Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
02/20/2018 03:15 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR26 | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s)|| Confirmation Hearing(s) | |
| Presentation: Indirect Expenditure Hearing | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HJR 26 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HJR 26-CONST. AM: REDISTRICTING;BOARD MEMBERSHIP
3:20:47 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 26,
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the membership and actions of the Redistricting
Board and relating to district boundaries and the establishment
of a nonpartisan statewide district map.
3:20:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, presented SSHJR 26. He noted that a proposed committee
substitute (CS) for SSHJR 26, Version 30-OS0155\N, Bullard,
1/31/18 [included in the committee packet and referred to as
Version N] would attempt to eliminate politics from
redistricting, which is also referred to as gerrymandering. He
said that roughly ten states have adopted a non-partisan method
of drawing district lines so as not to favor one party or
another. He maintained that both parties have tried to take
advantage of the redistricting process.
3:22:49 PM
JUSTIN LEVITT, Professor, Loyola Law School, relayed his
experience in the field of redistricting and voting rights. He
testified that he agrees with Representative Gara's assessment
that neither party has a monopoly on abusing the redistricting
process when possible. He stated that in most states, sitting
legislators draw both their own district lines and where
applicable, districts of members of Congress. He said that it
is often legislative leadership that wields redistricting power,
not the "rank and file" legislators. He reported that in many
states, leadership is at least tempted to use redistricting
power as a cudgel against both members of the opposing party and
occasionally against members of their own party.
MR. LEVITT continued by saying that the process is rarely
transparent; because redistricting can be very personal when it
is pursued as an exercise in raw partisan power, it often
appears to be overflowing with ill will, creating significant
conflict among legislators that carries over into the
legislative sessions. He maintained that when this happens, it
creates substantial cynicism among the public, even if the
process did not actually put personal and partisan interests
ahead of the public interest. He said that in his experience
and in the experience of many other redistricting commentators,
it often appears to the public eye that the system is rigged,
that is, members exercising the power granted to the state to
act on behalf of all its constituents but exercising that power
to benefit just a few.
MR. LEVITT offered his belief that the U.S. is the only
industrialized western democracy that allows those with the
greatest potential for conflict of interest to draw their own
electoral district lines. He said that many countries have
observed the U.S. practice and determined that they can find a
better way.
3:26:59 PM
MR. LEVITT relayed that a few states, including Alaska, have
taken a different approach to drawing state legislative
districts. Connecticut and Maine allow the legislature to draw
redistricting lines that have supermajority requirements, which
can increase the likelihood of a more bipartisan outcome. He
reported that seven states - Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii,
Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania - have established
commissions to draw redistricting lines but allow elected
officials to serve on those commissions. In most instances
these bodies are also structured in a manner designed to be
bipartisan; therefore, they differ from the legislature. In two
other states - Iowa and New York - there are advisory bodies
with substantial independence from the legislature, but
theoretically they are subject to legislative override. He said
that New York's system is new for the year 2020, so it remains
to be seen how it will work. Iowa's experience in the last four
decades shows that its independent body substantially drives the
process and has never been overridden by the legislature, even
though the legislature has that authority.
MR. LEVITT referred to several other states - Arizona,
California, Idaho, Montana, Washington, and as of 1998, Alaska -
that have asked commissions with substantial amounts of
independence from the legislature to draw legislative lines.
These states are often considered leaders of establishing
redistricting processes in that the processes correspond more to
public interest than to partisan or private interests. Members
of the commissions in all these states must not be current
sitting state legislators or other specified public officials;
the list varies from state to state. He said that members of
the commissions of these states are precluded from running for
office in the districts for which they have drawn lines, at
least for a few years. In the states with independent
commissions, all but one are designed so that the membership of
the commission is balanced in a bipartisan fashion. He offered
that California, in addition, provides specific membership on
the commission for those who are affiliated with neither major
party.
MR. LEVITT relayed that the one state that does not, at present,
have a directly and intentionally bipartisan structure is
Alaska. States have created a diverse array of options to
perform legislative and congressional redistricting; even within
the rough categories described, there is substantial variance in
how each structure is designed and substantial variance in how
each works in practice. He added that some of the systems work
quite well; some work fairly well; and some work fairly poorly.
Each likely could be improved - sometimes incrementally and
sometimes exponentially.
3:30:53 PM
MR. LEVITT maintained that he firmly believes that there is no
single correct "cookie cutter" answer for every state; there is
no "magic bullet" that can or should be uniformly implemented
everywhere and in the same way, without concern for demography,
history, or political context. He expressed that Iowa's system
works well for Iowa but would not work well for California.
California's system works well for California but is unnecessary
for Idaho. Idaho's system works well for Idaho but isn't likely
to work well in New York. He asserted that each system, even
when it functions well for its own state, can likely be
improved.
