Opinion ID: 2543483
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Proclamation House Districts 12 and 32

Text: Judge Rindner carefully analyzed the problems presented by the formation of Proclamation House Districts 12 and 32. He found that Proclamation District 12 could not survive close scrutiny because of insufficient socio-economic integration between the northern and southern halves of the district, separated as they were by the Alaska Range and long-established habits of economic and social activity. The evidence showed that the northern communities interacted with each other and the southern communities interacted with each other, with almost no interaction between the northern and southern halves of the district. Judge Rindner's similarly careful consideration of the evidence concerning Proclamation House District 32 led him to the opposite conclusion with regard to that district. He found that [b]ased on all of the evidence, ... District 32 contains as nearly as practicable a relatively integrated socio-economic area. Applying the correct legal standard on review, he said, It is clear that the Board gave careful consideration and extensive deliberation to this district and took a hard look at the factors both in favor and against such a pairing. He therefore struck down Proclamation District 12 and upheld Proclamation District 32. Because Judge Rindner correctly understood and applied the relevant law, I dissent from this court's holding that Proclamation House District 32 must be remanded for further consideration. Under Kenai Peninsula Borough v. State , [9] strict proportionality is not a constitutional requirement. [10] However, the interest of individual members of a geographic group or community in having their votes protected from disproportionate dilution by the votes of another geographic group or community is a significant constitutional interest. [11] By definition, a borough is socio-economically integrated. [12] That integration, the contiguous, and often compact, nature of boroughs, and the significant constitutional interest in protecting the equally effective votes of residents of an organized geographic area requires the board to attempt to draw districts that allow communities to control the whole number of seats to which they are entitled. We have previously stated that where possible, all of a municipality's excess population should go to one other district in order to maximize effective representation of the excess group. [13] This principle is even more compelling when the excess population could constitute the majority of a new district. The board, therefore, was properly concerned about placing excess populations from Anchorage and the Mat-Su Borougheach of which was sufficient to constitute the majority of a districtinto a single district. This legitimate concern resulted in the board's ultimate decision to create a plan that allowed Anchorage, with a population supporting 16.6 House seats, to have the excess population placed in a seventeenth district, and Mat-Su, with a population supporting 3.8 House seats, to have its excess population placed in a different district. Splitting either of these boroughs' excess population, members of a politically salient class, would clearly have resulted in diluting the voting power of the excess voters of each borough. Such dilution would have constituted evidence that the individual voters' rights to geographic equal protection had been violated by the board, and predictably would have led to litigation. [14] While the board's decision to attempt to draw districts that gave boroughs control over the whole number of seats to which they were entitled was reasonable, this consideration cannot be elevated over the constitutional mandates of one-person, one-vote, contiguity, compactness, and socio-economic integration. As Judge Rindner found, Proclamation House District 12 is not sufficiently socio-economically integrated. The board's decision to value proportionality does not justify the creation of a district that is not socio-economically integrated. Accordingly, I agree that this district is unconstitutional. Proclamation House District 32, on the other hand, is sufficiently socioeconomically integrated. Judge Rindner found, and I agree, that District 32 contains as nearly as practicable a relatively integrated socio-economic area. This integration is not minimal but significant. As Proclamation House District 32 is sufficiently socioeconomically integrated, the board's decision to create this district and thereby protect the effectiveness of the vote of the excess population involved, was rational. The board should not be required to reconsider Proclamation House District 32.