Transcription
In the Supreme Court of the State of AlaskaIN RE 2011 REDISTRICTINGCASES.))Supreme Court No. S-14721)Corrected Order) Dissenting Opinions To)May 22, 2012 Order)-----------------J)Order No. 78 - June 19,2012Trial Court Case # 4FA-ll-02209CIConsolidated Cases # 4FA-ll-02213Cl/lJU-ll-00782CIBefore:Carpeneti, ChiefJustice, Fabe, Winfree, and Stowers, Justices,and Matthews, Senior Justice:WINFREE and STOWERS, Justices, dissented to the May 22, 2012 order;their dissenting opinions are attached. As referenced in the Order, they would require thatthe 2012 elections be conducted under the reconfigured districts submitted by the Boardon May 15, 2012.Entered by direction of the court.cc:Supreme Court JusticesJudge McConahyDistribution (email and mail):Michael D. WhiteNicole A. COITPatton Boggs LLP601 West 5th Avenue, Suite 700Anchorage AK 9950 I*MichaelJ. WalleriJason GazewoodGazewood & Weiner PC1008 16th Avenue, Suite 200Fairbanks AK 99701Sitting by assignment under article IV, section 11 of the AlaskaConstitution and Alaska Administrative Rule 23(a).
In re 2011 Redistricting CasesSupreme Court No. S-14721Order ofJune 19,2012Page 2Thomas F. KlinknerBirch Horton Bittner & Cherot1127 West 7th AvenueAnchorage AK 99501Carol BrownAssociation ofYillage Council PresidentsP.O. Box 219, lOlA Main StreetBethel AK 99550Jill DolanFairbanks North Star BoroughP.O. Box 71267Fairbanks AK 99707Marcia R. DavisCalista Corporation301 Calista CourtAnchorage AK 99518Scott A. Brandt·ErichsenKetchikan Gateway Borough1900 1st Avenue, Suite 215Ketchikan AK 99901Thomas E. Schulz71 5 Miller Ride RoadKetchikan AK 99901Joseph N. LevesqueWalker & Levesque LLC731 N StreetAnchorage AK 99501Joseph H McKinnon1434 Kinnikinnick StAnchorage AK 99508Natalie A. LandrethNative American Rights Fund801 B Street, Suite 40 IAnchorage AK 99501-2-ORD 78
WINFREE, Justice, with whom STOWERS, Justice, joins, dissenting.I respectfully disagree with the court's May 22,2012 order directing use ofthe April 5, 2012 Amended Proclamation Plan as the redistricting plan for the 2012election.! It is now beyond doubt that the April 5 plan violates the Alaska Constitution,at least with respect to Southeast Alaska. The Board recently constructed five different"Hickel plan" options for Southeast Alaska that are more compact and contiguous thanthe Southeast districts under the April 5 plan, and the difference cannot be explained bysocioeconomic integration. This demonstrates that despite its previous arguments to thecontrary, the Board did not first design the April 5 plan based solely on the requirementsof the Alaska Constitution. 1It appears the Board followed our May 10, 2012 remand directive toconstruct Southeast Alaska voting districts in compliance with the Alaska Constitution, 3and the reformulated districts under the May 15 plan for Southeast Alaska appear, at leastfacially, to comply with constitutional requirements. I recognize that interested partieshave not had a full and fair opportunity to appear before the Board and propose alternateplans, or raise their socioeconomic-integration objections to the May 15 reformulatedplan. But ifthe 2012 election options are either the April 5 Amended Proclamation Planor the May 15 reformulated plan,4 the former violates the Alaska Constitution and theThe order is attached as Appendix 1 after Justice Stowers's dissent.In re 2011 Redistricting Cases, 247 P.3d 466,467 (Alaska 2012) (citingHickel v. Se. Conference, 846 P.2d 38, 51 n.22 (Alaska 1992)) ("The Board must firstdesign a plan focusing on compliance with the article IV, section 6 requirements ofcontiguity, compactness, and relative socioeconomic integration .").13The order is attached as Appendix 2 after Justice Stowers's dissent.It seems beyond doubt that because of population changes throughoutAlaska, the existing districting violates the fundamental constitutional mandate for equal(continued.)4-1-ORD78
latter may not. I therefore conclude that the May 15 reformulated plan should be the 20 12interim plan.The court instead chose the AprilS Amended Proclamation Plan because ofa newfound concern about application of the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA) toSoutheast Alaska. In our May 10 order, we instructed the Board that the reformulatedSoutheast Alaska districts "should not be altered based on the [VRA] because there is noVRA justification for deviating from Alaska constitutional requirements in SoutheastAlaska."s Why did we do that? Because the record before us indicated that the UnitedStates Department of Justice (DOJ) no longer considers "influence districts" whenmeasuring retrogression but limits its consideration to "effective districts." This evidencecame from the Board itself.Dr. Lisa Handley, the Board's VRA expert, testified before the superiorcourt that DOJ had changed the benchmark against which redistricting plans are evaluatedfor retrogression. Dr. Handley explained that a minority district is now evaluated solelyto determine whether the district "had an ability to elect or did not have