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

Heading: population variances

Text: At the outset we recognize the difficulty of creating districts of equal population while also conforming to the Alaska constitutional mandate that the districts be formed of contiguous and compact territory containing as nearly as practicable a relatively integrated socio-economic area. [9] When Alaska's geographical, climatical, ethnic, cultural and socio-economic differences are contemplated the task assumes Herculean proportions commensurate with Alaska's enormous land area. The problems are multiplied by Alaska's sparse and widely scattered population and the relative inaccessibility of portions of the state. Surprisingly small changes in district boundaries create large percentage variances from the ideal population. [10] Despite the possibility of belaboring this opinion we feel obliged to set forth a few of the facts which make it difficult to fit Alaska's reapportionment plan into standards established for the 48 contiguous states which preceded it into the Union. Alaska has a total land area of 586,400 square miles  as large as the entire Louisiana Purchase, and one-fifth the total area of the continental United States. Its boundaries embrace four time zones. The state contains the highest mountain on the North American continent, glaciers that exceed the size of the State of Rhode Island, and a coastline longer than the total coastline along the remainder of the continental United States. Mountain ranges which equal or exceed the length and height of the Rockies divide Alaska into five relatively isolated regions which in turn are subdivided by river systems and other geographic factors such as broad expanses of frozen tundra challenging the most advanced roadway engineering. The 1970 Census reveals a population of 302,361 persons including members of the Armed Forces. [11] There is less population in the State of Alaska than in the cities of Omaha, Nebraska or Toledo, Ohio. The contrasting ethnic backgrounds, cultural interests and economic activities of this Alaska population are detailed in the Report of the Masters. [12] When confronted with conditions so different from those of any other single state in the continental United States, it is readily apparent that it becomes well nigh impossible to achieve the mathematical precision of equal proportions which is feasible in those other states. The situation is more analogous to that of the State of Hawaii, whose unusual difficulties [13] were recognized as potentially requiring special remedies by the United States Supreme Court in Burns v. Richardson. [14] Nevertheless, the initial standard to which a state legislative apportionment plan must be held is that set forth by the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. Sims: [15] [T]he Equal Protection Clause requires that a State make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts, in both houses of its legislature, as nearly of equal population as is practicable. [16] Although the 1971 plan represented a substantial improvement in the calculus of reapportionment, [17] the new plan's variances still conflict with the guidelines set forth by the United States Supreme Court. We are, therefore, compelled to hold that the plan violates the United States constitutional guarantee of equal protection. In the earlier reapportionment cases, the United States Supreme Court refused to articulate a strict test for what was required by the equal protection clause. In Reynolds v. Sims [18] the Court noted that [w]hat is marginally permissible in one State may be unsatisfactory in another, depending on the particular circumstances of the case. Hence the present guidelines for reapportionment evolved on a case-by-case basis. In Swann v. Adams, [19] percentage variances in the Florida Senate from +15.09 to -10.56 and in the Florida House of Representatives from +18.28 to -15.27 were held to be impermissible for the failure of the State to present or the District Court to articulate acceptable reasons for the variations among the population of the various legislative districts... . The degree of rigidity in the requirement of equality reached its zenith in Kirkpatrick v. Preisler [20] where population variances from +3.13 to -2.84 percent were held to be invalid. The Missouri Assembly had rejected a plan with smaller variances. The Court stated: We reject Missouri's argument that there is a fixed numerical or percentage population variance small enough to be considered de minimis and to satisfy without question the as nearly as practicable standard. The whole thrust of the as nearly as practicable approach is inconsistent with adoption of fixed numerical standards which excuse population variances without regard to the circumstances of each particular case... . [T]he as nearly as practicable standard requires that the State make a good-faith effort to achieve precise mathematical equality... . Unless population variances among congressional districts are shown to have resulted despite such effort, the State must justify each variance, no matter how small. [21] Thus the present standard for reapportionment allows two separate justifications for deviation from the ideal population figures. The first is that variance occurring because of uncontrollable factors, despite a good faith effort to achieve mathematical precision. The second acceptable deviation is that which the State must justify  the implication being that while it was a controllable deviation, other factors incident to the effectuation of a rational state policy [22] can be advanced in justification. However, as the Supreme Court cautioned at an early date in Reynolds v. Sims, acceptable state policies are greatly limited. [N]either history alone, nor economic or other sorts of group interests, are permissible factors in attempting to justify disparities from population-based representation... . Modern developments and improvements in transportation and communications make rather hollow, in the mid-1960's, most claims that deviations from population-based representation can validly be based solely on geographical considerations. Arguments for allowing such deviations in order to insure effective representation for sparsely settled areas and to prevent legislative districts from becoming so large that the availability of access of citizens to their representatives is impaired are today, for the most part, unconvincing. A consideration that appears to be of more substance in justifying some deviations from population-based representation in state legislatures is that of insuring some voice to political subdivisions, as political subdivisions. [23] Only after a good-faith effort has been made to achieve precise mathematical equality may variances be permitted; and then the state has the burden of justifying in detail each such variance. [24] The Report of the Governor's Advisory Reapportionment Board offers some of the reasons which justify greater percentage variations in Alaska districts in terms of rational state policy forwarded as factors unique to Alaska. The report notes for example that in some isolated areas a local population would necessarily be divided between contiguous districts, achieving numerical precision at the grave expense of depriving that community of any political power or attention from campaigning candidates. For other districts, however, the Advisory Reapportionment Board offers little or no explanation for the percentage deviations which were created. For example, no explanations are given for the variations in the Yukon-Kuskokwim House District 15, the Nome House District 19, and the Yukon-Kuskokwim Senate District K which respectively were -9.2 percent, -16.7 percent and -17.29 percent from the population norm. Such disparities as exist in the Wade Hampton District 20 of -28.4 percent, and in the Bethel House District 21 of +4.9 percent cannot be justified simply because a combination of pre-existing districts or a readjustment of district lines does not produce any other benefits than a numerical adjustment. The need for numerical adjustment is the very focus of the mandate to reapportion. In too many districts we are forced to conclude that the disparities are without adequate justification in terms of rational state policies to meet the stringent standards established by the United States Supreme Court. It is significant to note that in no case coming before the Supreme Court have population variances approaching those of the 1971 plan been upheld, while less substantial variances have been repeatedly rejected as unconstitutional. [25] Judged by the standards set out above, we are compelled to hold that the 1971 plan is invalid since there is no adequate justification offered for the variances which range from +23.35 to -45.93 percent in the House districts, and from +26.14 to -7.2 percent in the Senate districts. [26]