Legislature(1997 - 1998)

01/21/1998 01:06 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 1209                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the final item of business would be HJR
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.             
                                                                               
Number 1225                                                                    
                                                                               
JEFFREY LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green,              
Alaska State Legislature, came forward to present HJR 36 on behalf             
of the sponsor.  He reminded members that on May 5, 1997, HJR 36               
was introduced to the committee, at which time Jack Chenoweth, who             
was then legislative legal counsel, went through the bill section              
by section.  That meeting had ended with a question from                       
Representative Bunde as to the 17 states remaining that have                   
multimember districts, asking whether the movement was to more                 
multimember districts or more single-member districts.                         
                                                                               
MR. LOGAN distributed to members a chart titled, "Change in                    
Multimember Legislative Districts from 1980s to 1990s," which he               
had been given by the National Conference of State Legislatures                
(NCSL).  He explained that the chart shows the 17 states remaining             
which have some sort of multimember districts, and it compares the             
1980s and the 1990s with regard to the directions these states are             
going.  He said, "And it seems that the state House numbers are a              
bit more illustrative than the Senate numbers, which show that ...             
there are fewer multimember districts, I'll say, which I deduct                
that there are more states with single-member districts.  And                  
hopefully that will answer Representative Bunde's question, but I'm            
sure it will generate others."                                                 
                                                                               
Number 1342                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked:  Of the 33 other states, did any of            
them move back away from single-member districts?                              
                                                                               
MR. LOGAN answered no, that according to the NCSL, there are still             
only 17 states with multimember districts.  "Nobody went back," he             
added.                                                                         
                                                                               
Number 1362                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he'd thought two or three of them had            
gone from multimember to single-member districts.                              
                                                                               
Number 1366                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER advised members that another bill would be               
coming out soon which deals with this general area and suggests                
changing another body of law.  In the research that he and the                 
other joint sponsor did on that bill, they'd gone back and forth on            
the term "redistricting" versus "reapportionment."  He stated, "As             
best we can figure out at this point, the term 'reapportionment' is            
appropriate for the reconfiguring of the boundaries of election                
districts."                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that he and his legislative assistant have a              
different interpretation of that.                                              
                                                                               
Number 1414                                                                    
                                                                               
MR. LOGAN explained, "When the bill was drafted, it was the                    
drafter's opinion at that time that 'reapportionment' is a term                
generally reserved to amending or changing the number of                       
representatives within a fixed boundary, whereas 'redistricting'               
... is the process of changing the lines within a fixed boundary,              
referring more to ..."                                                         
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER interjected, "We will present case law that              
doesn't exactly support that position."                                        
                                                                               
Number 1457                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked what the procedure is under this                    
legislation to determine how many Senators and Representatives we              
have in the state.  She further asked, "What is the first test?"               
                                                                               
Number 1475                                                                    
                                                                               
MR. LOGAN referred to a proposed committee substitute, version 0-              
LS0939\E, Glover, 1/20/98, which he said contains a few minor                  
changes.  He stated, "The constitution now ... in Article VI,                  
Section 4, which is found on page 2 of the bill, Section 4, it                 
deleted language there.  It states the process by which the                    
dividing will take place.  And basically, they go from the                     
decennial census conducted by the federal government, they take                
that number and divide it by 40, and that is the size of the                   
district.  And then they begin adjustment procedures after that,               
depending upon what the courts have to say. ... As you can see, we             
delete that language.  We do not reinsert the number '40' in this              
language.  And the sponsor has indicated that he may be desiring of            
inserting the number '40' relating to House districts, and possibly            
'20' relating to Senate districts in here, to clarify that, since              
we've taken that language out and it's not reinserted in the                   
original bill or the committee substitute."                                    
                                                                               
Number 1564                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN concurred and said that is on page 2, line 2.  He               
said he will be trying to establish 40 single-member election                  
districts and 20 Senate districts, which would be an amendment                 
offered when Mr. Logan was through with his presentation.                      
                                                                               