an ability toelect." Dr. Handley defmed the term "ability to elect" as "[w]hether [a district] usuallyelected the minority-preferred candidate or whether it usually did not." Dr. Handleyfurther testified that if a district did not have an ability to elect over the past ten years,"it's not a protected district and . there is not an obligation on the part of thejurisdiction to create an effective minority district to represent that district." Dr. Handleythen testified that the prior influence district in Southeast Alaska "did not consistentlyelect the [Native] candidate of choice" in past election cycles and therefore was noteffective. She also testified to being informed by a DO] analyst that, under this newcontinued)voting districts, and therefore should not be used as an interim plan for the 20 12 election.4( 5Alaska Supreme Court Order, at 2 (May 10,2012).-2-ORD78
standard, Alaska's benchmark is five effective Native house districts and three effectiveNative senate districts. The conclusion that follows from this testimony is that DO]would not reject as retrogressive a plan that failed to include an influence district inSoutheast Alaska, because the former influence district in that region did not function asan effective district.As we noted in our March 14 order, a constitutional redistricting plan"satisfies federal law without doing unnecessary violence to the Alaska Constitution.,,6If, as the Board's VRA expert testified, there is no VRA justification for manipulating theSoutheast districts to achieve certain percentages of Native Alaskan voting agepopulation, then the Hickel process demands that those districts be drawn solely withreference to the requirements of the Alaska Constitution. Our May 10 order thereforerequired the Board to redesign the Southeast Alaska districts without reference to theVRA.Sealaska Corporation argued we erred by concluding "there is no VRAjustification for deviating from Alaska constitutional requirements in Southeast Alaska.'"It contended that "regardless of the continued legal significance of Native influencedistricts, the [VRA] prohibits retrogression of minority voting rights." Sealaska arguedthat "replacing a Native influence district currently comprised of 36.6 percent Nativeswith a rump district with only a 26.6 percent Native population" and "parceling theremaining Native Alaskan voters among urban districts where their influence will beheavily diluted[] is precisely the kind of retrogression that the [VRA] prohibits." Butnothing in the record suggests this is the standard DO] currently uses to evaluate whethera redistricting plan is retrogressive, and Sealaska submitted nothing to us but argumentto support its position.6In re 2011 Redistricting, 274 P.3d at 467.7Alaska Supreme Court Order, at 2 (May 10,2012).-3-ORD78
The court evidently was swayed by Sealaska's argument, concluding thereis a risk DO] may not preclear the May 15 reformulated plan and the 2012 election wouldbe disrupted. But the court neither explained how that risk changed since our May 10remand order nor identified any evidence supporting a reassessment ofthat risk. Nor didthe court explain why Sealaska's arguments about Southeast Alaska carry more weightthan other parties' VRA challenges to districts in other areas ofthe state under the April 5Amended Proclamation Plan.I recognize the always-present risk that DO] will not preclear an Alaskaredistricting plan. Indeed, there is some risk that DO] will not preclear the April 5Amended Proclamation Plan. But the court's sudden deference to a speculative riskassessment about the May 15 reformulated plan flies in the face of our rule that theAlaska Constitution is the starting point for redistricting and deviations to accommodatethe VRA must be as limited as possible. 8 In my view the Alaska Constitution comes first,and the record before us strongly suggests that the May 15 reformulated plan forSoutheast Alaska complies with the Alaska Constitution and that deviations toaccommodate the VRA are unnecessary.I would therefore implement the May 15 reformulated plan as the interimplan for the 2012 election. If the Board's VRA expert is incorrect and if DO] deniedpreclearance because it required an influence district in Southeast Alaska to avoidretrogression, then the Board, this court, and the Division of Elections would have a lotIn re 2011 Redistricting, 274 P.3d at 467-68 (quoting Hickel, 846 P.2d at51 n.22) ("The Board must first design a plan focusing on compliance with the article VI,section 6 requirements of contiguity, compactness, and relative socioeconomicintegration" and may only "make revisions that deviate from the Alaska Constitutionwhen deviation is 'the only means available to satisfy Voting Rights Actrequirements.' ").8-4 ORD78
of work to do in a short amount of time to ensure that the 2012 election goes forward.TIris seems a small price to pay to honor the Alaska Constitution.-5-ORD78
