VAP.

Benchmark House District 6, on the other hand, is best characterized as an “equal opportunity” district because even though it has a substantial Alaska Native population and has in the past elected Alaska Native-preferred candidates, it does not always elect the Alaska Native- preferred candidate. For example, District 6 is currently represented by a white Republican who defeated the Native-preferred candidate in the 2010 General election.

Benchmark District 5 in Southeast Alaska, which is approximately one-third Alaska Native, is best described as an “influence” district, according to Dr. Handley. The standard definition of an “influence” district is one where Alaska Natives are not able to elect their preferred candidate, but comprise enough of the electorate to have significant influence on who does win. While Benchmark District 5 has consistently elected an Alaska Native to legislative office Preclearance Submission Alaska Redistricting Board Page 8 throughout the past decade, it has not always elected the Alaska Native-preferred candidate, however.

The Benchmark Plan also contains two Senate districts with a majority Alaska Native VAP Senate districts (Districts S and T), and one additional Senate district (District C) with an Alaska Native VAP that exceeds the 41.8% effectiveness standard. Dr. Handley’s analysis concludes that all three of these Benchmark Senate Districts have consistently elected Alaska Native-preferred candidates over the last decade.

B. Challenges Faced By the Board in Meeting the Benchmark.

As the state with the largest land area and the lowest population density in the United States, the redistricting process in Alaska has been described as a “herculean task.” In this redistricting cycle, drafting a plan that complied with the VRA requirements that did not retrogress Alaska Native voting strength as it existed in t the Benchmark was extraordinarily difficult due to a number of complicating factors.

1. Under-population of Benchmark Alaska Native Districts.

Historically, Alaska’s Native population was principally located in rural areas. At the time of statehood in 1959, 70% of Alaska’s indigenous population resided in rural predominately Alaska Native villages and towns. By 2000, that number had dropped to approximately 57%. In the past decade, this “out-migration” accelerated as Alaska experienced a growing shift in population from rural to urban areas. While urban areas showed a high rate of growth, rural and predominantly Alaska Native areas experienced either a slow or negative growth rate as compared to the urban areas of the state. This population shift resulted in the considerable under population of all but one Alaska Native district in the Benchmark Plan. Six of the nine Benchmark districts had deviations greater than 10%, with three at or over 20%. [A map showing the geographic distribution of Alaska Natives by borough and census area in the current legislative districts, according to the 2010 Census population data, can be found in Volume 4, Folder 3.] Nearly 50% of the Alaska Native VAP presently resides in the five largest “urban” areas of the state: the City and Borough of Juneau, the Kenai Peninsula Borough, the Municipality of Anchorage, the Mat-Su Borough, and the Fairbanks North Star Borough. [Information related to the Alaska Native population migration and rural demographics can be found in Volume 4, Folders 1 through 3.]

The Alaska Native community was well aware of the potential impact these dramatic population shifts would have on redistricting. As a result, Alaska Native leaders took action in an attempt to ameliorate its potential political impact by rallying behind a 2010 effort to amend the Alaska Constitution. The constitutional amendment proposed to increase the size of the Alaska Legislature in order to address the potentially “irreconcilable problems” created by “population shifts to the Railbelt and disparate rules in the state Constitution and federal Voting Rights Act on how to redraw the lines.” The proposal, sponsored by Nome Senator Donny Preclearance Submission Alaska Redistricting Board Page 9

Olson and Wrangell Representative Peggy Wilson, would have increased the number of representatives from 40 to 44 and senators from 20 to 22. SJR 21 passed through both chambers of the Alaska Legislature, but was ultimately rejected by voters at the ballot box in November of 2010. [Documents related to the proposed constitutional amendment are found in Volume 4, Folder 5.]

2. Lack of Alaska Native Population Concentrations Adjacent to the Benchmark Alaska Native Districts

Five of the six Benchmark House districts with substantial Alaska Native populations were significantly under populated. The Board could not make up for the population disparities in these districts without adding substantial non-Alaska Native population. There are no concentrations of Alaska Native populations adjacent to those districts as the maps found in Volume 2, Folder 5 and Volume 4, Folder 3 establish. [These maps are also found in Appendix A & B to Dr. Handley’s report, found in Volume 1, Folder 6.] The maps in Volume 2, Folder 5 overlay the Benchmark House and Senate District boundaries on top of a thematic map shaded to show percentage Alaska Native population by borough and census area. As can be seen from these maps, there are only two areas with substantial Alaska Native concentrations that do not fall within the boundaries of a benchmark minority district. Both of these areas were included in the Proclamation Plan’s Alaska Native Districts. [See Volume 3, Folder 5.] The population in those two areas, however, is very small. Accordingly, in order to properly populate the Alaska Native districts, population from more urban areas of the state had to be included. The concentration of Alaska Natives in the urban areas was such that it was not feasible to add Alaska Natives from urban areas to rural Alaska Native districts without also adding non-Alaska Native population percentages that would have caused possible retrogression.

3. Inability to Create Minority Districts in Urban Areas

While nearly 50% of Alaska Natives live in the state’s five largest urban areas, the creation of “effective”, “equal opportunity”, or even “influence” districts in these areas proved impossible despite considerable efforts made by the Board and its staff. The Alaska Native population in the urban areas is simply not sufficiently geographically compact enough to allow for the creation of such districts, as is demonstrated by the thematic maps of the Alaska Native population distribution in the five larges urban areas found in Volume 4, Folder 3. [See also Appendix B to Dr. Handley’s report, Volume 1, Folder 6.] While there are two areas of the Kenai Peninsula Borough that have small concentrations of Alaska Natives ranging from 40% to 60%, neither of those areas are actually placed within the urban districts of the Kenai Borough. Instead, both of those areas are included in districts outside the Kenai Borough, House Districts 35 and 36, in order to increase the Alaska Native populations in those districts. [Compare the urban density map found in Volume 4, Folder 3 for the Kenai Peninsula Borough to the maps for Benchmark District 35 and 36, found in Volume 2, Folder 3.]

Preclearance Submission Alaska Redistricting Board Page 10

C. Creation of the Proclamation Plan

The challenges outlined above made creating a redistricting plan that protected Alaska Native voting strength against any decrease from that in the Benchmark Plan no easy task. The significant demographic changes of rural Alaska, made it extremely difficult to meet the one- person one-vote standard while still maintaining the required percentage of Alaska Native voting age population in the required number of minority districts. This problem was exasperated by the increase in the percentage of Alaska Native voting age population required to create an effective Alaska Native district. Based on significant public testimony, including testimony from Alaska Native legislators and leaders, the Board was encouraged to think “outside-the-box” to ensure it avoided retrogression. [Examples of this testimony can be found in Volume 4, Folder 4.] As a result, the Board felt compelled to reconfigure the traditional boundaries of Alaska Native rural districts. It encouraged parties submitting alternative plans to do so as well.

The Board worked extraordinarily hard to come up with a plan that would meet the federal VRA requirements. To do so, the Board and its staff came up with several options.

One plan, created by staff with the input of Board members, took the unique approach of changing the historical makeup of House District 40 by dividing the North Slope Borough and the Arctic Northwest Borough into separate districts. The Plan picked up population from more urban areas in and around Fairbanks, and along the southeast border of the state. This plan was ultimately abandoned due to concerns raised by the Alaska Native community that some of the districts would not offer the ability to elect Alaska Native-preferred candidates due to the lack of registered voters and low voter turnout in those areas. [The shape files for this plan can be found in Volume 7, Folder 3.]

A second plan was created by Board members Greene and McConnochie, with input from staff and other Board members. The Board adopted this plan in concept. It was eventually rejected however, due to concerns about the inclusion of a Senate district that combined Kodiak with Bethel. This configuration would pair one of the most powerful Alaska Native incumbent members of the Senate, Lymon Hoffman, with the current Senate president, Gary Stevens. This pairing was severely criticized by Alaska Native groups in both the Bethel and Kodiak areas and by the City of Kodiak and the Kodiak Island Borough. [The shape files for this plan can be found in Volume 7, Folder 3. The public comment on this draft plan is contained in the Board’s Public Reading File found in Volume 6, Folder 1.]

The Board also carefully considered the various alternative plans submitted by those groups who were actively involved in the redistricting process. A review of those plans highlights the difficulty of creating plans with Alaska Native population percentages comparable to those in the Benchmark Plan. Dr. Handley reviewed all nine of the alternative plans submitted after the completion of her racial bloc voting analysis and found all of them retrogressed Alaska Native voting strength compared to the Benchmark. None of the plans provide both four majority Preclearance Submission Alaska Redistricting Board Page 11

Alaska Native VAP House districts (all of which are effective minority opportunity districts) and a fifth district that offers a sizeable Alaska Native VAP, as well as two majority Alaska Native Senate districts and a third Senate district that is likely to be effective. [See Dr. Handley’s Report at pp. 24-28, found in Volume 1, Folder 6.]

The Board, led by Board members Greene and McConnochie, eventually created a third plan that did not face the same challenges as the two previous Board plans outlined above. Dr. Handley analyzed this plan and determined that it would not diminish the ability of Alaska Natives to elect their candidates of choice as compared to the Benchmark plan. The Board ultimately adopted the Greene/McConnochie Alaska Native districts into its Final Draft Plan by a unanimous a 5-0 vote on June 6, 2011.

The Proclamation Plan, passed 5-0 by the Board on June 13, 2011, has neither the purpose nor the effect of denying or abridging Alaska Natives the right to vote as it contains the same number of districts that provide Alaska Natives with the opportunity to elect Alaska Native- preferred candidates as the Benchmark Plan. The Benchmark Plan provided four “effective”, at least one “equal opportunity”, and one “influence” House district, as well as three “effective” Senate districts. [See Volume 1, Folder 6 at p. 28 & n.19.] The Proclamation Plan, according to Dr. Handley’s expert analysis, likely provides five “effective” minority House districts (as well as “a district with substantial Alaska Native population in Southeast Alaska”) and three “effective” Senate districts. [See Volume 1, Folder 6 at pp. 28-31.]

1. The Proclamation Plan: House Districts

The Proclamation House Plan includes five districts where Alaska Natives constitute a majority of the total population: District 36 with 78.26%; 37 with 56.18%; 38 with 53.38%; 39 with 72.50%; and 40 with 71.15%. While only three of these districts retain their majority Alaska Native status when voting age population statistics are considered - District 36 with 71.45% VAP, 39 with 67.09% VAP, and 40 with 62.22% VAP - the other two districts, 37 and 38, likely remain “effective”. Both have Alaska Native VAP over 4.46% higher than the 41.8% statewide target effectiveness standard. Moreover, District 37 is only 26.65% white VAP. As discussed further below, the non-Alaska Native population added to District 38 was specifically chosen in order to enhance the effectiveness of that District for Alaska Natives to elect their preferred candidate.

In order to maintain the requisite number of Alaska Native districts and still meet the one person, one vote standard, the configuration of the Benchmark House Plan had to be substantially changed. [See Appendix C to Dr. Handley’s report, found in Volume 1, Folder 6, for a map that compares the Benchmark and Proclamation districts.] District 40 in the Proclamation House Plan remains essentially intact. The Alaska Native VAP percentage declines only slightly from 63.60% to 62.22%. In order to construct a plan that avoided retrogression, however, it was necessary for the Board to unpack two of the other Benchmark House districts with substantial Alaska Native Populations, Districts 38 and 39. For example, a Preclearance Submission Alaska Redistricting Board Page 12

large portion of Benchmark District 39 was combined with many of the primarily Alaska Native interior river villages from Benchmark District 6 to produce Proclamation District 39, which is 72.50% total Alaska Native population and 67.09% Alaska Native VAP. The heavily polarized areas of Benchmark House District 6, along the eastern border of the State that contain primarily non-Alaska Native villages, were included in District 39 rather than a district with a lower Alaska Native population in order to maintain that district’s effectiveness.

The remainder of Benchmark District 39 was placed in Proclamation District 38, which was drawn to move east towards Fairbanks to pick up sufficient additional population in order to meet the one person, one vote standard. Due to the population shortfall in the five Benchmark Alaska Native districts (outside of Southeast Alaska), at least one of those districts had to pick up a substantial urban population not previously included within this set of Alaska Native districts. In order to add population to that district and bring it within the acceptable range of deviation, approximately 8,000 people had to be added to one or more of the Alaska Native districts. The Board took a hard look at several options, but in the end, chose to have Proclamation District 38 pick up the necessary population from more rural suburban areas of the Fairbanks North Star Borough (“FNSB”), around the communities of Ester and Goldstream. The added population was not Alaska Native, because the Alaska Native population in the FNSB is not sufficiently concentrated to allow the population added from Fairbanks to be mostly Alaska Native. Based on the advice of Dr. Handley, the Board chose those areas because they have historically voted Democratic and Alaska Natives historically tend to vote strongly Democratic. Accordingly, the Board felt that adding population from the Ester and Goldstream areas was the best option to enhance the effectiveness of the district.

Benchmark District 38 was divided between Proclamation Districts 36 and 37. Proclamation District 36 retains a total Alaska Native population of 78.2%. Proclamation District 37 has a total Alaska Native population of 56.18%. The Alaska Native VAP is 46.43%, well above Dr. Handley’s 41.8% effectiveness standard. Furthermore, this district includes a sizeable portion of Benchmark District 37 – a district in which voting has historically not been polarized and which consistently elected Alaska Native-preferred candidates with 38% Alaska Native VAP.

Southeast Alaska lost significant population (for example Benchmark District 5 was under populated by 22.02%) thus requiring the region to lose one House district and half of a Senate district. The Board was still able to maintain a district with a significant Alaska Native population which is likely an Alaska Native “influence” district. House District 34 has a total Alaska Native population of 36.96% and an Alaska Native VAP of 32.85%. While several of the alternative plans had a Southeast Alaska Native District with a slightly higher (0.5 to 2.5%) total Alaska Native and Alaska Native VAP, the Board determined that it was more important to keep the incumbent Alaska Native Legislator from the Benchmark Alaska Native District in the Proclamation Alaska Native District and avoid pairing him with a non-Alaska Native incumbent. All of the alternative plans either paired the Alaska Native incumbent with a non-Alaska Native incumbent from the same party, or drew the Alaska Native incumbent out of the Alaska Native district. A number of the plans did both. The Board also received a number of plans that Preclearance Submission Alaska Redistricting Board Page 13

included the Alaska Native village of Saxman in their southeast Alaska Native district, ignoring the specific request of the Alaska Native leaders and groups from Saxman not to be carved out and separated from the Ketchikan Gateway Borough in which it is located. [See Volume 6, Folder 2.] The Board chose to honor this request as the change in the Alaska Native percentages was de minimus.

2. The Proclamation Plan: Senate Districts

The creation of a non-retrogressive state Senate plan was the most difficult task faced by the Board. Senate districts in Alaska are constitutionally required to be “nested” and therefore must be made up of two contiguous House districts. This requirement limited the Board’s Senate pairing options. Benchmark Senate District C, one of the three effective Alaska Native Districts in the Benchmark Plan, was composed of Benchmark House Districts 5 and 6. Because southeast Alaska lost ½ a Senate district, and Benchmark House District 6 was reconfigured into several other Alaska Native districts, it was impossible to recreate Benchmark District C. The difficulty this created is illustrated by the fact that none of the alternative plans were able to create a third effective Senate district. In every alternative plan submitted to the Board, the third Alaska Native Senate district was below Dr. Handley’s 41.8% effectiveness standard. [See Volume 1, Folder 6 at p. 25-28, 30.] The Proclamation Plan does, however, create a third effective Senate district that according to Dr. Handley, meets her effectiveness standard and is also “quite comparable to the Alaska Native percentages in Benchmark Senate District C.” [Id. at p. 30.]

The Proclamation Plan creates two majority Alaska Native Senate districts which are clearly effective for Alaska Natives. District T is 71.82% total Alaska Native population and 65.05% Alaska Native VAP. District S is 54.78% total Alaska Native population, and 46.85% Alaska Native VAP. Dr. Handley concludes, however, that Proclamation District S is likely to be effective because it consists of two effective House districts, Districts 37 and 38. Moreover, District S has a total Alaska Native VAP more than 5% above the 41.8% effectiveness target.

The third effective Senate district, Proclamation District R, is 48.65% total Alaska Native population and 43.75% Alaska Native VAP. It has slightly higher Alaska Native percentages compared to Benchmark District C, which has 46.01% total Alaska Native population and 42.41% Alaska Native VAP. It also exceeds the target Alaska Native VAP percentage of 41.8% needed to elect an Alaska Native-preferred candidate.

In sum, despite significant challenges, the Board's Proclamation plan does not retrogress Alaska Native voting strength compared to the Benchmark Plan. Dr. Handley's analysis of the Proclamation Plan concludes that it "is not retrogressive”, and therefore provides Alaska Native voters the same opportunity to elect minority-preferred candidates to office as the Benchmark Plan offers. Moreover, none of the alternative plans provided to the Board by third parties provided Alaska Natives with a better opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. The proposed plan satisfies Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and should be pre-cleared. Preclearance Submission Alaska Redistricting Board Page 14

Pending Litigation, 28 C.F.R. § 51.27(o)

Under Article VI, Section 11 of the Alaska Constitution, a qualified voter has 30 days from the date of adoption of the final plan to file an application with the superior court to compel correction of any alleged error in the redistricting plan. The deadline for filing such actions during this redistricting cycle was July 13, 2011. Three lawsuits have been filed:

- Fairbanks North Star Borough and Timothy Beck v. Alaska Redistricting Board, Case No. 4FA-11-02213 CI;

- George Riley, Ronald Dearborn v. Alaska Redistricting Board, Case No. 4FA-11- 02209 CI; and

- City of Petersburg, Mark L. Jensen, Nancy C. Strand, and Brenda L. Norheim v. State of Alaska, Alaska Redistricting Board, Case No. 1JU-11-00782 CI.

Copies of the complaints filed in the above referenced cases can be found in Volume 1, Folder 7. None of these complaints allege a violation of the Voting Rights Act or that the Board’s proposed plan has a discriminatory purpose or will have a discriminatory effect on the ability of Alaska Natives to elect candidates of their choice. There are no allegations in any of the cases that the proposed plan is in any way retrogressive. Only one case, brought by the Fairbanks North Star Borough, even mentions the Voting Rights Act and then, only to allege that the Board erred by loosening state constitutional standards of compactness and socioeconomic integration in creating Proclamation House District 38 in order to comply with the VRA.

Prior Practice Preclearance, 28 C.F.R. § 51.27(p)

The current Alaska legislative redistricting plan was adopted by proclamation dated April 25, 2002, and was precleared by the Attorney General by letter dated June 10, 2002.

