Groh v. Egan

al., Appellants, et J. GROH Clifford Alaska, EGAN, A. Governor

William al., Appellees. et

No. 2233. of Alaska. Court

Sept. 13, 1974. Alaska, with the assistance State of him, advisory appointed to de

an board reapportionment plan velop permanent legislature. for the Alaska The governor appointed advisory which, board after public hearings, conducting numerous sub report proposed plan mitted adopted by reapportionment2 which was governor on December 1973. superior commenced in the Suit was validity challenging plan. court of the case, After Judge Singleton trial of judgment May entered a on dis- Groh, Eggers, Kenneth P. Clifford J. missing action Appel- on the merits. Groh, Walter, Anchorage, for Benkert & following lants raise the appeal: issues on appellants. Population variance between districts Gen., Reeves, Atty. An- Asst. N. James was excessive. Gen., Gorsuch, Atty. chorage, Norman C. 2. The division of the Greater Anchor- appellees. Juneau, for age area into six districts violated Delahay, Borough Atty., Ben T. Soldot- requirement the Alaska constitutional na, Peninsula as curiae for Kenai amicus contig- that districts be formed of Borough. compact uous and territories contain- RABINOWITZ, Justice, Chief Before ing nearly practicable as a rela- CONNOR, ERWIN, BOOCHEVER tively integrated socio-economic area. FITZGERALD, Justices. 3. There was no need to truncate senators, terms of four and termina- OPINION tion of their terms a de- constituted equal protection. nial of BOOCHEVER, Justice. establishing 4. The use of a formula time, we are confronted For the third military personnel the number of reapportionment of challenge to the with vi- be included in the base Ham legislature.1 Egan the Alaska v. equal pro- process the due olates mond, reapportion that the 1971 we held tection of the States clauses United was legislature, the Alaska which ment of and Alaska constitutions. pursuant to the mandate of promulgated plan on the latest base the 5. Failure to Constitution, was Art. VI of the Alaska malappor- resulted population data equal protection unconstitutional under tionment. supremacy clauses the United the 1974 imminence of оf the to the imminence Because States Constitution. Due and heard elections, expedited briefing we adopted elections we an interim of the 1972 6, we On on legis arguments plan reapportionment for the 1972 June June aspects of all approving an order thereafter entered elections. The case was lative speci- composition of except the plan which on superior remanded to the court districts, senate order, fied house and pursuant January issued an constitutional permissible mandate, found exceeded governor requesting to our unanimously approved report 2. The P.2d 856 See exception board, Nolan, (Alaska 1972) five-member Wade area, Anchorage districting (Alaska 1966). report portion dis- members two (cid:127)which sented. regarding preferable limits variances with- between alternative rational adequate justification.3 plans. out do not so construe our authori case, ty, if that were the there would case remanded to enable the provide reason little governor for the Alaska, governor of the if he State de- promulgate plan sired, Advisory to resubmit the after receiving the recommendations Reapportionment purpose Board for the Advisory Reapportionment Board.6 The revising bringing speci- it and the districts authority reapportion constitutional re fied within constitutional standards.4 We executive, sides in the not the courts. stated in opinion our' order that a full Jur isdiction is conferred courts would follow. application when an compel is made to governor, perform reapportion his “[T]o I ment duties or to correct error in re STANDARD OF REVIEW districting reapportionment.”7 It cannot be said that may what we deem an to be Besides determining whether the reap- any unwise particular provision choice of portionment plan meets constitutional re- reapportionment plan of a quirements, upon we appro- must settle several reasonable and constitutional alter priate applicable standard review natives constitutes “error” which would in reapportionment cases. Article VI jurisdiction voke the of the courts. of the Alaska provides Constitution for re- apportionment Representa- of the House of plan view promulgated un by governor tives the after each decennial der the constitutional authorization of the Although comparable census. provision governor reapportion to legislature the governs reapportionment senate, of the we light the regulation same as we have Senate, too, held that the must be adopted delegation authority under a similarly reapportioned in order to con- legislature from the to an administrative form to constitutional requirements im- agency policy promulgate to formulate posed by the United States regulations. We have stated that we shall Court.5 Section 11 of Article VI confers regulations review such first to that insure original jurisdiction superior the court agency power the has not exceeded the del to hear challenges reapportionment to the it, egated to and second to determine plan, provides appeal, that “On the regulation whether the is reasonable and cause shall be supreme reviewed the course, arbitrary. additionally, Of upon court the law and the facts.” always authority have to the review consti Appellants argue this consti taken, tutionality of the action but we have authority tutional upon confers the su that a stated court not substitute its preme power court the to decide what is judgment sagacity regulation as to the of a copy appended 3. A of the order of remand is otherwise, perform mandamus or his hereto as Exhibit A. reapportionment any duties or to correct redistrieting reapportionment. error or governor plan 4. The did resubmit to the Application compel governor per- Board, changes which recommended in the reapportionment form his duties must districts, governor various and the lias sub- thirty days expiration filed within qf plan mitted the revised to this court. ninety-day periods either of the two See sрecified Application in this article. (Alaska 1972) ; Nolan, Wade v. 414 P.2d compel correction error redis- (Alaska 1966). tricting reapportionment must be filed days proclama- thirty following within AT, 6. Art. §§ 3 and Alaska Constitution. Original jurisdiction tion. in these matters AT, 7. Art. 11 of hereby superior § the Alaska Constitution vested in the court. provides: appeal, On the cause shall be reviewed Any qualified may apply supreme upon voter to the law court and the superior compel governor, by court facts. agency, appellate of the administrative intended that in the review be na- regulation proceeding, of a given the wisdom ture of de novo but without subject superior being presented.10 not a for review.8 The additional evidence Ac- applied cordingly, that it reviewing reapportion- court indicated these criteria plan, reapportionment to its review ment we shall consider the matter de upon developed apply and we shall like standards our novo the record in the su- perior review of law and raised court. facts appeal. II aspect other of our review

One pertains weight given function to be DATA USE OF THE CENSUS superior court. decision population base determining was first When the article Advisory reapportionment, used for convention, proposed at the constitutional upon cen- Board relied the 1970 decennial original vested jurisdiction for review was Appellants sus. contend that there were discussion, it supreme After court. available, data more accurate current original practical to more deemed improper utilize court, jurisdiction superior but them. ap delegates preference indicated supreme VI, court stand plication by of a the Alaska Con- Article 3 of Section that, dis “abuse of provides “[Rjeapportionment ard other than familiar stitution reviewing the test in decision cretion” shall be based civilian superior reported by the The draft was amend as court. each election district within appeal, to the cause specify ed that In v. we the census.” “[o]n by supreme military per- court shall be reviewed the the held that elimination unconstitutional, min upon law the facts.” a was and the and as class sonnel population” in could utes the Constitutional Convention clause that the “civilian provision requirement that dicate the drafters of this from that not be severed the recently adopted, Kingery Chapple, 8. 834- and we See v. was tution which Zamarello, supreme 1972) ; Kelly (Alaska im- matter such that the felt (Alaska 1971). portance on be conferred P.2d this should as supreme be that should the court and VI, § art. Alaska Constitution might original jurisdiction. given be There Delegate 10. The intent was best articulated better court. a you Taylor: the McLaughlin: su- not believe that Do any you, perior believe, Johnson, to to more available I answer court could be Mr. Taylor disgruntled allow the . . . and that Mr. voter there one addition appellate supreme be review on of Alaska to the He desired not court desired. law, that to make sure . . ? but he wanted court . the supreme would the facts their review review all Of course court could Hellenthal: the legal superior presented and matters He in the court. be confined to review as thought Perhaps that de it in substance trial novo without not facts. wanted pre- supreme bit more detached was a than the evidence the court other evidence superior why superior That’s than a court. court. sented appear Taylor: abuse if district courts But the he that the law facts insisted you always discretion, raise that can there. appellate Minutes, Pre- court. the Constitution Convention you following exchange viously, know and I know But as taken had Hellenthal: question Taylor lawyers, place Delegates abusive Hellen- raise the between as got you be aw- discretion [sic] thal : right. Why proposed fully Taylor: . this . . your proposal you upon supreme Taylor: article, you not did confer Could juris- put superior original should have court it that of the State of Alaska court supreme jurisdiction try disputes reapportion- original as diction appellate ing? and also court be the court wоuld pp. (Minutes, language find facts? came identical- could as Hellenthal: That tjie 1859-60). ly language the Hawaii Consti- from reapportionment exclusively be based select different available sta- census data. We concluded that compilations. alterna- tistical tives to census base could utilized.11 governor’s authority Since Thus, longer specific there is no consti- as choose census data base is tutional mandate to the as base not limited either the state or feder to be utilized governor. On constitution, al our review is restricted to hand, it other has never been held authority whether that been exercised process protection due or equal clauses of opposed in a arbitrary to an rational the United States or Alaska constitutions report Reapportion of the manner. reapportionment upon popula- dictate some Advisory thorough ment Board evidences other tion base than that of decennial exemplary exploration possibili fact, Sims, In Reynolds census.12 ty Only using more current statistics. United States Court stated: carefully examined after alternatives substance, regard Equal we do not was the determination made to use requiring daily, Protection Clause as rationality As 1970 census data. monthly, reapportion- annual or biennial decision, findings agree with ment, long has a as a State reasona- so superior court: readjust- bly periodic conceived for Board Advisory Reapportionment legislative representation. ment of While up- an feasibility such examined the we do to indicate that decen- intend (who is statistical date. Its technician nial constitutional employee the Research otherwise the requisite, compliance ap- such with responsible Analysis who Section proach clearly meet the minimal esti- preparing that office's annual requirements maintaining a reasona- the advice sought and its counsel mates) bly legislative current scheme of matter and Rogers George Dr. representation.13 impossi- were informed that would statisti- Reynolds indicates it is update While ble data geograph- necessary reapportion way cally meaningful more fre really required reapportion- quently decennially, it does not for specificity than ical question question popu itself to the of what Board also took address ment. Evans, census may federal up lation data used. There can be lit Ronald be with Alaska’s University general principle of question tle but that the at the coordinator Social, and Gov- equalizing per persons can be Economic votes best Institute for up- Research, that achieved use of the most current accu who advised ernment data not available reasonably population rate data indi available. We dated Hammond, to contract possible in be Egan cated v. that the ab it would and that spe- a sence of amendment rees Bureau obtain constitutional with the Census purposes reapportionment tablishing specific guidelines, gover for cial census these $250,000. For power nor has the select at a of about alternative cost An- reasons, because reapportionment purposes. bases in addition for We population permissibility regis represent referred to the of a nual Estimates ef- voter, cannot April citizenship state or resi than July tered state rather extrapolated geographic may dency fectively Similarly, base.14 be governor implies however, Court, that 11. 502 P.2d at States 870-871. constitutionally is not data decennial census 12. Justice Brennan in his dissent in White not ad- did appropriate, Brennan and Justice Regester, 755, 2332, 412 93 S.Ct. TJ.S. question current of how ress himself to 314, (1972), L.Ed.2d 37 asserted 334 that reapportionment must be. data “grounded on must be 1362, 1393, S.Ct. 377 U.S. data”, the most accurate available and that (1964). L.Ed.2d unreliability of data necessitate invalida- plan. holding tion of 14. 502 P.2d at 870. No United for specificity, it was not unreasonable In we wrestled with thorny problem accounting that it could not for mili- the Board to conclude personnel effectively update tary data. 1970census the Alaska many of base. Since the considerations under The use of the cеnsus data controlling there discussed are still on this er- circumstances did not constitute those issue, we shall summarize the basic ration- ror. We ale that case.18 held invalid requirement reappor- that constitutional Ill popu- tionment shall be based civilian MILITARY PERSONNEL within each district as re- lation election ported by the census the reason Advisory eliminate sought Board personnel as a military class could be base, to the extent that reli- from the data out, pointed arbitrarily. eliminated developed on able information could be however, by holding such elimination so, could do all nonresidents who which to saying were not “that unconstitutional we found statistically The Board identified. per- military ‍​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‍cannot excluded as some percent of the census approximately limiting impact of device for missible personnel military consisted legislative and nonresidents on transients numbers dependents, substantial districting.” made to the Reference was A of the state.15 were not residents whom base, using registered voter possibility established complicated formula approved in v. Rich- which has been Burns 78,- 28,581 approximately whereby ardson,19 employing or a state citizen military dependents,16 military and residency expressed what basis. We population base. from the were eliminated hope proved be a that the has now vain Appellants that the elimination contend reapportion- update the legislature would military personnel from portion provision of the Alaska ment Constitution uncon- base constitutes appropriate amend- with an constitutional employment classification viola- stitutional protection.17 process equal tive of due ment. appointed April 1970, fol the census indicated collected the