STOWERS, Justice, with whom WINFREE, Justice, joins, dissenting.I respectfully dissent from the court's decision of May 22,2012, whichorders that the Alaska Redistricting Board's unconstitutional April 5, 2012 AmendedProclamation Plan shall be used as the interim redistricting plan for the 2012 elections.I also join Justice Winfree's dissent from this decision. I write separately to provide amore complete overview ofthe court's previous redistricting opinions and orders in thiscase. The court's own prior orders in this 2011 redistricting case demonstrate that theMay 22, 2012 order fails to uphold the Alaska Constitution.The court's May 22 order reverses our May 10,2012 Order RegardingInterim Plan for 2012 Elections, in which we unanimously ordered that "the Board'sAmended Proclamation Plan be adopted as an interim plan to govern the 2012 elections,except" that we remanded the amended plan to the Board to reformulate the districts inSoutheast Alaska for the specific purpose of "focusing on compliance with {AlaskaConstitution's1 article VI, section 6 requirements ofcontiguity, compactness, and relativesocioeconomic integration . ."1 We also unanimously ordered that "[t]he reformulatedplan should not be altered based on the Voting Rights Act (VRA)2 because there is noVRA justification for deviating from Alaska constitutional requirements in SoutheastAlaska.',3 The Board promptly met again and produced an amended plan that, in responseto our May 10 order, reformulated the Southeast districts to comply with the AlaskaConstitution without VRA deviations.Alaska Supreme Court Order, at 1 (May 10, 2012) (emphasis added)(attached as Appendix 2).42 U.S.C. § 1973c (2006) (codifying Section 5 of the Amended VotingRights Act, Pub. L. No. 109-246, § 5, 120 Stat. 580 (2006».23Alaska Supreme Court Order, at 2 (May 10,2012) (emphasis added).-6-ORD78
In its May 22 order, the court explained why it was retreating from ourearlier, unanimous decision: "because of the numerous objections to the reconfigureddistricts that the court has received.,,4 But the court did not conclude that the reconfigureddistricts did not comply either with the court's May 10 order or the Alaska Constitution;to the contrary the court said:While the reconfigured districts may comply with theredistricting criteria of article VI, section 6 of the AlaskaConstitution, there is a risk that the United States Departmentof Justice would decline to pre-clear them under the VotingRights Act. . . [1']0 avoid this possibility, the court will notrequire the use ofthe May 15, 2012 reconfigured districts forthe 2012 electionsJS]I am puzzled by the court's reasoning. A central issue, perhaps the centralissue, throughout the 2011 redistricting case both in the superior court and the supremecourt has concerned the tension between complying strictly with the Alaska Constitution(which prohibits discrimination based on race, even when discrimination may promotea minority's ability to maintain its historical, numerical level of representation in the Alaska Supreme Court Order, at 1 (May 22,2012) (attached as Appendix1).Id. at 1-2. The court's full explanation states:While the reconfigured districts may comply with theredistricting criteria of article VI, section 6 of the AlaskaConstitution, there is a risk that the United States Departmentof Justice would decline to pre-clear them under the VotingRights Act. Notice ofthe failure ofthe Department ofJusticeto pre-clear the new districts would come so late in the 2012election cycle that a great disruption to the election processwould result. In order to avoid this possibility, the court willnot require the use ofthe May 15, 2012 reconfigured districtsfor the 2012 elections.-7-ORD78
Alaska Legislature6) and the contrary requirement of the federal Voting Rights Act(which mandates that in states subject to VRA oversight, a minority's historical,numerical level of representation in the legislature may not be diminished by aredistricting plan because this could be considered illegally retrogressive under federallaw7). I think it is fair to say that everyone involved in the 2011 redistricting case - theBoard, the parties, the amicus participants, the superior court, and certainly the supremecourt - understands that ifthe State's redistricting plan decreases Native voting powerin what are called "effective" Native districts (that is, districts in which Native voterswere able to elect a representative oftheir choice in the previous "benchmark" election),this may constitute a violation of the VRA and the Department of Justice (DOJ) wouldSee Alaska Const. art. I, § 7 ("Inherent Rights . all persons are equal andentitled to equal rights, opportunities, and protection under the law ."); Alaska Const.art. I, § 3 ("Civil Rights. No person is to be denied the enjoyment ofany civil or politicalright because of race, color, creed, sex, or national origin."); Hickel v. Se. Conforence,846 P.2d 38, 52 n.22 (Alaska 1992) ("Our conclusion underscores the error in theBoard's methodology in reconciling the requirements ofthe Voting Rights Act with therequirements of the Alaska Constitution. . . . [T]he Board accorded minority