Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/03/1998 01:45 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 44
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to redistricting of the legislature.
Co-Chair Therriault provided members with a proposed
committee substitute for HJR 44, Work Draft 0-LS0528\I,
dated 3/3/98 (copy on file). Representative Mulder MOVED to
ADOPT , Work Draft 0-LS0528\I, dated 3/3/98. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER, SPONSOR, testified in support
of HJR 44. He explained that the legislation would change
the method of appointment to the reapportionment board. The
legislation would codify single member districts for the
House and Senate. The Alaska Supreme Court has indicated
its support for single member districts. The Governor
currently appoints the reapportionment board. He noted that
only one other state involves their governor in the
appointment of their reapportionment board. Under the
legislation the chief supreme court justice would appoint
the reapportionment board. He maintained that the current
process is partisan. He discussed the 1992 reapportionment
process. Due to litigation a superior court judge appointed
a couple of masters to redraw the 1992 reapportionment plan.
The court plan was rejected at the federal level. It was
subsequently readjusted.
Representative Porter stated that the Supreme Court has
requested that page 3, line 3 be amended by deleting
"subject to the provisions of this section" and inserting as
provided by law". He observed that the legislature might
want to provide criteria for how the appointments should be
made. He asserted that at least one person should be
appointed from each of the judicial districts to guarantee
geographical representation.
In response to a question by Representative Grussendorf,
Representative Porter observed that if the plan were
challenged in federal court, it would be appealed in federal
court. If an Alaskan citizen challenged the plan, it would
be brought before the Alaska Superior Court. He thought
that the chief justice would have to remove himself if it
were appealed to the Supreme Court.
In response to comments by Representative Grussendorf,
Representative Porter observed that interest in the issue
would be greater as the event becomes closer. He stated
that the intent is to be objective and to get partisan
politics out of the process. He observed that the Supreme
Court appoints the Ethics Committee.
Co-Chair Therriault clarified that subsection (c) on page 3
was included in the previous version.
Representative Davies stressed that the legislation would be
more prospective if it were to apply after the next
election.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that the legislation's effective
date is 2002.
Representative Porter emphasized that the intent is to make
the next reapportionment non-partisan.
Representative Davies stated that the change could effect an
individual's decision to run for office.
Representative Martin asserted that any plan would be
accused of being partisan. He stressed that an attempt to
balance partisan interests can be made. He expressed
concern with the criteria of "integrated socio-economic"
areas. He gave examples of redistricting plans where he
felt that the criteria for a integrated socio-economic area
were misused. He observed the difficulty of integrating
cultural groups in the State. He pointed out that
population has not grown as fast in some areas of the State
as in others. He suggested that it would be difficult to
maintain socio-economic integration of areas.
Representative Porter spoke in support of retaining the
criteria of socio-economic integration. He stressed that
this provision is intended to provide fair representation
for the State's minority population. He noted that the
United States Supreme court ruled in favor of one man one
vote. States are generally allowed a variance in population
between districts of 1 to 1.5 percent. He observed that the
Alaska Supreme Court has allowed population variances of up
to 10 percent. He acknowledged that the plan would not stop
litigation. He asserted that there would not be a
presumption of the partisan politics if the board is
appointed through the court. He observed that the court
will be able to use case law that has been developed over
the years. He discussed the 1992 reapportionment process.
Representative Martin asserted that the Justice Department
and the Alaska Supreme Court are polarized. The US Supreme
Court has emphasized one man one vote for equal
representation.
(Tape Change, HFC 98 -50, Side 1)
In response to comments by Representative Martin,
Representative Porter observed that the legislation would
shorten the process by 90 days. He reviewed the
reapportionment process timeline. He discussed page 5, line
21. If any litigation or interruption of the process occurs
to the extent that the up coming election is affected then
the prior reapportionment plan would be used.
Representative Martin reiterated concerns regarding the use
of the chief justice of the Supreme Court.
Representative Mulder noted that a potential conflict of one
judge does not mean that the court cannot make a decision.
If a justice felt that they had a conflict, he or she, could
excuse themselves.
Representative Porter agreed and added that the same
situation occurs with the appointment of the Ethics Board.
Representative Martin maintained that the court should be
kept as pure as possible. He noted that a tie decision
could occur if one justice is removed.
In response to a question by Representative Grussendorf,
Representative Porter asserted that he would support the
legislation regardless of the gubernatorial candidates.
Representative Grussendorf did not think that "socio-
economic" should be removed.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the legislation has
been changed by the committee substitute.
Representative Davies stated that the chief justice has the
mantel of impartiality. He maintained that the legislation
might have unintended consequences. He expressed concern
that judges would be subjected to a litmus test. He felt
that judges could be put in the position of standing against
a recall election if reapportionment does not satisfy
everyone. He observed that the Ethics Board is a judicial
function. The legislation asks the court to be involved in
a legislative issue.
