In re Redistricting
| Docket Number | Supreme Court Nos. 18332/18419 (Consolidated) |
| Decision Date | 21 April 2023 |
| Citation | 528 P.3d 40 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF the 2021 REDISTRICTING CASES (Matanuska-Susitna Borough, S-18328), (City of Valdez, S-18329), (Municipality of Skagway, S-18330), (Alaska Redistricting Board, S-18332), (Alaska Redistricting Board, S-18419) |
| Court | Alaska Supreme Court |
Matthew Singer, Lee C. Baxter, and Kayla J. F. Tanner, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C., Anchorage, for Petitioner/Respondent Alaska Redistricting Board.
Robin O. Brena and Jon S. Wakeland, Brena, Bell & Walker, P.C., Anchorage, for Petitioners/Respondents Municipality of Skagway Borough and Brad Ryan.
Robin O. Brena, Jake W. Staser, Jon S. Wakeland, and Laura S. Gould, Brena, Bell & Walker, P.C., Anchorage, for Petitioners/Respondents City of Valdez and Mark Detter.
Stacey C. Stone, Holmes Weddle & Barcott, P.C., Anchorage, for Petitioners/Respondents Matanuska-Susitna Borough and Michael Brown.
Holly C. Wells, Mara E. Michaletz, and Zoe A. Danner, Birch Horton Bittner & Cherot, Anchorage, for Respondents Felisa Wilson, George Martinez, and Yarrow Silvers.
Eva R. Gardner, Michael S. Schechter, and Benjamin J. Farkash, Ashburn & Mason, P.C., Anchorage, for Respondents Calista Corporation, William Naneng, and Harley Sundown in No. S-18332 and for Respondents Louis Theiss, Ken Waugh, and Jennifer Wingard in No. S-18419.
Nathaniel H. Amdur-Clark and Whitney A. Leonard, Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Miller & Monkman, LLP, Anchorage, for Intervenor Respondents Doyon Limited; Tanana Chiefs Conference; Fairbanks Native Association; Ahtna, Inc.; Sealaska Corporation; Donald Charlie, Sr.; Rhonda Pitka; Cherise Beatus; and Gordon Carlson in No. S-18332.
Susan Orlansky and Richard Curtner, American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska Foundation, Anchorage, for Amici Curiae Alaska Black Caucus; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Anchorage, Alaska Branch #1000; Enlaces; The Korean American Community of Anchorage, Inc.; Native Movement; and First Alaskans Institute in No. S-18332.
Before: Winfree, Chief Justice, Borghesan and Henderson, Justices, and Matthews and Eastaugh, Senior Justices.* [Maassen and Carney, Justices, not participating.]
Alaska's legislative redistricting occurs every decade shortly after the United States decennial census is released, governed primarily by the Alaska Constitution. The most recent redistricting efforts began in earnest in August 2021, shortly after the 2020 census information was received. On November 10 the Alaska Redistricting Board adopted a final redistricting plan for 40 House of Representative districts and 20 Senate districts (each composed of 2 House districts). Five separate challenges to the final plan were filed in superior court. In mid-February 2022 the superior court concluded that two House districts were unconstitutional on due-process-related grounds and that one unrelated Senate district was unconstitutional on gerrymander grounds. The superior court directed further redistricting efforts.
Four petitions for our review quickly were filed, and we granted review. The primary competing claims were that the superior court erred (1) by concluding that the two House districts and the Senate district were unconstitutional, and (2) by not concluding that (a) the two House districts were unconstitutional for additional reasons and (b) other House districts also were unconstitutional. In an expedited summary order we reversed the superior court's ruling regarding the two House districts, affirmed the superior court's ruling regarding the Senate district, and, with one limited exception, affirmed the superior court's ruling that the remaining disputed House districts satisfied constitutional requirements. We remanded for further redistricting efforts consistent with our order.