votingstrength priority above other factors, including the requirements of article VI, section 6ofthe Alaska Constitution. This methodology resulted in proposed district 3, a districtwhich does not comply with the requirements of the Alaska Constitution. However,proposed district 3 is not required by the Voting Rights Act, either.").6InHickelv. Southeast Conference, we quoted from an opinion ofthe UnitedStates Supreme Court in explaining the purpose ofthe Voting Rights Act:7The Federal Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (1988),also plays a significant role in the reapportionment of stateelection districts. The purpose of this Act is to protect thevoting power of racial minorities: "Under section 5 of theAct, a reapportionment plan is invalid if it 'would lead to aretrogression in the position ofracial minorities with respectto their effective exercise ofthe electoral franchise.' "846 P.2d at 49 (quoting Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 141 (1976)).-8-ORD78
not approve ("pre-clear") the redistricting plan. But as Justice Winfree cogently explains,the Board's VRA expert, Dr. Lisa Handley (who has also advised DOl in other VRAredistricting cases), testified that the Native district in Southeast Alaska was nothistorically an effective district; rather, it was considered an "influence" district, meaningthat Native voters were not able to consistently elect the representative oftheir choice, buthad sufficient voting power to influence elections.8 Dr. Handley further explained thatbased on her discussions with DOJ, the Department would evaluate minority districtssolely to determine whether they functioned as effective districts. In other words, asJustice Winfree explains, "The conclusion that follows from [Dr. Handley's] testimonyis that the DOJ would not reject as retrogressive a plan that failed to include an influencedistrict in Southeast Alaska, because the former influence district in that region did notfunction as an effective district."9Why does it matter that, as Justice Winfree and I believe, the court shouldstay the constitutional course and adhere to our May 10,2012 order? It is a matter ofallegiance and faithfulness to our state constitutional duty to all ofthe citizens ofthe Stateof Alaska to uphold our state constitution when it is not absolutely mandated by theUnited States Constitution or federal law that the Alaska Constitution must yield tofederal law. In other words, we have a constitutional duty not to do "unnecessaryviolence to the Alaska Constitution."'o There is no question that the United StatesConstitution is the supreme law of the land, and if a conflict arises between federal andstate law, state law must yield. Because Alaska is subject to the federal VRA, underwhich a redistricting plan is invalid if it is retrogressive with respect to effective Native8Dissent at pages 2-3 (Winfree, Justice).9Id.10In re 2011 Redistricting Cases, 274 P.3d 466, 467 (Alaska 2012).-9-ORD 78
districts, Alaska must comply with federal law even when compliance violates the AlaskaConstitution.We have repeatedly recognized this principle in our redistricting cases. Forexample, in Hickel v. Southeast Conference ll the court was faced with these sametensions and conflicts between the requirements of the United States Constitution, thefederal VRA, and the Alaska Constitution. 12 While we recognized the supremacy oftheUnited States Constitution and the Voting Rights Act in Hickel, we also established aprinciple that if it was absolutely necessary to depart or deviate from the AlaskaConstitution in order to comply with federal law, such departure or deviation should onlybe to the least extent necessary. In language and analysis directly applicable to the 2011redistricting case, we explained:11846 P.2d 38 (Alaska 1992).IIWe explained:Legislative reapportionment is subject to a variety of legalrequirements. The Federal Constitution, the Federal VotingRights Act, and the Alaska Constitution all containcommands which guide the formation of a reapportionmentplan. It is the interaction ofthese diverse and often divergingguidelines which makes reapportionment a difficult process.Because these guidelines sometimes lead in differentdirections, it is important to understand how they fit together.Id. at 44. I will not here repeat what was explained in Hickel, but I wholeheartedly urgeall readers to study the Hickel opinion, which cogently discusses in detail the sometimescompeting and facially irreconcilable federal and state requirements pertaining toredistricting. When one understands the magnitude ofthe difficulties involved, one mustappreciate and acknowledge the tremendous (and sometimes thankless) public serviceofthe members and staff ofthe Redistricting Board, whose decennial work is and likelyalways will be subject to second-guessing, criticism, and inevitable court review.-10-ORD78