15.The masters military per- 32,113 regarding participation lowing mili uniformed data there Figures provided by tary personnel general election: in the state. the 1970 sonnel Richardson, indi- and other sources 102 voters Elmendorf and Fort Command military dependents approximately 9,445 population 18; age 1.46 Eielson and over cated pеrsonnel military 10,276 Wainwright, popu voters of each uniformed Fort 18; Shemya Station, July Assuming age the same ratio over lation dependents 46,885 military age 18; 1,085 poiiulation over there were personnel voters personnel Thus, military Station, 1,717 population in 1970. Kodiak 78 voters of 78,998 dependents age accounted for dis over 18. In these six enumeration and their 302,361. population by military personnel Al- populated of of the state’s 1970 tricts originally sought though dependents, to elim- Board thus 352 there were military 22,523 de- and nonresident inate nonresident pendents, voters from an adult exclusionary per percent. Approximately final- formula 52 less than 1.6 personnel. applied only ly non-military in same to uniformed cent of adults voted Hammond, 909, Egan at v. election. 678, 691, Mann, (Boochever, J., 84 17. F.S. see at dissent See Davis 377 502 862 P.2d (1964) 609, voting taken, believe, 1441, 1448, ing). : 12 L.Ed.2d 617 If can be as we S.Ct. individuals, against person’s a class of desire make Discrimination indication of merely home, em- of their of the nature his the desires of Alaska-based because state shown, being military personnel clearly expressed ployment, con- without more have been military stitutionally impermissible. negative. personnel Of all the Alaska, only in 190 claimed to residents according at 868-871. to the Alaska See 502 P.2d record Command at id. at the time of nothing 16 L.Ed.2d in 86 S.Ct. the record indicates that U.S. 384 (1966). figure changed significantly. 376 870 any

In the absence constitution during school months and before base, ally mandated the Advi spring thaw is knowledge. common sory sought regarding Board information likelihood that number of tourists population. Military Alaska’s transient have been could included in Alaska’s cen- personnel prom population is, therefore, were found to be the most sus minute. component, seasonality inent and on the basis of its employ- much Alaska’s proportion authoritatively data the Board found a certain ment market has been docu- military Specific to be excludable from the mented over several decades.20 bearing general base. The dissent finds error data out the trend in re- military years, year in the decision to tran exclude cent and the census in apportionment population particular, through sients from is available the Alaska primarily prepared base because the Board failed to Estimates Workforce equally. monthly Analy- treat civilian transients For three basis Research and Employment Security reasons we find the Board’s decision rea sis Section of sonable: it for the (1) Department was reasonable Division of the Alaska of La- Board to conclude that civilian transients bor. A review those documents for present in significant April not numbers of a presence 1970 shows the April, obtained; 109,972 when the census data was em- pool total statewide labor they 7,- even (2) present, ployable if transients were figure That is but civilians.21 included the Alaska census January 000 more than the ebb and over population, 17,000 although military 127,144 stationed peak July.22 all less than the included; special (3) employed Alaska were so persons The actual number of military pattern nature of transience creates a rea showed a similar of increase and distinguish decline; instance, process- sonable basis to between mili in the food tary and civilian ing industry, inextricably transients. which is tied industry, highly fishing seasonal to- Initially justi- we believe the Board 6,700 employment tal doubled fied in concluding that civilian transients 13,600 April in July.24 were not included in the Alaska cen- figures. sus data, upon The 1970 census non-military Even if transients were based, which the exclusion was Alaska, was ob- contacted census takers in April. tained in seasonality of tour- does not follow were included in ism in known; Alaska is well although population. Alaska’s The census enumer published presence data on tourist person according place ates a to his “usual available, readily absence tourists “generally of residence”.25 That clause is Rogers, Cooley, A., 20.See seq. G. W. and R. Alas- 301 et § U.S.C. We harbor no re- Population (1962) Economy, ; ka’s 127-30 luctance to take notice of such authoritative Rogers, W., Alaska, documenting aspect G. The Future of 106-07 sources a well known (1962) ; Rogers, W., Alaska, economy. 43(a)(2) G. The Econo- the Alaska Civil Rule my Monthly Force, and the 43(a)(2)[d], Labor Labor [c] (1955) ; Rogers, W., Rev. 1375 G. Alaska of. Analysis Etapl. Section, 21. Research and Se Regional Population Employment, Uni- curity Div., Dept Labor, Alaska Revised versity Report of Alaska S.E.G. No. 15 at (1972). Alaska Estimate Workforce (1967). generally See Research and Anal- ysis Section, Empl. Security Div., Id. Dept, Labor, of Alaska Workforce Estimates generally 23. See authorities cited at note by Industry Area, and 1965-72. The work- supra. prepared force estimates are under mandate of Analysis Section, Empl. 24. Research and Se- Department the United States of Labor curity Div., Dept, Labor, Alaska of Revised public, the state to make available to the “ac- (1972). Alaska Workforce Estimate timely manpower job curate and area and pur- decision-making market information Census, for 25. Bureau of the Social and Economic poses.” Department Ill United Administration, States of Statistics De- United States Labor, Employment Security partment Commerce, Manual § of of Characteristics the implementing 602.6, implementing Population, (1971). C.F.R. § Part A at v. place per mean the where Thus the construed to census fails to cull out the non- [a sleeps of the time.” military popula- most resident from the lives census son] tion, April in in Transient individuals Alaska although respect it does so with necessarily counted as Alas civilian population.30 1970were In that distinction example, the ka residents. For residence alone lies justification the for Board’s ex- their state of cluding tourists was attributed to of military persons nonresident origin.27 The same was where short- true without attempting also civil- eliminate in Alask term was encountered worker ian nonresidents. as persons

a.28 counted Those who were Finally, concluding in that the exclusion slept here residents of Alaska lived the military cannot be reconciled with time”, be diffi the and it would “most of “the board’s tolerance tran- toward civilian excluding them find a for cult to basis comparing sients” and the exclusion of population base. from the personnel military residency a durational very differently were treated Servicemen requirement, the in opinion ig- dissent our сensus, however: from civilians (cid:127) nores the reason fundamental ex- living Armed Forces Members of the military personnel clusion of some —their counted, inas military were installations any beyond want contact with the state census, every previous as residents presence. may Although mere some volun- in was lo which the installation area duty, military personnel teer for such the Armed Similarly, members of cated. report ordered to to the Alaska Command. military installa living on a Forces not involuntary mil- Recognizing nature of tion as residents of counted were courts, assignment, in- itary common law they living. area in which were Crews court,31 cluding have the territorial district as Navy vessels were counted U.S. person long stated that a who enters port to which residents of the home and domicil military the residence retains assigned. vessel particular entering he established before . Only family 1] at 75. [Rule 26. Id. household. Id. migrants included have been could homeless 27. Id. at vi. residents, persons been had such Alaska as enu- Id. The rules followed census present rule as- in state. The relevant questions further merators to decide residence shifting places signs which have “Persons support understanding civilian tran- mainly composed persons populations census were not included Alaska’s sients population residence, camps, fixed as convict no highway such significant in a Persons number. camps, other construction permanent else- who residence maintained a workers,” camps migratory agricultural encountered than Alaska but were where they camp are found. where residence employment Alaska because of seasonal would thought The [Rule Id. significant at 77. 16] more have been classified as “Person who people number of could have been than them”, home and divides time between one agricultural or construction encountered assigned residence would camps April 1, in Alaska on 1970 defies spends largest part he been “Place where experience. Census, year.” Bureau calendar supra Census, Commerce, Department at v. note 25 Bureau of States United Pub. D-507 [Rule Enumerator’s Handbook place college students does 30. The census (The may 11] rules also be found at 76. made school. Board where attend handbook, other D-500, Publications versions percentage of col- an effort to determine D-526.) Thus, the census D-520 and lege who were nonresidents. students only those tran- included as Alaska residents statistically insig- be (cid:127)number was found to spent year majority sients who nificant. seek to deter- Alaska. For the Board to actually Wilson, mine them considered 31. Wilson v. who legislature (D.C.Aneh.1945). in enact- state citizens be themselves por- nugatory task, accomplished ing if rendered Herculean it could AS 09.55.160 that a serviceman at Persons in Alaska sea- which held all. who were tion Wilson within sonal laborers their families enu- not sue for divorce when Lauterbach, assignment. in See v. merated other states also have been Lauterbach (Alaska 1964). P.2d referred back residents of the locale of the 392 24 872

