• Overcast
  • 46°
    Overcast
http://sealaska.com
  • Comment

High court tosses out SE legislative maps

Redrawing maps will challenge election timelines

Posted: May 11, 2012 - 12:09am

The Alaska Supreme Court has rejected the latest redistricting plan, telling the Alaska Redistricting Board it must redraw Southeast Alaska’s legislative districts.

The board wasn’t told specifically how to draw them, but was told to focus first on the Alaska Constitution’s requirements for legislative districts.

Among the constitutional requirements for legislative districts are “contiguity, compactness and relative socioeconomic integration,” along with other factors such as local government boundaries and drainage and other geographic features when possible.

Only then, the Supreme Court said, should it consider whether the map it draws complies with the requirements of the federal Voting Rights Act to maximize minority influence in electing legislators.

The city of Petersburg has objected to inclusion in legislative districts dominated by Juneau, and said its interests were more closely aligned with neighbors Sitka, Wrangell and Ketchikan, cities with whom they now share legislators.

During the entire redistricting process, the board’s maps had remained consistent in Southeast, with Juneau’s Mendenhall Valley House seat remaining largely unchanged, and Petersburg, along with Tenakee Springs, Gustavus and Skagway becoming part of the downtown and Douglas Island seat.

Petersburg had returned to court on April 16 to again challenge the Redistricting Board, arguing they should be part of a Sitka district, instead of a Juneau district.

Once seemingly decided that seems likely to change, based on the Supreme Court ruling, though observers said it was difficult to predict how it might change.

“It’s one big puzzle, and that’s the problem,” said Rep. Beth Kerttula, D-Juneau, who now represents the downtown district.

“If you move one piece, everything else seems to have to shift around, too,” she said.

Under the compactness mandate and previous Supreme Court admonishments against splitting up Fairbanks, it appears Juneau is likely to remain part of one Senate and two House districts, but what else may be joined to Juneau is unclear.

After previous court rulings, the Redistricting staff had looked at making changes, but said they already had given the Alaska Constitution’s requirements priority over the Voting Rights Act.

The court didn’t appear to believe that, telling the board to reformulate the Southeast maps, based only on the Constitution, not the federal law.

“The reformulated plan should not be altered based on the Voting Rights Act (VRA) because there is no VRA justification for deviating from Alaska constitutional requirements in Southeast Alaska,” the court said Thursday.

That appears to mean there are no ways to draw maps to create a single House district with a politically significant number of Native voters.

Complicating things further is timing. State elections officials have said they need to have a final decision by Monday to ensure they have time to be ready for the August primary election. The scheduled filing deadline to run in that election is June 1.

The Supreme Court has ordered the Redistricting Board to submit its new plan for Southeast by noon Tuesday, the day after the Elections Division’s deadline.

The court has said elsewhere the board should use a previous plan known as the Amended Proclamation Plan as an interim plan for the 2012 elections.

If courts later change that plan, it could mean that Alaska will have used different election district boundaries in the 2010, 2012 and 2014 elections.

Hanging over everything is the U.S. Department of Justice review for compliance the Voting Rights Act, a process known as pre-clearance. That can take a month or two.

“I don’t care what they do, I’m happy representing Petersburg, but they need to do something quickly,” Kerttula said.

• Contact reporter Pat Forgey at 523-2250 or at patrick.forgey@juneauempire.com.

  • Comment

Comments (9)

Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
glacierdogs
1335
Points
glacierdogs 05/11/12 - 07:42 am
3
9

Comment

I think the court has crossed the line and exceeded its authority. Therefore I hope the board forces the hand of the court. Why have a board at all if the board is merely the bagman for the courts?

My guess is that this may have long term implications for the Alaska Court System. Many Alaskans don't realize that in Alaska state judges receive full pay for life after only 15 years serving as a judge at any court level. Starting pay for a judge is about $185,000 plus benefits so the average retiring judge after 15 years receives substantially more than $200,000 per year for life. Also, when sitting judges receive a pay raise that also goes to retired judges (and you thought Tier 1 in PERS and TRS was a good deal). Spouses of judges are provided for if the judge predeceases them.

wolfmagic2012
2700
Points
wolfmagic2012 05/11/12 - 08:51 am
4
3

The authority

resides with the Court, and any appeals to the SCOTUS. To say that the Court has exceeded their authority is a ridiculous statement, and untrue. Better to opine that the Court has mis-applied the law - a contention I disagree with. The Court is the appropriate body to make this determination, but it appears some would prefer just to take the appointed, partisan-unbalanced ARB's input as gospel. Thankfully, state and federal election law trump that position.