The [Redistricting] Board cited the Voting Rights Act as itsjustification in creating [House] District 3.[I3J District 3 wasmeant to be a Native intluence district. [I.J The proposedconfiguration ofDistrict 3 raised the Native percentage ofthedistrict two percentage points compared to the old "IslandsDistrict." However, such an awkward reapportionment oftheSoutheast Native population was not necessary for compliancewith the Voting Rights Act. [ISJThis paragraph concluded with the all-important footnote 22, which has been the subjectof much discussion in this 2012 redistricting case. In footnote 22, we held:Our conclusion underscores the error in the Board'smethodology in reconciling the requirements of the VotingRights Act with the requirements of the AlaskaConstitution. . . . [T]he Board accorded minority votingstrength priority above other factors, including therequirements of article VI, section 6 of the AlaskaIn the June 13,2011 Proclamation Plan, the Redistricting Board cited theVRA as its justification for creating a Native "influence" district in Southeast Alaska.See In re 2011 Redistricting Cases, No. 4FA-11-02209 CI, at 6-7,9-10 (Alaska Super.,Dec. 12,2011). This "influence" district was carried over unchanged from the Board'soriginal Proclamation Plan into its AprilS, 2012 Amended Proclamation Plan, which thecourt unanimously rejected as being out of compliance with the constitutional Hickelprocess in its May 10,2012 order. The court now adopts this unconstitutional amendedplan as the interim redistricting plan in its May 22, 2012 order.13'4In 1992, DOJ was of the view that the VRA required preserving bothNative effective districts and influence districts. As explained in Justice Winfree'sdissent, the Board's VRA expert, Dr. Handley, testified that DOJ has since changed itsstandard for measuring retrogression and informally advised Dr. Handley that thebenchmark for Alaska no longer includes an influence district. Dissent at pages 2-3(Winfree, Justice). This was the primary rationale for our May 10, 2012 decisionrequiring the Board to reformulate the Southeast Alaska districts without reference to theVRA: "because there is no VRA justification for deviating from Alaska constitutionalrequirements in Southeast Alaska." Alaska Supreme Court Order, at 2 (May 10, 2012)(emphasis added).ISHickel, 846 P.2d at 51.-11-ORD78
Constitution. This methodology resulted in proposed district3, a district which does not comply with the requirements ofthe Alaska Constitution. However, proposed district 3 is notrequired by the Voting Rights Act, either.Article VI, cl. 2 ofthe United States Constitution provides that"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States whichshall be made in pursuance thereof . shall be the supremelaw of the land." This mandates that provisions of statelaw, including state constitutional law, are void ifthey conflictwith federal law. To the extent that the requirements ofarticleVI, section 6 ofthe Alaska Constitution are inconsistent withthe Voting Rights Act, those requirements must give way.However, to the extent that those requirements [ofthe AlaskaConstitution] are not inconsistent, they must be given effect.The Voting Rights Act need not be elevated in stature so thatthe requirements ofthe Alaska Constitution are unnecessarilycompromised.The Board must first design a reapportionment plan based onthe requirements of the Alaska Constitution. That plan thenmust be tested against the Voting Rights Act. Areapportionment plan may minimize article VI, section 6requirements when minimization is the only means availableto satisfo Voting Rights Act requirements.[16]We have referred to the methodology described above as the "Hickelprocess." In our original order of March 14, 2012, when we first remanded the originalredistricting plan to the Board, we explained:6. It is undisputed that the Board began redistricting in Marchand April of2012 by focusing on complying with the VotingRights Act, thereby ignoring the process we mandated inHickel. This focus resulted in the creation of five effectiveNative house districts, one "influence" house district, andthree effective senate districts. The superior court found thattwo of these house districts violated the Alaska Constitutionand were not necessary to achieve Voting Rights Act16Id. at 52 n.22 (emphasis added).-12-ORD78
compliance. And the superior court expressed unease withthe "influence" district created in the southeast and invited usto consider its validity sua sponte.7. Because it did not follow the Hickel process, the Boardcannot meaningfully demonstrate that the Proclamation Plan'sAlaska constitutional deficiencies were necessitated by VotingRights Act compliance, nor can we reliably decide thatquestion. The Hickel process provides the Board with definedprocedural steps that, when followed, ensure redistrictingsatisfies federal law without doing unnecessary violence to theAlaska Constitution. The Board must first design a planfocusing on compliance with the [Alaska Constitution] articleVI, section 6 requirements of contiguity, compactness, andrelative socioeconomic integration. . . Once such a plan isdrawn, the Board must detennine whether it complies