Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120

02/20/2018 03:15 PM House STATE AFFAIRS

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
03:19:55 PM Start
03:20:47 PM HJR26
03:54:32 PM Confirmation Hearing(s)|| Confirmation Hearing(s)
04:01:45 PM Presentation: Indirect Expenditure Hearing
04:52:27 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ Indirect Expenditure Hearing TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ Confirmation Hearing: Leslie Ridle TELECONFERENCED
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
        HJR 26-CONST. AM: REDISTRICTING;BOARD MEMBERSHIP                                                                    
3:20:47 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  announced that the first  order of business                                                               
would be  SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR  HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION  NO. 26,                                                               
Proposing amendments to  the Constitution of the  State of Alaska                                                               
relating  to  the membership  and  actions  of the  Redistricting                                                               
Board and  relating to district boundaries  and the establishment                                                               
of a nonpartisan statewide district map.                                                                                        
3:20:58 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  LES  GARA,  Alaska State  Legislature,  as  prime                                                               
sponsor, presented SSHJR 26.   He noted that a proposed committee                                                               
substitute  (CS)  for  SSHJR 26,  Version  30-OS0155\N,  Bullard,                                                               
1/31/18  [included in  the committee  packet and  referred to  as                                                               
Version   N]   would   attempt   to   eliminate   politics   from                                                               
redistricting, which is  also referred to as  gerrymandering.  He                                                               
said that roughly  ten states have adopted  a non-partisan method                                                               
of  drawing district  lines  so  as not  to  favor  one party  or                                                               
another.   He  maintained that  both parties  have tried  to take                                                               
advantage of the redistricting process.                                                                                         
3:22:49 PM                                                                                                                    
JUSTIN  LEVITT,   Professor,  Loyola  Law  School,   relayed  his                                                               
experience in the  field of redistricting and voting  rights.  He                                                               
testified that  he agrees  with Representative  Gara's assessment                                                               
that neither  party has a  monopoly on abusing  the redistricting                                                               
process when  possible.  He  stated that in most  states, sitting                                                               
legislators  draw  both  their   own  district  lines  and  where                                                               
applicable, districts  of members of  Congress.  He said  that it                                                               
is often legislative leadership  that wields redistricting power,                                                               
not the  "rank and file" legislators.   He reported that  in many                                                               
states,  leadership  is at  least  tempted  to use  redistricting                                                               
power as a cudgel against both  members of the opposing party and                                                               
occasionally against members of their own party.                                                                                
MR.  LEVITT  continued  by  saying that  the  process  is  rarely                                                               
transparent; because  redistricting can be very  personal when it                                                               
is  pursued  as an  exercise  in  raw  partisan power,  it  often                                                               
appears  to be  overflowing with  ill will,  creating significant                                                               
conflict   among  legislators   that   carries   over  into   the                                                               
legislative sessions.   He maintained that when  this happens, it                                                               
creates  substantial  cynicism  among  the public,  even  if  the                                                               
process  did not  actually put  personal  and partisan  interests                                                               
ahead of  the public interest.   He  said that in  his experience                                                               
and in  the experience of many  other redistricting commentators,                                                               
it often  appears to the  public eye  that the system  is rigged,                                                               
that is,  members exercising  the power granted  to the  state to                                                               
act on behalf  of all its constituents but  exercising that power                                                               
to benefit just a few.                                                                                                          
MR.  LEVITT  offered  his  belief  that  the  U.S.  is  the  only                                                               
industrialized  western  democracy  that allows  those  with  the                                                               
greatest potential  for conflict  of interest  to draw  their own                                                               
electoral  district lines.    He said  that  many countries  have                                                               
observed the  U.S. practice and  determined that they can  find a                                                               
better way.                                                                                                                     
3:26:59 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  LEVITT relayed  that a  few states,  including Alaska,  have                                                               
taken  a   different  approach   to  drawing   state  legislative                                                               
districts.  Connecticut  and Maine allow the  legislature to draw                                                               
redistricting lines  that have supermajority  requirements, which                                                               
