While recognizing that the redistricting process that the state recently undertook in the wake of the 2010 census is a task of "Herculean proportions," the Alaska Supreme Court on Wednesday found at least part of the design proposed by the state Redistricting Board to be unconstitutional. The redistricting case was remanded back the Superior Court with further instructions for the board to again revisit several debated voting districts.
The Supreme Court said that the plan as written, while maybe complying with the federal Voting Rights Act, did not comply with the Alaska State Constitution. Specifically, it found that the redistricting board did not conform to procedures that the court had established in order to satisfy federal law without, in its words, "doing unnecessary violence to the Alaska Constitution and state law."
The redistricting plan was challenged by Fairbanks citizens George Riley and Ron Dearborn. "It is largely undisputed that race was 'the predominate factor' motivating the drawing of district lines, and traditional, race neutral redistricting principles were subordinated to race," they argued. As a result, the plan had "many problems," they said.
Taylor Bickford, the executive director of the Alaska Redistricting Board, released the following statement about the decision:
Former Alaska Attorney General Charlie Cole acted as a private lawyer for someone who also challenged the board's redistricting plan in 2000. He said that satisfying both state and federal law in redistricting plans is "virtually mission impossible."
However impossible, the court ordered it to be done. The Supreme Court seemed to be most worried about dividing districts for a political party's benefit -- otherwise known as gerrymandering -- in the Fairbanks districts. It noted that the court had previously ruled that the election district boundaries should "fall along natural or logical lines rather than political or other lines'." A redistricting plan that fails to do so "undermines trust in the process."
The practical implications, and what this might mean in the upcoming election cycle, are still being worked out. If the map is still being disputed by the time this year's elections roll around in November, the board can petition the Supreme Court to have the most current plan stand in for the eventual, more permanent redistricting map.
Contact Amanda Coyne at amanda(at)alaskadispatch.com