Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/11/1998 01:30 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SJR 36 - REAPPORTIONMENT BOARD & REDISTRICTING
Mr. RALPH BENNETT, staff to CHAIRMAN TAYLOR, presented the sponsor
statement for SJR 36, saying the bill proposes an amendment to
articles six and fourteen of the Alaska Constitution. According to
MR. BENNETT, these changes will reflect rulings by the U.S. and
Alaska Supreme Court and will enshrine single-member districts in
the Alaska Constitution. MR. BENNETT said certain supreme court
rulings established a "one person one vote" rule and, as a result,
all legislative bodies in the U.S. are apportioned on the basis of
population. He added that the Alaska Constitution, as originally
written, bases Senate districts partly on population and partly on
geography. MR. BENNETT said certain Alaska Court rulings have
established an equal basis for both civilian and military
population.
MR. BENNETT explained that Section three of the bill removes the
authority of the Governor to reapportion, and affords the Governor
only the authority to redistrict. He pointed out two memos in the
member's packets that address the difference between the two terms.
MR. BENNETT stated that section four of the bill establishes
single-member legislative districts for the House, essentially,
constitutionalizing what is already happening. Single member
districts seem to work well in Alaska, according to MR. BENNETT.
MR. BENNETT informed the committee that section eight eliminates
references to reapportionment and specifically allows for judicial
review of a Governor's acts or failure to act. He said this section
also gives priority to redistricting cases that are brought before
the Superior or Supreme Courts. Section ten repeals sections five
and seven in article six and article 14 of the Alaska Constitution.
RALPH BENNETT explained that article 14 sets out the original
reapportionment schedule, now obsolete.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR stated that this is basically the same as a piece
of legislation moving through the House.
SENATOR MILLER moved the adoption of the Workdraft "E" version as
a committee substitute in lieu of the original bill. SENATOR ELLIS
objected and asked about the difference between the two versions.
MR. BENNETT explained that some changes were made as the bill
passed through the process in the House. Section four specifically
mentions the number of house and Senate seats. Section eight
establishes the priority for a judicial review and redistricting is
changed to reapportionment throughout the bill. MR. BENNETT said
the terms are similar but defined very differently.
SENATOR ELLIS asked MR. BENNETT to read the definitions for the
record. RALPH BENNETT said Black's Law Dictionary defines
apportionment as "the process by which legislative seats are
distributed among units entitled to representation or for
reapportionment, or a new apportionment of seats in the House of
Representatives among states according to their respective
numbers." He said districting is defined as "the establishment of
precise geographic boundaries of such units or constituency. He
again referred to the memos in the member's packets and suggested
it might also be helpful in understanding the differences between
these two words.
SENATOR ELLIS asked, simply stated, what the change in the bill
results in. MR. BENNETT replied that, under the new bill, more of
an emphasis is placed on population and geography, not a formula.
TAPE 98-17, SIDE B
Number 001
MR. JEFF LOGAN, Staff to Representative Joe Green, said that the
change from redistricting to reapportionment due to the suggestion
of the bill drafter, who believes redistricting is more a term of
art and more accurately reflects what the Governor is doing by
changing lines within the state. Reapportionment takes place among
the states and is more directed by population and geography.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if the drafter's opinion was that the framers
of the Alaska Constitution had used the wrong word. MR. LOGAN
replied he was not sure, he only knew that it was their opinion the
change describes the process more accurately.
MR. JIM BALDWIN, representing the Attorney General's office, came
forward and agreed that the change in wording was not intended to
change the process, but only alters the label given to it. He said
this is his understanding and nothing to the contrary has come to
light in the testimony on the companion house bill thus far. He
said there are many alarming things about this bill but, unless the
change in wording does more than it seems to, these changes do not
alarm him.
MR. BALDWIN said his main concerns begin with the preclearance
requirements of the Voting Rights Act. He said that when the state
comes up with a plan, it must be submitted for preclearance. He
thinks certain aspects of this resolution may also require
preclearance and the fiscal note his department has not yet, but
intends to provide, will reflect this. He said the bill also
requires reapportionment be done in single member districts, as it
was done in the 1990 reapportionment. MR. BALDWIN says this
reapportionment was upheld by the courts, although some questions
were raised about single-member districts in Southeast Alaska.
