Back 
Haines is now out and Petersburg is back in as the Alaska Supreme Court has reversed itself on redistricting.
A divided Alaska Supreme Court backed off its strident opposition to considering Native political strength in drawing districts, as required by the federal Voting Rights Act.
That means the justices will have the Alaska Redistricting board go back to an earlier map, one which groups Juneau’s downtown and Douglas with Petersburg, Tenakee Springs, Gustavus and Skagway in one district, currently represented by Democrat Beth Kerttula. Republican Cathy Munoz represents the other Juneau district which includes the Mendenhall Valley and Auke Bay.
“I’m sure people feel like a ping-pong ball at this point,” Kerttula said.
The justices’ decision is particularly good news for Munoz, and Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Haines, who would have had to face each other in the Republican primary had the district boundaries stood.
A relieved Munoz praised the court’s decision, saying it was the only way to make sure this year’s elections could go forward smoothly.
“They made a wise call, everything was in turmoil because of the timing,” she said.
The court’s decision Tuesday allows the 2012 election to go forward, with some certainty, but district boundaries may change after that.
Haines Borough Mayor Stephanie Scott also praised the decision. The northern Lynn Canal community had feared that its issues would be lost among the concerns of much-larger Juneau, and that Native voters would lose clout.
Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Haines, is one of two Native legislators from Southeast. The other is Sen. Albert Kookesh, D-Angoon.
Haines had made what some considered a long-shot appeal of the earlier plan to pair up Haines with Juneau in a district.
Scott said she heard complaints that they were making a “frivolous” appeal, but said Tuesday’s ruling vindicated them.
“I guess we weren’t,” she said.
The Court’s order Tuesday means the Redistricting Board will go back to Southeast maps that had been adopted April 5, and which were drawn to create an election district in Southeast that with have a strong Native presence, though not a majority.
That’s done by grouping several heavily Native communities together, and puts Munoz and Thomas in different districts.
The Supreme Court’s action Tuesday also puts Petersburg in the same district as downtown Juneau, something that the Petersburg community had vigorously opposed. Petersburg said the Redistricting Board should combine it with the more similar communities of Sitka and Wrangell, which rely on fishing, instead of government and tourism-heavy Juneau.
The earlier plan to link Juneau and Petersburg has already received pre-clearance under the Voting Rights Act from the Department of Justice, a key hurdle in getting final approval for new districts.
The Supreme Court maintained in its Tuesday ruling that the district maps it approved in a surprise action last week complied with the requirements of the Alaska Constitution, but acknowledged that they’d have some difficulty complying with the Voting Rights Act.
Native groups, including the Central Council of Tlingit-Haida Indians of Alaska, Alaska Native Brotherhood, Alaska Federation of Natives and Sealaska Corp., had joined the cities of Haines and Metlakatla in challenging the districts ordered drawn by the Alaska Supreme Court that disregarded the option of creating a district with a concentrated Native presence.
“There is a risk that the United States Department of Justice would decline to pre-clear them under the Voting Rights Act,” the court acknowledged.
If the maps were overturned, it could make it difficult to hold this year’s elections in an organized manner. Elections officials had said they needed to have districts set by May 14, and the filing deadline is June 1.
Using election districts that may be overturned risks “great disruption to the election process,” the court’s Tuesday order said.
Haines’ Scott said it might be the “chaos argument” that the justices found most persuasive, and did not want to cause turmoil or throw the election in doubt.
“Everything was in flux, everything was in turmoil,” Munoz said. “Ultimately, it could have affected the election.”
While the current plan separated two incumbents in northern Southeast, it places Reps. Peggy Wilson, R-Wrangell and Kyle Johansen, R-Ketchikan in the same district.
The Senate parings don’t change, with Sen. Dennis Egan, D-Juneau, remaining the only legislator who won’t have to run for re-election this year and Sens. Albert Kookesh, D-Angoon and Bert Stedman, R-Sitka, facing each other.
Voting in favor of the decision Tuesday were Chief Justice Walter Carpeneti and Justice Dana Fabe, while Justices Dan Winfree and Craig Stowers dissented, preferring the May 15 plan.
Also participating in the decision was Senior Judge Warren Matthews, providing the court’s fifth member following the appointment of former Justice Morgan Christen to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He was the third vote in the 3-2 majority.
Kerttula said she’s happy to represent whatever communities she’s given.
“I’m happy to serve wherever the district lines fall, I’ll work my hardest to represent whoever is there,” Kerttula said.