military.32 accept these courts Most of As a statutory result of the common and principle military may that those ac- military life, law and the economics of quire they a domicil of where choice serviceman family may and his remain billeted, but the first Restatement of completely Con- assign- aloof from the state of opportunity ment, flict of Laws even that denied neither utilizing its services nor con- some,33 to and the Restatement Second tributing treasury public to its life. or considers a new domicil “difficult to We hold that it was reasonable for 34 military principle establish.” that a Board to proportion exclude some of mili- person retains his entrance domicil tary personnel merely of their because residence has been in a embodied federal transience, significant but because a num- exempts statute which servicemen from military personnel ber of Alaska-based ex- virtually every form taxation on income option non-Alaskans, ercise an to be de- personal or property in the state where spite physical presence This here. they unless stationed are domi- phenomenon is well demonstrated ciled there.35 registration military minuscule voter on Hopkins, 1116, 32. See provides: Stifel v. F.2d 1122 App. 477 35.50 U.S.C.A. 574 § (6th 1973) ; (1) purposes Gir. Ellis v. Southeast Constr. in re For of taxation Co., 280, (8th 1958) ; personal spect any person, 281-282 Cir. of his or Lewis, any Prudential Ins. property, income, gross Co. of America v. income, or F.Supp. 1177, ; (N.D.Ala.1969) 306 possession, political 1184 State, Territory, or Kopasz Kopasz, Cal.App.2d 308, v. any 107 foregoing, subdivision of or 284, (1951) ; Means, P.2d 285-286 Means v. Columbia, person the District of such 441, 1, (1945) ; 145 Neb. 17 N.W.2d Israel shall not be leemed to lost resi Israel, 255 N.C. 121 S E.2d any State, Territory, 715-716 dence or domicile possession, (1 961) ; Wiseman, any Wiseman v. political or subdivision of (1965). Tenn. 393 S.W.2d foregoing, or District Columbia, solely by being reason of ab Laws, military compliance Restatement of § Conflict sent therefrom in with (1934). c. acquired comment orders, naval or or to have domicile, in, residence or or have be (Second) Laws, of, any 34. Restatement of Conflict of come resident or resident (1971) d, politi : State, Territory, posession, § 17 comment other or sailor, any if is ordered foregoing, A soldier or he cal subdivision go Columbia, must and live in while, station to which he quarters assigned or the District of and sole him, probably ly by being, will reason of so absent. For the though acquire purposes respect per a domicil there he lives of taxation in assigned quarters family. gross with He property, his sonal income or income of obey go any person by any State, Territory, choose must orders and cannot such hand, possession, political any if he is al- elsewhere. On the other or subdivision of family foregoing, he to live with his where lowed pleases provided of the bia, or the District of Colum enough person near his of which such is not a resident perform duties, post compensa domiciled, enable him to his inor which he is not power military he retains some place of choice over the tion for or naval service shall not may acquire performed domi- of his abode and be deemed income for services within, regard so, however, within, State, cil. place do he must To or sources such Territory, political possession, subdivision, his whеre he lives as home. Such may part District, jjersonal property be difficult to attitude his estab- or shall not present lish view of the nomadic character of be deemed to be or in or located military particularly intends, State, if he life have a Territory, possession, situs for taxation such service, political termination of his to move or subdivi place. sion, per to some other or district. Where the owner of recognize, course, property re- We that durational sonal is absent from his residence quirements solely by compliance of residence or establishment or domicile reason of military orders, domicil often suffer constitutional defects. with naval this section (Alaska Adams, applies respect personal property, State v. P.2d 1125 1974) ; Dort, thereof, jurisdic State Tan P.2d or the use within tax (Alaska 1972). place here not with a deal tion other than such domicile, regardless of residence or requirement, question may durational but with the the owner of where serving compliance of whether an individual be considered with such orders . . ." purposes apportionment. a resident for extrapolated the num- zens could be no- offensive to It is thus not enclaves. registered the number of ber of voters if exclude from protection to equal tions of known, num- registered voters was but military personnel population base even of was not. The statewide ber for substantial residents in Alaska have lived who registered voters ratio of to time, people citizens those periods long as of so applied was then to 2.2:1. This ratio remain resi- option to have exercised in the Fort registered number voters of states. of other and domiciliaries dents complex and military Field Lewis-McCord then, turn, specific exclusion to occupying military in establishments other re- The Board by the Board. effected complete enumerating districts. census in Alaska military quested the authorities military (2.2 The number of state residents data on Alaska’s compile to and furnish registered voters) was times the number of population, military military-related of then number subtracted from total suggestions furnish comments and to state, military persons present in the identifying state concerning methods of represent deemed to difference was Alaska Com- them. residents military personnel. number of transient 1, 1973, of July reported that as mand computation resulted in the exclusion military at 18,581 persons uniformed 58,507persons to be nonresi- —estimated Anchorage in major installations the five 60,143 military per- dents the total of percent, Fairbanks, 200, or 1.07 ad- corresponding sonnel. A downward person- residents are reflected Alaska justment was effected the districts figures probably nel records. Since such 1,636 (only which had been counted personnel promptly changed when are not A population base). included residence, they are change on a decide reap- adopted three-judge federal court They do dubious value. somewhat portionment plan formula containing this show, however, portion that a substantial stipulation the result of a had been military regard do parties of some Two to the case. themselves as residents of Alaska. parties who were not intervenors adopted a finally modifica- stipulation The Board appealed to the States United by plan employed the State of Supreme tion of a alleging part that Court reapportionment. Washington in its in- unconstitutionally recent method used failed Washington based military personnel. ap- clude On all of the premise ap- citizens any group peal, Supreme Court the United States will proximately register adopt- the same number opinion affirmed without the order Therefore, the of citi- to vote.36 method.37 ing number the statistical suspicion infra, do not find the dissent’s fa- 36. We formula result more discussed to a registration military personnel index of state as an citizen- than voter vorable as a class military personnel First, ship larger tenable. obtain numbers of that which would if personnel military every registered there is no contention There is civilians voted. subjected military personnel to some invidious discrimination who reason to believe fact, registratiоn. In there is evi- in voter desire residents and domiciliaries to be Alaska special register registration efforts have in the record that will dence to vote because voter military personnel prime a resi- been made convince is a index of intention to become vote, domiciliary. register reason, those efforts have and that or For like dent percentage Nor do we consider the low do to become failed. think that those who no want registration voting or in bush areas to re- Alaskans demonstrate intention voter-reg- bearing upon any fusing register of a the fairness to vote. See v. Ham- travel, mond, example statistic, since the com- at istration-based munication, 862 n. register language, barriers of and cultural of the dismal results of efforts experienced military persons residents of those areas are as Alaska voters. Similar military majority examples appear vast of Alaska’s the record of this case. any personnel. event, statistical skew voting produced registration Washington AFL- low in bush State Labor Council lead, Prince, areas would the Board’s exclusion CIO v. 409 U.S. S.Ct. 28,581 Advisory deducted, Board ascertained census. Since but were The Alaska registered to the percentage between those actual counted as residents that the ratio approximately percent. election was 65 1970Alaska Based on vote in the November April available, all 1970 the number counted statistical information and ap- was percentage higher This ratio is in census was 1 to 2.717. all much likelihood in six registered military lo- than the actual plied percentage those vote of and exclusively by military the mili- dependents populated cations who residents of are total of A the tary dependents.38 larger their state.39 an of a and While exclusion 1,049 vote registered percentage military persons personnel were and de- areas, indicating pendents thereby military justified, be those we have not 2,850 2.717). presented x been (1,049 residents issue as overre- sample presentation area military. the census within the conclude 25,234 41,659, estimated was against there no was whom discrimination all Utilizing only military adults improper as a class to be adults. and exclu- ap- area, military personnel sion of sample Board found based na- proximately percent employment. 11 were estimated to ture of their accordingly (2,850/25,234), be residents and Applying percent

