02/02/2010 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR38 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 38 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 2, 2010
8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Pete Petersen
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 38
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to and increasing the number of members of the house of
representatives to forty-eight and the number of members of the
senate to twenty-four.
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 38
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: INCREASE NUMBER OF LEGISLATORS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) P.WILSON
01/19/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/10 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/02/10 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
GORDON HARRISON
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself in support
of HJR 38.
PAMELA VARNI, Executive Director
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
HJR 38.
JIM BALDWIN, Attorney
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself in support
of HJR 38.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:07:11 AM
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:07 a.m. Representatives Seaton, Wilson,
Petersen, and Lynn were present at the call to order.
Representatives Gatto, Johnson, and Gruenberg arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HJR 38-CONST. AM: INCREASE NUMBER OF LEGISLATORS
8:07:45 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the only order of business was HOUSE
JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 38, Proposing amendments to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to and increasing
the number of members of the house of representatives to forty-
eight and the number of members of the senate to twenty-four.
8:08:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON presented HJR 38 as prime sponsor. She
paraphrased the sponsor statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
HJR 38 will put a constitutional amendment before the
voters in the 2010 general election that would
increase the size of the legislature to 48
representatives and 24 senators. Upon voter approval,
the measure would apply to the 2012 determination of
new boundary's for the election district.
In the first 50 years of statehood, Alaska has not
changed the 20 senator, 40 representative size of its
legislative body, the smallest bicameral legislature
in the nation. In this time span, the population of
the state has more than tripled. Most significantly,
the population increase is disproportionate, strongly
favoring large urban areas over rural and small
community areas. The task then of applying the
proscriptions of Article VI, above, has
correspondingly become more difficult and contentious.
Except for the 1960 reapportionment, all subsequent
reapportionments have faced successful legal
challenges, requiring boundary adjustments and on
several occasions, a court constructed plan.
Federal protections of the U.S. Voter Rights Act of
1965 for large minority concentrations further
complicate Alaska's reapportionment process. Indeed,
they can act to counter the Section 6 requirements.
Rural election district distortions are evident in the
current plan. There is a probability that the new
population distribution of the 2010 census cannot
reconcile Section 6 and the Voter Rights Act without
increasing the size of the legislature.
Between 1960 and 2006, twenty nine states have changed
the size of their legislative body. For the nine
states with small populations similar to Alaska
(509,000 to 1,429,000), the average size of their
legislative bodies is 134 members.
Another measure of the effect of the state's growth
and complexity on the work of the legislature is its
budget responsibilities. Legislative expenditures for
government programs and projects has risen from a
figure of $104 million in FY 61 to somewhere in the
neighborhood of $7 billion currently. This is an
increase from $2700 per capita in 1961 nominal dollars
to $10,000 per capita today.
For these reasons, putting a proposal to increase the
size of the legislature before the voters is timely
and merited.
8:14:07 AM
CHAIR LYNN suggested that there may not be room in the present
capitol to house additional legislators.
8:14:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said Pamela Varni would speak to that
issue.
8:14:56 AM
CHAIR LYNN observed that having more legislators across the
state would mean districts would be smaller, which may help
reduce the cost of campaigning.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON responded that she does not know if
that would decrease the cost of campaigning, but she confirmed
that each legislator would have fewer constituents than he/she
has now. She said her district includes: Wrangell, Petersburg,
Sitka, Pelican, Elfin Cove, Port Alexander, Kupreanof, and
Baranof Warm Springs. She said one place she has only traveled
to once at a cost of $1,000. She stated her belief that making
a district larger is not fair to constituents or their
Representative.
8:17:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that he has the smallest district
in the state. He asked how electronic communication has changed
Representative P. Wilson's campaigning style.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she attempts to telephone all her
constituents who send e-mails. She remarked that the bigger the
district gets the harder that is to do. She said she e-mails a
newsletter and uses radio and newspaper to impart information
through "Peggy's Corner of the House." She said she does not
use the telephone or letter to contact her constituents very
often.
8:18:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, in response to a question from
Representative Seaton, said the hope for HJR 38 is that the
areas now represented would not lose representation, but the
areas that grow would gain more representation. In response to
a follow-up question from Representative Seaton, she said some
areas vary in their population shifts. It will be up to the
redistricting committee to figure out [where additional
legislators would be placed], not up to the legislature.
