Court Opinion

ID: 9604108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:14:58.623808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:18.574181
License: Public Domain

BURKE, Justice,
concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part.
To the extent indicated in the attachments to today’s opinion marked “APPENDIX B” and “APPENDIX C,” I continue to dissent. Otherwise, I concur in the action that we have taken in this case, and in the opinion of the court.
INDEX TO APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Governor Hickel’s 1991 Reapportionment Plan (Final Plan)
APPENDIX B: Order, May 28, 1992, Alaska Supreme Court
APPENDIX C: Corrected Order of Remand, June 8, 1992, Alaska Supreme Court
*58APPENDIX D: Order, June 11, 1992, Alaska Supreme Court
APPENDIX E:' Memorandum and Order, June 18, 1992, Superior Court Judge Larry Weeks
APPENDIX F: Memorandum and Order, June 19, 1992, Superior Court Judge Larry Weeks
APPENDIX G: Order, June 25, 1992, Alaska Supreme Court
APPENDIX H: 1992 Interim Reapportionment Plan, June 25, 1992
APPENDIX A
[[Image here]]
*59[[Image here]]
*60[[Image here]]
*61APPENDIX B
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
ORDER
[Filed May 28, 1992]
Before: RABINOWITZ, Chief Justice, BURKE, MATTHEWS, COMPTON and MOORE, Justices.
This matter having come before the court upon a petition and cross-petition for review, and the court having heard oral argument, and being advised in the premises:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.The Reapportionment Plan contained in the Governor of Alaska’s Proclamation of Reapportionment and Redistricting of September 5, 1991, is held unconstitutional in the following respects:
a) House Districts 1, 2 and 3. The superior court’s relevant findings of fact and conclusions of law as to House Districts 1, 2 and 3 are AFFIRMED. These districts, as constituted, are violative of article VI, section 6 of the Alaska Constitution. The districts do not contain, as nearly as practicable, relatively integrated socio-economic areas, identified with due consideration given to existing local government boundaries. Further, District 3, as constituted, violates the contiguous and compact territory requirements of article YI, section 6 of the Alaska Constitution.
b) House Districts 6, 26, 28 and 34. The superior court’s relevant findings of fact and conclusions of law as to House Districts 6, 26, 28 and 34 are AFFIRMED. These districts, as constituted, are violative of article VI, section 6 of the Alaska Constitution. The districts do not contain, as nearly as practicable, relatively integrated socio-economic areas, identified with due consideration given to existing local government boundaries. Further, District 28, as constituted, violates the contiguous and compact territory requirements of article VI, section 6 of the Alaska Constitution.
c) House District 35. The superior court’s relevant findings of fact and conclusions of law as to House District 35 are AFFIRMED. House District 35, as constituted, is violative of article VI, section 6 of the Alaska Constitution. It does not encompass, as nearly as practicable, a relatively integrated socio-economic area.
d)Western Aleutians. We deem it plain error under the contiguous territory requirement of article VI, section 6 of the Alaska Constitution not to include the Western Aleutians with the Eastern Aleutians in one district. Thus unless the severance of the Western Aleutians from the Eastern Aleutians is mandated by federal law, the areas must be joined in one district.
2. Inclusion of Non-resident Military in Population Base. The superior court’s holding that it was arbitrary on the part of the Governor’s Advisory Reapportionment Board (Board) not to exclude non-resident military from the population base is REVERSED. Review of the record demonstrates that the Board had a reasonable basis for its decision not to exclude nonresident military from its determination of the relevant population base.
3. Applicability of the Open Meetings Act and the Public Records Act to the Proceedings of the Advisory Reapportionment Board. The superior court’s holdings that the Open Meetings Act, AS 44.-62.310-312, and the Public Records Act, AS 09.25.110-140, apply to the Board are AFFIRMED.
4. A separate order of remand will follow.
5. An opinion will follow addressing the issues raised in the petition and cross-petition for review.
Entered by direction of the Supreme Court at Anchorage, Alaska, on May 28, 1992.
Clerk of the Supreme Court /s/ Jan Hansen Jan Hansen
BURKE, Justice, dissents in part.
Justice BURKE disagrees with the court’s conclusion that Districts 28 and 35, as constituted, violate article VI, section 6.
*62APPENDIX C
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
CORRECTED ORDER OF REMAND
[Filed June 8, 1992]
In our order of May 28, 1992, this court ruled on the merits of the petition and cross-petition filed herein. The trial court’s order of May 11, 1992, which invalidated the reapportionment and redistricting plan of September 5, 1991, was affirmed in part and reversed in part. In accordance with that order, this case is now remanded to the superior court with the following directions:
A: FORMULATION OF A FINAL PLAN
The superior court shall remand the case to the reapportionment board with instructions to formulate a final plan of reapportionment and redistricting which complies with the mandates contained in the superi- or court’s order of May 11, 1992, as modified by the order of this court dated May 28, 1992.