Number 1579                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated she had asked because "40" has been             
around a long time.  She said she doesn't know what provision                  
except another constitutional amendment ever gets us to any other              
number, although she doesn't know that another number is needed at             
this point in time.  She stated, "But when you try to divide the               
state of Alaska into 40 equal sections, ... you have districts like            
36 and 37 that [are] unwieldy for anyone to represent the people in            
there.  And I'm not in favor of having a district with a smaller               
number of people.  The 'one man, one vote' is a very important                 
issue, I think, and so I'm not interested in that.  However, ... if            
the really smart people get together, we might be able to figure               
out something to do with that.  And so, having given that at this              
time, it seems like we might be able to give some instructions in              
the constitution to address that.  And I don't know what they would            
be, but -- you know, I don't want to open that can, really, but it             
is a concern of mine."                                                         
                                                                               
Number 1642                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that District 10 is neatly packaged within the            
Municipality of Anchorage, as opposed to District 36, which he                 
believed to be bigger than two-thirds of our states.                           
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE commented, "All but two states, Alaska                
being one of them."                                                            
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN said the problem they would have, if they tried to              
break that geographically, is a very disproportionate                          
representation from a very few people, which they would want to                
avoid at all costs.  He concluded that geographically "we're going             
to be on the horns of a dilemma for as long as you and I live, at              
least."                                                                        
                                                                               
Number 1689                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said there is another alternative, to                 
simply repeal Article VI, Section 4, and have a mix of multimember             
and single-member districts.  He added, "You could just randomly               
divide the top half of the state into a multimember district area              
and the bottom half of the state into single-member districts."                
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES suggested that would eliminate the "one man,              
one vote."                                                                     
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ disagreed.                                            
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN responded, "Not with multimember districts."                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said it would be even harder to get around.              
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested then there would be "two, three or four               
people having a much greater area."                                            
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said, "Unless they each only had one-quarter              
of a vote."                                                                    
                                                                               
Number 1717                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked what the impetus is for putting in                  
single-member districts, as opposed to having that option for the              
reapportionment board, and why it is preferable.                               
                                                                               
Number 1732                                                                    
                                                                               
MR. LOGAN explained, "The notion is that under the current                     
reapportionment plan, with single-member districts, we have had an             
opportunity to see how they work and to see how well they work.                
And some of the things we've noticed are that because the districts            
are smaller, first of all, campaigns' costs are limited.  People               
have more attachment to their representatives.  There are benefits             
of that type that we thought were important enough to enshrine the             
single-member districts in the constitution so that Alaskans have              
those benefits in the future."                                                 
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN commented, "And you have a federal trend that way,              
as well as other states are trending that way."  He stated his                 
belief that, as Mr. Logan says, it is a much more workable system.             
He commented, "Smaller groups, people associate you ... as their               
Representative, as opposed to a group, two or three or four."                  
                                                                               
Number 1777                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed with that from his experience.  His                
father was elected in a multimember district when Anchorage was                
multimember; walking with him door-to-door on his last campaign,               
Representative Croft said it was astounding to his father how much             
Representative Croft could know that "that's Susie (ph) and that               
dog's mean or whatever," whereas his father was used to having to              
walk the whole city, even back then.                                           
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that while he has a certain preference               
for single-member districts, he was trying to determine whether                
that should be enshrined.  He commented on how rarely they change              
the constitution, which is appropriate.  He said he'd read that in             
certain situations, multimember districts give the flexibility to              
ensure an adequate minority representation.                                    
                                                                               
Number 1830                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated, "Well, during the research that we               
did on the other bill that will be forthcoming - which doesn't                 
address this area but is part of the research - in reading the                 
cases, the federal guideline for population variance within an                 
election district is 2 percent, and over that, if there's some                 
specific circumstance that would balance off the intent to try to              
provide as much deference as possible to 'one man, one vote.'  Our             
supreme court, on the other hand, in '86 held that our                         
constitutional wording in the requirement to form contiguous and               
compact and - as nearly as practical - relatively integrated                   
socioeconomic area, Section 6, allowed them to say, 'We, to                    
accomplish this requirement, would allow a 10 percent variant, and             
even more, if to get into this area it seemed to be appropriate."              
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER concluded by saying he doesn't think that                
within the constitution they have a concern that a strict                      
application of single-member districts would tend to have an                   
adverse effect on minorities or socioeconomic groups.                          
                                                                               
