Redistricting Principles

Redistricting Basics House and Senate are reapportioned every 10 years based on the U.S. Census 40 House districts – “Ideal”=17, Senate districts (two contiguous House districts)

Redistricting Federal Constitutional Requirements Federal Statutory Requirements State Constitutional Requirements State Statutory Requirements

But not really? Hickel v. Southeast Conference, fn22 “The Board must first design a reapportionment plan based on the requirements of the Alaska Constitution. That plan then must be tested against the Voting Rights Act.”

Hickel footnote con’t. “A reapportionment plan may minimize article VI, section 6 requirements when minimization is the only means available to satisfy Voting Rights Act requirements.”

Article VI, section 6 State Constitutional Requirements

State Constitutional Reqts. Contiguous, compact and socio-economically integrated As nearly equal size as practicable May follow local government boundaries Use drainage and other geographic features when describing boundaries whenever possible

State Constitutional Reqts. House Districts must be contiguous and compact – Contiguous means bordering or touching Absolute contiguity is impossible, can contain open sea This is not without limits – Compact looks at shape E.g., appendages attached to otherwise compact areas Corridors of land that extend to include a populated area but not less populated area around it But, Alaska does have irregular geometry

State Constitutional Reqts. Relatively socio-economically integrated – Areas of the state differ economically, socially and culturally and a truly representative government exists only when those areas of the state which share significant common interests are able to elect legislators representing those interests – A municipality is by definition socio-economically integrated

What is socio-economic integration? Examples of socio-economic integration – Service by state ferry system, daily local air taxi service, a major common economic activity, shared fishing areas, a common interest in management of state lands, predominately Native character of the populace, and historical links – Communities which were geographically proximate, shared recreational and commercial fishing areas, and both were strongly dependent on Anchorage for transportation, entertainment, news and professional services – Not integrated: mixes the small, rural Native communities with urban areas Proof of actual interaction rather than mere homogeneity

“As Nearly Equal Size As Practicable” Stricter than federal standard for deviations – Overriding objective is substantial equality of population among the various districts – 10% deviation might not be good enough, especially in urban areas – Deviations greater than zero require justification

Excess Population (1/2 district) All of excess population should go to one other district where possible – Maximize effective representation of the excess group – Inference of discrimination BUT, that may be negated if it results from legitimate policies of compactness, contiguity and socio-economic integration

Required…kind of Local government boundaries – Consideration may given – gives way to other requirements Drainage and other geographic features shall be used in describing boundaries whenever possible

Federal Constitutional Requirements One person, one vote – Apportion exclusively on the basis of population – Populations of districts must be substantially equal – 17,755 residents per house district Maximum Deviation 10% (+/- 5%) – Plan v. Ideal – Good faith efforts to make deviations as small as practicable No purposeful discrimination against excluded groups No political or racial gerrymandering

Federal Statutory Requirements Voting Rights Act – No denial or abridgement of rights on account of race, color or status as a member of a language minority – No retrogression Drawing a district in a manner that worsens minority voting strength as compared to the previous district configuration Proposed plan is compared to “benchmark”

VRA Both purpose and effect – Don’t just look at census data but circumstances such as electoral participation (election history and voting patterns within district, voter registration and turnout, etc) Preclearance

State Statutory Requirements The Redistricting Board may not adjust the census numbers by using estimates, population surveys, or sampling for the purpose of excluding or discriminating among persons counted based on race, religion, color, national origin, sex, age, occupation, military or civilian status, or length of residency

Proclamation Plan

VRA The Board followed the advice of its expert and first drafted districts that complied with VRA requirements. Admitted it did not follow the footnote in Hickel, and argued it was not a mandate. “Fool’s errand”

Process really matters -Superior court denied the process claims, finding that it was impractical due to the short timeframes in redistricting. -The Alaska Supreme Court disagreed, and remanded the plan to the Board and ordered them to draw a plan in accordance with the Hickel process. -The Court gave very little substantive guidance.

“Hickel process” “The Hickel process provides the Board with defined procedural steps that, when followed, ensure redistricting follows federal law without doing unnecessary violence to the Alaska Constitution.” In Re 2011 Redistricting Cases, Supreme Court Order March 14, 2012.

“Only means available” The Board must first design a plan focusing on compliance with the article VI, section 6 requirements of contiguity, compactness, and relative socio- economic integration; it may consider local government boundaries and should use drainage and other geographic features wherever possible. Once such a plan is drawn, the Board must determine whether it complies with the Voting Rights Act and, to the extent it is non-compliant, make revisions that deviate from the Alaska Constitution when deviation is ‘the only means available to satisfy the Voting Rights Act requirements.’”

Board process on remand The Board decided that since 36 of the 40 house districts were not challenged, it would start with this as its “Hickel template” No public testimony was taken Board broke into “workgroups” for a portion of the drafting process, not on the record Some third party plans were considered

Amended Proclamation Plan

Process…again Challenges were made again asserting that the Board still had not complied with the Hickel process This time the superior court agreed, and remanded the plan back to the Board. Appeals?