The Board adopted an amended final plan in mid-April 2022 and another challenge was filed in superior court; in mid-May the superior court concluded that the amended plan's revision for the previously unconstitutional Senate district also was an unconstitutional gerrymander. The superior court directed that an alternative amended plan, previously considered by the Board but not adopted as the amended final plan, be used as an interim plan for the November 2022 elections and that further redistricting efforts be undertaken for a second amended final plan for the rest of the decade. A petition for our review quickly was filed, challenging the superior court's rulings on the merits of the amended plan and contending that using the interim plan was erroneous. We granted review and stayed the superior court's order pending our ruling; in an expedited summary order we affirmed the superior court's conclusion that the relevant Senate district pairings were an unconstitutional gerrymander, affirmed the superior court's order for the interim redistricting plan, and lifted the stay except for the stay of further redistricting efforts pending our formal written decision.
We now explain the reasoning behind our summary orders. For context we start with Alaska's constitutional framework for redistricting. We then detail the parties’ arguments in the first round of petitions for review and explain our first summary order. We next detail the parties’ arguments in the final petition for review and explain our second summary order, including the implementation of an interim redistricting plan for the November 2022 election cycle. Finally, we lift the stay on further redistricting efforts and explain what must be accomplished to successfully implement a final redistricting plan for the remainder of the decade.
Article VI, section 6 sets out House and Senate district requirements.1 A House district shall "contain a population as near as practicable" to 1/40th of the State's total population.2 House districts must be contiguous and compact and must "contain[ ] as nearly as practicable a relatively integrated socio-economic area."3 We have explained that a House district is contiguous if it is not split into separate parts.4 But, of course: 5
Compactness and socioeconomic integration are important constraints on technically contiguous House districts stretching to Alaska's distant regions.6 A House district is more compact when its perimeter is small relative to its area;7 although irregular shapes are expected because of Alaska's geography, oddly placed corridors and appendages are suspect.8 Socioeconomic integration is a more nebulous concept. We have explained that, in general, the constitutional convention delegates intended House districts to group people living in neighboring areas and following "similar economic pursuits."9 Although the Constitution uses flexible language, such as "as nearly as practicable" and "relatively," to describe the socioeconomic integration requirement, we have said that socioeconomic integration may be sacrificed "only to maximize the other constitutional requirements of contiguity and compactness."10 A House district contained entirely within a borough by definition meets the socioeconomic integration requirement.11 But socioeconomic integration otherwise generally requires "proof of actual interaction and interconnectedness rather than mere homogeneity."12
A "[S]enate district shall be composed as near as practicable of two contiguous [H]ouse districts,"13 meaning that the two House districts comprising a Senate district must share a border. Compactness and relative socioeconomic integration requirements do not explicitly apply to Senate districts.14 But local government boundaries may be given consideration when creating election districts,15 and, when describing election district boundaries, "[d]rainage and other geographic features shall be used."16 These factors — contiguity, adherence to local boundaries, and reliance on geographic features — reflect a desired measure of interconnectedness between the House districts that are combined to form a Senate district.
Ample evidence illustrates the constitutional convention delegates’ intent to protect against gerrymandering when they drafted article VI, section 6.17 As adopted, section 6 contained guiding language for constructing House districts nearly identical to its current text: 18 Delegate John Hellenthal, chair of the Committee on Suffrage, Elections, and Apportionment, explained that the committee's proposed contiguity, compactness, socioeconomic integration, and population quotient requirements acted together to "prohibit[ ] gerrymandering which would ... take place were 40 districts arbitrarily set up by the [redistricting entity]."19 As we discuss below, he expressed similar gerrymandering concerns when discussing who would apply these standards.
In Hickel v. Southeast Conference we expressly noted that "[t]he requirements of contiguity, compactness and socio-economic integration were incorporated by the framers of the reapportionment provisions to prevent gerrymandering."20 We also pointed to both Carpenter v. Hammond and Black's Law Dictionary when defining gerrymandering broadly as "the dividing of an area into political units ‘in an unnatural way with the purpose of bestowing advantages on some and thus disadvantaging others.’ "21
Gerrymandering often takes one of two forms, "packing" or "cracking."22 "Packing" occurs when groups of voters of similar expected voting behavior are unnaturally concentrated in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial