Legislature(1997 - 1998)

05/05/1997 01:32 PM House JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
 HJR 36 - REAPPORTIONMENT BOARD & REDISTRICTING                                
                                                                               
 Number 0076                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the first item of business was 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.                                                                  
                                                                               
 JACK CHENOWETH, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services,            
 Legislative Affairs Agency, explained that since not long after               
 statehood, it has been clear that provisions covering legislative             
 apportionment are out of sync with constitutional requirements                
 first laid down by the United States Supreme Court in the early               
 1960s.  This resolution would conform Alaska's constitutional                 
 scheme to those requirements.  It would also require that in future           
 legislative districting schemes, only single-member districts would           
 be used.                                                                      
                                                                               
 MR. CHENOWETH noted that HJR 36 deals principally with Article VI,            
 the legislative apportionment article of the constitution.  Section           
 1 of Article VI talks about election districts, the "term-of-art"             
 used to describe the districts in which House members run for                 
 election or re-election.  Section 1 of HJR 36 deletes obsolete                
 language that refers to the first reapportionment and the reference           
 to Article XIV, Section 1, substituting a requirement that the                
 boundaries of election districts be drawn in conformity with other            
 provisions of this article after each decennial census of the                 
 United States.  A parallel change is made in Section 2 for Senate             
 districts.                                                                    
                                                                               
 MR. CHENOWETH referred to Section 3 and said he is recommending               
 substitution of the term "redistricting" throughout this article.             
 "Reapportionment" is a term generally reserved to amending or                 
 changing the number of representatives within fixed political                 
 boundaries.  For example, every ten years when the census comes               
 out, the United States Congress is reapportioned, with states                 
 gaining or losing seats based on population changes.  The shift of            
 seats from one jurisdiction to another having fixed boundaries,               
 such as state boundaries, is a true reapportionment; the number of            
 seats is reallocated among these jurisdictions.                               
                                                                               
 MR. CHENOWETH explained that within jurisdictions, however, the               
 process of drawing lines is a simple redistricting, which is what             
 is going on with state legislatures.  The United States Supreme               
 Court has made it clear that only resident population count can               
 serve as the basis for the line-drawing and that any effort to tie            
 this to some sort of fixed, permanent or semi-permanent lines will            
 not sit well with the courts.  This is a simple redistricting of              
 Alaska into 20 Senate seats and 40 House seats.  Section 3 of HJR
 36 simply substitutes the term "redistricting" for                            
 "reapportionment", and that change is made throughout the rest of             
 the resolution.                                                               
                                                                               
 MR. CHENOWETH referred to page 2, line 7, and said it also                    
 substitutes the word "resident" so that "resident population"                 
 rather than "civilian population" is the basis for redistricting.             
 The limitation of tying this to a civilian population was set aside           
 by an early state supreme court case.  "And we have to go with some           
 sort of resident-based population scheme," he concluded.                      
                                                                               
 Number 0365                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. CHENOWETH said Section 4 deletes current language that talks              
 about how reapportionment shall be developed and substitutes the              
 requirement of single-member districts.  "The Governor is to                  
 establish single-member election districts and is to establish                
 Senate districts composed of two contiguous election districts,               
 with each Senate district to elect one Senator," he explained.                
 "That's the scheme that we now have in place."                                
                                                                               
 MR. CHENOWETH explained that Section 5 reworks Article VI, Section            
 6.  It deletes some language that ties back to reapportionment and            
 keeps in place the only language that seems to be pertinent to how            
 lines are to be drawn, the language that the reapportionment boards           
 in the past, and the courts in their review of the work of the                
 Governor, have looked back at and used to consider these                      
 reapportionment decisions.                                                    
                                                                               
 MR. CHENOWETH noted that Section 6 changes the board's name to the            
 "Redistricting Board".  It maintains the requirement of a                     
 geographic spread but unties this from the notion of fixed                    
 Southeastern, Southcentral, Central and Northwestern Senate                   
 districts, which are the fixed districts used in the original                 
 constitution; it substitutes the four judicial districts                      
 established by law and authorized under Article IV, Section 1.                
                                                                               