Demographic Information and Maps, 28 C.F.R. § 51.28 (a) & (b)

The demographic information required by 28 CFR § 51.28 (a)(1) for the Proclamation legislative districts is provided in Volume 8, Folders 1 and 2. Volume 8, Folder 3 contains a documentation file with the information requested by 28 C.F.R. § 51.28(a)(5)(vii) for the data submitted in Volume 8, Folders 1 and 2.

Any alterations to precinct boundaries and polling places will be accomplished by the state's Division of Elections. The Alaska Attorney General will submit any such changes to the Department of Justice in a separate preclearance request.

Maps of each Proclamation House district are included in Volume 3, Folder 3. In addition, Volume 7, Folder 1 contains the shape files for statewide, regional and district maps of the Preclearance Submission Alaska Redistricting Board Page 15

Proclamation Plan. Volume 2, Folders 3 and 4 contain statewide, regional and district maps for the Benchmark Plan. Volume 7, Folder 2 contains the shape files for all the Board’s adopted draft plans. Volume 7, Folders 3 and 4 contain the same information for the Board’s draft Alaska Native plans and alternative plans that the Board did not adopt.

Election Returns, 28 C.F.R. § 51.28 (d)

Election returns for all statewide Alaska elections since the implementation of the current redistricting plan in 2002 are submitted in Volume 9, Folders 1 through 3. These election returns have been analyzed and summarized by Dr. Lisa Handley in her report, which can be found in Volume 1, Folder 6 to this submission. Volume 9, Folder 1 contains election result summaries and other information as provided by the Alaska Division of Elections. Volume 9, Folder 2 contains data for all general and primary elections held in Alaska from 2002 through 2010. Volume 9, Folder 3 contains spreadsheets and data for all contested primary and general elections from 2002 through 2010 that included an Alaska Native candidate. The spreadsheets and data in Folder 3 can also be found in Folder 2, but include additional demographic data compiled at the precinct level.

Publicity and Participation, 28 C.F.R. § 51.28 (f)

During the 2011 redistricting, the Board conducted the most open redistricting process in Alaska history. The Board took full advantage of technology, social networking tools, and new methods of online outreach to ensure the public had unprecedented access to the redistricting process.

The staff created a website for the Board (www.akredistricting.org), which became operational on January 20, 2011. Website content included contact information, Board member profiles, copies of all draft redistricting plans, general information about the history and process of redistricting, data, maps, GIS files, and announcements and meeting agendas concerning Board meetings, public hearings, and other activities of the Board. Members of the public were able to sign up on the Board’s website to receive frequent email updates, meeting notices, and reminders about the Board’s activities. The Board maintained an e-mail distribution list that members of the public could join either through the Board’s website or by calling or emailing Board staff. The Board distribution list had 769 participants. All of these individuals and organizations were specifically notified of all Board meetings and actions. Staff also maintained active accounts on Facebook and Twitter to maximize the Board’s public outreach efforts.

All Board meetings and public hearings were publicly noticed through electronic media and a number of the public hearings were noticed via local print media. Samples of those e-mailed and published notices are provided in Volume 5, Folder 5. Over the course of the redistricting process, the Board sent over 34,000 emails, and its posts on Facebook and Twitter generated over 26,000 impressions. Examples from the Board’s Web site, Facebook and Twitter Preclearance Submission Alaska Redistricting Board Page 16 impressions, as well as press articles regarding the Board’s activities, can be found in Volume 5, Folders 2 and 6.

All Board meetings were open to the public and held in accordance with Alaska's Open Meetings Act, Alaska Statute 44.62.310 et seq. All Board meetings were recorded and transcribed. The audio recordings of the Board meetings and public hearings were made available for free public download via the Board’s website. Live audio access was often provided for Board meetings and public hearings via the Alaska Legislature’s online streaming media portal, including every meeting from May 16, 2011, through June 14, 2011. Live webinar access was provided for all meetings from June 1, 2011, through June 14, 2011, which made it possible for anyone with an internet connection to have both audio and visual access to the Board’s final deliberations. Generally, audio files of the Public Hearings and Board Meetings were posted on the Board’s website shortly after each meeting was held. Transcripts of the hearings were posted on the Board’s website as they were completed. [Copies of the audio files and transcripts can be downloaded from the Board’s website at www.akredistricting.org.]

Throughout the process, the Board received thousands of pages of written comment on the redistricting process and proposed plans. A number of non-profit organizations, governmental entities, Alaska Native Corporations, Tribal Councils, and Alaska Native villages passed resolutions either supporting a regional plan or formally acknowledging its preferred district. The Board maintained a Public Comment File which could be inspected at the Board's offices and was posted online. A complete copy of the Board’s Public Reading File is provided in Volume 6, Folder 1. Public comments from the Alaska Native Community are also located in Volume 6, Folder 2.

Immediately following the receipt of block-level population data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Board scheduled a series of eight (8) “pre-plan” public hearings in the state's population centers from March 22, 2011, to March 31, 2011. The purpose of these “pre-plan” hearings was to solicit public testimony on existing election district boundaries, and to receive general input, ideas, and comments from the public about redistricting issues to assist the Board in developing draft plans. At these hearings, the Board also provided interested groups and individuals with the opportunity to submit proposed plans. Public hearings were held in Anchorage on March 22nd, in Wasilla on March 23rd, in Juneau on March 25th, in Ketchikan on March 26th, in Fairbanks on March 28th, in Kotzebue on March 29th, in Bethel on March 30th, and via statewide teleconference at the Legislative Information Office in Anchorage on March 31st.

The use of the state's teleconferencing system helped facilitate participation by Alaskans in places not visited by the Board. The state has 22 Legislative Information Offices (“LIO”) where members of the public can assemble to testify at teleconferenced hearings. Any member of the public could make arrangements to provide public testimony by phone at any Preclearance Submission Alaska Redistricting Board Page 17

teleconferenced hearing by calling the state's central teleconference numbers. [Volume 5, Folder 4 contains a list and statewide map showing the location of the state’s LIOs.]

Between April 18, 2011, and May 6, 2011, public hearings on the draft plans were held in 32 communities across Alaska. During this time period, the Board and its staff logged nearly 60,000 air miles traveling between hearing sites. Hearings were held in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Cordova, Healy, Palmer, Delta Junction, Nome, Dutch Harbor, Kotzebue, Tok, Cold Bay, Bethel, Glennallen, Galena, Barrow, Kodiak, Sitka, Craig, Ketchikan, Wrangell, Seward, Petersburg, Homer, Kenai, Skagway, Haines, Valdez, Angoon, King Salmon, Dillingham, and Hoonah. A statewide teleconference also was held in Anchorage at the LIO on May 6th, at which time groups were invited to provide new or revised plans. The full Board attended both hearings in Anchorage, as well as the hearing in Fairbanks, and Juneau. For the other hearings, the Board and staff split into three teams of two. Staff drafted written reports summarizing testimony received at most of the public hearings and presented those reports to the full Board on May 16, 2011. [These reports are provided at Volume 5, Folder 7.] The Board also held a public hearing on May 24, 2011, specifically to seek input from groups who had submitted statewide plans on the configuration of Alaska Native Districts. Volume 5, Folder 4 contains a list and map showing the locations of all the Board’s public hearings. Volume 5, Folder 3 contains a list identifying the location and date of each public hearing.

The high level of public participation in Alaska's redistricting process is reflected by the number of proposed plans submitted to and considered by the Board. In total, the Board received proposed statewide or regional plans from fourteen (14) different entities, both private and public. A number of these entities submitted multiple and/or revised plans. These plans were all posted on the Board’s website and available for download. Hard copies of these plans were available for copying at the Board’s office. An index listing the entities that submitted alternative plans, as well as the shape files for those plans (if provided to the Board), can be found in Volume 7, Folder 4. [Plans submitted by entities that were adopted by the Board as “draft” Board Plans for purposes of public comment are found in Volume 7, Folder 2.]Other materials provided to the Board by the entities submitting plans can be downloaded from the Board’s website at www.akredistricting.org.

The final plan adopted by the Board was one drafted by the Board that took bits and pieces of what the Board thought were good ideas from various other plans it had considered, as well as public input from its hearings. The Board was very cognizant of public testimony and attempted to accommodate the wishes of the public when it was possible to do so consistent with its obligations to comply with federal and state laws. The Board's Public Reading File reflecting the extent of these comments, found in Volume 6, Folder 1.

Preclearance Submission Alaska Redistricting Board Page 18

Availability of the Submission, 28 C.F.R. § 51.28(g)

Notice of the Board’s preclearance request will be posted on its website, Facebook page, and sent to its followers on twitter, as soon as practicable after submission to the DOJ. Email notices will also be sent to all of those on the Board’s email distribution list. The notice will indicate that the Board’s submission, including all of the attachments, will be posted to and available for download from the Board’s website. A complete copy of this submission, including all appendices, will also be available for public inspection and copying at the Board's office. [Copies of the draft notices are found in Volume 5, Folder 8.]

Minority Group Contacts, 28 C.F.R. § 51.28(h)

A list of minority group contacts that participated in the redistricting process or may have information about the proposed redistricting plan can be found in Volume 1, Folder 8.

029810.0101\71771 Exhibit B A Voting Rights Analysis of the Proposed Alaska State Legislative Plans: Measuring the Degree of Racial Bloc Voting and Determining the Effectiveness of Proposed Minority Districts

Prepared by Dr. Lisa Handley Principal, Frontier International Electoral Consulting

1.0 Introduction

In my expert opinion, the Alaska state legislative plans passed by the Alaska Redistricting Board are not retrogressive and therefore do not violate Section 5 of the Act. This conclusion is based on, among other things, the racial bloc voting analysis I conducted. My analysis indicates that voting tends to be racially polarized and therefore districts that offer minority voters an opportunity to elect their preferred candidates must be maintained. My analysis also shows that legislative districts that are less than 50% (but more than 41.8%) Alaska Native voting age population (HVAP") will offer Alaska Native voters an effective opportunity to elect their candidates of choice.1 This is important because matching the Alaska Native percentages in the Benchmark Plan proved impossible given the substantial decrease in the minority population in the rural area of the state.

1.1 Scope of Project

I was asked by the Alaska Redistricting Board to conduct an analysis of voting patterns by race in recent Alaska elections and, using this information, provide guidance to the Board in meeting the standards established by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In addition, I was asked to evaluate the state house and senate plans adopted by the Board to ascertain whether the proposed plans satisfy the requirements of Section 5.

1.2 Professional Background and Experience

I have advised numerous jurisdictions and other clients on voting rights-related issues and have served as an expert in dozens of voting rights and redistricting cases. My clients have included scores of state and local jurisdictions (including Alaska during the 2001 round of redistricting), a number of national civil rights organizations, the U.S. Department of Justice, and such international organizations as the United Nations.

I have been actively involved in researching, writing and teaching on subjects relating to voting rights, including minority representation, electoral system design, and redistricting. co-authored a book, Minority Representation and the Quest for Voting Equality (Cambridge University Press, 1992), and numerous articles, as well as co-edited a volume (Redistricting in Comparative PerspectiY'.e, Oxford University Press, 2008) on these subjects. I have taught

1 There is one exception: the area encompassed by Benchmark District 6 is polarized to the degree that a 41.8% Native VAP district would be insufficient to provide minority voters with an opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. several Political Science courses, both at the undergraduate and graduate level, related to representation and redistricting. I hold a Ph.D. in Political Science from George Washington University.

I have been a principal of Frontier International Electoral Consulting since co-founding the company in 1998. Frontier IEC specializes in providing electoral assistance in transitional democracies and post-conflict countries.

1.3 Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act

Because Alaska, in its entirety, is covered by Section 5, the state is required to submit its redistricting plans to the US Department of Justice (or the DC Court) for preclearance before the plans can be implemented. The burden of proof rests with the state to demonstrate that the proposed plan will not result in a retrogression of minority voting strength relative to the current, or benchmark, redistricting plan. 2

2.0 Racial Bloc Voting Analysis

An election is racially polarized if minorities and whites, considered separately, would have elected different candidates (this is referred to as the "separate electorates test" in the seminal 1986 US Supreme Court decision Thornburg v. Gingles). An analysis of voting patterns by race serves as the foundation of two of the three elements of the "results test" as outlined in Gingles: a racial bloc voting analysis is needed to determine whether the minority group is politically cohesive; and the analysis is required to determine if whites are voting sufficiently as a bloc to usually defeat minority-preferred candidates.3

The voting patterns of white and minority voters - in this instance, Alaska Native voters - must be estimated using statistical techniques because direct information about how individuals have voted is simply not available. I used three complementary statistical

21n Beer v. United States, the US Supreme Court held that "the purpose of Section 5 has always been to insure that no voting-procedure changes would be made that would lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise." 425 U.S. 130,141 (1976). The benchmark redistricting plan against which a proposed plan is compared is the last legally enforceable plan (inevitably the redistricting plan currently in place) with the demographics of the 2010 census data associated with each of the districts.

3 The "results test" as interpreted by the US Supreme Court in Thornburg v. Gingles requires plaintiffs to demonstrate three threshold factors to establish a Section 2 violation: • the minority group must be sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single member district; • the minority group must be politically cohesive; and • the minority group must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it - in the absence of special circumstances, such as the minority candidate running unopposed - to usually defeat the minority's preferred candidate.

Voting Rights Analysis - Dr. Lisa Handley Page 2 of 31 techniques to estimate voting patterns by race: homogeneous precinct analysis, bivariate ecological regression, and ecological inference.4 Two of these analytic procedures­ homogeneous precinct analysis and bivariate ecological regression - were employed by the expert in Thornburg v. Gingles and have the benefit of the US Supreme Court's approval in this case. These statistical methods have been used in most subsequent voting rights cases. The third technique, ecological inference, was developed subsequent to Gingles and was designed to improve upon one of the problems inherent in bivariate ecological regression analysis - the problem of out-of-bounds estimates (estimates that exceed 100 percent or are less than zero percent). It has been introduced and accepted in numerous district court proceedings.

Homogeneous precinct analysis involves comparing the voting behavior of precincts that are racially homogeneous. As is the general practice, I have defined a racially homogeneous precinct as one in which 90% or more of the voting age population is one race - in this case, either Alaska Native or white. The second statistical technique I employed, bivariate ecological regression, involves applying ordinary least squared regression to determine if a pattern exists across precincts between the percentage minority within the precincts and the percentage of votes cast for each of the candidates. The third technique, ecological inference, was developed by Professor Gary King. It incorporates the method of bounds and maximum likelihood statistics to produce estimates of voting patterns by race.

I analyzed all state legislative and statewide elections from 2002 until 2010 that included an Alaska Native candidate.5 The result of this analysis follows, beginning with the most recent set of legislative elections (2010) as these are the most probative.

6 2.1 Legislative Elections in 2010

In 2010 there was only one state legislative primary and three general election contests that included Alaska Native candidates. Estimates of the percentage of white and Alaska Native voters that supported each of the candidates competing in these five contests can be found in Table 1, below.

4 These three statistical approaches to measuring racial bloc voting are discussed in Bruce M. Clark and Robert Timothy Reagan's "Redistricting Litigation: An Overview of Legal, Statistical and Case­ Management Issues" (Federal Judicial Center, 2002). For further explanation of homogenous precinct analysis and bivariate ecological regression, see Bernard Grofman, Lisa Handley and Richard Niemi, Minority Representation and the Quest for Voting Equality (Cambridge University Press, 1992). See Gary King, A Solution to the Ecological Inference Problem (Princeton University Press, 1997) for a more detailed explanation of ecological inference.

5 As is standard for this type of inquiry, I focused on election contests that included minority candidates.

6 All analyses were conducted under the plan in existence at the time of the election - the "Benchmark Plan." All references to legislative districts in this section refer to the Benchmark districts.

Voting Rights Analysis - Dr. Lisa Handley Page 3 of 31 Table 1: Voting Patterns by Race in the 2010 State Legislative E/ections 7

Candidate Estimate of the Percent of White and Alaska Native Voters Information Casting a Vote for Each of the Candidates Contest and Party Race White Voters Alaska Native Voters Candidates Homog Bivariate Ecological Homog Bivariate Ecological Precinct Regress Inference Precinct Regress Inference 2010 Primary

House District 39 Neal Foster* OEM Native NP NP NP 48.5 46.2 56.1 Vincent Beans OEM Native NP NP NP 51.5 53.8 43.6 Turnout NP NP NP 15.3 16.0 15.5 2010 General

House District 5 Robert Beedle OEM White 39.5 42.0 42.2 NP 26.8 27.6 William Thomas* REP Native 60.5 58.0 57.8 NP 73.2 72.4 Turnout 39.5 41.0 40.5 NP 38.4 39.2 House District 6 Woodie Salmon OEM Native 10.4 11.4 19.2 56.0 66.0 64.3 Alan Oick* REP White 89.6 88.6 81.1 37.6 34.0 35.5 Turnout 35.5 39.1 38.3 46.1 44.0 44.7 House District 11 Sean Rice OEM Native 21.0 17.1 18.2 NP NP NP Tammie Wilson* REP White 79.0 82.8 82.9 NP NP NP Turnout 38.8 47.3 35.3 NP NP NP

The single primary that included an Alaska Native candidate was in House District 39. Two Alaska Native candidates, both Democrats, competed in this contest. It was not possible to derive estimates for the white voters in this contest and the estimates for Alaska Native voters pointed in different directions depending on the statistical technique employed. In any case, Native voters appeared to be relatively divided between the two candidates and Neal Foster, an Alaska Native, won.

It was not possible to produce reliable estimates of Alaska Native voting patterns in one of the general elections - House District 11. In the contest in House District 5, both Alaska Native and white voters supported the incumbent Alaska Native Republican, Bill Thomas. The election in House District 6, however, was polarized with a large majority of the white voters supporting the white Republican candidate, Alan Dick. Alaska Native voters, on the other hand, gave a majority of their support (somewhere between 56% and 66%, depending on the statistical technique used to derive the estimate), to the incumbent Alaska Native Democrat, Woodie

7 The asterisk (*) beside a name in the table denotes the winning candidate.

Voting Rights Analysis - Dr. Lisa Handley Page 4 of 31 Salmon. Despite the slightly higher turnout on the part of Alaska Natives, the Alaska Native­ preferred candidate was defeated in this election. 8

As a result of the 2010 elections, and the loss of Woodie Salmon in House District 6, there are currently seven Alaska Native legislators serving: Bill Thomas (House District 5), Bryce Edgmon (House District 37), Neal Foster (House District 39), Reggie Joule (House District 40), Albert Kookesh (Senate District C), Lymann Hoffman (Senate District S), and Donald Olson (Senate District T). In addition, there is an Alaska Native-preferred white legislator, Bob Herron, serving in the majority-Native District 38. (Senate Districts C and T were not up for re-election in 2010; Bryce Edgmon, Reggie Joule, and Lyman Hoffman faced no opposition in 2010.)

