Joint Sponsor Statement for HJR 44

"A Resolution Proposing Amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska Relating to Reapportionment and Redistricting and Redistricting of the Legislature; and Providing for an Effective Date."

The reapportionment and redistricting provisions of the Alaska Constitution have been outdated for more than 25 years. U.S. Supreme Court decisions have struck down state law provisions excluding military personnel from reapportionment population bases, and have extended the one-person, one-vote requirement of the equal protection clause of the XIVth Amendment to senate districts as well as to house districts. The Alaska Supreme Court has been inviting the legislature to amend the constitution since at least 1972 in these areas.

Alaska is only one of two states in the Union which places the reapportionment power in the office of the Governor. In the other state, Maryland, the senate has the right to ratify the governor’s appointees. No such check exists in Alaska. This situation has produced reapportionment plans which have been subject to criticism of being borne in the crucible of politics, rather than creating a reapportionment plan based on bipartisan fairness and objectivity. The existing system of constitutional provisions has spawned litigation after every decennial census since statehood, the most recent of which was exceptionally contentious.

This proposal creates a five-member reapportionment board. Four members are individually appointed by the Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader, Senate President and Senate Minority Leader respectively. The fifth member, who will chair the board, is selected by the first four appointees, or in the event of deadlock, by the Chief Justice of our supreme court. While no reapportionment mechanism can be completely free of political influences, the one proposed in this legislation is intended to produce balanced, professionally drawn apportionment plans. Many other states have adopted this approach.

Probably due in part to the inherent political bias of the existing mechanism, and the delays inherent in legal challenges, the Alaska Supreme Court has had to take an increasingly activist approach in deciding reapportionment disputes. The most recent legal challenge caused two of the Justices to dissent regarding what they perceived to be an "abuse of power" by the majority of the court. The court majority sent the final reapportionment task to the superior court and special masters to rewrite the plan, rather than remand the case to the reapportionment board. The proposed changes to the constitution will remove the basis for the court to consider this kind of remedy.

There are other changes proposed, such as clarifying that representatives and senators shall be elected from single-member districts. A more detailed analysis of other sections of HJR 44 appears in the sectional analysis, which is incorporated by reference.