8:21:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said when he began as a legislator, there
were 16,000 constituents, and now there are 24,000; however, he
said he has not been compromised by the growth. He said he
thinks the public would not support the addition of more
legislators. He suggested the reason the bill sponsor is
proposing HJR 38 is "because Southeast is going to ... have
fewer Representatives."
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON responded that her district is not the
only one that is "losing members"; all the rural areas and
villages are seeing shifts in population. She asked
Representative Gatto to imagine how his constituents would feel
if, like in rural Alaska, their representation disappeared with
no replacement.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said, "All we're doing is taking the same
acreage and drawing squigglier lines in different directions;
but ... every Representative has essentially the same number of
constituents, whether we go to 46 or 48 or what." He said
Alaska is a small state with 60 Representatives serving
approximately 700,000 people. Another state might have over 100
Representatives, but those 100-plus are serving 10-20 million.
In comparison, it is possible that Alaska has too many
Representatives.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Representative Gatto again how he
thinks rural Alaskans would feel to have less representation.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO replied that he does not know how people
are feeling in other states that are losing Representatives. He
indicated that people adjust, and he said he is not certain that
"adjusting up is a benefit."
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON noted that it is easier for
Representative Gatto to appear before all his constituents,
because he does not have to travel as far to do so. She said
she cannot do that, and she asked him to take into consideration
- as a matter of fairness - the ability of constituents to meet
face to face with their Representatives.
8:26:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON noted that of the states that have
changed [representation], 19 have reduced their numbers and 12
have increased their numbers. He asked the bill sponsor if she
has done any research behind the changes other states have made.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said some states have changed
representation to match the growth of their population. She
said one consideration is whether or not the districting layout
facilitates the Representative's visitation of his/her
constituents. Alaska is so big, and the Constitution of the
State of Alaska requires the state to have "socio-economic
groups of like mind and manner." She said if the legislature
does not chose to increase its membership, the court system may
step in and mandate that that be done.
8:28:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said when he served 20 years ago, urban
districts each had two Representatives, while the rural
districts had just one. From a constituent and legislative
point of view, having dual Representatives was a tremendous
advantage. In the 1960s, the top 16 people were elected at
large from Anchorage. In the 1970s, the city was quartered, and
each of the four districts had four Representatives. In the
1980s, those four districts were divided in half, and each
district had two Representatives. Representative Gruenberg said
the constitution was amended after that to provide for a
redistricting board. He directed attention to page 1, line 12
of the bill, which he said is the relevant section related to
single member districts. He recollected that before that, the
size of the district was established by law.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that Representative P. Wilson
consider either going back to dual member districts or to
provide "that it shall be established by law." He said the
latter would allow dual-member or four-member districts, or a
combination thereof throughout the state. He related that the
advantage of a dual member district is, for example, that one
Representative can concentrate on budget issues, while the other
works on other issues. He indicated that the change from that
system may have been because of a desire to make each district
smaller; however, he stated that he is not sure that it makes
much difference whether a legislator represents 16,000-17,000 or
twice that number. He said people might like having two
Representatives and two Senators in larger community boundaries.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON deferred to Mr. Harrison.
8:33:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked Representative P. Wilson if she has
taken advantage of the redistricting computer programs that are
available.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON deferred again to Mr. Harrison.
8:33:47 AM
GORDON HARRISON told the committee that he was the former
executive director of the Alaska Redistricting Board. In
response to Representative Johnson's prior question, he said the
software for the 2010 redistricting cycle has not been purchased
by the state; it will not be ready for another year. However,
he noted that information from the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development shows what will happen to some of the
rural districts.
8:34:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related that the National Council of
State Legislatures (NCSL) has come up with computer models
related to redistricting that are perhaps not official.
MR. GORDON confirmed that [NCSL] has "dummy" numbers.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON remarked that it is simple to determine
"what will happen to a legislative district if you plug in
numbers."
MR. GORDON interjected, "If you have all the numbers running."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said, "You're making the same assessments
... now, so you have dummy numbers."
MR. GORDON responded yes, but noted that the previously
mentioned software costs approximately $10,000, and "nobody's
purchased it yet."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON reiterated that NCSL would run a model
for the state.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she would check into it.