can increase  the likelihood  of a more  bipartisan outcome.   He                                                               
reported  that   seven  states  -  Arkansas,   Colorado,  Hawaii,                                                               
Missouri, New  Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania  - have established                                                               
commissions  to  draw  redistricting   lines  but  allow  elected                                                               
officials  to serve  on  those commissions.    In most  instances                                                               
these  bodies are  also structured  in  a manner  designed to  be                                                               
bipartisan; therefore, they differ from  the legislature.  In two                                                               
other states  - Iowa  and New  York -  there are  advisory bodies                                                               
with   substantial  independence   from   the  legislature,   but                                                               
theoretically they are subject to  legislative override.  He said                                                               
that New  York's system is new  for the year 2020,  so it remains                                                               
to be seen how it will work.   Iowa's experience in the last four                                                               
decades shows that its independent  body substantially drives the                                                               
process and  has never been  overridden by the  legislature, even                                                               
though the legislature has that authority.                                                                                      
MR.  LEVITT   referred  to  several   other  states   -  Arizona,                                                               
California, Idaho, Montana, Washington, and  as of 1998, Alaska -                                                               
that  have   asked  commissions   with  substantial   amounts  of                                                               
independence  from the  legislature  to  draw legislative  lines.                                                               
These  states  are  often   considered  leaders  of  establishing                                                               
redistricting processes in that  the processes correspond more to                                                               
public interest than  to partisan or private  interests.  Members                                                               
of  the commissions  in  all  these states  must  not be  current                                                               
sitting state  legislators or  other specified  public officials;                                                               
the list  varies from state  to state.   He said that  members of                                                               
the commissions  of these states  are precluded from  running for                                                               
office  in the  districts for  which  they have  drawn lines,  at                                                               
least  for  a  few  years.     In  the  states  with  independent                                                               
commissions, all but  one are designed so that  the membership of                                                               
the commission is  balanced in a bipartisan fashion.   He offered                                                               
that  California, in  addition, provides  specific membership  on                                                               
the commission  for those who  are affiliated with  neither major                                                               
MR. LEVITT relayed that the one  state that does not, at present,                                                               
have  a  directly  and   intentionally  bipartisan  structure  is                                                               
Alaska.   States  have  created  a diverse  array  of options  to                                                               
perform legislative and  congressional redistricting; even within                                                               
the rough categories described,  there is substantial variance in                                                               
how each  structure is designed  and substantial variance  in how                                                               
each works in  practice.  He added that some  of the systems work                                                               
quite well; some  work fairly well; and some  work fairly poorly.                                                               
Each  likely  could be  improved  -  sometimes incrementally  and                                                               
sometimes exponentially.                                                                                                        
3:30:53 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. LEVITT  maintained that he  firmly believes that there  is no                                                               
single correct "cookie  cutter" answer for every  state; there is                                                               
no "magic  bullet" that  can or  should be  uniformly implemented                                                               
everywhere and in  the same way, without  concern for demography,                                                               
history, or political  context.  He expressed  that Iowa's system                                                               
works  well for  Iowa but  would  not work  well for  California.                                                               
California's system works well for  California but is unnecessary                                                               
for Idaho.  Idaho's system works  well for Idaho but isn't likely                                                               
to work  well in New  York.  He  asserted that each  system, even                                                               
when  it  functions  well  for  its  own  state,  can  likely  be                                                               
3:31:39 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. LEVITT  related that  the present system  in Alaska  has many                                                               
elements to commend it, but it,  too, can be improved.  He opined                                                               
that the process  was improved in 1998, when  control passed from                                                               
the  governor alone  to the  current reapportionment  board.   He                                                               
expressed his belief  that Version N of SSHJR 26  would make even                                                               
greater  advancements to  the process.   At  present, Alaska  has                                                               
some safeguards  for the public.   Those  who draw the  lines may                                                               
not  be  public employees  or  officials  at  the time  they  are                                                               
