In re 2011 Redistricting Cases, 294 P.3d 1032

This case concerns Alaska redistricting following the 2010 census and a remand to ensure compliance with the Hickel process as required by our March 14, 2012 order.
The Alaska Redistricting Board (the Board) initially adopted a Proclamation Plan in 2011; it received DOJ preclearance but was challenged for not following the Hickel process.
Upon remand, the Board created a Hickel-based plan (FHickel) and then an Amended Proclamation Plan; objections asserted the Board still failed to follow Hickel and relied on unchallenged districts.
The superior court denied final plan approval and held the Amended Proclamation Plan violated Hickel; we reviewed de novo for constitutional compliance.
The majority holds that the Board failed to follow the Hickel process on remand and remands for a new plan drafted strictly under Hickel, while reversing some appellate-directive points about district-by-district findings and court submission at each drafting stage.
Dissenting opinions argue for different interpretations of Hickel compliance and consider Southeast Alaska districts separately.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the Board comply with the Hickel process on remand?	Riley argued the Board used unchallenged districts and failed Hickel.	Board contends Hickel template limited options but complied overall.	No; Hickel process not followed; remand for new Hickel-compliant plan.
Must the Board make district-by-district constitutional findings?	Board was required to provide explicit district findings per Hickel and prior order.	No per the remand order; general compliance suffices.	Rejected; majority reverses, allowing broader review (no per-district findings required).
Is mandatory submission of an initial Hickel plan to the court at every drafting stage required?	Superior court required court approval before VA compliance tweaks.	Such two-stage court involvement is not constitutionally mandated.	No; such staged court submissions are not required.
Are Southeast Alaska districts properly analyzed under Hickel and VRA constraints?	Southeast Alaska districts should be redrawn to avoid VRA-influenced shapes.	Southeast Alaska districts could be maintained under Hickel with minimal changes.	Partially; Southeast Alaska districts did not comply and require reformulation under Hickel.

Hickel v. Southeast Conference, 846 P.2d 38 (Alaska 1992) (establishes Hickel process: constitution first, then VRA review; deviations only as needed for VRA.)
In re 2011 Redistricting Cases, 274 P.3d 466 (Alaska 2012) (court commentary on redistricting standards and Hickel framework.)
Groh v. Egan, 526 P.2d 863 (Alaska 1974) (context for de novo review of redistricting plans.)
Carpenter v. Hammond, 667 P.2d 1204 (Alaska 1983) (cited regarding standards for redistricting review and constitutional testing.)