Questions and Answers - RFP 190000002942.pdf

Vendor Questions: RFP 190000002942

1. Has the application form already been designed? If so, can we see the questions?

Response: The application text is not yet finalized, but a draft version was made public for comment July 18 – August 9. You can view that draft text at: https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127- 1633_91141_93804---,00.html.

The public comment period was completely optional and not mandated by the constitution, but rather a step toward transparency and inviting public input before the application was finalized. We do not expect to finalize the application format and questions until after the statistical assistance from this RFP is secured, as the final demographic questions asked on the application will inform the selection of the 200 semi-finalists.

2. What are the expectations of the contractor for randomly selecting the recipients of the initial mailing of applications in terms of making sure that there is demographic and/or geographic proportionality across the state?

Response: The Michigan constitution does not allow for “demographic and/or geographic proportionality” in selecting the recipients of the initial mailing of applications, and so the expectation is that this will not happen. MI Constitution, Article IV, Section 6(2)(a)(i). The constitution simply states that the Secretary of State shall “mail applications for commissioner to ten thousand Michigan registered voters, selected at random, by January 1” and that the SOS “mail additional applications for commissioner to Michigan registered voters selected at random” until 30 Republicans, 30 Democrats, and 40 unaffiliated “golden ticket” applications are received.

While the selection of the recipients of these initial mailings must be purely random, we do hope the firm hired for this statistical assistance will help advise on how many applications we should send in order to receive the minimum thresholds outlined in the constitution.

3. Will the State be responsible for certifying that the applicants meet the eligibility criteria before turning over the data to the contractor?

Response: The contractor will be involved in each of the three random selections laid out in the constitution:

1. The random selection of registered voters to be mailed a copy of the application by January 1, 2020 as laid out in Article IV, Section 6(2)(a)(i) of the MI Constitution;

2. The random selection in June 2020 to create the pools of affiliating and non-affiliating individuals that “mirror the geographic and demographic makeup of the state” as laid out in Article IV, Section 6(2)(d)(ii) of the MI Constitution; and

3. The random selection drawing of thirteen commissioners as laid out in Article IV, Section 6(2)(f) of the MI Constitution.

The contractor will only be responsible for the random draws themselves. Before the second random selection in June 2020, the Secretary of State’s Office will be entirely responsible for reviewing applications for eligibility and completeness. The contractor will not be involved with this.

https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1633_91141_93804---,00.html https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1633_91141_93804---,00.html

4. Will the data on applicants turned over to the contractor be de-identified and, if so, how?

Response: Yes, the data on applicants will be de-identified. We are working on database development, so if there is a particular method preferred by the contractor their advice is welcome.

5. What is the governance structure for this project? How much iteration is expected between the contractor and the state regarding the statistical model proposals? In particular, who will make the final decision on the selection methodology to be used?

Response: The contractor will interface with MDOS Executive Staff leadership, namely Sally Marsh and Mike Brady, throughout this project. We expect more than one iteration will be necessary in order to reach alignment on the constitutional requirements and possible methods used, but after a handful of meetings we expect to be able to proceed. Ultimately, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson will make the final decision on methodology used, as is required by the constitution. Crucially, we plan to make the methodology and an explanation of that methodology open to the public as soon as possible.

6. What are the expectations of the contractor relative to attending external meetings (i.e., with legislators or other stakeholders) and/or making external presentations on its work?

Response: Because this project is a historic, first-ever effort in the state of Michigan, and other states with citizen redistricting commissions do not have the same selection model, it is difficult to determine with certainty exactly how much public-facing or external work will be necessary for the contractor.

A central objective in securing an external contractor (beyond the limited statistical expertise of current MDOS staff) is instilling public faith in the independence of this process. To that end, contractor will be at minimum expected to attend and present a handful of external meetings or public appearances at the very beginning of the application time period (i.e. late Fall 2019).

7. Is there a budget set aside for this contract, and if so, what is the amount?

Response: This is a top priority for the Department of State. Because of the first-ever nature of this commission there is no specific line item for this assistance, however depending on the number of hours and expertise required to fulfill our expectations we are committed to working with the contractor on the specific cost.

8. How “scrubbed” is the voter file. Meaning, approximately what percentage of voters in the file (if any) may no longer be valid.

Response: Michigan’s Qualified Voter File is actively maintained by both local and state officials consistent with state and federal law. Voter registrations are cancelled periodically on various grounds, including death and change of residence; however, there is necessarily some delay between the moment an individual voter becomes ineligible and the moment when the record is cancelled. Records may be changed to a “verify” or “challenge” status if the registration is either under review or scheduled to be cancelled if a voter does not take action within a specified period of time. Michigan is expanding its use of tools to keep the voter rolls up to date, including participation in the Electronic Registration

Information Center (ERIC), which is a multistate partnership that “uses a sophisticated and secure data-matching tool to improve the accuracy and efficiency of state voter registration systems.” The constitution requires that applications be mailed to “Michigan registered voters,” which is all that is necessary for the portion of this work requiring random selection from the voter file.

9. Does the voter file contain X, Y coordinates based on geocoded addresses.

Response: The voter file contains addresses, and that is all that is necessary for the portion of this work requiring random selection from the voter file.

10. Has any project similar to this ever been performed by the State.

Response: This is the first independent citizens redistricting commission in Michigan history. We are unaware of a similar project having been launched by the state.

11. Would the awardee be precluded from participating in other redistricting related contracts.

Response: No, this is a separate contract from other redistricting work that the Commission itself will undertake and would not preclude a contractor from participation in that work.

12. What is the anticipated number of meetings requiring local presence.

Response: With the caveat that we are not entirely certain what our needs will be for in-person presentations or external-facing engagement from the contractor, we anticipate 2-3 meetings in person.

We are open to arrangements to accommodate someone working remotely.

13. Which specific demographic characteristics (e.g., race, gender, income) would the Department of State expect to be used for the purpose of statistical weighting?

Response: Per recommendations from the Michigan state demographer and other experts, our initial draft application made available for public comment in July included race/ethnicity, sex, and age (i.e.

above the median and below the median). You can view the draft application here:

https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1633_91141_93804_93835-501805--,00.html. The contractor hired will help us finalize which characteristics to use as well as how to define the characteristics.

14. Should "the geographic and demographic makeup of the state" be interpreted as referring to the makeup of all Michigan residents, or of registered voters only?

Response: Unlike other areas of the constitution that specifically refer to “registered voters,” the constitution’s mandate to have the applicant pools mirror, as closely as possible, “the geographic and demographic makeup of the state” has no such limitation and thus refers to all Michigan residents.

https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1633_91141_93804_93835-501805--,00.html.T

Upon advice from the Michigan state demographer and other experts we expect to use the trusted data from the U.S. Census Bureau and American Community Survey to define what the “geographic and demographic makeup” of the state is for the purposes of the semi-finalist random selection.

15. Does the Department of State possess (or know of) a database that includes demographic variables for registered voters in Michigan? If so: who maintains it, which demographic variables are available, and how complete is the database in terms of missing data?

Response: Because we expect to utilize Census and American Community Survey data for the purposes of the random selection of 200 semi-finalists, for the purposes of this project this question about demographic variables only for voters is not relevant.