 MR. CHENOWETH said Section 7 simply is a change in name from                  
 "Reapportionment" to "Redistricting".  Section 8 updates some                 
 references to the Governor, removing a gender-based pronoun and               
 substituting a neutral term.  It also makes further substitutions             
 of "redistricting" for "reapportionment".                                     
                                                                               
 MR. CHENOWETH said Section 9 deletes two sections of Article VI               
 made obsolete by United States Supreme Court decisions:  Section 5,           
 which talks about combining House districts in order to maintain              
 Senate districts in the old fixed-boundary scheme, and Section 7              
 (misstated as Article VII), which talks about modification of                 
 Senate districts when necessary to accommodate population shifts.             
                                                                               
 MR. CHENOWETH stated, "We also propose to repeal Article XIV, which           
 is a provision that sets out the initial reapportionment dating               
 from 1959.  It's not used anymore.  It has no standing anymore.               
 Article XIV is simply a device or a vehicle by which we generally             
 restate the current apportionment, so that it can be found in the             
 statute books.  It's typically an annotation of some sort that                
 describes the boundaries of the current apportionment, so at least            
 we have it someplace out in the public and they can find it.  Every           
 time there's an apportionment change, every ten years, that change            
 is made.  But ... the original language of Article XIV is of no               
 value anymore."  He concluded by saying Section 10 is a boiler                
 plate to get this before the voters in November 1998.                         
                                                                               
 Number 0570                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT asked whether the major change is                   
 "constitutionalizing" single-member districts.                                
                                                                               
 MR. CHENOWETH said yes, for both the House and the Senate.                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked, "Do you mean any change in current law            
 when you make the switch from `civilian' to `resident,' that is,              
 the law that we're forced into by the federal interpretation?"                
                                                                               
 MR. CHENOWETH replied, "Yes, we are following the requirements that           
 have been imposed by, chiefly, recently, state supreme court                  
 decisions that have eliminated the use of `civilian' and required             
 that we go to a resident population base.  And the state supreme              
 court has suggested ways in which it is possible to take, for                 
 example, the military count, and try to allocate some number of               
 estimated military that reflect a better split between resident and           
 nonresident."                                                                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether it conforms to current practice            
 in that regard.                                                               
                                                                               
 MR. CHENOWETH affirmed that.                                                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to the term "contiguous" and said               
 he'd read some of those cases.  Because of geography, Alaska has an           
 interpretation somewhat different from other states.  For example,            
 Alaska has one Senate district and two House districts separated by           
 700 miles of ocean; those are considered "contiguous."  He stated,            
 "So, we don't mean any change in that."                                       
                                                                               
 MR. CHENOWETH concurred.                                                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked, then, whether the sole substantive                
 change is locking in single-member districts.  If this were current           
 law and these changes had been made two years ago, would what they            
 are doing now be legal?                                                       
                                                                               
 MR. CHENOWETH said yes.                                                       
                                                                               
 Number 0714                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ asked for confirmation that there is           
 no constitutional problem with the existing structure, from a                 
 federal perspective.                                                          
                                                                               
 MR. CHENOWETH replied that what problems there might be, the state            
 courts have generally worked their way around.  They have looked at           
 decisions of the United States Supreme Court and accommodated as              
 best as they've been able to, pointing out that this is an article            
 in need of revisitation and amendment, in light of decisions from             
 the United States Supreme Court and their own practices.                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ indicated the Hickel case is the only                
 related case he has read, although there may be others.  He asked,            
 "What, generically, are the concerns in the courts?"                          
                                                                               
 MR. CHENOWETH answered, "Well, the courts have had to fill in, if             
 you will.  They have had to assume responsibility where there was             
 no literal expression of responsibility for action taken by the               
 Governor or by the reapportionment board as recommendations to the            
 Governor.  For example, there is no authority in law to adjust the            
 terms of sitting Senators.  The courts have filled in by saying               
 that when there is a substantial change in a boundary, and a Senate           
 district is increased substantially so that new faces are brought             
 in or former constituents are let go of and put in a different                
 district, ... there is an inherent authority to cut short by two              
 years the Senate terms and require a Senator ... in a remade                  
 district to run again."                                                       
                                                                               