Number 1909                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN said he had talked with some Representatives from               
the Bush, who favor this kind of enshrinement because they are                 
concerned that if they are drawn into a large area, they would                 
necessarily - to keep from having such a tremendous amount of                  
geography involved - "have to start gerrymandering into populated              
areas to get the population up enough, that they, in fact, could               
lose their identity more readily there than they would be having               
their own individual districts out in the Bush."   Chairman Green              
indicated one Bush legislator had been present but had had to                  
leave.                                                                         
                                                                               
Number 1942                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked, "Wouldn't it be nice someday if we get             
to the point where everyone could represent everyone without having            
to worry about a minority person representing minority?  If we                 
could just be colorblind."                                                     
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented that the U.S. Supreme Court                 
doesn't allow the drawing of lines based on ethnicity.                         
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there were other questions.  He noted             
that no one from the public had signed up to testify.                          
                                                                               
Number 1982                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to disagreement within the                    
committee about definitions of "reapportionment" and                           
"redistricting."  He asked whether they were going to clarify those            
as they apply to this bill.                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN replied that he would hope it would stay this way,              
as advised by the drafter, Mr. Chenoweth.                                      
                                                                               
Number 2044                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to adopt 0-LS0939\E, Glover,               
1/20/98, as a work draft.  There being no objection, that version              
was before the committee.                                                      
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER read from page 2, lines 4 through 9, Section             
3 of the proposed committee substitute, with added comments.  He               
said, "Redistricting - or Reapportionment, depending on this                   
discussion - of the House and Senate.  The governor shall                      
redistrict the house of representatives and the senate immediately             
following the official reporting of each decennial census of the               
United States.  Redistricting shall be based upon population, ...              
within each election and senate district as reported by the                    
census."  Representative Porter said that addresses specifically               
the boundaries, which is reapportionment, not redistricting.                   
                                                                               
Number 2076                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN replied that the fine line is that it would be                  
reapportionment if there were a different number, based on this                
census, "if we said, 'All right, we're going to have 41 or 44 or 38            
representatives.'"  Chairman Green explained, "We're not saying                
that.  We're saying we're going to have the 40, and of those 40,               
the boundaries for each one of them will be determined by this                 
census.  And I think that's where ..."                                         
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated, "I thought I heard you say that                  
reapportionment addresses the boundaries and redistricting the                 
members."                                                                      
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN responded, "No.  If I said that, I misled you.  I'm             
sorry."                                                                        
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he thought Chairman Green was correct.              
"You'll hear this again, though," he concluded.                                
                                                                               
Number 2103                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that is contrary to what is in the                   
existing constitution, and they must have meant something when they            
put in Section 3, "reapportionment," and in Section 6,                         
"redistricting."                                                               
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN responded that if they had multimember districts,               
the number within that district might change.  "We're not doing                
that," he explained.  "We're saying one Representative per                     
district.  We're changing the boundary.  We're not changing, within            
that boundary, the number of Representatives; that would be                    
reapportionment."                                                              
                                                                               
Number 2133                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether they had looked at it beyond             
the boundaries of Alaska.  He said there are large amounts of case             
law on this in the United States.  He commented that it shouldn't              
be that big a deal, but they should get it right.                              
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether Mr. Chenoweth had looked outside the              
state for this.                                                                
                                                                               
MR. LOGAN said he would have to ask him, and he wasn't sure that in            
Mr. Chenoweth's new capacity working for the Office of the Attorney            
General, he could answer that.  He suggested he could also ask the             
current drafter assigned to this bill to do that.                              
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Jim Sourant to address this issue.                        
                                                                               
Number 2181                                                                    
                                                                               
JIM SOURANT, Legislative Assistant to Representative Brian Porter,             
Alaska State Legislature, came forward to testify, saying he didn't            
claim to be an expert in this area but he had read all six or seven            
of the Alaska Supreme Court cases dealing with reapportionment.                
                                                                               
