Hickel v. Southeast Conference

Alaska, HICKEL, Governor of J. Walter Babcock, Alaska, Tuckerman State Wood, Mary Lynne Vezey, John

Allen Pickrell, Ingram, Robert Orie C. Fund,

Williams, Peti Fish and Game

tioners,

v. CONFERENCE, a non

SOUTHEAST Peggy corporation,

profit Ann Alaska Reeder;

McConnochie, Mata Fred E. Borough, Cypra, Steve

nuska-Susitna Smith, Jorgensen, New Al Harold

Ted Stein, Frazier,

comb, Duncan John O’Bryan,

Gary Thurlow, Ronda L. Elsie Leavitt, Adams,

Kelley; Jacob Oliver Leavitt, Ahmaogak,

George William Brower,

Benjamin Nageak, Max Ronald Brower,

Ahgeak, D.N. Charles Charles Schaeffer, Greene, Roswell

“Chuck” Cleveland, Greene, Reginald

Marie Goodwin, Jr.; Curtis, Willie

Charles Demientieff, Isaac, Jerry A.

Mitchell Jackson, Clyde Morgan, Pe

Leo Nick

ter; Party, Lidia L. Alaska Democratic

Selkregg, Respondents. CONFERENCE, a non

SOUTHEAST

profit corporation, Alaska

Petitioners,

v. Alaska, HICKEL, J. Governor of

Walter Alaska, Respondents.

State S-5093, S-5106,

Nos. S-5154 and S-5156.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Dec. Rehearing

As Denial of Modified on 12, 1993.

March

Virginia Ragle Stephen Slotnick, and C. Gen., Juneau, Attys. Asst. Mary A. Lund- Gen., quist, Atty. Anchorage, Asst. Charles Cole, Gen., Juneau, Atty. petitioners for Hickel, Walter J. Governor of Alaska and State of AK. Daniel, Coie,

Thomas M. Perkins Anchor- age, petitioner for Fish and Game Fund. Munson, Myra Chambers, M. Sonosky, Sachse, Munson, Juneau, Miller & Donald Simon, Sonosky, Chambers, J. Sachse & Enderson, DC, Washington, respon- for Conference, dents Southeast et al. and Borough, Mat-Su et al. Juneau, Crosby,

David C. James Wick- wire, Wickwire, Greene, Seward, Crosby & Seattle, WA, Leavitt, respondents for et al. Clocksin, Wagstaff, Pope Don & Clock- sin, Anchorage, respondents for Alaska Party, Democratic et al. Walleri,

Michael J. Tanana Chiefs Con- ference, Inc., Fairbanks, respondents for Demientieff, et al. Nordale, Mary P. Blasco and A.

Robert Robertson, Juneau, Monagle Eastaugh, & for amicus curiae Fairbanks North Star Borough. Jamin, Ebell, Bolger, Bolger H.

Joel & Kodiak, Gentry, for amicus curiae Kodiak Borough. Island Jacobus, policies guide development of redis- Anchorage, for ami- P. Kenneth tricting plans: Re- and The Zawacki curiae Constance cus * popula- the 1990 population base is Alaska. Party of publican reported by tion the United States Cen- Price, Groh, Price, Eggers & W. Michael sus Bureau for the State of Alaska. Municipality amicus curiae Anchorage, for * redistricting plan composed will be Anchorage. single-member districts. cu- Boltar, Dillingham, for amicus Bruce * person, equal protection vote: One one Ass’n. Bay Native riae Bristol by individuals will realized for all be districts, equal among with population C.J., RABINOWITZ, and Before populated populated the least and most MATTHEWS, BURKE, COMPTON by separated variance of no districts a MOORE, JJ. percent. than two more * Voting Rights protect Act: Federal OPINION voting minority political enhance non-retrogression policy COMPTON, strength Justice. considering linguistic individual petition for in this review At issue and ethnic blocs. Reap- validity of the 1991 Proclamation * contigu- compact, Alaska Constitution: (plan) Redistricting Plan portionment and relatively integrated socio-eco- ous and J. Hickel. by Walter issued Governor areas for House districts. nomic * preservation political of subdi- Consider AND PROCEDURAL I. FACTUAL vision boundaries. BACKGROUND * public testimony, which will Consider Constitution, the Alaska Under the incorporated into if re- be the record reap power duty and to governor the has days receipt the ceived within 75 after of every ten portion legislature the state PL94-171 United States Census data. Const, VI, 3; v. years. Alaska art. Wade § * plans up Accept alternative submitted 1966). 689, (Alaska In Nolan, 414 P.2d days receipt the to 60 after of United 1990, appointed Hickel December Governor input Census PL94-171 data for States reapportionment advisory a five member computer system, into if re- the state’s VI, by (Board), article required as is board allowing input in a direct ceived form of Alaska Constitution. section 8 the computer into the or on United States prepare to and submit required Board was maps Geological Survey or United States plan reapportionment to a for the Governor Survey maps.2 Coast and Geodetic the of redistricting following reporting and computer of With the assistance technol- the census.1 decennial ogy, possible more which made detailed 1991, orga- January the Board held an In redistricting analysis potential than was of Vezey Allen meeting, available, elected as nizational previously the Board and its forming reapportionment Tuckerman as a appointed began chair and Babcock staff adopted policies. The following plan on the adopted In March it the based director. VI, policy regarding modified its the Alaska Constitu- 2. The Board later 1. Article section of among adopted equal population It a provides districts. as follows: tion to: which directed the staff motion days following ninety the official Within census, up percent preparing to a variance in reporting the board Use of each decennial scenarios, plan reap- governor the three a for final statewide alternative shall submit to the compliance redistricting purposes provided as for the of with the feder- portionment and in Rights days receipt Voting Any ninety al Act. other variance Within after this article. percent guideline plan, governor procla- must the Board’s two the the shall issue from of by comply redistricting. justified the reapportionment be the need to with of and mation any requirement accompanying explain that each shall Alaska Constitutional An statement nearly reap- possible change plan a rela- district contain as tively integrated as from the of the board. The area, by redistricting effec- socio-economic or portionment and shall be legisla- technology in or data bases the limitations the for the election members of tive by preparing alter- reporting staff in the statewide until the of the used ture after official natives. next decennial census. He the report district size. also concluded that decennial census received the Board give Board failed to due consideration to of the Cen- States Bureau the United from excluding possibility num- the non-resident The Board held a in March 1991. sus military personnel population from the reviewed alter- hearings and public ber base, arbitrary and that this failure was redistricting plans submitted var- native 1991, Judge In and unreasonable. Weeks held that groups. June interest ious Act, Open Meetings report proposed the Board violated its Board delivered 44.62.310, voiding but ruled that AS plan to the Governor. plan on the basis of this violation was not 1991, Governor Hickel September On in He public interest. also concluded Reapportion- his Proclamation issued that the Board violated Public Records Accompanying Redistricting and ment and Act, 09.25.110-140, and the Procure- AS included plan3 The final sever- Statement. Code, ment AS 36.30. changes to the Board’s relatively minor al procla- Appellate Pursuant to Alaska Rule proposed district boundaries. Attorney 402(a), to General Governor Hickel and the State of mation directed De- plan (State) petitioned to the United States re- submit the Alaska this court for preclearance view, in ac- contending Judge of Justice for partment that Weeks had Voting 5 of the 1) finding plan cordance with section erred: that the violated Rights Act of 42 U.S.C. 1973c equal protection clause of the Alaska § (1988).4 Constitution; 2) interpretation in his of ar- VI, 6 of the Alaska Constitu- ticle section superior lawsuits were filed Seven in his determination that the tion and challenging plan.5 court Governor’s section; 3) concluding this violated prejudice dismissed with Two cases were Act, 44.62.310, Open Meetings AS stipulations. cases pursuant to Five were 09.25, Act, applied Records AS the Public Superior for trial before Court consolidated violated the Governor’s were Judge Larry R. Weeks.6 Board; 4) Advisory Reapportionment and trial, Judge day After a sixteen bench substituting judgment in his for that of the plan the concluded that Governor’s Weeks regard to matters within the Board with invalid because it violated the Alaska was Board’s discretion. Specifically, Judge Weeks Constitution. granted petition the to review We State’s compli- in plan that the was not concluded decision, expedited proceedings. and the the VI, section 6 of the Alas- ance with article 28, 1992, the May we concluded that On because two of the districts ka Constitution plan violated the Alaska Consti- Governor’s eight the dis- “compact” not and of were Appendix B. affirmed the See tution. We comprise nearly practi- “as as tricts did not findings fact and conclu- superior court’s relatively socio-economically inte- of a cable 1, 2, 3, of that House Districts sions law He determined that the grated area.” 26, 28, requirements of 34 and 35 violate “needlessly Alaska consti- Board nullified VI, of the Alaska Constitu- article section 6 in requirements” attempt its to tutional holdings its including tion. We also affirmed policy goals, the reach its various Rec- Meetings Act and the Public Open the districts no more than two creation of with However, Board. we apply ords Act to the population deviation from the ideal percent jurisdiction Original these matters is here- plan in which was reviewed in this case 3. The final appeal, Appendix superior detail by attached as A. It contains court. On is maps Borough vested in the and Matanuska-Susitna by supreme of the Southeast the cause shall be reviewed the Districts, map. as well as a statewide upon and the facts. court the law Department April U.S. of Justice In 1992 the 4. in- which were consolidated 6.The five cases object the the State that it would not to notified Hickel, Party v. Case Alaska Democratic cluded: plan. Governor's Civil; Matanuska-Susitna No. 3AN-91-8539 VI, Civil; Hickel, Constitu- Article section 11 of the Alaska Borough 5. v. Case No. 3AN-91-8520 provides: Hickel, tion No. 4FA-91-1730 v. Case Demientieff Any may ap- Civil; Hickel, qualified voter No. 2BA-91-81 v. Case Leavitt Enforcement. superior compel gover- Hickel, ply Civil; court to the to the v. Case Southeast and Conference nor, otherwise, perform to mandamus or parties participated Civil. All No. 1JU-91-1608 reapportionment any duties or to correct his Judge Weeks. fully trial before in the redistricting reapportionment.... error in or very of a democratic deci- the cornerstone holding that the Board’s its reversed military government. non-resident to exclude sion not arbitrary and base was population from Proceedings of the Constitutional Con- unreasonable. (PACC) 11, 1956). (January vention Remand, later Order of separate aIn subject to Legislative reapportionment is superior court to corrected, we directed legal requirements. The variety a Fed- of for to the Board formula- case remand the Constitution, Voting the Federal eral However, because plan. final tion a Act, Rights and the Alaska Constitution all constraints', court directed the we also time guide commands which the forma- contain an interim so that formulate to plan. It reapportionment tion of a is the conformity might proceed elections state often di- interaction of these diverse and requirements of United States with the guideliries verging reappor- which makes Constitution, the Alaska Constitution process. Because tionment a difficult Further, Voting Rights Act. federal guidelines lead differ- these sometimes employ experts to the court authorized we directions, important it ent understand in the formulation to assist or masters together. they fit how Appendix C. plan. interim See an VI, THE A. ARTICLE SECTION 6 OF superior appointed court Thereafter receiving ALASKA CONSTITUTION. instruc- After three masters. reviewing arid alter- the court7 tions from redistricting the elec- The mandate for parties, proposed by the plans native Repre- tion districts of the Alaska House of interim a recommended presented masters VI, sentatives'is found article section In on Orders plan to the court June of the Alaska Constitution: 19,8 superior court June dated governor may further redistrict recommendation, accepted the Masters’ area election changing the size and including a re- several modifications with districts, subject to limitations of this Fairbanks House Districts. drawing of the article. Each new district so created for parties cross-petitioned this court contiguous and shall be formed of com- On June the court’s orders. review of pact territory containing nearly as as argu- considering and written oral after integrated practicable relatively socio- ments, petition af- granted we Each contain a economic area. area shall plan with modifi- court’s interim firmed the equal quotient population at least the by determination that required our cations by dividing the total civilian obtained redrawing the Fair- had erred in the court by forty. may population Consideration House Districts.9 banks given government to local be boundaries. Drainage geographic and other features REAPPORTION- II. LEGISLATIVE describing in shall be used boundaries MENT possible. wherever plans goal apportionment of all Now the rela Contiguity, compactness and goal adequate and true simple: is is integration tive are constitu socio-economic by people in their representation requirements. tional See Kenai Peninsu true, fair legislature, just, and elected 1352, State, Borough P.2d 1360- la v. deciding in and in representation. And 1987) (Alaska (“The state must consis sight of weighing plan, never lose this VI, tently the constitutional article enforce your it foremost in goal, keep that and requirements contiguity, of com mind; section pres- will and the details that we pactness, integration of socio achieving' of and relative merely ent are the details which, course, redistricting.”). A in its representation, true of is economic areas 11, 25, 1992, Judge disapproved attached as On June of 9.Our order of June 1992 is 7. we possible depicts map Weeks’ that native Appendix instruction wherever The the inter- G. which popula- native influence districts must include a apportionment approved im this of Appendix at D. tion of least 35%. See 25, 1992, Appendix on June is attached as court H. F, Appendices are E and 8. These attached as respectively. tive, 77, (1985). any of these character- 33 UCLA L.Rev. lacking one Abso- district contiguity impossible lute of land masses is constitutional under the may not be istics Alaska, considering in her numerous ar- Alaska Constitution.10 chipelagos. Accordingly, contiguous dis- contiguity, of requirements The may open trict contain some amount of sea. socio-economic inte compactness However, potential open to include sea incorporated by the framers gration were is an election district not without limits. pre reapportionment provisions to of the were, any part If it then of coastal Alaska (Janu gerrymandering. 3 PACC 1846 vent contiguous any could be considered with 11, 1956) (“[The prohib requirements] ary part other of the Pacific Rim. To avoid gerrymandering which would have to it[] result, provides this constitution place arbitrarily 40 districts set take were requirements compactness additional of up by governor.... Committee [T]he integration. and socio-economic definitely pre gerrymandering is feels limits.”). by these restrictive Ger vented Compactness. dividing of an area into rymandering is “ ‘Compact’ in the sense used here way “in an unnatural with political units having perimeter means a small in relation purpose bestowing advantages on of encompassed.” Carpenter, to the area disadvantaging and thus others.” some J., (Matthews, concurring). P.2d at 1218 1204, Hammond, Carpenter v. 667 P.2d Compact districting yield should not “bi J., (Alaska 1983) (Matthews, concur designs.” Davenport zarre Apportion v. requirements ring). The constitutional Jersey, ment New Comm’n N.J.Su election district help to ensure that (N.J.Su per. 304 A.2d along logical fall natural or boundaries per.Ct.App.Div.1973), quoted Carpen political than or other lines. lines rather ter, J., (Matthews, 667 P.2d 1218-19 at concurring). look to the We will relative 1. Contiguity. compactness proposed possible dis determining tricts whether a district is Contiguous territory territory is sufficiently compact. Carpenter, 667 P.2d bordering touching. As one which is or J., (Matthews, concurring). at 1218 noted, may commentator has district “[a] every part if contiguous defined as be compactness inquiry thus looks every the district is reachable from other shape Odd-shaped to the of a district. dis boundary part crossing without the district may tricts well be the natural result of (i.e., the district is not divided into two or However, irregular geometry. Alaska’s Grofman, pieces).” more discrete Criteria “corridors” of land that extend to include a area, Perspec- populated less-populated A not the Districting: Social Science but for previously "Gerrymandering requirement We have stated: 10. of relative socio-economic integration given flexibility arbitrary some the con- is ‘the deliberate and distortion dis- integrated only stitution since districts need be populations partisan for or trict boundaries Const, nearly practicable." "as as Alaska art. purposes. 'gerry- personal political The term VI, However, flexibility the that this clause 6.§ however, loosely mandering,' is also used to only provides the should be used to maximize practice party of the in describe the common requirements contiguity of other constitutional gives power redistricting plan choose the that to governor permit- ” compactness. is not and advantage polls.’ at the Kenai Peninsula it an degree of socio-economic ted to diminish the integration Borough, (quoting P.2d at n. 28 Davis 1367 policy in to achieve other order Bandemer, 109, 164, v. U.S. 106 S.Ct. goals. (1986)) (citations omitted). L.Ed.2d Dictionary gerrymander- "gerrymandering" The word has an unusual 11. Black’s Law defines ing etymology. as: The word derives from "the fancied (made by given process dividing resemblance to a salamander caricature) famous of a A name to the shaped territory irregularly other into the authorized of the outline of state or divisions, political but with such a civil or in northeastern [Massachu- an election district geographical arrangement accomplish as to partisan pur- formed for that had been setts] as, purpose, for in- an ulterior or unlawful stance, Gerry’s gover- poses during [Elbridge] in 1812 majority given politi- a to secure a for norship.” Webster’s Third New International party the cal in districts where result would (3d 1969). Dictionary ed. they according divided be otherwise if were to obvious natural lines. (6th 1990). Dictionary ed. Black’s Law idea, people living group canton a of it, may run afoul of the com- land around Likewise, append- socio-economic, unit, requirement. pactness geographic within a compact areas to otherwise ages attached possible, if following similar economic compact of requirement the may violate pursuits. districting. 1956). (January 12, PACC 1873 Integration. 3. Socio-economic this re- satisfy In order to constitutional gerryman preventing to provide In the must quirement, addition Governor districts be requirement that dering, the inte- evidence of socio-economic “sufficient integrated relatively socio-eco- of composed linked gration of the communities helps to ensure that a voter is nomic areas redistricting, proof of actual interaction right equally to an his or her denied not mere and interconnectedness rather than powerful vote. homogeneity.” Bor- Kenai Peninsula sight the funda- not lose of should [W]e at In areas a ough, 743 P.2d where reapportion- involved in principle mental region is divided into several dis- common government representative truly ment— where tricts, inte- significant socio-economic people are interests of the within a dis- gration between communities legislators. In- their elected reflected in region region and the trict outside concept geographical of in the herent requisite inter- general “demonstrates that recognition is a legislative districts interaction,”, even connectedness economically, so- differ areas of a state may though there be little actual interac- truly rep- a culturally and that cially and joined in a between the areas district. tion only government exists when resentative (declining to draw fine distinction Id. sig- which share areas of state those the interaction of North Kenai are able to between interests nificant common those inter- legislators representing Anchorage elect and North Kenai with with Thus, goal reapportionment of ests. Anchorage). sufficiency “The of the South only to achieve numerical not be should the communities involved contacts between representa- also to assure equality but by way compari- can determined of here be having areas of the state tion of those previously son with districts which we have interests. common A upheld.” district will be held invalid Id. (Alaska 863, 890 Egan, 526 P.2d Groh v. simply signifi- record is if devoid “[t]he J., 1974) (Erwin, dissenting). cant social and economic interaction” have before the Minutes We looked among communities within an election guidance for Convention the Constitutional at 1215. Carpenter, district. 667 P.2d integrated defining “relatively socio-eco- reapportionment deci- previous In our Borough, nomic area.” Kenai Peninsula specific we have identified several sions 11; Carpenter, P.2d 1360 n. at inte- characteristics socio-economic Groh, 1215; P.2d at 878. The P.2d at n Borough, gration. In Peninsula Kenai explained the “socio-economic delegates ferry found that service the state we principle” follows: as service, daily taxi a com- system, local air together and work people live [WJhere major activity, mon economic shared fish- living together, together earn their that, areas, man- they ing a common interest people do should be where logically grouped way. lands, agement predominately state his- populace, Native character of the 11, 1956). (January Accord- PACC 1836 inte- torical links evidenced socio-economic integrated ingly, delegates the define an with sev- gration of Hoonah and Metlakatla unit as: socio-economic communi- eral other southeastern island In by people. an economicunit inhabited words, placed is on the ties.12 743 P.2d at 1361. the stress other effectuating policy state existed in constitu- 12. We did not decide whether these characteris- necessary pass inter- specifically tional mandate of relative socio-economic tics were to muster VI, Borough, at 743 P.2d of Alaska vention. Kenai Peninsula under article section 6 Consti- merely a tution. Instead we found that rational 1361. case, EQUAL persuasive In we found it B. the same PROTECTION. Anchorage North Kenai and South

that “In the context of voting rights in redis- proximate, geographically were were tricting reapportionment and litigation, daily flights, linked airline shared recre- principles equal there are two of protection, areas, fishing and ational and commercial namely person, that of ‘one one vote’—the strongly dependent right on Anchor- to an equally weighted were both vote—and of representation’ ‘fair and entertainment, effective age transportation, for —the right group to effectiveness or an equally professional news and services. Id. at powerful vote.” Kenai Peninsula Bor- 1362-63. ough, 743 P.2d at 1366. The former is Groh, “patterns In we stated that of quantitative, purely numerical, or in na- housing, minority income levels and resi- ture; qualitative. the latter is Id. at 1366- “may dences” an urban area form a 67. districting, [although] they basis for lack equal protection clause of the Alaska necessary significance justify” large to Constitution13 interpreted along has been population variances. 526 P.2d at 879. We lines which resemble but do not precisely ties, transportation namely ferry identified parallel interpretation given the federal service, daily geographical and air similari- part, clause.14 person, While the first “one ties and historical economic links as more vote,” one require- has mirrored the federal significant (holding factors. Id. that a dis- ment, see, Groh, e.g., 526 P.2d at comprising trict in southeast Alaska part, second “fair and representa- effective Juneau, tion,” mainland interpreted communities of Haines has been strictly more analogous than the provision. federal Skagway sufficiently integrated, and was considering that the rest of Southeast was Person, 1. One One Vote. oriented). island State make an honest and

“[A] [must] good districts, faith effort to construct requires The Alaska Constitution legislature, houses of nearly both its as comprising “relatively integrated” districts Const, equal population practicable.” as is Reyn- VI, areas. Alaska art. 6. Peti § Sims, 533, 577, olds v. 377 U.S. 84 S.Ct. argue “relatively” tioners the term 1362, 1389, (1964), quoted 12 L.Ed.2d 506 degree diminishes the of socio-economicin Borough, in Kenai Peninsula P.2d at tegration required an within election dis accomplish- 1358. “Whatever the means of urged compare pro trict. We are to all ment, overriding objective must sub- be posed hypothetical districts with com equality population among stantial area, pletely unintegrated as if a district districts, any various so that the vote of including Quinhagak Angeles both and Los weight citizen approximately equal to proposed. adopt had been We decline to any that of other citizen in the state.” petitioners’ interpretation provision. of this Reynolds, 377 U.S. at at 1390. S.Ct. “Relatively” compare pro- means that we Supreme We discussed the Court’s posed previously existing districts to other equal population requirement of “substan proposed principal districts as well as equality” tial in Kenai Peninsula Bor if alternative districts to determine socio- ough: “Relatively” links are sufficient.

economic person, theory, Under a “one one vote” “minimally,” does not mean and it does not “minor deviations from mathematical requirement weaken the constitutional equality among legislative districts state integration. prima are insufficient to make out a facie Equal provides Equal provides 13. The Alaska Protection clause 14. The Federal Protection clause persons equal equal deny any person that "all are that "No entitled to state shall ... rights, opportunities, protection jurisdiction equal protection under the within its law_” Const, XIV, I, Alaska art. the laws.” U.S. Const.Amend. 1. § § 48 provided justification principle this is con- under the discrimination invidious

case of Bor- Kenai Peninsula sistently applied. require so as to Amendment Fourteenth ough, im- Similarly, 743 P.2d at 1360. we a by the State.” ... justification [A]s plied corporation to that adherence Native an general matter apportionment provide justification, might also boundaries population devia- containing a maximum to long as as the boundaries were adhered category the falls tion under within 10% Groh, consistently. P.2d 526 at 877-78 pro- The state must of minor deviations. (holding portion that the utilization of a of greater any for devia- justification vide boundary as corporate the Calista a district tion. justification boundary adequate was not an (quoting Gaffney v. Cum- P.2d at 1366 743 region the was where Calista otherwise 735, 745, 2321, 93 S.Ct. mings, 412 U.S. by reapportionment the fractionated (citations (1973)) omit- 2327, L.Ed.2d plan).17 Thus, ted).15 recognized have that the we hand, rejected On other we have sev- the VI, the article section 6 effectuation of policies inadequate for justifications eral as population devia- requirements justify will population deviation. held that the We Id. percent. 743 P.2d greater than tions “mining potential and the area [Nome] feder- Accordingly, a matter of ” at as 1360. port facility’ the for a ‘common did need may in al law the Governor constitutional overrepresentation justify percent not a 15 with a good election districts faith declare makeup population “the of the both where greater deviation population maximum vary to north the east not the [did] are a percent, such deviations than 10 if significantly adjoining vil- from that of the contiguous, com- result of the creation of lages within the Nome district] [election socio-economically inte- pact relatively Groh, P.2d at boundaries.” 877. grated areas.16 Representation. Fair 2. Effective oth We have identified several may policies justify which also a er state guarantee to of In addition the per greater than 10 population equality, deviation mathematical the substantial Equal noted that a state’s desire to Protection of cent. We Clause the United provides for more is sufficient States Constitution the political boundaries maintain theory underpopulation comprised of of Groh: the district 15. also articulated this We explana- one these areas. We that no of noted showing in the absence of a We conclude that “why could tion had been offered other areas reapportioning a state was the manner of that not been added to the district as to have so impermissi- an improperly or had motivated create less of a variance." 526 P.2d at 878. effect, percent up to ten ble deviations of Upon objection redistricting plan, howev- to the showing justification. require state, however, no of er, justification we found sufficient for the showing has the burden of (Bris- overrepresentation percent ten Board’s of District in excess of are that deviations Bay): legitimate incident tol "based on considerations policy.” of a rational state to the effectuation apparent only It that to is now alternative Regester, (quoting White v. 526 P.2d at 877 original districting of area is the Board’s that 764, 2332, 2338-39, 37 L.Ed.2d U.S. 93 S.Ct. disregard impassible range, an mountain (footnote omitted). (1973)) Inlet, by the natural barrier formed Cook transportation or lack of direct communica- Howell, United States Su 16. In Mahan v. links, corporate tion boundaries of per preme approved Court a deviation of 16.4 Borough, of Kenai Peninsula the cohesiveness political preservation of sub on cent based Borough and the interests of residents (1973). 410 U.S. 315 That division boundaries. population disparate of the interests many the outer deviation has seen as been Bay legitimate area. We now find that Bristol Supreme will See limit which the Court allow. implementation incident to the considerations (D.Haw. King, F.Supp. Travis v. overrepre- policy justify the of rational state 1982). (Bristol No. of House District sentation Bay) originally designated as and override recognized it reasonable We in Groh that was requirements. mathematical combining populated to avoid two areas resi- history reject- Id. the lack reasonable alterna- at 879. Given who had conflict. We dents plan, suggestion justified tives well as the Board’s ed to the initial as that this factor alone

49 1371; Borough, 743 P.2d at nai Peninsula representation. fair guarantee of nebulous 359, Rickey, certain v. 550 P.2d 362-63 principle, Isakson qualitative this Under 1976) (Alaska palatable apportionment (requiring a more flexible mathematically they demanding noting because be overturned standard schemes will voting im- longer hypothesize circumscribe systematically the court “will no facts This groups. specific population pact questiona of would sustain otherwise which danger that racial recognizes the principle legislation as was case under the ble “fenced out of groups will be political standard”). In rational basis traditional voting their process and political reapportionment, have the context of we Gaffney minimized.” invidiously strength upon showing a that the Board held that 735, 754, 93 S.Ct. 412 U.S. Cummings, v. intentionally against to discriminate acted (1973). 2332, 2321, L.Ed.2d 298 area, geographic of a the Board the voters that its will lead to must demonstrate the United States plurality A of representation. greater proportionality of mere has indicated that a Supreme Court at Borough, Peninsula 743 P.2d Kenai representation will be proportional lack of standard, of the more strict 1372. Because finding uncon support a of insufficient to showing pattern of a of require do not a we Plaintiffs must vote dilution. stitutional discrimination, any and do not consider ef intentional discrimination prove both disproportionality de minimis when discriminatory effect fect of against group a and a Bandemer, legitimacy 478 determining v. of the Board’s group.18 on that Davis 2797, 2807, 109, 127, purpose. U.S. S.Ct. Id. addition, (1986). plurali In L.Ed.2d ACT. C. VOTING RIGHTS showing pattern requires a of a

ty opinion of discrimination: Act, Voting Rights Federal The context, finding uncon- such a of In this (1988), signifi plays also a U.S.C. § by stitutionality supported must evi- be reapportionment in the of state cant role frustration of the will of continued dence purpose The of this Act election districts. effective majority a of the voters or of voting power of racial protect is to of a fair minority of voters denial to a Act, section 5 of the a minorities: “Under process. political influence the chance to plan is if it ‘would reapportionment invalid 133, Peninsula quoted retrogression position at in Kenai in the of Id. lead to a Thus, under Borough, respect 743 P.2d at 1369. effec with to their racial minorities ” equal principle federal qualitative of franchise.’ of the electoral tive exercise denied representation fair is protection, Borough, 743 P.2d at Kenai Peninsula “proof group that the has there is where States, 425 (quoting Beer v. United substantially exclud- consistently and been 1357, 1363-64, 130, 141, 96 S.Ct. U.S. process denied political from the ed [and] (1976)); 42 U.S.C. 1973c L.Ed.2d 629 § period of more effectiveness over a political compliance (1988). noted that We have Peninsula Bor- than one election.” Kenai a legitimate goal a of section 5 is with P.2d at 1369. ough, 743 may “A con Reapportionment Board: state en reapportion districts to stitutionally of the equal protection clause strength minorities in voting of hance the a more strict imposes Alaska Constitution compliance with the Vot- to facilitate counterpart. federal Ke order than its standard district, required a Supreme has also show- adding Court good to the we faith effort in invalidating plan. ing discriminatory intent in the context reversed our initial order group. against Mobile v. a racial discrimination against a of discrimination 18. In the context 1497, 66, 1490, 55, 62, Bolden, 100 S.Ct. 446 U.S. proba- requirement political group, the intent However, 1499, (1980). Congress L.Ed.2d 47 bly noted in Ban- As Justice White minimal. amending responded the Bolden decision demer, redistricting long as is done "As Voting Rights to do Act so as 2 of the section very legislature, difficult to it should not be Voting requirement. away consequences with the intent likely political prove that the 1982, No. 97- Rights U.S. Pub.L. reapportionment intended.” 478 Act Amendments were Tribe, Tribe, 3, supra, American Con- 13- § See Laurence H. See L. at 129. Stat. 134. § 13-9, (2d 1082 n. 9 ed. Law at § stitutional 1078-80. 1988). States, it state in the continental United Peninsula Bor- Rights Act.” Kenai ing readily apparent at that it becomes well 1361. 743 P.2d ough, nigh impossible the mathemat- to achieve Act, the as amend 2 of Section precision equal proportions ical of which to 1986, a cause of action creates in ed in other states. is feasible those or laws remedy use of certain electoral the which, interacting 856, Hammond, with so practices when 502 P.2d Egan v. 865-66 conditions, in 1972) (footnotes omitted) create an (Alaska (quoting cial and historical Const, enjoyed by opportunities VI, 6), Groh, in the equality in quoted Alaska art § representa preferred their to elect voters P.2d Kenai Bor- at and Peninsula 30, Gingles, 478 Thornburg U.S. v. tives. at 743 P.2d 1359. ough, 2764-65, L.Ed.2d 25 106 S.Ct. Thus, although the the Board and Gover- redistricting (1986). have may a Plaintiffs pursue policies to nor are free their own they if can plan or an election invalidated goals recommending declaring and and in 1) totality of the cir prove under the that redistricting reapportionment, and such cumstances, redistricting results in un pursued expense policies may not be at the and process; to the electoral equal access constitutional of the federal and Alaska voting racially exists. 2) polarized bloc statutory and mandates. dilutive conjunction allegedly of an “[T]he propor of and the lack electoral mechanism III. REGIONAL APPLICATIONS representation alone does not estab tional 46, 106 at a violation.” Id. at S.Ct. lish ALASKA. A. SOUTHEAST 2764. reapportionment the Governor’s Under previous reapportionment In each of our (Southeast) plan, Alaska di- southeast was difficulty have noted the decisions we districts, designated into vided five election drawing in Alaska. We election districts through Respondent 5.19 Con- Southeast emphasized preserve need to flexi- have 1, 2 ference contends that Districts and redistricting process so that all bility VI, article section 6 of the Alaska violate requirements may be satis- constitutional agreed, The find- trial court Constitution. nearly practicable. as as fied specifically “The of ing districts South- recognize the difficul- At the outset we socio-economically integrated are not east creating equal popula- ty of districts of they easily have af- and could We been.” conforming the Alaska tion while also this firm conclusion. mandate that the districts constitutional most of the Ketchikan District includes compact contiguous formed of and “be Gateway Borough, Wrangell City of territory practica- containing nearly as as of the eastern half of Prince Wales and relatively integrated socio-economic ble most of Island. District includes Sitka cli- geographical, area.” Alaska’s When Petersburg. cities Haines and matical, ethnic, cultural and socio-eco- portions District includes the downtown contemplated the nomic differences are Ketchikan, City of of Sitka and Sax- proportions task Herculean assumes Annette, man, the communities of Metla- with Alaska’s enormous commensurate katla, Baker, Hydaburg, Craig, Point Port problems multiplied The are land area. such, Armstrong, Pelican and Yakutat. As sparse widely by Alaska’s scattered Baranof, Chichagof, parts of it includes inaccessibility population and the relative Admiralty, Kupreanof, Prince of Wales and portions Surprisingly of the state. 3 stretches Revillagigedo Islands. District cre- changes small district boundaries from length the entire of Southeast almost large from the percentage ate variances Annette to Yakutat. population. ideal the Governor’s districts created do take account several local plan conditions so not into When confronted with separates municipal plan any single other boundaries. different from those page Appendix A. See 2 of major from and the downtowns of two cities urban communities have different so- (Sitka Ketchikan). rest of the cities political cial concerns and Logical needs. cities, splits closely It also two interrelated and natural boundaries ignored cannot be Further, Ketchikan and Saxman. raising specter without gerryman- ignores geographic natural boundaries dering. splitting major all of the islands of the The Gateway Borough Ketchikan has a Archipelago. Alexander 13,828, population of only people above VI, Article section 6 does not re Saxman, the ideal district part size. of the quire along that districts be drawn munici Borough, is more socio-economically inte- Rather, pal provision boundaries. grated City with the of Ketchikan than it is only “[cjonsideration may that states be with other Native communities of given government to local boundaries.” Southeast islands.21 Prince of Wales Is- Const, VI, However, Alaska art. 6. local § land is likewise more socio-economically in- significant determining are in boundaries tegrated as a whole than it is relative to relatively whether an area is socio-economi- the rest of District 3 in which the western statute, integrated. cally By borough a half of placed. the island was population must have a which “is interre integrated social, lated and as to its cultur Voting The Board Rights cited the al, and economic activities.” AS 29.05.-0 Act justification creating as its in District 31.20 3. District 3 was meant to abe Native influence proposed configura district. The Divisions of Ketchikan and Sitka are not tion of District 3 percent raised the Native permissible resulting unless the districts age of the district percentage points two pattern a of relative evidence socio-econom- compared to the old “Islands District.” integration. resulting ic The District 3 is However, such an composed reapportion awkward relatively integrated not socio- small, population economic areas. District 3 ment of the Southeast Native mixes the rural, necessary compliance Native communities with the was not for urban with the Voting areas of Ketchikan and Sitka. These rural Rights Act.22 An “Island” District VI, Although reapportionment plan may split a Article cl. 2 of the United States Constitu- districts, boroughs Constitution, forming provides in election the divi- tion that “This and the borough enough sion of a which otherwise has laws of the United States which shall be made in population support an election district will be pursuance supreme thereof ... shall be the law land_” gerrymandering. an indication of There must provisions of the This mandates that legitimate justification preserv- be some for not law, law, including of state state constitutional ing government boundaries in such a case. they are void if conflict with federal law. To VI, requirements the extent that the of article city urged governor 21. of Saxman not to section 6 of the Alaska Constitution are incon- split Borough. Saxman from the rest of the Act, Voting Rights require- sistent with the those Corporation, Ketchikan Indian the Sealaska However, give way. ments must to the extent Corporation Camp and the Grand of the Alaska inconsistent, requirements that those are not objected Native Brotherhood all to the Gover- they given Voting Rights must be effect. The planned splitting Borough. nor’s of the Act need not be elevated in stature so that the requirements of the Alaska are un- Constitution 22. Our conclusion underscores the error in the necessarily compromised. methodology reconciling require- Board’s design reapportion- The Board must first a Voting Rights require- ments of the Act with the plan requirements ment based on the of the of the ments Alaska Constitution. The Board plan Alaska Constitution. That then must be expect any challenges was advised to that to the against Voting Rights reappor- tested Act. A reapportionment plan would come under the VI, plan may tionment minimize article section newly Voting Rights amended section 2 of the requirements only when is the minimization Consequently, Act. ty voting strength the Board accorded minori- satisfy Voting Rights factors, means available to Act priority above other VI, requirements. including requirements of article section 8, 1992, methodology In our order of June we directed that 6 of the Alaska Constitution. This court, superior drafting plan, proposed an interim resulted in district a district which give Voting Rights comply requirements priority does not with the to the Act over the of the However, VI, requirements proposed article 6 of the Alas- Alaska Constitution. dis- section context, Act, Voting Rights expediency required trict 3 is not ka Constitution. In that either. mandated that an interim be formulated majority Borough of the Denali a the re- a configured which satisfies be can Borough Rights Act and of the North Star Voting part Fairbanks of the quirements integrat- the communities of North compact and better that includes more which is Pole, Air and Eielson Force Base. Salcha socially.23 ed above, borough a is defini- As noted Thus, 1, 2 and 3 all vio Districts socio-economicallyintegrated. It is ax- tion VI, of the Alaska section 6 article late composed wholly iomatic that district do not con These districts Constitution. belonging single borough to a ade- in land relatively tain, nearly practicable, as as Thus, integrated. 27 com- areas, quately District identified tegrated socio-economic requirement. that plies with regard governmental for local due with Although these boundaries. geographic may it recognize We be neces necessarily not be fol need boundaries borough sary to a so that its excess divide districts, they creating election lowed in a district population is allocated to situated in far by the Board so must be considered However, possible, where all of elsewhere. they the true socio-economic indicate as population municipality’s excess should a integration of areas. several in go to one other district order to maxim representation ize effective of the excess BOR- B. MATANUSKA-SUSITNA compelled only is not group.26 This result OUGH. VI, by requirements, the section 6 article (Mat-Su) Bor- The Matanuska-Susitna equal protection also the state but among five house dis- ough divided was guarantees right pro the to clause which tricts, 6, 26, designated 28 and 34.24 geographic representation. portional See composed wholly of land Only 27 is District State, v. Borough Kenai Peninsula Borough. District 6 Mat-Su within the (Alaska 1352, 1369, 1987) 1372-73 P.2d William with Prince Sound. groups Palmer (stating primary a of indication inten neighbor- groups the residential District a against geographic discrimination tional and with Palmer Wasilla hoods between a of to region was lack adherence estab of the northern communities Chugiak and boundaries). political lished subdivision Anchorage. District Municipality of the case, Borough popula- In this the Mat-Su border, 28, stretching the Canadian com- to is districts. tion allocated between five parts and of the prises interior Ahtna areas exception of With the District the re- valleys. It in- Copper and River Gulkana sulting shortcomings have serious districts Glennallen, Tok Delta Junction. cludes and resulting in their relative socio-economic a corridor which It also includes narrow integration. Borough, and en- reaches into the Mat-Su merges of Palmer with the Prince compasses the outskirts Palmer and District 6 Willow, 34 combines William communities. Palmer is the Wasilla.25 District Sound large governmental the rural center of the Mat-Su Bor- portion and a of Talkeetna Borough agricultural area. In ough, the with an established part northern of Mat-Su elections, configuration compliance compact proposed the and that more than time for the 1992 Appendix H. Voting Rights 3. See ensured. In draft- of District with the Act be however, ing permanent plan, the a Board's expediency. Appendix design compelled by page 3 A. 24. See of will not be requirements of shall ensure that Board VI, Constitution 28 became article 6 of the Alaska 25. Because of this District section corridor. briefing unnecessarily to in compromised Vot- known as is referred as are not "Oosik District.” ing Rights Act. approved by as this court 23.The Island District municipality's Dividing population excess 26. part plan excludes urban the 1992 interim among of tend to a number districts would respects all areas of Ketchikan Sitka the votes of dilute the effectiveness of those government Southeastern population group. boundaries in local Their collective the excess compact, non-compact- single speak a Alaska. While it is not district would with votes in comply among stronger appears necessary to voice than if distributed several ness be in order case, is, any Voting Rights it districts. with the Act and contrast, commu- Distnct 34 fails for its lack of Prince William Sound relative integration. socio-economic This district commercial fish- are oriented toward nities links two areas with almost no social or The record activities. ing and maritime Moreover, economic interaction. the Mat- significant interac- any not establish does Borough Su communities this district are between these tion or interconnectedness rural and thus share few common interests Further, part orga- Palmer is of an areas. military with suburban Fairbanks and Prince William borough nized whereas areas of the North Bor- Fairbanks Star factor, Because of this is not. Sound ough. may ad- of Palmer residents be interests of an unor- to those of the residents verse configura We thus hold that the borough proper- issues such as ganized on dividing Borough among tion the Mat-Su funding programs and state ty taxes five districts is invalid. Governor’s plan unfairly proportional as education. repre such dilutes the sentation the residents of the Bor Mat-Su socio-economic There is evidence of some ough guaranteed. municipality are A Borough the Mat-Su interaction between should not be made to contribute so much Anchorage areas District areas and population of its to districts else centered However, testimony indi- considerable deprived representation it where that residents were more cated that the Mat-Su justified by population. which is its The naturally linked to Palmer and Wasilla than plan also in four results districts which are Moreover, Anchorage. we they were to relatively socio-economicallyintegrated not Palmer, and significant it that Wasilla find sufficiently and one is not district which in placed them were three the area between compact. despite the fact that separate districts pub- of their these communities share most C. ELECTION DISTRICT 35. lic facilities. plan, Under the Board’s District 35 encompasses portion not contain District 28 also does relative- a vast of interior and socio-economicallyintegrated areas. As northern Alaska.27 Its boundaries extend ly above, Hope from Point on the northwest coast to simply does not the record establish the the border of Alaska and Canada on significant social or economic interaction east, and from Barrow the north to addition, In the connected areas. between constructed, Tyonek in the south. Thus region District 28 combines a of Mat-Su area District 35 also includes the between unorganized borough, and includes with an Ocean, Range the Arctic the Brooks and primarily Borough. rural Denali part of the commonly to as the North which is referred compact- also fails for its lack of District 28 traditionally by the Slope, and inhabited The corridor which extends into the ness. south, Inupiaq Eskimo. To the District Borough prompted by a desire Mat-Su was Range to include extends across the Brooks equality among leg- to attain mathematical populated river drain- sparsely much of the However, previ- we have islative districts. traditionally in ages Alaska28 of interior up ously population noted that deviations Indians. habited the Athabaskan percent require justification no and to 10 may larger Board use deviations joining that the of the Judge described the Weeks requirements the Inupiaq order to effectuate the Interior Atha- Slope and North VI, “probably article section 6. Kenai Peninsula district as baskan areas into one State, single v. 743 P.2d that could be Borough worst combination 1987). (Alaska trying The failure to cre- to maximize Board’s selected if a were board The justified by integration in Alaska.” compact a district is not socio-economic ate geographically divided and equality. linkage mathematical of these rigid adherence to border, and much of the page Appendix to the Canadian 1 of A. sion 27. See drainage upstream from a Kuskokwim River Koyukuk River val- 28. The district includes the point Stony near River. ley, of the area drained the Yukon much point upstream Russian Mis- River from a from Al- tion six of the Alaska Constitution.30 has been described culturally areas distinct issue, though parties scenario.” did not raise this case as a “worst separation of the Aleutian Islands so the Board indicates The record plainly erroneous that we address the issue of District 35 with the boundaries formed Thus, in sponte. exercise our au- sua socio- of the relative little consideration IV, thority article section of the under two people who live integration of economic Constitution, sepa- Alaska we hold that the Vezey testified that he Chair there. Board of the Aleutian Islands into two dis- ration on a socio-economic placed little reliance VI, article six of the tricts violates section Vezey noted Mr. also study of the area. Alaska Constitution. testimony Inupiaq was no from that there linkage favoring witnesses or Athabaskan Further, Pick- Board member of the areas. BASE IV. POPULATION by the Board no discussion rell recalled the 1990 census as its Board used joining Inupiaq and Athabas- regarding However, population the Board did base. kan areas. military from the census data not subtract minimal The record also demonstrates personnel who were stationed Alaska at integration past present socio-economic taken, the time the census was who did but cul- Inupiaq Athabaskan between Alaska not consider themselves residents. Itta-Lee, com- Inupiaq an