8:36:04 AM
MR. HARRISON continued with his testimony. He stated his
enthusiastic support of HJR 38. He said he thinks
Representative P. Wilson's assessment of the situation is
correct. He stated that redistricting without [HJR 38] would
create huge rural districts - even larger than they are
presently. He mentioned "population numbers" and indicated that
the Department of Labor and Work Force Development has reported
and estimated [state] population of 700,000, which he said would
produce a district of approximately 17,500 people. However, he
said the rural districts are "way off of that." Mr. Harrison
proceeded to give examples of various districts and how far
short of that number they fall, including: Ketchikan, 3,000-
4,000 short; the North Slope, about 3,000 short; Kodiak, 4,000
short; and Bristol Bay, 3,000 short.
MR. HARRISON stated that the only way to make up for the
shortage in one district is by "cannibalizing your neighbors."
He predicted that District 5 in Southeast Alaska would be
cannibalized to the point of its disappearance.. He predicted
other districts in the state that would disappear as a result of
this cannibalization. Mr. Harrison said he thinks that, as the
bill sponsor has said, the public policy issue at hand is
effective representation in districts. Some districts will be
so big, he predicted, that its constituents will never meet
their Representative, and legislators will find competing
interests within one district, he said. Effective campaigning
will be impossible, since it will be too expensive to travel.
He characterized the boundaries of Senate District C as
"preposterous," noting that it reaches from Metlakatla up to the
Arctic.
MR. HARRISON concluded that under HJR 38, district size would be
reduced from 17,500 to approximately 14,500, and as a
consequence, most of the rural districts would be able to
maintain themselves. He opined that the proposed legislation
would not fundamentally impact the nature of the legislative
process nor would it disturb the distribution of power between
urban and rural areas.
MR. HARRISON told Representative Gruenberg that the problem with
multiple-member districts is that the districts would have to be
twice as big if they have two members, which would only compound
the problem.
8:41:44 AM
MR. HARRISON, in response to Representative Petersen, said he
supports the sponsor's proposal to have 48 Representatives and
24 Senators, but said he would support even higher numbers.
8:42:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON added that the proposed numbers would
keep the rural areas from losing [any more representation].
8:43:00 AM
MR. HARRISON, in response to Representative Gatto, explained
that when he said some districts may not exist, he did not mean
that people would be left without a district. Instead, he said,
since the Anchorage area is expanding so rapidly, existing
representation would be directed there, which would change the
boundaries of districts in other parts of the state.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO questioned why the proposed legislation is
not requesting a larger increase of Representatives and Senators
if the bill sponsor believes that an increase would be
beneficial.
MR. HARRISON answered that for one thing, greater numbers than
the resolution proposes would create the need to build a new
capitol. He said he thinks the resolution proposes an
incremental change that would improve democratic representation
in the state for many of its residents. He said he does not
think that anybody wants to make any radical changes in the
legislative process. He said the cost of campaigning in the
current districts is prohibitive. He opined that keeping
districts to a manageable size is a legitimate public policy.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said he does not think references to
campaigning should "have a play in this." He said he is
considering only how the proposed change would affect the
public. He said he thinks the public would question what
happened in 2010 that suddenly necessitated the need for HJR 38.
He stated, "I'm not sure this is the kind of thing that they
would look at favorably."
MR. HARRISON answered that that may depend on where the person
lives. For example, someone living in Bethel, Barrow, or
Dillingham may see the wisdom of HJR 38, while perhaps those
living in the valley would not.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said the increase in legislators would
necessitate the increase in meeting space and modification of
the capitol, which would cost a considerable amount of money.
MR. HARRISON suggested one solution may be to "invite the
governor into some nice spacious quarters in the State Office
Building" and turn the third floor currently occupied by the
governor into legislative office space.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON reiterated that the subject of finance
could be addressed by Pamela Varni.
8:49:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he thinks what Mr. Harrison is
saying relates to tying the legislature's hands through imposing
a 90-day session. He said if there were a few more legislators
then there would be more people to do the work in the 90 days
and the job would be done better. He asked Mr. Harrison if that
is what he is saying.
MR. HARRISON responded that that is not what he is saying, but
he agrees with it. He said he thinks the Senate would benefit
from having at least four more members.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that Mr. Harrison had written a
major treatise on the Constitution of the State of Alaska. He
said Alaska's population, budget, and problems are bigger and
more complicated than they were when the state was young, which
demands that the legislature consider ways to function as
effectively as possible. He asked if Mr. Harrison concurs.
MR. HARRISON answered that that is part of his thinking but is
not the main impetus for HJR 38. The main impetus for the
proposed legislation, he opined, is the fact that some districts
are so large now that they are not fairly and effectively
represented.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is trying to emphasize the
other issues that would be benefitted from HJR 38, even in urban
areas.
MR. HARRISON said urban districts would benefit from the
proposed resolution, as well, because "even their districts
would be more manageable."
8:53:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, in response to Representative
Gruenberg, confirmed that one of the reasons she is proposing 24
Senators and 48 Representatives, is that the present capitol
would accommodate that many additional legislators. She noted
that HJR 38 is a companion bill to [SJR 21].
8:54:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to three sets of charts
in the committee packet [showing population trends for election
districts in 2010], and he noted that the average population of
40 districts is listed as 15,673.
MR. HARRISON interjected, "That was the ideal district 10 years
ago."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to a column on one of
the charts showing a difference from the average of 15,735. He
offered his understanding that that number is "less the 100 off
of the ideal 2010."
MR. HARRISON responded, "I think that the ideal population under
this legislation would be 14,424."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that there are three charts. He
continued as follows:
One is 22 Senators, 44 election districts. The other
one is ... 46 election districts, where it says, "46
Eds" over at the far -- and then ... the other one's
labeled "48 leg," which would be 24 Senators and 48
members. So, I'm trying to figure out if we had an
ideal population of 15,673, and with 22 Senators and
44 House election districts, we would have 15,735,
which is the closest number to what we had in 2010.
Can ... you explain to me why we wouldn't be looking
at that number? I mean, are we just talking about
well maybe in the future we'll have population changes
and we want to take care of more, or...?
MR. HARRISON said he has not seen the table to which
Representative Seaton referred - the one that analyzes four
additional House districts. He continued:
I think that you have to compare that number with the
population that we expect in these districts. ...
Ketchikan looks like it's having a population right
now around 13,500, so it's still off 1,500 people.
... I've only looked at analysis that shows eight
additional House members and how that changes the
anticipated impact from redistricting with an ideal
population of 15,700. ... I think that it probably
wouldn't save some of the rural districts, and there
would be still substantial increase in their
geography. And I think if you're going to do four,
you might as well do eight, because I don't think it's
that big a difference in terms of the functioning of
the legislature or the space requirements, and I think
that it helps ... keep the status quo in the rural
areas, in terms of the geography of the districts.
8:58:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he is trying to understand that
underlying structure of the bill. He continued as follows:
So, the numbers, at 48 House districts, is taken not
to maintain the same legislator to constituent [ratio]
that we had in our previous redistricting, but to
maintain the smallest ... House districts that they
could stay in place without redrawing those districts.
But all of the other districts that are above that ...
we'd be carving something out of those and they would
be...
MR. HARRISON said more districts would be made. He said "the
excess" would "come into another district."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON concluded that there is no way, under HJR
38, to maintain the current structure of districts, the smallest
districts could be maintained while all the others surrounding
them could be redistricted. He asked if that is the intent of
choosing the number 48.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON answered yes. She noted, "At every
single [U.S.] Census since we started, there's been a shift."
Keeping the number of legislators as is will not prevent
districts from changing. She said her efforts are to ensure
fairness to constituents first and foremost, but also to ensure
the system is fair to legislators. She noted that during her
first two years as a legislator, her constituents ranged from
Wrangell, Petersburg, and Sitka, which had [populations in each
area] ranging from 2,000-8,000. When redistricting took place,
that district was expanded in order to keep the right number of
constituents in it, which meant a greater expanse, and
[populations in each area] ranging from 89 people to 8,500
people. She indicated that it is "pushing it pretty thin" to
call this district an integrated socio-economic area.
Representative P. Wilson said in the year before last she
traveled as a legislator over 90 times, mostly in Southeast
Alaska to see her constituents, and she said that does not even
include charter flights or ferry trips. She said Senator
Kookesh's district is the biggest in the U.S. and contains more
than half the school districts in Alaska. Those school
districts have tremendous economic difference.
9:04:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN suggested that the legislature would be
addressing the same predicament 10 years from now if current
trends continue with migration from rural to urban areas.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON responded that in the last 50 years,
Alaska's population has tripled in size. She said, "I hope we
would have that problem; that would be wonderful."