89 were nonresidents. IV percent nonresidency to each the 89 factor place military personnel were POPULATION VARIANCES 28,581 counted resulted in deduction The 1973 plan contains military popula- from the total uniformed maximum deviation Rep- House of in each corresponding tion deductions and percent, resentatives of 29 dis- Juneau census district. being underrepresented by trict percent 14 obviously as There are certain and overrepresented the Nome district by sumptions in evolv which had to made percent. Senate, In the the maximum used, admittedly ing there the formula percent.40 is deviation 22.4 40 house Of error, however, Any are inexactitudes. seats, 22 derive repre- from districts where military bound to have in more resulted by percent sentation deviates five or more dependents being their counted ‍​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‍than mean, seats, and of 20 senate actually in For residents state. are situated in by districts characterized stance, exclusionary ap formula similar deviations. Since the deviations in plied only military personnel to uniformed were, both the house and the senate dependents. Dependents and not their course, mean, both below above the assumed, military persons may be for the total pairs deviations between several part, most residential to have same percent. districts were in excess of ten personnel characteristics as uniformed Appellants contend that such variances in dependent. There whom impair right dilute 78,998 approximate was an total mili underrepresented vote of Alaskans in the tary dependents counted in 1970 districts, protec- equal in violation of the Opin- (1972). military per- reported percent 34 L.Ed.2d 68 See also In re that 25 to 30 Justices, dependents ion of A.2d 111 N.H. sonnel and affirmatively answered (1971), Hampshire question wherein New whether census advisory opinion Court decided in an the same in 1970 as it residence was military excluding Assuming pure from base was in 1965. duration personnel percent voting residency, resi- who have met reasonable in- the 65 creates constitutionally requirements per- dence clusion is more than double the allowance argued Egan missible. for. See v. Ham- which could mond, P.2d at Approximately percent Alaska’s mili- tary live these six locations. underrepre- 40.The Juneau senate district largest representation percent, claim to was de- sented and the Bethel district report, percent. overrepresented tailed in our where it was masters’ 8.4 tion clauses of the United preme opinions States and Alas- Court somewhat ameliorat- ka constitutions. ing the rigid previously applied. standards In the first trilogy, of this Mahan v. discussed Howell,43 a Virginia reapportionment plan criteria, then-applicable constitutional first involving a maximum variation 16.4 delineating unique problems involved in percent44 (one overrepresent- district was attempting equal population to secure dis- percent ed underrepre- 6.8 and another tricts in Alaska: by justi- sented 9.6 held percent) was to be climática!, geographical, When Alaska’s policy fied following politi- state ethnic, cultural and socio-economic dif- cal boundary subdivision lines. The court contemplated as- ferences are the task recognized that the states had been accord- proportions sumes commensu- Herculean ed respect more with legis- latitude state land area. rate with Alaska’s enormous reapportionment respect lative than with problems multiplied are Alaska’s The congressional redistricting.45 reaf- While sparse widely population scattered firming Reynolds holding v. Sims por- inaccessibility of and the relative that: Surprisingly small state. tions Equal requires create Protection Clause in district boundaries changes [T]he good ide- that a make an honest and from the State large percentage variances 41 districts, faith effort to сonstruct both population al nearly legislature, houses of its as We concluded: equal population practicable.46 as is reappor present standard for Thus emphasized in Mahan court that: justifica separate two tionment allows long divergences as the from a strict popu So from the ideal tions for deviation population legiti- standard are based on figures. first The lation mate considerations incident to ef- occurring because of uncon variance policy, of a rational state factors, ef fectuation despite' a faith good trollable equal-popula- some from the precision. deviations mathematical fort to achieve constitutionally permis- principle tion acceptable is that deviation second apportionment respect sible im justify” “the must State —the the two in either or both of of seats a con plication while it was being that legislature.47 deviation, houses of a bicameral state “inci other factors trollable a rational dent to the effectuation Supreme Gaffney Cummings,48the In v. justifi advanced policy” can be state plan for reapportionment upheld Court However, Supreme Court cation. Assembly involv- the Connecticut General Reynolds v. early date at an cautioned of 7.83 percent deviation ing a maximum policies greatly Sims, acceptable state submit- proposed plan had been although a mited.42 li deviation. involving a much smaller ted plan, the establishing the Egan v. opinion in Since our policy followed had apportionment board Su- three United States there have been 984, 322, omitted). 35 L. (footnote 93 at S.Ct. 45. 410 U.S. at 41. P.2d at 502 865 329. Ed.2d at Reyn- omitted). (footnote See 42. Id. at 867 985, 324-325, 35 579-580, at 93 S.Ct. at Sims, 84 S.Ct. 46. 410 at U.S. v. 377 U.S. olds Reynolds quoting 330, 1390-1391, at L.Ed.2d at from 12 L.Ed.2d 537-538. at 1390, 577, Sims, at S.Ct. at 84 U.S. 377 979, 315, L.Ed.2d 35 93 S.Ct. U.S. 410 at 12 L.Ed.2d modified, 922, (1973), 93 S.Ct. 411 U.S. 320 Sims, Reynolds Id., quoting 377 (1973). 1475, L.Ed.2d from 1391, 579, 12 L.Ed.2d at at 84 S.Ct. U.S. dissenting, J., Brennan, opinion of 44. But see at 537. might indicating the maximum variation L.Ed.2d percent. 93 S.Ct. at 48. 412 U.S. 410 U.S. have been 23.6 well (1973). L.Ed.2d at 337. at S.Ct. “political establishing at fairness” aimed though it contained a maximum “a rough proportional represen- scheme of variance between largest and smallest major рolitical parties.” percent. tation of the two acceptable district of 9.9 state No policy support was advanced to the devia- Court concluded: However, only tions. 23 districts were appellees’ showing think that over or underrepresented by than more numerical deviations percent, three three of those dis- equality among the Senate and House tricts percent. more than five out a districts in this case failed make Court held that it did not consider relative- prima Equal facie violation of the Pro ly minor deviations of the Fourteenth Amend tection Clause districts to so dilute the franchise in un- ment, those are con whether deviations derrepresented districts so that individuals with the sidered alone or combination deprived in those districts were of fair and fact that another could additional representation: effective with lower deviations be conceived Very likely, larger differences between legislative districts. among the State’s districts would not be tolerable without way, allegations and another Put justification legitimate “based on consid deviations proof of erations incident to the of a effectuation quality to fail in size and districts Sims, policy,” Reynolds rational state discrimination amount an invidious 579, S.Ct, 1391, at 12 377 U.S. 84 at L. which the Fourteenth Amendment under 506; Howell, Ed.2d supra, Mahan v. 410 relief absent appellees entitle 315, 979, 320, U.S. 93 35 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. by showing countervailing some appel- but here we are confident that State.50 carry proof lees failed to their burden of previous found in its Although the Court they sought insofar as to establish a vio that, larger principle decisions the “[T]he Equal lation of the Protection Clause equality are too variations from substantial variations alone.54 by any state interest great justified to be Brennan, According to White es- it also held Justice suggested”, so far nevertheless rigid a tablished demarcation line: that, mathemati “[Mjinor deviations from dis equality among legislative state cal today Court . . . reason[s] [T]he prima make tricts are insufficient to out showing . that a of as much discrimination. facie case of invidious total deviation still does not estab- 9.9% ”51 that recognized . The Court prima Equal lish a facie case under the the or reapportionment state is the task of the Fourteenth Protection Clause of perform gan government selected to of state expresses Amendment. Since Court it, though slightly even 52 misgivings recent decision no about our created, did plan that fact better could be 182, Mundt, 91 S. Abate v. 403 U.S. discrimination not establish invidious 1904, (1971), where 29 L.Ed.2d 399 Ct. under the fourteenth amendment. we held that a total deviation 11.9% State, can justified by the one must be Finally, Regester,53 White been reasonably that a line has surmise upheld al- Texas equal substantially equal 2324, 738, or L.Ed.2d tricts were 49. at 37 Id. at 93 S.Ct. example, population as, multi-mem for when at 303. invidiously as to are establised ber districts so 2325, 740, L.Ed.2d at 37 50. Id. at 93 S.Ct. strength voting racial minimize at 304-305. groups. political 2327, 745, L.Ed.2d at 37 51. Id. at 93 S.Ct. 2332, 755, L.Ed.2d 53. 412 93 S.Ct. U.S. at 307. 314. 2330, 751, at L.Ed.2d at Id. at 93 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d at pointed at Id. at 93 S.Ct. out that constitu 311. The Court though dis even violations could occur tional we find that reasons drawn at excess advanced 10%—deviations apparently scrutiny Board acceptable that amount do not withstand close un- justification by the der showing standards enunciated the United State; many instances, deviations less than that amount States Court. In require justification one the principal no whatsoever.55 reasons advanced preservation the Board was the conclude absence of a boundaries regional corporations estab- showing that the manner reapportioning lished under the Alaska Native Claims Set- improperly state was had motivated or Act, tlement Act. Under effect, an impermissible up deviations of regions, separate was divided into 12 percent require ten showing corporations for each were established re- state, justification.56 however, By gion. sought the division was es- showing burden of that deviations groupings tablish homogeneous percent excess of ten legiti- “based on Native58 peoples a common heri- having mate considerations incident the effec- tage sharing common interests.59 The policy”. tuation of a rational state corporate use of such dis- boundaries We thus must аscertain whether tricting might justification constitute the state justification has met its burden of Following some cor- deviation. here. As indicated in our order of June porate boundaries was stated as reason we find House districts No. the composition of House districts 22 (Nome), Bay), No. 16 (Bristol No. percent overrepre- IS (Nome), which was (Anchorage West), No. (Fairbanks), sented, (Bristol Bay), 10.9 South), (Anchorage (An No. 11 9No. overrepresented, percent (Bethel), and 17 chorage Spenard), (Bethel), and No. 17 overrepresented. percent which was 6.3 (Anchorage West), districts Senate J find, however, of those dis- that none We M (Bristol Bay-Bethel), (Fairbanks), O G a cor- tricts has of Native the boundaries (Anchorage and I (Anchorage Spenard)- por- poration. substantial Each included malapportioned a in excess of South) corporate region. tions of more than one percent comparative variance, maximum suggested that the Additionally, was it appellees and that the failed to demon unique composi- Native Nome area had a from strate the individual variances makeup the tion. But the in those mean districts were based on vary does not to the north and east both legitimate considerations incident significantly adjoining that of from implementation policy.57 of a rational state villages The within the Nome boundaries. necessary find it area and need potential We discuss in the mining Advi do not consti- briefly port facility” reasons advanced a “common sory imple- attempting justify dis to the Board in incident tute considerations parities policy so as each the districts referred mentation of a rational percent disparity that the overre- justify above. We are convinced Board a IS effort, unfortunately good presentation. made a faith but Advisory Keapportionment Board. at L.Ed.2d Id. at S.Ct. Governor’s pro- dissenting). (Brennan, J., testimony case at trial of this at supplement any little if evidence duced challengers’ are silent on the briefs report. justifications in the forth set governor’s plan of whether had issue discriminating impermis- basically purpose or effect defined Act 58. “Native” is political sibly against any racial, ¼ n is ethnic or United States who as citizen of the Indian, group. argument, degree counsel Eskimo At oral or more Aleut, challengers, who is also a state senator § or combination thereof. U.S.O.A. Anchorage, 1602(b). did not conceded record demonstrate such discrimination. 59. 43 U.S.O.A. § attempted justifications 57. The be report proposed plan found in the §73 valid meaning

No reasons were advanced for the to the of the term “socio-econom- percent overrepresentation 10.9 with refer- garnered ic area” minutes from the (Bristol Bay). ence to House District 16 of the Constitutional Convention. agree can decision with the Board’s appears It that Delegate ad- Hellenthal Bay area with not to combine the Bristol term, the use vocated describing the Aleutian Chain of conflicts be- because as follows: areas, the residents of the two but tween [wjhere people together live and work why explain does other areas together and earn together, their living to the district could have been added that, people log- where do should variance. so to create less of as ically grouped that way.61 a multi-mem- (Fairbanks) District 20 is It electing district members. ber six house It cannot be defined with mathemati- and no valid percent overrepresented,

is 7.4 precision, term, cal but it is a definite why additional were set forth as to reasons susceptible and is interpre- of a definite as to reduce could not be included so areas tation. What it means an economic the variance. by people. unit inhabited In other words, placed stress on the canton explanation for District advanced idea, group people living within overrepresen- percent having (Bethel) 6.3 unit, socio-economic, geographic follow- portion inclusion of a tation ing possible, pursuits. if similar economic Region uti- Corporation Native Calista has, say, mathematically It I pre- lization one the boundaries definition, cise but it has definite thе fractionation region. view of meaning. maps, revealed reference Calista dis- justify the the reason advanced cannot guide-

crepancy Court under It is in common use political sci- lines. entists.