2.2 Legislative Elections in 2008

As indicated in Table 2, below, in 2008 there were two primaries, both Democratic, that included Alaska Native candidates. It was not possible to produce reliable estimates of white voting patterns in the primary in House District 38, but the estimates of Alaska Native support indicate that Bob Herron, a white candidate and the winner of the contest, was the Alaska Native-preferred candidate.

Voting in the Democratic primary in House District 39 was polarized, with a majority of the Alaska Natives supporting the Alaska Native incumbent, Richard Foster, and a majority of the white voters supporting his white opponent, Charles Pullock. Foster was successful in this heavily Alaska Native district.

There were four general election contests that included Alaska Native candidates - all of which were sitting incumbents. These were in House Districts 5, 6 and 37, and Senate District C. Voting does not appear to have been racially polarized in three of these contests; white voters, as well as Alaska Native voters, gave a majority of their support to the Alaska Native incumbents in District 5 (Bill Thomas, a Republican), District 37 (Bryce Edgmon, a Democrat), and Senate District C (Albert Kookesh, a Democrat).

The election in District 6 was heavily polarized, however, with the overwhelming majority of Alaska Native voters casting a vote for the incumbent Alaska Native Democrat, Woodie Salmon, and an almost equally large majority of the white voters supporting his Republican white opponent, Ward Sattler. The Alaska Native-preferred candidate won the election in District 6 in 2008 (but as indicated above, lost this seat in 2010).

8 Salmon received both less Alaska Native support and less white crossover votes in 2010 than he received in 2008.

Voting Rights Analysis - Dr. Lisa Handley Page 5 of 31 Table 2: Voting Patterns by Race in the 2008 State Legislative Elections

Candidate Estimate of the Percent of White and Alaska Native Voters Information Casting a Vote for Each of the Candidates Contest and Party Race White Voters Alaska Native Voters Candidates Homog Bivariate Ecological Homog Bivariate Ecological Precinct Regress Inference Precinct Regress Inference 2008 Primary

House District 38 Bob Herron* OEM White NP NP NP 53.0 52.7 53.9 Tony Vaska OEM Native NP NP NP 28.9 29.6 27.5 Eric Middlebrook OEM White NP NP NP 18.1 17.7 16.2 Turnout NP NP NP 26.7 26.5 21.2 House District 39 Richard Foster* OEM Native NP 30.2 45.0 70.5 71.5 74.3 Charles Pullock OEM White NP 69.8 55.0 29.5 28.5 25.7 Turnout NP 9.5 20.9 20.6 21.5 19.4 2008 General

House District 5 Tim June OEM White 41.3 39.6 39.9 NP 29.9 29.7 William Thomas* REP Native 58.7 60.4 59.9 NP 70.1 70.7 Turnout 46.1 46.7 45.8 NP 41.7 42.6 House District 6 Woodie Salmon* OEM Native 22.3 18.8 27.9 82.9 86.6 83.3 Ward Sattler REP White 77.7 81.2 72.2 17.1 13.4 16.6 Turnout 42.2 43.4 42.1 48.9 47.0 48.3 House District 37 Bryce Edgmon* OEM Native NP 50.4 52.1 69.5 69.9 65.7 Ron Bowers REP White NP 49.6 47.2 30.5 30.1 34.6 Turnout NP 27.4 26.6 44.8 47.2 44.6 Senate District C Albert Kookesh* OEM Native 56.7 54.2 55.5 89.1 89.7 90.7 Rosema Schneeber REP White 43.3 45.8 44.6 10.9 10.3 9.2 Turnout 40.5 40.6 39.5 47.9 44.8 46.6

2.3 Legislative Elections in 2006

In 2006 there were three Republican primaries and one Democratic primary that included Alaska Native candidates. (See Table 3, below.) Three of these four primaries were polarized. In the Republican primary in House District 6, the majority of white voters supported the white candidate, Ward Sattler, while the majority of Alaska Native voters supported his Alaska Native opponent, Carl Morgan (who won the primary but lost in the general election).

Voting Rights Analysis - Dr. Lisa Handley Page 6 of 31 The Democratic primary contest in House District 37 included two Alaska Native candidates, Bryce Edgmon and Carl Moses. White voters strongly supported Moses, while Alaska Native voters preferred Edgmon, who won the nomination (and ultimately the seat).

Table 3: Voting Patterns by Race in the 2006 State Legislative Elections

Candidate Estimate of the Percent of White and Alaska Native Voters Information Casting a Vote for Each of the Candidates Contest and Party Race White Voters Alaska Native Voters Candidates Homog Bivariate Ecological Homog Bivariate Ecological Precinct Regress Inference Precinct Regress Inference 2006 Primary

House District 6 Carl Morgan* REP Native 34.2 48.6 46.5 69.7 86.7 73.2 Ward Sattler REP White 65.8 51.4 53.6 30.3 13.3 26.7 Turnout 12.1 20.0 20.3 46.2 10.5 43.9 House District 37 Bryce Edgmon* OEM Native NP 0.0 17.1 73.1 71.9 61.1 Carl Moses OEM Native NP 100.0 82.6 26.9 29.0 39.5 Turnout NP 12.1 4.1 19.5 20.2 21.9 House District 37 Ron Bowers* REP White NP 40.6 42.3 62.5 44.1 47.8 Joseph Faith REP White NP 45.7 42.0 37.5 37.8 12.4 Vincent Tutiakoff REP Native NP 13.6 19.6 0.0 18.1 39.6 Turnout NP 7.4 3.2 3.2 9.2 7.9 Senate District S Norman Ayagalria* REP Native NP 11.5 17.7 73.6 63.6 71.1 Willy Keppel REP White NP 88.7 82.1 26.4 36.4 29.0 Turnout NP 7.8 5.0 4.1 5.7 4.4 2006 General

House District 4 Andrea 0011* OEM White 60.8 61.9 54.9 NP NP NP Randy Wanamaker REP Native 39.2 38.1 41.6 NP NP NP Turnout 52.0 50.4 46.5 NP NP NP House District 5 Aaron Isaacs OEM Native 44.0 37.5 41.0 NP 55.4 52.6 William Thomas* REP Native 56.0 62.5 59.5 NP 46.6 46.4 Turnout 40.4 37.8 38.8 NP 40.3 39.9 House District 6 Woodie Salmon* OEM Native 27.5 23.3 30.2 67.9 74.1 73.2 Carl Morgan REP Native 72.5 76.7 69.9 30.3 25.9 26.7 Turnout 29.3 34.0 38.9 46.2 44.1 43.9 House District 21 Harry Crawford* OEM White NP 59.5 57.6 NP NP NP Jeff Gonnason REP Native NP 40.5 41.9 NP NP NP Turnout NP 76.7 41.7 NP NP NP

Voting Rights Analysis - Dr. Lisa Handley Page 7 of 31 Candidate Estimate of the Percent of White and Alaska Native Voters Information Casting a Vote for Each of the Candidates Contest and Party Race White Voters Alaska Native Voters Candidates Homog Bivariate Ecological Homog Bivariate Ecological Precinct ReQress Inference Precinct REillress Inference House District 32 Pat Abney DEM White 46.8 44.0 42.6 NP NP NP Mike Hawker* REP White 50.6 53.6 52.9 NP NP NP Bill Bartee GRN Native 2.6 2.3 1.4 NP NP NP Turnout 81.9 52.0 48.3 NP NP NP House District 37 Bryce Edgmon* DEM Native NP 38.9 36.9 79.5 67.8 56.3 Ron Bowers REP White NP 8.0 22.1 17.4 22.9 20.2 Carl Moses W-I Native NP 53.0 39.2 3.1 9.3 25.6 Turnout NP 19.0 23.2 51.7 48.8 46.8 Senate District S Lyman Hoffman* DEM Native NP 69.1 67.0 70.3 69.9 69.3 Norman Ayagalria REP Native NP 30.9 32.7 29.7 30.1 30.9 Turnout NP 7.0 14.0 37.9 39.1 37.9

Voting in the Republican primary in Senate District R was also racially polarized. Alaska Native voters cast a strong majority of their votes for the Alaska Native candidate, Norman Ayagalria, who carried the district against the white-preferred white candidate, Willy Keppel.

The Republican primary in House District 37 may have been slightly polarized, but no group cast a majority of their votes for any of the three candidates. The Alaska Native-preferred candidate, white Republican Ron Bowers, was the winner of the primary in this district. (It appears that a slight plurality of the white voters favored one of his opponents, Joseph Faith.) The Alaska Native candidate, Vincent Tutiakoff, was not preferred by either set of voters.

There were seven contests in the 2006 general election that included Alaska Native candidates. It was not possible, however, to derive estimates of the percentage of Alaska Native voters supporting each of the candidates in three of these contests: House Districts 4, 21, and 32. Voting was clearly polarized in two of the remaining four contests: House Districts 5 and 6. In House District 5, a majority of the Alaska Native voters cast a vote for Aaron Isaacs, the Alaska Native Democrat. He was defeated by the white-preferred candidate, Bill Thomas, an Alaska Native Republican incumbent. Two Alaska Natives also competed in House District 6, but in this contest, the Alaska Native-preferred candidate, Democrat Woodie Salmon, defeated the white-preferred Republican, Carl Morgan.

Although the Alaska Native-preferred candidate in the general election contest in House District 37 was certainly Bryce Edgmon, the Alaska Native Democrat who won, the white­ preferred candidate is less clear. Anywhere from a majority to a slight plurality of white voters (depending on the statistical method used to produce the estimate) supported Carl Moses, an Alaska Native who ran a write-in campaign in this contest.

Voting Rights Analysis - Dr. Lisa Handley Page 8 of 31 A strong majority of both Alaska Native and white voters cast a vote for the incumbent Alaska Native Democrat in Senate District S.

2.4 Legislative Elections in 2004

It was impossible to derive estimates of Alaska Native voting patterns in three of the six legislative primaries held in 2004 that included Alaska Native candidates - the Republican primaries in House Districts 5 and 15, and Senate District Q. (See Table 4, below.) In two of the three contests for which estimates could be calculated, voting was racially polarized.

Table 4: Voting Patterns by Race in the 2004 State Legislative Elections

Candidate Estimate of the Percent of White and Alaska Native Voters Information Casting a Vote for Each of the Candidates Contest and Party Race White Voters Alaska Native Voters Candidates Homog Bivariate Ecological Homog Bivariate Ecological Precinct ReQress Inference Precinct Regress Inference 2004 Primary

House District 5 Tim June* DEM White 52.5 53.8 46.2 NP 0.0 9.5 Kimberley Strong DEM Native 22.3 14.5 16.8 NP 34.6 39.3 Kathy Leary DEM White 20.7 32.4 24.7 NP 0.0 7.2 Dewey Skan DEM Native 4.5 0.0 17.6 NP 64.7 44.1 Turnout 18.7 19.4 18.1 NP 12.5 14.3 House District 5 William Thomas* REP Native 62.0 44.4 38.8 NP NP NP Gary Graham REP White 25.3 30.3 31.4 NP NP NP Doug Rhodes REP White 12.7 25.6 30.7 NP NP NP Turnout 12.4 16.5 12.1 NP NP NP House District 6 Ward Sattler* REP White 51.8 50.4 49.6 28.6 29.3 33.9 Jason Mayrand REP White 27.0 32.7 28.7 28.6 26.0 29.2 George Owletuck REP Native 21.2 16.9 18.5 42.9 44.6 40.3 Turnout 14.2 15.9 15.2 3.8 4.5 4.6 House District 15 Mark Neuman* REP White 56.6 59.7 58.5 NP NP NP Beverly Masek REP Native 43.4 40.3 44.3 NP NP NP Turnout 19.6 23.9 19.0 NP NP NP Senate District C Albert Kookesh* DEM Native 79.4 62.6 55.8 69.4 78.1 76.4 Robert Henrichs DEM Native 20.6 37.4 44.2 30.6 21.9 23.6 Turnout 18.8 11.2 11.2 22.5 17.2 17.7

Voting Rights Analysis - Dr. Lisa Handley Page 9 of 31 Candidate Estimate of the Percent of White and Alaska Native Voters Information Casting a Vote for Each of the Candidates Contest and Party Race White Voters Alaska Native Voters Candidates Homog Bivariate Ecological Homog Bivariate Ecological Precinct Regress Inference Precinct Regress Inference Senate District Q Thomas Wagoner* REP White 48.6 50.1 48.6 NP NP NP Jerry Ward REP Native 36.7 38.8 34.9 NP NP NP Scott Hamann REP White 14.7 11.2 13.9 NP NP NP Turnout 25.7 29.2 25.0 NP NP NP 2004 General

House District 2 Roxanne Houston OEM Native 52.2 0.0 22.3 NP 100.0 80.7 Peggy Wilson* REP White 47.8 100.0 74.4 NP 0.0 19.5 Turnout 41.1 51.5 51.5 NP 51.7 63.5 House District 5 Tim June OEM White 56.4 48.0 49.7 NP 50.0 48.3 William Thomas* REP Native 43.6 52.0 50.8 NP 50.0 50.6 Turnout 58.9 49.1 48.5 NP 44.5 44.7 House District 6 Woodie Salmon* OEM Native 24.1 15.7 21.3 85.3 87.8 83.9 Ward Sattler REP White 75.9 84.3 78.0 14.2 12.2 16.7 Turnout 48.9 47.7 47.4 48.6 46.6 47.0 House District 10 Carole Newcomer OEM Native NP 11.4 28.6 NP 66.0 53.6 Jay Ramras* REP White NP 88.6 71.6 NP 34.0 41.5 Turnout NP 39.1 34.3 NP 44.0 52.0 House District 21 Harry Crawford* OEM White 50.3 NP 52.2 NP NP NP Jeff Gonnason REP Native 49.7 NP 48.9 NP NP NP Turnout 56.1 NP 55.3 NP NP NP House District 28 Cody Downs OEM Native 28.8 30.7 29.7 NP NP NP Lesil McGuire* REP White 71.2 69.3 70.0 NP NP NP Turnout 64.9 76.6 59.9 NP NP NP House District 37 Carl Moses* OEM Native NP 68.9 63.1 52.8 62.4 68.6 Arthur Newman REP Native NP 31.2 36.4 47.2 37.6 32.2 Turnout NP 30.8 30.4 54.1 44.5 41.4 House District 39 Richard Foster* OEM Native NP 100.0 84.9 56.5 49.5 57.6 Ralph Ivanoff REP Native NP 0.0 17.8 43.5 50.5 41.8 Turnout NP 46.3 43.7 46.5 46.5 47.0 Senate District C Albert Kookesh* OEM Native 70.2 43.7 45.2 57.0 70.0 68.6 Carl Morgan REP Native 29.8 56.3 54.0 43.0 30.0 32.5 Turnout 55.5 48.4 47.3 43.0 46.5 48.0

Voting Rights Analysis - Dr. Lisa Handley Page 10 of 31 Candidate Estimate of the Percent of White and Alaska Native Voters Information Casting a Vote for Each of the Candidates Contest and Party Race White Voters Alaska Native Voters Candidates Homog Bivariate Ecological Homog Bivariate Ecological Precinct Regress Inference Precinct Regress Inference Senate District T Donald Olson* DEM Native NP 42.0 57.4 74.1 74.7 66.9 Tara Sweeney NON Native NP 58.0 41.9 25.9 25.3 33.3 Turnout NP 41.8 37.7 49.8 49.0 48.8

Although it was not possible to estimate Alaska Native voting percentages in the Republican primary in House District 5, there were enough Alaska Natives participating in the Democratic primary in this district to produce reliable estimates. The candidate of choice of Alaska Native voters was one of the two Alaska Native candidates, Dewey Skan. The white-preferred candidate was Tim June, who won the primary nomination.

Voting was also racially polarized in the Republican primary in House District 6. In this contest, the first choice of Alaska Native voters was Alaska Native candidate George Owletuck. The white-preferred white candidate, Ward Sattler, won the contest.

The Democratic primary in Senate District C was not racially polarized: both Alaska Native and white voters supported Alaska Native candidate Albert Kookesh, who won the nomination.

There were ten legislative contests that included Alaska Native candidates in the 2004 general elections. Of the eight contests for which reliable estimates could be produced, four were clearly polarized, including the election in Senate District C. A majority of Alaska Native voters voted for the winner of the Democratic primary, Albert Kookesh. A majority of the white voters, however, supported his Alaska Native Republican opposition, Carl Morgan. Kookesh won the election.

Voting in House District 2 was polarized, with a majority of the white voters supporting the white Republican, Peggy Wilson, who won, while a majority of Alaska Native voters opted for her Democratic opponent, Alaska Native Roxanne Houston. The election in House District 6 was also polarized, but the Alaska Native-preferred candidate, Alaska Native Woodie Salmon, defeated the white-preferred candidate, Ward Sattler. The other polarized contest was House District 10. Alaska Native voters supported Alaska Native Democrat Carole Ann Newcomer, however, the white-preferred Republican, Jay Ramras, won the contest.

Voting in the general election contest in House District 37 was clearly not polarized: both Alaska Native and white voters cast a strong majority of their votes for the Alaska Native Democrat, Carl Moses, who won the seat.

In House District 5, the estimates indicate that both white and Alaska Native voters were about equally divided between the two candidates, white Democrat Tim June and Alaska

Voting Rights Analysis - Dr. Lisa Handley Page 11 of 31 Native Republican Bill Thomas. This contest was probably not polarized. The contests in House District 39 and Senate District T were probably not polarized either: in House District 39, the ecological inference and bivariate regression estimates point to different Alaska Native-preferred candidates; in Senate District T, the ecological inference and bivariate regression estimates point to different white-preferred candidates (the Alaska Native­ preferred candidate, Alaska Native Democrat Donald Olson, won the seat).

2.5 Legislative Elections in 2002

Two of the three primaries in 2002 for which estimates could be derived were not polarized.9 (See Table 5, below.) Alaska Native and white voters supported the same candidates in the Democratic primaries in House Districts 2 and 38: Denny Pearson (white) in House District 2, and Mary Kapsner (Alaska Native) in House District 38.