B: FORMULATION OF AN INTERIM PLAN
1. An interim plan of reapportionment and redistricting plan is necessary so that the 1992 elections may be conducted in compliance with the equal protection clause of the Federal Constitution, the federal voting rights act, and article VI, section 6 of the Alaska Constitution.
2. On remand, the superior court shall formulate an interim plan. The plan shall be consistent with the superior court’s order of May 11, 1992, as modified by the order of this court of May 28, 1992. The plan shall comply with the equal protection clause of the Federal Constitution, the federal voting rights act, and the requirements of article VI, section 6 of the Alaska Constitution, but need not comply with the guidelines adopted by the reapportionment board. Priority must be given first to the Federal Constitution, second to the federal voting rights act, and third to the requirements of article VI, section 6 of the Alaska Constitution. The requirements of article VI, section 6 shall receive priority inter se in the following order: (1) contiguousness and compactness, (2) relative socioeconomic integration, (3) consideration of local government boundaries, (4) use of drainage and other geographic features in describing boundaries.
3. The superior court is authorized to employ an expert or experts under Evidence Rule 706, or to appoint a master or masters under Civil Rule 53 to assist it in formulating an interim plan.
4. In formulating an interim plan, the court may change any district, in addition to those specifically found to be in violation of the Alaska Constitution under the superior court’s order of May 11, 1992, as modified by the order of this court of May 28, 1992, if necessary to meet the requirements of the Federal Constitution, the federal voting rights act, or the state constitution.
5. Procedures and schedules regarding the submission of proposed interim plans by the parties and objections to the interim plan formulated by the superior court shall be established by order of the superior court. The superior court shall issue its final order formulating an interim plan on or before June 18, 1992.
6. The superior court is authorized to extend filing and related deadlines for the August 1992 primary elections.
7. Unless otherwise ordered by this court, the lieutenant governor is to conduct the 1992 primary and general elections pursuant to the interim reapportionment and redistricting plan adopted by the superior court.
8. The interim plan adopted by the superior court shall be subject to discretionary review by this court under Appellate Rule 402 on an expedited basis.
SO ORDERED:
Entered by direction of the court at Anchorage, Alaska this 8th day of June, 1992. BURKE, Justice, joined by MOORE, Justice, dissenting in part.
*63Clerk of the Supreme Court /s/ Jan Hansen Jan Hansen
BURKE, Justice, with whom MOORE, Justice, joins, dissenting in part.
Legislative reapportionment responsibility is given by the Alaska’s constitution to the state’s governor. Alaska Const, art. VI, § 3; Wade v. Nolan, 414 P.2d 689 (Alaska 1966). When properly challenged, however, a reapportionment plan proclaimed by the governor is subject to judicial scrutiny. Alaska Const, art. IV, § 11. When the challenge is successful, as is the case here, the state constitution allows “the superior court to compel the governor, by mandamus or otherwise, to perform his reapportionment duties or to correct any error in redistrieting or reapportionment.” Id. I am not convinced, however, that the constitution allows us to direct the superior court to seize the executive’s reins, and develop a reapportionment plan of its own, even on an interim basis, unless and until it becomes clear that the governor is either unwilling or unable to develop a proper plan within the time that is available.
I, therefore, dissent from that part of today’s order of remand directing the superior court to develop an interim reapportionment plan. I view the decision by this court to issue the order, in its present form, as an abuse of our judicial power. If an interim plan is needed, which is clearly the case, the governor should be directed to prepare it, within a specified period of time; the superior court should be authorized to devise an interim plan only in the event that the governor fails to act within the time allowed.
I am authorized to state that Justice MOORE joins in my dissent.
APPENDIX D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
ORDER
[Filed June 11, 1992]
Before: RABINO WITZ, Chief Justice, BURKE, MATTHEWS, and MOORE,
Justices. [COMPTON, Justice, not participating.]
On consideration of the petition for review, filed on June 8, 1992, and the response to the petition, filed on June 10, 1992,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The petition is GRANTED.
2. In the superior court’s instructions to the special masters, there is no legal basis for the requirement that, wherever possible, native influence districts be drawn to include at least 35 percent native population. Action that is not required by the Voting Rights Act, which detracts from adherence to the requirements of the Alaska Constitution, is not allowed. The 35 percent requirement, is therefore, disapproved.
Entered by direction of the court at Anchorage, Alaska on June 11, 1992.
Clerk of the Supreme Court /s/ Jan Hansen Jan Hansen
APPENDIX E
. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT JUNEAU
[Filed June 18, 1992]
Case No. 1JU-91-1608 Civil (Consolidated) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Procedural History