3:31:39 PM
MR. LEVITT related that the present system in Alaska has many
elements to commend it, but it, too, can be improved. He opined
that the process was improved in 1998, when control passed from
the governor alone to the current reapportionment board. He
expressed his belief that Version N of SSHJR 26 would make even
greater advancements to the process. At present, Alaska has
some safeguards for the public. Those who draw the lines may
not be public employees or officials at the time they are
appointed or throughout the tenure of their appointments. There
are provisions for geographic diversity; there must be a member
from each judicial district on the board. There was substantial
transparency in the manner that redistricting was conducted in
the 2000 and 2010 redistricting cycles.
MR. LEVITT said that in theory, appointment to the
reapportionment board is to be made without regard to partisan
political affiliation; the members of the board are not supposed
to be partisan. He pointed out that currently, four out of five
members of the reapportionment board are themselves appointed by
officials elected to political positions; it is often the case
that the officials of one political party will do most of the
appointing. He explained that when elected officials with
partisan allegiance make the appointments, even while the text
precludes appointment regarding partisan affiliation, the public
may be misled into perceiving that the board itself has a
partisan slant.
MR. LEVITT stated that Version N would continue Alaska's hardy
tradition of a redistricting body distinct from the legislature
and continue the tradition of precluding current public
employees and officials. In addition, it would add a welcome
measure of incremental independence by precluding former
political party operatives and former elected officials from
serving on the board. He maintained that Version N would
prevent someone from retiring from a legislative office and
serving on the board the next day. It would also add a measure
of partisan balance to the reapportionment body itself with two
members from each of the major parties and several members from
neither. He opined that this would more closely approximate the
structure of independent commissions in other states, such as
Arizona, Idaho, Montana, and Washington; he noted the political
and partisan diversity of this group of states. He opined it
would strengthen the measures of incremental independence and
incremental balance; it would strengthen the Alaskans' faith in
the redistricting process.
3:35:16 PM
MR. LEVITT relayed that Version N also would strengthen the
redistricting process's focus on criteria that benefit Alaskans
- retaining the state's very strong protections for communities
of interest - and thus, legislators would really know who they
are representing, and that would be felt and perceived by the
public. The criteria would still be embodied in the requirement
that districts contain relatively integrated socioeconomic areas
but would add specific language that would preclude drawing a
map to unduly favor a party or candidate. He maintained that
aspect being important both for the substance of the map and the
public perception of it. He said that the Alaska Supreme Court
has emphatically enforced the redistricting provision of state
law and that he expects it would enforce the provision of
Version N, if it became law, which should give Alaska citizens
incremental confidence that the process is defined for them.
MR. LEVITT stated that he has focused his testimony on fair
process, not results, which he said is appropriate. Alaskans
are diverse with various protected racial and ethnic communities
and many citizens who prefer one of the major political parties.
He offered that there is a fierce independent streak among
Alaskans; some citizens prefer neither major party. Districts
that are drawn through a fair process will inevitably in any
given cycle or election end up creating some natural advantages
for certain candidates; it is impossible to remove all political
results from the redistricting process. However, he opined that
a fair process - one designed to be independent of the candidate
running in the districts drawn and one with natural balance -
will give Alaskans increased confidence that the electoral
contests, whatever their outcomes, have not been unfairly
tilted. He expressed his belief that Version N brings Alaska's
process closer to that ideal and moving in an incrementally
positive direction.
3:38:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt the proposed CS for SSHJR
26, Version 30-LS0155\N, Bullard, 1/31/18, as the working
document. There being no objection, Version N was before the
committee.
3:39:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA relayed that there are six changes in
Version N. He referred to Section 1 of Version N, on page 1,
lines 8-10, which read, "The map may not be drawn to unduly
favor a political party, and a district may not be drawn to
unduly favor a political party or candidate." He mentioned that
the language was recommended by Mr. Levitt and was used in
Hawaii's statutes.
3:39:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for the difference between "favoring
a political party" and "unduly favoring a political party."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded that could be amended; the intent
is to not favor a political party [through redistricting]. He
stated that there are districts that favor the Democratic Party,
the Republican Party, the Green Party, or the Alaska
Independence Party (AIP); by virtue of the way even a non-
partisan redistricting map is drawn, not every district will be
fifty-fifty. He offered that technically a district may favor a
[political] party, but the intent of the proposed legislation is
to avoid unfairly favoring a party; the map should be written
such that it does not unduly, unwarrantedly favor a party.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if the language might be interpreted
as the map may not be drawn with the intention of favoring one
party or another.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA answered, "Yes, the whole map." He added
that the statewide map is intended to be nonpartisan, with the
recognition that one district or another may favor one party or
another.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX restated Representative Gara's answer by
saying, "It may end up that way, but that shouldn't be the
intention of how you draw the whole map or even the district
map."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied, "That's true."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA referred to Section 2, on page 2, lines 4-
18, and relayed that the number of members on the redistricting
board has changed over the years; under Version N, it would
consist of seven members - two from the party with the most
votes in the prior election, two from the party with the second
most votes, and because most voters in Alaska are independent,
three members who are independent. The first four political
party members would choose the three independent members.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA referred to Section 4, on page 3, lines 6-7,
and relayed that there had been language banning political
contributions by those appointed to the board; Mr. Levitt
explained that might be unconstitutional; therefore, it was
removed. He added that with the four party members choosing the
three independent members, the political leanings of the three
would become evident.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA referred to Section 4, page 3, lines 9-11,
which states that the four party members would appoint the three
independent nonpartisan members.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA referred to Section 4, page 3, lines 13-21,
and explained that if the four party members can't agree on the
three independent members by a certain deadline, the Alaska
Supreme Court would appoint the three independent members.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA relayed that Section 6, on page 4, lines 1-
3, contains conforming language.