MR. SOURANT said to answer the question about which is                         
reapportionment and which is redistricting, in one of those cases -            
the name of which he didn't recall, but it was on his desk with                
language underlined - by way of dicta, the Alaska Supreme Court has            
said that in a way, redistricting and reapportionment are one and              
the same, that there really can't be one without the other.  He                
referred to page 2, Sections 3 and 4, of the proposed committee                
substitute for HJR 36, relating to Sections 3 and 4 of the                     
constitution.  He stated, "I would say both of those are the                   
reapportionment parts, that is, the idea that reapportionment means            
you have a population base and you divide that by the number of                
districts.  In other words, you're looking for a mathematical,                 
perfect number where every district winds up having an equal number            
of people.  That's the reapportionment part."                                  
                                                                               
MR. SOURANT explained that next is the drawing of the lines, which             
is in Section 5 of the resolution, relating to Section 6 of the                
constitution.  He stated, "And it tells you basically ... that you             
draw these lines, and that's redistricting."  He indicated neither             
the Alaska Supreme Court nor the U.S. Supreme Court has focused on             
the reapportionment part, "the population of the state divided by              
40."  Rather, they give that lip service as being the ideal way to             
start.                                                                         
                                                                               
MR. SOURANT continued, "But then you chip away at reality, which is            
found in ... your Section 5 and the Section 6 of the constitution,             
where they look at that language ... about trying to carve up these            
districts into compact, contiguous, and then in relatively                     
socioeconomic areas."  He said, again, the decisions pay lip                   
service to the "compact and contiguous" part, barely touching on               
that, and they look at the socioeconomic parts to see whether or               
not there is trade.  He suggested the best example of that would be            
the case involving the new district between South Anchorage and                
North Kenai.  He asked, "Now, they're not contiguous, are they?                
Because they're not touching.  The supreme court wasn't troubled by            
that.  They said as long as ... you had airplanes flying back and              
forth, ... and everybody fished and everybody visited with one                 
another, that was enough socioeconomic contact to justify the                  
district."  Mr. Sourant said he was not being rude to his elders on            
the court but was trying to give the idea that they put an enormous            
amount into that area.                                                         
                                                                               
Number 2312                                                                    
                                                                               
MR. SOURANT continued, "In fact, it's both the U.S. Supreme Court              
and in the Gaffney case, and in the Alaska Supreme Court, that say             
... you can have a deviation of up to 10 percent with no questions             
asked, provided ... you've got some good, rational basis.  And in              
Alaska, that means that socioeconomic stuff, which is pretty                   
malleable.  And they've hinted that ... you can go way beyond that             
in terms of the deviations.  And I think the worse case that we had            
in Alaska had a deviation of 29 percent in the House, between                  
districts, where some were over-represented and some were under-               
represented.  That was knocked down, thank goodness, because that              
would be offensive, I think, just to about everybody.  But                     
somewhere ... between 10 percent and 29 percent, the way our Alaska            
Supreme Court is looking at these cases, ... they can allow that               
much deviation in true representation.  So, I hope that helps, for             
a hip shot."                                                                   
                                                                               
Number 2359                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated claiming a fishing community is the same              
as a bedroom community in socioeconomic terms or otherwise makes               
one wonder.  He asked whether he was hearing that it is the wish of            
the committee that this be called "reapportionment" rather than                
"redistricting."                                                               
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said they all just want to get it right.               
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that where it used to say "redistricting" in              
Section 6, that had been dropped.                                              
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said in Section 5, it is a district                    
boundary.                                                                      
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER commented that after going full cycle, what              
they would see in HJR 44 is they went right back and left it the               
way it was.                                                                    
                                                                               
Number 2435                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said it seemed to him initially "that you did             
redistrict and reapportionment at the same time, because if you                
drew the line, the numbers of the people that got included or                  
excluded changed."  He acknowledged the need for consistency and               
suggested maybe asking the drafters to take another look.                      
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES suggested talking to Tamara Cook, the director            
of Legislative Legal and Research Services.                                    
                                                                               
