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 |
---|