HJR 38 - CONST. AM: INCREASE NUMBER OF LEGISLATORS  1:52:59 PM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 38, 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. [Before the committee was CSHJR 38(STA).] 1:53:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, paraphrased from the following written sponsor statement [original punctuation provided]: HJR 38 will put a constitutional amendment before the voters in the 2010 general election that would increase the size of the legislature to 44 representatives and 22 senators. Upon voter approval, the measure would apply to the 2012 determination of new boundary's for the election district. In the first 50 years of statehood, Alaska has not changed the 20 senator, 40 representative 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 proscriptions of Article VI, above, has correspondingly become more difficult and contentious. Except for the 1960 reapportionment, all subsequent reapportionments have faced successful legal challenges, requiring boundary adjustments and on several occasions, a court constructed plan. Federal protections of 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. 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 $2700 per capita in 1961 nominal dollars to $10,000 per capita today. For these reasons, putting a proposal to increase the size of the legislature before the voters is timely and merited. [Chair Ramras passed the gavel to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.] REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON then remarked that HJR 38 would provide Alaskans that reside in expanding rural districts better access to their legislators. Although rural residents will never have the ease of access urban residents experience, an increase in the size of the legislature may maintain access similar to what currently exists. For the aforementioned reasons, Representative Wilson requested the committee forward HJR 38 so that the initiative can be placed before voters in 2010. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, in response to comments and questions, directed the committee's attention to a map entitled "State of Alaska - Amended Final Redistricting Plan" which highlights just one Senate district. She opined that the large and spread out district illustrates how difficult it has become for some legislators to represent and know the people in their district. If nothing is done, the highlighted district will become much larger, and the remaining districts will become more condensed in the urban areas. Representative P. Wilson characterized it as a fairness issue to the legislator and the constituents. She informed the committee that the district illustrated on the map is the largest district in the United States. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON questioned why an individual would be concerned about the size of a state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act changed [national representation] to be based on population rather than area. Therefore, he inquired as to who would advocate for the ballot measure in rural areas besides rural legislators. 2:02:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that HJR 38 will benefit [urban districts]. For example, he represents the distinct socio-economic area of Mountain View and this resolution would allow the district to be small and cohesive much like in rural districts that have the same heritage, language, and economy. [Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.] REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that to get HJR 38 passed and before the voters it will be essential for urban supporters of the resolution to join with rural supporters. Although the resolution may allow rural districts to retain a couple of seats, the main accomplishment of the resolution will be to keep districts small. In further response to comments, Representative Gruenberg said that he wouldn't have a problem advocating for the proposed ballot measure. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said he supports HJR 38. CHAIR RAMRAS related a discussion he had regarding HJR 38 and keeping the Senate at 20 members and increasing the House to 60. Although the aforementioned would make the House the People's House, the fiscal note would be large. 2:08:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO pointed out that under HJR 38, the representation doesn't change as every resident would continue to have one representative and one senator. With regard to the large district referenced earlier, the resolution would reduce its size but it would remain large. Furthermore, constituents aren't happy with [government], and therefore he questioned why anyone would vote to increase the number of legislators. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that if the resolution and subsequent ballot measure is approved, it would have to be precleared by the U.S. Department of Justice. He inquired as to when the preclearance occurs. 2:11:28 PM MARGARET PATON WALSH, Assistant Attorney General, Labor and State Affairs Section, Department of Law (DOL), explained that the preclearance would occur after the ballot measure is approved. However, the preclearance paperwork could be prepared ahead of time so that if the ballot measure is approved, the paperwork could be then filed with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) the next [business] day. She further explained that the DOJ has a 60-day turnaround time during which it could ask for more information, approve, or disapprove of the ballot measure. If the U.S. Department of Justice requests more information, then another 60-day period begins. Ms. Paton Walsh said that although the timing would be tight, it could be achieved, particularly if the DOJ was amenable to the amendment. 