On May 11,1992, after extensive briefing and a 16-day trial, this court held unconstitutional parts of Governor Hickel’s September 5, 1991 reapportionment plan. A petition for review was taken to the Alaska Supreme Court on an expedited basis and on May 28 the supreme court entered two orders in the case. The first order affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the superior court on the merits.1 The second order remanded the case
*64to this court with directions to devise an interim redistricting plan for use this year.2 This court was directed to devise the interim plan by June 18, 1992.
After soliciting suggestions from the parties on how to proceed,3 the court appointed three Special Masters to devise a redistricting plan. The masters were chosen from nominations by the parties. One was suggested by the governor (Harold Gillam); one was suggested by the plaintiffs (Brian Rogers); and one was picked by the court with the agreement of the parties (Wilson Condon). The masters were sworn on June 3rd and Mr. Condon was appointed chair.4
The masters were given various written instructions after briefing from the parties and in response to the masters’ questions.5
The parties filed draft plans on June 8 and made presentations to the masters.
The masters were instructed to return a draft plan to the court on Saturday June 13; this deadline was extended to noon, Sunday, June 14, 1992, when the masters presented their recommended plan to the court.6 The parties and the public had until the close of business June 16 to make written objection to the masters’ recommended plan.7
Meanwhile, the court entered an order on June 5, 1992, postponing the primary election from August 25 to September 8; other election deadlines were also postponed in accordance with the supreme court Order of Remand which authorized this court to “extend filing and related deadlines for the August 1992 primary elections.”8
These changes in election law as well as the court's proposed interim plan must be precleared by the U.S. Department of Justice. This court has ordered the State to submit these to the department and ask for *65expedited review.9 The State has done so with respect to the change in election dates and filing deadlines.10 The State asked this court to postpone some 24 Rural Education Attendance Area (REAA) and Coastal Resource Service Area (CRSA) elections until the Spring of 1993. In part because some of the REAA’s objected to the delay, this motion was denied in an Order entered June 10.

Introduction

The plan being promulgated by this order is an interim plan. It is in effect only until a final plan is promulgated by the reapportionment board in accordance with the supreme court’s order.
A court creating an interim plan has less discretion than does a governor creating a long-term plan.11 Although Article VI, Section 6 of the Alaska Constitution does not restrict the creation of senate districts by the governor, the Alaska Supreme Court has said that a court is more restricted in creating senate seats for interim plans than the governor is in creating permanent plans.12
This decision will address the court’s role in reapportionment, Department of Justice preclearance under the Voting Rights Act, how the court interacted with the masters in this ease, the masters plan and specific queries posed by the masters, objections raised by the public and parties, and the court’s analysis of the plan and the court’s changes to it.