TAPE 98-2, SIDE B                                                              
Number 0001                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES referred to the civilian population and                   
military bases.  She asked, "Have you dealt with the                           
resident/nonresident people in the counting, and is this an                    
appropriate place to do it?"                                                   
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN answered that this is not the appropriate place to              
change that back to "civilian."  He asked Mr. Logan to elaborate.              
                                                                               
MR. LOGAN said it reflects the Egan case [Egan v. Hammond, 502 P.2d            
856], an Alaska Supreme Court decision that said we cannot                     
discriminate between a civilian and a military population.                     
                                                                               
Number 0053                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that her own district has a huge                    
military population.  She said she has always tried to figure out              
why people don't vote, and she believes she doesn't have as many               
people in her district because they are counting military people               
who have their residence somewhere else.  She indicated she doesn't            
know that it is a problem.  She stated, "I just about know how many            
people vote, and that's about how many people I have.  But other               
places that have a large military complement in their district,                
technically those people get more votes than a person who has the              
right number of people who are voting in the district, in their                
district.  And I don't know what that percentage is, but I think               
it's a considerable amount."                                                   
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested they would actually get less votes.                   
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES disagreed, saying a fewer number of people                
with a vote is a bigger vote than a larger number of people with a             
vote.                                                                          
                                                                               
Number 0093                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said Representative James had brought up a                
good point, and his own amendment goes to that point.  He indicated            
he would be agreeable to having the amendment read either                      
"reapportionment board" or "redistricting board," whichever is                 
appropriate.                                                                   
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, which                 
read:                                                                          
                                                                               
     Page 2, line 9 following "census.":                                       
          Insert "The reapportionment board shall conduct a survey             
     to determine the percentage of resident and non-resident                  
     military voters and shall reapportion based on the resident               
     population."                                                              
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was any objection.                          
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she hadn't read it yet.                              
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN said it was just addressing her question.                       
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES answered that she didn't know how she wanted              
it settled.                                                                    
                                                                               
Number 0124                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained, "Our constitution said 'civilian               
population,' because, I think, when it was written the vast                    
majority of the military population was resident somewhere else -              
or at least a large majority of it.  And so, they said, 'We just               
want to count the nonmilitary.'  The supreme court said you can't              
do that; if there are legitimate military residents, you have to               
count them.  You don't have to count what Representative James was             
talking about, nonresident military personnel, which ... in the                
cases they keep abbreviating 'NRMP.' ... So, it's NRMPs that we're             
talking about, the people that might be counted there but are                  
really military personnel that are residents somewhere else.  And              
different apportionments have taken different approaches to that.              
It used to be -- actually, until the most recent one, they always              
did some kind of survey or asked the military for the information:             
'Tell us where your people are registered.'  The military did that             
for a while and then stopped, said, 'We're not going to tell you               
anymore.'"                                                                     
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT continued, "So, after that - I think in the               
'70s, but clearly by the '80s - they started doing surveys to get,             
'Well, as far as we can tell, roughly 60 percent are resident and              
40 percent are not; so, when we have a base with 10,000 people,                
we're going to estimate that's about 6,000 residents and about                 
4,000 nonresident NRMPs.'  And the last census did not do that."               
Representative Croft suggested that as a reason why Representative             
James' district may have that inflated number.  He said that                   
aspect concerns him, and he still hadn't decided whether mandating             
single-member districts is the right thing to do.  He stated that              
the amendment says, "The redistricting or reapportionment board -              
whichever one - shall conduct a survey to determine the percentage             
of resident and nonresident military voters and shall reapportion -            
or redistrict, I guess - based on the resident population."                    
                                                                               
Number 0209                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said, "If this reapportionment board, who                 
takes and divides the population into equal segments, they're going            
to take out the nonresident military voters before they ... say how            
many people are going to be in ... each one, then, I guess, in                 
those areas that have military, they have to again say, 'Well, how             
many of those nonresidents are in this area?'  Because we'll have              
to expand a little bit to be able to get the number of people."                
Representative James said these nonresident military people drive              
the same roads, attend the same schools, and do all those kinds of             
things that residents do.  She asked, "And does that mean if                   
they're not counted in the reapportionment, they don't have a                  
voice, either?  I don't know how I feel about that."  She indicated            
she also didn't know whether this is a good amendment or not, and              
that she believes there are many things to think about on that                 
issue before they go forward with it.                                          
                                                                               