with theVoting Rights Act and, to the extent that it is not compliant,make revisions that deviate from the Alaska Constitutionwhen deviation is "the only means available to satisfy VotingRights Act requirements."8. The Hickel process assures compliance with the AlaskaConstitution's requirements concerning redistricting to thegreatest extent possible. The Hickel process also diminishesthe potential for partisan gerrymandering and promotes trustin government. We have previously noted that the article VI,section 6 requirements were designed [by the drafters of theAlaska Constitution] to prevent gerrymandering by ensuring"that the election district boundaries fall along natural orlogical lines rather than political or other lines." Aredistricting plan that substantially deviates from theseconstitutional requirements undennines trust in the process.9. Cases decided by the United States Supreme Courtsubsequent to Hickel have made adherence to the Hickelprocess even more critical. In a series of cases, the SupremeCourt has established that under the Voting Rights Act, ajurisdiction cannot unnecessarily depart from traditionalredistricting principles to draw districts using race as "thepredominant overriding factor." Following the Hickel processwill facilitate compliance with federal constitutional law by-13-ORD78
ensuring that traditional redistricting principles are not"subordinated to race.,,!!7]Thus, we remanded the Board's original redistricting plan with instructionsto follow the Hickel process. The Board adopted an Amended Proclamation Plan onAprilS, 2012, and submitted the amended plan to the superior court. But the superiorcourt found that the April 5 plan did not comply with our remand order:Instead of redrawing a new plan that focused on the AlaskaConstitution, there is no dispute that the Board used most ofthe districts from the [original] Proclamation Plan, with theexception of the districts in Fairbanks and districts that werecreated to satisfy the Voting Rights Act. . . The court findsthat the Board's method did not comply with either the spiritor the letter of the Alaska Supreme Court's order and theHickel process. [18]The Board petitioned this court for review of the superior court's decision and, due tolooming election deadlines, also requested that we approve an interim plan for the 2012elections. We approved the Board's AprilS Amended Plan for use as an interim plan, butremanded to the Boardfor reformulation ofthe districts in Southeast Alaska. . Onremand, the Board must "design a plan focusing oncompliance with the article VI, section 6 requirements ofcontiguity, compactness, and relative socioeconomicintegration; it may consider local government boundaries andshould use drainage and other geographic features whereverpossible." The reformulated plan should not be altered basedon the Voting Rights Act (VRA) because there is no VRAIn re 2011 Redistricting Cases, 274 P.3d 466, 467-68 (Alaska 2012)(quoting Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952, 959-60 (1996); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900,920 (1995); Hickel, 846 P.2d at 52 n.22).17Inre 2011 Redistricting Cases, No. 4FA-II-02209 CI, at2 (Alaska Super.,April 20, 2012).18-14-ORD78
justification for deviating from Alaska constitutionalrequirements in Southeast Alaska.[19JThe Board redrew the Southeast Alaska districts and on May 15, 2012, theBoard submitted its reformulated plan directly to this court, as required by our order.This court received a number of objections to the reformulated districts. Some arguedthat the Board's amended plan violated the VRA by diminishing the Native influencedistrict in the Southeast region. (In essence, these objections claimed that our May 10order violated the VRA by directing the Board to reformulate the Southeast districtswithout reference to the VRA.) By this time, impending deadlines were looming forfinalizing the redistricting plan to accommodate critical deadlines for candidate filings,campaigning, and publication of election-related materials.Inexplicably, in response to these objections, this court reversed itself andretreated from its correct statement of constitutional principles set forth in our March 14and May 10 orders. I wish to emphasize that the court's reversal was not based on asingle new fact or piece of evidence - nothing changed between the court's May 10order and its May 22 order except that the Board produced another amended plan, a planthat upon superficial examination appears to be in compliance with the court' s May 10order and the Alaska Constitution.In my view there was nothing in the objections raised by interested partiesthat was truly new -certainly not their argume
Before: Carpeneti, ChiefJustice, Fabe, Winfree, and Stowers, Justices, and Matthews, Senior Justice: WINFREE and STOWERS, Justices, dissented to the May 22, 2012 order; their dissenting opinions are attached. As referenced in the Order, they would require tha . Scott A. Brandt·Erichsen Ketchikan Gateway Borough 1900 1 st Avenue, Suite 215 .