Court Involvement in Reapportionment

The State, and to some extent the masters, have questioned the extent of court involvement in reapportionment and particularly court participation in preparing an interim plan. As explained in this court’s opinion of May 11, 1992, it is clear that the authors of the Alaska Constitution planned that the superior court and the supreme court would review the reapportionment process.13 The chair of the convention’s reapportionment committee said during the constitutional convention that the reapportionment article in the constitution would
set up very, very careful standards and limiting factors so that the Governor and the Board will not run away and will be acting within limits — within clear limits— and are not given wide discretion.
3 Proceedings, Constitutional Convention, at p. 1839.
Article VI, Section 11 of the Alaska Constitution provides:
Any qualified voter may apply to the superior court to compel the governor, *66by mandamus or otherwise, to perform his reapportionment duties or to correct any error in redistricting or reapportionment. (emphasis added)
Judicial review of government action necessarily involves courts making decisions about executive or legislative acts. Marburg v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 [2 L.Ed. 60] (1803). In many other states, state courts have drafted legislative reapportionment plans. See, e.g., Wilson v. Eu, [Cal.4th 707, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 379] 823 P.2d 545 (Cal.1992) (special masters draw up 1992 California legislative reapportionment plan); Hellar v. Cenarrusa, [106 Idaho 586] 682 P.2d 539 (Idaho 1984) (state court-ordered plan for 1984 Idaho legislative reapportionment); Kallenberger v. Buchanan, 649 P.2d 314 (Colo.1982) (state court-ordered reapportionment plan for 1982 Colorado legislature). Many federal courts have rewritten plans to meet the requirements of the Voting Rights Act. See, e.g., Connor v. Johnson, 402 U.S. 690 [91 S.Ct. 1760, 29 L.Ed.2d 268] (1971); Upham v. Seamon, 456 U.S. 37[, 102 S.Ct. 1518, 71 L.Ed.2d 725] (1982). Federal courts run school districts. Freeman v. Pitts, [ — ] U.S. [-], [112 S.Ct. 1430] 118 L.Ed.2d 108 (1992). In over 40 states, including Alaska, state corrections systems are run by court order. Cleary v. State, 3AN81-5274CI. Courts regularly amend or void fish and game regulations and season and bag limits. See, e.g., State v. Kluti Kaah Native Village, [831] P.2d [1270,] Op. No. 3339 (Alaska, May 8, 1992). Courts make detailed changes in utilities regulations and tariffs and a variety of other executive branch matters. APUC v. Municipality of Anchorage, 555 P.2d 552 (Alaska 1976).
Whether or not the above is always good public policy, there is no doubt that it is within the legal power of the court to remedy unconstitutional and illegal situations by framing short-term solutions.
Court involvement in an interim reapportionment plan is less intrusive and more naturally a part of the judicial process than court involvement in such areas as running corrections systems. Courts writing an interim reapportionment plan have no day-today supervision or control over an on-going process. There is but one decision to make and making that one-time decision is what courts are best able to do.
A glance at Alaska history shows precedent for this approach. In 1972, an Alaska court appointed masters who produced an interim plan. The masters were appointed by the court from the opposing viewpoints of the parties in the case. Whether or not masters have produced other interim plans in Alaska is not a part of this record.
While the court in this 1992 case did not originally postpone elections, extend deadlines, appoint masters or become involved in the preparation of any interim plan, there is no doubt that it has the legal power to do so. Egan v. Hammond, 502 P.2d 856 (Alaska 1972); Order of Remand, May 28, 1992.
Department of Justice Preclearance Section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Acts requires the State of Alaska to submit any changes in election law or procedure to the U.S. Department of Justice for a determination that the changes do not discriminate against minorities.
That Department of Justice review is sometimes long and thorough14 and it is sometimes governed by informal practices of the Department of Justice, as well as by explicit requirements of the statute. (Cooper Memorandum to Board Ex. A, p. 3915-3944).
This court is very concerned that approval of the interim plan will not proceed quickly enough to allow our state to have an orderly and timely primary. In attempting to meet what was said to be one of the *67informal concerns of the Department of Justice, this court gave the masters an instruction that encouraged the creation of Native “influence” districts, districts in which Alaska Natives would comprise 35 percent of the population. This proportion was chosen because expert study in Alaska suggests that Native influence districts of 35 percent are de facto Native control districts.15 The instruction to the masters said, “Wherever possible, those [Native] influence districts should be drawn with the goal of creating a district with a Native population of 35 percent.” This instruction was intended to help obtain speedy pre-clearance from the Department of Justice under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The State asked the supreme court to review this instruction and the supreme court granted the petition, holding:
... there is no legal basis for the requirement that, wherever possible, native influence districts be drawn to include at least 35 percent native population. Action that is not required by the Voting Rights Act, which detracts from adherence to the requirements of the Alaska Constitution, is not allowed. The 35 percent requirement is therefore, disapproved.
Order of June 11, 1992 (emphasis in original).
The masters were given a copy of the supreme court’s order and told that this court’s previous instruction on that issue was deleted. Several other instructions16 that had been submitted by the State and plaintiffs explaining the role of preclearance and some of the Department of Justice’s informal considerations in the pre-clearance process remained with the masters by stipulation of the parties.
The court encourages those counsel and their clients who believe that they can live with this interim plan to lend their support to the State in its application to the Department of Justice for timely preclearance. An' orderly election is important to the state and to all the parties to the litigation.