Number 0265                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said that again because of research on the               
other bill, they'd looked into this.  He offered to have Mr.                   
Sourant elaborate if necessary, then said the best information they            
could get was secondhand, "reportedly from someone that worked at              
the census."  Representative Porter stated, "And they said ... true            
enough; they do not try to discriminate between resident and                   
nonresident military personnel when they do the census.  I don't               
know if they discriminate between resident and nonresident                     
civilians when they do the census.  There's some accommodation for             
..."                                                                           
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed, "There is."                                             
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the problem with the amendment is that              
it begs the question, "What is a resident?"  He said in this state,            
he'd guess that the military men and women, except perhaps those on            
temporary duty (TDY) at that particular moment in a ten-year                   
period, will be inspired to become residents because of the                    
Permanent Fund Dividend Program, which provides approximately                  
$1,000 each.  He referred to the court and said there was a lot of             
dicta, as always in court cases, but basically they had said,                  
"You've got to count your military."  Representative Porter said he            
would rather just generally count the military than try to get into            
the question of what a resident is, and by whose criteria.                     
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members that Mr. Logan had some answers.                
                                                                               
Number 0339                                                                    
                                                                               
MR. LOGAN said he believed the sponsor would oppose the amendment.             
While in a perfect world Representative Croft's language solves a              
number of perceived problems, in the real world of reapportionment             
it also raises a number of problems.  The first is with the term               
"survey," which is somewhat undefined and could take a number of               
forms.  For example, in the last reapportionment, there were three             
different surveys, including a "voter ID" survey, a telephone                  
survey, and a third survey.                                                    
                                                                               
MR. LOGAN advised members that the Cowper reapportionment board had            
also enlisted the Department of Labor to conduct an $80,000 study              
to determine the military resident and nonresident populations.                
However, that information was inconclusive and was not used to make            
any final decision.                                                            
                                                                               
MR. LOGAN indicated there are a number of logistical problems in               
determining what the resident versus nonresident population is.                
First is access to the base, which the military has left up to the             
base commander.  Therefore, one commander may allow a survey while             
another does not.  Mr. Logan said the biggest problem, according to            
material he has read, is that there is no way to survey off base,              
where a number of military personnel live, such as in Eagle River.             
The only way to do it would be a door-to-door survey, and the                  
integrity of the sample of the survey would be suspect.                        
                                                                               
MR. LOGAN noted that in the last reapportionment of the City of Los            
Angeles, for the city council itself the court required that legal             
residents, even if they were from across the border but legally                
there, had to be counted, although there was no opportunity for                
them to vote until they went through a citizenship process.                    
                                                                               
Number 0439                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested most bases would know how many              
housing units they had, how many were full, and how many troops                
were deployed at the base, and they could do simple addition or                
subtraction.  He provided examples.                                            
                                                                               
MR. LOGAN responded, "You're absolutely correct.  And                          
Representative Croft noted in the introduction to his amendment                
that the military used to do this; we used to be provided this                 
information.  But there's no way for us to require that the                    
military give us that information.  And in fact, in 1990, there                
were some states where they backed out the home of record - the                
military - to provide that information to some states, and                     
California and Hawaii were two.  I believe there were four.  I                 
think Oregon and Idaho were the other two.  But I know that in                 
California and Hawaii, the military provided that information to               
the reapportionment board, and they were able to do that.  And                 
you're right:  They know exactly where their people are pretty much            
all the time.  But in Alaska, they chose not to do that.  There we             
are."                                                                          
                                                                               
Number 0494                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said many Alaska residents are not here and               
therefore don't get counted, even though they may be back here                 
before the next ten years is up.  She said she didn't know what                
other states do.                                                               
                                                                               