3:43:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if "independent" refers to a member of
the Alaska Independence Party or to someone who is [registered]
undeclared nonpartisan.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that the three members who are not
members of the two major parties are non-party affiliated.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to Section 4 (d), on page 3,
lines 6-8, and asked whether a person appointed to the
redistricting board is required to have never been elected to
office. She asked whether someone elected 20 years ago would
not be allowed to serve on the board currently.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded that Version N would allow local
officials to be appointed, since in Alaska they are often
nonpartisan. He relayed that state and federal elected
officials are usually affiliated with one party or another. He
said he is open to an amendment but feels that these officials
should not be on the redistricting board.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed that she understands that
reasoning for the nonpartisan members, but not for the [four]
partisan members, because they are supposed to be partisan.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA stated that he is amenable to a committee
change on that provision. In either case, the result would be
two members from each party and three independent members, who
will be the "power brokers" on the board.
3:46:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to page 2, lines 16-18, which read,
"three members who are not registered as affiliated with a
political party and who have not been registered as affiliated
with a political party within the preceding ten years". He
expressed his understanding that it does not preclude someone
who only has been a registered voter for five years.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied that there is a requirement that the
member would have to have voted in the last few general
elections. He agreed that someone who has been in Alaska for
six years, if he/she has been independent for the entire six
years, would qualify for appointment to the board.
3:47:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to Section 2, on page 2, lines 5-
6, which read, "members, all of whom shall be residents of the
State and registered voters who have voted in each of the
previous four state general and primary elections". She offered
the scenario of a person selected for the board in 2017, who
would have had to have voted in the general and primary
elections in 2016 and 2014. She suggested that some of the most
partisan people are the ones who vote in primaries; she asked,
"If you're actually trying to eliminate partisanship ... why
would you make voting in a primary mandatory?"
REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded that he welcomes an amendment
eliminating "primary elections." He reiterated that since the
two Democrats and two Republicans would appoint three
independent members who will outnumber them, the independents
will be the power brokers, and making that change should not
affect the outcome of creating a nonpartisan redistricting
board.
3:50:14 PM
MARGO WARING, League of Women Voters of Juneau (LWVJ), testified
that the League of Women Voters (LWV) has long been concerned
with reapportionment and redistricting in the U.S. She
mentioned that she has belonged to the national LWV
Redistricting Task Force (RTF) for the three years it has been
in existence. She relayed that RTF has studied the structure of
redistricting boards in every state and the improvements that
states have made in their processes. The RTF developed a
position on redistricting, which is now held by LWV. She
expressed that she supports Representative Gara's efforts to
devise a fair way to redistrict Alaska and asked for House
support.
MS. WARING said that Alaska's redistricting process has always
been contentious. She relayed the following history: The
Alaska State Constitution originally made redistricting a
function of the governor; the [Alaska] constitutional
convention, reacting to the problems other states had with
conducting reapportionment in a timely and fair manner, selected
the governor model. In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed
the rule of one person one vote. The redistricting maps of
1970, 1980, and 1990 were found by the Alaska Supreme Court to
be unconstitutional. In 1998, the legislature initiated, and
the public narrowly supported the creation of Alaska's current
five-member redistricting board, in which two members are
appointed by the governor, one by the Speaker of the House, one
by the President of the Senate, and one by the chief justice -
all "without regard to political affiliation." She offered that
these words imply that the board would be nonpartisan; however,
in practice, nonpartisanship was not achieved. The maps of 2000
and 2010 were challenged in court, and portions were found to be
unconstitutional. The criteria cited in the Alaska Constitution
are that districts be nearly equal in population and that one
senate district encompass two house districts. The districts
are to be compact and contiguous; they should be integrated
socioeconomically as much as possible; and attention should be
paid to local government boundaries and geographic features as
much as possible.
MS. WARING opined that the theme of this history is that
Alaskans, aware of the possibilities of partisanship and
gerrymandering and desirous of a nonpartisan apportionment of
districts, have, since statehood, favored approaches that are
fair; they support the one person one vote rule; and they do not
allow legislators to pick their own voters. She maintained that
Alaska has yet to achieve this goal. She expressed her belief
that Representative Gara's effort to achieve this goal is to be
commended. Representative Gara has studied a variety of
approaches and selected one that can work for Alaska, one that
provides the kind of fair redistricting process consistent with
the concept of one person one vote, and one in which voters
select legislators rather than legislators select voters.
3:54:04 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that SSHJR 26 would be held over.