Table 5: Voting Patterns by Race in the 2002 State Legislative Elections

Candidate Estimate of the Percent of White and Alaska Native Voters Information Casting a Vote for Each of the Candidates Contest and Party Race White Voters Alaska Native Voters Candidates Homog Bivariate Ecological Homog Bivariate Ecological Precinct Regress Inference Precinct Regress Inference 2002 Primary

House District 2 Denny Pearson* OEM White 57.1 NP 50.8 NP 55.5 53.9 Robert Allen OEM Native 42.9 NP 48.8 NP 44.5 47.8 Turnout 12.5 NP 6.0 NP 27.2 15.7 House District 15 Beverly Masek* REP Native 52.1 42.8 56.6 NP NP NP Doyle Holmes REP White 47.9 57.2 44.6 NP NP NP Turnout 18.3 23.2 13.9 NP NP NP House District 38 Mary Kapsner* OEM Native NP 100.0 85.3 57.1 54.4 60.9 Ivan Ivan OEM Native NP 0.0 20.2 42.9 45.6 37.9 Turnout NP 3.4 11.6 17.4 17.5 16.2 Senate District Q Jerry Ward* REP Native 54.2 54.7 53.7 NP NP NP Joe Arness REP White 40.7 39.5 41.2 NP NP NP Raymond Vinzant REP White 5.1 5.9 3.1 NP NP NP Turnout 19.7 22.7 20.3 NP NP NP

9 Reliable estimates could not be derived for Alaska Native voters in the Republican primaries in House District 15 and Senate District Q; reliable estimates could not be derived for white voters in the Democratic primary in House District 39.

Voting Rights Analysis - Dr. Lisa Handley Page 12 of 31 Candidate Estimate of the Percent of White and Alaska Native Voters Information Casting a Vote for Each of the Candidates Contest and Party Race White Voters Alaska Native Voters Candidates Homog Bivariate Ecological Homog Bivariate Ecological Precinct Regress Inference Precinct Regress Inference Senate District S Willy Keppel* REP White NP 33.5 39.3 62.1 59.0 61.0 Michael Swetzof REP Native NP 66.5 59.8 37.9 41.0 39.6 Turnout NP 3.6 4.5 5.8 6.6 6.1 2002 General

House District 5 Albert Kookesh* DEM Native 58.9 41.3 46.2 79.7 91.6 67.7 Gary Graham REP White 41.2 58.7 53.6 21.4 8.4 31.3 Turnout 46.8 43.7 43.2 50.9 38.5 39.8 House District 15 Kay Bills DEM White 32.5 36.0 30.8 NP NP NP Beverly Masek* REP Native 58.3 51.6 59.1 NP NP NP Jon Pinard AI White 9.2 12.3 6.5 NP NP NP Turnout 40.9 43.2 43.5 NP NP NP Senate District C Georgiann Lincoln* DEM Native 56.5 34.2 37.6 79.8 87.2 87.3 Mac Carter REP White 43.5 65.8 61.3 20.2 12.8 14.3 Turnout 46.4 39.8 39.3 43.4 42.5 43.5 Senate District Q Pat Hawkins DEM White 6.2 5.5 4.0 NP NP NP Jerry Ward REP Native 42.2 44.1 42.7 NP NP NP Thomas Stroman GRN 2.0 2.2 10.4 NP NP NP Thomas Wagoner MOD White 49.5 48.2 48.2 NP NP NP Turnout 43.5 47.3 45.0 NP NP NP Senate District S Lyman Hoffman* DEM Native NP 0.0 41.9 82.3 76.8 80.2 Willy Keppel REP White NP 100.0 58.0 17.7 23.2 19.9 Turnout NP 13.1 15.9 38.6 40.3 39.0

Voting was polarized in the Republican primary in Senate District S. Alaska Native voters supported the white candidate, Willy Keppel, while white voters supported his Alaska Native opponent, Michael Swetzof. The Alaska Native-preferred candidate won the Republican nomination in this election.

Reliable estimates of voting percentages could be derived for three of the five general election contests in 2002 that included Alaska Native candidates. Voting was polarized in all three of these contests. In House District 5, the Alaska Native-preferred candidate was Alaska Native Democratic candidate Albert Kookeshi a majority of white voters supported his opponent, white Republican Gary Graham. Kookesh won the election.

Voting Rights Analysis - Dr. Lisa Handley Page 13 of 31 In Senate District C, the Alaska Native-preferred candidate was the Alaska Native Democrat, Georgianna Lincoln. The white-preferred candidate, however, was the white Republican, Mac Carter. Lincoln won the election. The election in Senate District S followed the same pattern as the other two elections discussed: the Alaska Native-preferred candidate was the Alaska Native Democrat, Lyman Hoffman. A majority of whites supported his white Republican opponent, Will Keppel. Hoffman won the seat.

2.6 Statewide Elections that Included an Alaska Native Candidate, 2002-2010

Alaska Natives have made it into only two statewide general elections since 2002: the 2002 election for governor in which Diane Benson ran as the Green Party candidate, and the 2006 election for US Representative in which Diane Benson ran as a Democrat. (See Table 6, below.) The Alaska Native candidate was not the Alaska Native-preferred candidate in either contest.lO In the 2002 contest, a strong majority of the Alaska Native voters cast their votes for the white Democrat, Fran Ulmer. White voters, on the other hand, strongly supported the white Republican, Frank Murkowski, who won.

Table 6: Voting Patterns by Race in Statewide General Elections Since 2002

Candidate Estimate of the Percent of White and Alaska Native Voters Contest and Information Casting a Vote for Each of the Candidates Candidates Party Race White Voters Alaska Native Voters 2006 General: US Homog Bivariate Ecological Homog Bivariate Ecological Representative Precinct Regress Inference Precinct Regress Inference Diane Benson DEM Native 41.9 38.0 39.6 39.9 45.0 42.4 Don Young* REP White 54.9 59.1 57.5 56.6 51.4 53.6 Eva Inee GRN White .8 .6 .7 1.1 1.1 1.0 William Ratigan IMP White .7 .6 .4 .6 .8 .8 Alexander Crawford LIB White 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.9 1.7 1.5 Turnout 42.7 39.2 38.1 40.2 34.6 34.3 2002General: Governor Fran Ulmer DEM White 37.9 33.4 35.6 67.0 78.1 69.2 Frank Murkowski* REP White 59.0 63.7 61.3 27.7 16.1 25.3 Don Wright AI White .7 .5 .7 3.1 3.5 2.9 Diane Benson GRN Native 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.5 Billy Toien LIB White .5 .5 .3 .4 .4 1.4 Raymond Vinzant MOD White .6 .7 .6 .5 .5 .9 Turnout 53.7 49.4 42.9 41.6 32.7 37.5

10 The lack of an Alaska Native-preferred Alaska Native candidate competing statewide has implications for conducting an analysis of the potential effectiveness of proposed minority districts. Recompiling election results to determine if the Alaska Native candidate was preferred by Alaska Native voters is simply not possible.

Voting Rights Analysis - Dr. Lisa Handley Page 14 of 31 In 2006, Diane Benson ran again, this time as the Democratic candidate for US Representative. This contest was not polarized: both Alaska Native and white voters cast a majority of their votes for the Republican incumbent, Don Young. The results of the statewide general election contests can be found in Table 6, above.

There were four statewide Democratic primaries since 2002 that included Alaska Native candidates. The results of this analysis are in Table 7, below.

Table 7: Voting Patterns by Race in Statewide Democratic Primaries Since 2002

Candidate Estimate of the Percent of White and Alaska Native Voters Contest and Information Casting a Vote for Each of the Candidates Candidates Party Race White Voters Alaska Native Voters 2010: Lieutenant Homog Bivariate Ecological Homog Bivariate Ecological Governor Precinct Regress Inference Precinct Regress Inference Diane Benson* DEM Native 68.8 68.2 61.8 56.5 59.2 61.3 Jack Powers DEM White 17.7 18.4 20.8 24.9 22.3 21.8 Jeffrey Brown LIB White 8.9 9.5 10.1 9.7 10.2 9.3 Turnout 9.7 7.8 5.6 16.5 12.8 13.3 2008: US Representative Ethan Berkowitz* DEM White 57.9 64.9 56.2 33.3 29.1 31.1 Diane Benson DEM Native 34.5 31.4 36.4 44.2 49.8 49.7 Don Wright AI White 7.6 3.7 7.3 22.5 21.1 20.0 Turnout 16.8 13.1 9.4 26.4 21.4 21.9 2006: US Representative Diane Benson* DEM Native 41.4 44.1 40.0 33.6 34.3 35.0 Ray Metcalf DEM White 34.2 37.9 35.8 28.5 30.2 32.1 Todd Hyde DEM White 3.9 2.0 4.4 10.0 9.2 9.8 Frank Vondersaar DEM White 4.0 1.0 3.8 10.9 9.8 8.3 Alexander Crawford LIB White 5.6 3.9 6.3 11.1 10.6 10.5 Sol Gerstenfeld LIB White 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.2 2.0 Evalnce GRN White 9.5 9.6 7.9 4.4 4.7 4.4 Turnout 10.2 7.5 5.5 21.2 18.3 18.7 2006: Lieutenant Governor Ethan Berkowtiz* DEM White 66.2 84.2 62.5 14.3 13.2 18.1 Donald Olson DEM Native 10.7 0.0 10.1 59.0 59.3 50.2 Betty Rollins DEM White 9.8 10.0 12.3 11.7 12.5 14.1 Kay Roillison DEM White 4.2 4.5 4.2 4.5 4.9 8.9 Douglas Welton AI White 6.6 5.7 6.3 8.5 8.3 14.2 Robert Mirabel LIB Native 2.6 3.0 3.0 1.8 1.8 2.3 Turnout 10.8 8.1 6.0 21.7 18.7 19.2

Diane Benson was the Alaska Native candidate in three out of the four. In the 2010 primary for Lieutenant Governor, she was the clear candidate of choice for both white and Alaska

Voting Rights Analysis - Dr. Lisa Handley Page Native voters. In the 2008 primary for US Representative, she was the Alaska Native­ preferred candidate, but white voters supported Ethan Berkowitz, who won the nomination. In the 2006 primary for US Representative, Benson was the plurality choice of both white and Alaska Native voters.

The other statewide Democratic primary that included an Alaska Native candidate was the 2006 primary for Lieutenant Governor.11 Donald Olson, the Alaska Native in this contest, was the Native-preferred candidate. The white-preferred candidate, however, was Ethan Berkowitz, who won the nomination.

There were two statewide Republican primaries since 2002 that included Alaska Native candidates. (See Table 8, below.) In the 2002 Republican primary for Lieutenant Governor, Loren Leman, the Alaska Native candidate, was not the choice of either white or Alaska Native voters. The vote choices of both sets of voters were too widely spread across the candidates (and the estimates contradictory in some instances) to determine who the candidates of choice of whites and Natives were, however, and if voting was polarized.

In the 2006 Republican primary, voting was clearly polarized, with a majority of Native voters supporting the Alaska Native candidate, Jerry Ward, and a majority of white voters casting their votes for his opponent, Sean Parnell. Parnell, a white, won the nomination.

Table 8: Voting Patterns by Race in Statewide Republican Primaries Since 2002

Candidate Estimate of the Percent of White and Alaska Native Voters Contest and Information Casting a Vote for Each of the Candidates Candidates Party Race White Voters Alaska Native Voters 2006: Lieutenant Homog Bivariate Ecological Homog Bivariate Ecological Governor Precinct Regress Inference Precinct Regress Inference Sean Parnell' REP White 59.1 59.2 59.1 34.7 0.0 34.0 Jerry Ward REP Native 40.9 40.8 41.0 65.3 100.0 65.5 Turnout 27.2 25.5 26.9 4.6 1.0 4.1 2002: Lieutenant Governor Loren Leman REP Native 28.0 29.0 26.8 20.2 .7 21.4 Sarah Palin REP White 30.2 28.9 30.3 19.0 0.0 17.8 Robin Taylor REP White 20.6 22.8 23.6 21.1 29.6 22.7 Gail Phillips REP White 19.2 17.7 17.1 32.7 53.5 31.4 Paul Wieler REP White 2.0 1.5 1.9 6.6 17.9 8.0 Turnout 21.6 19.8 15.7 7.2 2.2 5.7

11 Two Alaska Native candidates competed in the 2006 primary for Lieutenant Governor, Donald Olson, a Democrat, and Robert Mirabel, the Libertarian Party candidate who received very few votes from either white voters or Alaska Natives.

Voting Rights Analysis - Dr. Lisa Handley Page 16 of 31 2.7 Summary of Results

Overall, voting was more polarized in Alaska this past decade (2002-2010) than in the previous decade.12 For the 29 legislative contests in which reliable estimates of voting patterns for both Alaska Natives and whites could be derived, 16 contests (55%) were clearly polarized. Only 11 of these 29 contests (38%) were clearly not polarized. Because most of these contests occurred in effective minority districts, the Alaska Native-preferred candidate was able to win 75% (12 of the 16) of the racially polarized elections.13

Half of the statewide contests were racially polarized: one of the two general elections, two of the four Democratic primaries, and one of the two Republican primaries. The Alaska Native-preferred candidate did not win any of the statewide contests that were polarized.

Because voting in Alaska is racially polarized, state legislative districts that offer Alaska Native voters an opportunity to elect candidates of choice must be created, or in this instance, maintained.

3.0 Percent Alaska Native Needed to Elect an Alaska Native-Preferred Candidate

The Voting Rights Act has clearly established the need for jurisdictions with racially polarized voting to create districts that offer minorities an opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. The percentage minority population needed to create an "effective minority district" varies depending on the locality - there is no single target (for example, 65%) that can be applied universally. Jurisdictions must be careful to avoid both the unnecessary fragmentation of minority voter strength and the packing of minority voters into too few districts.

A racial bloc voting analysis conducted over a series of elections can be used to calculate an average minority population percentage needed to elect a minority-preferred candidate. This is done by taking into account the average turnout rates for minority and white voters, as well as an expected minority vote for minority-preferred candidates (minority "cohesiveness"), and an expected white "crossover" vote for the minority-preferred candidates.

12 See 2001 report of Dr. Lisa Handley, "A Voting Rights Act Evaluation of the Proposed Alaska State Legislative Plans: Measuring the Degree of Racial Bloc Voting and Determining the Effectiveness of Proposed Minority Districts."

13 The Alaska Native-preferred candidate lost in two districts with substantial minority populations: District 6 in the 2010 general election and District 5 in 2006 general election. In addition, the Alaska Native­ preferred candidate lost in two districts without much Alaska Native population: Districts 2 and 10 in the 2004 general election.

Voting Rights Analysis - Dr. Lisa Handley Page 17 of 31 In Alaska, Alaska Native turnout is slightly higher than white turnout. Table 9, below, provides the turnout rates for the two groups for the general election contests analyzed. The overall turnout average for Alaska Native voters is 45.6% compared to 41.2% for white voters.

Table 9: Average White and Alaska Native Turnout in Legislative Elections since 2002

General Percent White Estimates Percent Alaska Native Estimates Election Homog Bivariate Ecological Homog Bivariate Ecological Contest Precinct Regression Inference Precinct Regression Inference 2010 HD 5 39.5 41.0 40.5 NP 38.4 39.2 2010 HD 6 35.5 39.1 38.3 46.1 44.0 44.7 2008 HD 5 46.1 46.7 45.8 NP 41.7 42.6 2008 HD 6 42.2 43.4 42.1 48.9 47.0 48.3 2008 HD 37 NP 27.4 26.6 44.8 47.2 44.6 2008 SO C 40.5 40.6 39.5 47.9 44.8 46.4 2006 HD 5 40.4 37.8 38.3 NP 40.3 39.9 2006 HD 6 29.3 34.0 38.9 46.2 44.1 43.9 2006 HD 37 NP 19.0 23.2 51.7 48.8 46.8 2004 HD 5 58.9 49.1 48.5 NP 44.5 44.7 2004 HD 6 48.9 47.7 47.4 48.6 46.6 47.0 2004 HD 37 NP 30.8 30.4 54.1 44.5 41.4 2004 HD 39 NP 46.3 43.7 46.5 46.5 47.0 2004 SO C 55.5 48.4 47.3 43.0 46.5 48.0 2004 SO T NP 41.8 37.7 49.8 49.0 48.8 2002 HD 5 46.8 43.7 43.2 50.9 38.5 39.8 2002 SO C 46.4 39.8 39.3 43.4 42.5 43.5 Average 39.8 44.2 39.5 44.4 47.8 44.5

Using estimates of voting patterns by race from the same set of elections, Alaska Native­ preferred candidates can expect, on average, approximately 71% of the Alaska Native vote, and about 44.3% of the white vote. (See Table 10, below.)

Table 10: Average White and Alaska Native Vote for the Alaska Native-Preferred Candidate in Legislative Elections since 2002

General Percent White Estimates Percent Alaska Native Estimates Election Homog Bivariate Ecological Homog Bivariate Ecological Contest Precinct Regression Inference Precinct Regression Inference 2010 HD 5 60.5 58.0 57.8 NP 73.2 72.4 2010 HD 6 10.4 11.4 19.2 56.0 66.0 64.3 2008 HD 5 58.7 60.4 59.9 NP 70.1 70.7 2008 HD 6 22.3 18.8 27.9 82.9 86.6 83.3 2008 HD 37 NP 50.4 52.1 69.5 69.9 65.7 2008 SO C 56.7 54.2 55.5 89.1 89.7 90.7 2006 HD 5 44.0 37.5 41.0 NP 53.4 52.6

Voting Rights Analysis - Dr. Lisa Handley Page 18 of 31 General Percent White Estimates Percent Alaska Native Estimates Election Homog Bivariate Ecological Homog Bivariate Ecological Contest Precinct Regression Inference Precinct Regression Inference 2006 HD 6 27.5 23.3 30.2 69.7 74.1 73.2 2006 HD 37 NP 38.9 36.9 79.5 67.8 56.3 2004 HD 5 43.6 52.0 50.8 NP 50.0 50.6 2004 HD 6 24.1 15.7 21.3 85.3 87.8 83.9 2004 HD 37 NP 68.9 63.1 52.8 62.4 68.6 2004 HD 39 NP 57.3 84.9 56.5 49.5 57.6 2004 SD C 70.2 43.7 45.2 57.0 70.0 68.6 2004 SD T NP 42.0 57.4 74.1 74.7 66.9 2002 HD 5 58.9 41.3 53.6 79.7 91.6 67.7 2002 SD C 56.5 34.2 37.6 79.8 87.2 87.3 Average 44.5 41.6 46.7 71.7 72.0 69.4

Using the average turnout rates of Alaska Native and white voters, and the estimates that the Alaska Native-preferred candidate can expect, on average, approximately 71% of the Native votes and approximately 44% of the white votes, the percent Alaska Native VAP needed to elect the Alaska Native-preferred candidate can be calculated. This calculation produces a target percentage of 41.8 - thus, on average, any district with an Alaska Native VAP greater than 41.8% should be able to elect an Alaska Native-preferred candidate to office.14 This percentage is lower than 50% Alaska Native as a consequence of both the higher turnout rate of Alaska Natives compared to whites and the sizable amount of white crossover votes that Alaska Native-preferred candidates can usually expect.

