Legislature(2009 - 2010)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/12/2010 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB307 | |
| SB210 | |
| SJR21 | |
| SB214 | |
| HB6 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 214 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 252 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SJR 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 307 | ||
| = | SB 210 | ||
SJR 21-CONST. AM: INCREASE NUMBER OF LEGISLATORS
1:43:39 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SJR 21.
SENATOR DONALD OLSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of SJR
21, read from the following the sponsor statement:
" ….Each house district shall be formed of
contiguous and compact territory containing as
nearly as practicable a relatively integrated
socio-economic area…." Alaska Constitution
Article VI, Section 6, titled Legislative
Apportionment.
SJR 21 will put a constitutional amendment before the
voters in the 2010 general election that would
increase the size of the legislature to 48
representatives and 24 senators. Upon voter approval,
the measure would apply to the 2012 determination of
election district boundaries.
In 1913, Congress established the first territorial
legislature with 8 senators and 16 representatives.
The size of the legislature was increased to 12
senators and 24 representatives in 1942. 17 years
later a constitution for the State of Alaska was
ratified further increasing the size of the
legislature to the current 20 senator and 40
representative membership. A feature of that
apportionment was that most of the senate membership
was equally distributed among the 4 judicial districts
in order that one region may not dominate the others.
The U.S. Supreme Court decision requiring "one man,
one vote" eliminated redistricting by this method.
In the first 50 years of statehood, Alaska has not
changed the size of its legislative body, the smallest
bicameral legislature in the nation. In this time
span, the population of the state has more than
tripled. Most significantly, the population increase
is disproportionate, strongly favoring large urban
areas over rural and small community areas. The task
then of applying the Article VI, section 6
requirements for contiguous, compact areas with
integrated socio-economic features has correspondingly
become more difficult and contentious. Except for the
1960 reapportionment right after statehood, all
subsequent reapportionments have faced successful
legal challenges, requiring boundary adjustments and
on several occasions, a court constructed
reapportionment plan.
Federal protections in the U.S. Voter Rights Act of
1965 for large minority concentrations further
complicate Alaska's reapportionment process. Indeed,
they can act to counter the Section 6 requirements.
Rural election district distortions are evident in the
current plan. There is a probability that the new
population distribution of the 2010 census cannot
reconcile Section 6 and the Voter Rights Act without
increasing the size of the legislature. Indeed, the
Alaska Supreme Court has established redistricting
priorities that place voter rights considerations
before the compact, contiguous language of Section 6.
Between 1960 and 2006, twenty nine states have changed
the size of their legislative body. For the nine
states with small populations similar to Alaska
(509,000 to 1,429,000), the average size of their
legislative bodies is 134 members.
Another measure of the effect of the state's growth
and complexity on the work of the legislature is its
budget responsibilities. Legislative expenditures for
government programs and projects has risen from a
figure of $104 million in FY 61 to somewhere in the
neighborhood of $7 billion currently. This is an
increase from $2,700 per capita in 1961 nominal
dollars to $10,000 per capita today.
1:49:07 PM
SENATOR OLSON distributed a spreadsheet showing population
trends in Alaska's 40 election districts. In 2000 the average
population per district was 15,673 and the projected 2010
average population is 17,309 per district. It's disturbing that
certain areas of the state will significantly drop below the
average, he said. If SJR 21 is implemented the average
population per district will be 14,424, which is much closer to
the 2000 average.
CHAIR FRENCH said he appreciates the history; it's a reminder
that we can and do change when times change.
1:52:30 PM
GORDON HARRISON, representing himself, said he is the former
director of legislative research and he found the sponsor's
comments regarding the history of the Alaska Legislature
particularly interesting and important. The overriding concern
of the delegates at the 1955-56 Constitutional Convention was to
assure broad representation throughout the state, particularly
in rural areas. In an effort to ensure rural representation, the
delegates did two things. They increased the number of
legislators from 40 to 60 and they apportioned the Senate on a
basis of geography. In a complicated apportionment scheme each
judicial district got a set number of senators, and then each
got additional senators based on the number of election
districts within the particular judicial district. Southeast and
Central Alaska each got five senators, Southcentral got six
senators, and Northwest got four senators for a total of 20. In
the early '60s the U.S. Supreme Court overturned this scheme in
a series of reapportionment decisions. Federal law required all
state senates to be apportioned on the basis of population.
1:54:58 PM
MR. HARRISON said it's interesting that in 1955 when Alaska's
population was only 200,000, the delegates felt compelled to
increase the size of the Legislature to 60 members. With a
population that is now approaching 700,000, he suggested that
it's a very timely and good idea to incrementally increase the
Legislature by eight House districts and four Senate districts.
This accomplishes the goal of maintaining a vital Legislature by
having rural and Native interests adequately represented. The
other objective is to make these districts workable and
manageable for the people. Right now, some districts are huge
and their many issues compete for time and attention. It's
nearly impossible for legislators to travel to all the
communities and adequately represent them.