2:12:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised, then, that it would be possible to implement for the election in 2012. MS. PATON WALSH related that the redistricting process will begin in early 2011 and each state's data will be issued from mid January through April. Although she said she didn't know when Alaska will receive its data, last time the states were provided the data in alphabetic order of the states. Therefore, DOL is planning to be prepared for an early January date. Ms. Paton Walsh explained that if the data is received in mid January, then the [redistricting] board would be provided 30 days to develop plans and another 60 days of hearings for those plans in order to have adopted a plan by April. By the time the [redistricting] board starts its work, DOL will want to know how many districts are going to be created. She reviewed a scenario in which it would be early January, which would be just prior to receipt of data from the U.S. Census Bureau. As long as the DOJ preclears within the 60-day timeframe, the process should proceed fine. 2:14:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether Ms. Paton Walsh is aware of any other issue in Alaska that will need to be precleared. MS. PATON WALSH responded no, not other than the plan itself. Although she noted that the Division of Elections may have some changes that would require preclearance, the preclearance requests are independent. Therefore, she didn't believe that any other preclearance issues for the state would impact this situation. 2:15:52 PM BRUCE BOTELHO, after mentioning that although he's the mayor of the City & Borough of Juneau, he's speaking in his private capacity. He then mentioned he has served as attorney general and deputy attorney general for the state and was intensely involved with reapportionment for the 1990 plus plan that was finally adopted in 1994 and in 2002. Mr. Botelho related his support for HJR 38. In response to earlier questions and comments, Mr. Botelho explained that since the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted to mean one person one vote, that will be the case regardless of the size of the legislature. With regard to why, then, it should be changed and who will speak for the ballot measure, Mr. Botelho opined that people intuitively know that a person who represents a more compact district will have an easier time communicating with his/her constituents than a person with a larger district. Without a change to the state constitution, the challenge to the next reapportionment board will be great and will exacerbate the geographic disparity in the state. In conclusion, Mr. Botelho recommended the resolution as it was originally proposed with a House body of 48 as it would minimize the increase of the footprint of any given district while preserving the symmetry in the constitution, particularly with regard to super majority votes whether they be two-thirds or three-quarters votes. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO opined that although there is an optimum number, he doubted that it's 48 and suggested that it's more likely that we should reflect New Hampshire. He asked why Mr. Botelho chose 48. MR. BOTELHO answered that 48 most nearly represents districts in geographic size as they are today, that is the largest districts. He remarked that there is no optimum number as one must consider the expense, the space, and the functionality of the body versus the ability to provide better access between representatives and their constituents. 2:21:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if Mr. Botelho knows how other local governments feel about this proposal. MR. BOTELHO related his understanding that the only body that has extensively debated the issue is the Conference of Southeast Mayors, which has adopted a resolution in support. 2:22:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, referring to the fiscal note, asked if there is any part of analysis of this proposal that will cost the state money that isn't included in the fiscal note. 2:22:53 PM KARLA SCHOFIELD, Deputy Director, Accounting, Legislative Administrative Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, answered not that she is aware of, although she said the fiscal note is the best judgment of what to expect. In further response to Representative Gatto, Ms. Schofield pointed out that there are funds in the contractual line item for an increase in office space rent. However, until after redistricting it won't be apparent whether the Anchorage Legislative Information Office (LIO) or the smaller LIOs will require increased space or whether there would be the need for an LIO in a new location. There is also funding for a position for part-time LIO officers for session only. She pointed out that the funding is included in the personal services line item and is outlined on page 2 of the fiscal note. The $1.9 million in personal services includes salaries and benefits for the legislators and their staff as well as additional LAA staff, including an additional attorney, two LIO officers, and one enroller or Help Desk technician. She then pointed out that the office rent is included in the contractual line item, which includes an increased amount for allowance accounts for the additional legislators as well as connectivity costs and an increase in office space rent. 2:25:31 PM CHAIR RAMRAS, upon ascertaining no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HJR 38. 2:25:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON moved to report CSHJR 38(STA) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHJR 38(STA) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.