tures. Brenda vary population did not Governor Barrow, Georgian- munity from leader base from the Board’s recommendation. Lincoln, in the state representative na community and Athabaskan legislature Previously held that the exclu we regard- Rampart, testified leader from both personnel military sion of non-resident separation of the two cul- physical ing the (NRMP) population from base is consti historical, linguistic and eco- tures and However, tutionally permissible. we have between the cultures. nomic differences never decided whether exclusion was con at trial indicates that Evidence introduced stitutionally required. have ad We not per in- average capita resident annual NRMP dressed this issue before because $26,000 Slope North exceeds come on the population excluded from the have been Doyon region the while in the Athabaskan every previous reapportion in district base average is less than Social scien- $6000. ment, interim exception with the of the at trial described the tists who testified plan for fol we devised the 1972 elections integration between actual socio-economic Hammond, lowing Egan v. 502 P.2d insignifi- as Inupiaq and Athabaskan (Alaska 1972). cant. record, argues that the inclusion of conclude that The state on the we Based VI, policy it 6 of NRMP was a choice was allowed article section District 35 violates make, it to that because does not to and that we should defer the Alaska Constitution encompass, nearly practicable, argues as a rela- The state further that in- as choice. integrated permissible area. is it tively socio-economic clusion of NRMP because accurately impossible estimate the is to D. THE ALEUTIAN ISLANDS. military of not personnel number who are question this is It notes that residents. plan The Board’s divides Aleu reapportionment this be- different with Islands two districts.29 The tian between Army Air the United cause States in District eastern Aleutians are longer personnel data avail- Force no make in District 37. On the western Aleutians maintains that contigu to the state. The state this violates the able its face severance this, VI, its territory light of it acted within discretion requirement of article sec- ous not mandate their page Appendix law. Since federal law does 29. See 1 of A. contiguous territory requirement separation, the remand, 30. order we noted that the In our of Constitution controls. of the Alaska together joined Aleutians in one district must be by separation their federal unless is mandated (Alaska 1974) (finding military personnel in the the Board’s including all by sup- careful examination of alternatives base.31 population ported the conclusion that the state’s choice argue that exclusion is respondents rational). population of base was inclusion constitutionally required since provi- key determination is whether the reapportionment violate would “discussing clause of the Board’s efforts the alterna- equal protection sions and the They argue support that the tives” were sufficient to its conclu- Alaska Constitution. compiling im- dilution of the sion that accurate data was the inclusion is the effect of possible. of Alas- The trial court found that a voting power of residents of areas required. military populations. “hard look” was The hard look large ka without requirement previous consistent our with plan interim implemented we an Egan, In acknowledgment that the state has a com- “it was a NRMP exclusion because without pelling attempting interest to exclude compile sufficiently accu- possible not to (iden- Carpenter, NRMP. 667 P.2d at 1213 for provide a reasonable basis rate data to tifying “compelling interest” state as military from the excluding any number of prevention of the dilution of its resi- “the at How- 502 P.2d 870. population base.” voting strength”). Reyn- dents’ also See ever, recognized “the need for a also we 533, 555, Sims, olds v. 377 U.S. 84 S.Ct. achieves a level permanent which 1362, 1378, (1964) (“[T]he 12 L.Ed.2d 506 vot- accuracy military population’s] of [the right suffrage denied a de- can be than either ing participation which is closer weight or of the of a basement dilution excluding military as a including or all just effectively citizen’s vote as as whol- P.2d at 870. chal- class.”32 502 “[T]he prohibiting the fran- ly the free exercise of approximation lenge is to arrive at the best chise.”). counted without population of the to be right Judge “legitimate identified six losing sight the fact that the Weeks including reasons” for the NRMP. He also representation is also an individual equal although P.2d at found that the extent of non-resi- personal right.” Egan, 502 military determin- dency among the was able, possible it unclear it was was whether exclusion is not We therefore hold that of the to make a determination reliable possible if constitutionally required it is not non-resident, in which enumeration districts accurately identify military per- those military personnel Despite lived. off-base However, are non-residents.33 sonnel who findings, he concluded that the Board these plans necessary it is to consider alternative not take a “hard look” at this issue. did obtaining sufficiently accurate for a military personnel in The inclusion of all estimating the of NRMP. Id. for number justifi- not population the base was thus (noting upon it “incumbent that was [this able. plans which to discuss alternative court] apparently that problem”). Judge Weeks believed may available to handle the be includ- by reasons stated the Board for Egan, 526 P.2d 868 the also Groh v. See reapportionment provi- equal protection. it be ex- The Board was advised that would 31. accurately identify tremely the “Alaska’s difficult the use of census data. sions favor requisite popula- U.S. census allowed certain requires NRMP because the that the constitution military personnel to allocate themselves to oth- by the census be arrived at use of tion total Further, they were told that the Unit- er states. population base not mandate a data. It does longer Army and Air Force would no voters, ed States registered exclusively citi- composed of residency of the information because Alaska, release previously or voted in zens who have Rights Privacy The Board Act and Civil Act. only living in- people in Alaska with the those might Department face was also advised that it making Id. at Alaska their home." tention of preclearance problems if the NRMP of Justice 861. were included. 33.However, percentage of the of the estimation recognized light of the 32. This need was any precise than the more NRMP need not be resulting representation” of “unbalanced threat popula- approximation portions of the of other Egan, 502 P.2d at from the inclusion of NRMP. Egan, at 869. base. See 502 P.2d concern is one of tion 870. Thus the constitutional as justifications. registered and voter data bases reliable post hoc were ing NRMP residency.35 about sources of information significant that the it he found Also strongly to advised legal advisor Board’s attempted to The Board discover what NRMP. exclude noted, the alternatives existed. As other expert opinion that an accu- Board received meeting, the Board At its March methodologically survey impossi- rate was population base policy that the adopted the told a when the Board was that ble. Even be reapportionment would for survey possible, it was told was statewide it decided that The Board data. census identifying the NRMP in each district that adjust data to ac- the census not would dis- impossible.36 The Board would be for NRMP. count opinion expert at its March cussed Plan, Proposed Report its and In agreed proposal of meeting with methods for deter- several Board discussed that, as an initial Babcock at least director adjustment mining appropriate to be survey per- could not be guideline, discussed the method The Board made. Additionally the Board deter- formed. whereby the num- Board the 1973 used inclusion of NRMP would mined that the military a of Alaska residents on base ber in a not result rural/urban bias. by multiplying the number was determined original that its Board thus concluded by the registered on the base voters its using census data as guideline person-counted/registered-voter statewide proper. base was population of “residents” obtained The number ratio. previously Based on what we have number of adults then divided was boards, we required reapportionment percentage a living on the base to derive that “look” was conclude the Board’s method was When the same residents. necessary enough. It is not to at “hard” data, military all the the 1990 applied to tempt survey analysis when a or statistical greater a than one hundred showed bases that a thorough a examination reveals such percent percentage. resident Groh, survey at possible. is not 526 P.2d explained that other available The Board Rather, only we need be assured 868-69. survey adequate. It in- methods were not authority was “exer that the Governor’s expert it received advice dicated that had opposed in a as to an arbi cised rational survey Depart- in the that the method used trary Although 868. we manner.” Id. at study study that inad- ment of Labor made exemplary ex “thorough a have found making an as a for equate to serve basis persuasive proving ploration” to be also that it adjustment. The Board stated rational, we have the Board's decision was political surveys from two had solicited Groh, P.2d required it. at not rejected.34 pollsters in Alaska and had been of alternatives The Board’s consideration explained poll that “a taken The Board was sufficient examina expert advise period of time after the Census significant tion. sampling be a of enumeration ‘would possibly people different set with (OPEN ” DEFECTS V. PROCEDURAL changed (quoting Egan, 502 attitudes.’ AND PUBLIC RECORD MEETINGS 887). Finally, Board eliminated P.2d at the ACTS) applications, Fund Dividend Permanent statements, Judge the Board Earning concluded that Military Weeks Leave and only gument feasible per- that the census was the these solicitations are 34. The evidence of phone population conversations between Babcock sonal base. pollsters. no indica- and the solicited There is pollsters declined to tion as to the reason the that the effect of inclu- 36.The Board also claims survey. conduct the very low due the NRMP sion was minimal to However, pro- Board did not population. the only These were the alternatives considered significant supporting any this asser- duce data 4, meeting at the which initial at March "guidelines” tion. adopted. meeting At this were accepted presented and Board was with the ar- superior and the We AFFIRM the court’s conclu- Meetings Act37 Open violated Open Meetings it formulated its sion that the Act and Records Act38 as Public Public However, he also plan. apply Records Act to the Board. reapportionment We de- the other “[bjecause of pub- that conclusion that the determined cline to address its case, is public interest in this decisions by voiding lic interest would not be served voiding plan on by not served better Open Meetings on the Act basis Open Meetings Act violations.” the basis of violations. the basis of the grant

He did not relief on superior We REVERSE the court’s con- Records Meetings Act or the Public Open clusion that the Board failed to make a Act. regarding the inclu- reliable determination Judge Weeks that agree with We military or sion exclusion of non-resident apply to the activities generally these Acts personnel. The Board’s consideration of However, Reapportionment Board. of the expert alternatives and advice various was grant not relief on the basis since he did “hard look” at this a sufficient issue. Act, to determine the either we decline supe- The case has remanded to the been specific to activi application of their extent rior court directions to remand the with determine Similarly, we decline to ties. Reapportionment and 1991 Proclamation independent constitutional ba whether an Redistricting Plan to the Board for refor- ensuring public access to the exists for sis mulation consistent with our Order of June Accordingly, meetings. we affirm Board’s 8, 1992, opinion. and this determination that the only the trial court’s Records Act Open Meetings Act and Public Re generally to the activities of the

apply MOORE, Justice, concurring, in Chief Board. apportionment part,, dissenting, part. in in To the extent indicated the attachment VI. CONCLUSION today’s opinion “APPENDIX marked superior AFFIRM the court’s conclu- We Otherwise, C,” I I continue to dissent. plan’s formulation of Districts sion that the have taken in concur in the action that we VI, 1, section 6 of 2 and 3 violates article case, opinion of the court. this Constitution, because the dis- the Alaska “socio-economicallyintegrat- tricts are not BURKE, Justice, have been.” We they easily concurring, part,

ed and could conclusion that the con- dissenting, also AFFIRM its in part.

figuration the Mat-Su Bor- which divides indicated in the attach- To the extent 6, 26, among (designated ough five districts “APPEN- opinion marked ments to today’s 34) invalid, unfairly since it 28 and C,” “APPENDIX I continue to DIX B” and representation proportional dilutes Otherwise, I concur the action dissent. Borough’s resi- guaranteed to the Mat-Su case, in this and in the have taken we Further, AFFIRM its conclusion dents. we opinion of the court. the North joins which that District and the Interior Athabaskan Slope Inupiaq VI,

areas, section 6 of violates article INDEX TO APPENDICES it does not because Alaska Constitution Hickel’s 1991 Re- APPENDIX A: Governor relatively integrated socio-eco- encompass a Plan) (Final Plan apportionment nomic area. 28, 1992, Order, May Alas- APPENDIX B: sepa- independently that the conclude We Supreme ka Court two dis- the Aleutian Islands into ration of of Re- Order territory re- APPENDIX C: Corrected contiguous tricts violates 1992, mand, 8, Supreme Alaska VI, of the June quirement of article section 6 Court Alaska Constitution. 38. AS 09.25.110-.140. AS 44.62.310-.312. 11, 1992, Order, Alas- F: Order, APPENDIX Memorandum and D: June

APPENDIX 1992, 19, Superior Judge June Court Court Supreme ka Larry Weeks Order, E:' Memorandum and APPENDIX Order, 25, 1992, G: APPENDIX June Alas- 1992, Judge Superior Court June Supreme ka Court Larry Weeks Reapportion- APPENDIX H: Interim Plan,

ment June A APPENDIX sions of law as to House District B 35 are APPENDIX 35, AFFIRMED. House District as consti- THE COURT OF THE SUPREME tuted, VI, of article is violative section 6 of OF ALASKA STATE the Alaska Constitution. It does not en- compass, nearly practicable, as as a rela- ORDER tively integrated socio-economicarea. 28, May 1992] [Filed d)Western plain Aleutians. We deem it Justice, RABINOWITZ, Chief Before: contiguous territory error under the re- MATTHEWS, BURKE, COMPTON VI, quirement of article section 6 of the MOORE, and Justices. Alaska Constitution not to include the Western Aleutians with the Eastern Aleu- having come before the matter This tians in one district. Thus unless the sev- cross-petition and for upon petition court review, having erance of Western Aleutians from the the court heard oral and Eastern Aleutians is mandated federal being premis- in the argument, and advised law, joined the areas must be in one dis- es: trict. IT HEREBY ORDERED: IS Military 2. Inclusion Non-resident of Reapportionment Plan contained 1.The Population superior Base. The court’s Proclamation in the of Alaska’s Governor holding arbitrary part it that was on the of Redistricting and of Reapportionment of Advisory Reapportionment the Governor’s 5, 1991, September is held unconstitutional (Board) Board not to exclude non-resident following respects:

in the military population from the base is RE- 1, supe- a) 2 and 3. The House Districts VERSED. Review of the record demon- findings relevant of fact and rior court’s the Board had a strates reasonable 1, conclusions of law as to House Districts for its decision not to exclude non- basis districts, AFFIRMED. These 2 and 3 are military resident from its determination of VI, constituted, are violative of article as population the relevant base. The 6 of the Alaska Constitution. section Applicability Open Meetings 3. contain, nearly practi- as do not as districts the Public Records Act to the Act and cable, relatively integrated socio-economic Advisory Reapportion- Proceedings areas, giv- identified with due consideration superior The court’s hold- ment Board. government existing en to local boundaries. Act, Open Meetings AS 44.- ings that the Further, 3, constituted, as violates District Act, 62.310-312, and the Public Records compact territory re- contiguous and 09.25.110-140, apply to the Board are AS YI, section 6 of the quirements of article AFFIRMED. Alaska Constitution. separate A order of remand will fol- 4. 6, 26, b) 28 and House Districts 34. low. findings of fact superior court’s relevant Dis- of law as to House and conclusions addressing the opinion An will follow 5. 6, 26, and 34 are AFFIRMED. tricts cross-peti- petition in the issues raised districts, constituted, are as violative These tion for review. VI, the Alaska article section 6 of Con- Supreme by direction of the Entered contain, do not as stitution. The districts 28, Alaska, May Anchorage, on Court at relatively integrated nearly practicable, as areas, identified with due socio-economic Supreme of the Court Clerk existing gov- given to local consideration Hansen /s/ Jan Further, District ernment boundaries. Jan Hansen constituted, contiguous as violates BURKE, Justice, part. dissents requirements of article compact territory VI, of the Alaska Constitution. section 6 disagrees with BURKE Justice Districts 28 and conclusion that c) superior court’s District 35. House VI, constituted, section 6. article violate findings of fact and conclu- as court’s relevant VI, ments of article section 6 the Alaska C