appointed or throughout the tenure  of their appointments.  There                                                               
are provisions for  geographic diversity; there must  be a member                                                               
from each judicial district on  the board.  There was substantial                                                               
transparency in  the manner that  redistricting was  conducted in                                                               
the 2000 and 2010 redistricting cycles.                                                                                         
MR.   LEVITT   said   that  in   theory,   appointment   to   the                                                               
reapportionment board  is to be  made without regard  to partisan                                                               
political affiliation; the members of  the board are not supposed                                                               
to be partisan.  He pointed  out that currently, four out of five                                                               
members of the reapportionment board  are themselves appointed by                                                               
officials elected  to political positions;  it is often  the case                                                               
that the  officials of one  political party  will do most  of the                                                               
appointing.    He  explained that  when  elected  officials  with                                                               
partisan allegiance  make the appointments,  even while  the text                                                               
precludes appointment regarding  partisan affiliation, the public                                                               
may  be  misled into  perceiving  that  the  board itself  has  a                                                               
partisan slant.                                                                                                                 
MR. LEVITT  stated that Version  N would continue  Alaska's hardy                                                               
tradition of  a redistricting body distinct  from the legislature                                                               
and  continue   the  tradition   of  precluding   current  public                                                               
employees and  officials.   In addition, it  would add  a welcome                                                               
measure   of  incremental   independence  by   precluding  former                                                               
political  party operatives  and  former  elected officials  from                                                               
serving  on  the board.    He  maintained  that Version  N  would                                                               
prevent  someone  from retiring  from  a  legislative office  and                                                               
serving on the board  the next day.  It would  also add a measure                                                               
of partisan balance  to the reapportionment body  itself with two                                                               
members from each  of the major parties and  several members from                                                               
neither.  He opined that  this would more closely approximate the                                                               
structure  of independent  commissions in  other states,  such as                                                               
Arizona, Idaho,  Montana, and Washington; he  noted the political                                                               
and partisan  diversity of this  group of  states.  He  opined it                                                               
would  strengthen the  measures of  incremental independence  and                                                               
incremental balance;  it would strengthen the  Alaskans' faith in                                                               
the redistricting process.                                                                                                      
3:35:16 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  LEVITT relayed  that  Version N  also  would strengthen  the                                                               
redistricting process's  focus on criteria that  benefit Alaskans                                                               
- retaining  the state's very strong  protections for communities                                                               
of interest  - and thus,  legislators would really know  who they                                                               
are representing,  and that  would be felt  and perceived  by the                                                               
public.  The criteria would  still be embodied in the requirement                                                               
that districts contain  relatively integrated socioeconomic areas                                                               
but would  add specific  language that  would preclude  drawing a                                                               
map to  unduly favor a  party or  candidate.  He  maintained that                                                               
aspect being important both for the  substance of the map and the                                                               
public perception of  it.  He said that the  Alaska Supreme Court                                                               
has emphatically  enforced the  redistricting provision  of state                                                               
law  and  that he  expects  it  would  enforce the  provision  of                                                               
Version N,  if it became  law, which should give  Alaska citizens                                                               
incremental confidence that the process is defined for them.                                                                    
MR.  LEVITT stated  that he  has  focused his  testimony on  fair                                                               
process, not  results, which  he said  is appropriate.   Alaskans                                                               
are diverse with various protected  racial and ethnic communities                                                               
and many citizens who prefer  one of the major political parties.                                                               
He  offered  that there  is  a  fierce independent  streak  among                                                               
Alaskans; some  citizens prefer neither  major party.   Districts                                                               
that  are drawn  through a  fair process  will inevitably  in any                                                               
given cycle or  election end up creating  some natural advantages                                                               
for certain candidates; it is  impossible to remove all political                                                               
results from the redistricting process.   However, he opined that                                                               
