SJR 36 - REAPPORTIONMENT BOARD & REDISTRICTING CHAIRMAN TAYLOR indicated to the committee that they had a copy of a new committee substitute on their desks that brought the draft into line with the version in the House finance committee. It establishes a five-member redistricting board appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, with one member from each judicial district. He said due to the controversy surrounding redistricting, a "Christ-like" figure has to be found to appease people. He said it is always difficult to find these people. He noted that the work draft was marked "GLOVER/B" version. SENATOR PARNELL moved the adoption of the GLOVER/B version, dated 3/12/98, as the working vehicle for the committee. Without objection, it was so ordered. MR. JIM BALDWIN, representing the Department of Law, came forward and noted that he had previously testified on the bill, but spoke to a different version and would like to make a few additional comments. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR indicated he should do so. MR. BALDWIN said the bill is similar to HJR 44, with the exception of one provision that he believes was excluded due to his testimony in the House. MR. BALDWIN pointed out a few problematic provisions still existing in the bill. Page three, lines 2-3 state, "the Chief Justice shall appoint a redistricting board, subject to the provisions of this section and as may be provided by law"; MR. BALDWIN said this would impose additional criteria for the appointment of redistricting board members. He mentioned that the House attempted to come up with an unassailable process which did not involve the Governor. He commented this provision might allow partisan politics to creep back into the process, if criteria specified included political parties or other similar considerations. MR. BALDWIN remarked that the Attorney General has traditionally provided legal counsel for the reapportionment board, and he assumes if the board was moved to another branch that the court system would provide for that. He mentioned the department has provided a fiscal note to the House version of the bill and they feel it may be an involved process to preclear the change. They anticipate that some interest may come forward to challenge preclearance, so the fiscal note takes into account the possibility of consulting experts to help assemble the preclearance application. He indicated the fiscal note on the House side was approximately $60,000. MR. BALDWIN pointed out that a provision beginning on page three, dealing with the schedule of the board, would effectively reduce the time line by 60 days. Currently, the board has 90 days to formulate a plan and then transmit the plan to the Governor, the Governor then has 90 days to review the plan and present a final plan, and MR. BALDWIN indicated all of this time is necessary to accommodate public comment and make adjustments. MR. BALDWIN concluded by saying he had no further comments, other than those he had made during his previous testimony. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked who the fifth member would be since Alaska only has four judicial districts. MR. BALDWIN replied the fifth member would be decided by the four appointed members. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if there was a challenge that could be made to this bill under the "one man, one vote" rule, since it apportions the board that will reapportion the state based on judicial districts and might diminish the influence of major population centers in comparison to rural areas. TAPE 98-18, SIDE B Number 001 MR. BALDWIN said he had not considered that, but believed that since the current practice in the Constitution is obsolete (relying on geography rather than population), apportionment is not required to adhere to the letter of the Constitution, only to attempt to obtain some geographic balance and distribution. He said this is an interesting issue, one he hadn't considered. MR. BALDWIN noted that the board itself has not been apportioned in the past and CHAIRMAN TAYLOR agreed he'd never seen it done either. MR. RALPH BENNETT said that if there was a provision missing from the bill he was not aware of it. MR. BALDWIN restated that he believes the provision was purposefully deleted. SENATOR PARNELL made a motion to move CSSJR 36 from committee with individual recommendations. SENATOR ELLIS objected and CHAIRMAN TAYLOR indicated the bill would be held in committee.