Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/03/1998 01:40 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. 36
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to redistricting of the
legislature, and repealing as obsolete language in the
article setting out the apportionment schedule used to
elect the members of the first state legislature.
JEFF LOGAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN, explained that
HJR 36 proposes to amend Article 6 and Article 14 of the
Alaska Constitution.
Article 6 addresses legislative reapportionment. Mr. Logan
proposed changes to reflect rulings by the U.S. and Alaska
Supreme Courts, and to enshrine single member legislative
districts in the constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court
rulings, Baker v. Carr, 396 U.S. 267, issued in 1962, and
Renolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 567, issued in 1964, established
the so-called "one person, one vote" apportionment rule.
The result of these decisions is that all state legislative
bodies in the United States are apportioned on the basis of
population. The Alaska Constitution, as originally
written, bases senate districts partly on population, and
partly on geography. The Alaska Supreme Court rulings,
Wade v. Nolan, Alaska 414 P.2nd 689, in 1966, Egan v.
Hammond, Alaska, 502 p.2nd 856, in 1972, and Groh v. Egan,
Alaska 526 P.2d 863, 1974 establishes an equal basis for
both civilian and military population.
He continued, Section 4 of HJR 36 would establish single
member legislative (House) districts. The change
essentially "constitutionalizes" the status quo. Single
member districts have proven to work well here in Alaska,
and in a number of other states. Along with Alaska,
several other states have shifted from multi, to single
member districts.
Finally, Section 9 of HJR 36 repeals Article 14 of the
Alaska Constitution. Article 14 sets out the original
reapportionment schedule, which is now obsolete.
Co-Chair Therriault explained that through a court case, a
determination was made that the census does account for
establishing the redistricting base population. A resident
population is based on the census count and redistricting
is based on the population resident count.
Co-Chair Therriault asked clarification of language used on
Page 1, Line 8, "Within each election". Mr. Logan noted
that language was drafted to delineate between House and
Senate districts. Co-Chair Hanley pointed out that
language was clarified in Section 4.
Representative J. Davies asked if the census would count
people staying in hotel rooms. He pointed out such action
could drastically affect places with a lot of tourism
traffic. Representative Grussendorf indicated his concern
regarding the proliferation of constitutional amendments
coming before the Committee. He stated that the proposed
legislation was not needed. Representative Mulder
disagreed, pointing to problems with double member
districts. He suggested that the legislation would clarify
the Alaska State Constitution and would eliminate
ambiguity. Representative J. Davies pointed out that the
State, to date, does not have multi member's districts and
that there has been no problem. He echoed concern with
need for the legislation.
Co-Chair Therriault stated that if members agree with the
single member concept, the proposed legislation would
guarantee it be available from this point forward. Mr.
Logan pointed out that in 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court did
specify the single member preference. In that federal
judiciary, if a reapportionment plan were written, there
would be preference for single member districts. There is a
state movement toward this practice. The sponsor's intent
is to keep a reapportionment plan out of court.
Representative Grussendorf advised that every plan,
regardless, would need to come before the U.S. Department
of Justice.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned Section 9 and the Articles
proposed for deletion. Mr. Logan responded that Section 7
is obsolete resulting from a ruling by the U.S. Supreme
Court. Section 5 addresses deviation between districts.
In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that deviation up to 14.8%
would be permissible. The drafter recommended that this
section be deleted. Article 14 refers to the first
reapportionment, which is currently obsolete.
Representative John Davies noted concern with deleting the
proposed sections. He felt that those provisions had been
included to address unusual and rapid changes in
population. He recommended amending the provisions rather
than deleting them. Co-Chair Therriault believed that when
a census is taken every ten years that would be frequent
enough to address rapid growth concerns.
JAMES BALDWIN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, commented on the proposed changes
contained in the resolution. He advised that HJR 36 would
make substantial shifts from the way that things have been
done in the past, which will affect various regions within
the State.
He understood that the intent proposed in the House
Judiciary Committee reference to Page 2, Line 7, was to
establish a provision that would prevent military voter
surveys, and would then determine what portion of those
were not residents and not participating in the electoral
process. There would exist a system to address the non
participating military voters and their dependants. He
believed that the legislation had become confused with that
which was put forth by Representative Green's staff and the
intent achieved in the previous committee hearing.
In the last reapportionment case, the Court stipulated that
the board had justified not using military surveys as a
part of the 1990 reapportionment, but that they had an
obligation to go through the exercise of establishing that.
The intent of the previous committee was to remove that
obligation. Mr. Baldwin proposed that in today's
realignment situation, there could exist an imbalance in
certain districts based on the number of non-resident
military voters that are counted in the population base in
the census. The Legislature needs to take great care in
documenting intention when making these changes with the
understanding of legal consequences.
He contended that, military voter's register to vote
because they want the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD). Mr.
Baldwin added, in the House Judiciary Committee, there was
language added to make the Senate district lines
contiguous. Concern exists with this measure because some
districts are not contiguous lines but rather there are
bodies of water between them. The Courts have recommended
that the standards of contiguousness are not so rigorous
that they must apply to Senate districts, an act, which
would create geographic problems within the State. This
application can create serious districting problems in the
future and could mean a loss of a Senate seat for State
rural areas. That situation would create retrogression.
Mr. Baldwin stressed that the Finance Committee must
establish a strong defense record so when put to the test,
it will be workable to the Justice Department. A feasible
record has not yet been established.
Representative Grussendorf pointed out that the committee
substitute version creates twenty (20) Senate districts and
then divides them into two (2) House districts. He
believed such action would create problems, and recommended
starting with House districts creating an economic
compactness, he felt would work more smoothly.
Co-Chair Hanley stated that the way the current
constitution reads indicates that "reapportionment shall be
based upon civilian population with any election district
as reported by the census". If the previous committee
intended to remove "civilian", we would be left with the
current constitutional language.
Mr. Baldwin understood that the intent of the House
Judiciary Committee was to remove the ability to perform
the non-military surveys. He suggested that the intent be
clarified and the correct meaning established.
Co-Chair Hanley felt that including the word "resident"
would open up a constitutional bag of worms. A survey
administered only on military bases and not including those
people who are not residents, and then trying to apply the
same types of restrictions to the rest of the population
becomes problematic. A census is what has been used in the
past. Mr. Baldwin advised that concern had been addressed
in a Supreme Court case, at which time it was decided that
the State had a compelling interest to focus on the
military population. Other populations tend to be more
migratory, not staying as long as the military.
Co-Chair Hanley reiterated that adding the word "resident"
creates a host of problems and that he would support
deleting that word. Mr. Baldwin stated that it was not the
intention to exclude the non-resident military voters. He
commented that if that was no longer possible, the
Department then would not have the concern.
Co-Chair Therriault asked for further information regarding
the version submitted to the Finance Committee and that it
reflect action taken in the House Judiciary Committee.
HJR 36 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
(Tape Change HFC 98- 14, Side 2).
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|