 MR. CHENOWETH indicated there is nothing of that in the state                 
 constitution, adding, "They have simply accepted the fact that that           
 needs to be done, looked at the operation of that kind of a                   
 provision in other states and adapted it ... into this."  He                  
 emphasized this is the one thing for which no express provision               
 exists in the state constitution, nor is there an express provision           
 for it in this resolution.                                                    
                                                                               
 Number 0845                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE asked why they weren't including that                
 omitted provision here.                                                       
                                                                               
 MR. CHENOWETH answered, "Well, I think you should.  I think a                 
 complete package would be some sort of reference in here that the             
 Governor has explicit authority to, under some kind of                        
 circumstances, cut short the terms of sitting Senators and require            
 that they run for re-election.  Now, I don't know how that's going            
 to sit in the other body, and I certainly wasn't asked to make that           
 change.  I only throw it out on the table as the one piece of this            
 puzzle that, as I went back and looked at this thing over the                 
 weekend, I thought perhaps we ought to put something in there so              
 that the courts are not relying upon some assumed authority.                  
 Having rewritten Article VI, perhaps we ought to add that in and              
 make that point clear."                                                       
                                                                               
 Number 0919                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted the lateness in the session and the                
 expense required for a public vote on a constitutional amendment.             
 He suggested they'd be remiss not to include as many housekeeping             
 details as possible.  He'd like to see that provision included.               
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER pointed out that the Governor can make            
 the appointment to the districting board without confirmation by or           
 concurrence of the legislature.  He asked whether it would be a               
 friendly amendment to add that.                                               
                                                                               
 Number 1001                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN said that was a good thought.  He mentioned the "two           
 concepts" and asked Mr. Chenoweth whether there is a way to tighten           
 this so that nothing is left to chance.  They'd been working this             
 way at least as long as he'd been in the state, that "every                   
 decennial election, the Senators just serve two terms, and then               
 everybody starts from scratch again; but this would codify it."               
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER indicated his own suggestion about                      
 confirmation had been somewhat facetious.                                     
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that he was discussing the prior issue.              
 Although it wasn't essential to do it immediately, he wondered                
 whether there was a way to modify it, possibly for review at a                
 future meeting.                                                               
                                                                               
 MR. CHENOWETH said he believed that could be accomplished.  It may            
 only be necessary to add a sentence or a fraction of one that                 
 invites the published final plan to indicate some determination on            
 the terms of Senators then in office, or words to that effect.                
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN said he perceived that to be the will of the                   
 committee, according to comments.                                             
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether there would be other witnesses.            
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN replied that no one was on teleconference, but Mr.             
 Baldwin was signed up to testify locally.                                     
                                                                               
 Number 1114                                                                   
                                                                               
 JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs               
 Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, came forward             
 to testify, saying Representative Croft's questions had pretty well           
 covered what he wanted to clarify that day.  The people in his area           
 of the department generally end up advising the reapportionment               
 board.  He said, "I guess I've been through about three or four,              
 but not that many governors.  It seems like there's been more                 
 reapportionments than there have been governors because of the way            
 these things get into litigation.  And we seem to have to do them             
 more than once per ten-year cycle."                                           
                                                                               
 MR. BALDWIN indicated the application of the federal voting rights            
 act has made their job increasingly complicated over time.  He                
 explained, "It seems like we do the plan, we get through our                  
 courts, and then we have to get through the Justice Department for            
 pre-clearance, which then seems to make us have to go through                 
 another cycle again."  Mr. Baldwin is concerned, with this                    
 legislation particularly, about abandoning some current flexibility           
 in techniques to bring forward reapportionment plans.  He stated,             
 "If you go strictly to a single-member-district approach, then you            
 give up the ability to go to multi-member districts, if that would            
 serve our interests and perhaps assist us in gaining pre-clearance            
 from the Justice Department."                                                 
                                                                               