MR. BALDWIN commented that multi-member districts have been used
in prior plans and have been validated. He said the court decision
cited in previous testimony do not mandate single-member districts,
though they do express a preference for them. He said redistricting
and reapportionment are difficult for the large geography and
sparse population of our state. MR. BALDWIN said the flexibility
that multi-member districts can give the Governor in the case of
retrogression is useful. He fears we may face a retrogression
situation in regards to minority voters in the next plan. He said
retrogression in some districts might be avoided by the use of
multi-member districts, in others he feels it may be unavoidable.
MR. BALDWIN speculated that the ability to go to a multi-member
district also might help meet preclearance requirements, but said
he can't say for certain.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the preclearance requirements based on the
Voting Rights Act were partially thrown out by the federal court,
specifically the portion relating to racial quotas. JIM BALDWIN
responded that some plans, in some states, were invalidated.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if it was because of an attempt to quantify
and include a certain percentage of racial groups within the areas.
MR. BALDWIN explained that the reason they were thrown out was
because the court believed there was too much emphasis on race, and
not enough placed on typical redistricting standards. When race is
figured in equally with other factors like compactness and
contiguity, a plan will be upheld. When race is placed above all
else, plans will fail, as has happened. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented
that our last reapportionment considered race above other factors,
saying linguistics was even considered in attempting to draw the
lines. He believes Alaska is subject to the same type of litigation
as the other states mentioned. He said this is why he was surprised
to hear MR. BALDWIN referring to the retrogressive effect that
single-member districts might have, since it is retrogressive only
racially.
MR. BALDWIN clarified that he was not saying single-member
districts are themselves retrogressive, he meant that the state
will have to deal with the fact that the native population in
proportion may have reduced representation. One way to remedy this
would be to set up "influence districts", which may help also with
preclearance.
SENATOR MILLER asked if the recent court rulings didn't tend more
toward the "one person, one vote" idea. He also recalled that in
the 80's when there was a combination of single and dual-member
districts, the dual-member districts were all in the urban areas
and the single-member districts were in the rural areas. SENATOR
MILLER said he was having a hard time reconciling this with the
argument that single-member districts work against rural Alaska.
MR. BALDWIN replied it is simply a tool that might be used if they
found themselves in a retrogression situation as he predicts. He
thinks it is wise to refrain from cutting themselves off from this
useful tool.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he thought that whoever had advocated that
theory before the court was severely chastised by the courts. MR.
BALDWIN interjected that these same people played a strong role
here the last time and CHAIRMAN TAYLOR agreed and asked Mr. BALDWIN
to define "retrogressive." MR. BALDWIN replied it is defined as
the loss of representation for minority voters from one
reapportionment to the next. SENATOR PARNELL asked if that was a
function of how the boundaries were drawn. SENATOR MILLER added
that Alaska is a growing state, though the minority population is
staying the same. He said the result of this is a loss of
representation, but this would be due more to "one person, one
vote" than to how you draw the lines within the state, even when
striving to give minority districts the most voting power possible.
He restated that if there is a shrinkage in seats, it's probably
due to the "one man, one vote" rule and he does not think this can
be corrected. JAMES BALDWIN agreed, saying also once you get
outside the urban areas, it is a difficult task.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented he believes that Southeast Alaska will
lose a house seat due to industrial and population decline and the
Mat-Su valley will gain one to go along with their population boom.
He said this may have a retrogressive effect, but does not have
anything to do with someone going out and causing something to
happen, it is solely a factor of one person, one vote. CHAIRMAN
TAYLOR asked if the state would have to be sure that, if they drew
single-member districts, one of them was Jerry Mackie's old
"iceworm" district in order to satisfy preclearance requirements.
MR. BALDWIN replied they have to be very careful, establish a good
record and have a good justification for making drastic changes in
plans. He noted we are still being monitored and SENATOR ELLIS
explained it is due to past discrimination against natives.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he never understood that ruling and found it
very insulting. MR. BALDWIN remarked that it is a burden and
requires much time and effort to satisfy. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR agreed
and expounded on that theme, asking if they will have to get
preclearance on whether or not they can pass the Governor's sell-
out of this state's sovereignty to the U.S. government. He allowed
some people may characterize this differently than he does, but
emphasized the heavy burden of preclearance.
MR. BALDWIN said anything affecting voting must be precleared under
the federal act. He mentioned he did not seem to be making inroads
on single-member districts and would therefore move on.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said everthing he sees in the House bill indicates
they are not utilizing a panel constructed out of the courts. JEFF
LOGAN indicated that this was a different bill CHAIRMAN TAYLOR was
referring to, HJR 44 which restructures the reapportionmnet board.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if they couldn't be rolled together and MR.
BALDWIN replied that the bill in front of them was looking better
and better.
JIM BALDWIN said section three, which says that redistricting shall
be based on census, is changed by removing the word "civilian",
resulting in the inclusion of military people who temporarily
reside in the state. He said surveys were done to try and establish
who was an actual resident, and adjustments made to remove the non-
resident military personnel. MR. BALDWIN said he believs that this
bill takes away the ability to remove and adjust for non-resident
military personnel and this is problematic. He said although this
was not done in the last reapportionment, the court ruled that if
it is too difficult to be done, it need not be done, but the court
still requires proof of an attempt to do it. MR. BALDWIN said with
the recent base alignment and closures,the allocation of more
military personnel (he estimates 9,000 plus dependents) could
create an entire district. This would be an urban district, and MR.
BALDWIN suggested it could have a voting rights affect, and become
a preclearance issue. He addmitted it is a policy call for the
Legislature to decide if they want to do this, but he thinks it is
better to leave it as it stands now.
SENATOR MILLER, who represents a base, asked MR. BALDWIN if he
feels military people are less deserving of equal representation
than others. He finds this offensive. SENATOR ELLIS clarified that
military personnel who are residents get the same representation in
state elections as non-military residents, MR. BALDWIN was only
referring to the ability to exclude non-resident military persons.
SENATOR MILLER replied that JIM BALDWIN had used the term non-
voting, which is very different. He said there are many non-voting
people in rural Alaska as well. MR. BALDWIN clarified that was, in
fact, what he meant. SENATOR ELLIS said he thinks it is important
that the people in rural Alaska are held to the same criteria.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked what would happen if the state held an
election without being granted preclearance. MR. BALDWIN replied
that someone would make a motion to enjoin the state. CHAIRMAN
TAYLOR asked if that meant we could not hold the election ansd MR.
BALDWIN responded that the law mandates we receive preclearance for
any changes requiring preclearance before an election is held.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said it would be an interesting thing to watch.
SENATOR PEARCE commented that she did not think the staate had
preclearance for the last time and CHAIRMAN TAYLOR explained that
the entire ballot must be stated before preclearance, and this
requires knowing everything that will appear on the ballot. MR.
BALDWIN noted that precinct changes must be precleared also.
SENATOR PEARCE mentioned that when the courts threw out our
reapportionmnet plan the election was not nullified and MR. BALDWIn
said this was because there was preclearance of the interm plan,
which was left in place until preclearance of the final plan was
granted. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR interjected that all this oversight smacks
of reconstruction bigotry. He characterized it as liberal elitism
and said it is getting a little old. He wanted to know when some
one would take the federal government on and stand up for Alaska.
MR. BALDWIN said the law requires that ten years elapse without an
objection, and the objection to the 1990 plan set Alaska's clock
running again. SENATOR MILLER remarked that any reapportionment
plan will draw an objection and the state will never get out from
under preclerarance requirements, he added that it may be a good
idea to reapportion every twenty years instead.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said this type of bigotry should be thrown out and
is insulting to the people of Alaska. He commented that there has
been no discrimination against natives by Alaska's government since
territorial days when the federal quthorities were in charge.
SENATOR MILLER said he thinks both redistricting and the
reapportionment board should be addressed together, preferably in
one constitutional amendment rather that two. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR
agreed and asked staff to bring them back a committee substitute
that rolls the two bills together.
MR. JEFF LOGAN mentioned that there are a few documents the
committee may find instructive. He read from one of these documents
that suggested there may be as few as 6,201 military and military
dependents recorded in the 1990 census. MR. LOGAN remarked that the
advisory board concluded there were not enough people to worry
about, and they were unlikely to make a difference. Additionally,
MR. LOGAN relayed to the committee a determination made by the
former Attorney General Charlie Cole was that single member
districts do not result in retrogression.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if MR. LOGAN would assist in rolling the two
bills together and MR. LOGAN agreed he would, to the extent he
could.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|