SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 21 Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to and increasing the number of members of the House of Representatives to forty-eight and the number of members of the senate to twenty- four. 7:26:23 PM SENATOR DONALD OLSON, SPONSOR, reviewed the legislation. The Alaska legislature had been expanded several times in the past. In 1913 the first territorial legislature was established with 8 senators and 16 representatives. Then, in 1942, the legislature was increased to 12 senators and 24 representatives. In 1959, with the ratification of the state constitution, the legislature was increased to 20 senators and 40 representatives. In the 50 years since, the size of the legislature had remained unchanged. Alaska had the smallest bicameral legislature in the nation. The population of the state had tripled since statehood, and the increase had been disproportionate, favoring large urban areas over smaller rural communities. Without an increase in the size of the legislature, the 2010 Census could be reconciled with Article 6, Section 6 of the state constitution, which mandated the existence of continuous compact and socioeconomic districts, or the federal mandate under the U.S. Voting Rights Act of 1965. He noted that in the last 46 years, 29 states had changed the size of their legislative body and that 9 of those states, with populations comparable to Alaska, had a legislature with 134 members. 7:29:44 PM DAVID GREY, STAFF, SENATOR LYMAN HOFFMAN, referred to the handout "Population Trend for Election Districts in 2010", (copy on file). The population distributions for 2010 were calculated based on the Department of Labor (DOL) estimations from 2008. He noted that DOL used the permanent fund application numbers as the basis for the projections, but that the 2010 Census would provide more valid numbers. He noted that in crafting the handout he had included the numbers from House Joint Resolution 38, which recommended and increase in the house to 44 members. The handout illustrated the numbers applying the increase of 44 members, vs. 46, vs. 48. He pointed out to the committee the fourth column of numbers labeled "Difference from Average", which calculated the numbers above or below the ideal average for the districts. He noted that in the southeastern and rural areas of the state the numbers were below average, where as in the Mat-Su and Anchorages areas the numbers were high. The Supreme Court had allowed for a plus or minus 5 percent in the rural districts, but had expected more accurate numbers in calculating urban areas. Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the plus or minus 5 percent would need to be reconciled in a corresponding district. Mr. Grey believed so. Mr. Grey continued that in urban areas additional votes were easily available, but rural districts with smaller populations did not have the same ability. 7:35:00 PM Representative Foster spoke in support of the legislation. He related that in urban areas the average citizen could walk door to door to garner support. He noted that when the number of rural villages under the representation of one legislator was increased, it became more difficult for the average person to campaign. The number of villages represented by one legislator could be as high as 30, with great distance between communities, which would require air travel, and necessitate a substantial campaign budget. He thought that the legislation would allow for the average person to represent in the legislature rather than only the affluent. Senator Olson responded that financial limitations had kept representatives of many rural villages form visiting and addressing the needs of small communities. This had lead to a feeling of disenfranchisement, and cynicism toward the legislature. 7:37:14 PM Representative Gara commented that urban areas also struggle with the unavailability of legislators. As districts had grown, people had less contact with their legislators. He thought that something needed to be done to address the increase in population. Representative Doogan asked about the increase of house members, and how the number had been determined. Mr. Grey stated that the number was chosen (48) to see if the number would keep each district "hold harmless". The number was chosen in an attempt to preserve the status quo. Senator Olson stated that the number took into consideration the division of populations in areas where district boundaries had been established ten years ago, and factored in the western and south central areas; Kodiak, the Kenai Peninsula, down toward Yakutat, and into southeast. 7:40:06 PM Vice-Chair Thomas appreciated the intent of the legislation. He listed several reasons for flux in the state's population in the past and suggested that job creation could help keep people in the state. He relayed that the numbers on the handout reveal that the districts he represented were the most affected by the issue. Senator Olson shared that there were legislators serving on the committee that might not be back next year without the passage of the legislation. Co-Chair Stoltze closed public testimony. 7:43:00 PM Co-Chair Hawker discussed the fiscal notes number one and two. FN2 reflected the $1500 ballot charge to put the resolution on the ballot for public vote. He noted the technical error on FN2; the $1500 was not reflected in the required appropriation column, and needed to be corrected. Co-Chair Hawker stated that FN1 reflected the estimated $4,470,000 cost of 12 new legislators, additional staff, support time, attorney fees, travel, contractual allowance supplies, and capital outlay. He noted that the legislature was budgeted at $60 million per year, which would increase if 12 more legislators were added. He stated that the full cost was yet unknown. He wondered where room would be found for 12 more legislators and 35 staff members in the capital building. He suggested that the fiscal note be indeterminate for "land and structures" as well as miscellaneous, and that it be made clear to the public that the cost of implementing the legislation was yet unknown. 7:46:37 PM Co-Chair Stoltze stated that the term "indeterminate" would be an accurate representation for the public. Representative Joule agreed that the cost of the legislation was indeterminate. He countered that the loss of the voices of residents living in underrepresented areas could not be measured monetarily. Co-Chair Hawker voiced support for the legislation. Senator Olson believed that the decision was not taken lightly and that the will of the people would be revealed by a vote. Representative Salmon asked when the increase in the number of legislators would go into effect. 7:49:03 PM Mr. Grey replied that the reapportionment board would not receive the 2010 Census numbers until March 2011. Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the resolution did not change the constitution, it only changed the math. Vice-Chair Thomas MOVED to report SJR 21 out of Committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. SJR 21 was REPORTED out of Committee with "no recommendation" and attached new fiscal impact note by the Office of the Governor and new indeterminate note by the Legislative Affairs Agency.