In Re 2011 Redistricting Cases
274 P.3d 466
Alaska2012Background
- Alaska Supreme Court, March 14, 2012, issues in In re 2011 Redistricting Cases, No. S-14441.
- The Redistricting Board issued a Proclamation Plan on June 13, 2011, prompting petitions for review.
- The superior court held trial (Jan 9–17, 2012) and issued a detailed memorandum; Board and challengers appealed.
- The Board focused first on Voting Rights Act compliance, creating five Native house districts and several Native senate districts.
- The court instructed remand to follow the Hickel process: constitution-first design, then testing against the Voting Rights Act, with only necessary deviations.
- The court commends the Board and the superior court for diligence but emphasizes constitutional compliance as the primary mandate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must Hickel process govern plan design before VRA testing? | Riley: Hickel mandatory; Board ignored it. | Board: efficiency and constraints permit VRA considerations earlier. | Hickel process required before VRA testing. |
| Are constitutional defects necessarily caused by VRA compliance? | Riley: Plan defects tied to VRA-driven choices. | Board: deviations may be needed for VRA; not conclusively shown. | Remand needed to determine causation of defects. |
| Was the Fairbanks anti-dilution issue correctly handled? | Riley: population concentration implies dilution risk; court erred. | Board: population fact does not bar dilution claim; merits remain. | Legal ruling on anti-dilution requires findings on dilution elements. |
| Did Districts 37 and 38 comply with the Alaska Constitution given excess Native VAP? | Riley: over- and under-population issues undermine constitutionality. | Board: excess urban population justification supports VRA aims; not dispositive. | Districts 37–38: not justified by the asserted rationale; merits require remand findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hickel v. Se. Conference, 846 P.2d 38 (Alaska 1992) (process guiding constitutional compliance with VRA)
- Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (U.S. 1996) (race cannot be predominant factor; traditional principles preferred)
- Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (U.S. 1995) (limits on race-based districting under VRA)
- Kenai Peninsula Borough v. State, 743 P.2d 1352 (Alaska 1987) (dilution of minority or politically salient groups considerations)