1:56:45 PM
The spreadsheet that the sponsor distributed demonstrates that
absent this legislation, rural districts will be hurting. It's
almost inevitable that Southeast will lose District 5 and it's
likely that either District 6 or District 37 will be lost along
with a Senate seat. That means 3 Native rural districts will
probably be lost. He hasn't done the calculations, but he
assumes that MatSu will gain 1.5 and Anchorage will gain 0.5. By
increasing the number of House districts to 48, the population
is reduced to 14,424, which is manageable. The Railbelt will get
the additional 12 legislators, but the existing districts will
probably stay whole.
MR. HARRISON said he realizes that changing an institution is a
big step, but this is one that he would recommend. It doesn't
portend any fundamental change in the legislative process.
SENATOR EGAN asked how the House and Senate districts would be
affected geographically because some Senate districts are
already huge.
MR. HARRISON responded that without this change they promise to
get even larger. If this were to pass, most House districts
would hold their own while urban areas like Anchorage would have
relatively small geographic districts. He confirmed that each
Senate district is comprised of two House districts.
2:00:37 PM
CHAIR FRENCH pointed out that this won't create new seats in
Native areas; it simply maintains the status quo. The new seats
will go to the Railbelt. The MatSu area will have 4 or 5 more
representatives here in Juneau representing their interests.
"They're not going to be outweighed or outnumbered by anybody,"
he said.
MR. HARRISON agreed that this does nothing to change the balance
of power between rural and urban areas. Rural districts will
simply maintain some presence and the districts will be a more
realistic size for traveling and campaigning.
2:03:04 PM
JIM BALDWIN, representing himself, told the committee that
during the last districting he represented the Office of the
Governor. He said he supports SJR 21 as a valuable tool for the
redistricting board; it may ameliorate the effect of the Voting
Rights Act on the process.
He explained that Alaska is covered by Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act and as such it has to pre-clear any changes to the
election process or procedure with the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ). Any proposed change requires proof that it does
not abridge anyone's right to vote on the basis of race, color
or minority language. The idea is to prevent any back slide, or
retrogression, in the level of representation for minority
voters, he said.
CHAIR FRENCH asked how it's possible to avoid conflict with the
Voting Rights Act when population ratios change. Non-Natives
moving to the state dilute the voting power of Natives.
2:06:29 PM
MR. BALDWIN conceded that it may not be possible, but the Voting
Rights Act and the regulations require the state to examine all
possible alternatives before saying that retrogression cannot be
avoided. The board- the state government - bears a fairly heavy
burden in order to stay in compliance with the Voting Rights
Act, he said.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what prompted Congress to pass the Voting
Rights Act.
MR. BALDWIN replied it arose from post-Civil War constitutional
amendments dealing with the treatment of minority voters,
principally in the south. Other states were brought in because
they had either literacy requirements in their constitutions or
significant language minorities. According to the federal
register, Alaska has been covered since 1972, principally on the
basis of language minorities. The federal government wants to
ensure that states protect minority voters and one means of
doing that is to apply the retrogression test. He noted that
it's been fertile ground for litigation during every
redistricting cycle, primarily on the national scene. He cited
Georgia v. Ashcroft as the most recent case.
He said he agrees with Mr. Harrison that a retrogression
determination seems to be looming. With just 40 districts the
DOJ will possibly pressure the state to find minority
populations wherever it can to try to meet the non-retrogression
standard or to minimize it to the greatest extent possible. It's
likely that the DOJ will emphasize finding where the previously
rural populations exist and moving lines to pick them up.
MR. BALDWIN said that the Alaska Constitution also has
redistricting standards that require socially integrated and
compact districts. He thinks that when the census is complete
and the locations of minority populations are known, there could
be pressure to pick up populations in urban areas - or to redraw
districts in a way that keep Native populations together. If the
number of legislators remains constant it will be a problem for
everyone to confront, not just rural districts, he concluded.
2:12:58 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked him to tell the public why this resolution
needs to pass this year.
MR. BALDWIN said there's a very compressed time schedule for the
board to do its work. Census materials will arrive in March 2011
and the board then has to develop a plan and go through
preclearance in the court process by June 1 of the next election
cycle.
CHAIR FRENCH closed public testimony and held SJR 21 in
committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 214 sponsor statement.pdf |
SJUD 2/12/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 214 |
| Nat Coalition Agains Dom Viol.PDF |
SJUD 2/12/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 214 |
| Humane Society.PDF |
SJUD 2/12/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 214 |
| HSUS Letter of Support - SB 214.pdf |
SJUD 2/12/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 214 |
| SB252 Letter.PDF |
SJUD 2/12/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 252 |
| SBS 252 Sectional Analysis.PDF |
SJUD 2/12/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 252 |