9:05:41 AM
PAMELA VARNI, Executive Director, Legislative Affairs Agency,
directed attention to the fiscal note in the committee packet,
dated 1/29/2010. She said funding would be requested in the
year 2013 for a total of $6,140,000. Thereafter, the funding
requested would be $4,470,000. That would encompass the salary
and per diem for 12 additional legislators and would allow for
34 staff to legislators, additional support staff, an attorney,
two legislative information officers, a "help desk" technician,
and one custodian. Funding would also include the cost to move
11 legislators and their families and to relocate the additional
34 staff. Ms. Varni said there would need to be allowance
accounts for the Senators and Representatives, hook-up fees for
computers, telephones, and facsimile machines, and either an
increase in current office space or the establishment of new
offices in legislators' districts. Furthermore, computers,
printers, and facsimile machines would need to be purchased.
She said she thinks the amount estimated for equipment and
reconstruction of existing facilities is conservative. She said
if a decision was made to construct a new building or build an
addition to the capitol, the $1.5 million dollars would have to
be increased through a capital appropriation. Ms. Varni offered
to answer questions from the committee.
9:09:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the committee needs to have a
fiscal note from the Division of Elections reflecting the cost
of putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot.
9:09:49 AM
MS. VARNI, in response to question from Representative Johnson,
said it would require some creativity to fit an additional eight
offices into the existing space of the capitol. She agreed with
Mr. Harrison that it would be nice to have the use of the third
floor. She mentioned that Representative Munoz is working on a
bill to allow building a state office building along the
waterfront.
CHAIR LYNN commented that if his office was made any smaller, he
would have to stand up.
9:11:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his recollection that moving the
governor from the third floor of the capitol had been
unsuccessfully attempted in the past.
9:11:36 AM
MS. VARNI responded that it is written in statute the governor
has space in the capitol; therefore, it would be the governor's
choice whether or not to move. She said that former Governor
Frank Murkowski had looked at moving over to the State Office
Building.
9:12:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked Ms. Varni if she is in favor of a new
capitol building.
MS. VARNI replied that it is the will of the legislature and the
people to pass HJR 38, and then, if it was decided that
additional space was necessary, the people might want to have
something built that makes them proud. She noted that the
current capitol is the only one in the nation not built
originally as a capitol building.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO stated that he supports a new capitol being
built in the Matanuska/Susitna area where a majority of Alaskans
could drive by and see it. He said building a capitol there
would support the proposed resolution.
9:15:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON commented that she has not heard many
people suggest moving the capital of the U.S. to the center of
the country, which she opined "is about the same thing." She
said she lived in a state in the past where the capital was in
the hub of the state, and it was more difficult to access the
legislators. She said all legislators may not be happy being in
Juneau, but they are much more accessible and have less
distractions.
9:16:28 AM
MS. VARNI, in response to Representative Petersen, offered her
understanding that the building that Representative Munoz is
proposing would be in the area referred to as the "sub port."
MS. VARNI, in response to Representative Seaton, said she has
not seen the aforementioned spreadsheets. She said the fiscal
note was compiled based solely upon the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he would like an estimate regarding
space cost related to each of the aforementioned spreadsheets.
MS. VARNI said she would compile that information.
9:20:16 AM
JIM BALDWIN, Attorney at Law, stated that he is testifying on
behalf of himself. He related that like Mr. Harrison, he was
involved with the last redistricting of the state, employed with
the Office of the Attorney General and serving as co-counsel to
the plaintiffs in defending the plan in the state court system.
Mr. Baldwin stated that although he heartily agrees with the
testimony of Mr. Harrison, he supports HJR 38 for reasons a
little bit different from those that have been expressed. He
explained that he does not see HJR 38 so much as a matter that
would favor rural areas of the state, but rather sees it as
having a more balanced application.
MR. BALDWIN emphasized the importance of the federal Voting
Rights Act to the state's redistricting process. He opined that
the state will probably never "get out from under" the Act
because the opt-out provisions will not work for Alaska. He
explained, "It seems like every time we have a redistricting we
have an objection, and when you have an objection you're in the
midst and you're not ... getting out." He said he thinks the
proposed legislation would give the [redistricting] board more
options for solving the problem with the Voting Rights Act.
