04/29/1998 01:30 PM Senate JUD

CSHJR 44(RLS) am - REAPPORTIONMENT BOARD & REDISTRICTING                       
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR announced the next bill on the agenda was CSHJR 44             
(RLS) am, Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of             
Alaska relating to redistricting and reapportionment of the                    
legislature; repealing obsolete language setting out the                       
apportionment schedule used to elect members of the first state                
legislature.                                                                   
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR mentioned that he'd had some discussion with his               
colleagues about the various ramifications of this legislation and             
his main concern is that legislation perceived to be a power grab              
by the legislature will be rejected by the public.  He asked                   
Representative Porter to address this bill.                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER, Alaska State Legislature, Sponsor of              
CSHJR 44,(RLS) am, said briefly, the bill addresses three areas:               
1) the method of appointing the apportionment board; 2) it brings              
the constitution into line with federal Supreme Court decisions                
that have occurred in two areas over the years; and 3) to codify               
the existing single member districts.                                          
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said with respect to Chairman Taylor's                   
specific concerns, he "recognized this could be in an effort to try            
to make the appointment procedure exactly what it is not now,                  
objective and non-partisan."  The attempt was made to balance -                
recognizing the bill apportions a legislative, political body for              
the districts from which members of the legislature are made up,               
it's hard to say this isn't a political process.  The vast majority            
of the states have procedures that involve the legislature, in some            
cases totally, in this process.  Maryland is the only state that               
has the same appointment process as Alaska, but Maryland allows the            
Governor to appoint the members and then the legislature confirms              
the appointments to the board.   He further stated that Alaska is              
the only state that has not only the sole appointment process being            
made by the Governor, but then a constitutional provision allowing             
the Governor to individually alter his appointees' plan and in                 
effect submit his own plan for reapportionment.                                
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said letting the three branches of government            
appoint a person may sound like the best balance, but ....                     
                                                                               
TAPE 98-45, SIDE A                                                             
Number 0001                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER continued .... because, it doesn't happen                
often in this state, but it is possible the Governor and the                   
legislature would be of the same party affiliation and the bi-                 
partisan appointment process would become somewhat frustrated.  He             
felt that would be a successful argument about the objectivity of              
the proposition.                                                               
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER  said he recognized that while it may require            
more of an explanation, he was somewhat happier with the result of             
the debate when the minority and majority members of the                       
legislature will, on a bi-partisan, equal basis, select four                   
members and the Supreme Court will select the tie-breaker for the              
neutral position.                                                              
                                                                               
JIM BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs                  
Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, said from the                      
Administration's viewpoint, the reapportionment process under the              
existing constitutional provision is intended to be non-partisan,              
not bi-partisan, but based more on regional considerations and not             
on partisan/political considerations.  He said the language that's             
being removed on page 3, lines 13-15, "appointments shall be made              
without regard to political affiliation" is currently in the state             
constitution.  This proposed resolution has been described as a bi-            
partisan approach, but he questioned the wisdom of that approach               
inasmuch as there are now a number of political parties in the                 
state plus many non-partisan voters in the state who are not                   
affiliated with either the Democratic Party or the Republican                  
Party.  The question is when reapportionment is done on a bi-                  
partisan basis, who is left out?  The major parties may well be                
taken care of in the reapportionment, but the unaffiliated and                 
unaligned voters may be left out.  He said the idea of the existing            
provision is that a statewide elected official will be ultimately              
responsible for reapportionment and that person's political life               
will depend on the decisions that are made in the reapportionment              
process, a statewide elected official and not legislators or an                
appointed Supreme Court Justice.  His preference is to leave the               
existing language in the constitution intact.                                  
                                                                               
MR. BALDWIN said the timing in the proposed plan shortens the time             
period down from the existing 180 day process, which is done in two            
90-day phases.  For the record, he stated "The people who work on              
this plan, not just the boards and the Governor, but the people who            
actually put this together - the reapportionment staff - need those            
180 days and to cut it down to 90 days, I think, is going to cause             
a problem."  He recommended that committee members talk with some              
of the individuals who have staffed the reapportionment boards.  He            
urged the committee to consider that aspect and to length some of              
the proposed time periods.                                                     
                                                                               
Number 0117                                                                    
                                                                               
MR. BALDWIN offered to furnish committee members with excerpts of              
the minutes from the Constitutional Convention and said the main               
concern of the framers with having the Governor responsible for                
reapportionment was not so much a matter of separation of power,               
but more afraid that incumbents in the legislature would take care             
of their individual needs over the needs of the state if they have             
control of the process.                                                        
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR expressed concern with the definition of                       
minority/majority.  He remembers a Senate Majority that was made up            
of 20 people, one of whom left and created a minority of one.  He              
said if that were the case today, the majority would have already              
defined themselves by organization as a group of 19 and the                    
minority of one would have an automatic seat on the board.                     
                                                                               
MR. BALDWIN stated that to his knowledge, minority/majority have               
never been referred to in the constitution.                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR recalled there have been Alaska Independence Party             
and Libertarian Party people elected to office and questioned how              
minority/majority would be determined when there were three or more            
parties involved.                                                              
                                                                               
Number 0182                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER countered that under this current form,                  
leaving the phrase "without regard to political consideration"                 
would be confusing if the plan is to look at bi-partisan as opposed            
to totally neutral.  In his opinion, the usage of it in the                    
constitution now is somewhat disingenuous in that it allows the                
Governor, who is a partisan, political person, to change the                   
board's plan and submit his own plan.                                          
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER addressed the timing issue and said the two              
90-day periods currently in the constitution are provided for                  
because the board, under the constitution, has 90 days to submit               
the plan to the Governor.  This legislation proposes the board                 
would have 90 days for completion.  The constitution gives the                 
Governor another 90 days to adjust the plan, but in his opinion,               
the 90 days allowed in the constitution for the board to submit a              
plan is an adequate amount of time.                                            
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said as committee members are aware, Alaska's            
Constitution is perhaps the most single empowering constitution of             
all state constitutions for governor supremacy.  In any event, it              
has resulted in a lot of confusion, court decisions and litigation             
that really should be unnecessary.                                             
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER agreed the minority/majority issue could be              
somewhat  confusing; however, the original version contained                   
verbiage to deal with the kinds of situations being discussed in               
this meeting.  He concluded that it would be an unusual                        
circumstance and probably could be best defined by a provision of              
"as provided by law" as opposed to trying to include five or six               
paragraphs of possible iterations of what a minority might be.                 
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR stated inasmuch as the Senate Rules Committee had              
requested these issues be worked out, the Judiciary Committee would            
take CSHJR 44 under advisement at this time.