Alaska Supreme Court Issues Redistricting Opinion - Gives Board 90 Days To Object To Keeping Interim Plan

 Yesterday, the Alaska Supreme Court finally issued its Opinion detailing its reasoning for its earlier Alaska Redistricting Board Orders.  It's lengthy - 112 pages plus appendices.  

I've gone through it quickly (this weekend is the Alaska Press Club Conference) and pulled out an outline based on the Opinion's headings, which I'm posting below.  

But first, the Opinion concludes by telling the Superior Court to remand to the Board the Interim plan (which they imposed on the Board last June to be used in the 2022 election) and give the Board 90 days to object to the Interim Plan.  

"We REMAND for the superior court to order that the Board shall have 90 days to show cause why the interim redistricting plan should not be the Board’s final redistricting plan for the 2020 redistricting cycle:

A. Upon a showing by the Board of good cause for a remand, the superior court shall REMAND to the Board for another round of redistricting efforts; or

B. Absent a showing by the Board of good cause for a remand, the superior court shall direct the Board to approve the interim redistricting plan as its final redistricting plan, allowing any legal challenges to that plan to be filed in superior court in the normal course."

What will the Board do?  Most of the map was finalized and approved.  There were just a few House and Senate seats that could possibly be in play.  Board member Bethany Marcum was appointed to the Board of Regents and presumably would have to resign from the Redistricting Board if approved.  Dermot Cole wrote about this yesterday.   Matt Acuña Buxton has also written about the decision.

Here is a link to the whole Opinion.

Here is an outline of the Opinion.  

THE SUPREME COURT OF IN THE MATTER OF THE 2021 )

THE STATE OF ALASKA

Supreme Court Nos. 18332/18419 ) (Consolidated)

(Municipality of Skagway, S-18330) (Alaska Redistricting Board, S-18332) )

REDISTRICTING CASES (Matanuska-Susitna Borough, S-18328) (City of Valdez, S-18329) )

Alaska Redistricting Board, S-18419)

Superior Court No. 3AN-21-08869 CI

OPINION

No. 7646 – April 21, 2023

I. INTRODUCTION (p2)

II. CONSTITUTIONAL BACKDROP (p4)

A. Article VI, Section 6: Substantive Standards; Gerrymandering Concerns 

B. Article VI, Sections 3 And 8: Redistricting Entity; Gerrymandering Concerns 

C. Related Constitutional Provisions And Concerns 

1. Equal protection

2. Due process 

3. The “Hickel Process” and the Voting Rights Act 

D. Article VI, Section 10: Redistricting Process 

E. Article VI, Section 11: Plan Challenges 

III. 2021 REDISTRICTING PROCESS ROUND 1: BOARD’S FINAL PLAN; SUPERIOR COURT’S DECISION; PETITIONS FOR REVIEW (p24)

A. Board Proceedings 

B. Superior Court Proceedings 

C. Petitions For Review 

1. The Board’s petition 

2. Skagway’s petition 

3. Mat-Su’s and Valdez’s petitions 

IV. RESOLUTION OF ROUND 1 PETITIONS FOR REVIEW (p28)

1. Common Issues
   1. The superior court did not err when it concluded that the Board sufficiently followed the Hickel Process.

2. The superior court did not err by concluding that it was not in the public’s best interest to vacate Board actions resulting from Open Meetings Act violations. 

a. The Board’s OMA arguments 

b. Mat-Su’s OMA arguments 

3. Making the traditional hard look analysis more restrictive by blending it with other constitutional concerns was error. 

  a. Our view of the superior court’s hard look analysis 

b. The Board’s arguments 

c. Mat-Su’s and Valdez’s arguments 

B. Mat-Su’s And Valdez’s Substantive Constitutional Challenges 

1. Aside from the “Cantwell Appendage,” Mat-Su’s and Valdez’s article IV, section 6 arguments fail. 

a. Compactness
i. House District 29 

ii. House District 36 

b. Socioeconomic integration 

i. House District 29 

ii. House District 36 

c. “As near as practicable” to the population quotient 

2. Mat-Su’s equal protection challenge fails. 

a. One person, one vote 

b. Fair and effective representation 

C. Skagway’s Substantive Constitutional Challenges 

1. Socioeconomic integration

2. Fair representation and geographic discrimination 

D. The Board’s East Anchorage Ruling Challenges 

1. The Board’s evidentiary issues 

a. The superior court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the Board’s requests to compel discovery.167 

b. The superior court did not abuse its discretion when it adopted streamlined proceedings regarding witness testimony at trial.171 

2. The Board’s article VI, section 10 arguments 

a. Superior court’s article VI, section 10 ruling 

b. Article VI, section 10’s 30-day deadline and the meaning of “proposed redistricting plan” 

c. Article VI, section 10’s public hearings requirement and procedural due process 

i. Hearings 

ii. Procedural due process 

3. The Board’s equal protection arguments181 

a. “Politically salient class” versus “communities of interest” 

b. Whether socioeconomic integration and “communities of interest” are synonymous (p83)

c. Discriminatory intent
i. Secretive procedures 

ii. Partisanship 

d. Proportionality of representation 

e. Conclusion 

V. CONCLUSION OF CHALLENGES TO 2021 PROCLAMATION (p.95)

VI.  2021 REDISTRICTING PROCESS AFTER REMAND, ROUND 2: BOARD PROCEDURES AND AMENDED PLAN; CHALLENGE AND SUPERIOR COURT’S DECISION; BOARD’S PETITION FOR REVIEW (p96)

A. Board Proceedings On Remand 

B. Superior Court Proceedings 

1. Girdwood’s article VI, section 6 challenge 

2. Girdwood’s equal protection challenge 

C. The Board’s Petition For Review 

VII. RESOLUTION OF ROUND 2 PETITION FOR REVIEW (p.101)

A. The Superior Court Did Not Improperly Consider The Weight Of The Public’s Testimony. 

B. The Superior Court Correctly Concluded That The Senate District Pairings Continued To Violate Equal Protection. 

1. The superior court did not adopt a new burden of proof from federal case law. 

2. The superior court did not improperly distinguish our holding in 2001 Redistricting I. 

3. The superior court did not err in its discussion of communities of interest. 

4. The superior court’s discussion of local government boundaries was not erroneous. 

5. The superior court did not err when it applied the Kenai Peninsula neutral factors test and concluded that Senate Districts E and L constituted an unconstitutional political gerrymander. 

C. The Superior Court Did Not Err When It Ordered As An Interim Plan The Only Other Alternative Considered By The Board. 

VIII. CONCLUSION OF ROUND 2 CHALLENGES TO AMENDED PROCLAMATION (p.110)

IX. FINAL REMEDY (p.110)

Appendix A:  Maps

Appendix B:  Supreme Court of Alaska Order 3/25/2022

Appendix C:  Maps

Appendix D:  Supreme Court of Alaska Order 5?24/2022

Appendix E:  Maps