MR. BALDWIN related that he is familiar with the software
programs to which Representative Johnson referred. He said the
programs make the job easier, but can be problematic, because
"the numbers push you around the map," and often there are areas
left out of the equation that must be addressed. He described
the last redistricting effort in Anchorage as being like a tube
of toothpaste: only so much of the population fit in that tube,
and when squeezed, some of the population ended up in
Representative Gatto's district, while some ended up as part of
the Valdez district. Redistricting can result in a
Representative representing people from urban and rural areas,
he said.
9:24:24 AM
MR. BALDWIN reiterated his previous points. He then
acknowledged that the legislature must consider money issues and
the cost of campaigning. He said his experience showed him that
related litigation was not about political parties, but rather
was about geographic region. He opined, "That's what the battle
is, and that's what this helps alleviate."
9:25:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO expressed disagreement with the illustrated
result of Mr. Baldwin's squeezed tube example. He then stated
that the system currently in place has not changed in 50 years,
and he asked Mr. Baldwin if the permitted deviation in districts
is 10 percent.
MR. BALDWIN said there is a permitted deviation that Alaska's
courts have allowed to be expanded in certain circumstances.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said rural districts comprised mostly of
Native Alaskans would become less effective under HJR 38,
because they are allowed a 10 percent deviation, and he surmised
that urban districts would have to absorb that 10 percent
deviation. He said that does not appear to be a significant
problem. He asked Mr. Baldwin if he would still support HJR 38
if, in addition to changing the number of legislators, it also
proposed to move the capital to a new location. He said he
wants to know if Mr. Baldwin is here because he does not want to
lose a district in Southeast Alaska.
MR. BALDWIN replied, "I don't have a dog in any of those
fights." He noted that he does live in Juneau.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said he has not found one person who lives
in Juneau who wants the capital moved. He opined that "the rest
of us" who don't live in Juneau do not share that opinion. He
clarified that he wants to know if Mr. Baldwin is supporting HJR
38 because he really believes the resolution will help equalize
representation or because he is trying to keep the capital in
Juneau.
9:28:36 AM
MR. BALDWIN responded that he is testifying in support of HJR 38
because he is extremely interested in the political process. He
offered his background, which included working for the state for
27 years, a part of that time working with the legislative legal
department. He said he also worked for a number of years in the
governmental affairs section in the Department of Law as a
supervising attorney. He recollected that three
"redistrictings" occurred during his tenure as an employee of
the state. He said he has been concerned for a number of years
regarding the affect of the Voting Rights Act on Alaska's
process. He said he has become resolved to the notion that the
state must learn to live with the Act, and he reiterated that
HJR 38 is a good tool. He stated that the issue of whether or
not to move the capital is "not a sub rosa thing here with me."
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked Mr. Baldwin if he would support
having 50 [Senators] and 100 [Representatives].
MR. BALDWIN answered that he does not know what the right
numbers would be, but thinks this approach is an authorized way
for solving the problem of increasing the size of the
legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO recalled a "doughnut hole" approach in the
past, to which the court objected. He surmised that that
approach was a "very political structure."
MR. BALDWIN said [the "donut hole"] took place in the 1990s.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO suggested that it is always the courts who
redistrict the state.
MR. BALDWIN said he does not agree with that. For example, the
last time redistricting was done, the court sent the plan back
to the board, and the board redrew the lines with direction from
the court. He said he thinks the court would be loath to say it
drew the lines, although the board may feel the court's
influence.
9:32:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she is shocked that the issue of a
capital move was broached in conjunction with HJR 38, because
the proposed legislation has nothing to do with that issue. She
stated that if the number of legislators is not changed, the
issue of lack of representation for Native Alaskans will
surface. She asked Mr. Baldwin what his opinion is on the
matter.
9:33:15 AM
MR. BALDWIN responded that the Justice Department will look to
see if the state is "sliding backwards." He continued as
follows:
If you've established a certain number of majority
districts and a certain number of influence districts,
the first line that they will impose is: Are you
maintaining those kinds of districts? ... So, if you
have the pressure of populations going down in the
areas where our Native populations reside, then you're
staring right in the eyes of a retrogression
situation, I think, if the idea is to maintain the
status quo.