Finally, Anchorage districts 5.9, underrepresented respectively political I it is think ‍​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‍and economic poli- percent. made the Having 8.6 6.5 and term legal rather than a term.62 Anchorage into six cy decision divide appear It would from that discussion districts, Advisory endeavored the Board community such as the An- Greater areas, identify based like socio-economic chorage Borough might be considered as housing, concentration cost the on the area, socio-economic but that it becomes levels, the minorities, need for income extremely fragment difficult the area develop- systems growth and and transit geographic nicety according with testimony, the plans. It is clear from ment patterns by endeavored to be the followed however, any if homo- that there are few As was Report Board. stated in The Anchorage Bor- geneous areas within the Masters, appended the to the decision housing, income lev- patterns ough; scrutiny v. Hammond: “Close minority ex- residency criss-cross els and Anchorage characteristics in do tensively. not reveal clearly ethnic delineated [sic] apparent was direct- Board’s effort ghettos.”63 And at least as as far compliance constitu- ed with the Alaska at legislators concerned, election of is Alaska “as contain tional mandate districts does not seem to be afflicted the ra- with relatively integrated practicable nearly as adversely cial miasma affecting sec- other 60 guidance as socio-economicarea.” Some tions of the United States.64 VI, 60. Art. Alaska Const. § 63. at 894. Minutes, 1836. Constitutional Convention Many Alaska Natives have elected been legislature, Id. at 1873. and elevated two have been gap. testimony area, in the court below that Within the Southeast Ju- substantially if underrepresented, there are few homo neau is indicated that ex- cеeding the norm geneous socio-economic areas within for a two-member dis- Borough, percent. Board, however, Anchorage Area and trict Greater presented a patterns housing, severing income levels and rational basis for Skagway district, minority residency to deline and Haines are difficult may logical patterns form basis alternative which reduce While such ate. necessary underrepresentation. districting, they sig lack the There close dispari transportation justify Juneau, ties the substantial between nificance Haines 5.9, Skagway by percent. daily flights ur and air ties of 6.5 8.6 scheduled service; frequent ferry more Anchorage, such as mathe ban area Juneau- highway in Haines than exactness can be achieved connection been matical planned. is portions the state The district sparsely quite distinct from settled region by the rest of culturally and economi the Southeast virtue pockets where separat development of the nature of its cally divergent populations composed entirely fact that by geographic We hold that almost barriers. ed mainland, portions of constitu rather than the to meet the appellees failed discrepan archipelago; historically islands of the justifying tional burden of always three communities have been close- in Districts 11and 12. cies found linked, ly serving as an eco- Juneau hand, do find other On the Skagway. nomic hub for Haines and was met with reference burden (Wrangell-Petersburg) District (Wrangell-Petersburg), districts House other with a Southeastern district substan- (Aleutian (Kodiak), (Juneau), percent overrepresenta- tial deviation—9.3 Chain). reference to With Juneau tion. The Board stated valid considera- areas, the Board was Wrangell-Petersburg variation, necessarily tions for this problem of with the difficult confronted implemented the policy, rational state ex- compact, rel contiguous, juggling the more Constitution, pressed atively integrated socio-economic areas of practicable, achieving, contigu- nearly as extending a without sub Southeast Alaska ous, compact territory containing a rela- stantial into an unrelated area distance tively integrated socio-economicarea.65 separated immense natural barriers. Yakutat, adequate justification the northwestern-most settlement We likewise find overrepresentation in Alaska, sepa percent the 6.5 which is itself Southeast Dis- great from the other the vast and Aleutian Chain rated distance remote air all the area region, is 225 miles trict. The district includes communities Corporation. There League center of the Aleut from the nearest adding appears means of region, Cordova. There feasible Southcentral to this dis- historically population and areas of valid considerations both additional span worsening to al- geographically endeavoring for not trict without imbalance position [sic]. over- Senate. and non-native of President mixture of natives to Appellants slight only reducing point option a black was elected tlie out that The for enjoy insig- representation an from a district with which the district the House to minority Dep. population. the Juneau district [Hedland would be to reach into nificant west, taking part of from the south or 34] Douglas, Juneau, a course Haines. Such explained: effectively that 65. As either disenfranchise the Board would part engrafted Douglas is this entire district or Juneau The orientation of products, require :’processing, fishing, or would bisection fish forest district nearly Borough, submerging tourism, in- its all of communi- and and its Haines further They legislature. partake Extend- all of these activities. voice ties stitutional System integrated ing Island or the Sitka are the Southeast into Prince of Wales slight Highway magnify the Alaska Marine would of the district already operators advantage for inevitable air taxi a scheduled numerical numerous population The is districts. commercial airlines. those present By in District 14 (Kodiak). Advisory The Board was ready con token, Kodiak, the same which is overre- competing policy fronted with considera presented by percent, readily 5.7 does not desirability tions with reference to the altеrnative, present as it is surrounded an keeping simple, encouraging ballot by the qualified public Aleutian Chain District. candidates to run for of fice, ensuring partici maximum voter the senate house Since districts combined pation, opposed avoiding frag as undue boundaries, utilized the districts and same community. majori mentation of the The approving for or dis- the identical reasons ty of the Board found that: disparities applicable. approving the necessary At-large representation thus find it to hold that Sen- produce We (Anchorage Spenard), unwieldly ate I primary Districts G ballot well (Anchorage South), (Anchorage West), over 100 candidates. Two districts— J (Fair- Bay-Bethel), (Bristol eight representatives M and O each to elect permissible banks) exceed constitutional produce four senators —would still variances, and that limits as cumbersome total of candidates appellees complicated have failed demonstrate would be more ballot than legitimate con- presented variances based on any part such to voters in implementation siderations incident to Alaska. policy. rational governor adopted advocated Board, majority whereby

V city was divided into six districts. While arguments substantial have been advanced OF THE GREATER DISTRICTING opposition both and in to the Board’s AREA ANCHORAGE decision, say we cannot that it not based complain of the division of Appellants opposed on rational as to arbitrary consid- districts, Anchorage into six election con- Therefore, erations. under the standard of tending that the area one inte- constitutes adopted, review which we have the deci- grated socio-economic area which should of the upheld. sion Board must be fragmented. Arguments have also been advanced as upheld the previously We districts, delineating to the manner of authority governor single- create from the aside dis- imbalances member districts from multi-member previously. cussed do not find power sin to create such districts.66 a rational boundaries lack basis. Since integrated gle-member appliеs districts impose judgment we are not free to our well as other soci-economic areas as particular partitions, to the wisdom of the do not construe the areas. We argument cannot An- entertain requirement that districts constitutional pru- chorage have been divided more could contiguous, compact, relative formed dently. pro ly integrated socio-economic areas superior uphold- court did not err such areas. smaller districts within hibit ing portion conform to still The smaller districts would plan. It is conceiva the constitutional standard. ble, example, VI surely vastly It Anchorage could increase. THE TERMINATION OF SENATORI- contemplated by the been could not have AL TERMS compact, framers of the Constitution plan sub- reapportionment socio-economically inte Because contiguous, and 500,000 stantially districts altered the senatorial per metropolis perhaps grated area, governor Anchorage the Greater sons could not be districted. Egan P.2d at v. 873. 66. by the or includes resented incumbent held must be new elections

ordered other voters who did not have numerous in these districts. all seats for senate in the selection of that incum- one senato- voice Formerly, the area constituted authority to re- discretionary senators bent. The eight from which rial district quire necessary when elected, to four- mid-term elections being selected four were is well established.68 biennial election. year at each terms terms would other- whose four incumbents to the Counsel refers decision of Su- had the 1976 thus have extended to wise Legislature preme Court California office truncated. terms of balance of their There a masters-recommended Reinecke.69 provided no reapportionment plan was which Appellants there contend terms. The senators to continue serve for need to terminate senatorial hold-over however, is advanced, upheld argument the balance of their terms principal authority gover- having basis.' The directed to a rational court consid- desirability continuing the terms of incumbents the or- nor to terminate ered plan Anchorage reapportionment derly operation four-year staggered under districts, whereby establishing system new the senators six but term half of preference Although appellants’ that members of over at each session. would hold broader, represent recognized inequality “larger, “resulting senate should electors”, constituencies and should found that the mere socio-economic the court two-year inequality Reference made area wide.” duration of such elected expressing require trun- sufficiently egregious similar Resolution Senate sentiments.67 of terms.70 cation make, original we decision to If had might governor

While the have persuaded similar rea- might well be favorably policies having considered the the four continue sons have senators large, at Anchorage elected senators con- serve balance of their terms. there were valid reasons him exer however, clude, were that valid reasons by dividing cise his discretion the area into and, ac- truncating the terms presented for previous six districts. section of deci- court’s cordingly, we affirm the trial up opinion, we stated our reasons for reappor- portion of upholding sion holding governor’s decision to redistrict plan. tionment portion the Anchorage area. Once this reapportionment plan ap been part. part and reversed Affirmed appellants’ proved, argument principal CONNOR, J., ERWIN, J., whom evaporates. district from Since the dissenting. joins, the four holdover senators elected longer exists and new districts boundaries, changed

vastly it was ORDER within discretionary authority governor’s Supreme Court This before case con require mid-term elections. When judgment en- appeal from a question fronted with the same Judge K. Superior Court tered James Hammond, we stated: Appel- appellees. in favor of Singleton objec- number of have raised a A lants below need to the terms of incum- truncate proclamation reapportion- tions to the arise bents when redistricting issued Governor ment and permanent change in district results 1973, Egan on December A. substantial William lines which either excludes by the Gover- adopting submitted previously rep- numbers of constituents Cal.Kptr. Legis.2d (1974). 516 P. 69. Cal.3d Sess. S.Res. 8th (1973). 2d 6 omitted). (footnote P.2d at 873-874 723-724, Cal.Rptr. at Id. at 11-12.