Munoz, too, said the Southeast delegation would continue to work together for the region, regardless of district boundaries.
“It’s really important that was a region we work together, both the larger population centers and the smaller communities, we’re much stronger when we work together.
• Contact reporter Pat Forgey at 523-2250 or patrick.forgey@juneauempire.com
Comments (34)
Add commentRegardless
Let's not forget who supported Parnell's massive giveaway to Big Oil. That plan will certainly be coming back next year.
Good! Hopefully Petersburg
Good! Hopefully Petersburg will balance the craziness of Downtown.
Heads?
I got the same results flipping a coin. Either decision is bad news for the community being forced to be tied to Juneau.
littledude85.1
????
Think the big thinkers on the Alaska Supreme Court
could have foreseen that DOJ "would decline to preclear them under the Voting Rights Act."? I am not impressed.
Lat 58: I'm sure you will still be there to remind us. :)
Kpawsuh: Only if they don't drink the kool-aid. :)
Redistricting will happen again...
in 10 years unless we revitalize this region:
Open AJ, develop environmentally sound developments
Build Interties to get villages off high power
Connect cruise ships to power
Build hydro and renewable energy
Build roads and stimulate interregional commerce
Elect leaders who connect the dots between economic vitality and prosperity...and redistricting caused by population stagnation or decline.
Velveeta, you mean have
Velveeta, you mean have leaders who actually lead?!!?! Thats just crazy talk!
Best outcome
This is the best outcome for the 2012 Alaska elections, the best outcome for Southeast as a whole, and by far the best outcome for Juneau. The election cycle was in turmoil because of the courts decisions and recalcitrance. The decision yesterday goes part way in setting that right.
This is the best outcome for Southeast because the region needs Representative Cathy Munoz and Representative Bill Thomas working together as they do so very well for the region. There was no scenario that would have in any way jeopardized Rep. Munoz representing Juneau of course but obliterating the Native influence district of long standing would hurt Southeast.
This is the best outcome for Juneau because mining families, tourism workers and small businesses, state employees and all residents of Juneau need Representative Cathy Munoz. Alaska is changing. Railbelt Republican legislators are being challenged, and in one case there has already been a replacement, by more conservative candidates. The Mat-Su Valley is gaining representation, and that will add to their strength and therefore the need for Juneau to have Representative Munoz in the legislative leadership standing up for Southeast and defending the capital. That will be even more true if this Senate Working Group anomaly goes away.
Fortunately (in my view) Juneau is also changing. The Mendenhall Valley is even more aligned today with the ideals of Representative Munoz than was the case when she was first elected. Mining families continue to bring balance to the district, and people I see who are now secure to vote in the new all-Juneau House district are very pleased to be in the district.
Finally, it's clear that the Redistricting Board knew their business and that the court tried to play a hand it didn't have. All of Southeast, and especially Juneau, need to thank Peggy Ann McConnochie over and over for being persistent and steadfast in sticking up for us. The process worked this time only because people of honor worked very hard.
Munoz Sold Us Out
She voted to give away $2 billion/yr to Big Oil. And she won't even talk about it let alone admit it was a mistake. And a capital move was absolutely no excuse to vote for the giveaway. That is total bs.
Velveeta - it'll happen anyway.
Redistricting will happen again in 10years anyway. It's done every time a new census is taken. This one is the result of the 2010 census. Google it.
But just to play dumb here, how would opening the AJ mine and connecting cruise ships to power prevent that?
Only Republicans Need Thank Her
Peggy Ann McConnochie is a Republican hack who has lost every elecetion she ever ran in in spite of having an overwhelming cash advantage supplied to her by the Juneau chamber of commerce.
If you can make a buck doing it she is for it no matter what the side effects.
Latitude58
I feel compelled to comment directly to you that even if I disagreed with the HB110 decision made by Representative Thomas, Munoz, and most other Republicans and Democrats combined in the House, I would understand that not every decision made by any legislator is going to be the way I might have voted on that day on that bill if I had run for office and been elected. I am certain Representative Munoz made the only call she could for Juneau on HB110, and her success with legislation and the budget (Juneau's success one could say) proves that to me. However, you will be disappointed 100 percent of the time if you expect an elected leader to always vote your way (especially if at the same time you expect them to be invited to the decision-making meetings).