Representative Grussendorf noted that there has been
discussion regarding legislative approval or the election of
judges.
Representative Porter pointed out that the other justices
select the chief justice. He noted that all judges have
their personal notions. The challenge is to make judgements
based on the law. He stated that he would be opposed to the
election of judges.
Co-Chair Therriault clarified that the intent of the
proposed change to page 3, line 3 is to allow the
legislature to add through statute further restrictions to
the appointment of the redistricting board. He stated that
the legislature might want to require that members live in
an area a certain length of time of be a state resident for
a certain amount of time.
Representative Porter suggested the use of "may be amplified
through law". He observed that the intent is to minimize
unnecessary language in the Constitution. He emphasized
that the Constitution is automatically superior to statute.
Statutes can only amplify the Constitution.
JAMES BALDWIN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
discussed the committee substitute. He spoke in support of
allowing the Court to do military surveys. He observed that
over 9,000 of the people who applied for permanent fund
dividends were active duty military. He noted that there
are a number of nonresident military residing in districts
that could affect redistricting.
Mr. Baldwin clarified that the intent of the legislation is
that "two contiguous" house districts could pertain to
districts that are contiguous across waters.
Mr. Baldwin discussed the proposed amendment to page 3, line
3. He expressed concern that a substantial portion of the
constitutional amendment before the voters would yet to be
enacted by law. He pointed out that partisan criteria could
be enacted through statute.
Mr. Baldwin observed that a member of the board couldn't run
for office. He assumed that the State would have to show a
compelling state interest to justify this discrimination.
Mr. Baldwin discussed the current reapportionment process.
He noted that, under the current provision, an officer of
the Governor could make adjustments to the reapportionment
plan proposed by the Board. He asserted that the
legislation does not provide a non-judicial "safety valve".
He observed that a statewide elected official that is
answerable to the public would not make the appointments.
Mr. Baldwin reiterated that language on page 5, lines 21 -
24 is a direct incentive for litigation. He stressed that a
new plan would at least provide for one-person one vote.
Operation of the old plan would perpetuate a mal-apportioned
state for another two years. He stated that the
Administration does not support the legislation.
Representative Martin disagreed with the proposal to allow
the Board to do a military census. He noted that the next
census would count those on base. The US Supreme Court has
upheld counting of military personnel.
In response to a question by Representative Davies, Mr.
Baldwin stated that the language regarding military census
taking is ambiguous. He acknowledged that the discussion in
the House Judiciary Committee placed on the record that the
intention is that the language would not allow the taking of
a military census. He observed that the intent is to remove
individuals that do not vote in Alaska. He noted that the
military population is concentrated in urban areas of the
State. He observed that there would be more representatives
for urban areas of the State. He asserted that the section
creates a voting rights issue. He noted that the
Department's fiscal note is in response to this issue. If
the military population is removed there is a smaller ideal
number per district. He asserted that if military personnel
are counted there will be a heavier representation in
Fairbanks and Anchorage made up of people who don't vote.
Representative Davies observed that the current provision
does not allow public officials or employees to be members
of the Board. Mr. Baldwin clarified that this prohibition
pertains to state, federal and municipal employees. He
observed that the intent is that recommendations not be made
by anyone with a stake in the process.
Mr. Baldwin expressed concern with the removal of "shall be
made without regard to political affiliation.
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM
discussed the legislation. He observed that the Court has
concern with section 8 on page 3. He emphasized that the
people need to believe that the justice system is fair and
impartial and that it produces a just result. He noted that
the framers of the Constitution created a unique judicial
system. He observed that the system was created to be free
from the influence of partisan politics. The Supreme Court
is concerned that section 8 will involve the Court in
partisan politics.
(Tape Change, HFC 98 - 50, Side 2)
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the Court has been
involved in the current process. Mr. Christensen
acknowledged that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of
legal matters. When the Court is called to review political
matters it is acting judicially to settle a case. He
maintained that the appointment process is a different case.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Therriault, Mr.
Christensen observed that judges frequently appoint masters
to look at and evaluate evidence and make recommendations.
The master is serving as the judge's agent in evaluating
evidence and looking at a case. He emphasized that this
process is different than the process of appointing a
reapportionment board.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that a judge would refrain from
discussing subjects that they would be asked to adjudicate.
Mr. Christensen pointed out that the appearance of
impropriety is as important as actual impropriety.
Representative Davies noted that masters tend to follow the
basic pattern set out by the underlying reapportionment plan
and make the minimum changes necessary to bring the plan
into compliance.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if a board appointed by the
judiciary made a recommendation that was challenged by the
court, would the court be precluded from setting up a master
to refine the recommendation before final judgement. Mr.
Christensen could not answer the question.
In response to a question by Representative Grussendorf, Mr.
Christensen stated that he is not aware of anything outside
the judicial branch that the court appoints. He thought
that there were other states that involved their supreme
courts in the reapportionment process. He observed that
judges are elected in many other states.
HJR 44 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|