a fair process - one designed  to be independent of the candidate                                                               
running in  the districts  drawn and one  with natural  balance -                                                               
will  give  Alaskans  increased  confidence  that  the  electoral                                                               
contests,  whatever  their  outcomes,   have  not  been  unfairly                                                               
tilted.  He  expressed his belief that Version  N brings Alaska's                                                               
process  closer to  that  ideal and  moving  in an  incrementally                                                               
positive direction.                                                                                                             
3:38:46 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  moved to adopt  the proposed CS  for SSHJR
26,  Version  30-LS0155\N,  Bullard,   1/31/18,  as  the  working                                                               
document.   There being  no objection, Version  N was  before the                                                               
3:39:06 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  relayed  that  there  are  six  changes  in                                                               
Version N.   He referred  to Section 1 of  Version N, on  page 1,                                                               
lines  8-10, which  read, "The  map may  not be  drawn to  unduly                                                               
favor  a political  party, and  a district  may not  be drawn  to                                                               
unduly favor a political party  or candidate."  He mentioned that                                                               
the  language was  recommended  by  Mr. Levitt  and  was used  in                                                               
Hawaii's statutes.                                                                                                              
3:39:57 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for  the difference between "favoring                                                               
a political party" and "unduly favoring a political party."                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  responded that could be  amended; the intent                                                               
is to  not favor a  political party [through redistricting].   He                                                               
stated that there are districts  that favor the Democratic Party,                                                               
the   Republican  Party,   the   Green  Party,   or  the   Alaska                                                               
Independence  Party (AIP);  by  virtue  of the  way  even a  non-                                                               
partisan redistricting map  is drawn, not every  district will be                                                               
fifty-fifty.  He offered that  technically a district may favor a                                                               
[political] party, but the intent  of the proposed legislation is                                                               
to avoid  unfairly favoring  a party; the  map should  be written                                                               
such that it does not unduly, unwarrantedly favor a party.                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if the  language might be interpreted                                                               
as the  map may not be  drawn with the intention  of favoring one                                                               
party or another.                                                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  answered, "Yes,  the whole  map."   He added                                                               
that the  statewide map is  intended to be nonpartisan,  with the                                                               
recognition that one  district or another may favor  one party or                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX restated  Representative Gara's  answer by                                                               
saying,  "It may  end  up that  way, but  that  shouldn't be  the                                                               
intention of  how you  draw the  whole map  or even  the district                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied, "That's true."                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  referred to Section  2, on page 2,  lines 4-                                                               
18, and relayed  that the number of members  on the redistricting                                                               
board  has changed  over the  years;  under Version  N, it  would                                                               
consist  of seven  members -  two from  the party  with the  most                                                               
votes in the  prior election, two from the party  with the second                                                               
most votes,  and because most  voters in Alaska  are independent,                                                               
three  members who  are independent.   The  first four  political                                                               
party members would choose the three independent members.                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE GARA referred to Section  4, on page 3, lines 6-7,                                                               
and  relayed  that  there had  been  language  banning  political                                                               
contributions  by  those  appointed  to  the  board;  Mr.  Levitt                                                               
explained  that  might  be unconstitutional;  therefore,  it  was                                                               
removed.  He added that with  the four party members choosing the                                                               
three independent  members, the  political leanings of  the three                                                               
would become evident.                                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  referred to Section  4, page 3,  lines 9-11,                                                               
which states that the four  party members would appoint the three                                                               
independent nonpartisan members.                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA referred  to Section 4, page  3, lines 13-21,                                                               
and explained that  if the four party members can't  agree on the                                                               
three  independent  members by  a  certain  deadline, the  Alaska                                                               
Supreme Court would appoint the three independent members.                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE GARA relayed  that Section 6, on page  4, lines 1-                                                               
