Opinion ID: 1145185
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Inclusion of Cordova in District 2

Text: Carpenter asserts that the inclusion of Cordova in District 2 violates Article VI, section 6 of the Alaska Constitution, which provides: The governor may further redistrict by changing the size and area of election districts, subject to the limitations of this article. Each new district so created shall be formed of contiguous and compact territory containing as nearly as practicable a relatively integrated socio-economic area. Each shall contain a population at least equal to the quotient obtained by dividing the total civilian population by forty. Consideration may be given to local government boundaries. Drainage and other geographic features shall be used in describing boundaries wherever possible. (Emphasis added.) Carpenter argues that District 2 is not compact and that Cordova is not socio-economically integrated with the Southeast coastal communities in the district. Groh v. Egan, 526 P.2d 863, 866-67 (Alaska 1974), established the general standard of review to be applied by this court in exercising jurisdiction under Article VI, section 11. [23] It cannot be said that what we may deem to be an unwise choice of any particular provision of a reapportionment plan from among several reasonable and constitutional alternatives constitutes error which would invoke the jurisdiction of the courts. We view a plan promulgated under the constitutional authorization of the governor to reapportion the legislature in the same light as we would a regulation adopted under a delegation of authority from the legislature to an administrative agency to formulate policy and promulgate regulations. We have stated that we shall review such regulations first to insure that the agency has not exceeded the power delegated to it, and second to determine whether the regulation is reasonable and not arbitrary. Of course, additionally, we always have authority to review the constitutionality of the action taken, but we have stated that a court may not substitute its judgment as to the sagacity of a regulation for that of the administrative agency, and that the wisdom of a given regulation is not a subject for review. The state argues that this court's role in reviewing apportionment plans is not to choose among alternative plans but rather to insure that the governor's plan is not arbitrary or unreasonable. Carpenter asserts that the court must also review the constitutionality of the plan. [24] We think there is merit in both positions. In short, our review is meant to ensure that the reapportionment plan is not unreasonable and is constitutional under the provisions of Article VI, section 6 of Alaska's constitution. Our state constitution mandates that election districts contain as nearly as practicable a relatively integrated socio-economic area. Alaska Const., art., VI, § 6. The parties' initial dispute centers on the content of the socio-economic integration requirement. In its decision, the superior court stated: The concept embodies a number of interrelated components, including economic base, ethnic composition, governmental boundaries, community size, transportation and communication links, and life-style. The reapportionment process requires a balancing of these components; one may be deemed predominant while another may be subordinated... . Socio-economic integration does not require that regular social and economic interactions or transactions occur between the communities of a district, although such occurrences are indicia of socio-economic integration. Carpenter contends this analysis is incorrect since it fails to require regular interaction between the communities of a district. She asserts that the superior court's similarity of interest test insufficiently emphasizes the need for intra-district interaction. The state characterizes redistricting as a balancing process and argues that communities with common economic bases and political interests may be joined, despite the lack of socio-economic interaction. In Groh v. Egan, 526 P.2d 863, 878 (Alaska 1974), we looked to the Constitutional Convention minutes for a definition of the term socio-economic area: Where people live together and work together and earn their living together, where people do that, they should be logically grouped that way. . . . . It cannot be defined with mathematical precision, but it is a definite term, and is susceptible of a definite interpretation. What it means is an economic unit inhabited by people. In other words, the stress is placed on the canton idea, a group of people living within a geographic unit, socio-economic, following if possible, similar economic pursuits. It has, as I say, no mathematically precise definition, but it has a definite meaning. 526 P.2d at 878, quoting Minutes, Constitutional Convention 1836, 1873. This description supports Carpenter's view that election districts were intended to be composed of economically and socially interactive people in a common geographic region. In upholding the inclusion of Cordova in District 2, the superior court made the following findings: that the main economic base of Cordova and the Inside Passage communities is fishing; that fishermen in Cordova and the Southeast share many concerns such as port development, water quality, fisheries development, fish processing quality and safety, and forest management; that all the communities in District 2, except Haines and Skagway, are waterlocked ports with no overland connections to other principal communities; that Cordova and the Southeast communities share an interest in the development of the timber industry; and that Cordova is a member of the Southeast Conference, a lobbying organization representing Southeast Alaska communities. Carpenter does not dispute these findings; rather, she reiterates her argument that there is insufficient evidence of any social or economic interaction between the residents of Cordova and the other communities. Carpenter concedes their similarity of interest but contends that the economic and social activity in Cordova is completely separate from that of the Inside Passage communities. The state in turn concedes that Cordova is physically and economically segregated from the other communities in District 2. In this regard, Carpenter argues that Cordova is more closely integrated with the Prince William Sound communities due to their geographic and social interactions. [25] Although the question is an extremely close one and our standard of review is deferential, we conclude that inclusion of Cordova in House Election District 2 violates the requirement in Article VI, section 6 of Alaska's constitution that [e]ach new district so created shall be formed of contiguous and compact territory containing as nearly as practicable a relatively integrated socio-economic area. Alaska Const., art. VI, § 6 (emphasis added). The record is simply devoid of evidence of significant social and economic interaction between Cordova and the remaining communities comprising House Election District 2. The superior court's judgment is AFFIRMED in Part and REVERSED in part as to the superior court's approval of the inclusion of Cordova in House Election District 2. The matter is remanded to the superior court to conduct such further proceedings and enter such further orders in accordance with this opinion as are deemed necessary to implement this opinion.