Priorities of an Interim Plan

This court gave the masters instructions that reflected the constraints of creating an interim plan. In those instructions, the U.S. Constitution ranked highest, followed by the federal Voting Rights Act, the Alas*68ka Constitution, procedural requirements and finally practical tips to aid the Division of Elections in preparing for re-district-ing.17
Following is a summary of the specific constraints given to the masters.
Total deviation among districts was not to exceed 16.4 percent. Total deviation was not to exceed 10 percent unless mandated by some legal requirement, applied .consistently across the state. The masters had the requirements of the Alaska constitution to: (1) maintain contiguity and compactness, (2) maintain relative socio-eco-nomic integration, (3) consider local government boundaries, (4) use drainage and other geographic features in describing boundaries. The masters were not to exclude non-resident military. They were to keep Adak in the Aleutians if that could possibly be done and comply with the Voting Rights Act. They were to maintain four house and two senate districts in which Alaska Natives comprise a majority of the population, and two house and two senate Native “influence” districts. They were to avoid placing former District 17 non-Native vot*69ers in an election district that was minority influence if the non-Natives might be able to overwhelm Native citizens by polarized voting and they were to attempt to avoid pitting incumbent Native legislators against other incumbents. Given all that, if possible they were to avoid breaking up Voting Tabulation Districts (VTD’s).18

The Masters’ Plan

The masters adopted most of the plaintiff’s plan for Southeast Alaska, much of the State’s alternative “A” for the eastern and northern part of Alaska and mostly the State’s alternative “B” for Western Alaska. The masters accepted the Board’s plan for Kenai and Anchorage and were unable to agree on a single plan for Fairbanks, submitting two options for the court to consider.

Juneau

Juneau, is a highly integrated community with sufficient population to support two house districts.19 The city’s economy is dominated by state, city, and federal government employment; it is dramatically different from the economy of cities anywhere else in Southeast Alaska or in any other region of the state. Juneau residents share few legislative interests with other residents of Southeast Alaska, especially residents of the small rural communities that make up the bulk of House District 3.20
Under every redistricting plan before this one, Juneau has been included in a two-member (multi-member) house district.21 In the 1984 redistricting plan, the two Juneau house districts were paired to form a single senate seat that contained all of Juneau. Governor Hickel’s plan divides
Juneau into two single-member house districts (Districts 4 and 5).
Multi-member election districts have been used in some places in this country to dilute the voting rights of minority groups and are often therefore suspect.22 Good government groups now support the use of single-member districts, and people in Alaska testified during trial and before the Board in favor of single-member districts generally. This court, however, believes that there are places where multi-member districts are preferable and are used, not to dilute any segment’s voting strength, but to unify a community. Alaska public officials so testified in this case and before the Board. (Uliner; Juneau’s mayor Ex. A, p. 2232-2237; Kohler) The masters strongly agreed that a multi-member district was best for Juneau. (Report p. 32-34)
There is no evidence that Juneau’s multi-member house district has ever in any way resulted in minimizing or canceling the voting strength of any racial or political group. The federal Voting Rights Act does not force the State to separate Juneau into two single-member house districts. Under that act, the only area in Alaska that could not be placed in a multi-member district would be former District 17, the only place in Alaska where racially polarized voting has been documented in the record.
The plaintiffs recommended a multi-member district for Juneau and this court believes this would be the best thing for that community. Juneau has always been in a multi-member district. There is no meaningful evidence or testimony before the court that discourages a multi-member district for Juneau. Rather, the court has heard the opposite.
*70The masters declined to put Juneau in a multi-member district because it was not required by the U.S. Constitution, the federal Voting Rights Act or the state constitution.
An argument can be made that putting Juneau in a multi-member district maximizes socio-economic integration. This court found that the Alaska constitution requires maximizing socio-economic integration, and the supreme court agreed. However, this court interprets that requirement to pertain within districts, not between two districts.
The failure by the State and the masters to put Juneau in a multi-member district elevates form over substance. Sometimes, though, form is important. In this case, “form” is the law. The law, as stated by the Supreme Court for this case, is that districts should not be joined unless that modification is required by the U.S. Constitution, the Voting Rights Act or the Alaska Constitution. Such a change is not required in this case and this court is bound by that limitation, whether it is in the best interests of Juneau or not.
The essence of the process is that courts follow the law whether they agree with it or not. For that reason alone, this court accepts the masters’ recommendation that Juneau be in two separate single-member house districts.