 MR. BALDWIN said he couldn't pose a particular set of facts that              
 would cause that to arise.  "But I've been having a terrible time             
 doing that for every reapportionment plan we've come up with;                 
 there's always been something new that comes up to cause us a                 
 hurdle before the Justice Department," he stated.  "So, I just ask            
 the committee to consider that fact.  As our population grows and             
 it shifts, and we know it's shifting somewhat, particularly towards           
 the Mat-Su area of the state, it's going to take a larger                     
 population for rural areas of the state; they're going to have to             
 come in and pick up, perhaps, what we call the `fringe areas' of              
 the municipalities and more higher-populated areas."                          
                                                                               
 MR. BALDWIN said it might be possible they'd need to go to multi-             
 member districts to solve some particular problem.  Under the                 
 current interpretation of the state constitution, they can go to              
 single-member districts if the Governor desires that.  Mr. Baldwin            
 advised members, "Not knowing who the next Governor is going to be            
 that's going to be writing the next plan, you might want to keep in           
 mind leaving that option open to him or her."                                 
                                                                               
 MR. BALDWIN expressed concern that being required to go to single-            
 member districts may affect rural areas more than urban areas.                
 While he wasn't saying they'd want to do multi-member districts in            
 rural areas, they may need to do so in urban districts in order to            
 make things work in the rural areas.  Or they could possibly be               
 into retrogression, which he called a "nasty word in the area of              
 voting rights."  Mr. Baldwin explained, "In other words, the                  
 minorities who are represented now would lose representation.  And            
 ... mathematically, if that works out, if demographically that                
 works out, we have to do that, that's fine.  But ... if it can be             
 done another way, the Justice Department is going to be there, and            
 I don't know what the outcome would be, lacking the flexibility               
 that we have now.  So, ... I really hate this saying, but `if it              
 ain't broke, don't fix it' might well apply here."                            
                                                                               
                                                                               
 MR. BALDWIN said he believed the testimony earlier was that the               
 requirement of districting only resident population is not intended           
 to be a change from anything now in effect.  He stated, "Our                  
 supreme court was not quite so direct in the way it said that                 
 contiguity can include expanses of water.  And I want to make sure            
 that in here you're not saying `contiguous' in its plain meaning,             
 which means right up against one another.  We can't lose that                 
 flexibility, because geography just works against us in so many               
 ways, and particularly getting things to work.  So, I'm glad that             
 you're creating a strong record for that."                                    
                                                                               
 Number 1380                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. BALDWIN noted that it was nearly the end of session.  If this             
 resolution did not pass both houses, he asked the committee to                
 carefully consider studying this matter in the interim,                       
 particularly with regard to single-member districts.  He mentioned            
 "knowing better what's going into the building blocks of the                  
 census, which is being put together now, whether there isn't going            
 to be enough evidence there to perhaps lead to a decision that we             
 don't need to abandon this flexibility that we have now."                     
                                                                               
 MR. BALDWIN commented that from a Governor's perspective, single-             
 member districts are good because a veto can be done "surgically,"            
 by district.  However, from the realities of reapportionment or               
 redistricting, it may cause real problems for the next Governor.              
                                                                               
 Number 1432                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated they had used this method since the 1992             
 election.  He asked whether there wasn't a significant influx and             
 shifting of population in the 1980s.  He said it seems the concerns           
 Mr. Baldwin expressed were handled well in single-member districts.           
 He asked, "Do you anticipate some reason why that won't continue to           
 be handled well with single-member districts?"                                
                                                                               
 MR. BALDWIN said the only thing he can successfully anticipate is             
 that there will be litigation over the plan, one way or another.              
 There have been a couple of supreme court cases recently on using             
 minority voters as a criteria.  While he can't foresee the affect             
 of that, he predicts Alaska will be in a "fight over retrogression"           
 in the next reapportionment.  He explained, "When you go into these           
 reapportionment efforts, the Justice Department generally sticks              
 you with a benchmark as to ... how many minority-influence seats              
 you have, how many majority seats you have.  And if the way we go             
 into it forces us into a retrogression situation, I see long and              
 protracted litigation, with uncertain results at the end of the               
 tunnel."                                                                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked, "With the feds?"                                 
                                                                               