882 Advisory Reapportionment specified

nor’s within Board. above constitutional stand- considering parties After the briefs of the ards. hearing argument, majority oral revising plan proposed the Board Court affirms decision of may any alter district to correct Singleton Judge following on the issues: Every imbalances. shall effort be made to census

1. The use of the 1970 data. insure that maximum variances in the dis- tricts above set out shall exceed ten establishing use of the 2. The formula (10) per There a spread cent. shall military personnel number of exceeding (10) per popula- ten cent dependents pop- to be included tion over-represented district and ulation base. district, any under-represented excluding Alaska, districts Southeast District authority of the Governor to es- 3. The Kodiak, Chain, 14 and District Aleutian 15 multiple senatorial districts tablish legitimate unless such variance is on based Anchorage greater area. within considerations incident to rational state authority 4. The of the Governor to specific policy justification reasons terms truncate senatorial when the being In assessing permissible pop- stated. from which the districts senators may disregard ulation variances the Board substantially were elected have been deviations in districts located Southeast changed. Alaska, Kodiak, District 14 and District 15 Aleutian Chain because variances in those hold, however, superior upon legitimate districts based consid- House and court’s that all Sen- conclusion implementation erations incident to of a properly appor- ate districts have been policy. Changes may rational state Specifically, House tioned is erroneous. made in other districts as be found Nome, Bay, 22 16No. Bristol districts No. necessary. 20 Anchorage -West, 12 No. Fair- No. — banks, 9 Anchorage South, 11 No. No. — plan Unless a revised returned is to the 17 and No. Bethel Anchorage Spenard, 1974, — 20, before cоurt on or the inter- June Anchorage West, districts Senate — J plan promulgated by by im this court Or- Fairbanks, Bay Bethel, M G Bristol O — Establishing Reapportion- der An Interim I Anchorage Spenard, Anchorage— — Elections, For Legislative ment Plan 1972 permissible South exceed constitutional 14, 1972,2 dated shall be effective for June limits as to variances as deline- legislative Objections the 1974 elections. by ated decisions of the United States Su- 20, 1974, to the deadline shall be filed June preme Appellees have failed to Court.1 (3) days three or before from the date plan demonstrate that such variances order, setting why of this forth reasons legitimate are based on considerations inci- 20, 1974, some than date other June dent implementation of a rational state appropriate. be more In the event an al- policy. plan ternative submitted Gover- is remanded court, case so to enable the nor to this the court will receive Alaska, Governor of the State of if he so written objections ap- comments or desires, plan pellants to re-submit the 24, Advi- if filed 12:00 noon on June sory Reapportionment pur- Board for the 1974. In the event an alternative pose revising bring deadline, the districts submitted the court will Regester, 755, 315, 979, 1. White v. U.S. U.S. S.Ct. S.Ct. 35 L.Ed.2d (1973). (1973) ; Gaffney L.Ed.2d 314 Cummings, 412 U.S. 93 S.Ct. 927-929 (1973) ; Howell, (Alaska L.Ed.2d 1972). Mahan v.

883 ap- military in singled reappor is the out a it and take whatever action review —is plan tionment for exclusion on the basis of propriate. alone, employment their the the nature of opinion including dis- A full shall follow upon proponents of squarely burden is the justices on different sents individual plan to demonstrate the reasonableness points appeal. raised this action, because such an of that course day June, Dated this 6th prima is In the exclusion facie invalid. justification, the mili absence sufficient ERWIN, CONNOR, Justice, whom tary as must receive the same treatment Justice, joins (dissenting). counterparts.3 their civilian opinion on majority I dissent from the My examination of the record reveals ground all a that the exclusion of hut justify ap- appellees clearly failed percentage military small of the Washington plan’s plication of the population base vio- version agree in protection Alaska. I thus cannot equal lates the clauses of formula assumption the ba- majority’s with the United States Alaska Constitutions.1 applicable principle sic of the formula as Hammond,2 recog Egan this court v. Washington. On to Alaska as was a military personnel nized that as class accept- contrary, majority’s find I right to vote in cannot be denied the sufficient formula without ance of the arbitrarily state election or be eliminated in to be re- validity Alaska proof of its population reapportion from the base in a many itself, upholding for in markable military plan solely ment because reapportion- aspects proposed other status, although military may be ex some repeatedly majority em- plan the ment limiting permissible cluded as device for uniqueness.4 phasized Alaska’s impact transients and non-residents. accept toler- cannot the Board’s plan achieving I also suggested Egan ‍​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‍One for while at transients goal population this was to limit base ance of civilian military apparent registered same time by adopting excluding to state citizens As base, base. though inher transients from voter even such base Hammond, popula- v. ently higher proportion Egan we indicated eliminates much citizenship But, military grounded tion bases than civilians. as supported by ac- acceptable only point out, protec when equal were careful to for statistically reliable data Constitu curate tion clause of United States citizens tion, discriminating between presumably Alaska Constitu case, as- tion, the Board’s specific justification require transients.5 In factual military civilian military sumption but not eliminating any portion population base partic transients distort from the When base. justification population namely foundation or ular of the state’s without class — (1973) ; Richardson, misgivings 384 Burns v. I whether 333-334 harbor about further 21, 21, 73, 1286, reappor- 1296 n. 92 n. U.S. 86 S.Ct. some of the election districts Carring (1966); 376, “relatively integrated n. 21 16 E.Ed.2d 391 socio- tionment VI, Rash, 89, 95-96, areas,” required 85 380 U.S. S.Ct. ton v. article economic 779-780, 675, 775, B.Ed.2d 679-680 Hоw- section 6 Constitution. 691, ; Mann, 678, (1965) ever, v. Davis 377 U.S. have since a number these districts 609, 1441, 1448, 12 L.Ed.2d 84 S.Ct. been found deviations Hammond, (1964) ; Egan 502 P.2d allowed under federal con- excess those (Alaska 1972). 860, 869 stitutional and have been remanded standards modification, judg- I reserve the Board the discussion See oppor- ment on this issue until I have had emphasizing (Alaska 1972), 856, tunity plan. study the modified uniqueness. Alaska’s (Alaska 1972). 856, 2. 502 P.2d 869-870 5. 502 P.2d at 870-871. Howell, 3. See Mahan v. 330- U.S. 988-989, L.Ed.2d S.Ct. majority’s military to the record. And the effort than who residents live here on a year-around civil- justify the tolerance toward basis and whose Board’s children at- on Alas- tend ian transients with documentation local schools.7 patterns part employment is ka’s which not majority The attempts to in- justify the patently with of the record is inconsistent clusion these groups of transient duty of their earlier that the conclusion population by concluding base that it would jurisdic- court is exercise de novo this to be a “herculean task” to determine who in “upon developed tion based the record among actually them consider themselves superior the court.” Again citizens Alaska. of the record fails support to majority. the The record re- fact, completely In the record is almost veals that Sharp, City Manager Robert of of data on For devoid civilian transients. Anchorage, testified before the Board that little, any, for example, support there is if City it cost only $40,000 the to con- majority’s that at time the the observation a duct door-to-door of entire canvass the April year of when the census was taken— area, Anchorage approximately has of the civilian transient —most elements per of population.8 cent Alaska’s As- population were absent from the base. suming a to be fair this measure of the cost merely Without concrete data it cannot be of surveying the incidence citizen- state migrants assumed that em- and seasonal ship civilians, among apparent it becomes ployees present sig- the state in survey hardly such a abe during nificant the numbers month were, “herculean if task.” Even it how- April, knowledge for it an is common ever, greаter difficulty the of determining increasing present number of transients are the citizenship incidence state the during It winter months. civilian is a weak excuse for also cannot be assumed that because the singling out military discriminatory person place census counts at “he treatment.9 sleeps lives and most of the time” most of majority goes the civilian transients necessarily ex- that the assert “ignores cluded from Alaska’s As dissent reason fundamental base. out, majority points military for the personnel— itself exclusion census only migrants enumerates their want who contact with the state.” those support claim ties to other but those state also of this cold assertion cite permanent body which, short, individuals maintain who of law resi- indicates only majority dence spend elsewhere and involuntary of mili- nature .that tary their time assignments in Alaska. Yet the record points reveals retention toward Board made no effort to determine prior domicile established to enter- impact groups upon of these ing They transient the service. also cite to a feder- Surely base. these transients al statute exempting servicemen vari- no greater state contacts ous forms of state taxation and then sum- majority attempted bring Transcript 29, 1973, hearing this June by ju- Anchorage, material within the reviewable record at 24. 43(a)(2) dicial notice under Civil Rule [c] 9. The did Board consider effect reasonably [d]. and subject Since material college state’s transient students. But even dispute accuracy ' and its cannot there, deciding number was determined resort sources indis- statistically insignificant, the Board rested putable accuracy, I do not believe it upon admittedly its conclusion inconclusive appropriate subject judicial notice. residency data based durational re- 3,752 quirements specifically Even the enu- state’s aliens who were which have been dis- consequently approved determining merated in the 1970 census as criteria voter See State v. Van population base, not, eligibility. included Dort, like P.2d subjected military, citizenship (Alaska 1972). state test. P.2d (Alaska 1972). n. 2 part military rеsi- this law even on the fide as a result of bona marily conclude that life, dents, military significant risk economic losing serv- “economics of registering advantages by to vote. family his remain com- iceman and military indicate not assign- life” of his “economics pletely aloof from the state “any with the military that the lack contact . ment . . presence” rather beyond mere but argument unpersuasive for three This military, both resident that the One, location ignores basic reasons. nonresident, unique subjected eco- to two, a it indicates proof; of the burden of are not pressures to civilians nomic which the misunderstanding of eco- fundamental residents to exposed. Forcing military life; three, it military nomic facts of the pressures at cost of withstand these argument same ignores the fact that the right to surrendering be their fundamental classes regard with to other can be made population base effec- within the included in who serve public of servants federal tively penalizes exercising consti- them not ex- but were Alaska for limited terms rights.10 tutional population the base. cluded from Third, argument regarding the same First, it is not that a service- disputed state that the with the contacts minimum economically option has an remain man to respect military with to the majority makes nei- assignment, from the of aloof state his public body a of federal applies to also treasury nor utiliz- contributing ther its in terms serve for limited servants who neverthe- ing burden its services. But the trap- many of the same enjoy Alaska and upon the state to es- squarely less remains military. the the Yet pings benefits as person military every tablish that each and attempt fact majority ignores the that in a re- population excluded from the base popu- to exclude them the was made apportionment plan has in fact exercised of fed- employees the lation base. Certain By silently condoning the option. this and the Coast Public Health eral Service burden, the ma- state’s failure to meet this enjoy military Survey, and Geodetic who holding Egan v. jority is our in overruling rank, are as- rank similar to Coast Guard proof respecting burden of Hammond the duty, signed limited terms of to Alaska for military on the exclusion issue. employees the Federal as certain Second, of mili- the no doubt “economics Army the Administration and Aviation the tary presumably refers to life”—which Certainly these Corps Engineers. exempt the tax status of servicemen the par a treated on groups should be stationed nondomiciliaries bonuses offered subjected military be military if the are to responsible largely in Alaska'—are citizenship test. to state many personnel military sta- failure of point out that majority goes on to admit domicile publicly tioned Alaska to representation “largest claim” what ma- registering vote. But military base lies unwilling- is an discern that jority fails to military personnel and per cent of 25-30 register vote is not conclusive ness to dependents who at the time of their be- or desire to a serviceman’s intentions for more had lived the state 1970census it citizen. All that demon- come a state reluctance, years. note They then that perfectly expectable is than five strates pur- “military accepts aspect disturbing for the state which federal funds Another military majority providing ignored pose services local is economics” which military required personnel that, despite to assure ef- should that all the fact determining purpose military personnel ob- to the for the fective voice are counted Counting spent. sharing, taining are now how funds are to revenue these federal military representation legis- per effectively in the cent of the mere denied achieving priorities body far short of con- base falls sets lative trolling expenditure goal. revenue. this appear require Basic fairness would §86 percent- popu