This percentage is an overall average for the entire state. However, a more district-specific analysis is warranted in two areas of the state: House District 37 (which encompasses the Aleutian Islands) and House District 6 (which includes a number of interior villages). District

14 For example, in a district with a total VAP of 1000 of which 41.8% are Native, we can expect the following:

• Native VAP x Native turnout = 418 x 45.6% = 191 Native voters • White VAP x white turnout = 582 x 41.2% = 240 White voters

These 431 voters will divide their votes accordingly:

• The 191 Native voters give 71% of their votes to the Native-preferred candidate (191 x .71 = 136 votes) and 29% of their votes to the other candidate (191 x .29 = 55 votes) • The 240 White voters give 44% of their votes to the Native-preferred candidate (240 x -44 = 106 votes) and 56% of their votes to the other candidate (240 x .56 = 134 votes)

The Native-preferred candidate will receive 242 votes (136 from Native voters and 106 from white voters) and the other candidate will receive 189 votes (55 votes from Native voters and 134 votes from white voters) of the 431 votes cast.

Voting Rights Analysis - Dr. Lisa Handley Page 37 has consistently elected minority-preferred candidates despite being less than 41.8% Alaska Native VAP. However, District 6, which is well over 41.8% Alaska Native in VAP, failed to elect the Alaska Native-preferred candidate in the 2010 election.

The reason for this variation rests with the voting patterns: most of the contests in House District 37 were not polarized, hence the Native-preferred candidate can expect higher than the statewide average of 44% white crossover. In House District 6, however, voting was invariably polarized and the Alaska Native-preferred candidate can expect a lower than the statewide average amount of white crossover vote. Table 11, below, lists the estimates of turnout by race and the white crossover percentages for election contests in District 6.

Table 11: Average White and Alaska Native Turnout and Votes for the Alaska Native-Preferred Candidate in House District 6 since 2002

General Percent White Estimates Percent Alaska Native Estimates Election Homog Bivariate Ecological Homog Bivariate Ecological Contests Precinct Regression Inference Precinct Regression Inference 2010HD6 35.5 39.1 38.3 46.1 44.0 44.7 2008 HD 6 42.2 43.4 42.1 48.9 47.0 48.3 2006 HD 6 29.3 34.0 38.9 46.2 44.1 43.9 2004 HD 6 48.9 47.7 47.4 48.6 46.6 47.0

Average % 39.0 41.1 41.7 47.5 45.4 46.0 Turnout

2010 HD 6 10.4 11.4 19.2 56.0 66.0 64.3 2008 HD 6 22.3 18.8 27.9 82.9 86.6 83.3 2006 HD 6 27.5 23.3 30.2 69.7 74.1 73.2 2004 HD 6 24.1 15.7 21.3 85.3 87.8 83.9 Average % Votes for Alaska 21.1 17.3 24.7 73.5 78.6 76.3 Native- Preferred Candidate

Performing the same set of calculations used to produce the statewide average percentage Alaska Native VAP needed to elect an Alaska Native-preferred candidate, but substituting the average turnout rates in House District 6 (46.3% Alaska Native turnout and 40.6% white turnout) and the average percentage votes for the Alaska Native-preferred candidate (76.1% for Alaska Natives and 21.0% for whites), provides an estimate of 49.7% Alaska Native VAP needed in this area of the state to offer Alaska Natives an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. The reason for the higher percentage is evident: far less white crossover votes can be expected in this region.

Voting Rights Analysis - Dr. Lisa Handley Page 20 of 31 4.0 The Benchmark Plan

The Benchmark Plan from which the US Department of Justice will measure retrogression is the current legislative plan with the 2010 census data.

4.1 Alaska State House Plan

There are four majority Alaska Native state house districts (out of a total of 40 house districts) under the current plan: Districts 6, 38, 39, and 40. Three of these districts (Districts 38, 39, and 40) have consistently elected Alaska Native-preferred candidates to office. District 6, however, which is majority Alaska Native in total population but slightly less than majority in Alaska Native VAP, is currently represented by a white Republican - a white Republican who defeated the Alaska Native-preferred candidate in the 2010 election.

On the other hand, District 37, although not majority Alaska Native in composition, has consistently elected an Alaska Native-preferred candidate throughout the decade (even when voting was racially polarized) although it is only 45.04% Alaska Native in total population and 37.79% in Alaska Native VAP.

The Benchmark Plan therefore contains four "effective" minority districts - that is, districts that consistently elect minority-preferred candidates even when voting is polarized (Districts 37,38,39 and 40) - and one district that might best be characterized as an "equal opportunity" district (District 6) because, although it has a substantial minority population and has elected minority-preferred candidates, it does not always elect the minority­ preferred candidate.

In addition to these five house districts with substantial Alaska Native populations, there is a district in Southeast Alaska (House District 5) that is approximately one third Alaska Native and has elected an Alaska Native to legislative office throughout the decade- albeit not always the Alaska Native-preferred Alaska Native candidate. The table below (Table 12) provides the racial composition (as well as the general location) of all six of these house districts. 15

15 Throughout this report, those counted as Alaska Native are those who indicated on the census form that they were either single race Alaska Native or Alaska Native in combination with some other race or races, including Alaska Native and white.

Voting Rights Analysis - Dr. Lisa Handley Page 21 of 31 Table 12: State House Districts with Significant Alaska Native Populations, Current Plan with 2010 Census Data

Percent Percent House Alaska Alaska Native Location District Native Voting Age Population Population 5 Southeast Alaska 38.18 35·14 6 Interior Villages 53.64 49·97 37 Aleutian Islands 45·04 37·79 38 Bethel 86·94 82.67 39 Bering Strait 87·74 83·44 40 North Slope 71·95 63·60

4.2 Alaska State Senate Plan

There are two majority Alaska Native state senate districts (out of a total of 20 senate districts) under the current plan: Districts Sand T. Both of these districts have consistently elected Alaska Native-preferred candidates to legislative office. In addition, Senate District C, which is 46.01% Native in total population and 42-41% Alaska Native VAP, has consistently elected an Alaska Native-preferred candidate even when voting in the senate election was polarized.

The table below (Table 13) provides the racial composition of these three "effective" state senate districts. Because state senate districts are created by pairing state house districts, the table also includes the two state house districts that have been combined to create the senate district.

Table 13: State Senate Districts with Significant Alaska Native Populations, Current Plan with 2010 Census Data

Percent Percent House Pairing Senate Alaska Alaska Native to Produce District Native Voting Age Senate District Population Population C Districts 5 and 6 46.01 42-41 S Districts 37 and 38 66·56 58.3 2 T Districts 39 and 40 79-40 72.38

Voting Rights Analysis - Dr. Lisa Handley Page 22 of 31 4.3 Meeting the Benchmark

In Alaska, a simple comparison of the percent Alaska Native in districts with significant minority populations in the Benchmark Plan to any proposed plan is complicated by three important factors:

1. Most of the current minority districts are significantly under-populated and must therefore add population to meet the one person, one vote standard. 2. There are virtually no substantial minority population concentrations adjacent to these rural minority districts to draw from in order to increase the population in these minority districts. 3. There are no Alaska Native population concentrations large enough in the urban areas to create majority-minority districts to substitute for any loss in the number of rural minority districts.

The primary explanation for both the under-population of the existing minority districts and the inability to add significant minority population to these rural districts is the substantial amount of out-migration of Alaska Natives from the rural areas into the urban areas,16 coupled with the higher growth rate in general in the urban areas.

16 While the Alaska Native population as a whole grew slightly from 19% to 19.3% of Alaska's total population, most of that growth took place in the five urban boroughs. (See, for example, the New York Times article "Moving to the City, but Clinging to Native Ways", published April 7, 2011.) When defining the Alaska Native "rural" population as any Alaska Native who did not live in one of the five biggest boroughs in 2010 as compared to 2000, the Alaska Native rural population declined by nearly 7% over the past decade. See the table, below. Presently, nearly 50% of the Alaska Native VAP lives in the Borough of Juneau, the Kenai Peninsula Borough, the Municipality of Anchorage, the Mat-Su Borough and the Fairbanks North Star Borough.

Ta b Ie: Change in Urb an / Rura Alaska Native Popu ation Alaska Native (+ All) Difference Boroughs 2000 2010 Total VAP Total VAP Total VAP Anchorage 26 995 16431 36062 23 241 9067 6810 Fairbanks North Star 8174 4940 10673 6976 2499 2036 Juneau 5084 3128 6005 3961 921 833 Kenai Peninsula 5065 316 5 6429 4314 1364 1149 Mat Su 5108 2882 8964 5351 3856 2469

Total Urban 50426 30546 681 33 43843 17707 13 297 Total Rural 68815 40086 70179 44510 1364 4424 Total Alaska Native 119241 70632 138312 88353 19701 17721 Percent Urban 42·3% 43·3% 49·3% 49·6% 7·0% 6-4% Percent Rural 57·7% 56.8% 50.7% 50.4% -7·0% -6·4%

Voting Rights Analysis - Dr. Lisa Handley Page 23 of 31 Benchmark Minoritx-D~tricts Substantially Under-Populated The districts with significant Alaska Native populations are almost all substantially under­ populated, with five of the six House Districts clearly outside of the permissible population range (see Table 14, below) and all three of the Senate Districts more than five percent under­ populated (see Table 15, below).

Table 14: Population Deviations for the Benchmark House Districts, 2010 Census Data

House Total Population Deviation from Ideal Percent Deviation from District Population Population (17755) Ideal Population 5 13846 -3910 -22.0% 6 14235 -35 21 -19. 8% 37 15199 -2557 -14-4% 38 16055 -1701 -9.6% 39 15642 -2114 -11·9% 40 17516 -240 -1-4%

Table 15: Population Deviations for the Benchmark Senate Districts, 2010 Census Data

Senate Total Population Deviation from Ideal Percent Deviation from District Population Population (35510) Ideal Population C 28081 -7429 -20·9% S 31254 -4256 -12.0% T 33158 -235 2 -6.6%

Lack of MinorityJ?opulation Concentrations Adjacent to the Benchmark Minoritx-Districts The population disparities in these house and senate districts cannot be made up without adding substantial non-Alaska Native population to the districts. Two maps found in Appendix A demonstrate this by overlaying the current House and Senate District boundaries on top of a thematic map shaded to show percentage Alaska Native by borough and census area. As can be seen from the maps, there are only two areas with substantial minority concentrations that do not fall within the boundaries of a benchmark minority district. (The proposed plans include both of these areas within minority districts, as can be seen in the second set of maps included in Appendix A.) tna_biLity to Create Minority Districts in Ucban Areas Creating majority Alaska Native districts in any of the urban areas to compensate for the difficulty in drawing majority Alaska Native districts in the rural area is impossible. The Alaska Native population in the urban areas is simply not geographically segregated enough, as the thematic maps of the five urban areas found in Appendix B demonstrate.

Voting Rights Analysis - Dr. Lisa Handley Page 2.4 of 31 Consideration of Alternative Plans Submitted to the Alaska Redistricting Board The difficulty of creating State House and Senate plans that offer Alaska Native population percentages comparable to those in the Benchmark Plan is further demonstrated by considering the alternative plans submitted to the Alaska Redistricting Board after the release of this author's findings. 17 None of the plans put forward offered Alaska Native percentages equivalent to those in the Benchmark Plan.

The House Benchmark Plan has four majority Alaska Native VAP house districts, three substantially over 50% Alaska Native VAP and one slightly below 50% Alaska Native VAP (49.97%), as well as a fifth house district at 37.8% Alaska Native VAP. 18 The Senate Benchmark Plan includes two majority Native districts and a third senate district that is effective at 46% Alaska Native VAP.

Seven of the nine alternative plans submitted to the Board include only three house districts over 50% Alaska Native VAP, with a fourth district ranging between 40.0 and 49.2% Alaska Native VAP, and a fifth district that is in no instance over 42.9% Alaska Native VAP. Two plans (AFFER 119 v1.3" Plan and the New 5-1 Plan) offer four districts over 50% Alaska Native VAP with a fifth district at 46.1% Alaska Native VAP (New 5-1 Plan) and 41.9% Alaska Native VAP (AFFER 9 v1.3). However, neither of these plans offer a third effective senate district - instead they create two majority Alaska Native senate districts and a third senate district that is only 34.2% Alaska Native VAP in the case of the New 5-1 Plan and 30.9% Alaska Native VAP in the case of the AFFER 9V1.3 Plan.

Eight of the nine plans submitted to the Board have two majority Alaska Native VAP senate districts and a third senate district that is substantially less than the Benchmark, ranging from 25.6% to 35-4% Alaska Native VAP (the Benchmark Plan has two majority Alaska Native senate districts and a third effective senate district at 46% Alaska Native VAP). The ninth plan, submitted by the RIGHTS Coalition and entitled the IIBorough Integrity" Plan, creates one Alaska Native majority senate district, a second senate district that is 44.0% Alaska Native VAP, and a third that is 39.8% Alaska Native VAP.

In summary, none of these alternative plans provide both four majority Alaska Native VAP house districts and a fifth district that offers a very sizeable Alaska Native VAP, as well as two

17 Prior to the release of my updated findings (in a May 1lh teleconference with the Board), the Board and interested parties submitting plans to the Board were creating plans with a target Alaska Native VAP percentage of 35%. This was based on the analysis performed and the report produced by this author prepared in 2001. Because polarization has increased, however, the updated analysis showed that the target Alaska Native VAP was higher this decade - nearly 42%. In addition, the number of effective districts in the Benchmark Plan was unclear. As a result, the earlier plans submitted were far more retrogressive than the nine plans included in Table 16.

18 In addition, there is a house district in Southeast Alaska that is 35.1% Alaska Native VAP. This district ranges from 32.9% to 35.3% in the nine alternative plans.

Voting Rights Analysis - Dr. Lisa Handley Page 25 of 31 majority Alaska Native senate districts and a third senate district that has a substantial Alaska Native population and is likely to be effective. (A listing of the alternative plans and the percentage Alaska Native of districts with substantial Alaska Native population can be found in Table 16, below.)

Table 16: Summary of Alternative Plans Presented to the Alaska Redistricting Board

Plan Submitted and Districts with Percent Native Percent Native Location of Districts Significant Alaska Population VAP Native Populations AFFR IIAlternative to 3-31 Original" Plan

2 38.6 37·85 Southeast 36 50.0 42.0 Aleutian 37 86.8 82·5 Bethel 38 51.6 47·0 Wade Hampton/Interior Rivers 39 61.6 56·3 Nome/McCarthy 40 71.6 62.8 North Slope R 37·5 34-4 House Districts 35,36 S 65-4 64·3 House Districts 37,38 T 62.8 59. 6 House Districts 39,40 AFFR IISecond Adjusted" Plan

2 38.6 35·3 Southeast 36 51.6 43·6 Aleutian 37 72.8 66.8 Bethel/ Denali Borough 38 39.0 36.9 Interior Rivers 39 88·3 84·1 Nome/Bering Straits 40 70.6 62.2 North Slope R 39.2 35-4 House Districts 35,36 S 52-45 51.2 House Districts 37,38 T 74·2 72-4 House Districts 39,40 AFFER 119 v1.3" Plan

2 36·5 33·4 Southeast 5 71.2 62.8 North Slope 6 65. 0 59. 8 Nome to Canadian border 7 58.0 51.5 Bering Straits/I nterior 8 78.8 72.8 Bethel/Mat-Su 9 49-4 41.9 Aleutian A 28·5 25·6 House Districts 1,2 C 65-4 61·3 House Districts 5,6 D 61·9 61·7 House Districts 7,8

Voting Rights Analysis - Dr. Lisa Handley Page 26 of 31 Plan Submitted and Districts with Percent Native Percent Native Location of Districts Significant Alaska Population VAP Native Populations E 35-4 30.9 House Districts 9,10 AFFER u v5 .81" Plan

2 36·5 33-4 Southeast 5 34·5 31.6 Interior Rivers 37 47·2 40.0 Aleutian/I nterior 38 86·7 82·5 Bethel 39 88-4 84·2 Nome 40 71.2 62.8 North Slope R 28·5 25·6 House Districts 1,2 S 64·1 58·9 House Districts 37,38 T 76.2 72.8 House 39,40 RIGHTS Coalition UBorough Integrity and Voting Rights Act" Plan

2 36.0 32.9 Southeast 36 87-4 83.1 Bethel/Bering Strait 37 54·5 45·9 West Aleutians (non-contiguous) 38 36.7 33.2 Kodiak/Interior Villages 39 61.2 57·0 Bering Straits/Interior Villages 40 72.0 63·6 North Slope R 50·9 44·0 House Districts 35, 36 S 45·5 39.8 37,38 T 66-4 60.2 39,40 Calista Corporation Plan

2 38.7 33·7 Southeast 6 50.3 41.9 Dillingham/Aleutians 7 76.8 72·5 Bethel 8 55·9 49.2 Wade Hampton/Interior Villages 9 66.6 61·3 Bering Straits/I nterior Villages 10 71.2 62.8 North Slope C 35·7 31.0 House Districts 5, 6 D 64·7 60.6 House Districts 7,8 E 66·3 62.0 House Districts 9, 10 Bering Straits Native Corporation Plan

2 36·7 33·7 Southeast 36 42.3 42·9 Dillingham/Aleutians 37 63·7 64·1 Bethel 38 47·1 47·3 Wade Hampton/Interior Villages

Voting Rights Analysis - Dr. Lisa Handley Page 27 of 31 Plan Submitted and Districts with Percent Native Percent Native Location of Districts Significant Alaska Population VAP Native Populations 39 71.0 71.3 Bering Straits/Interior Villages 40 62.2 62.8 North Slope R 35.1 31.1 House Districts 35, 36 S 60.1 55·7 House Districts 37, 38 T 70·5 66·9 House Districts 39, 40 Split Aleutians Plan (presented by Tom Begich)

2 36.0 34·7 Southeast 36 56.0 47·9 Dillingham/West Aleutians 37 71.8 66.8 Bethel/Interior Villages 38 45-4 41.8 Wade Hampton/Interior Villages 39 67·7 62·5 Bering Straits/Interior Villages 40 70.0 62.8 North Slope R 41-4 36·9 House Districts 35, 36 S 58·5 54·3 House Districts 37, 38 T 68.8 62·7 House Districts 39, 40 New 5-1 Plan (presented by Tom Begich)

2 36·9 35·3 Southeast 36 53.1 46.1 Dillingham/Aleutians 37 61·7 55·6 Bethel/Mat-Su/Denali 38 60·3 55·2 Wade Hampton/Interior Villages 39 62.6 59·7 Bering Straits/Interior Villages 40 70.0 62.8 North Slope R 38·3 34.2 House Districts 35,36 S 61.0 55-4 House Districts 37, 38 T 66·3 61·3 House Districts 39, 40

5.0 The Plan Proposed: The Proclamation Plan

The Proclamation Plan passed 5-0 by the Board on June 13 contains the same number of districts that provide Alaska Natives with the opportunity to elect Alaska Native-preferred candidates as the Benchmark Plan. The Benchmark Plan provided four ileffective" and at least one ilequal opportunity" house district (House District 6 is best characterized as an ilequal opportunity" district rather than an ileffective" district. y9 The Proclamation Plan

19 The status of House District 5 in the benchmark plan is probably that of an "influence district" rather than an "equal opportunity" district.

