Opinion ID: 1239200
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: Effects of Total and Partial Exclusion of Military from Population Base

Text: From the examination of all relevant data available it appears that a supportable case cannot be made for excluding all military, although some basis may be uncovered for excluding a portion of the military. Consideration was given to taking a poll or a sample of military personnel in Alaska in order to arrive at a more precise determination of residency than the generalized suggestion that unaccompanied personnel living in barracks or on ship (51.9% of total members of Armed Forces) be considered as the maximum number of nonresidents. This was not executed because of the time difficulty of conducting a poll, and because it would be taken more than two years after the Census enumeration and thus would be a sampling of a different set of people with possibly changed attitudes. Finally, and most decisively, an analysis of the 1971 reapportionment plan using three different population bases (total population, total population less members of the Armed Forces in barracks and on ships, and civilian population) demonstrates that the effect of changes in the base upon district representation in the House would be so insignificant as to render such an undertaking purely academic. Table 10 lists the total population, the total population less military personnel in group quarters (51.9% of members of the Armed Forces) and civilian population (excluding all members of the Armed Forces) by the reapportionment districts of this 1971 plan, and compares the results of dividing each base by the ideal or norm for equal representation. Adding the members of the Armed Forces in households (not in group quarters) to the civilian population results in raising the population-representative ratio for the Fairbanks district from 5.488 to 5.642, or rounded to whole numbers, technically an increase from 5 to 6 representatives. No other district-representation is altered by the addition of this portion of the Armed Forces. Adding back all members of the Armed Forces and using the total April 1970 population as the base results in the loss of the representative in the Lynn Canal-Icy Straits district (but a mere decrease in the population-representative ratio from 0.508 to 0.484), and the addition of one representative in the Aleutian-Bristol Bay district (from 1.188 to 1.619). With each of these three different population bases, some adjustments in district boundaries would obviously be required in order to bring the total of the rounded figure to 40 House seats. For example, the addition of only 119 persons to Lynn Canal-Icy Straits would restore its one representative and the subtraction of 900 persons from the Aleutian-Bristol Bay would reduce its representation by one.