Number 0512                                                                    
                                                                               
MR. LOGAN reported that in one document, the number of nonresident             
military people was described as "insignificant."  He told members             
he would try to attach a number to that for their benefit.  "It may            
be heavy in Representative James' district, but statewide, from                
what I have seen, the number is insignificant," he concluded.                  
                                                                               
Number 0551                                                                    
                                                                               
MR. SOURANT advised members that at least two or three of the seven            
Alaska Supreme Court cases he'd read talked about this military                
issue.  The important point is that there is language in one of                
those cases that the number of military people is so small that                
they use the words "de minimus" in terms of establishing the                   
population base.  So even in the Alaska Supreme Court's mind, this             
is not anything that will cause any egregious statistical errors.              
                                                                               
MR. SOURANT said he remembered - he believed it was from one of the            
state supreme court decisions - that it was so difficult to get the            
data about which military people were residents or nonresidents                
because the base commanders and administrative officers did not                
give out that data.  "So, if I understand the intent of the                    
amendment here, it's that the reapportionment board is going to do             
the survey, and it's not that they're trying to get this                       
information from the census," Mr. Sourant said.  "... You can spend            
a lot of money conducting a survey, but you won't get access to the            
data."                                                                         
                                                                               
Number 0610                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT wrapped up by saying "survey" was                         
intentionally undefined; he wanted to leave that to the                        
reapportionment board to figure out what appropriate poll, survey              
or analysis they believe is important.  He referred to the example             
from Los Angeles and said he almost never follows examples from                
there, nor will he.  He stated, "I don't know whether it's de                  
minimus.  Representative James, who knows her district better than             
any of us, says it's not in hers, and the important thing is, let's            
find out.  Let's have some survey process to find out and                      
approximate it."                                                               
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT concluded by saying, "We know we are                      
overcounting by some amount; ... when we count them as one-to-one,             
all residents, we assume that.  And I think it's better to be a                
little right than certainly wrong.  I mean, we might as well take              
a stab at this to get closer to the truth than simply acknowledge              
that we are going to be wrong on this.  And it will be closer if we            
try than if we don't.  So, for those reasons, I would continue to              
move Amendment 1, so that we have some estimate of what we know to             
be ... a small or a large problem, depending on whether                        
Representative James' firsthand experience or the reports of the               
supreme court are accurate."                                                   
                                                                               
Number 0674                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN said his final rebuttal would be about the concern              
over that being in the constitution.  If the court looks at this               
and says, "We don't think you made a good enough effort; you went              
to the base commander and he wouldn't give you the information; you            
should have done this, this, this, this, this," it could hold                  
elections in abeyance for an inordinate amount of time.  Chairman              
Green questioned whether any possible good from determining the                
number of military personnel in Representative James' district is              
germane to the potential of causing the election to be held up.  "I            
understand, and I think it's meritorious, if we could still get the            
information, I would certainly support the amendment," he                      
concluded.  "But I'm afraid not being able to get it will end up               
causing more problems than you'll ever solve by it."                           
                                                                               
Number 0714                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN, noting that he maintained a "no" vote, requested a             
roll call.  Voting for Amendment 1 were Representatives Berkowitz              
and Croft.  Voting against it were Representatives Bunde, James,               
Porter and Green.  Representative Rokeberg was absent, chairing                
another meeting.  Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 4-2.              
                                                                               
Number 0769                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to amend page 2, line 12, to               
insert the word "forty" between the words "establish" and "single-             
member."                                                                       
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there were questions or an objection.             
There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.                             
                                                                               
Number 0801                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT offered a conceptual amendment.  He explained,            
"On page 2, line 8, it says [CIVILIAN], and that's taken out; I                
understand why from the Egan v. Hammond case.  But in a previous               
draft, I'd seen 'resident,' and that's the way I'd understood the              
court interpreting it.  We said 'civilian,' but what they really               
have to mean is 'resident.'  Should that be 'resident population'              
there?"  He said it is "pretty much a technical-doing-what-the-                
supreme-court-told-us-we-had-to-do."  He concluded, "But with no               
modifier there, I'm not sure what would happen."                               
                                                                               