I am happy enough that HB110 did not become law, but I would be less happy if Representative Munoz had not stood up for Juneau and instead voted against it. Voting against it would have been spending Juneau capital and not gaining anything whatsoever in return! The business of politics is not one I would recommend to you.
Mikey2- defeatism vs. economic development
Mikey, AJ will produce 200+ direct jobs and another 100+ indirect jobs (suppliers & services)
Herbert River mine, if developable, will provide similar job gain.
Each cruise ship take longshoremen and personnel to hook up and disconnect power to ships. Renewable energy jobs (direct and indirect) are created with every Megawatt of power produced with statistics from National Hydropower Association (google the Navigant study).
DOL released its April 2012 Populaton projection and yes the regions population is "expected" to decline. This is based in part on the region's banana attitude... build absolutely nothing absolutely near anything. Create jobs and you reverse the population trend, put more money in the local economy and you avoid future redistricting.
Projections are only projections. Trends can be reversed with attitudinal changes and leadership that encourage economic development.
Glass half full-half empty or do we want a banana?
Some Southeasterners do not want water, fruit or lip service, but instead want sustainable and growing economy that produces steak dinners and jobs for our children, grandchildren.
Redistricting is a symptom of a sick economic region, not a cause. It does not have to be.
Leave...
Leave Haines alone in my opinion. There is no way they would be represented in they were thrown under Juneau.
Maybe you should look at the new district maps?
They are not contiguous. They are not compact. It is ridiculous to say they meet the requirements of the Alaska Constitution.
http://akredistricting.org/amendedproclamation.html
See Article 6, Section 6 of our Constitution... "Each house district shall be formed of contiguous and compact territory containing as nearly as practicable a relatively integrated socio-economic area. " Link: http://ltgov.alaska.gov/treadwell/services/alaska-constitution/article-v...
How can the constitutional conservatives commenting above be such strong supporters of the new plan? Oh yeah-in their opinion if it helps Republicans then it must be constitutional.
What happened to State's Rights? You know that cry you have about "Federal Mandates are destroying our country!"
One more link for you: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrite .
El_Boorba
I'm sorry, I'm not as versed with the State of Alaska Constitution as I am with the US Constitution. I would not be able to make an intelligent arguement either way. All I know are my feelings knowing both communities, but I'd have to side with your arguement unless someone else could offer a counter to it.
I've lived in 11 states over the course of my life. Imagine trying to keep 11 state constitutions straight in your head with opposing information in each one lol.
Well Wally O
Apparently I can predict the future. Even the AK Supreme Court could see the handwriting on the wall that the Fed's would not accept substantial loss in minority voting representation.
States Rights
States Rights is a hot button issue in Alaska Wren. It is at the heart of the subsistance and land access in Alaska.
Which trumps which? A Law passed by the US Congress or the Alaska Constitution, which the US Congress approved with a 2/3 majority vote?
The Alaska Constitution mandates equal access to fish and game for all citizens (Article 8, Sec 3). Federal law mandates a rural preference. Which is the law for Alaska?
What are navigable waters? The Feds say one thing, we say another.
Here is yet one more Federal law trumping the Alaska Constitution...
Two thumbs up!
SE was fortunate to have one of our Senators and one of our Representatives sitting as co-chairs to their respective Finance Committees this past session. It is a relief to know that Rep. Thomas has a chance to remain in a leadership position.
Political Pressure
This additional round of redistricting has nothing to do with continuity or contiguity. There is no way that downtown Juneau, Petersburg, and Skagway are more alike than the Mendenhall Valley and Haines.
This redistricting is drawn just to keep two political figures (Munoz and Thomas) in power. How nice it must be to have the clout to politically pressure the Supreme Court to draw boundaries that focus more on maintaining a region's power than actually following the Constitution. I thought the Supreme Court was above such influence.
@wren
"Leave Haines alone in my opinion. There is no way they would be represented in they were thrown under Juneau."
But somehow smaller communities and farther away communities like Skagway and Petersburg are represented better..?
Irony...meter...exploding!
Supreme Court Decision
No matter how you feel about the redistricting debacle. The fact is that the Alaska Supreme Court ignored their responsibility as an independent branch of government and their oath to interpret the constitution of the State of Alaska. Rather, they cowered to a fear of the Obama appointed justice department and made the decision based solely on politics. Is it any wonder that our country is in chaos? Judge McConahy’s decision was well done and with sound legal justification, only to be circumvented by political hacks. If this continues all Alaskans will be the losers.
I'm...