present plan larger includes a far from the use a more conventional military citizenship age per base to cent—of lation such state —65 per population. dependents than the 25-30 cent tal This correlation was un 5-year residency if doubtedly part be included Ha due fact that of state citizen- reappоrtion were taken to be conclusive waii exerted a monumental ship. majority then registration observes ment and voter effort.13 military out, formula opponents of the exclusion Court in Burns quick point higher argue that, for a inclusion however, have failed to accept though even it was per imply figure than 25-30 cent Hawaii, ing registration base voter because, does is valid while it the formula generally considered such a base certainty, provide it more statistical suspect: military.11 generous than depends only upon Such a basis cri- majority lost Again focus of teria govern citizenship, such as proof. burden The bur- location of the but political also extent ac- opponents of upon den is not tivity eligible of those register to higher but argue figure to for a inclusion susceptible vote. improp- Each thus upon justify the proponents to exclusion of er by political influences which those any military. if it the con- Even were to power might perpetuate be able to under- trary, however, for- the conclusion that the representation groups constitutionally mula is it resolves valid because doubts participate entitled to in the electoral representation military favor of increased process ... justify adoption does of a formula Thus, very least, at the registration a voter military and which discriminates between base must be shown to state correlate with civilian transients. The fact remains citizenship, population, total other some accurately res- formula does not reflect permissible reapportionment base. idency among military. It is thus con- amply record demonstrates that trary equal to all notions of fairness and showing such has been made in this case. protection reapportion- it in utilize contrary, On the there evi- substantial plan. ment dence registration that voter not cor- does accept majority’s I as also cannot relate citizenship with state popu- or total sumption registration that voter can example, lation. For Alaska alone person’s taken as an indication of a singled northern states was out citizenship reap In the Alaska. Hawaii Voting Rights 1965 federal Act15 as a portionment plan litigated in v. Burns possibly state that abridges rights of its Richardson,12 registered the state’s voters citizens to vote percent- because low accepted permissible population as a age of votes cast eligible its voters.16 purportedly base this because base Although Alaska since has rid itself of produced legislators a distribution of that dubious status declaratory judg- unlike that have which would resulted ment, judgment remains reviewable.17 majority opinion supra. 1 1. Note 20 of the August granted 17, 1966, 17.On Alaska was declaratory judgment by the District Court 73, 92-93, 1286, 12. 384 U.S. 1296- S.Ct. for the District of No. Columbia Civil (1966). 16 L.Ed.2d removing coverage 101-66 it from under the 13. See the discussion of this effort in Burns Voting Rights portions Act. When Gill, F.Supp. 1285, (D.Hawaii v. again state were included under a 1970 1970), quoted Egan Act, again amendment secured (Alaska 1972). 866 n. 16 declaratory judgment from the court same 92-93, 14. 384 U.S. at 86 S.Ct. at removing por- in Civil No. 21-22-71 those L.Ed.2d at 391. coverage tions of the state from under the seq. (1970). 15. 42 TJ.S.C. § 1973 et judgment Act. This latter review- remains Cong, Admin.News, period years following U.S.Oode able for a of five its p. 2445. entry. (1974). 42 U.S.C. § 1973a ship Also, particular test demonstrate that the test for a it is not uncommon only non-citizens from exer exhibit a fact excludes Alaska’s citizens to segment of cising right of franchise. For exam- fundamental register vote. reluctance proponents quite cen- this case the compiled the 1970 ple, statistics clearly they gen- failed to meet this primary and burden sus and 1972 official established no be very low have reliable correlation returns reveal that a eral election registration aboriginal tween voter and state citizen large percentage of Alaska’s ship. vote, they regis I registers although would thus hold that voter tration not been demonstrated be a undeniably Without state citizens.18 sufficiently military exhibit base for a showing do not reliable reapportionment plan in re register, though Alaska and reluctance even similar citizens, change mand the the Board to registration behav- case to voter base. ior be used to estimate alone cannot among the mili- number of state citizens Both this case and Hammond tary. perils expedited pointedly illustrate the Richardson,19 space Further, litigation. Twice within the of two Burns v. years is in this court has been called at the registration that if voter recognized reapportionment citizenship, may used eleventh hour to review dicative of state base, plans pressures under the of an imminent was decided be pressures have election. And twice these fore the Court and United States de-empha- us on the basis of began forced to make decisions court to move toward which, opinion, citizenship my been the role in the records have sizing of state I, one, process. to inadequate. for hesitate reach election The recent decisions of far-reaching on an issue as Dunn v. Blumstein20 and v. Van decision State an important reapportionment without Dort,21 disapprove durational res which of right adequate it for the fact record. Were idency requirements conditioning the ap- in the franchise, that small variations severely the use numerical of restrict of portionment people the election objective of between citizenship state tests in deter magnified by greatly Alaska’s eligibility. districts are mining voter And State v. comparatively- population, I would suggest to small goes Adams22 even further provide objective citizenship not be so that the record insistent test for state justification attempt by adequate for each inherently infringes upon a which funda depart the Board from the constitution- mental to franchise—should be right g., —e. ally goal equali- permitted mandated of mathematical the exercise of condition however, ty. only people 68 But since variation of right. importantly, Even more pop- per causes a one variation in the squarely upon cent place these cases the burden Alaska, district in proponent ulation of each election of such a test demonstrate to assure that justification great care must be taken compelling for it. IWhile every pеrson persuaded exclusion of each compelling am that the per- constitutionally population base is applied reap interest standard should be reapportionment case portionment, mitted. If I these believe that cases nev inadequate us with an reaches in the future place heavy persua of ertheless burden one, I vote to present like the will any reappor record upon proponents sion findings. for further remand the case plan tionment a state citizen based 1286, 73, general 16 L.Ed.2d example, U.S. 86 S.Ct. 384 18.For election (1966). per populations about 19 cent the total predominantly aboriginal communities 330, 995, L.Ed.2d 20. 405 U.S. S.Ct. Approximate- of Barrow and Bethel voted. (1972). ly per cent of Alaska’s total (Alaska 1972). 21. 502 P.2d 453 voted the same election. (Alaska 1974). plan proclaimed by OPINION vised governor on 14, objections 1974.1 The reiterated June THE REVISED ON TO OBJECTION and amplified arguments previously ad- PLAN PRO- REDISTRICTING against original vanced reapportion- 14, 1974 CLAIMED ON JUNE 11, plan ment of December 1973. We carefully again objections BOOCHEVER, considered those Justice. opinion find no reason alter our 6, 1974, we remanded case On June with reference to the issues raised. governor enable the the State of Borough objected The Kenai Peninsula to resubmit portion plan of the revised Reapportionment plan Advisory to the severed southern Pen- end the Kenai purpose revising Board peninsula insula from the Borough, specified bring of districts (Kenai-Cook and House District No. 13 in our order within constitutional federal joined it to House District Inlet) No. standards. In the revised event a 16 (Bristol 20, Bay) order to achieve submitted or on before writ- June less-than-five-percent deviation in House objections ten comments or were to be No. District 16. The area transferred filed 12:00 noon on 1974. The June (cid:127) comprised District No. 16 about 680 resi- Advisory Reapportionment Board submit slightly dents percent or more than ten governor ted of Alaska State the entire of District No. Proposed Reapportion- its Plan Revised most which is located sea and across governor ment Redistricting which the mountains from the Kenai Peninsula area. by proclamation adopted June Borough points out that the residents Objections appellants. were filed of the Kenai area so had inter- addition, transferred objection and a a notice of ests similar to those of other residents party as a motion leave to intervene the Kenai-Cook Inlet District 13 and No. to file amicus curiae brief also little in common with the residents Borough. filed the Kenai Peninsula (Bristol House District Bay). No. 16 denying After Bor- Kenai Peninsula Borough argues that the residents of the ough granting motion to intervene but the portion severed No. House District Borough right the to file a memorandum disenfranchised because their curiae, court, upon request as amicus the influence weight would not be of sufficient spe- argument objections, for oral on the to Bay receive attention from Bristol Dis- cially heard arguments such on June Legislators. trict permitted Counsel for the Borough was to participate in arguments. oral the found in our We order of June objections appellants by filed the that District No. exceeded constitution- pertained ally of the An- redistricting permissible population to the as de- variances area, chorage by of Anchor- the termination lineated decisions the States United age Supreme Court, senate terms and the exclusion of some had the state military personnel from the failed to demonstrate the variance objections None was ad- ligitimate base. these based incident considerations poli- dressed to the the re- implementation revisions set forth the or rational state to Anchorage prior opinion. Appellants’ 1. The somewhat al districts were in our coun issues plan, appellants’ argument tered in the revised ob the but sel at oral admitted jections again concepts general Anchorage touched area taken as a whole would be dividing multiple Anchorage represented properly into senatorial consti within federal districts, underrepresenta aggregate by 16-representative, and the 8- tutional standards Anchorage tion of the federal con con area. No senator district. We need not further question propriety regarding plan, stitutional the sider whether the current which Anchorage raised, repre effect, unfairly the district lines in numerical same disposed Anchorage we of the state constitutional area. sents the (Kenai-Cook Inlet) rather than in re- opinion partially cy. We stated out (Bristol Bay). House District No. 16 plan: original jecting reasons were advanced No valid arguments realize that reasonable overrepresentation with percent the 10.9 that certain com- can be advanced to show (Bristol District 16 House reference to by might represented munities be better de- agree with the Board’s We can Bay). opin- previous districting. different Our Bay area Bristol not to combinethe cision points ion in this out that it is not case our of con- with the Aleutian because Chain develop apportionment function to schemes of the two flicts between residents for the Alaska. limited State We are why explain areas, but that does oth- determining review to whether to er not have been added areas could adopted by governor suffers or state less so to create of vari- district alleged federal constitutional defects ance. parties litigation us. before our opinion previous violation of we found no Reapportionment has made Board in Art. those standards set forth VI of overrepre- to good faith effort correct not been Constitution have by16 District No. add of House sentation United made obsolete decisions of the end of the ing the district the southern Particularly Supreme States where Court. incident Considerations Kenai Peninsula. specific objections presented been pol implementation state of rational us, appropriate we do not believe justify icy us have now been advanced judgment substitute that of out overrepresentation of Dis original ing the authority re- constitutionally empowered ap Bay). It is now (Bristol No. 16 trict adjustments garding the of delicate wisdom parent alternative to political It to be made in boundaries. districting of that area original Board’s reapportion- duty our to assure that range, impassible disregard an mountain plan complies requirement ment with the Inlet, barrier formed Cook natural equality mathematical estab- substantial transportation com the lack of direct Court, by the lished United States links, corporate boundaries munication to dem- carrying the burden with the state Borough, Kenai Peninsula the cohe are based that additional deviations onstrate of residents of that siveness of interests considerations incident legitimate disparate Borough and the interests of policy. implementation state rational Bay population of the Bristol area. We met, Where that was not burden in legitimate now find that considerations plan to compelled require revision implementation of rational cident described as conform to what has been overrepresentation policy justify tyranny The Board of numbers”. “the as .Bay) (Bristol District No. 16 House complied we ac- having request, with out originally designated and mathematical override cordingly objections denied the requi accordingly rements.2 plan, except the revision revised where portion of have ordered that the severed original dis- demonstrated to us that Borough, specifically the Kenai Peninsula implementa- properly trict formed in the southern end thereof where com policy. of a rational state tion Graham, Seldovia, Eng Port munities Bay, Bay lish lo Portlock and Jakalof ERWIN, J., cated, ‍​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‍dissents. shall remain in House District No. rehearing grants order; effect, plan based our in it as amended Under the revised newly-discovered Bay slightly evidence, order, evidence is the Bristol district plan, being original alternatives of reasonable in due to the the lack smaller than objection, granting plan. In in House of Eek the revised the initial Board’s inclusion engage prop- suggest in (Bethel) will that we do not where it more District No. upon request. redrafting erly Granting belongs. Kenai Penin- wholesale prior Borough’s objectiоn reverses our sula