Voting Rights Analysis - Dr. Lisa Handley Page 28 of 31 provides what are likely to be five effective minority house districts and three effective senate districts.20 Therefore, the Proclamation Plan is not retrogressive.

5.1 Proclamation State House Plan

The Proclamation State House Plan (see Table 17, below) includes five majority Alaska Native population districts (78.26%, 72.50%, 71.15%, 56.18% and 53.38%), although only three of these districts retain their majority Alaska Native status when voting age population statistics are considered. One of the districts that is less than 50% Alaska Native VAP (House District 37), however, is only 26.65% white VAP. A substantial percentage of residents in this district are non-white.

Table 17: Proclamation State House Districts with Substantial Alaska Native Populations

Percent Percent Percent Alaska House Total Deviation Alaska Native Voting District Population from Ideal Native Age Population Population Population 34 17875 .68 36.96 32.85 36 17095 -3.7 2 78.26 71-45 37 16899 -4·82 56.18 46.63 38 17027 -4·10 53.38 46.36 39 16892 -4·86 72·50 67·09 40 16953 -4.52 71.15 62.22

The configuration of the Benchmark House Plan had to change substantially in order to maintain the requisite number of minority districts and still meet the one person, one vote standard. Although the Proclamation House Plan retains the North Slope district more or less intact (the Alaska Native percentage declines only slightly from 71.95% to 71.15% Alaska Native total population), it was necessary to unpack the two heavily Alaska Native house districts (Districts 38 and 39) and disperse this Alaska Native population to provide enough minority voters in other Alaska Native districts to avoid retrogression. For example, a large portion of Benchmark District 39 was combined with many of the interior villages from Benchmark District 6 to produce Proclamation District 39, which is 72.50% Alaska Native.21 The remainder of Benchmark District 39 was placed in Proclamation District 38, which was

20 In addition, the proposed plan offers a district with a substantial Alaska Native population in Southeast Alaska.

21 The proposed plan divides the heavily polarized benchmark House District 6 so that non-Alaska Native villages in the benchmark district are placed in a minority district with a higher percentage Alaska Native population. The non-Alaska Native villages such as Tok, Central, and Gakona have been placed in District 39, which is 67.09% Native VAP, while the current District 6 is 49.97% Alaska Native VAP.

Voting Rights Analysis - Dr. Lisa Handley Page 29 of 31 drawn to move east to Fairbanks to pick up sufficient additional population to meet the one person, one vote standard. 22

Benchmark District 38 was divided between Proclamation Districts 36 and 37. Proclamation District 36 remains heavily Alaska Native (78.2% Alaska Native total population). Proclamation District 37 is 56.18% Alaska Native total population, but only 46.43% Alaska Native VAP. However, this district includes a sizeable portion of Benchmark District 37 - a district in which voting was usually not polarized and which consistently elected Alaska Native-preferred candidates at 38% Alaska Native VAP - and exceeds the 41.8% Alaska Native VAP target. Therefore, it is very likely to be an effective Alaska Native district.

Appendix C contains a map that shows both the Benchmark Plan and the Proclamation Plan district boundaries.

5.2 Proclamation State Senate Plan

As suggested by the discussion of the alternative plans submitted to the Board, producing a non-retrogressive state senate plan proved particularly challenging. Although most of the plans put forward managed to create two majority Alaska Native state senate districts, the third district offered in these plans was, in every instance, below the 41.8% target and therefore not likely to be effective. The Proclamation Plan, however, offers a third effective senate district - one that is quite comparable to the Alaska Native percentages in Benchmark Senate District C.

The house district pairings used to produce the Proclamation 5enate Plan create two majority Alaska Native senate districts - District T with 71.82% Alaska Native population and District 5 with 54.78% Alaska Native population. District 5 has 46.85% Alaska Native VAP. (5ee Table 18, below.) Proclamation District 5, however, is composed of two state house districts that are very likely to be effective (see the discussion of Districts 37 and 38, above), and therefore, this proposed senate district is also likely to be effective. (In addition, Proclamation District 5 exceeds the 41.8% Native VAP target.)

22 The rural Alaska Native districts, taken as a whole, were seriously under-populated. The five rural districts outside of Southeast Alaska, for example, were short a total of 10,133 persons - approximately 57% of an ideal House District. As a result, at least one of the five rural Alaska Native districts had to pick up substantial urban population not previously included within this set of Alaska Native districts. Proclamation District 38 picks up this population in Fairbanks. Although the Alaska Native population in Fairbanks is not sufficiently concentrated to ensure that the population added from Fairbanks is mostly Alaska Native, an effort was made by the Board to ensure that the white population that was added to Proclamation District 38 tended to vote Democratic since Alaska Natives tend to vote Democratic. In addition, this district exceeds the target of 41.8% Alaska Native yAP for producing an effective Alaska Native district.

Voting Rights Analysis - Dr. Lisa Handley Page 30 of 31 Table 18: Proclamation State Senate Districts with Substantial Alaska Native Populations

Percent Percent Percent House Pairing Senate Total Deviation Alaska Alaska Native to Produce District Population from Ideal Native Voting Age Senate District Population Population Population R Districts 35 and 36 34581 -2.62 48.63 43·75 S Districts 37 and 38 33926 -4-46 54.78 46.85 T Districts 39 and 40 33845 -4.69 71.82 65·05

The Proclamation Senate Plan also creates a third effective state senate district - something none of the alternative plans considered were able to do. Proclamation District R is 48.65% Alaska Native population and 43.75% Alaska Native YAP. It is comparable in Alaska Native percentage to Benchmark District C (which is 46.01% Alaska Native total population and 42-41% Alaska Native YAP) and it exceeds the target Alaska Native YAP percentage of 41.8% to elect an Alaska Native-preferred candidate.

6.0 Conclusion

The Proclamation Plan passed by the Alaska Redistricting Board is not retrogressive. Although the Alaska Native percentages declined, this decrease was both unavoidable and not sufficiently low to jeopardize the effectiveness of the districts. Moreover, none of the alternative plans presented to the Board offered districts that would provide Alaska Natives with a better opportunity to elect candidates of their choice to legislative office.

029810.0101 \ 71694

Voting Rights Analysis - Dr. Lisa Handley Page 31 of 31 Percent Alaska Native by Borough and Census Area Benchmark Plan - House Districts

J!I

...w .-

Page 1 of4 Appendix A Source: 2010 US Census Voting Rights Analyses Report Dr, Lisa Handley Percent Alaska Native by Borough and Census Area Benchmark Plan - Senate Districts

Legend D Benchmark Plan Borough I Census Area Percent Alaska Native 0% -10% 10% -20% -_ 20%-30%

.. 30%-40% .. 40%-50% , 50% -60% 60% -70% .. 70%-80% _ 80%-90% .. 90%-100% "

". ~ • • '\. . ., •

Page 2 of 4 Appendix A Source: 2010 US Census Voting Rights Analyses Report Dr. Lisa Handley Percent Alaska Native b,y Bo,rough and Census Area Proclamation Plan - HOlJSe Districts

Legend D Proclamation Plan Borough I Census Area Percent Alaska Native ,

60% -70% _ 70%-80% t. _ 80%-90% _ 90%-100%

~., • • d, 3~ . ~ ~ _ttl

Page 3 of 4 Appendix A Source: 2010 US Census Voting Rights Analyses Report Dr. Lisa Handley Percent Alaska Native by Borough and Census Area Proclamation Plan - Senate Districts

Legend D Proclamation Plan Borough I Census Area Percent Alaska Native 0% -10% 10% -20% 20% -30% .. 30%-40% _ 40%-50% 50% -60% "- 60% -70% _ 70%-80% _ 80%-90% " 90% -100%

• •

Page 4 of4 Appendix A Source: 2010 US Census Voting Rights Analyses Report Dr. Lisa Handley Municipality of Anchorage

Legend

-- Highways Percentage Alaska Native 0% -10% _ 10%-20% _ 20%-30% _ 30%-40% _ 40%-50% 50%-60% 60%-70% 70%-80% _ 80%-90% Apper:l'dix)s _ 90%-100% Source: US Census Bureau Voti,ig Rig~ Analyses R~ort Dr. lisa Hani:tley Geographic Unit: Block Group Page 1 of5 Fairbanks North Star Borough ~I

Legend

-- Highways Percentage Alaska Native 0% -10% 10%-20% _ 20%-30% _ : 30%-40% _ 40%-50% 50% -60% 60%-70% _ 70%-80% _ 80%-90% Source: us Census Bureau Appendix B Geographic Unit: Block Group Voting Rights Analyses Report _ 90%-100% Dr. Lisa Handley Page 20f5 City and Borough of Juneau

Legend

-- Highways Percentage Alaska Native 0%-10% _ 10%-20%

20%- 30%

40%-50% 50%-60% 60%-70% 70%- 80% _ 80%- 90% _ 90%- 100% Appendix B Source: US Census Bureau Voting Rights Analyses Report Geographic Unit: Block Group Dr. Lisa Handley Page 30f5 KenaiPe Insula Borough

Legend

-- Highways Percentage Alaska Native 0%-10% 10% - 20% ;;! _ 20%-30% _ 30%- 40% • _ 40%-50% 50% -60% 60%-70% _ 70%- 80% _ 80%- 90% _ 90%- 1000k

Appendix B Source: US Census Bureau Voting Rights Analyses Report Dr. Lisa Handley Geographic Unit: Block Group Page 4 of 5 Legend MatanusKa-Susitna ,Borough -- Highways Percentage Alaska Native 0% -10% 10% - 20%

30%- 40% 40% -50% 50%-60% 60%-70% 70% -80% _ 80%-90% _90%- 100%

Source: us Census Bureau Geographic Unit: Block Group Geographic Comparison of Benchmark Plan to Proclamation Plan

Legend _Proclamation34 Plan _ 3536 _ 37 _ 38 _ 39 ~~\ _ 40 .~-

:------1L ______Benchmark Plan

39 Proclamation District " 6 Benchmark District ";~-3l1~~; "":-- ", !~~ - ";-.. :,..•. : ... ~.. '\ \, 37 '*- t~; "1" \ , .~~ ....._ . ... ) : :~:~ '!tt.\:,'i1 .. ~ ,/ 37 \ y~ .. --- " '-- '?~~~: :" ~\ 37 ;.) \;""'.. .. _, _, .. _, . ~, ':-, ,..,- 'J:t.~,~, • .' : ~!_ ..... '~' :;-"''''-'~-'~'--- - ' - ~, , -

Appendix C Voting Rights Anaylses Report Dr. Lisa Handley 1 of 1 Exhibit C o II Oll/TUE 05: 10 PM DOJ!CRT!VOTING FAX No, 20230 961 F, 00 I AKF/lX Oct 1 L 2011 1310 U.S. Department of Justice Civilllights Division

FAX Transmittal Sheet

Date: 10 l II /11 To: Name: Michu:J '», \,,[hdL ) Esq. Organization: FAX No:

Off. Phone:

From: Name: ACCLtl N~JL s,. ~ a:~.Y\ FAX No;

Off. Phone; 202- - -3QS- -=f543

Number of pages transmitted (including this sheet): --~------o II Oll/TUE 05: 10 PM DOJ!CRT!VOTING FAX No, 20230 961 F, 002 AKF/lX Oct 1 L 2011 1310

US. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

Washing'")!, p,c, 20530

OCT 112011

Mr. Michael D. White, Esq, Patton Boggs 601 West Fifth Avenue, Suite 700 Anchorage, Alaska 99501

Dear Mr. White:

Tins refers to the 2011 House of Representatives and Senate redistricting plans, the truncated terms of office for nine Senate seats, and the implementation of the Senate schedule for the State of Alas.ka, submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,42 U.S,C. 1973c. We received your submission on August 9, 2011, additional information was received through September 8, 20 II,

The Attorney General does not interpose any objection to the specified changes. However, we note that Section 5 expressly provides that the failure of the Attorney General to object does not bar subsequent litigation to enj oin the enforcement of the changes. Procedures for the Administration of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act 00965, 28 C.F.R. 51.41.

"q:IY, £.

Thomas E, Perez Assistant Attorney General Exhibit D Current Senate Districts District Population Summary Total Deviation DISTRICT Population Target Difference from Ideal 1 170,275 200,026 -29,751 -14.9% 2 177,071 200,026 -22,955 -11.5% 3 211,723 200,026 11,697 5.8% 4 209,635 200,026 9,609 4.8% 5 182,068 200,026 -17,958 -9.0% 6 171,625 200,026 -28,401 -14.2% 7 177,786 200,026 -22,240 -11.1% 8 174,947 200,026 -25,079 -12.5% 9 201,994 200,026 1,968 1.0% 10 200,686 200,026 660 0.3% 11 209,648 200,026 9,622 4.8% 12 207,618 200,026 7,592 3.8% 13 197,229 200,026 -2,797 -1.4% 14 199,147 200,026 -879 -0.4% 15 191,067 200,026 -8,959 -4.5% 16 184,330 200,026 -15,696 -7.8% 17 232,435 200,026 32,409 16.2% 18 174,793 200,026 -25,233 -12.6% 19 186,272 200,026 -13,754 -6.9% 20 177,184 200,026 -22,842 -11.4% 21 188,365 200,026 -11,661 -5.8% 22 193,582 200,026 -6,444 -3.2% 23 202,433 200,026 2,407 1.2% 24 200,978 200,026 952 0.5% 25 194,804 200,026 -5,222 -2.6% 26 201,456 200,026 1,430 0.7% 27 227,068 200,026 27,042 13.5% 28 223,256 200,026 23,230 11.6% 29 272,719 200,026 72,693 36.3% 30 194,547 200,026 -5,479 -2.7% 31 195,339 200,026 -4,687 -2.3% 32 191,978 200,026 -8,048 -4.0% 33 316,436 200,026 116,410 58.2% 34 190,628 200,026 -9,398 -4.7% 35 192,046 200,026 -7,980 -4.0% 36 219,048 200,026 19,022 9.5% 37 203,184 200,026 3,158 1.6% 38 175,805 200,026 -24,221 -12.1% 39 195,763 200,026 -4,263 -2.1% 40 184,056 200,026 -15,970 -8.0%

3/8/20115:24 PM 1 Current Senate Districts Demographic Population Totals Total % % % % % % % % DISTRICT Population White White Black Black AIAN AIAN Asian Asian HawPI HawPI Other Other Multi Multi Hispanic Hispanic 1 170,275 112,296 65.9% 42,507 25.0% 1,397 0.8% 7,665 4.5% 298 0.2% 4,063 2.4% 2,049 1.2% 10,658 6.3% 2 177,071 57,747 32.6% 108,253 61.1% 1,238 0.7% 3,972 2.2% 221 0.1% 2,817 1.6% 2,823 1.6% 7,876 4.4% 3 211,723 160,412 75.8% 36,714 17.3% 1,789 0.8% 6,871 3.2% 366 0.2% 3,861 1.8% 1,710 0.8% 10,793 5.1% 4 209,635 164,627 78.5% 36,032 17.2% 2,048 1.0% 3,277 1.6% 170 0.1% 2,526 1.2% 955 0.5% 6,392 3.0% 5 182,068 61,514 33.8% 107,971 59.3% 1,089 0.6% 5,785 3.2% 265 0.1% 3,169 1.7% 2,275 1.2% 8,808 4.8% 6 171,625 109,741 63.9% 46,248 26.9% 1,790 1.0% 5,581 3.3% 396 0.2% 5,699 3.3% 2,170 1.3% 14,368 8.4% 7 177,786 118,915 66.9% 36,361 20.5% 1,419 0.8% 14,991 8.4% 359 0.2% 3,849 2.2% 1,892 1.1% 11,100 6.2% 8 174,947 133,205 76.1% 26,250 15.0% 1,396 0.8% 8,068 4.6% 362 0.2% 4,000 2.3% 1,666 1.0% 11,399 6.5% 9 201,994 71,110 35.2% 118,835 58.8% 1,714 0.8% 5,569 2.8% 124 0.1% 2,720 1.3% 1,922 1.0% 6,219 3.1% 10 200,686 161,956 80.7% 27,594 13.7% 1,088 0.5% 6,510 3.2% 119 0.1% 2,587 1.3% 832 0.4% 6,678 3.3% 11 209,648 135,668 64.7% 56,457 26.9% 1,559 0.7% 6,137 2.9% 190 0.1% 7,975 3.8% 1,662 0.8% 15,167 7.2% 12 207,618 152,598 73.5% 27,639 13.3% 992 0.5% 19,601 9.4% 121 0.1% 5,432 2.6% 1,235 0.6% 11,882 5.7% 13 197,229 132,333 67.1% 56,054 28.4% 1,477 0.7% 3,804 1.9% 219 0.1% 2,050 1.0% 1,292 0.7% 5,757 2.9% 14 199,147 134,338 67.5% 44,480 22.3% 1,532 0.8% 13,542 6.8% 336 0.2% 3,131 1.6% 1,788 0.9% 10,740 5.4% 15 191,067 126,671 66.3% 59,711 31.3% 1,108 0.6% 1,129 0.6% 71 0.0% 1,751 0.9% 626 0.3% 4,031 2.1% 16 184,330 64,555 35.0% 103,439 56.1% 1,232 0.7% 3,190 1.7% 294 0.2% 10,107 5.5% 1,513 0.8% 16,633 9.0% 17 232,435 176,921 76.1% 39,470 17.0% 1,742 0.7% 4,732 2.0% 276 0.1% 7,932 3.4% 1,362 0.6% 15,723 6.8% 18 174,793 63,707 36.4% 104,916 60.0% 1,033 0.6% 1,461 0.8% 140 0.1% 2,437 1.4% 1,099 0.6% 5,179 3.0% 19 186,272 136,581 73.3% 44,894 24.1% 938 0.5% 1,102 0.6% 64 0.0% 2,296 1.2% 397 0.2% 4,225 2.3% 20 177,184 149,504 84.4% 22,132 12.5% 807 0.5% 831 0.5% 44 0.0% 3,547 2.0% 319 0.2% 6,305 3.6% 21 188,365 142,582 75.7% 32,795 17.4% 1,004 0.5% 7,804 4.1% 138 0.1% 3,211 1.7% 831 0.4% 7,541 4.0% 22 193,582 176,279 91.1% 10,449 5.4% 1,021 0.5% 3,851 2.0% 83 0.0% 1,480 0.8% 419 0.2% 3,886 2.0% 23 202,433 159,035 78.6% 35,656 17.6% 1,347 0.7% 3,591 1.8% 109 0.1% 1,954 1.0% 741 0.4% 4,575 2.3% 24 200,978 181,120 90.1% 12,941 6.4% 1,075 0.5% 2,250 1.1% 93 0.0% 3,050 1.5% 449 0.2% 6,460 3.2% 25 194,804 156,694 80.4% 23,729 12.2% 1,285 0.7% 8,465 4.3% 142 0.1% 3,717 1.9% 772 0.4% 8,468 4.3% 26 201,456 180,347 89.5% 8,075 4.0% 1,371 0.7% 3,298 1.6% 127 0.1% 7,635 3.8% 603 0.3% 14,658 7.3% 27 227,068 196,552 86.6% 15,581 6.9% 1,446 0.6% 4,976 2.2% 178 0.1% 7,508 3.3% 827 0.4% 16,125 7.1% 28 223,256 162,492 72.8% 44,417 19.9% 1,909 0.9% 5,882 2.6% 305 0.1% 6,517 2.9% 1,734 0.8% 16,250 7.3% 29 272,719 170,073 62.4% 45,692 16.8% 2,475 0.9% 23,696 8.7% 490 0.2% 27,273 10.0% 3,020 1.1% 56,734 20.8% 30 194,547 123,025 63.2% 33,070 17.0% 1,549 0.8% 15,693 8.1% 246 0.1% 19,037 9.8% 1,927 1.0% 38,339 19.7% 31 195,339 139,014 71.2% 13,775 7.1% 1,614 0.8% 22,914 11.7% 244 0.1% 16,254 8.3% 1,524 0.8% 36,401 18.6% 32 191,978 133,114 69.3% 12,483 6.5% 1,090 0.6% 32,987 17.2% 140 0.1% 10,777 5.6% 1,387 0.7% 25,142 13.1% 33 316,436 200,072 63.2% 26,834 8.5% 1,581 0.5% 66,906 21.1% 323 0.1% 17,885 5.7% 2,835 0.9% 39,757 12.6% 34 190,628 133,782 70.2% 9,461 5.0% 994 0.5% 37,895 19.9% 171 0.1% 7,209 3.8% 1,116 0.6% 20,200 10.6% 35 192,046 99,810 52.0% 32,669 17.0% 1,394 0.7% 34,780 18.1% 242 0.1% 21,243 11.1% 1,908 1.0% 44,647 23.2% 36 219,048 114,207 52.1% 56,512 25.8% 2,084 1.0% 19,846 9.1% 393 0.2% 22,937 10.5% 3,069 1.4% 48,025 21.9%