 MR. BALDWIN replied, "I think with the minorities, and the feds               
 will be as a part of it, yes.  They will be ... in the litigation             
 as well."  He said for a state like Alaska, which is closely                  
 monitored under the voting rights act, the best situation is not to           
 have retrogression but to maintain the benchmarks, if at all                  
 possible.  While it is hard to predict what will happen, he                   
 anticipates that is what Alaska will be confronted with.  There               
 might be ways to avoid it.                                                    
                                                                               
 MR. BALDWIN stated, "Keeping the maximum powers in the hands of the           
 Governor to do that, (indisc.) in the board to do that, would be my           
 preferred alternative.  But it's not the best."  He pointed out               
 there is much good to be said for single-member districts.                    
 Campaigns are cheaper and easier.  It is easier to maintain "one              
 person, one vote."  Constituents don't need to feel that they can't           
 tell who their representative is, and there is a more direct                  
 relationship.  Mr. Baldwin stated, "There's all those good things,            
 but when you get right down to the problems that we have with a               
 small population, a large area of geography and much water and all            
 those factors brought to bear, tying your hands to one method of              
 redistricting might not be what would serve the interests of ...              
 the state as a whole."                                                        
                                                                               
 Number 1596                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested that when one looked at the demographics             
 of the districts as they were done, and the number of minorities              
 and other factors, it looked pretty good across the state.  "To               
 then say that it might be better to go to multiple-member districts           
 and potentially get back into the `doughnut' district or Valdez               
 being tied in with South Anchorage, I mean, those kinds of things             
 seem to be much more confusing and much more potential for                    
 litigation than to go to an area where the constituency is far more           
 aware of who their representative really is," he said.                        
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES agreed with Mr. Baldwin's reasons              
 why a single-member district is important.  She indicated she'd               
 prefer not to have an option, which they may use when they don't              
 need to.  She'd never yet seen a redistricting without litigation.            
 She feels much more comfortable with a single-member district                 
 because of the "one man, one vote" issue and because the people               
 know who represents them.  She believes those are important issues.           
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated she understands about losing members           
 from rural areas.  However, in the next ten years there may be a              
 surge in the rural areas, particularly if they get some of the                
 anticipated development.  She asked whether "maybe it ought to be             
 left that the option is only a single-member district and then,               
 should we see a problem with that coming in the future, that we               
 then go to the voters to ask for a change."  She added, "Maybe                
 that's not wise, because maybe most of the voters are in the areas            
 who love to have more representation than less out there; I don't             
 necessarily think that's true."  She asked Mr. Baldwin to respond             
 to that way of looking at it.                                                 
                                                                               
 Number 1708                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. BALDWIN replied, "I don't think it's harder to come up with a             
 list of ... why you'd want multi-member districts, first off.  I              
 think there's a list of reasons for that, too, and because of the             
 other criteria in the constitution about compactness and                      
 socioeconomic interrelatedness, which are the other criteria in the           
 constitution, it might well be able to state a case that an area,             
 for example, Juneau, which ... has in past reapportionment plans,             
 before the one we're in, has had multi-member districts, and                  
 probably for a good reason.  It's hard to see any division line               
 between the town and the [Mendenhall] Valley, for example, and                
 there have been other areas in the state that are like that, that             
 have benefitted from having multi-member districts."                          
                                                                               
 MR. BALDWIN said he didn't know what the process would be for the             
 voters to come back and change it at some point in the future.  He            
 stated, "I mean, we have a reapportionment, and we try to do a plan           
 and have it done so it can be in place for another ten years.  And            
 to interrupt that in the middle of a cycle, which is what we've               
 done the last couple of times because of litigation, has been very            
 disruptive to the electoral process.  Can you imagine the Division            
 of Elections scrambling to try and get their precinct lines and               
 regulations done for an election when you don't know what the                 
 districts are going to be?  It's really pandemonium."  He said he             
 wouldn't recommend an approach like that, if he understood the                
 question correctly.                                                           
                                                                               
 Number 1777                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES mentioned a lawsuit "determined on a national            
 level last year" about gerrymandering in the South.  In her own               
 district, she noted that they'd "zeroed out Nenana to meet some               
 population, Native population, and left me with less people in my             
 district than other districts," but within the parameters allowed.            
 She asked whether that court decision would have precluded that               
 from happening and whether Mr. Baldwin was familiar with it.                  
                                                                               
