Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/22/1999 10:34 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 99
"An Act to clarify the meaning of 'decennial census of
the United States' in Article VI, Constitution of the
State of Alaska, and to prevent discrimination in the
redistricting of the house of representatives and the
senate."
SENATOR TIM KELLY, sponsor of the bill testified before the
committee. He said that the bill simply sought to avoid
any partisan tampering with the Year 2000 census figures by
retaining two principles used in the 1990 Legislative
Reapportionment. First, an actual headcount as conducted by
the United States Census Bureau of each Alaskan would be
used. Second, the military would continue to be counted as
full Alaskans. He reminded the committee that these two
principles along with forty House districts and twenty
Senate districts, had already passed the United States
Justice Department approval as required by the Voting
Rights Act. This bill was simply status quo.
Senator Al Adams argued that this bill as it related to the
count of military personnel went beyond the current
provisions by allowing the count of nonresident personnel.
This would affect rural representation.
Senator Tim Kelly cited a report done by the 1990
Reapportionment Board that indicated only about 1.1 percent
of the state's population could be considered nonresident
military Alaskans. The Board felt it would be insignificant
to try to statistically determine that. He also reminded
the committee that this bill was broader than just military
representation. It would prohibit discrimination by
occupation, which included fish processing, timber camps,
mining camps, oil workers and others. It simply said that
the census would not discriminate based on occupation. The
US Census Bureau would count people who are present in
Alaska during the census and that would be the figure used.
He speculated there would be several figures circulating.
This was a big issue on the national level he stressed.
The US Supreme Court already ruled that Congress would be
reapportioned according to the actual head count in the
year 2000. The census borough wanted to do a statistical
analysis sampling and indicated to states that they could
use this type of guesswork for reapportionment of state
legislatures. So while Congress would be required to use
the actual head count, the US Census Bureau planned to use
a less precise or traditional method, in Senator Tim
Kelly's judgement, to apply to state districting. He felt
this was less accurate.
Senator Al Adams looked at the bill title and wondered
about the addition of lines 4 and 5 ".and to prohibit
expenditures of public funds for population surveys or
sampling for certain purposes relating to legislative
redistricting without an appropriation." He asked why it
should be put into the constitution. Senator Tim Kelly
responded that Assistant Attorney General who would be
acting as the lead legal council for the census group in
Alaska indicated that the group wanted to spend $100,000
for some type of statistical sampling of the military.
Senator Tim Kelly said he had heard through an
organizational meeting of the census group that they
planned to "handle the military in a special effort." He
worried about government agencies making "special efforts."
The point was that it was not necessary to use statistical
samples, and a head count should be used instead, according
to the sponsor. He wished to avoid potential partisan
tinkering.
Senator Al Adams asked if the nonresident military would be
counted in two places, in Alaska and again in their
hometown. TIM MOFFETT, staff to Senator Tim Kelly,
responded that would not happen and, under this
legislation, there would be no chance of that. The Census
Bureau would send out a mailing to every postal address and
attempt to contact each address where no response was
received. This bill would try to prevent discrimination
based on race, color, creed, national origin or occupation.
That included the military. There would also be no
discrimination against the homeless. Senator Tim Kelly
added that the census borough went to great effort to
accurately count those in rural Alaska. He noted that most
of the sampling mistakes made were at the expense of rural
areas.
Senator Al Adams commented that the Legislature must be
ready for a constitutional amendment relating to
subsistence since it was working on this constitutional
amendment. Senator Tim Kelly responded that this bill just
affected statute.
Co-Chair John Torgerson announced that the Senate Floor
Session had been delayed until 11:30 to allow the committee
to finish its business.
Senator Randy Phillips moved for adoption of CS SB 99
Version "K". Senator Al Adams asked if the only change was
to the title and the population. Co-Chair John Torgerson
affirmed the title change and the change to page 3 lines
10-13.
Senator Tim Kelly added that the new reapportionment board
would not be appointed until January of the next year and
if any changes needed to be made regarding statistical
sampling, the Legislature could address the matter next
session.
JIM BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
testified. He assumed that the new CS was in response to
issues raised at the bill's last committee of referral
regarding the fiscal notes.