3/8/20115:24 PM 2 Current Senate Districts Demographic Population Totals Total % % % % % % % % DISTRICT Population White White Black Black AIAN AIAN Asian Asian HawPI HawPI Other Other Multi Multi Hispanic Hispanic 37 203,184 125,907 62.0% 16,047 7.9% 1,060 0.5% 48,654 23.9% 305 0.2% 9,624 4.7% 1,587 0.8% 24,632 12.1% 38 175,805 168,102 95.6% 5,437 3.1% 758 0.4% 775 0.4% 37 0.0% 549 0.3% 147 0.1% 1,406 0.8% 39 195,763 125,366 64.0% 26,028 13.3% 1,429 0.7% 29,871 15.3% 309 0.2% 10,895 5.6% 1,865 1.0% 26,077 13.3% 40 184,056 174,880 95.0% 5,846 3.2% 989 0.5% 861 0.5% 69 0.0% 1,179 0.6% 232 0.1% 2,569 1.4%

3/8/20115:24 PM 3 Current Senate Districts Voting Age Population Totals Voting VAP % VAP VAP % VAP VAP % VAP VAP % VAP VAP % VAP VAP % VAP VAP % VAP VAP % VAP DISTRICT Age Pop. White White Black Black AIAN AIAN Asian Asian HawPI HawPI Other Other Multi Multi Hispanic Hispanic 1 129,807 89,314 68.8% 29,719 22.9% 1,047 0.8% 5,601 4.3% 217 0.2% 2,798 2.2% 1,111 0.9% 6,993 5.4% 2 133,537 47,157 35.3% 78,605 58.9% 950 0.7% 2,995 2.2% 156 0.1% 2,053 1.5% 1,621 1.2% 5,191 3.9% 3 164,591 127,970 77.8% 26,388 16.0% 1,301 0.8% 5,131 3.1% 248 0.2% 2,588 1.6% 965 0.6% 7,068 4.3% 4 158,100 125,645 79.5% 26,602 16.8% 1,467 0.9% 2,163 1.4% 102 0.1% 1,589 1.0% 532 0.3% 4,000 2.5% 5 138,303 51,455 37.2% 77,586 56.1% 852 0.6% 4,615 3.3% 190 0.1% 2,287 1.7% 1,318 1.0% 5,974 4.3% 6 139,105 92,361 66.4% 34,988 25.2% 1,430 1.0% 4,391 3.2% 310 0.2% 4,106 3.0% 1,519 1.1% 10,312 7.4% 7 136,802 94,785 69.3% 25,659 18.8% 1,079 0.8% 11,374 8.3% 256 0.2% 2,638 1.9% 1,011 0.7% 7,294 5.3% 8 133,159 104,345 78.4% 18,136 13.6% 1,062 0.8% 5,820 4.4% 259 0.2% 2,663 2.0% 874 0.7% 7,332 5.5% 9 159,233 62,132 39.0% 87,474 54.9% 1,385 0.9% 4,898 3.1% 92 0.1% 1,982 1.2% 1,270 0.8% 4,466 2.8% 10 155,576 126,773 81.5% 21,045 13.5% 826 0.5% 4,608 3.0% 77 0.0% 1,734 1.1% 513 0.3% 4,476 2.9% 11 156,418 105,054 67.2% 39,696 25.4% 1,109 0.7% 4,444 2.8% 138 0.1% 5,090 3.3% 887 0.6% 9,616 6.1% 12 158,554 119,261 75.2% 20,166 12.7% 715 0.5% 13,867 8.7% 83 0.1% 3,689 2.3% 773 0.5% 7,998 5.0% 13 150,920 104,641 69.3% 40,348 26.7% 1,096 0.7% 2,718 1.8% 131 0.1% 1,308 0.9% 678 0.4% 3,609 2.4% 14 147,543 101,866 69.0% 31,839 21.6% 1,143 0.8% 9,508 6.4% 223 0.2% 2,100 1.4% 864 0.6% 6,702 4.5% 15 151,532 102,645 67.7% 45,643 30.1% 859 0.6% 826 0.5% 58 0.0% 1,112 0.7% 389 0.3% 2,692 1.8% 16 140,752 52,397 37.2% 76,642 54.5% 977 0.7% 2,501 1.8% 192 0.1% 7,047 5.0% 996 0.7% 11,402 8.1% 17 174,030 135,857 78.1% 27,724 15.9% 1,284 0.7% 3,204 1.8% 197 0.1% 5,042 2.9% 722 0.4% 9,904 5.7% 18 134,528 51,742 38.5% 78,370 58.3% 762 0.6% 1,094 0.8% 94 0.1% 1,788 1.3% 678 0.5% 3,506 2.6% 19 146,682 109,940 75.0% 33,548 22.9% 718 0.5% 774 0.5% 47 0.0% 1,410 1.0% 245 0.2% 2,616 1.8% 20 140,541 120,465 85.7% 16,556 11.8% 637 0.5% 562 0.4% 37 0.0% 2,097 1.5% 187 0.1% 3,701 2.6% 21 153,372 119,911 78.2% 23,259 15.2% 803 0.5% 6,524 4.3% 104 0.1% 2,204 1.4% 567 0.4% 5,305 3.5% 22 152,580 140,509 92.1% 7,264 4.8% 804 0.5% 2,714 1.8% 60 0.0% 986 0.6% 243 0.2% 2,584 1.7% 23 159,669 128,272 80.3% 25,882 16.2% 1,068 0.7% 2,548 1.6% 81 0.1% 1,356 0.8% 462 0.3% 3,197 2.0% 24 157,123 143,454 91.3% 9,232 5.9% 785 0.5% 1,554 1.0% 66 0.0% 1,763 1.1% 269 0.2% 3,876 2.5% 25 157,221 128,500 81.7% 17,553 11.2% 965 0.6% 7,021 4.5% 109 0.1% 2,564 1.6% 509 0.3% 5,957 3.8% 26 159,419 144,828 90.8% 5,612 3.5% 1,017 0.6% 2,616 1.6% 112 0.1% 4,888 3.1% 346 0.2% 9,271 5.8% 27 168,526 148,481 88.1% 10,546 6.3% 1,019 0.6% 3,251 1.9% 132 0.1% 4,648 2.8% 449 0.3% 9,907 5.9% 28 165,918 124,296 74.9% 31,160 18.8% 1,388 0.8% 4,008 2.4% 203 0.1% 3,992 2.4% 871 0.5% 10,020 6.0% 29 192,962 124,652 64.6% 30,676 15.9% 1,652 0.9% 16,464 8.5% 316 0.2% 17,585 9.1% 1,617 0.8% 36,044 18.7% 30 160,433 105,615 65.8% 25,521 15.9% 1,210 0.8% 12,821 8.0% 205 0.1% 13,678 8.5% 1,383 0.9% 27,830 17.3% 31 159,159 115,567 72.6% 10,614 6.7% 1,266 0.8% 18,256 11.5% 187 0.1% 12,185 7.7% 1,084 0.7% 27,470 17.3% 32 146,350 104,022 71.1% 8,869 6.1% 763 0.5% 24,032 16.4% 115 0.1% 7,657 5.2% 892 0.6% 17,801 12.2% 33 220,649 142,729 64.7% 18,301 8.3% 1,006 0.5% 44,774 20.3% 225 0.1% 12,017 5.4% 1,597 0.7% 26,422 12.0% 34 146,010 104,046 71.3% 7,141 4.9% 700 0.5% 28,060 19.2% 135 0.1% 5,221 3.6% 707 0.5% 14,556 10.0% 35 153,021 82,759 54.1% 25,001 16.3% 1,051 0.7% 27,456 17.9% 184 0.1% 15,260 10.0% 1,310 0.9% 32,479 21.2% 36 157,913 86,594 54.8% 38,719 24.5% 1,392 0.9% 14,108 8.9% 296 0.2% 15,162 9.6% 1,642 1.0% 31,318 19.8%

3/8/20115:24 PM 4 Current Senate Districts Voting Age Population Totals Voting VAP % VAP VAP % VAP VAP % VAP VAP % VAP VAP % VAP VAP % VAP VAP % VAP VAP % VAP DISTRICT Age Pop. White White Black Black AIAN AIAN Asian Asian HawPI HawPI Other Other Multi Multi Hispanic Hispanic 37 152,605 97,333 63.8% 11,246 7.4% 759 0.5% 35,383 23.2% 208 0.1% 6,753 4.4% 923 0.6% 17,249 11.3% 38 140,644 134,715 95.8% 4,259 3.0% 613 0.4% 594 0.4% 33 0.0% 340 0.2% 90 0.1% 910 0.6% 39 146,964 97,235 66.2% 18,066 12.3% 1,005 0.7% 21,764 14.8% 210 0.1% 7,635 5.2% 1,049 0.7% 18,038 12.3% 40 147,096 140,021 95.2% 4,593 3.1% 821 0.6% 632 0.4% 44 0.0% 819 0.6% 166 0.1% 1,771 1.2%

3/8/20115:24 PM 5 Exhibit E HB 5005 Passed 4/28/11, Senate Plan Population Totals Total DISTRICT Population Target Difference Deviation 1 201,072 200,026 1,046 0.5% 2 200,193 200,026 167 0.1% 3 203,449 200,026 3,423 1.7% 4 201,941 200,026 1,915 1.0% 5 200,751 200,026 725 0.4% 6 196,367 200,026 -3,659 -1.8% 7 199,020 200,026 -1,006 -0.5% 8 198,279 200,026 -1,747 -0.9% 9 198,943 200,026 -1,083 -0.5% 10 199,977 200,026 -49 0.0% 11 201,788 200,026 1,762 0.9% 12 203,630 200,026 3,604 1.8% 13 202,920 200,026 2,894 1.4% 14 199,604 200,026 -422 -0.2% 15 196,759 200,026 -3,267 -1.6% 16 200,841 200,026 815 0.4% 17 204,024 200,026 3,998 2.0% 18 199,934 200,026 -92 0.0% 19 199,356 200,026 -670 -0.3% 20 201,089 200,026 1,063 0.5% 21 200,511 200,026 485 0.2% 22 196,185 200,026 -3,841 -1.9% 23 200,733 200,026 707 0.4% 24 204,024 200,026 3,998 2.0% 25 198,245 200,026 -1,781 -0.9% 26 201,484 200,026 1,458 0.7% 27 203,166 200,026 3,140 1.6% 28 200,017 200,026 -9 0.0% 29 203,988 200,026 3,962 2.0% 30 196,030 200,026 -3,996 -2.0% 31 200,905 200,026 879 0.4% 32 198,617 200,026 -1,409 -0.7% 33 196,178 200,026 -3,848 -1.9% 34 196,312 200,026 -3,714 -1.9% 35 196,251 200,026 -3,775 -1.9% 36 199,138 200,026 -888 -0.4% 37 198,267 200,026 -1,759 -0.9% 38 201,414 200,026 1,388 0.7% 39 201,164 200,026 1,138 0.6% 40 198,458 200,026 -1,568 -0.8%

4/28/20117:05 PM 1 HB 5005 Passed 4/28/11, Senate Plan Racial Demographics Total Total % DISTRICT Population White % White Black % Black AIAN % AIAN Asian % Asian HawPI % HawPI Other % Other Multi % Multi Hispanic Hispanic 1 201,072 116,539 58.0% 65,255 32.5% 1,637 0.8% 8,271 4.1% 457 0.2% 6,121 3.0% 2,792 1.4% 15,459 7.7% 2 200,193 79,753 39.8% 106,265 53.1% 1,480 0.7% 6,174 3.1% 289 0.1% 3,199 1.6% 3,033 1.5% 9,267 4.6% 3 203,449 169,921 83.5% 24,104 11.8% 1,985 1.0% 4,624 2.3% 159 0.1% 1,683 0.8% 973 0.5% 5,551 2.7% 4 201,941 153,625 76.1% 40,116 19.9% 1,624 0.8% 2,933 1.5% 168 0.1% 2,567 1.3% 908 0.4% 6,349 3.1% 5 200,751 73,698 36.7% 112,929 56.3% 1,445 0.7% 5,973 3.0% 251 0.1% 4,083 2.0% 2,372 1.2% 10,373 5.2% 6 196,367 123,902 63.1% 55,125 28.1% 1,902 1.0% 6,754 3.4% 442 0.2% 5,844 3.0% 2,398 1.2% 15,191 7.7% 7 199,020 131,555 66.1% 44,850 22.5% 1,582 0.8% 14,327 7.2% 387 0.2% 4,209 2.1% 2,110 1.1% 12,161 6.1% 8 198,279 141,564 71.4% 35,589 17.9% 1,577 0.8% 12,192 6.1% 446 0.2% 4,824 2.4% 2,087 1.1% 13,895 7.0% 9 198,943 80,706 40.6% 107,925 54.2% 1,721 0.9% 4,377 2.2% 115 0.1% 2,384 1.2% 1,715 0.9% 5,518 2.8% 10 199,977 138,475 69.2% 45,465 22.7% 1,068 0.5% 7,652 3.8% 139 0.1% 5,966 3.0% 1,212 0.6% 11,794 5.9% 11 201,788 142,424 70.6% 43,308 21.5% 1,508 0.7% 6,420 3.2% 185 0.1% 6,529 3.2% 1,414 0.7% 12,496 6.2% 12 203,630 150,352 73.8% 26,467 13.0% 1,009 0.5% 19,196 9.4% 113 0.1% 5,293 2.6% 1,200 0.6% 11,625 5.7% 13 202,920 146,476 72.2% 16,651 8.2% 1,110 0.5% 29,817 14.7% 186 0.1% 7,112 3.5% 1,568 0.8% 19,207 9.5% 14 199,604 146,080 73.2% 38,142 19.1% 1,460 0.7% 10,302 5.2% 277 0.1% 1,968 1.0% 1,375 0.7% 7,490 3.8% 15 196,759 135,016 68.6% 56,510 28.7% 1,152 0.6% 1,121 0.6% 84 0.0% 2,287 1.2% 589 0.3% 4,616 2.3% 16 200,841 74,207 36.9% 110,339 54.9% 1,355 0.7% 3,645 1.8% 311 0.2% 9,215 4.6% 1,769 0.9% 16,215 8.1% 17 204,024 148,539 72.8% 38,721 19.0% 1,535 0.8% 5,232 2.6% 264 0.1% 8,370 4.1% 1,363 0.7% 16,277 8.0% 18 199,934 81,623 40.8% 110,861 55.4% 1,159 0.6% 2,684 1.3% 208 0.1% 2,015 1.0% 1,384 0.7% 5,268 2.6% 19 199,356 185,278 92.9% 8,407 4.2% 1,000 0.5% 2,680 1.3% 69 0.0% 1,645 0.8% 277 0.1% 3,738 1.9% 20 201,089 135,888 67.6% 58,396 29.0% 868 0.4% 1,105 0.5% 62 0.0% 4,262 2.1% 508 0.3% 7,306 3.6% 21 200,511 152,120 75.9% 34,350 17.1% 1,122 0.6% 8,449 4.2% 150 0.1% 3,408 1.7% 912 0.5% 8,157 4.1% 22 196,185 138,035 70.4% 52,344 26.7% 1,400 0.7% 1,857 0.9% 99 0.1% 1,660 0.8% 790 0.4% 4,184 2.1% 23 200,733 173,538 86.5% 20,420 10.2% 1,119 0.6% 3,461 1.7% 88 0.0% 1,622 0.8% 485 0.2% 4,020 2.0% 24 204,024 181,909 89.2% 15,056 7.4% 1,179 0.6% 1,966 1.0% 97 0.0% 3,318 1.6% 499 0.2% 6,760 3.3% 25 198,245 165,121 83.3% 20,363 10.3% 1,222 0.6% 7,934 4.0% 127 0.1% 2,814 1.4% 664 0.3% 6,931 3.5% 26 201,484 180,374 89.5% 8,075 4.0% 1,371 0.7% 3,298 1.6% 127 0.1% 7,636 3.8% 603 0.3% 14,661 7.3% 27 203,166 174,454 85.9% 15,584 7.7% 1,374 0.7% 3,478 1.7% 176 0.1% 7,365 3.6% 735 0.4% 14,948 7.4% 28 200,017 150,618 75.3% 30,569 15.3% 1,838 0.9% 9,086 4.5% 276 0.1% 6,052 3.0% 1,578 0.8% 15,968 8.0% 29 203,988 104,501 51.2% 48,210 23.6% 2,051 1.0% 17,169 8.4% 378 0.2% 28,883 14.2% 2,796 1.4% 57,008 27.9% 30 196,030 135,368 69.1% 27,710 14.1% 1,497 0.8% 14,703 7.5% 264 0.1% 14,757 7.5% 1,731 0.9% 31,600 16.1% 31 200,905 148,296 73.8% 11,990 6.0% 1,269 0.6% 27,819 13.8% 244 0.1% 9,884 4.9% 1,403 0.7% 24,026 12.0% 32 198,617 147,196 74.1% 11,165 5.6% 1,005 0.5% 31,804 16.0% 170 0.1% 6,144 3.1% 1,133 0.6% 17,410 8.8% 33 196,178 112,298 57.2% 20,203 10.3% 1,242 0.6% 40,821 20.8% 195 0.1% 19,391 9.9% 2,028 1.0% 38,810 19.8% 34 196,312 132,960 67.7% 11,602 5.9% 1,078 0.5% 40,711 20.7% 256 0.1% 8,481 4.3% 1,224 0.6% 22,037 11.2% 35 196,251 106,787 54.4% 25,065 12.8% 1,602 0.8% 34,850 17.8% 221 0.1% 25,631 13.1% 2,095 1.1% 51,879 26.4% 36 199,138 105,909 53.2% 50,571 25.4% 1,902 1.0% 16,936 8.5% 382 0.2% 20,662 10.4% 2,776 1.4% 42,965 21.6% 37 198,267 119,378 60.2% 15,433 7.8% 1,146 0.6% 48,160 24.3% 233 0.1% 12,319 6.2% 1,598 0.8% 30,619 15.4% 4/28/20117:05 PM 2 HB 5005 Passed 4/28/11, Senate Plan Racial Demographics Total Total % DISTRICT Population White % White Black % Black AIAN % AIAN Asian % Asian HawPI % HawPI Other % Other Multi % Multi Hispanic Hispanic 38 201,414 189,958 94.3% 8,283 4.1% 888 0.4% 1,191 0.6% 51 0.0% 804 0.4% 239 0.1% 1,947 1.0% 39 201,164 122,722 61.0% 35,833 17.8% 1,332 0.7% 28,812 14.3% 359 0.2% 10,105 5.0% 2,001 1.0% 25,242 12.5% 40 198,458 189,689 95.6% 5,203 2.6% 1,049 0.5% 829 0.4% 74 0.0% 1,371 0.7% 243 0.1% 2,857 1.4%