FITZGERALD, Each J., part concurs new district so created shall compact part. formed contiguous dissents of- terri- tory nearly practicable containing as ERWIN, (dissenting). relatively integrated Justice socio-economic Thus, only area.1 it within is this frame- reappor- agree that the revised While equally populated work that election dis- plan meets federal constitutional tionment tricts the search standards, agree constructed. If with the I am unable representation is equal undertaken majority’s conclusion that it meets the re- constraint, within the limits of this then quirements In of Alaska’s Constitution. the underlying geographical rationale for my opinion, plan revised includes dis- destroyed. comply with election districts is do not the man- tricts which VI, 6, of date of article section the Alaska view, my In the revised includes Constitution. respect number of house districts with merits of the retreat from Whatever the VI, which the command of article section precise equality re- mathematical evident Alaska Constitution was sacri- reapportionment of the Unit- cent decisions equality. ficed the interest of numerical Court, ed we should not States example, Greely For Fort was included principle in- sight of the fundamental lose District, within although it Fairbanks reapportionment truly repre- volved — over metropolitan lies 100 road miles from government sentative where interests Fairbanks and is located outside of the people are reflected in their elected Borough. North Star objec- Even more legislators. concept Inherent tionable, however, Big is the fact that Del- geographical legislative is a rec- districts Junction, ta and Delta which are five and ognition that areas state differ eco- respectively ten miles closer to Fairbanks nomically, culturally socially and and that only along the highway linking the two truly representative government exists areas, Many were excluded. of the de- only when those areas of the state which pendents Greely military personnel of Fort significant share common interests are able live, work, and аttend these school legislators representing to elect those inter- Big communities. If the Delta-Delta Junc- Thus, goal ests. Greely community tion-Fort is not a “rela- should be to achieve numerical tively integrated area,” it socio-economic equality representation but also assure imagine hard to what is. of those areas of the state having common problem There is a similar with the addi- interests. tion to the Nome district of the communi- If solely by we were constrained num- Kiana, ties of Selawik and which are both bers, obviously Alaska could be divided located near Kotzebue. abundantly It any given equally populated into number clear that the Board took solely this action regard districts without other considera- numbers,2 equality achieve for there satisfy tions. Such result would all fed- are no ethnic or commercial ties between requirements eral constitutional but would these communities and the Nome area hardly be consistent with traditional no- separated from Nome moun- representative government, tions tains and addition, Kotzebue Sound. inevitably lead absurd combina- both transportation, communities have eco- historical, social, tions of economic and nomic, and Kotzebue, ethnic ties with not geographical boundaries within the state. Nome; and, while part Kotzebue is of the Fortunately, Alaska’s Constitution com- corporation, same native Nome is not. In mands that :* view of all these factors—which lie at the Const, VI, solely requirements art. § 6. made to meet numerical of the United States Constitution. argument 2. The state conceded at oral changes plan all the made in the revised deficiency in change correcting a minor concept socio-economic very heart major deficiencies district often causes a one such discern how integration fail—I result, than As rather other districts. article possibly satisfy could combination plan, changes improving such VI, the Alaska Constitution.3 section truly likely make to assure serve to it less example this failure to another Yet representative government. of the Alаska comply with mandate area. Anchorage Constitution lies majority’s desire sympathize I with the comprising Anchorage-West district unsatisfactory con- this court’s end area, View, Inlet portions downtown political intrusions thick- troversal into Addition, Turnagain, Interna- the South However, reapportionment. regard- et of Lake, and Airport, Sand tional Jewell less of how reluctant con- we residents Lake, diversity of area includes a problem, front remains this nevertheless in An- urban range which most from duty people of our to the constitutional Further, chorage to the most rural.4 truly representative gov- Alaska to assure separate no less than four district includes opinion, goal my ernment. In this cannot City Anchorage, the service areas—the by making adjustments be achieved minor District, Utility the Sand Spenard Public present plan. Because the interim Area, An- the Greater Lake Service plan popula- had far smaller variances mind, my such In chorage Borough. Area respected geo- tion and unquestionably district, many diverse includes as graphical and socio-economic considera- conceivably be combined as could elements tions, I would have continued it effect area, is a “rela- Anchorage within the for the 1974 elections and remanded the tively area.” integrated socio-economic plan comply revised back the Board to miscombinations, major along These with mandate of the Alaska Constitu- Bay with the short-lived Seldovia-Bristol tion. It better to err of cau- side majority, disapproved marriage perpetuate tion for the than mistakes numbers, tyranny of demonstrate the real balance of decade. of an effort products shifting equality by achieve mathematical FITZGERALD, (concurring Justice regard without about centers part I dissenting part). would ac- By making considerations. socio-economic apportionment cept governor’s revised satisfy fed- adjustments to small numerical plan disagree I as submitted. with standards, the dis- eral board constitutional majority southern end of the Ken- that the com- important sоcio-economic membered pro- separated ai Peninsula should be in violation Alaska constitu- munities posed Bay) (Bristol House District 16 tional standards. incorporated in District House my view, readjustments major on a Inlet). My disagreement (Kenai-Cook required plan if statewide basis are majority procedur- is based on to meet state and consti- minumum federal separation aspects of issue. al the Kenai tutional standards. The revised dem- par- Borough was Kenai Peninsula clearly adjust- all onstrates too that such action, nor have ty days ments cannot be made in a matter party. standing its become a decided preparations pressure under for an im- Borough this court appeared before election, hastily minent for a conceived area the Nome Separation by expanse tlie area from Selawik-Kiana and an mountains compel transportation a similar conclusion. water, does not lack of and com- direct links, borough munication boundaries were point to avoid of its desire board made justify- majority all factors which the cited as diluting the urban vote the rural vote with ing severance area from the Seldovia reason area. No rational tlie Fairbanks Bay following I Bristol district. cannot understand a similar for not been shown Anchorage dividing why presence area. of action of the same factors course only amicus accepted curiae. The court interests.1 To accede to the Kenai Bor- Borough’s days memorandum two ough’s objections be- proposed plan may argument fore final providing without lead to questions of right for other opportunity litigants respond. for the communities to arguments. raise similar Moreover, the Borough given was then In light of these circumstances I would ac- to appear leave at cept before court ar- oral the governor’s reapportion- revised gument. opinion states, As the majority rea- ment without the southern Kenai ex- arguments sonable could be advanced despite clusion reservations I behalf of other communities that different have about the particular merits of the dis- districting represent would better trict boundaries. Supra, p.

Case Details

Case Name: Groh v. Egan

Court Name: Alaska Supreme Court

Date Published: Sep 13, 1974

Citation: 526 P.2d 863

Docket Number: 2233

Court Abbreviation: Alaska