Personally, I agree with you Copenhaver. On the other hand, I can either be a constitutionalist and believe in the documents and the process our founders designed or I can be a hypocrite. I cannot claim to believe in the Constitution then not stand by it.
Does anyone have a constitutional rebuttal to El_Boorba?
Cathy Munoz focus has been
Cathy Munoz focus has been supporting Sean Parnell and his billions in Tax Breaks for the oil industry also allocating public monies to benefit the mining industry. The reality is that the oil and mining companies are not owned by Alaskans. The other issues are that the mining industry is a Boom and Bust economy because the life of a mine is short also very destructive to our environment. Both the oil and mining industries come at a huge cost - the pollution that’s left by these 2 industries has hurt our state in a big way. Mining hurts our fisheries which is sustainable and employees more people and brings more money into our economy. I also think the Mendenhall Valley has gone down the tube.
I think Munoz offers more of the same and we need to change course, certainly NOT keep going down the one we are on.
Voting Rights Act
Perhaps the question is whether or not we agree with the Voting Rights Act. Should Congress specially protect minorities to make sure they are represented even when the treatment all races and ethnic groups alike would dilute voting strength of selected minorities? Does Congress have any business legislating the outcome of state elections that have nothing to do with national elections?
The Voting Rights act says yes, selected minorities should be specially protected. Whether any law enacted by the US Congress should trump the Alaska Constitution when the Alaska Constitution is not found to be in violation of the US Constitution is another question of course.
It's curious that the federal government doesn't require Alaska to change its Constitution. It's as if the federal government is saying that states can put anything they want in their constitutions but if it's an important matter the Congress will tell us where we are wrong. Has anyone else noticed how many federal agencies now have law enforcement personnel riding around in enforcement vehicles in Juneau?
I am not happy with the fact
I am not happy with the fact that our state is being taken over, gutted and sold out to outside interests and overseas.
Alaskans we need to pull together and take our state back.
One way to do this is to take a stand and vote out every single Rep. that voted in support of Gov. Parnells tax breaks to the oil industry.
Oil tax legislation
It seems to me that those who least understand the oil tax legislation are also the least able to contrive a plan to reverse the decline in Alaska oil production. Production has now dropped by 2/3.
HB110 was a place to begin, nothing more and nothing less. State and municipal employees, PERS and TRS beneficiaries, Medicaid beneficiaries, people who have an interest in education, and many other interest groups should be very concerned about oil production loss. The arithmetic will soon fail to work unless Alaska oil production begins to climb.
If any of the oil tax legislation critics have a constructive solution with a different arithmetic it would be great to know what it is.
a place to begin is giving
a place to begin is giving away billions?
and what sort of arithmetic do we use when oil is obsolete?
come on Glacierdog, give it up! It was and still is a bad deal!
We never had our own state.
Canada separates the southeast from our own state and our country (they must get a chuckle out of this) controls land traffic in and out of Alaska using the road we built and now sits perched to meter out our gas resources through a Canadian pipeline;
Washington D.C. parcels the land like a stacked deck of cards;
Washington state has more history in dictating economic terms for the 'last frontier' (which, by the way, it is not) than Asia;
And the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California keeps it all green.
But we can fix all this if we just vote the politicians out who sided with the Governor on an oil tax strategy.
No wonder they call us a 'frontier'. Just another term for "territory'.
Glacier Dogs
If I were a person looking to make an investment, and someone said "Just give me two billion or so dollars a year and maybe I will give you something in return," I don't think that would be a wise investment.
Of course, I am not an investment adviser. At times I do take my car into a repair shop if it isn't working well. However, I don't just give the repair shop a couple of hundred dollars and hope they fix whatever seems to be wrong, even though they tell me they won't promise anything.
What I do, as an average person, is tell them to go ahead a fix it as best you can, explain to me what you did, and once you have done what you said you will do, I will pay you for it.
So when our Governor proposed a bill to give the oil industry a much lower price for a commodity we are selling, that is our oil, but they didn't have to promise to do anything, I was amazed. And, a majority of the House voted to do just that.
I thought the State Senate, Finance and Resources Committees came up with a much better evaluation, as a bipartisan group, not voting along party lines, but trying to find a balance and solution. That is "when you do what you say you will do, I will pay."
If you were an investment adviser what would you advise me to do? Just hand over a few hundred dollars to fix what I think is wrong, with no promise that they would do anything? Or should I wait until they do something and then pay them?