4/28/20117:05 PM 3 HB 5005 Passed 4/28/11, Senate Plan Voting Age Population Voting Age VAP % VAP VAP % VAP VAP % VAP VAP % VAP VAP % VAP VAP % VAP VAP % VAP Voting Age % VAP DISTRICT Population White White Black Black AIAN AIAN Asian Asian HawPI HawPI Other Other Multi Multi Hispanic Hispanic 1 154,956 95,081 61.4% 46,018 29.7% 1,240 0.8% 6,445 4.2% 306 0.2% 4,327 2.8% 1,539 1.0% 10404 6.7% 2 150,369 63,636 42.3% 77,022 51.2% 1,105 0.7% 4,466 3.0% 220 0.1% 2,208 1.5% 1,712 1.1% 5918 3.9% 3 157,697 133,375 84.6% 17,955 11.4% 1,465 0.9% 3,178 2.0% 108 0.1% 1,064 0.7% 552 0.4% 3468 2.2% 4 154,170 119,019 77.2% 29,832 19.4% 1,156 0.7% 1,933 1.3% 99 0.1% 1,610 1.0% 521 0.3% 4025 2.6% 5 149,582 59,413 39.7% 80,221 53.6% 1,101 0.7% 4,434 3.0% 181 0.1% 2,940 2.0% 1,292 0.9% 6854 4.6% 6 160,365 104,839 65.4% 42,154 26.3% 1,523 0.9% 5,515 3.4% 348 0.2% 4,270 2.7% 1,716 1.1% 11051 6.9% 7 153,597 105,761 68.9% 31,513 20.5% 1,204 0.8% 10,827 7.0% 267 0.2% 2,883 1.9% 1,142 0.7% 8017 5.2% 8 149,629 110,669 74.0% 24,261 16.2% 1,197 0.8% 8,876 5.9% 320 0.2% 3,227 2.2% 1,079 0.7% 8921 6.0% 9 155,821 68,909 44.2% 79,106 50.8% 1,362 0.9% 3,584 2.3% 84 0.1% 1,663 1.1% 1,113 0.7% 3833 2.5% 10 157,128 111,093 70.7% 34,106 21.7% 835 0.5% 5,953 3.8% 100 0.1% 4,254 2.7% 787 0.5% 8291 5.3% 11 150,313 109,659 73.0% 30,020 20.0% 1,072 0.7% 4,581 3.0% 128 0.1% 4,101 2.7% 752 0.5% 7791 5.2% 12 154,608 116,600 75.4% 19,279 12.5% 724 0.5% 13,574 8.8% 78 0.1% 3,608 2.3% 745 0.5% 7829 5.1% 13 137,128 100,922 73.6% 10,793 7.9% 715 0.5% 19,118 13.9% 126 0.1% 4,615 3.4% 839 0.6% 12137 8.9% 14 148,997 110,637 74.3% 28,069 18.8% 1,075 0.7% 7,156 4.8% 178 0.1% 1,229 0.8% 653 0.4% 4519 3.0% 15 155,548 108,043 69.5% 43,943 28.3% 868 0.6% 808 0.5% 54 0.0% 1,468 0.9% 364 0.2% 3005 1.9% 16 152,593 59,982 39.3% 81,087 53.1% 1,062 0.7% 2,839 1.9% 204 0.1% 6,321 4.1% 1,098 0.7% 10944 7.2% 17 154,318 116,071 75.2% 27,031 17.5% 1,145 0.7% 3,700 2.4% 183 0.1% 5,444 3.5% 744 0.5% 10485 6.8% 18 153,104 65,917 43.1% 81,987 53.5% 870 0.6% 1,973 1.3% 127 0.1% 1,406 0.9% 824 0.5% 3471 2.3% 19 157,004 147,182 93.7% 5,957 3.8% 784 0.5% 1,795 1.1% 54 0.0% 1,068 0.7% 164 0.1% 2365 1.5% 20 158,633 110,813 69.9% 43,490 27.4% 681 0.4% 781 0.5% 49 0.0% 2,508 1.6% 311 0.2% 4330 2.7% 21 162,817 127,589 78.4% 24,254 14.9% 902 0.6% 7,022 4.3% 115 0.1% 2,327 1.4% 608 0.4% 5718 3.5% 22 154,751 111,269 71.9% 39,363 25.4% 1,114 0.7% 1,387 0.9% 78 0.1% 1,050 0.7% 490 0.3% 2799 1.8% 23 158,266 138,485 87.5% 15,019 9.5% 866 0.5% 2,398 1.5% 63 0.0% 1,136 0.7% 299 0.2% 2757 1.7% 24 158,069 142,925 90.4% 10,712 6.8% 860 0.5% 1,348 0.9% 67 0.0% 1,878 1.2% 279 0.2% 3970 2.5% 25 160,398 135,056 84.2% 15,328 9.6% 913 0.6% 6,590 4.1% 103 0.1% 1,959 1.2% 449 0.3% 4908 3.1% 26 159,446 144,854 90.8% 5,612 3.5% 1,017 0.6% 2,616 1.6% 112 0.1% 4,889 3.1% 346 0.2% 9274 5.8% 27 153,073 133,915 87.5% 10,732 7.0% 983 0.6% 2,374 1.6% 129 0.1% 4,531 3.0% 409 0.3% 9128 6.0% 28 143,045 110,717 77.4% 20,396 14.3% 1,275 0.9% 6,056 4.2% 174 0.1% 3,680 2.6% 747 0.5% 9662 6.8% 29 145,014 78,009 53.8% 32,726 22.6% 1,371 0.9% 12,294 8.5% 273 0.2% 18,796 13.0% 1,545 1.1% 36610 25.2% 30 159,954 113,468 70.9% 21,421 13.4% 1,187 0.7% 11,733 7.3% 211 0.1% 10,736 6.7% 1,198 0.7% 23136 14.5% 31 161,054 120,879 75.1% 9,359 5.8% 1,000 0.6% 21,304 13.2% 186 0.1% 7,348 4.6% 978 0.6% 17980 11.2% 32 149,896 113,697 75.9% 7,902 5.3% 703 0.5% 22,521 15.0% 124 0.1% 4,265 2.8% 684 0.5% 12178 8.1% 33 142,710 84,442 59.2% 14,108 9.9% 817 0.6% 28,590 20.0% 147 0.1% 13,421 9.4% 1,185 0.8% 26634 18.7% 34 151,463 104,813 69.2% 8,678 5.7% 765 0.5% 30,103 19.9% 199 0.1% 6,125 4.0% 780 0.5% 15918 10.5% 35 153,812 86,599 56.3% 18,896 12.3% 1,178 0.8% 26,990 17.5% 166 0.1% 18,555 12.1% 1,428 0.9% 37848 24.6% 36 144,164 80,457 55.8% 34,856 24.2% 1,256 0.9% 12,179 8.4% 271 0.2% 13,607 9.4% 1,538 1.1% 28040 19.5% 37 149,996 92,692 61.8% 10,840 7.2% 822 0.5% 35,832 23.9% 154 0.1% 8,701 5.8% 955 0.6% 21603 14.4%

4/28/20117:05 PM 4 HB 5005 Passed 4/28/11, Senate Plan Voting Age Population Voting Age VAP % VAP VAP % VAP VAP % VAP VAP % VAP VAP % VAP VAP % VAP VAP % VAP Voting Age % VAP DISTRICT Population White White Black Black AIAN AIAN Asian Asian HawPI HawPI Other Other Multi Multi Hispanic Hispanic 38 162,238 153,258 94.5% 6,584 4.1% 717 0.4% 937 0.6% 47 0.0% 544 0.3% 151 0.1% 1361 0.8% 39 153,134 96,636 63.1% 25,726 16.8% 986 0.6% 21,253 13.9% 251 0.2% 7,136 4.7% 1,146 0.7% 17747 11.6% 40 158,487 151,963 95.9% 3,892 2.5% 870 0.5% 611 0.4% 48 0.0% 936 0.6% 167 0.1% 1928 1.2%

4/28/20117:05 PM 5 HB 5005 Passed 4/28/11, Senate Plan Election Data DISTRICT Rep. Gov '09 Dem. Gov '09 Rep. Lt. Gov '09 Dem. Lt. Gov '09 Rep. Att. Gen. '09 Dem. Att. Gen. '09 1 54% 46% 51% 49% 52% 48% 2 40% 60% 38% 62% 39% 61% 3 71% 29% 68% 32% 69% 31% 4 70% 30% 68% 32% 69% 31% 5 36% 64% 33% 67% 36% 64% 6 54% 46% 50% 50% 52% 48% 7 63% 37% 57% 43% 61% 39% 8 65% 35% 59% 41% 63% 37% 9 36% 64% 35% 65% 37% 63% 10 59% 41% 57% 43% 59% 41% 11 69% 31% 66% 34% 68% 32% 12 67% 33% 64% 36% 66% 34% 13 65% 35% 62% 38% 62% 38% 14 69% 31% 64% 36% 67% 33% 15 69% 31% 68% 32% 70% 30% 16 41% 59% 39% 61% 42% 58% 17 61% 39% 59% 41% 59% 41% 18 44% 56% 42% 58% 43% 57% 19 69% 31% 67% 33% 69% 31% 20 60% 40% 59% 41% 60% 40% 21 52% 48% 51% 49% 52% 48% 22 64% 36% 62% 38% 64% 36% 23 75% 25% 73% 27% 75% 25% 24 73% 27% 73% 27% 74% 26% 25 46% 54% 46% 54% 48% 52% 26 71% 29% 70% 30% 70% 30% 27 70% 30% 68% 32% 68% 32% 28 68% 32% 66% 34% 66% 34% 29 55% 45% 52% 48% 53% 47% 30 41% 59% 39% 61% 39% 61% 31 44% 56% 42% 58% 42% 58% 32 45% 55% 43% 57% 42% 58% 33 55% 45% 52% 48% 52% 48% 34 53% 47% 50% 50% 49% 51% 35 42% 58% 40% 60% 40% 60% 36 49% 51% 46% 54% 46% 54% 37 54% 46% 51% 49% 51% 49% 38 66% 34% 66% 34% 65% 35% 4/28/20117:05 PM 6 HB 5005 Passed 4/28/11, Senate Plan Election Data DISTRICT Rep. Gov '09 Dem. Gov '09 Rep. Lt. Gov '09 Dem. Lt. Gov '09 Rep. Att. Gen. '09 Dem. Att. Gen. '09 39 53% 47% 50% 50% 50% 50% 40 75% 25% 76% 24% 75% 25%

4/28/20117:05 PM 7 Exhibit F ------~~==== Case 1:11-cv-00885-JDB -BMK -EGS Document 13-1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 1 of 1 U. S. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

O/lice

JUN· 1'.7 .2011

The Honorable E. Duncan Getchell, Jr. Solicitor General 900 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219

Dear Mr. Getchell:

This refers to Chapter 1 eH.B. 5005) of the First Special Session, 2011, which provides for the 2011 redistricting of the Virginia House of Delegates and Senate, submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,42 U.S.C. 1973c. We received your submission on May 11, 2011; additional information was received through May 31, 2011.

The Attorney General does not interpose any objection to the specified changes. However, we note that Section 5 expressly provides that the failure of the Attorney General to object does not bar subsequent litigation to enjoin the enforcement of the changes. Procedures for the Administration of Section 5 ofthe Voting Rights Act of 1965, 28 C.F.R. 51.41. c+:\~ Thomas E. Perez Assistant Attorney General Exhibit G EXHIBIT 13- S.C. SENATE REDISTRICTING

BVAP Comparison Chart-All Senate Districts

District Member 2002 Court 2003 2010 Cen. 2011 S. 815 No. Plan- S. 591 - & S. 591- BVAP % BVAP % BVAP % BVAP% 1 Alexander 8.3 % 8.3 % 7.66 % 7.61% 2 L. Martin 5.73 % 5.56 % 5.88 % 5.91% 3 Bryant 11.01 % 12.07 % 12.39 % 9.92% 4 O’Dell 20.08 % 18.19 % 18.14 % 20.16% 5 Shoopman 7.27 % 7.50 % 7.48 % 7.45% 6 Fair 8.37 % 8.51 % 10.53 % 9.73% 7 Anderson 45.06 % 47.25 % 46.06 % 43.30% 8 Thomas 9.76 % 9.72 % 13.58 % 13.17% 9 Verdin 19.90 % 20.61 % 20.51 % 20.72% 10 Nicholson 29.36 % 31.86 % 31.93 % 33.29% 11 Reese 27.94 % 28.40 % 27.60 % 27.40% 12 Bright 15.38 % 13.82 % 15.73 % 14.33% 13 S. Martin 13.49 % 13.74 % 15.18 % 19.40% 14 Peeler 16.38 % 16.75 % 16.65 % 14.89% 15 Hayes 13.10 % 13.74 % 17.13 % 16.58% 16 Gregory 18.63 % 17.78 % 16.16 % 16.54% 17 Coleman 48.41 % 47.60 % 48.56 % 40.70% 18 Cromer 24.9 0 % 17.55 % 16.44 % 16.95% 19 Scott 58.71 % 59.93 % 62.44 % 63.76% 20 Courson 21.77 % 17.90 % 21.11 % 18.65% 21 Jackson 52.33 % 57.02 % 50.72 % 51.59% 22 Lourie 26.54 % 23.94 % 31.72 % 35.32% 23 Knotts 6.54 % 7.62 % 9.37 % 10.81% 24 Ryberg 20.64 % 18.06 % 18.22 % 17.98% 25 Massey 33.79 % 36.42 % 34.64 % 23.15% 26 Setzler 15.31 % 19.90 % 21.07 % 28.46% 27 Sheheen 25.73 % 29.36 % 29.97 % 29.73% 28 Elliott 24.57 % 23.70 % 21.09 % 19.61% 29 Malloy 39.32 % 44.38 % 45.75 % 46.07% 30 Williams 54.38 % 55.87 % 57.57 % 53.99% 31 Leatherman 25.82 % 22.77 % 27.24 % 27.04% 32 McGill 55.29 % 56.36 % 55.90 % 55.04% 33 Rankin 10.35 % 11.79 % 11.49 % 10.50% 34 Cleary 13.68 % 13.88 % 11.70 % 9.45% 35 Leventis 40.12 % 37.90 % 39.99 % 33.39% 36 Land 54.91 % 54.45 % 52.25 % 51.15% 37 Grooms 36.31 % 29.82 % 23.37 % 19.00% 38 Rose 19.11 % 20.44 % 23.21 % 19.97% 39 Matthews 55.59 % 55.78 % 57.02 % 52.93% 40 Hutto 50.41 % 50.71 % 54.40 % 50.46% 41 McConnell 21.89 % 18.19 % 17.91 % 16.98% 42 Ford 57.93 % 59.56 % 53.63 % 51.05% 43 Campsen 16.09 % 19.05 % 19.64 % 15.00% 44 Campbell 17.73 % 18.46 % 20.52 % 20.41% 45 Pinckney 52.77 % 55.58 % 49.00 % 50.08% 46 Davis 14.34 % 13.22 % 11.32 % 10.17%

Exhibit H Case 1:11-cv-01454-HHK-DHG-RBW Document 6-1 Filed 10/13/11 Page 3 of 3 OCT/I 1120 II/TUE 05; 19 PI[ DOJ/CRT/VOTING FAX NQ, 2023073961 P 002

U. S.Departinent of Justice

Civil Rights Division

()11k~ I~I' JIll! A.S.I'/surnl Atronle)' Clfneral WasMng1oll, D.C, 20.530

OCT 11 2011

The Honorable Robert W. Harrell, Jr. Speaker of the South Carolina House of Representatives P.O. Box 11867 Columbia, South Carolina 29211

Dear Mr. Harrell:

This refers to AetNo. 72 (H, 3991) (2()11), which provides the 2011 redistricting plan for the South ClU.'olina House of Representatives, submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to Section 5 oithe Voting Rights Act ofl965, 42 U.S.C. 1973c. We received your submission on August 9, 2011; additional information was received through September 27,2011.

The Attorney General does not interpose any 0 bj ectioR to the specified change. However, we note that Section 5 eJ>pressly provides that the failure of the Attorney General to object does not bar subsequent litigation to enjoin the emorue.>;p.ent of the change. Procedures for , the Administration of Section 5 of the Voting Right, Act of 196:5, 28 C.F.R. 51.41.

Sincerely, ~~p£-o Assistant Attorney General