APPENDIX requirements of article Constitution. The OF THE COURT THE SUPREME VI, priority 6 shall receive inter se section ALASKA OF STATE following (1) contiguousness in the order: (2) compactness, relative socioeconomic REMAND OF ORDER CORRECTED (3) gov- integration, consideration of local 8, June 1992] [Filed boundaries, (4) drainage use ernment of 28, 1992, May describing this court geographic of and features in In our order other petition and merits of the on boundaries. ruled the herein. The trial court’s cross-petition filed superior is to 3. The court authorized 11, 1992, invalidated May which of order experts employ expert an or under Evi- redistricting plan reapportionment and the 706, appoint or dence Rule or to a master 1991, 5, part affirmed in September was of it in under Civil Rule to assist masters part. In accordance with in and reversed plan. formulating an interim order, remanded to case is now this formulating plan, In an interim the 4. following di- with the superior court the district, may change any in addition court rections: specifically to found to be in violation those supe- A of the Alaska Constitution under the OF FINAL A: FORMULATION 11, 1992, May rior as modi- court’s order of PLAN 28, by May the order of this court of fied remand the case superior court shall 1992, requirements the necessary if to meet with instruc- reapportionment to the board Constitution, of Federal the federal vot- the plan reappor- of to a final tions formulate act, ing rights or the state constitution. redistricting complies which tionment and superi- in the the contained with mandates regarding 5. and schedules Procedures 11, 1992, modi- May of as or court’s order plans proposed the interim submission of May by of this court dated fied the order by parties objections the interim the and to 28, 1992. superior plan by formulated the court shall superior by order of the be established AN B: OF INTERIM FORMULATION superior court its court. The shall issue PLAN on formulating plan order an interim final 18, or before June 1992. plan reapportionment An 1. interim of necessary redistricting plan so that and is superior is to 6. The court authorized may the 1992 be conducted elections filing the related for extend and deadlines equal compliance protection the clause with primary August elections. Constitution, the of the Federal federal vot- by this 7. Unless otherwise ordered VI, act, ing rights and article section 6 of court, governor to conduct the lieutenant is the Alaska Constitution. general pur- primary the 1992 elections remand, superior the 2. On court shall reapportionment the suant to interim plan. plan interim shall formulate an redistricting plan adopted by superior the superior the court’s or- be consistent with court. 11, 1992, by May der of as modified the 28, May court of 1992. The order this adopted su- by The interim the 8. comply equal protection with plan shall the perior subject shall discretion- court be to Constitution, fed- clause of the Federal Appellate ary by review this court under act, voting rights require- and the eral expedited an Rule 402 on basis. VI, ments article section 6 of Alaska SO ORDERED: Constitution, comply need with the but not at An- reapportionment by of the court guidelines adopted Entered direction June, day 1992. Priority given chorage, must first Alaska this 8th board. be MOORE, Constitution, BURKE, Justice, Jus- joined Federal second to federal act, tice, dissenting part. voting rights require- to the third [COMPTON, Justice,

Justices. not participating.] Supreme Court Clerk Hansen /s/ Jan petition consideration of the for re- On Hansen Jan view, 8, 1992, filed on and the re- June MOORE, petition, filed on BURKE, Justice, sponse to June with whom Justice, dissenting part. joins, responsibili- reapportionment Legislative IT IS ORDERED: constitution to by the Alaska’s

ty given petition 1. The is GRANTED. Const, Alaska art. governor. the state’s superior In court’s instructions to Nolan, 3; 414 P.2d 689 VI, v. Wade § masters, 1966). challenged, legal there is no properly special basis (Alaska When however, plan pro- reapportionment that, possi- requirement for the wherever subject judi- is to by governor the claimed ble, influence districts be drawn to native Const, IV, art. 11. scrutiny. Alaska cial § percent popula- at native include least successful, is the challenge is as the When required by that is not the tion. Action here, allows the state constitution case Act, Voting Rights which detracts from governor, compel the superior “the court to requirements of the Alas- adherence to the otherwise, perform his to by mandamus or Constitution, is not allowed. The 35 ka any to correct reapportionment duties or therefore, disap- percent requirement, is redistrieting reapportionment.” or error in proved. convinced, however, that the I not Id. am court at An- by Entered direction of the superior us to direct the allows constitution 11, chorage, 1992. Alaska on June reins, and the executive’s court to seize own, plan of its develop reapportionment a Supreme the Clerk of Court basis, unless and until it on an interim even Hansen /s/ Jan governor the is either clear that becomes Hansen Jan develop proper a unwilling to or unable is available. plan within the time that E APPENDIX I, therefore, part of from that dissent directing supe- the today’s order of remand . IN THE COURT FOR SUPERIOR reappor- develop an interim rior court to THE OF ALASKA STATE by the decision this plan. I view tionment order, present in its court to issue the DISTRICT FIRST JUDICIAL form, judicial power. If an of our as abuse AT JUNEAU needed, clearly plan is which an interim case, directed to governor the should be the 18, June 1992] [Filed time; it, specified period of prepare within a (Consolidated) Civil Case No. 1JU-91-1608 to should be authorized superior the court only in the plan interim event devise an AND MEMORANDUM ORDER to act within the governor the fails that History Procedural time allowed. briefing 11,1992, May after extensive On authorized to state Justice I am trial, held unconsti- 16-day this court my and a joins in dissent. MOORE Septem- Hickel’s parts of tutional Governor D APPENDIX peti- 5, plan. A reapportionment ber the Alaska taken to tion for review was OF THE SUPREME COURT IN and expedited basis Supreme Court on an THE STATE OF ALASKA entered two May supreme court on ORDER af- The first order in the case. orders June 1992] [Filed part reversed part firmed in and mer- court on the superior of the decision WITZ, Justice, Chief Before: RABINO the case MOORE, order remanded BURKE, MATTHEWS, The second its.1 as findings of law fact and conclusions supreme this court's rele- vant 1. court affirmed The to were instructed return The masters Saturday on plan the court June devise an draft to to directions court with to this noon, year.2 to 13; this was extended redistricting plan for use this deadline interim 14, 1992, the inter- the masters Sunday, to when directed devise June court was This plan to the presented recommended by their im June public had parties and the court.6 from the soliciting suggestions After 16 make of business June to close until ap- court proceed,3 the to on how parties the masters’ recom- objection to written devise a Masters to Special pointed three plan.7 mended were cho- masters plan. The redistricting parties. One sen from nominations Meanwhile, on entered an order court (Harold governor by the suggested was 5, 1992, primary elec- postponing the June plain- suggested Gillam); 8; one was September August to other from tion picked one was (Brian Rogers); tiffs postponed also election deadlines were agreement of the court with by the supreme court Order with accordance Condon). masters (Wilson parties this authorized court of Remand which Mr. Condon June 3rd sworn on were filing and related deadlines for “extend appointed chair.4 was primary elections.”8 August 1992 written given various were The masters as as changes in election law well These parties briefing from the after instructions plan must be proposed interim the court's questions.5 masters’ response to the and in Department precleared by the of Jus- U.S. to ordered the State This court has plans on June 8 tice. parties filed draft The and ask for department to the submit these to the masters. presentations made and entered, 28, 34, regarding 1, 3, 6, 26, 2, that dead- confusion arose and 35. Districts to House holding the was whether or not deadline line. The issue supreme this court's court affirmed The congressional Rec- been extended for candidates Open Meetings Act and the Public had the that Advisory Reap- legislative candidates. This well as for state apply the Governor's as Act to ords this when court entered portionment court reversed was resolved this Board. The confusion arbitrary part making holding on the it clear that the dead- that it was order June 8 an court's congressional mili- candi- to non-resident included not exclude line extension of the Board normally the tary population base. Justice Burke two deadlines are dates. The same; from the (AS disagreeing they the court’s part, with are set in the same statute dissented in 15.25.040(a)(1)). and 35 violat- time court knows House Districts 28 At this the that conclusion VI, this the Alaska Constitu- for filed in matter. 6 of no Petition Review Section of ed Article tion. 3, June 1992. Memorandum and Order of 4. See supreme plan, court directed the 2. For the final reappor- case to the the court to "remand this with communications This court ordered that 5. a to formulate with tionment board instructions court, writing or filed with the Masters be in the redistricting plan reapportionment and final of open communications court. The written in in contained complies mandates which with the filing as Instruc- the dates are follows. with 11, 1992, May as superior of court’s order the (June 3); Questions Set of to First tions Masters May dated by this court the order of modified (June Questions 3); Second Set from Masters 28, 1992, 28, p. May at of Remand 1992." Order (June 4); Questions Third Set of Masters from Burke, Justice Moore whom Justice with 1. 5); (June Instruc- the Masters Amended from part joined, of the remand that dissented from (June 5); Ques- Set to Fourth tions Masters to required superior court formulate the which 8); (June Request the to tions from Masters stating: plan, an interim (June 9); Special Fur- Masters the Court From needed, clearly plan which is If an interim is (June 9); to Amended Masters ther Instructions case, governor be directed to should the the (June 9); Fifth to Masters Further Instructions time; it, specified period of prepare within a 11); (June Questions Sixth from Masters Set of superior to be authorized the court should (June 11); Questions Addi- Masters Set of from only plan in the event that devise an interim (June 11). Masters Instructions to tional governor al- within the time fails to act the lowed. 14, report filed June written was 6. The Masters’ J., (Burke, dissenting). p. at Order Remand 1992. May entered 3. and Order See Memorandum June 7. See Order of 9. May June also extended to The 29 order 1992. filing for candidates 1992 the deadline for p. 3. Remand at was 8. Order of legislative after this order office. Soon ease, plan

in specific this the masters and masters, posed queries by objections has done so The State expedited review.9 change public parties, in election dates raised and and the respect to the with this filing analysis plan The State asked court’s of the and the court’s deadlines.10 changes 24 Rural Education postpone to some to it. court (REAA) Re- and Coastal Attendance Area (CRSA) until Area elections source Service Reapportionment Involvement in Court part some Spring of 1993. In because State, and to some extent the mas- delay, this objected REAA’s of the ters, questioned have the extent of court in entered was denied an Order motion reapportionment partic- involvement

June ularly participation preparing court an plan. explained interim As in this court’s Introduction 11, 1992, opinion May it is clear that the being promulgated by this or- plan planned authors of the Alaska Constitution only plan. It is in effect der is an interim superior supreme that the court and the by the plan promulgated a final until reapportionment court would review the with reapportionment board accordance process.13 The chair of the convention’s supreme order. court’s during reapportionment committee said creating interim has less A court an reappor- constitutional convention creating governor a discretion than does tionment article in the constitution would VI, Although Article long-term plan.11 up very, very set careful standards and the Alaska does Section 6 of Constitution limiting factors so that the Governor not restrict the creation of senate districts away the Board not run and will will be Alaska governor, Supreme acting within limits—within clear limits— court is more restrict- Court has said that a given and are not wide discretion. creating in seats for interim ed senate Convention, Proceedings, 3 Constitutional governor creating per- in plans than the is p. at 1839. plans.12 manent VI, Article Section 11 of the Alaska Con- address the court’s role This decision will provides: stitution Department of reapportionment, in Justice Act, Voting Rights Any qualified may apply voter to the preclearance under the compel governor, superior the masters court to how the court interacted with VI, apply p. Section 6 did not to senate districts and Order entered June 3 at 9. Memorandum 1. but: that, at least This instruction indicates [above] reap- case of a court-ordered interim in the portionment Under Section 5 of the Vot- 10. See Submission VI, plan, require- Article 6§ ing Rights filed with this court June 15. Act However, apply to Senate districts. ments necessarily circum- standard does not this apply. Supreme opinions Court 11. Two Alaska reap- power governor's to effect a scribe the reapportionment lawsuit resulted in The 1972 portionment senate because of the of the by appointed plan prepared an interim masters carrying greater exercises in out discretion he by Supreme case Court in that the court. his duties. following gave instruction: the masters the State, Borough P.2d v. 743 Kenai Peninsula establishing you districts 1352, (Alaska 1987). In should, House and Senate n. 19 1364 feasible, a district of whenever create flexibility respect governor’s to Even the with 12. territory containing contiguous compact “Senate dis- senate is not unlimited. districts integrated nearly practicable relatively a as as ignore political subdi- tricts which meander and area. socio-economic of interest vision boundaries and communities 856, Hammond, (Alaska Egan 877 v. 502 P.2d Equal suspect Protec- will the Alaska be under 1972). State, Borough v. clause” Kenai Peninsula tion stipulated the State have that the Plaintiffs and 1352, 1987). (Alaska 21 P.2d 1365 n. 743 report would be considered as 1972 masters (Ex. S-82). superior case but the case. court hears the evidence in this 1992 13. The proceedings. dealing reapportion- supreme de novo the decision with court reviews In the 1987 VI, Egan, P.2d v. 526 Supreme Section 11. Groh the Alaska Court held that the Article ment (Alaska 1974) requirements constitutional from Article 863 Alaska 60 reappor- in an interim

Court involvement otherwise, perform is intrusive and more to tionment less or by mandamus process naturally part judicial duties or to correct of the than reapportionment his reappor- redistricting running or any such areas as error court involvement added) (emphasis in- systems. writing tionment. an corrections Courts reapportionment plan day-to- have no terim nec government action review of Judicial supervision on-going or control over an day making decisions essarily involves courts is but decision to make process. There one Mar legislative or acts. about executive making that one-time decision is what Madison, 137 L.Ed. 5 U.S. burg v. [2 60] able do. courts are best states, courts many state (1803). other In reapportionment legislative drafted have glance history prece- A at Alaska shows Eu, See, v. e.g., plans. Wilson 1972, [Cal.4th approach. In Alaska for this an dent (Cal. 707, 823 P.2d 545 Cal.Rptr.2d 4 379] produced an appointed masters who court Cali 1992) up draw (special masters plan. appointed were interim masters plan); reapportionment legislative fornia viewpoints opposing from the the court Cenarrusa, Idaho Hellar v. 586] [106 or not parties in the case. Whether 1984) (state (Idaho court-ordered P.2d 539 produced plans masters have other interim reapportion legislative plan for 1984 Idaho part not a record. in Alaska is this Buchanan, ment); Kallenberger v. not in this 1992 case did While the court (state (Colo.1982) court-ordered P.2d 314 elections, dead- originally postpone extend plan for reapportionment 1982 Colorado lines, involved appoint masters or become re Many courts have legislature). federal plan, preparation any interim requirements of to meet the plans written legal it has there no doubt that See, Rights e.g., Connor Voting Act. Hammond, 502 power Egan so. v. to do 1760, 29 Johnson, S.Ct. v. U.S. [91 Remand, (Alaska 1972); Order of P.2d Seamon, (1971); Upham v. L.Ed.2d 268] May L.Ed.2d 37[, 102 S.Ct. U.S. dis (1982). run school Federal courts 725] Department Justice Preclearance Pitts, [-], U.S. tricts. Freeman v. [ ]— Voting Rights Section 5 of federal (1992). In L.Ed.2d 108 S.Ct. [112 1430] requires Acts the State of Alaska to submit Alaska, states, cor including state over procedure to any changes in law or election order. run court systems rections are Department U.S. of Justice for a deter- the State, Courts Cleary 3AN81-5274CI. v. changes the do discrimi- mination that not game fish void and regularly amend or against minorities. nate bag and limits. regulations and season Department That is See, Kaah of Justice review v. Kluti Native Vil e.g., State lage, ^[831] P.2d [1270,] Op. No. 3339 (Alas sometimes long and thorough14 and it is ka, 8, 1992). governed by practices make detailed sometimes informal May Courts Justice, by as changes Department the of well as regulations in and tariffs of utilities (Coo explicit requirements the variety a of executive branch of statute. and other A, p. to Ex. 3915- Municipality per An Board Memorandum matters. APUC v. of (Alaska 1976). 3944). chorage, P.2d good very approv- always is This court is concerned that Whether or not the above proceed plan it al of the interim will not public policy, is no doubt that is there enough to our to have legal power quickly the court to reme- allow state of within the attempt- illegal by orderly timely primary. and In dy situations an unconstitutional and to be of the ing to meet what was said one framing short-term solutions. December, provided by governor the re- original proclamation 1991. The State the in The 14. September, February It quested this made on the 5th of 1992. case was in of information reapportionment the April, 1991. The state submitted that the was the 10th of not until plan November, Department of Justice on the 1st of to the department it would notified the State that Department of Justice 1991. The plan. objection to the make no requested 31st additional information on the of requirement therefore, disap- cent is Department of proved. the concerns of informal an

Justice, gave the masters this court (emphasis origi- in of June Order the of encouraged creation that instruction nal). districts, districts “influence” Native a given copy masters of the were comprise 35 Alaska Natives would which and supreme court’s order told that this population. proportion the This percent of previous court’s instruction on that issue expert study in Alaska because was chosen other was deleted. Several instructions16 influence of districts suggests Native by that had been submitted the State dis- de are Native control percent facto plaintiffs explaining preclear- the role of to masters The instruction the tricts.15 Department and some the of Jus- ance of in- said, those “Wherever possible, [Native] pre- informal in the tice’s considerations the districts should be drawn with fluence process clearance remained with the mas- Native creating a district with a goal of stipulation parties. by ters of the of 35 instruction population percent.” This encourages The court those counsel and help speedy pre- intended to obtain was that they their clients who believe can live Department from the of Justice clearance plan support to lend with this interim their Voting Act. Rights 5 of the under Section to application Depart- the to the State its re- supreme court to The State asked the timely preclearance. ment of Justice for the court supreme this instruction and view orderly important is the An' election petition, holding: granted parties litigation. and to all to the state re- legal is for the there no basis ... that, possible, native quirement wherever Interim Priorities an Plan of include at influence districts be drawn to gave masters This court instructions population. Ac- percent native least creating constraints of required Voting that reflected the tion that not instructions, Act, plan. In those an interim Rights detracts from adher- which highest, Constitution ranked followed requirements to the of the Alaska U.S. ence Constitution, Rights Act, Alas- per- Voting the federal is not allowed. The 35 7096-7099). sufficiently (Ex. Anchorage p. are report A. Fairbanks not Grofman’s large Voting Rights a Act. to be factor under voters, Voting Rights protects Act not given were on June 16. These other instructions However, evaluating reappor- a incumbents. and included: plan preclearance, Justice De- for tionment Minority districts treatment "influence” minority might partment view the treatment of "totality minority part are incumbents totality part circum- as of the of the incumbents Depart- which the Justice of the circumstances" Department example, the of Jus- stances. For reap- a will examine to determine whether ment suspect pattern pairing might view as tice precleared portionment will be under sec- minority in- in districts with other incumbents Accordingly, Voting Rights Act. of the tion 5 you Accordingly, may consider cumbents. you provided regarding in- are the instructions incumbents, although you minority treatment minority can- incumbents fluence districts and prioritize this above other consider- should not mind, following precise. in the be With this not ations. you provided. questions are to answers Voting Section 5 of the Preclearance under Act, Voting Rights the Under Section 5 of the if, totality Rights under of Act will be denied the Department of Justice will evalu- United States circumstances, Depart- United States the the totality pre- the circumstance when ate the of a whether of Justice cannot determine ment plan retrogression in a has with which sented discriminatory plan or proposed a intent has district, existing influence to deter- an Native discriminatory effect. Preclear- have a would discriminatory plan a has mine whether the plan certainly be denied if a will almost ance purpose Creation of an alternative or effect. retrogression the number in avoidable of results will be favor- influence district viewed Native majority ... districts of Native plan have ably an that the does not as indication any to of reduction the number In Alaska discriminatory Only and Alaska intent effect. a majority districts Native influence Native or geo- sufficiently are numerous and Natives corresponding justified by a increase cannot be graphically compact be able to form a district to You Hispanic influence districts. Black or they majority, a in comprise or even a in which plans of only for the number separately, evaluate group. should significant influence Taken Black, majority created. influence districts Hispanic populations in and Native and Asian the (2)

pactness, maintain relative socio-eco- Constitution, procedural requirements (3) integration, govern- nomic consider local ka tips aid Division practical to the finally boundaries, (4) and drainage and oth- ment use for re-district- preparing in Elections of describing in geographic features bound- er ing.17 The not to exclude aries. masters were military. They keep to non-resident were summary specific of Following is the a possibly in if that to the masters. Adak the Aleutians could given constraints Voting Rights comply done and with the be not among districts was Total deviation They were to maintain four house Act. deviation percent. 16.4 Total to exceed districts in Alaska and two senate which percent unless man- not to exceed was comprise majority popula- a of the Natives applied by legal requirement, dated some tion, and two house and two senate Native the The masters .consistently across state. They to “influence” districts. were avoid consti- requirements the of the Alaska had (1) contiguity placing and former District 17 non-Native vot- to: maintain com- tution goal creating be the of are in the order tricts should drawn with Those instructions contained 17. 5, percent. part: population a provide a district with Native of 35 and in dated June districts, may create multi-member 5. You ability your a the of to draft You are to best part except in that of the state now included superior plan is with the which consistent (under reapportion- the House District 17 job your as is to court’s order modified. It not plan). lawsuit; ment the the lawsuit has been reconsider VI, requirements 6. of Article Section 6 your job up The plan a It is to draw decided. following priority se in the disregard shall receive inter with the result. You are to consistent (2) (1) compactness, contiguity order: and rela- anything with that direct order of inconsistent (3) integration, Supreme tive socio-economic consider- of Alaska. Court the State of boundaries, (4) government package of prepared ation of local drainage use We have a of materials to geographic you, and in de- will be additional materials other features aid prepared and there scribing package in the near future. The in- boundaries. formulating instructions, you plan, may 7. an interim cludes these the relevant orders of In court, change any specifi- supreme in addition those and the sections from district to this court Conduct, cally to in violation the Alaska the Code of Judicial other materi- found be superior package be Constitution under the court’s order of als. This will made available to 1992, May by Legislative public as modified the order of the at Information Offices 28, 1992, May necessary throughout supreme to court of if state. any part requirements may You have access to court meet the tion, Federal Constitu- Act, Voting Rights request. keep a list of materi- the federal or the state record on Please you constitution. als consider. operate by majority rule. a of the court You are to If 8. If all other instructions with, minority report necessary, may pre- complied it be can be and there is a choice of is appointed Voting pared. use Dis- Wilson Condon is Chair. whether to an intact Tabulation VTD, (VTD), following preferable apply fracturing to the trict or it is restrictions you to use an intact VTD. create: following guidelines your per- is 16.4 1. Total deviation not to exceed are for work: par- 1. are have with the cent. You to no contact writings percent except open 2. to exceed 10 ties court or in filed Total deviation not required by constitutional with the court. unless considerations may your compactness contiguity or to 2. devise own work schedule. efforts You government you pre- to district lines local The court asks read materials conform nearly you you possible, as must boundaries or to create districts which as sented to as soon relatively integrated practicable prepared to at Mon- as contain so- be day, be work Juneau on drainage cio-economic areas or to follow or June features, comply you any questions parties geographic for the other or to with the 3. If have court, writing; Voting Rights Any justifica- please submit them in federal Act. such or hours, percent parties respond and the for above 10 must be will within tion deviations possible. creating respond applied consistently as as the masters in court will soon Masters, working Special 4. When for the new districts. may accept computer operators direction 3. There is to be no exclusion of nonresident the only military computer dependents Special The personnel their from the the Masters. or from Special operators may population to the Mas- base. not disclose redistricting concerning any to four ters 4. You are strive to maintain house information parties. they The com- acquired two Natives that have from and senate districts in which Alaska may the comprise majority population, puter operators no contact with of the and two have a concerning Special parties for the house two Native “influence" dis- their work and senate through Special except possible the Masters. tricts. Wherever those influence dis- Masters single-member into dis- Juneau two house (Districts 5). minority that was election district tricts 4 and ers in an might be able if the non-Natives influence election districts have Multi-member by polarized Native citizens to overwhelm places country been used in some in this to attempt to they were to avoid voting and voting rights minority groups dilute the of legislators incumbent Native pitting are suspect.22 and often therefore Good that, all against incumbents. Given other government support now the use of groups they breaking up possible if were to avoid districts, in single-member people and Alas- (VTD’s).18 Voting Tabulation Districts during trial the ka testified and before single-member in Board of districts favor The Masters’ Plan court, however, generally. This believes adopted plain- most of the The masters places that there are where multi-member Alaska, much of plan for Southeast tiff’s used, preferable districts and are not to are “A” for the eastern the alternative State’s any segment’s voting strength, dilute but part mostly of the Alaska northern unify community. public offi- to a Alaska “B” for Alas- alternative Western State’s the cials so testified in this case and before accepted plan the Board’s ka. The masters A, (Uliner; p. mayor Board. Juneau’s Ex. Anchorage and were unable for Kenai and Kohler) strongly 2232-2237; The masters Fairbanks, single plan a for agree to on agreed district was options the that a multi-member submitting two for court to 32-34) (Report p. for best Juneau. consider. multi- There is no evidence that Juneau’s Juneau any way has in member house district ever Juneau, highly integrated community is a minimizing canceling the vot- resulted in or population support two with sufficient any political ing strength of racial or city’s economy The is house districts.19 Rights Act group. Voting federal state, city, gov- and federal dominated separate does the State to Juneau not force employment; dramatically it is dif- ernment single-member two districts. into house economy any- the of cities ferent from act, only that Under area in Alaska that any in Southeast Alaska or in where else dis- placed could not in a multi-member be region other of state. Juneau residents only trict would be former District with legislative interests other share few racially polarized place Alaska where Alaska, especially of Southeast residents record. voting documented has been of the small rural communities residents House up make the bulk of District that plaintiffs a multi- recommended 3.20 for Juneau and this court member district thing for this would be the best believes every redistricting plan before Under community. always been Juneau has one, included in a this Juneau has been is no in a There multi-member district. (multi-member) house dis- two-member meaningful testimony evidence or before redistricting plan, trict.21 In the discourages multi-member the court that paired to two house districts were Juneau Rather, has the court district for Juneau. single senate seat that contained all form a opposite. Hickel’s heard the Governor divides Juneau. district, repre- single precincts. with or three approximation a close member two 18. VTD's are elected, usually at-large. sentatives pages to record on 68 and 69 of 19. See citations May opinion. this court’s 22.However, con- are of multi-member districts numbering system adopts used voting. 20. The court only polarized cern when there special attachment for a 30, 51, masters. See Gingles, 106 S.Ct. Thornburg v. U.S. Alaska, list. 2752, 2766-67, (1986). L.Ed.2d 25 In campaigning many is the cost districts populations Single-member have districts single- or multi- the districts same whether are 13,751 representa- elect one or thereabouts VI, 157) (Ulmer, p. Vol. member. districts are districts com- triple tive. Multi-member prised population or of a of double Supreme The said Alaska. Alaska Court had that the Board a reasonable basis for put in a declined to Juneau The masters May Including decision. at 3. its Order it was not district because multi-member military popu- in personnel non-resident the Constitution, the fed- by the required U.S. who, (people they claim lation base because consti- Voting Rights Act or the state eral elsewhere, may little inter- residency have tution. affairs) in Alaska creates odd situa- est putting that argument An can be made tions, legislators representing large with maxim- in district a multi-member Juneau paper populations relatively on few ac- but This court integration. izes socio-economic This most tual voters. court addresses the requires that the Alaska constitution found of these situations when it discuss- extreme integration, and maximizing socio-economic not to ex- es Adak below. The decision However, this supreme agreed. court coupled military, non-resident with clude pertain requirement to interprets that court large, military pre- Alaska’s undivided districts, districts. two within not between cincts, profitably ad- perhaps could be the masters by failure State legislature. by the dressed in multi-member district put Juneau Sometimes, over elevates form substance. case, In this

though, important. form is Adak law, by the law. The as stated “form” is military The Adak Naval Air is a Station case, is that Supreme for this Court 5,300 outpost on the Aleutian Chain. Over unless that joined should not districts be island, people live on the fewer than but required by is the U.S. Consti- modification 2,000 registered duty are to vote. Tours of tution, Voting or the Alaska Rights Act are short on Adak and few of those who not re- change is Constitution. Such a there are in Alaska affairs. live involved court is bound quired in this case and this abysmal turnout is than 400 Voter —fewer limitation, in the best it is that whether actually go typical polls voters to the in a interests of Juneau or not. directly election.23 Most commerce is from courts process is that The essence Anchorage by non-stop flight much of they agree with it the law whether follow military. (and that Adak the smaller alone, that this court or For reason not. military outposts nearby on islands accepts the masters’ recommendation Attu) Shemya and are U.S. Government separate single-member Juneau be two Airplanes reservations with limited access. house districts. prior permission. cannot land without Be- prohibits government cause federal law Alaska Southeast employees from na- standing for state or accepts plan with The court the masters’ office, only military a dependent tional of a respect to Alaska. The court Southeast employee civilian or could run for state so because a version of that does similar office from the three bases. reported in for months is plan, press Adak, Shemya and no Attu have little or widely supported the communities and integration Alaska, any place socio-economic with espe- groups interest Southeast Natives, many ways on the In resi- else Aleutians. cially by Alaska and because requirements of these plan meets the of federal and dents islands have more com- suggested any personnel one military state law. No at trial mon with on Elmendorf Southeast, other than alternative for Air Force Base or An- Ft. Richardson near board members. chorage or even Air with those at Eielson Wainwright Force Base or Ft. near Fair-

Military in Alaska Bases they than banks do with residents of the governor’s board Aleutian Islands the Alaska Peninsu- reapportionment However, military in did not exclude 6 of the non-resident la.24 Article VI Section p. 23. Ex. A. 24. The commander of Adak wrote the court a during public period comment for the letter by those ordered this court

in the law and Constitution, require- setting compactness contiguity, in out to ensure and Alaska redistricting, compactness ranks ments for force unfortunate and undesirable deci- socio-economic contiguity higher than and Alaska, along all of Western Bristol sions good reason for and there is integration Sound, Bay, and the Prince William South- politicians that ranking. The fear this part of the state. Those include central pieces carve little of attempt to out would dividing Bay region, splitting the Bristol map them around the and move geography area, Yupik taking Kodiak out of the the purposes has caused 34 apportionment for pairing it has held since before senate requirements compactness for add states to Statehood, Voting Rights Act and other their constitutions.25 contiguity to and resulting The Adak-Aleutians decisions. original reapportionment governor’s The only barely influence district is an Native military the base at Adak plan combined influence district and this raises concern in Wade-Hampton census area the with may not Department that the of Justice provide majori- a Alaska to Native Western preclearance necessary if a give speedy the Supreme The Alaska Court ty district. ready election. plan is to be for this error, the saying clear that found this to be Supreme Alaska Court has Because the kept together unless Aleutians should be emphasized imperative of the Alaska requirements of doing so would violate the provisions compactness constitutional of Later, Rights in a Voting federal Act. adopts court the mas- contiguity, this case, during this response petition to a filed noted, plan, changes keeps which ters’ with that supreme court made it clear the state Adak in the Aleutians. plan comply with the require it to will Rights Act Voting terms of the expressed derogate not the Alaska that it will but Fairbanks preclearance in order to Constitution obtain that the Fairbanks This court believes of plan Department of an interim with prob- redistricting problem differs from the 11, 1992. of June

Justice. Order districts presented lem multi-member keep Adak in the Aleutians. The masters unconstitutionality of the The Juneau. keep in the Aleutians possible to Adak It is original plan required rear- governor’s together, as keep all of the Aleutians districts, and these rangements in other court, supreme and still suggested changes in the Fair- rearrangements forced explicit require- comply the minimum with 55) (Masters’ p. Report districts. banks is, Voting Rights Act—that ments of the masters, Meanwhile, agree to unable dis- a Native influence make the district Fairbanks, for redistricting scheme on a However, communities, legisla- local trict. “A” plans alternative presented masters’ plaintiffs think this is a bad tors and the masters from Fairbanks and “B”. two severely fractures other it idea because plan their alternative implicitly agreed that supreme groups.26 The socio-economic Fairbanks, (p. plan for “B” was a better keep to Adak with court’s directive transcript presentation; their Islands, constraints set down Aleutian and, enormously for better or districting enhanced supporting Adak with be interim worse, geo- departures' substantial from for Elmendorf. possi- graphic representation would become requirements for 25. The court believes contiguousness requirement is the A. ble. contiguity compactness are meant to be avoiding straightforward this method most manipulation geographic of dis- avoid read to problem. By enhancement. voter dilution or tricts for requiring physical Steinberg, Quest J. D. Lowensteen and for limits, requirements those Districting Elu- Legislative the Public Interest: sacrificing groups for the benefit of those avoid doing reapportionment. (1985). Illusory?, U.C.L.A.L.Rev. sive or Zharoff, plead- Fred widely recognized impor- letter from Contiguity an 26. See Senator as Bay ings Native Associa- redistricting. amicus Bristol from tant consideration tion, reap- testimony before the contiguous unanimous keeping near practice of districts If the Ex- eroded, materials in portionment and other seriously ability board of district were A; community many leaders. goals letters from accomplish partisan hibit would drawers produced by. po- this skewed requirements masters All three report) process. litical p. 57-59 certain recommended on and agreed the state’s alter- The court believes that knowledge of so- of their changes because during litigation de- plans offered native relationships respect with to cio-economic in this situation greater no deference serve Springs. and Hot Circle Livengood, Central by any liti- offered other than alternatives alter- masters’ recommended One master changed, If districts have to be gant. the a it was similar to “A” plan native because changed to the they to conform should be governor the af- brought forward plan redistricting in possible accordance best original board’s reapportionment ter the plan “B” alternative with law. Masters’ unconstitutional, and be- ruled plan was best, exceptions noted. with does that governor is the this master believes cause plan “B” best The masters’ Fairbanks reapportion- for responsibility given integration goal meets the socio-economic 21-23, (Tr. Masters’ Re- ment in Alaska.27 keeps urban and reapportionment. It P) That master Appendix port p. 56-57 and helps together. It with populations rural receive def- plan should the State’s believes plan under Section speedy clearance of the erence. Rights by the Voting Act U.S. 5 of the uncon- original plan was ruled After ways. in two It Department of Justice sepa- stitutional, presented two the State minority influence district creates a mixed plans rate, to widely alternative varied old placing any portion of the and it avoids masters, seem to be a real there would and (the only district where District 17 Alaska either, which, accorded if is to be question 1990, according voting polarized in to was plans alternative These State deference. Grofman) in a voting expert, Dr. Bernard They litigation. were during were offered “A” plan district. The Native influence particular political through any not derived plan the District is much like the su- participation or involving public process preme court found unconstitutional. making. decision formal structured “B”, accepts the masters’ This court par- respect for that Despite this court’s master, unwilling except as noted. court is ticular this process political give any deference to original reapportionment to the

that led Pairings Senate relating to Fairbanks. That decision board districts, creating permanent In senate suspect of all the the most process was ignored the governor-created plans have reappor- The chair of the Board’s efforts. contigu- compactness and requirements for hand drawn scenarios tionment board sent ity, integration, observance socio-economic and these draw- to the executive director geographical and fea- of local boundaries for the eventual ings the basis became in the state consti- tures that are mandated scenarios nor Neither these alternatives. court feels tution for house districts. This public part of the correspondence were bound, however, to those restric- observe nor it made known record was plan. Again, preparing an interim tions There occurring. was communication was concern is priority Alaska constitutional alterna- little discussion of the Fairbanks Only contiguity. the re- compactness and hearing transcripts. The chair has tives of the United States Constitution strictions candidacy legis- for the now announced his Voting Rights priority Act take and the from one those Board-created lature requirement. over that no incumbent. Fairbanks districts with population gain in Southeast The lack of process Giving to that would deference Alaska, rest of the compared to the as of the giving to violations be deference creates state between 1980 Act, Meetings of the Public Open violations has five Southeast Alaska of constitutional conundrum. Act and violations Records reapportionment ion. 27. The court’s involvement in opin- in this in a different section addressed majority provides

This two Senate Native and two Senate Native influence house dis- districts Four Southeast house districts. senate paired to create two districts. can be tricts remaining house district

seats, but possible, it is the court To the extent a district outside paired with must be Anchorage according pairs Fairbanks Alaska. confines of Southeast geographical contiguity population and sur- to the scenario, Alaska Is- the Southeast In one The rounding district characteristics. neighbor- joined be with lands district could district, including Prince William Sound to form a com- Prince Sound ing William Whittier, Cordova, paired Valdez and is That contiguous senate district. and pact and because of the with Seward Soldotna however, combination, propor- dilutes the interests of those communi- commonality of such an in that district to of Natives tion pairings are done much as ties. Mat-Su influence dis- that a senate Native extent the borough requested for the reasons the im- pairing a is trict be lost. Such would pairings A senate borough stated. list of yield to the federal and must permissible is attached. The masters reviewed Voting Rights Act. senators must run It is ordered that all join a Prince Wil- that would an alternative shall year. Length of terms for office this the Sitka-Wran- liam district with Sound depending on years years, or four two be district, or with a house gell-Petersburg coin, place in and to a a manner the toss of the district. None of Ketchikan house stipulated to counsel. be is attractive. above alternatives court, the believing that Southeast This Alaska Western in com- district has interests Alaska Islands adopted the State’s alterna- The masters community the marine-oriented mon with The court “B” for Western Alaska. tive Kodiak, suggestion accepts the masters’ unduly disrupted “B” the so- that believed these two house districts. and combines Bay and in Bristol sub- cio-economicfabric voting pairing maintains Native Such a “A” instead. alternative stituted State’s Voting Rights Act. power under the in Changes had to be made State’s then above, no constitu- As discussed there is contiguity, to “A” to establish alternative VI, in Article Section 6 requirement tional to integration, maximize socio-economic There contiguous. that senate districts be one pitting incumbent minorities avoid guarantee equal protection is an Alaska another, equalize population. against and to The hodge-podge pairings. senate against the court ran into This was done as the masters supreme court has also restricted had undoubted- problems the masters same attempted in interim in what should be people have talked Many run into. ly However, requirement that supra. plans, reapportion- earthquake zones about Voting Rights Act when to the yield must Bay felt that trembler Bristol has ment. requirements drawing plan. Given the a keep Adak requirement to year. The this and for keeping in the Aleutians for Adak comply with the and to in the Aleutians Department of muster the passing with requires splitting of voting rights act Voting of the under Section 5 Justice district associations groups and traditional Act, makes that one sen- Rights the court area. contiguous. pairing that is not ate pair- other senate alignment This allows Parties Objections the require- help to meet the ings that will Masters’ Plan to the Voting Rights Act. The court of the ments following ob- parties have raised Islands pairs Kodiak with Southeast redistricting plan drafted to the jections Slope/ district, the North Bethel with special masters. Bay Bristol district district and the NANA The Interior Aleutian district. with the Plaintiffs Interior joined with the Fairbanks Rivers district object al. to Demientieff et Plaintiffs previous Badger Road district that has no Prince William and of Cordova 17. inclusion District non-Native voters from old testimony also based on before court 35, Board, into as well as the Board’s District and on communities Sound population to Nenana Ahtna decision include in this district. exclusion substantial of Ne- exclusion Nenana and Tok both include non-Native from District for their basis included in District population nana from District once former com- population to Prince William Sound objection 17. That non-Native is unable inte- of socio-economic is the lack to dominate election a district with bination an Interior the Sound and the gration between percent population. Native Both Tok villages. plaintiffs be- These surrounding Athabascan and Nenana are hubs of interi- District 35 that the line between lieve areas. Nenana is the of the “Riv- or hub of the place the bulk District fails it percent area. It is 42 Native and ers” in District population Ahtna Native pop- significantly sparse contributes to the may been suggest placement that this have highway ulation of this district. Tok is a prob- of a technical result the unintentional villages. surrounding of hub argue that Nenana plaintiffs lem. These plaintiffs prefer Interior masters’ alter- this placed in District 35 because should be plaintiffs native “B” These for Fairbanks. required under the court’s placement is argue given that deference be no should held is May 11 that Nenana decision which governor acting phase a in party the as this integrated the Rivers more with Interior litigation, gover- of the as distinct from the Highways the district. district than with They promulgating plan. nor the Board’s reapportionment board had come to The argue that 34 in alter- the District masters’ plaintiffs the same Interior conclusion. “A” to the 34 that native is similar District in District suggest also that Tok should be found this court by was unconstitutional court, the that the supreme and and The court modified the recommenda- has plan highly sus- Board’s for Fairbanks was that the masters to the extent tions of pect due to the actions of the chair region Eyak and west of Cor- Cordova the drawing up plan. Finally plain- these that with Valdez and Whittier dova is included suggest pairing tiffs a senate of District the part in District 6 a of Prince William as University pair- the district. with Senate the District. This is based on socio- Sound ings are later in decision. discussed this area, integration of the the need economic in that and population for additional district Southeast Conference re- public comment with the unanimous al., Conference, Plaintiffs et Southeast The communi- spect to that area. Native object City Borough to the and of Juneau integrated themselves more ties believed being single-member as two districted Sound than into an into Prince William districts, preferring house that it be com- district. The court sees this area interior as These bined one two-member district. by its being dominated connection to as plaintiffs argue ignored that the masters different from the court sound. This is specifically Instruction authorized 5 which change respect with to Tok that is both districts, to and them create multi-member system. interior and the road on misread Instruction 7 to restrict their flexi- Center, Copper The court has moved bility grant authority rather to than them Tonsina, Mentasta, Lake, Kenney parts of changes. make These note plaintiffs to Chistochina, Tok, Nenana and areas around did, reading despite their that masters . into Gulkana and Gakona District 35 changes Instruction make to Juneau districts, all three believe and that masters is on the rela- This based socio-economic preferable a district for that two-member tionships Evelyn testified to Ms. Beeter plaintiffs the exten- Juneau. Southeast list Chistochina, anthropologists, and court the Board testimony sive to this and Polly and Dr. McNabb. Wheeler Steven favoring single for Juneau. experts district people These and local said plaintiffs point out this court’s people the These that integrated Ahtna are most with Board had comprising impor- May an decision of 11 said that the villages Athabascan of sin- part adequately tant 35. The decision is not considered the issue District by moving replacing them District districts, nearby communities into Dis- and that and Cordova multi-member gle- versus plaintiffs District 35. of Remand does trict 6 from Mat-Su supreme court Order argue proposed highways multi-member dis- district that address the issue not that infirmities as did District 28 specifically states has the same tricts but followed. Hickel’s need not be from Governor which was guidelines Board’s partly ig- this issue above. found unconstitutional because it court has addressed government nored local boundaries and so- object to the plaintiffs also Southeast integration within the bor- cio-economic land mass be- placement of the masters’ ough. Wrangell and the Petersburg and tween Mgt-Su plaintiffs’ objection district. in the Islands second border Canadian report and proposed that the masters’ is to District which combines They point out respect, Chugiak. They argue pro- this this Wasilla and map are inconsistent may prob- inad- from the same placement posed be district suffers suggest that governor’s this area is more District They argue that lems as did vertent. Wrangell Petersburg They found unconstitutional. integrated with which was district, boundary pointing argue that the southern of the with the Islands than De- plan, the state's districts should be the southern Rep. Jerry Mackie’s Mat-Su Regional borough. They point Af- Community boundary of the out partment of boundaries, poten- governor’s borough court found that the fairs “model” this area, fishing in the and development, District 26 unconstitutional the tial road was finding. They in the record to this supreme the lack of evidence court affirmed and moving proposed from one district masters’ District support argue this area that the integration Finally, they argue that con- be- to another. 26 still lacks socio-economic contiguity require portion Chugiak do not this and the the Mat-Su siderations tween plaintiffs suggest alternative that configuration; portion. both the State’s Mat-Su proposal adding Chugiak population are con- to Anchor- plan plaintiffs’ “A” and the average increase the tiguous only age over water. districts would only Anchorage population by 1.18 district to upholds the masters’ intent The court tolerances. The court percent, well within incorporate land mass next to the Cana- the upholds the masters recommendations with district. This into the Islands dian border reasons respect objections to these for the area, populated, is con- although not now The addition of 2600 report. in their stated Adding this tiguous to the Islands district. Chugiak region does not persons from the contiguous itself area makes that district of the change the character significantly in future people in that area the and the population of District 6 is region. The integrated in the Islands likely as to be are 1,266 taking peo- to withstand insufficient Sitka-Wrangell-Peters- as in the district borough make the Mat-Su ple out to burg district. pre- tidy. The that boundary court believes unity of the serving ethnic and cultural the Borough Mat-Su mainte- Ahtna and the Athabascans and Borough, Plaintiffs Matanuska-Susitna majority district and nance of a Native ah, treatment of object to the masters’ et weighs Native influence district senate boundary of the rural Mat-Su the eastern preservation of this heavily than the more district, boundary arguing that the district boundary. borough the same as the bound- should be by made the Mat-Su objection third The they boundary, placement of ary. The pair- respect to the senate plaintiffs is with unnecessarily fragments the bor- argue, They borough. ing within of districts 1,177 borough residents in ough, placing and Palmer house argue that the Wasilla district, failing Highways the Interior district. share senate districts should govern- to local give to due consideration part, in problem stems pairing The senate inte- and socio-economic ment boundaries argue, the fact that from plaintiffs Mat-Su suggest moving plaintiffs These gration. An- pairings, district, masters’ senate under the Mat-Su population into a the above adoption senate seat. The court’s respect nine senate “A” effectively control State’s alternative with to chorage will they to which are the 8.2 instead of Western Alaska meets most of the Fish seats population base. using the chosen objections. They entitled Fund en- and Game had in the senate objection is dealt with plan. That this To the extent that dorsed opinion. of this pairings section changes they mostly were made were made in accordance with recommendations that Party Democratic Alaska made had been Fish Game al., Party, et pairings Democratic Plaintiff Alaska Fund. are discussed else- Senate adoption the masters’s (ADP) argue opinion. that in this where rigorous and prolonged in plan result will review, that Justice Department of State respect adequately not does masters’ Defendant State of Alaska recommends boundaries, and that it government local adopt that court House District 26 as Anchorage in which stamps districts rubber proposed by special masters mo- likely improper based on created were in its State both alternatives. State Adak not argues ADP that does tives. argues integrated that district well Aleutian be districted with the have to leaving they proposed it and that it as have Chain, Chain keeping Adak within the time and effort will save considerable problems, such a frac- many as results preparing for the election because no dis- dis- Bay proper district. tured Bristol precinct Anchorage or will to trict have Air Force is with Elmendorf trict for Adak governor’s changed proposed be from the Base, argues. ADP plan. plaintiffs argue that the masters ADP Fairbanks, respect With ar- to State masters gave weight to what the undue gues “B” that masters’ alternative should on their authori- understood as a restriction rejected ignores the gover- be because it were not found ty redraw districts which plan “A” nor’s and that alternative should ADP ar- particular, In unconstitutional. accepted it most be because conforms to the gues that Gillam’s deference Master closely governor’s plan. to the Even alter- litigation proposal unfounded. State’s was “A”, however, every changes native Fair- to argues it is error Finally, ADP that governor’s plan. the banks district from Anchorage plan incorporate into the court’s argues governor’s plan The State that the the were created with districts which through public a for Fairbanks has been appearance impropriety as found strong of process, and that masters’ alternative “A” The deals these this court. court with closely plan. The most resembles that this appropriate in sections of objections argues advantages that State also the opinion. report in the for alterna- claimed masters’ Fund Fish and Game example, illusory. “B” are For the tive splits “B” ten says, state alternative Voter and Fund is not Defendant Fish Game (VTD’s), Tabulation Districts while alterna- reap- pleased proposed with the masters’ VTD’s, splits only “A” and the tive argue, portionment plan, they plan. This geo- with related manual work so-called minority largest language fractures the graphic (“GIFing”) files in the information Alaska, in The group Yupiks. rural already Division Elections has been com- 35, Yupik groups split.among are District pleted governor’s plan. The for the stated (the district), Interior Rivers District avoiding pairing parts 38, goal a with (the district), Bering Straits and District accomplished former District 17 is as well Yupik a In Districts majority. which has A, says. The with alternative state minority in Yupiks are left as a and a influence dis- minority creation of mixed Fish and districts controlled others. in in masters’ alter- to the trict South Fairbanks objection Game Fund’s second is plan, justify that which, they ar- native “B” does not proposed pairings, senate any minority dis- gue, argues, in because mixed majority leaves them without a State

supreme respect court’s decision with and, significance, Voting Rights in and the legal no Adak Act drove tricts have event, “A” creates two alternative deviations the court made from the mas- any plan. districts. such ters’ recommended The masters had adopted the “B” for State’s alternative Alaska, the respect to Southwest With keep Alaska in an effort to Western adopt the court recommends that State Borough Lake and Peninsula intact. The plan “A” instead of the alternative State’s laudable, goal believed that court but by the masters. To plan recommended bol- resulting disruption was so severe to com- recommendation, the cites this State ster Bay munities of interest Bristol area Fish and Game Fund for support of the the court instead substituted plan the fact that “A” proposal and this region. “A” for this State’s alternative of Alaska Natives in increases the ratio The court then ran into other consider- T, an Alaska Native ma- District proposed ations and amended that substitution. It sug- The State also jority senate district. right turns out that the masters were and numbering. district gests system for plan to the court amends its substituted Objections by the Public Comments many ways plaintiff Leav- conform with itt and defendant Fish and Fund Game individuals, organizations, public —as proposals. That will make the with produced public public bodies officials— changes the other much like the masters’ outpouring of comment on the masters’ an plan. puts Bethel with the The court proposed plan. gratifying It was a re- pub- District 38 rather than District sponse to the court’s efforts to obtain southern dramatically integrated input lic and it demonstrates 37. Bethel is more with the producing a tentative importance villages it than it is with Nome. around specific for com- plan, together. with an invitation populations make more sense proposal how that ments about tentative adjustments made other minor The court encouraged just The masters would work. put alternative “A”. The court to State’s participation and the court com- this sort of Akiak in the Bethel District 37. This procedure to future boards. mends this keeping its ethnic back- more with District ground. The court also extended Prince William Sound contiguous the Kodiak to make it with hours, people hundreds of In less than 48 40, including Borough and District Pedro region Eyak from the let the Cordova Bay. writing court know in of their desire to be included in the Prince William Sound dis- Pairing and Aleutian Kodiak organized this effort trict. Whoever Aleutian traditional sen- The Kodiak and charge any spill in future oil should be simply impossible is under the pairing ate ranged cleanup. The comments from the Voting Rights Act and requirements of the amusing they gruff to the but were ruling re- supreme court’s with the state They helped thoughtful and valuable. con- That situation is described spect to Adak. ties vince this court that the socio-economic opinion. in this elsewhere unanimously public outpouring in this cited Eyak re- justified moving Cordova and the Anchorage gion District 6. into from An- the comments received Some of Alaska Western discomfort chorage reflect the writers’ original about Board’s decisions with the Chain, Bay, Bristol Kodiak The Aleutian community. pairing The of Adak with that provided areas all this court and Bethel would, indeed, Air Force Base Elmendorf describing how with a wealth of materials seat Anchorage additional house give an districted so as to max- each area could be re-align- other require some and would interests of that area. particular imize the in might improvements that well be popula- and ments Unfortunately, given the law as all the districting Anchorage in as well tion, The those needs could be met. not all put Road in District 32 and it in Fairbanks However, of District 30 in the District 30. Part Col- this court has rest of the state. lege put area was in District 29. Road supreme court’s order to found that try adjustments These were made to Chain, pos- Aleutian if keep Adak with the equalize population distribution. sible, accepts the possible and the court is to use the masters’ recommendations Conclusion Anchorage. reapportionment Board’s group challenged the Anchor- person adopts No or the masters’ recom- Court opposed pro- age configuration, exceptions as to the plan mended with the noted illegal and no con- reapportionment, respect cess of in to each area. above detail with figuration Anchorage pointed maps in has been The attached are illustrative of plan. reports to the court. court’s attached show out deviations from ideal size districts and Alaska Southeast population. computer Native A diskette of today provided mapped plan this is to the above, in As discussed some district division of elections. “go north” for a senate Southeast has to is, pairing and that is unattractive. It none changes are: Some of the court’s less, requirement reapportionment. The court substituted the State’s alterna- public All comments received said that tive “A” in Alaska and then modi- Western paired some other should be with district way it that fied much had been an district. The court over-the-water be- suggested by the Fish and Game Fund logical pairing lieves that that the most is Slope plaintiffs. put Bethel the North Islands district with the Kodiak dis- put District Akiak is in District trict. This creates a Native influence dis- Tuluksak was moved from District 38 to trict. nearby Bay popula- District 35. Pedro tion was from 35 to 38. moved Fairbanks Teller is left 36 because district is Fairbanks, Anchorage, like did not have underpopulated. any litigant point in the lawsuit to out Eyak The court moved Cordova configuration illegalities, other than how from 35 to the Prince communities District redistricting affected District 34. While William Sound/Interior Roads District 6. public some officials do not like the current Fairbanks, appears for it to the Tonsina, Center, best Lake, Kenney Copper changes required. court with the made as Mentasta, part of areas around Gulkana were from and Gakona and Tok moved The court received the comments from District 6 to District 35. respect the Fairbanks masters with to Li- vengood, Springs Central and Circle Hot Nenana from District 29 to was moved and from in some of individuals those District 35.

places. ways, In some the socio-economic Lathrop Parts of Fairbanks near were relations of those communities are more parts moved from 32 to 30 and near Col- closely They linked with Fairbanks. are lege to 29 from 30. Road were moved geographically properly also most within Livengood, Springs and Circle Hot Cen- District 35 and the court moved them back into District tral are moved back point, to that district. At one the masters’ configuration correspond- This with the map respect with to this recommendation ing pairings preserves necessary senate all actually non-contiguous showed circles majority It Native and influence districts. around those three communities inside Dis- pair against does not Natives incumbent population trict 35. is District 35 low on other Natives. taking the court’s draft and further non- contiguous areas from within the district accepts The court the masters’ recom- directly ability exceptions detracts from its an be mendations with the noted and acceptable influence Native district. orders that be effective until a part Lathrop permanent plan produced by reap- court took of the area near be Larry

/s/ Weeks re- matter Larry board.28 Weeks portionment for reapportionment board manded to Judge Superior Court plan in accor- permanent preparation of supreme court’s order dance with

opinion. 18, 1992

Dated June DISTRICTS AND INFLUENCE NATIVE MAJORITY ALASKA PLAN INTERIM COURT Pairings

With Senate IDEAL POPULATION FROM PLAN DEVIATIONS PLAN INTERIM COURT Pairings

With Senate Voting Rights yield quirements to al- had deviations 28. The meets the maximum without be commended allowed masters are to lowed overall and maximum Act. The justification or Alaska under the law will- federal of Alaska for the citizens their thanked con- meet the Alaska Constitution. districts ingness to the State. to contribute requirements except re- when those stitutional SO

APPENDIX E—Continued 1 PAGE

6/18/92 Summary Report

Population Pet, Population Dev. Deviation

District 234 1.70 13,985 1 ' - - 1.95 13,483 2 268 871 6.33 14,622 3 - - 13,595 156 1.13 4 - - 427 3.11 13,324 5 - - 3.90 6 13,215 536 1.38 13,941 190 7 42 0.31 13,793 8 0.43 13,810 59 9 1.56 13,966 215 10 11 12 13,964 213 1.55 1.22 13,919 168 13,925 174 1.27 13 177 1.29 13,928 14 1.67 13,981 230

15 0.00 13,751 0 16 13,807 56 0.41 17 13,876 125 0.91 18 108 13,859 0.79 19 13,915 164 1.19 20 21 22 182 1.32 13.933 112 13,863 0.81 13,898 147 1.07 13,805 54 0.39 183 1.33 13.934 13,628 - - 123 0.89 13,970 219 1.59 - - 13,537 214 1.56 - - 13,104 4.71 - - 13,263 3.55 - 1.46 13,550 - - - 13,534 1.58 - - 13,010 5.39 - - 13,160 4.30 - - 3.70 13,242 - - 13,346 2.95 14,383 4.60 - - 13,670 0.59

gX Population Pet. District Deviation Dev.

CO ZD O rH rH ZDZD Tii CO ^ CO O T—I CO<3¾ ^[00] t- CO Oa ^[00] 0.02

550,048 Type

Plan ASSEMBLY Plan name COURTFIN Date June

Time 3:00 PM lizik

User

Mean Percent Deviation is: Mean Deviation is: ^[00] to tf*. O -3 Largest Largest Negative Deviation is: Positive Deviation is: CO ^[0] n )_i — 8.28 Percent 5.39 Percent 1,880 Range in Deviation Overall is: 13.67 Percent Type Plan ASSEMBLY Plan name COURTFIN Date June Time 3:00 PM lizik User No. 1

DISTRICT 13,985 Population

Total Deviation 234 Percentage Dev. 1.70 9,831 Total 18 + Hispanic NHother NHwhite NHblack NHameri NHasian 11,331 1,847 Group Total 55 286 460 6 Pop. of Total 81.02 0.04 0.39 2.05 13.21 3.29 % 8,160 1,163 18 2 47 159 300 + of Total 18 83.00 0.48 1.62 11.83 3.05 0.02 % + DISTRICT No. 2 13,483 Population

Total — Deviation — Percentage Dev. 1.95 9,157 Total 18 + Hispanic NHwhite NHblack NHameri NHasian NHother 8,397 4,771 Group Total Pop. of Total 62.28 0.12 1.62 35.39 0.56 0.04 % 6,083 2,887 + of Total 18 66.43 0.09 1.39 0.52 0.04 % 31.53 + 82 No. 3

DISTRICT 14,622 Population

Total 871 Deviation Percentage 6.33 Dev. 10,165 Total 18 + NHother Hispanic NHameri NHblack NHasian NHwhite No. 4 DISTRICT 13,595 Population

Total — 156 Deviation — Percentage 1.13 Dev. 10,062 Total 18 + Hispanic NHother NHameri NHasian NHwhite NHblack 2 2,215 10,265 568 Group 121 424 Total 0.01 16.29 1,415 4.18 Pop. 0.89 3.12 75.51 7,904 Total % 1 401 93 248 18 + 0.01 14.06 3.99 2.46 18 78.55 0.92 Total % + No. 5 DISTRICT 13,324 Population

Total —427 Deviation — Percentage 3.11 Dev. 8,957 Total 18 + Hispanic NHasian NHother NHblack NHameri NHwhite 6 DISTRICT No. 13,215 Population

Total — Deviation 536 — Percentage Dev. 3.90 9,197 18 Total . + Hispanic NHother NHameri NHasian NHwhite NHblack 1,002 11,061 Group 402- Total % 2.86 0.02 Pop. 7.58 of Total 2.79 3.04 83.70 7,776 + 2.74 0.02 2.72 7.30 of Total 18 2.67 84.55 % + 7 DISTRICT No. 13,941 Population

Total Deviation 190 Percentage Dev. 1.38 9,194 Total 18 + NHother Hispanic NHblack NHameri NHasian _NHwhite 12,954 638 1 28 200 120 Group Total 0.01 Pop. 0.20 1.43 4.58 0.86 of Total 92.92 8,596 % 1 16 394 67 18 120 + 4.29 0.01 0.17 1.31 0.73 Total 18 93.50 % + 8 DISTRICT No. 13,793 Population

Total 42 Deviation Percentage Dev. 0.31 9,436 Total 18 + NHother Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHblack _NHwhite 12,436 6 878 142 Group Total 82 249 % 0.04 Pop. 0.59 1.81 6.37 1.03 Total 90.16 8,542 2 18 68 604 81 139 + 0.02 0.72 1.47 6.40 0.86 Total 18 90.53 % + No. 9 DISTRICT 13,810 Population

Total Deviation 59 Percentage Dev. 0.43 9,382 Total 18 + NHother Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHblack _NHwhite 12,343 3 940 146 Group Total 86 292 0.02 Pop. 0.62 2.11 6.81 1.06 of Total 89.38 % 2 8,460 603 92 18 58 167 + 0.02 6.43 0.98 18 0.62 1.78 Total 90.17 % + No. 10 DISTRICT 13,966 Population

Total Deviation 215 Percentage Dev. 1.56 9,383 Total 18 + NHother Hispanic NHblack NHameri NHasian _NHwhite 12,401 19 290 429 440 Group Total 3.07 3.15 0.14 Pop. of Total 88.79 8,414 2.08 2.77 % + 0.10 1.89 2.80 3.01 of Total 18 89.67 2.54 % + No. 11 DISTRICT 13,964 Population

Total Deviation Percentage 1.55 Dev. 9,778 Total + NHother Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHblack _NHwhite 672 12 11,245 494 870 671 Group Total 4.81 0.09 3.54 6.23 Pop. 4.81 Total 80.53 8,109 of% 8 438 288 541 394 18 + 0.08 5.53 4.48 4.03 2.95 18 82.93 of Total % + No. 12 DISTRICT 13,919 Population

Total 168 Deviation Percentage 1.22 Dev. 9,604 18 Total + Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother NHblack _NHwhite 23 10,825 903 677 Group 902 589 Total 0.17 Pop. 4.23 6.49 4.86 of Total 77.77 7,718 6.48 % 7 544 439 546 350 18 + 4.57 0.07 5.69 3.64 5.66 of Total 18 80.36 % + No. 13 DISTRICT 13,925 Population

Total 174 Deviation Percentage Dev. 1.27 9,402 Total 18+ NHother Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHblack _NHwhite 12,898 3 Group 188 264 312 260 Total % 0.02 Pop. 1.35 2.24 1.87 of Total 92.62 1.90 8,810 3 168 143 112 166 18+ 1.79 1.52 0.03 1.19 1.77 of Total 93.70 % 18+ No. 14 DISTRICT 13,928 Population

Total 177 Deviation Percentage 1.29 Dev. 9,865 Total 18+ Hispanic NHasian NHother NHameri NHblack _NHwhite 1,157 1,157 Group 10,402 634 16 562 Total 0.11 Pop. 8.31 4.04 8.31 4.55 of Total % 74.68 5 7,687 662 428 754 329 18+ 4.34 0.05 7.64 3.34 6.71 Total % 77.92 18+

85 No. 15 DISTRICT 13,981 Population

Total 230 Deviation 1.67 Percentage Dev. 10,286 Total 18+ NHasian NHother Hispanic NHblack NHameri _NHwhite 11,339 Group Total 0.06 6.09 5.29 Pop. 81.10 8,574 3.77 3.69 Total of% 18+ 0.05 3.15 5.17 4.90 83.36 3.37 of Total % 18+ 16 No. DISTRICT 13,751 Population

Total 0 Deviation Percentage 0.00 Dev. 10,419 Total 18+ NHother Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHblack _NHwhite 763 16 11,002 401 882 Group 687 Total of % 6.41 5.55 0.12 5.00 2.92 Pop. Total 80.01 ' 541 7 8,541 261 602 467 18+ 0.07 5.19 4.48 2.51 5.78 Total 81.98 of% 18+ 17 DISTRICT No. 13,807 Population

Total 56 Deviation Percentage 0.41 Dev. 9,615 Total 18+ NHother NHasian Hispanic NHameri NHblack _NHwhite 11 11,333 953 472 447 591 Group Total 0.08 4.28 6.90 3.42 3.24 Pop. Total 82.08 8,048 of% 621 3 351 295 297 18+ 0.03 3.65 6.46 3.07 3.09 83.70 of Total % 18+ No. 18 DISTRICT 13,876 Population

Total 125 Deviation Percentage 0.91 Dev. 10,549 Total 18+ NHother Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHwhite NHblack gg No. 19

DISTRICT 13,859 Population

Total Deviation Percentage 0.79 Dev. 11,230 Total 18+ NHother NHasian Hispanic NHameri NHblack _NHwhite 1,685 9,696 Group Total 7.19 0.16 5.75 12.16 Pop. 69.96 4.78 of Total % 1,195 8,266 18+ 6.36 0.12 10.64 73.61 4.32 4.96 of Total % 18+ No. 20 DISTRICT 13,915 Population

Total Deviation Percentage Dev. 1.19 10,167 Total 18+ 1 NHother Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHblack _NHwhite 2,683 7,265 1,864 1,101 979 23 Group Total 7.04 0.17 7.91 19.28 Pop. 52.21 13.40 of Total % 1,244 1,772 659 6 5,788 698 18+ 6.48 0.06 % 17.43 12.24 6.87 of Total 56.93 18+ DISTRICT No. 21 13,933 Population

Total Deviation 182 Percentage Dev. 1.32 9,704 Total 18+ NHother NHameri NHasian Hispanic NHblack _NHwhite 1,176 10,949 538 18 Group 601 651 Total 3.86 0.13 4.31 4.67 Pop. 78.58 8.44 Total % 7,853 380 389 8 717 357 18+ % 4.01 3.92 0.08 80.93 7.39 3.68 Total 18+ No. 22 DISTRICT 13,863 Population

Total 112 Deviation Percentage Dev. 0.81 9,166 Total 18+ NHasian NHother Hispanic NHblack NHameri _NHwhite 1,713 9,967 Group 740 730 698 15 Total 0.11 Pop. 5.27 5.03 of Total 71.90 12.36 1,080 5.34 % 6,745 435 480 8 418 18+ 4.75 5.24 0.09 11.78 4.56 Total 73.59 % 18+

87 No. 23 DISTRICT 13,898 Population

Total 147 Deviation Percentage 1.07 Dev. 9,323 Total 18+ NHasian NHother Hispanic NHblack NHameri _NHwhite 9,524 2,422 444 949 544 15 Group Total % 3.19 0.11 Pop. 68.53 17.43 1,554 6.83 3.91 of Total 6,567 575 328 294 5 18+ 0.05 70.44 16.67 6.17 3.52 3.15 of Total % 18+ 24 DISTRICT No. 13,805 Population

Total 54 Deviation Percentage 0.39 Dev. 9,248 Total 18+ Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother NHwhite NHblack 11,612 Group Total Pop. 84.11 5.80 3.80 4.19 2.04 0.07 of Total % 7,849 18+ 2.01 0.03 Total 84.87 5.64 3.28 4.16 of% 18+ No. 25 DISTRICT 13,934 Population

Total Deviation 183 Percentage 1.33 Dev. 9,153 Total 18+ Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother NHwhite NHblack 12,589 253 7 Group Total 272 333 480 % 1.82 0.05 Pop. of Total 90.35 1.95 2.39 3.44 8,363 2 153 186 292 157 18+ 3.19 1.72 0.02 of Total 91.37 1.67 2.03 % 18+ 26 DISTRICT No. 13,628 Population

Total — Deviation 123 — Percentage 0.89 Dev. 8,669 Total 18+ Hispanic NHasian NHother NHwhite NHblack NHameri 12,418 312 659 126 7 Group Total 106 Pop. 4.84 0.92 0.05 of Total 91.12 0.78 2.29 % 7,976 388 68 6 62 169 18+ 4.48 0.78 0.07 of Total 0.72 1.95 92.01 % 18+ 88 No. 27

DISTRICT 13,970 Population

Total 219 Deviation Percentage 1.59 Dev. 9,000 Total 18+ NHasian NHother Hispanic NHameri NHblack _NHwhite 1 90 12,880 634 121 244 Group Total 0.01 4.54 0.64 1.75 92.20 8,403 0.87 Pop. of Total % 1 349 58 127 62 18+ of Total 93.37_0.69 1.41_R88_064_0.01 % 18+ No. 28 DISTRICT 13,537 Population

Total —214 Deviation — Percentage 1.56 Dev. 8,810 Total 18+ NHasian NHother Hispanic NHameri NHblack _NHwhite 12,568 Group Total 0.01 4.09 0.78 0.44 1.84 Pop. 92.84 8,260 of Total % 18+ 0.00 3.70 0.66 0.43 1.45 93.76 of Total 18+ % 29No. DISTRICT Hispanic NHasian NHother NHameri

NHwhite NHblack DISTRICT No. 30 Population

Total tO CT5 CO Deviation ^ OO CO Percentage Dev. . Cn CR Total 18+ 05h-1 i—1 Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother NHblack _NHwhite 1,210 13 10,392 519 Group 704 425 Total 9.12 3.91 0.10 5.31 3.20 Pop. 78.35 Total % 7,685 12 479 267 781 387 18+ 0.12 8.13 4.03 79.96 4.98 2.78 of Total % 18+

89 No. 31 DISTRICT 13,550 Population

Total — Deviation 201 — Percentage 1.46 Dev. 9,810 Total 18+ Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother NHwhite NHblack 10,489 1,362 Group 858 516 303 22 Total % Pop. of Total 77.41 7,805 6.33 3.81 10.05 2.24 0.16 336 932 212 6 519 18+ of Total 79.56 5.29 3.43 9.50 2.16 0.06 % 18+ 32 DISTRICT No. 13,534 Population

Total —217 Deviation — Percentage Dev. 1.58 9,238 Total 18+ Hispanic NHwhite NHblack NHameri NHasian NHother 8,348 2,585 1,109 Group 12 Total 971 509 Pop. of Total 61.68 5,904 19.10 1,744 7.17 8.19 3.76 0.09 % 599 638 345 8 18+ 6.91 3.73 of Total 63.91 18.88 6.48 0.09 % 18+ DISTRICT No. 33 13,010 Population

Total — Deviation 741 — Percentage 5.39 Dev. 8,431 Total 18+ NHother Hispanic NHblack NHameri NHasian _NHwhite 11,648 Group Total Pop. of Total 89.53 1.72 1.77 5.86 1.08 0.04 % 7,669 18+ % 0.95 0.02 of Total 90.96 1.52 1.71 4.84 18+ No. 34 DISTRICT 13,160 Population

Total —591 Deviation Percentage —4.30 Dev. 8,445 Total 18+ Hispanic NHasian NHother NHwhite NHblack NHameri 11,083 14 Group Total 936 564 268 295 Pop. of Total 7.11 4.29 2.04 2.24 0.11 84.22 % 7,245 153 7 564 292 184 18+ n Of Total 6.68 3.46 1.81 2.18 0.08 85.79 18+ 90 No. 35

DISTRICT 13,242 Population

Total —509 Deviation — Percentage 3.70 Dev. 8,445 Total 18+ NHother Hispanic NHasian NHblack NHameri _NHwhite 8,034 3 4,927 87 142 49 Group Total 0.02 0.66 1.07 60.67 4,639 0.37 Pop. Total 37.21 of% 3,632 3 66 72 33 18+ 0.04 % 0.78 0.85 54.93 0.39 43.01 of Total 18+ DISTRICT No. 36 13,346 Population

Total —405 Deviation Percentage —2.95 Dev. 7,953 Total 18+ Hispanic NHother NHblack NHameri NHasian _NHwhite 2,182 10,632 49 163 313 7 Group Total 0.37 1.22 79.66 2.35 0.05 Pop. of Total 16.35 1,744 % 5,850 41 96 219 3 18+ 0.52 1.21 2.75 0.04 of Total 21.93 73.56 % 18+ DISTRICT No. 37 14,383 Population

Total 632 Deviation Percentage 4.60 Dev. 8,445 Total 18+ Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother NHwhite NHblack 2,275 11,888 Group Total Pop. of Total 15.82 1,666 0.15 0.83 82.65 6,647 0.52 0.03 % 18+ 0.02 of Total 19.73 0.17 0.79 78.71 0.58 % + DISTRICT No. 38 13,670 Population

Total — Deviation — Percentage Dev. 0.59 8,477 Total 18+ Hispanic NHother NHwhite NHblack NHameri NHasian 2,738 10,630 Group 58 122 Total 109 13 % Pop. of Total 0.42 0.89 77.76 0.80 0.10 20.03 6,251 2,041 34 75 71 5 18+ of Total 0.40 0.88 73.74 0.84 0.06 % 24.08 18+

91 39 DISTRICT No. 14,890 Population

Total 1,139 Deviation Percentage

Dev. 8.28 11,487 Total . 18+ Hispanic

NHwhite NHblack NHameri NHasian NHother 8,059 3,816 Group 1,342 Total 688 973 12 % Pop of Total 54.12 4.62 6.53 25.63 9.01 0.08 6,519 2,349 1,182 12 18+ of Total 56.75 4.99 7.42 20.45 10.29 0.10 % 18+ DISTRICT No. 40 13,664 Population

Total — . Deviation — Percentage Dev. 0.63 ' 9,399 Total 18+ Hispanic NHwhite NHblack NHameri NHasian NHother 9,067 2,391 1,402 Group Total Pop. of Total 66.36 0.97 4.86 17.50 0.05 % 10.26 6,410 1,483 18+ % of Total 68.20 10.48 0.02 1.01 4.51 15.78 18+ PLAN

REDISTRICTING against are one another. paired F incumbents

APPENDIX motion, and join in the plaintiffs All IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR Representative in agrees substance.1 State OF ALASKA THE STATE Ivan, from Akiak Yupik Eskimo Ivan M. a JUDICIAL DISTRICT FIRST against Representative Richard pitted AT JUNEAU Nome, in Foster, from Inupiak an plan. reapportionment interim court’s 19, June 1992] [Filed court erred.2 No. Civil Case 1JU-91-1608 AND ORDER MEMORANDUM pairing not of Na- pairing or While driving force in not a tive incumbents is has for The Fish and Game Fund moved something that reapportionment it is of the decision on reconsideration court’s Voting under that courts have considered reapportionment, pointing out Native ignorance. longer error out of argues has 2. The court made this that court no 1. The State this decision, specified issuing jurisdiction the date in the its the court was because At the time Remand, 18, supreme any Order of June impact court’s on incumbent candi- unaware of 1992, passed. it has The court believes has except to Alaska Native candidates dates certain jurisdiction Rule to correct this error. Civil had been drawn and the court’s attention which 60(b)(1). position a for the This is rather odd of which Southeast Alaska candidates certain today light to in of motion earlier State take its may personal knowledge. had the court have requested in the for the court to take action it enough. Obviously the did not know court case. previously published decision this case to also understands Rights Bay Act.3 The court place Pedro with its traditional Aleu- Department of Justice uses a “to- that the District, tians District and Akiak is approach in its tality circumstances” placed with Bethel District 38. Clark’s considers preclearance review and whether precinct point is moved to District 38 minority candidates plans pit proposed population minimize the deviation for Dis- attempted The court against each other. overpopulated trict 39 which is the most legal problems where other to avoid such overpopu- district. That District has to be met. requirements could be lated to maintain it as a influence Native points plac- Fund out that Fish and Game Voting Rights district under the Act. The ing district with Nome and Akiak heavy popula- concentration of non-Native Bay in the district with Bethel inevi- Pedro tion at the Adak Naval Air Station skews tably places Alaska Native incumbent two make-up the natural civilian ethnic of the against each other. candidates region. that Akiak can be The court believes summary Attached to this is Order is 38 and meet socio- placed in either 37 or report showing population deviations new Pedro integration economic standards. minority from the ideal district and the Bay traditionally been associated with has population statistics based on this Order. changes require These that District 39. Dated June placed in District 38 and Clark’s Point be made. change will also be /s/Larry Weeks Larry Weeks IT that the motion to re- IS ORDERED Superior Judge granted. The court amends the Court consider is PAGE 6/19/92

Population Summary Report (1986). Thornburg Gingles, L.Ed.2d 25] v. S.Ct. 478 U.S. 30 [106 ASSEMBLY Type

Plan C0URTF2 name Plan June Date AM 10:39 Time lizik User ASSEMBLY Type

Plan COURTF2 name Plan June Date AM 10:40 Time lizik User 1No.

DISTRICT 13,985 Population

Total 234 Deviation 1.70 Percentage Dev. 9,831 Total 18+ NHother NHasian NHameri Hispanic- NHblack NHwhite 99 2No. DISTRICT 13,480 Population

Total — Deviation 271 — Percentage 1.97 Dev. 9,155 Total 18+ Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother NHwhite NHblack 4,771 8,395 75 6 Group 16 217 Total Pop. 0.12 1.61 35.39 2,887 0.56 0.04 of Total 62.28 6,081 % 48 4 8 127 18+ 66.42 0.09 1.39 31.53 0.52 0.04 of Total % 18+ No. 3 DISTRICT 14,622 Population

Total Deviation 871 Percentage 6.33 Dev. 10,165 Total 18+ Hispanic NHblack NHameri NHasian NHother NHwhite 11,267 2,579 Group 323 403 0 Total Pop. of Total 77.06 0.34 2.21 17.64 1,597 2.76 0.00 % 8,055 18+ of Total 79.24 0.32 2.05 15.71 2.68 0.00 % 18+ No. 4 DISTRICT 13,598 Population

Total — Deviation — 1,11 Percentage Dev. 10,064 Total 18+ Hispanic NHother NHblack NHameri NHasian _NHwhite 10,267 2,215 Group Total Pop. 4.18 0.01 of Total 75.50 0.89 3.13 16.29 % 7,906 1,415 1 93 248 401 18+ 0.01 of Total 78.56 0.92 2.46 14.05 3.98 % 18+ 5 DISTRICT No. 13,324 Population

Total —427 Deviation — Percentage 3.11 Dev. 8,957 Total 18+ Hispanic NHother NHwhite NHblack NHameri NHasian 11,150 1,154 7 Group Total 158 326 529 Pop. of Total 83.68 7,707 1.19 2.45 3.97 0.05 8.66 % 4 93 186 643 324 18+ of Total 86.04 1.04 2.08 7.18 3.62 0.04 % 18+ 100 n No. 6

DISTRICT 13,215 Population

Total —536 Deviation — Percentage 3.90 Dev. 9,197 Total 18+ NHother Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHwhite NHblack . 3 1,002 378 11,061 369 402 Group Total 0.02 2.86 7.58 2.79 3.04 Pop. 83.70 of Total % (cid:127) 2 7,776 671 252 246 250 18+ 0.02 2.74 2.72 7.30 % 2.67 84.55 of Total 18+ No. 7 DISTRICT 13,941 Population

Total 190 Deviation Percentage 1.38 Dev. 9,194 Total 18+ NHother Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHblack _NHwhite 1 12,954 638 120 28 200 Group Total 0.01 1.43 4.58 0.86 Pop. 0.20 92.92 8,596 of Total % 1 394 67 16 120 18+ 0.01 4.29 0.73 0.17 1.31 93.50 of Total % 18+ No. DISTRICT 8 13,793 Population

Total 42 Deviation Percentage 0.31 Dev. 9,436 Total 18+ NHasian NHother Hispanic NHameri NHblack _NHwhite 12,436 Group Total 1.03 0.04 0.59 6.37 Pop. 90.16 1.81 of Total % 8,542 18+ 0.02 6.40 0.86 0.72 1.47 of Total 90.53 % 18+ No. 9 DISTRICT 13,810 Population

Total 59 Deviation Percentage 0.43 Dev. 9,382 Total 18+ Hispanic NHasian NHother NHameri NHblack _NHwhite 3 12,343 940 146 Group 86 292 Total 0.02 6.81 1.06 Pop. 0.62 2.11 of Total 89.38 % 2 8,460 603 92 58 167 18+ 0.02 0.62 1.78 6.43 0.98 of Total 90.17 % 18+ 101 No. 10 DISTRICT 13,966 Population

Total 215 Deviation 1.56 Percentage Dev. 9,383 Total 18+ Hispanic NHasian NHother NHblaek NHameri _NHwhite 19 12,401 Group Total 3.07 3.15 0.14 2.08 2.77 Pop. % 88.79 of Total 8,414 18+ 3.01 0.10 1.89 2.54 2.80 % 89.67 of Total 18+ NHother Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHblaek _NHwhite No. 12 DISTRICT Population

Total I—* CO MZD Deviation 05CO Percentage Dev. MtO í“* Total 18+ O ti** ZD 'hi NHasian NHother Hispanic NHameri NHblaek

NHwhite DISTRICT No. 13 13,925 Population

Total Deviation Percentage 1.27 Dev. 9,402 Total 18+ NHother Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHblaek NHwhite X02 14No.

DISTRICT 13,928 Population

Total 177 Deviation Percentage 1.29 Dev. 9,865 Total 18+ NHasian NHother Hispanic NHameri NHblack _NHwhite 1,157 16 10,402 1,157 634 562 Group Total ' 0.11 8.31 4.55 8.31 4.04 74.68 7,687 Pop. of Total % 5 662 428 754 329 18+ 0.05 6.71 4.34 7.64 3.34 77.92 of Total % 18+ No. 15 DISTRICT 13,981 Population

Total 230 Deviation Percentage 1.67 Dev. 10,286 Total 18+ NHasian NHother Hispanic NHameri NHblack _NHwhite n 9 11,339 851 739 527 516 Group Total 5.29 0.06 6.09 Pop. 81.10 3.77 3.69 Total of% 5 8,574 324 532 504 347 18+ % 0.05 5.17 4.90 3.37 3.15 83.36 of Total 18+ No. 16 DISTRICT 13,751 Population

Total 0 Deviation Percentage 0.00 Dev. 10,419 Total 18+ NHother Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHblack _NHwhite (cid:127) 16 11,002 882 763 687 401 Group Total 0.12 6.41 5.55 Pop. 5.00 2.92 Total 80.01 8,541 of% 7 602 541 467 261 18+ 4.48 5.78 81.98 2.51 of Total 5.19_007 % 18+ No. DISTRICT 17 13,807 Population

Total 56 Deviation Percentage 0.41 Dev. 9,615 Total 18+ NHother Hispanic NHasian NHblack NHameri _NHwhite 11,333 Group Total 4.28 0.08 3.42 3.24 6.90 Pop. 82.08 of Total % 8,048 18+ 0.03 3.65 6.46 3.07 3.09 of Total 83.70 % 18+

103 DISTRICT No. 18 13,876 Population

Total 125 Deviation 0.91 Percentage Dev. 10,549 Total 18+ Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother NHwhite NHblack 1,040 11,415 Group 287 458 668 13 Total 82.26 8,902 3.30 7.49 Pop. of 2.07 4.78 Total 0.09 % 187 310 434 711 5 18+ % 2.94 6.74 84.39 1.77 4.11 0.05 Total 18+ DISTRICT 19 No. 13,859 Population

Total 108 Deviation Percentage Dev. 0.79 11,230 Total 18+ Hispanic NHasian NHwhite NHameri NHother NHblack 9,696 1,685 22 Group 662 797 997 Total 5.75 7.19 Pop. of Total 69.96 4.78 12.16 1,195 0.16 % 8,266 714 485 557 13 18+ 73.61 4.96 6.36 0.12 Total 4.32 10.64 % 18+ DISTRICT No. 20 13,915 Population

Total 164 Deviation Percentage 1.19 Dev. 10,167 Total 18+ Hispanic NHasian NHother NHameri NHblack _NHwhite 7,265 1,101 Group 1,864 2,683 979 23 Total 7.04 0.17 Pop. 52.21 5,788 13.40 7.91 19.28 1,772 Total % 1,244 659 6 698 18+ % 6.87 6.48 0.06 of Total 56.93 12.24 17.43 18+ DISTRICT 21No. 13,933 Population

Total Deviation Percentage Dev. 1.32 9,704 Total 18+ NHother Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHblack _NHwhite 10,949 1,176 Group Total % Pop. 3.86 0.13 of Total 78.58 8.44 4.31 4.67 7,853 18+ % 3.92 0.08 3.68 4.01 Total 80.93 7.39 18+ 104 No. 22

DISTRICT 13,863 Population

Total 112 Deviation Percentage 0.81 Dev. 9,166 Total 18+ NHother NHasian Hispanic NHameri NHblaek _NHwhite 15 9,967 1,713 730 698 740 Group Total 0.11 5.27 5.03 12.36 1,080 5.34 Pop. 71.90 of Total % 8 435 480 6,745 418 18+ 4.75 11.78 4.56 73.59 5.24_009 Total of% 18+ No. 23 DISTRICT 13,898 Population

Total 147 Deviation Percentage 1.07 Dev. 9,323 Total 18+ NHasian NHother Hispanic NHameri NHblaek _NHwhite 15 9,524 2,422 544 444 949 Group Total 0.11 3.91 3.19 17.43 1,554 6.83 Pop. 68.53 of Total % 5 6,567 328 294 575 18+ 0.05 3.52 3.15 6.17 70.44 16.67 of Total % 18+ No. 24 DISTRICT 13,805 Population

Total 54 Deviation Percentage 0.39 Dev. 9,248 Total 18+ NHother Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHblaek _NHwhite 9 11,612 524 578 282 Group 800 Total 0.07 4.19 2.04 Pop. 5.80 3.80 of Total 84.11 7,849 % 3 385 186 522 303 18+ 0.03 4.16 2.01 5.64 3.28 of Total 84.87 % 18+ No. DISTRICT 25 13,934 Population

Total 183 Deviation Percentage 1.33 Dev. 9,153 Total 18+ NHother Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHblaek _NHwhite 12,589 7 Group Total 0.05 Pop. 1.95 2.39 3.44 1.82 90.35 8,363 Total % 18+ 0.02 of % 1.67 3.19 1.72 Total 91.37 2.03 18+ No. 26 DISTRICT 13,628 Population

Total — 123 Deviation — Percentage 0.89 Dev. 8,669 Total 18+ Hispanic NHasian NHother NHblack NHameri NHwhite 12,418 126 7 106 312 659 Group Total 0.05 2.29 4.84 0.92 Pop. 91.12 0.78 of Total % 7,976 388 68 6 62 169 18+ 0.78 0.07 of % 0.72 1.95 4.48 Total 18 92.01 + 27 DISTRICT No. 13,970 Population

Total 219 Deviation Percentage 1.59 Dev. 9,000 Total 18+ Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother NHblack _NHwhite 90 1 12,880 121 244 634 Group Total 0.54 0.01 Pop. 0.87 1.75 4.54 of Total 92.20 8,403 % 1 127 349 58 62 18+ 3.88 0.64 0.01 93.37 0.69 1.41 of Total % 18+ No. 28 DISTRICT 13,537 Population

Total —214 Deviation — Percentage 1.56 Dev. 8,810 Total 18+ Hispanic NHasian NHother NHblack NHameri _NHwhite 2 12,568 553 105 60 249 Group Total 0.01 % 4.09 0.78 Pop. 92.84 8,260 0.44 1.84 of Total 0 128 326 58 38 18+ 0.66 0.00 0.43 1.45 3.70 of Total 93.76 % 18+ No. 29 DISTRICT 13,104 Population

Total —647 Deviation — Percentage 4.71 Dev. 9,206 Total 18+ NHother Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHblack _NHwhite 11,982 162 8 114 225 613 Group Total 0.06 1.72 4.68 1.24 Pop. 0.87 of Total 91.44 % 8,500 18+ 0.03 1.51 4.03 1.17 Total 0.92 92.33 % 18+ No. 30 DISTRICT 13,263 Population

Total —488 Deviation — Percentage 3.55 Dev. 9,611 Total 18+ Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother NHblack _NHwhite 1,210 10,392 Group Total 3.91 0.10 9.12 Pop. 5.31 3.20 78.35 of Total % 12 7,685 781 387 479 267 18+ 0.12 2.78 8.13 4.03 4.98 79.96 of Total % 18+ DISTRICT No. 31 13,550 Population

Total — Deviation 201 — Percentage 1.46 Dev. 9,810 Total 18+ Hispanic NHasian NHother NHameri NHblack _NHwhite (cid:127) 1,362 22 10,489 303 516 Group Total 858 2.24 0.16 10.05 Pop. 77.41 6.33 3.81 of Total % 6 7,805 932 212 336 519 18+ 0.06 2.16 3.43 9.50 of Total 79.56 5.29 % 18+ DISTRICT No. 32 13,534 Population

Total —217 Deviation — Percentage 1.58 Dev. 9,238 Total 18+ Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother NHwhite NHblack DISTRICT No. 33 13,010 Population

Total —741 Deviation — Percentage Dev. 5.39 8,431 Total 18+ Hispanic NHother NHameri NHblack NHasian _NHwhite 11,648 141 5 224 230 762 Group Total 0.04 1.77 5.86 1.08 Pop. 89.53 7,669 1.72 Total % (cid:127) 2 408 80 128 144 18+ 0.95 0.02 1.52 1.71 4.84 of Total 90.96 % 18+

107 DISTRICT No. 13,160 Population

Total Deviation —591 Percentage Dev. —4.30 8,445 Total 18+ Hispanic NHblack NHameri NHasian NHother _NHwhite 11,083 Group Total Pop. of Total 84.22 7,245 7.11 4.29 % 2.04 2.24 0.11 564' 18+ % of Total 85.79 6.68 3.46 1.81 2.18 0.08 18+ DISTRICT No. 35 13,242 Population

Total Deviation —509 Percentage Dev. —3.70 8,445 Total 18+ Hispanic NHblack NHameri NHasian NHother _NHwhite ' 4,927 Group 8,034 Total 87 142 49 3 % Pop. of Total 37.21 3,632 0.66 1.07 60.67 0.37 0.02 4,639 66 72 33 3 18+ of Total 43.01 0.78 0.85 54.93 0.39 % 0.04 18+ DISTRICT No. 36 13,346 Population

Total Deviation —405 Percentage Dev. —2.95 7,953 Total 18+ Hispanic NHblack NHameri NHasian NHother _NHwhite 2,182 Group 10,632 Total 49 163 313 7 Pop. of Total 16.35 0.37 1.22 79.66 % 2.35 0.05 1,744 5,850 41 96 219 3 18+ of Total 21.93 0.52 1.21 73.56 2.75 % 0.04 18+ DISTRICT No. 37 14,098 Population

Total Deviation 347 Percentage Dev. 2.52 8,289 Total 18+ Hispanic NHblack NHameri NHasian NHother _NHwhite 2,267 Group Total 11,611 21 120 75 4 Pop. of Total 16.08 0.15 % 0.85 82.36 6,498 0.53 0.03 1,659 18+ of Total % 20.01 0.17 0.81 78.39 0.59 0.02 18+ No. 88 DISTRICT 13,858 Population

Total Deviation Percentage 0.78 Dev. 8,566 Total 18+ NHother Hispanic NHasian NHameri NHblack NHwhite DISTRICT No. 14,987 Population

Total 1,236 Deviation Percentage 8.99 Dev. 11,554 Total 18+ NHasian NHother Hispanic NHameri NHblack NHwhite 3,886 1,342 8,086 Group Total 0.08 25.93 2,396 8.95 4.59 6.49 Pop. 53.95 6,539 of Total % 1,182 12 18+ 0.10 20.74 10.23 % 4.96 7.37 56.60 of Total 18+ No. 40 DISTRICT 13,664 Population

Total —87 Deviation Percentage —0.63 Dev. 9,399 Total 18+ NHother Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHblack _NHwhite n 1,402 2,391 9,067 Group Total 10.26 0.05 % 4.86 17.50 1,483 Pop. 0.97 of Total 66.36 6,410 18+ 0.02 10.48 1.01 4.51 15.78 Total 68.20 of% 18+ petition the for re- of G On consideration APPENDIX view, by of Alaska on June filed the State 22, 1992, IN THE COURT OF SUPREME IT IS ORDERED: ALASKA THE STATE OF GRANTED, petition is 1. The arguments agrees with the 2. The court ORDER presented in 25, June 1992] [Filed petition. B the Parts V. C and V. superior to (a) instructions The court’s RABINOWITZ, Justice, Chief Before: regarding population Masters BURKE, MATTHEWS, COMPTON not re- 17 were from former District MOORE, Justices. Voting Rights Act. quired by remand, superior court 10. On filing should extend and related deadlines (b) court erred in redraw- superior The necessary for the conduct of the 1992 as Districts to an ing the House Fairbanks primary election. by court’s order required extent not this 11. This case is REMANDED May remand of 1992. proceedings, further in- superior court for rejects argument pre- 3. The court cluding entry judgment of a final in petition. D the The in Part V. sented accordance with this order. configuration of the superior court’s West- Entered direction of the court at An- Districts involved does not vio- ern Alaska chorage, Alaska on June 1992. Voting Rights Act. Sen- late the Federal having T in a district a ate District results Supreme of the Court Clerk fifty-one percent majority of Alaska Na- /s/ Jan Hansen racially po- tives. There is no evidence Jan Hansen T. Fur- voting in Senate District larized [BURKE, Justice, concurring, and ther, very traditionally there has been COMPTON, Justice, dissenting part. in among the low voter turnout non-native separate opinions The are attached to this military personnel dependents and their at order.] supe- 38 and 39 are Adak. House Districts grounds of rior on the state constitutional BURKE, Justice, concurring. in- compactness and relative socio-economic Although I ex- the views which have

tegration proposed state’s modifica- to the pressed previously unchanged, remain I tions of these districts. review, (1) part, concur in the decision to in in A argument presented 4. The Part V. court, (2) superior the orders of the acceptance petition of the is mooted our I comment further when the result. will argument presented of the Part V. C of publishes opinion. court its petition. Justice, COMPTON, dissenting part. requested by relief the interve- superior I revise the court’s inter- would nor Fish and Game Fund is DENIED. 19, 1992, im of June as follows: configuration of Western Alaska does not Voting Rights the Federal Act. violate (a) (Rural Pair District 28 Mat- Election requested by The modification the interve- Su) (Interior. Rivers); with 35 suspect Voting under the nor would be (Chena-De- (b) Pair Election District 29 Rights in Act because it results the loss of Fairbanks); nali) (South with 32 one Native influence senate district. (c) (Fox-Badg- Election District 33 Pair plan adopted by 6. The interim the su- (North Pole-Eielson). er) with 34 perior is modified to reflect court require pairings not These would changes required by ruling para- in our changes any in election district boundaries graph 2 of this order. These modifications by plan. objections established map by petitioners are reflected filed configuration of plan’s the State to the 25, 1992. As with this court dated June part, as are the Fairbanks are answered modified, superior plan court’s interim Borough plain- objections of the Mat-Su is AFFIRMED. Hickel’s Proclamation of tiffs to Governor con- 7. The Lieutenant Governor is to Redistricting Sep- Reapportionment and primary general duct the 1992 elections tember pursuant to the interim as MODI- revisions, one of the Under this court’s FIED. is silenced major objections of Mat-Su cross-petition DE- 8. The for review is again from Palm- separating once Wasilla NIED. consistently er, sought a result Mat-Su original application 9. The relief a get for not even half avoid. Mat-Su does I well arguments filed on behalf of the Bor- loaf for which consider Kodiak Island taken, gets a whole loaf. ough is DENIED. while Fairbanks HO minimizing the figures, thus

population figure not to prefer percentage would arguably Mat-Su deviation Rural overall Rivers, yet that Interior joined with plan’s potential be enhancing the presumably during prepara- be addressed problem can Depart- by the United States for clearance long it to be plan. as As tion of new Furthermore, ques- any ment Justice. Chena-Denali, I believe its separated from voting in concerning polarized racially tion preferable Rivers Interior realignment with mini- 17 will be District former Election re- realignment will to the wholesale of Election pairing continued mized attachment Chena-Denali from the sult Sound) with Elec- (Prince William District area. to the Fairbanks (Soldotna-Seward). tion District not result propose I would changes or native changes in total significant

m H APPENDIX

Case Details

Case Name: Hickel v. Southeast Conference

Court Name: Alaska Supreme Court

Date Published: Mar 12, 1993

Citation: 846 P.2d 38

Docket Number: S-5093, S-5106, S-5154 and S-5156

Court Abbreviation: Alaska