3, contains conforming language.                                                                                                
3:43:53 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if "independent"  refers to a member of                                                               
the Alaska Independence  Party or to someone  who is [registered]                                                               
undeclared nonpartisan.                                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that the  three members who are not                                                               
members of the two major parties are non-party affiliated.                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX referred  to  Section 4  (d),  on page  3,                                                               
lines  6-8,  and   asked  whether  a  person   appointed  to  the                                                               
redistricting board  is required  to have  never been  elected to                                                               
office.   She asked  whether someone elected  20 years  ago would                                                               
not be allowed to serve on the board currently.                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  responded that  Version N would  allow local                                                               
officials  to  be  appointed,  since in  Alaska  they  are  often                                                               
nonpartisan.     He  relayed  that  state   and  federal  elected                                                               
officials are usually  affiliated with one party or  another.  He                                                               
said he  is open to an  amendment but feels that  these officials                                                               
should not be on the redistricting board.                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX   expressed  that  she   understands  that                                                               
reasoning for  the nonpartisan  members, but  not for  the [four]                                                               
partisan members, because they are supposed to be partisan.                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  stated that  he is  amenable to  a committee                                                               
change on  that provision.  In  either case, the result  would be                                                               
two members  from each party  and three independent  members, who                                                               
will be the "power brokers" on the board.                                                                                       
3:46:50 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to page  2, lines 16-18, which read,                                                               
"three  members  who are  not  registered  as affiliated  with  a                                                               
political party  and who have  not been registered  as affiliated                                                               
with  a political  party within  the  preceding ten  years".   He                                                               
expressed  his understanding  that it  does not  preclude someone                                                               
who only has been a registered voter for five years.                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied that there  is a requirement that the                                                               
member  would  have  to  have  voted  in  the  last  few  general                                                               
elections.   He agreed that  someone who  has been in  Alaska for                                                               
six  years, if  he/she has  been independent  for the  entire six                                                               
years, would qualify for appointment to the board.                                                                              
3:47:50 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to Section  2, on page 2, lines 5-                                                               
6, which  read, "members, all of  whom shall be residents  of the                                                               
State  and  registered voters  who  have  voted  in each  of  the                                                               
previous four state general and  primary elections".  She offered                                                               
the scenario  of a  person selected  for the  board in  2017, who                                                               
would  have  had  to  have  voted  in  the  general  and  primary                                                               
elections in 2016 and 2014.   She suggested that some of the most                                                               
partisan people  are the ones  who vote in primaries;  she asked,                                                               
"If  you're actually  trying to  eliminate  partisanship ...  why                                                               
would you make voting in a primary mandatory?"                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  responded  that he  welcomes  an  amendment                                                               
eliminating "primary  elections."   He reiterated that  since the                                                               
two   Democrats  and   two   Republicans   would  appoint   three                                                               
independent  members who  will outnumber  them, the  independents                                                               
will  be the  power brokers,  and making  that change  should not                                                               
affect  the  outcome  of  creating  a  nonpartisan  redistricting                                                               
3:50:14 PM                                                                                                                    
MARGO WARING, League of Women  Voters of Juneau (LWVJ), testified                                                               
that the  League of  Women Voters (LWV)  has long  been concerned                                                               
with  reapportionment   and  redistricting  in  the   U.S.    She                                                               
mentioned   that   she  has   belonged   to   the  national   LWV                                                               
Redistricting Task  Force (RTF) for  the three years it  has been                                                               
in existence.  She relayed that  RTF has studied the structure of                                                               
redistricting  boards in  every state  and the  improvements that                                                               
states  have  made in  their  processes.    The RTF  developed  a                                                               
position  on  redistricting, which  is  now  held  by LWV.    She                                                               