He speculated that this bill addressed what may be a non-
problem in Alaska. The litigation on the national level was
directed toward using actual enumeration techniques for
deciding the apportionment of Congress. Because of the size
of the population in Alaska, the state would not be
affected. The population of the state was still too small
to qualify for another congressional district. However,
some had argued that under the US Supreme Court decision,
there was a possibility that there would by an ability to
use these numbers for state redistricting purposes. He
believed that what was more likely to happen further
litigation on the national level by Congress or private
groups was more likely to happen. Therefore, he felt this
legislation was premature. The problems would be cleared
up through litigation over the next year.
He also stressed that not everyone understood what the
sampling meant. He explained that it was similar to
statistical analysis done to determine the opinions of
constituents, but much more scientific and complicated. The
idea was to remedy an undercount. It had been noted that
there were consistently undercounts of certain groups of
people. It was uncertain how that would affect the count
in Alaska. He thought that was another reason this
legislation was premature. He advised the approach should
be cautious as it could be used for the state's benefit.
The other issue was whether or not a military survey could
be done when it came time to do redistricting in the state.
He thought the issue would have been resolved with the
adoption and voter ratification of HJR 44. However, the
current bill was evidence of some uncertainty about how to
interpret the constitutional amendment. He looked at the
legislative hearings held on HJR 44 and found it was
difficult to ascertain the sponsor's intent on that point.
Perhaps this bill was an attempt to clear that up.
He explained what the military survey was all about. It
was an attempt to adjust out of the numbers, non-voting,
non-resident military personnel from the totals used to
establish ideal district size. The reason the Department of
Law submitted the fiscal note was due to concern that when
the redistricting plan was submitted to the US Justice
Department, there would be a need to prove the affect of
not the military survey. It would need to be shown that
there was no discriminatory affect of not doing the survey.
Therefore, the department's fiscal note requested adequate
resources to build a case concerning the exclusion of the
military survey. He anticipated that the US Justice
Department would require a military survey to prove that
there was no discrimination in the way the districts were
drawn. Demographics would make the next plan difficult for
the rural areas of the state because of the possibility of
"retrogression" in minority representation. It was possible
there would be fewer majority/minority districts in Alaska
because of the population shifts. The reason no military
survey was done in 1990 was because there was a balancing-
out between rural and urban districts regarding military
personnel. There was a net zero and no benefit or detriment
to doing a military survey. However, time had changed with
base downsizing and closures and that balance may have
shifted to the extent that urban districts could be over-
weighted with non-voting military personnel. The state may
have to prove to the US Justice Department that did not
occur.
Therefore, the department was requesting funds to argue the
military survey exclusion. There was another issue of
timing, according to Jim Baldwin. If a military survey was
done, in order for it to have validity, it needed to be
done before next January and the beginning of the actual
census count. He noted that the state might not even be
able to do a military survey if the military commanders did
not allow access to the base.
Senator Al Adams' main concern was the effect on rural
representation. He asked if this was the normal procedure
other states used to deal with census counting. Jim Baldwin
replied that most other states did not adjust for military
population. Hawaii and a couple other states did.
However, for most other states it was not a major factor
since the military population did not make up a significant
percentage of the overall population.
Co-Chair John Torgerson offered Senator Tim Kelly an
opportunity to rebut.
Senator Tim Kelly countered that with the exception of
Hawaii, all other states did count military personnel. He
addressed the issue of minority counts and knew of no group
more cognitive of minority rights than the military. He
supposed one particular minority might be able to make a
case, but the argument would be weaker when applied to all
minorities. He was not concerned how the numbers came out,
noting that none would be particularly accurate. Therefore
to attempt to avoid litigation, he just wanted the census
for the State Of Alaska to be done by head count.
Without objection, CS SB 99 Version "K" was adopted.
Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if there was objection to
adopting a Senate Finance Committee zero fiscal note. He
explained that this would be applicable since the CS
eliminated the ability to spend money on the surveys.
Senator Al Adams objected asking how would the state
perform the survey as needed to make the legislation work.
Who would perform that function? Co-Chair John Torgerson
said that the expenditure of public funds for the
population surveys was prohibited in the bill without a
separate appropriation from the Legislature. Senator Sean
Parnell said the numbers would be obtained from the US
Census Bureau. Senator Al Adams removed his objection.
Without objection the zero fiscal note was adopted.
Senator Sean Parnell offered a motion for CS SB 99 (FIN) to
move from committee with the zero fiscal note. There was
no objection and it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|