When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down key provisions in the Voting Rights Act at the end of June, many in state government gave a cheer. After a lengthy and yet unfruitful process to draw redistricting lines in Alaska, there is no question that the federal oversight of those districts and Alaska's voting practices in general are a thorn in the side of the state.
But while the state would argue that the conditions that lead to the federal oversight of Alaska voting practices back in 1965 — the use of English language tests to impact Alaska Native voting eligibility, for one — have changed significantly, others would disagree.
The section of the act that pertained to Alaska — Section 5 — wasn't struck down, but rather the court said Congress must develop a new formula for which states will be considered for oversight. Under Section 5, the Department of Justice had the power to regulate elections in states that had a history of discriminatory voting practices. It currently covers nine states, including Alaska, and requires pre-clearance from the federal government for any changes to voting procedures — such as drawing redistricting maps.
Critics of the Supreme Courts move say Alaska Native voters, which make up some 19 percent of the population, still need protecting from unfair practices, such as requiring voters to travel long distances to vote.
The issue of redistricting in Alaska is perhaps the most immediate factor impacted by this decision. The state is in the middle of its once-a-decade redraw of Alaska's voter lines based on the latest U.S. Census data. But drawing those districts has proven difficult. The redistricting board was chastised by a federal judge in May for not moving forward in a timely manner with redistricting after it admitted it was waiting for the Voting Rights Act ruling.
According to some, the board's foot-dragging on redistricting will also result in the use of voting district lines used in 2012, which are said to favor Republican candidates and to disenfranchise some rural Alaska Native voters.
The Native American Rights Fund filed briefs in opposition of the Supreme Court case impacting voter rights, saying the state of Alaska still needs protection.
"The unvarnished truth is that Alaska is a textbook case for why the coverage formula remains valid and Section 5 remains a necessary response to widespread educational and voting discrimination against Alaska Native citizens," the organization stated in its brief.
The organization argued Alaska's inclusion in Section 5 is far from accidental, but the result of "a long history of educational discrimination, resulting in a legacy in which thousands of Alaska Natives cannot understand college-level English used on ballots and voting information."
"The gulf between statewide turnout and Native turnout has barely narrowed since 1975, largely because of Alaska's violations of the Voting Rights Act," the brief said. "Today, seven years after reauthorization, Alaska Native turnout is 17 percent below the statewide average and some places with a higher Limited English Proficiency population are more than 30 percent below," the brief stated.
While the state may argue that Alaska Native voters are no longer disenfranchised, it is true that they by and large represent a voting block that is unique to the state, and thus, a threat in the eyes of some.
With many rural areas voting Democrat in a largely Republican state, those in power are likely to consider carefully the impact of that voting body. Without federal oversight, the potential for politics, not equality, to enter into decisions regarding redistricting and voter rights certainly increases. While the details of the Voting Rights Act and its impact on Alaska are reconsidered, Alaska voters, especially those in rural communities, would do well to watch closely the decisions of state rule-setters and the impact those decisions will have on voting rights.
Carey Restino is the editor of The Arctic Sounder, where this commentary first appeared. It is republished here with permission.
Alaska Dispatch encourages a diversity of opinion and community perspectives. The opinions expressed herein are those of the contributor and are not necessarily endorsed or condoned by Alaska Dispatch. To submit a commentary for consideration, e-mail commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.