MR. BALDWIN said if majority districts cannot be maintained,
then the next best thing is to go to influence districts, which
means enough block voting within a district that Natives may be
able to put forward a candidate that will be successful. He
continued as follows:
So, then, if that's where you're going to have more
influence districts, then the reason I'm saying that
it's not just a rural problem, that it can be an urban
problem, is that: where are you going to bring those
additional populations in with those influence
districts? And that's where it affects the urban
districts, I think. ... Or there could be other
discreet populations that can be brought in, like
military bases. You know, the possibilities are
endless, and like I said, you march around a map
looking for these chunks of population, and if you
have smaller district sizes, you can, I think, not end
the problem - maybe forestall it for another decade,
maybe two more decades, maybe 50 years. I don't know,
but I think that when you look at those charts that
you were referring to earlier, ask yourself how many
of those jurisdictions operate under the Voting Rights
Act when you consider their relevance.
9:35:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked how many times since statehood the
state has redistricted without the involvement of the court.
MR. BALDWIN answered none since his involvement in 1980.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON added that research has shown that the
court has been involved in the state's redistricting efforts
every time, accept for the first time in 1960.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if there is any anticipation that
adding the proposed number of legislators will keep the state
out of court.
MR. BALDWIN answered no.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON concurred.
MR. BALDWIN said he thinks that when the legislature changed to
the council approach for redistricting over "the old approach,"
it was possibly taking a step toward satisfying more of the
regional interest. However, he said that without changing to
"something that's a much greater number," he does not know how
the state will make all the identifiable socio-economic areas
"satisfied with having their own districts."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON questioned how many districts following
the Voting Rights Act would be affected. He surmised that it
might be only three.
MR. BALDWIN responded that he does not know without looking into
an answer.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN told Representative Johnson that he
thinks the borders of all the districts would have to be
adjusted.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON clarified that he wants to know how many
districts that actually fall under the Voting Rights Act would
be affected. He indicated that Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau,
and the Matanuska/Susitna Valley do not fall under the Act. He
said he wants to know "how many under 48 will fall under that
versus under 40?"
9:40:35 AM
MR. BALDWIN agreed that that is the "starting point" for
judging: "Where are they left under the new plan as opposed to
where they were under the old plan?"
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked where he can get information
regarding which districts fall under the Voting Rights Act.
MR. BALDWIN responded that "the preclearance" is available from
the Department of Law, most likely in the board files. He
added, "Everybody weighed in on it, and the justice department
pre-cleared what happened even in the first go-around of the
plan, but changes had to be made as a result of the court." In
response to a follow-up question, he offered further information
regarding how to interpret the preclearance information.
9:42:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked:
Under that, is it the number of districts on the
retrograde? In other words, if we expand the number
of districts, is [it] the proportion of districts or
is it just the fact that you had three or five that
were minority districts before - minority or majority
districts - and you still have three or five, even if
you increase the number of districts? How does that
work: is it just strictly the number or is it the
proportion?
MR. BALDWIN said he does not know without researching an answer.
He said he would imagine there is a lot of precedent with
redistricting in municipalities that are covered by the Act. He
said he thinks he could get an answer for Representative Seaton
fairly quickly.
9:43:41 AM
CHAIR LYNN said he is not going to close public testimony. He
said the bottom line is figuring out what is best for
constituents. Another concern is how HJR 38 may affect economic
development. He said he would like to receive more input from
more constituents. He thanked Representative P. Wilson for
bringing forth HJR 38.
9:45:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he hopes HJR 38 is not treated as a
capital move bill. He said the bill is not about losing
representation from Juneau. He said there are some smaller
districts that have "passed the test for representation." He
related that he thought it was interesting to consider the
philosophy of maintaining the integrity of districts that have
been approved by the courts in the state's previous
redistricting. He said he would like to hear more discussion
regarding the possible impact of the numbers proposed in HJR 38.
9:47:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said answers to the questions asked
today would be forthcoming.
9:47:46 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that HJR 38 was held over.
9:48:31 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:48
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HJR038A.pdf |
HSTA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 02 HJR 38 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 03 HJR38-LEG-COU-1-29-10.pdf |
HSTA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 04 HJR038-OOG-DOE-2-1-10.pdf |
HSTA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 05 HJR 38 Backup.pdf |
HSTA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 06 house 44 reps.pdf |
HSTA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 07 house reps 46 pg 2.pdf |
HSTA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 07-A projections with 46 Reps.pdf |
HSTA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 08 house 48 reps.pdf |
HSTA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |