Ways To Make Sense Of The Redistricting Supreme Court Hearing

There is one indisputable fact that came out of the hearing on Friday, March 18, 2022.  The Chief Justice told everyone that they will have a decision by April 1, 2022.  I'm guessing it will be made before that because it's generally a good idea not to announce significant decisions on April Fool's Day.  So I have about ten days to offer my thoughts on what happened in trial prior to the decision.  

In this post I'm going to outline how I'm organizing my comments.  (It took a while to even get to this point.)

In the meantime, go look at James Brooks' overview in today's Anchorage Daily News.  With the benefit of a deadline and an editor, he's been able to write on what the trial was about.   And it's a good starting point.  I've got several false starts for posts and I'm trying to figure out where to grab hold of this story.  

Alaska Supreme Court Judges Walking Into the Chamber

Basically there are several stories.  

1.  PRACTICAL/POLITICAL:  WHAT WILL THE LEGISLATIVE MAP OF ALASKA LOOK LIKE FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS?

There are 40 house districts and 20 senate districts (made up of two house districts each).  There were five law suits challenging the board's maps.  

• The 'East-Anchorage' plaintiffs challenged the pairing of the South Muldoon district with an Eagle River district into one Anchorage Senate seat,  arguing the were paired this way by the Board to give conservatives in Eagle River an extra Senate seat at the expense of a district being called 'south Muldoon.'  Changing that pairing will also affect a second Senate seat.
• The Skagway plaintiffs challenged the Board decision to put them in a House district with the Mendenhall Valley in Juneau instead of with downtown Juneau with which they are much more 'Socio-Economically Integrated'  (SEI).   SEI is one of the Alaska constitutional requirements for districts.  

Judge Thomas Matthews, the Superior Court judge who heard the challenges during round one, agreed and ruled that the Board should go back and fix these two.  The Board has appealed these decisions, so everyone is back in court to argue their points before the Supreme Court.

• Matsu-Su and Valdez both challenged District 29 in which they were paired.  They argued they are not SEI and that the Board didn't seriously consider them until all the other districts were completed and so they just got shoved into one unconstitutional district.  
• Calista Corporation challenged how several villages in Western Alaska and asked the court to swap some villages between the two districts. 

Judge Matthews did NOT ask the Board to make changes in these cases, but Mat-Su and Valdez both appealed the decision.

Calista is NOT appealing the decision but is arguing before the court that ANCSA boundaries should be  legitimate factors to consider in redistricting.  

2.  LEGAL:  WHAT LEGAL PRINCIPLES ARE THE ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES DEBATING/WEIGHING AND HOW DO THEY IMPACT #1 AND FUTURE BOARDS?

This is the section that is slowing me down the most.  I've got a couple of important issues on my list so far are:

• The Hard Look Doctrine - If this came up in trial, or even Judge Matthews' ruling, I missed it.  I'm guess I took the words 'hard look' literally and just didn't know that that is a legal principle that sets up standards for the way the Board makes their decision.  Basically, as I understand this, the court is to not simply defer to whatever decision a government agency or board makes, but to take 'a hard look' at how they made it.  Both the East Anchorage and Skagway attorneys are pushing this and the judge agreed.  The Board seems to be saying this may be a standard for permanent federal agencies, but it's too high a standard for a temporary board with few staff.  

Skagway attorney Robin Brena listed key points for evaluating a decision:

• Deliberation - have to engage the evidence before you decide
• Transparency - have to be transparent in deliberation on why Board took decision
• Rational - treat like situations the same.  (They can't emphasis one criterion (say compactness over Socio-Economic Integration) for one district and then switch emphasis for another)
• Evidenciary propriety - have to explain and apply evidence before them

[I need to go back and review my notes and the video and the briefs so I get this right - the four points above are from my notes in the courtroom.]

• The Role of Public Testimony - I think this actually falls under the Hard Look Doctrine - it seems to be relevant to all four points just mentioned.  Judge Matthews pointed out in his ruling that since the Constitution requires 60 days of public testimony, there's an implication  there that the testimony shouldn't be ignored.  The Board argues that Matthews is saying that the Board must substitute the majority of public testimony for the Board's own reasoning and that this will result in political parties packing the hearings and getting followers to send in testimony.  
• Should ANCSA boundaries be used when making districts?  While Calista is not contesting Judge Matthews' decision, they are asking the Court to rule that ANCSA (Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act} boundaries can be used in redistricting - particularly in unincorporated boroughs.  I have some questions about this, though no firm opinions.  I just don't know.  But there was only one party arguing for this and no counter arguments so I hope the judges act cautiously on this until it's clear what the impact might be.  It's important that Alaska Native voices are heard and respected by redistricting boards.  But I also have unanswered questions about the role of for-profit Native corporations in this process. 

These are the key issues I've got picked out so far, but there may be more

3.  PERSONAL:  HOW DO THE SKILLS, STYLES, MOTIVATIONS, AND EXPERIENCES OF THE ATTORNEYS (AND TO SOME DEGREE, THE JUDGES) IMPACT THE DECISION MAKING?  

This is probably the easiest category for most people to understand.  In the trial (and pre-trial) process, it became clear that the individual attorneys representing the plaintiffs and the board play a big factor in which way the decisions fall.  Without understanding these dynamics the public is missing out on a key factor that influences the decisions.  I have developed some thoughts on some of the attorneys and I want to write about this in a way that is reasoned, is backed with evidence, and isn't just a gossip session.  

I would note that throughout the trial and again Friday, the Board's attorney, Matt Singer, had to participate in every part of the trial.  He had to defend the Board in all five cases against the Board.  (Mat-Su and Valdez were paired together, but each had its own attorneys.) During pre-trial meetings, he could make a point, but then there were a bunch of other attorneys to challenge that point and to back each other up.  They all had time to think through what was said, but he was essentially 'on' all the time.  That is a heavy burden.  Intervening attorney, Nathaniel Amdur-Clark, did argue for the Board, so Singer had a bit of backup.