Number 0831                                                                    
                                                                               
MR. LOGAN responded, "Mr. Chairman, I didn't get to this yet.  This            
is one of the two changes I mentioned in the committee substitute.             
The first change is that on page 2, line 7, the word 'resident' is             
deleted in the committee substitute.  And the second change is that            
on page 2, line 19, the words 'and senate districts' are deleted."             
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he understood deleting the phrase "and               
senate districts" for consistency, but he didn't understand the                
deletion of the word "resident."                                               
                                                                               
Number 0862                                                                    
                                                                               
MR. LOGAN responded that it was for basically the same reasons he              
had listed in opposition to Representative Croft's earlier                     
amendment.  In trying to define what a resident is under the case              
law, at the last reapportionment the court came to no clear                    
conclusion, and it cost the state thousands of dollars to defend               
what that term was.  Therefore, it had been recommended that                   
"resident" be deleted here.                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN added that it would be dependent upon the decennial             
population number.                                                             
                                                                               
Number 0889                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT responded that it may be difficult to                     
determine, but he would like the resident population to be the                 
basis for "our election drawing."  He added, "Setting aside the                
whole military issue, it should be, as best we can approach it,                
residents."                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said determining the population is tough                 
enough.  He said it begs the question of what to do about the                  
residents of a particular election district that were not counted              
in the census, including, for example, military people who are                 
residents but stationed in Germany, senior citizens in hospitals               
and students away at a university.  Representative Porter asked,               
"What do you do about those folks if you say here that                         
redistricting shall be based on the resident population?  You can't            
use just the census, then, you have to use that plus some other                
things.  And I don't think we want to get into that."                          
                                                                               
Number 0946                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied that there are a lot of standards in              
reapportionment that are never quite met.  However, he wants the               
standard to be the resident population; that is what we should                 
shoot for, even if we will never count them perfectly.  He said he             
feels that to do otherwise would be a grave error.                             
                                                                               
Number 1003                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN replied, "Well, we are shooting for the decennial               
population, what is allocated to the state of Alaska by their                  
count, rather than to say, 'Well, but that didn't include Maude,               
who was out of the state at the time.'  And there will be those,               
both ways.  We'll have some in, and we'll have some out.  And                  
unfortunately, we have some projections.  They don't count every               
nose.  And this is a problem with the whole census concept.  But at            
least it reduces it down to a number that was given to us by the               
census takers."                                                                
                                                                               
Number 1026                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he hadn't looked at one of those                 
census books in quite a while.  However, if he remembered right, he            
said, census taking includes numbers such as tourists and transient            
workers.  He asked whether they are saying here that they'll count             
those people for redistricting purposes, or reapportioning,                    
whichever term they settled on.                                                
                                                                               
Number 1046                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated he presumed the objection was maintained.             
He asked whether there was further discussion, then asked                      
Representative Croft for confirmation that he wanted to put                    
"resident" in front of "population."                                           
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT answered, "Right, where 'civilian' was                    
deleted."                                                                      
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN requested a roll call vote on Amendment 3.  Voting              
for Amendment 3 were Representatives Berkowitz and Croft.  Voting              
against it were Representatives Bunde, James, Porter and Green.                
Representative Rokeberg was absent.  Therefore, Amendment 3 failed             
by a vote of 4-2.                                                              
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked for confirmation that Chairman Green               
didn't want to deal with the issue of whether to call it                       
"redistricting" or "reapportionment."                                          
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN said no, they were voting on it as-is.                          
                                                                               
Number 1107                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to move the proposed committee              
substitute for HJR 36, version 0-LS0939\E, Glover, 1/20/98, as                 
amended, from committee with individual recommendations and                    
attached fiscal note(s).                                                       
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected.                                             
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN requested a roll call vote.  Voting to move the                 
resolution from committee were Representatives Bunde, James, Porter            
and Green.  Voting against it were Representatives Berkowitz and               
Croft.  Representative Rokeberg was absent.  Therefore, CSHJR
36(JUD) moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote            
of 4-2.                                                                        

Document Name Date/Time Subjects