expressed  that she  supports  Representative  Gara's efforts  to                                                               
devise  a fair  way  to  redistrict Alaska  and  asked for  House                                                               
MS. WARING  said that Alaska's  redistricting process  has always                                                               
been  contentious.   She  relayed  the  following history:    The                                                               
Alaska  State   Constitution  originally  made   redistricting  a                                                               
function   of   the   governor;   the   [Alaska]   constitutional                                                               
convention,  reacting  to  the problems  other  states  had  with                                                               
conducting reapportionment in a  timely and fair manner, selected                                                               
the governor  model.   In 1964, the  U.S. Supreme  Court affirmed                                                               
the  rule of  one person  one vote.   The  redistricting maps  of                                                               
1970, 1980,  and 1990 were found  by the Alaska Supreme  Court to                                                               
be  unconstitutional.   In 1998,  the legislature  initiated, and                                                               
the public  narrowly supported the  creation of  Alaska's current                                                               
five-member  redistricting  board,  in   which  two  members  are                                                               
appointed by the  governor, one by the Speaker of  the House, one                                                               
by the  President of the Senate,  and one by the  chief justice -                                                               
all "without regard to political  affiliation."  She offered that                                                               
these words imply  that the board would  be nonpartisan; however,                                                               
in practice, nonpartisanship was not  achieved.  The maps of 2000                                                               
and 2010 were challenged in court,  and portions were found to be                                                               
unconstitutional.  The criteria cited  in the Alaska Constitution                                                               
are that  districts be  nearly equal in  population and  that one                                                               
senate  district encompass  two house  districts.   The districts                                                               
are  to be  compact  and contiguous;  they  should be  integrated                                                               
socioeconomically as  much as possible;  and attention  should be                                                               
paid to  local government boundaries  and geographic  features as                                                               
much as possible.                                                                                                               
MS.  WARING  opined  that  the  theme of  this  history  is  that                                                               
Alaskans,  aware   of  the  possibilities  of   partisanship  and                                                               
gerrymandering  and desirous  of a  nonpartisan apportionment  of                                                               
districts,  have, since  statehood, favored  approaches that  are                                                               
fair; they support the one person  one vote rule; and they do not                                                               
allow legislators to pick their  own voters.  She maintained that                                                               
Alaska has  yet to achieve this  goal.  She expressed  her belief                                                               
that Representative Gara's  effort to achieve this goal  is to be                                                               
commended.    Representative  Gara   has  studied  a  variety  of                                                               
approaches and  selected one that  can work for Alaska,  one that                                                               
provides the  kind of fair redistricting  process consistent with                                                               
the  concept of  one person  one vote,  and one  in which  voters                                                               
select legislators rather than legislators select voters.                                                                       
3:54:04 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that SSHJR 26 would be held over.                                                                

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HJR026 Sponsor Statement 1.23.18.pdf HSTA 2/20/2018 3:15:00 PM
HJR 26
HJR026 Sectional Analysis 2.19.18.pdf HSTA 2/20/2018 3:15:00 PM
HJR 26
HJR026 ver N 1.31.18.pdf HSTA 2/20/2018 3:15:00 PM
HJR 26
HJR026 Summary of Changes 2.19.18.pdf HSTA 2/20/2018 3:15:00 PM
HJR 26
HJR26 Fiscal Note DOE 2.16.18.pdf HSTA 2/20/2018 3:15:00 PM
HJR 26
HJ026 Supporting Document-Letter of Support-League of Women Voters-2.19.18.pdf HSTA 2/20/2018 3:15:00 PM
HJR 26
HJR026 Supporting Document- Letters of Support 2.19.18.pdf HSTA 2/20/2018 3:15:00 PM
HJR 26
HJR026 Additional Document- Powerpoint Presentation 2.19.18.pdf HSTA 2/20/2018 3:15:00 PM
HJR 26
HJR026 Supporting Document-Article-All About Redistricting- Arizona-1.23.18.pdf HSTA 2/20/2018 3:15:00 PM
HJR 26
HJR026 Supporting Document-Article-All About Redistricting- California-1.23.18.pdf HSTA 2/20/2018 3:15:00 PM
HJR 26
HJR026 Supporting Document-Article-All About Redistricting- Idaho-1.23.18.pdf HSTA 2/20/2018 3:15:00 PM
HJR 26
HJR026 Supporting Document-Article-All About Redistricting- Iowa-1.23.18.pdf HSTA 2/20/2018 3:15:00 PM
HJR 26
HJR026 Supporting Document-Article-All About Redistricting- New Jersey-1.23.18.pdf HSTA 2/20/2018 3:15:00 PM
HJR 26
HJR026 Supporting Document-Article-All About Redistricting-Alaska-1.23.18.pdf HSTA 2/20/2018 3:15:00 PM
HJR 26
HJR026 Supporting Document-Article-All About Redistricting-Pennsylvania-1.23.18.pdf HSTA 2/20/2018 3:15:00 PM
HJR 26
HJR026 Supporting Document-Article-All About Redistricting-Washington-1.23.18.pdf HSTA 2/20/2018 3:15:00 PM
HJR 26
HJR026 Supporting Document-Article-Brennan Law Center-1.23.18.pdf HSTA 2/20/2018 3:15:00 PM
HJR 26
HJR026 Supporting Document-Article-Detroit Free Press-1.23.18.pdf HSTA 2/20/2018 3:15:00 PM
HJR 26
HJR026 Supporting Document-Article-NCSL Redistricting Commissions Table-1.23.18.pdf HSTA 2/20/2018 3:15:00 PM
HJR 26
HJR026 Supporting Document-Article-NPR-1.23.18-1.23.18.pdf HSTA 2/20/2018 3:15:00 PM
HJR 26
HJR026 Supporting Document-Article-Shining A Light-1.23.18.pdf HSTA 2/20/2018 3:15:00 PM
HJR 26
HJR026 Supporting Document-Article-Washington Post-1.23.18.pdf HSTA 2/20/2018 3:15:00 PM
HJR 26
HJR026-Supporting Document-Article-Tucson.Com-1.23.18.pdf HSTA 2/20/2018 3:15:00 PM
HJR 26
IE Hearings- DOR Powerpoint 2.16.18.pdf HSTA 2/20/2018 3:15:00 PM
IE Hearings-Legislative Finance Powerpoint 2.16.18.pdf HSTA 2/20/2018 3:15:00 PM
Confirmation Hearing- Leslie Ridle Resume 2.5.18.pdf HSTA 2/20/2018 3:15:00 PM