GOVERNMENT
Supreme Court of Alaska (2023)
Allyson Barkley
In Matter of 2021 Redistricting Cases, 528 P.3d 40 (Alaska 2023), the supreme court determined the Alaska Redistricting Board’s (the “Board”) state districts to be unconstitutionally gerrymandered. (Id. at 102). After the 2020 Census results were released, the Board created a redistricting plan. (Id. at 61). It drafted the House plans with input from public hearings and testimony but accepted limited testimony concerning potential Senate plans before finalizing them. (Id.). Five claims were filed and consolidated in the superior court. (Id.). The superior court made a number of determinations concerning the validity of the plans and the due process provided the claimants. (Id. at 62). The Board and two of the plaintiffs petitioned the supreme court to review several portions of the decision. (Id.). First, the supreme court held that the Board had sufficiently followed the Hickel process. (Id. at 63). Because Hickel does not specify at what stage of the redistricting process the Voting Rights Act must be considered, the Board satisfied Hickel when it proposed plans before consulting with VRA experts. (Id. at 64). Second, the court held that it was not in the public’s best interest to vacate the Board’s actions resulting from Open Meetings Act violations. (Id.). Because of the need for judicial efficiency and the court’s view that much of the plan results were also discussed in public sessions, the court determined that actions resulting from the “inappropriate” executive sessions did not need to be vacated. (Id. at 69). Third, the superior court erred in restricting hard look review by “blending” it with other constitutional issues. (Id.). The court reinforced the existing standard: a redistricting plan “is reasonable if the Board has taken a hard look at the salient problems and genuinely engaged in reasoned decision making.” (Id. at 70). Fourth, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ arguments that certain districts were not compact, not socioeconomically integrated, or not as near as practicable to the population quotient. (Id. at 73). However, the supreme court did reverse the superior court’s ruling on the “Cantwell Appendage” to House District 36, which destroyed the district’s compactness. (Id. at 75). The court noted that when a more compact district would still be sufficiently socioeconomically integrated, the Board should prioritize compactness. (Id.) Fifth, the court agreed with the lower court’s determination that the House districts had not violated the constitution’s “one person, one vote” requirement because any mathematical errors were small and there was no demonstration of discriminatory intent. (Id. at 78). Sixth, the supreme court upheld the superior court’s evidentiary decisions regarding East Anchorage. (Id. at 81–82). Seventh, the court agreed with the lower court that the Board had violated the public hearings requirement but found that it was harmless error, and reversed the lower court. (Id. at 84). Additionally, section 10 only requires hearings on redistricting plans adopted within 30 days of Census results. (Id.). Eighth, the court officially adopted a new definition for “communities of interest,” which is a factor used in assessing equal protection claims of unconstitutional gerrymandering. (Id. at 88). A community of interest is a geographically defined group of people who share similar social, cultural, and economic interests and believe they are part of the same coherent entity. (Id.). Using this definition and applying factors of secrecy, partisanship, and proportionality, the court affirmed the lower court’s conclusion of geographic and partisan gerrymandering. (Id. at 94). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that the Board had engaged in unconstitutional gerrymandering and remanded for the Board to redistrict according to the Constitution. (Id. at 102).