El_Boorba
1456
Points
El_Boorba 05/11/12 - 11:42 am
3
2

Hard to carve out more seats for Republicans

After the massive gerrymandering in 1990 and 2000, the Republicans are having a hard time squeezing out more seats that are Republican.

El_Boorba
1456
Points
El_Boorba 05/11/12 - 11:44 am
2
3

@Gdog

I would rather pay judges well and take care of them in retirement than worry about them being corrupt.

We want the cream of the crop ruling on our laws, not some hick running for office every two years pandering to monied interests with corrupt decisions.

Ratfishtim
530
Points
Ratfishtim 05/11/12 - 03:48 pm
4
0

It's all about Haines

The Board tried to keep Haines out of the Juneau district so Bill Thomas would have an easier time of keeping his seat (and would not have to run against a Juneau incumbent, presumably Cathy Munoz).

This of course made the Board put Petersburg in with Juneau, even though everyone in Southeast knows that Haines is more socioeconomically integrated with Juneau than is Petersburg.

It will be interesting to see if the Board truly complies with the Alaska Constitution as ordered and keeps districts as compact, contiguous, and as socioeconomically integrated as possible.

If so, Haines will be in with Juneau, Petersburg will be out, and who knows what the rest of the district will look like as the chips fall.

wmolson
4420
Points
wmolson 05/11/12 - 03:54 pm
1
0

Glacier dogs

I find your comments totally irrelevant to the issue of re-districting. What does the salary of judges have to do with the laws, rules and regulations.... hopefully those individuals do what they consider best and legal.

wmolson
4420
Points
wmolson 05/11/12 - 04:14 pm
1
0

Glacier Dogs

Of course, respecting the Empire's policy of letting people comment anonymously, or using a pseudonym or code name is fine with me. But I openly display my name and people are free to contact me either on line, by phone or mail.

So if one comments supporting one position or another, there is no way we can tell if that person has a personal reason for doing doing so, or if some article or decision may affect them, their friends or family and that influences their views.
So, glacier dogs, you are free to comment and remain anonymous, but if you were open to public scrutiny, perhaps your comments would be more understandable.

ken dunker II
3341
Points
ken dunker II 05/11/12 - 06:41 pm
1
0

Public scrutiny?

Perhaps you need to go on line to peek behind the curtain. I don't. Thought the salary fact was very intuitive. $200,000 annual retirement for life after 15 years vested? That is a little nugget I did not know. How many judges are on the payroll statewide?
What was the salary for Elliot Ness? (Taking inflation into account). If a person can be corrupted money is not the only chips in the game.

ken dunker II
3341
Points
ken dunker II 05/12/12 - 08:49 am
0
0

On reflection

there are reasonable merits to the pay and retirement benefits afforded state judges. 1) salary: the amount is not over the top. 2) 15 years vested: practitioners are leaving one career for another and it is reasonable to account for this. 3) retirement benefits: I could imagine the complex issues related to retired judges reentering the mainstream of private practice.
These reasons have merit, more so than some baseless fear of corruption.

Back to Top

Spotted

Please Note: You may have disabled JavaScript and/or CSS. Although this news content will be accessible, certain functionality is unavailable.

Skip to News

« back

next »

  • title http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/376863/ http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/359852/ http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/376858/
  • title http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/376853/ http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/376843/ http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/368637/
  • title http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/376838/ http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/376833/
Fire Academy Graduation

CONTACT US

  • Switchboard: 907-586-3740
  • Circulation and Delivery: 907-586-3740
  • Newsroom Fax: 907-586-3028
  • Business Fax: 907-586-9097
  • Accounts Receivable: 907-523-2270
  • View the Staff Directory
  • or Send feedback

ADVERTISING

SUBSCRIBER SERVICES

SOCIAL NETWORKING