 MR. BALDWIN replied, "Yes, I am.  I don't think so.  Representative           
 Croft and I've argued about this a little bit; he doesn't quite see           
 it my way.  But I think that in Alaska we did our redistricting               
 considering not only race; we also considered the other traditional           
 criteria, which are compactness and socioeconomic connectedness.              
 At the same time, we did the adjustments which were required, we              
 thought, to meet pre-clearance requirements.  It's only when you're           
 doing it based completely on race, without any other criteria, that           
 you fall into the realm of those U.S. Supreme Court cases involving           
 Texas and Georgia.  So, if that was your ... sole criteria, you did           
 it just because of race considerations, then you're going to have             
 violated the U.S. Constitution."                                              
                                                                               
 Number 1874                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER indicated that if it wasn't the sponsors'               
 desire to get this past both bodies this year, he was only being              
 facetious regarding confirmation of the board by the legislature to           
 the extent that he believed this was a "slam-dunk" housekeeping               
 legislation.  However, if the main feature needs looked at further,           
 this would be the appropriate committee to perhaps look at "a much            
 bigger element of this whole area."                                           
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER explained, "I would think that it would be              
 appropriate to try to get a procedure to put in place a board that            
 would look at redistricting from a position of what is the most               
 appropriate - under the law - district to put in place for the                
 betterment of the voters of the state of Alaska, instead of, `How             
 much partisan gerrymandering can we do and get away with it?'  And            
 I'm not saying that one party does this any better or worse than              
 the other party.  I mean, we've been here long enough to know that            
 they both do it.  So, if it is that we have a desire to work on               
 this over the interim, I would be happy to try to work on that                
 element also."                                                                
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated changing that would raise a concern.  He             
 asked whether Mr. Baldwin had indicated, in response to                       
 Representative Porter's mention of this earlier, that the                     
 Administration would be more concerned about the resolution if they           
 modified the strong gubernatorial input in selection of the board.            
                                                                               
 MR. BALDWIN suggested that may have been Mr. Chenoweth.  He said it           
 wasn't brought up while he was present.                                       
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked, "So, you don't see any problem with that?"              
                                                                               
 MR. BALDWIN laughed, then said, "I think that the constitution is             
 just fine, as far as having the Governor appoint the board.  That             
 was a decision that was hotly debated in the minutes of the                   
 constitution. ... They felt that the legislature, while a[n]                  
 exceedingly wise organization, maybe was not best suited for ...              
 making reapportionment decisions."                                            
                                                                               
 Number 2004                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested if they knew anything after this               
 history, it's that the legislature doesn't want to be involved in             
 rewriting its own boundaries.  While to some extent it's up to the            
 vagaries of who is in office every decade and there have been some            
 games, he can't imagine the games there would be if the legislature           
 were in charge of that.                                                       
                                                                               
 Number 2024                                                                   
                                                                               
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded that he certainly wasn't suggesting           
 that.  He was suggesting trying to establish a neutral board                  
 without gubernatorial or legislative direction on how to try to               
 gerrymander the districts.  He said, "And if there's anybody here             
 that doesn't think that that isn't what's happened the last 10, 20,           
 30, 40 years, I'll talk to you after we get off the record."                  
                                                                               
 Number 2050                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE brought up questions he'd like to have                   
 addressed if this was worked on during the interim.  First, do                
 other states have both single-member and multiple-member districts            
 in the same body?  And have other states gone from having single to           
 multiple members?  He understood that most have gone from multiple            
 to single, for many good reasons, and while he understood the plea            
 for flexibility, "we may need a socket set here but we've got a               
 crescent wrench; maybe we don't need to keep the crescent wrench."            
                                                                               
 MR. BALDWIN replied that he didn't know the answer but would be               
 happy to research it.                                                         
                                                                               
 Number 2107                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there were further comments.  Speaking           
 as both sponsor and chairman, he announced that HJR 36 would be               
 held over and worked on during the interim.                                   

Document Name Date/Time Subjects