Southeast Alaska

The court accepts the masters’ plan with respect to Southeast Alaska. The court does so because a similar version of that plan, reported in the press for months is widely supported by the communities and interest groups in Southeast Alaska, especially by Alaska Natives, and because the plan meets the requirements of federal and state law. No one at trial suggested any alternative plan for Southeast, other than board members.

Military Bases in Alaska

The governor’s reapportionment board did not exclude non-resident military in Alaska. The Alaska Supreme Court said that the Board had a reasonable basis for its decision. May 28 Order at 3. Including non-resident military personnel in the population base (people who, because they claim residency elsewhere, may have little interest in Alaska affairs) creates odd situations, with legislators representing large populations on paper but relatively few actual voters. This court addresses the most extreme of these situations when it discusses Adak below. The decision not to exclude non-resident military, coupled with Alaska’s large, undivided military precincts, could perhaps be profitably addressed by the legislature.

Adak

The Adak Naval Air Station is a military outpost on the Aleutian Chain. Over 5,300 people live on the island, but fewer than 2,000 are registered to vote. Tours of duty are short on Adak and few of those who live there are involved in Alaska affairs. Voter turnout is abysmal — fewer than 400 voters actually go to the polls in a typical election.23 Most commerce is directly from Anchorage by non-stop flight and much of that is military. Adak (and the smaller military outposts on the nearby islands of Shemya and Attu) are U.S. Government reservations with limited access. Airplanes cannot land without prior permission. Because federal law prohibits government employees from standing for state or national office, only a dependent of a military or civilian employee could run for state office from the three bases.
Adak, Shemya and Attu have little or no socio-economic integration with any place else on the Aleutians. In many ways residents of these islands have more in common with military personnel on Elmendorf Air Force Base or Ft. Richardson near Anchorage or even with those at Eielson Air Force Base or Ft. Wainwright near Fairbanks than they do with residents of the Aleutian Islands and the Alaska Peninsula.24 However, Article VI Section 6 of the *71Alaska Constitution, in setting out requirements for redistricting, ranks compactness and contiguity higher than socio-economic integration and there is good reason for this ranking. The fear that politicians would attempt to carve out little pieces of geography and move them around the map for apportionment purposes has caused 34 states to add requirements for compactness and contiguity to their constitutions.25
The governor’s original reapportionment plan combined the military base at Adak with the Wade-Hampton census area in Western Alaska to provide a Native majority district. The Alaska Supreme Court found this to be clear error, saying that the Aleutians should be kept together unless doing so would violate the requirements of the federal Voting Rights Act. Later, in a response to a petition filed during this case, the state supreme court made it clear that it will require a plan to comply with the expressed terms of the Voting Rights Act but that it will not derogate the Alaska Constitution in order to obtain preclearance of an interim plan with the Department of Justice. Order of June 11, 1992.
The masters keep Adak in the Aleutians. It is possible to keep Adak in the Aleutians and keep all of the Aleutians together, as suggested by the supreme court, and still comply with the minimum explicit requirements of the Voting Rights Act — that is, make the district a Native influence district. However, local communities, legislators and the plaintiffs think this is a bad idea because it severely fractures other socio-economic groups.26 The supreme court’s directive to keep Adak with the Aleutian Islands, the constraints set down in the law and those ordered by this court to ensure compactness and contiguity, force unfortunate and undesirable decisions along all of Western Alaska, Bristol Bay, Prince William Sound, and the South-central part of the state. Those include dividing the Bristol Bay region, splitting the Yupik area, taking Kodiak out of the senate pairing it has held since before Statehood, and other Voting Rights Act decisions. The resulting Adak-Aleutians Native influence district is only barely an influence district and this raises concern that the Department of Justice may not give the speedy preclearance necessary if a plan is to be ready for this election.
Because the Alaska Supreme Court has emphasized the imperative of the Alaska constitutional provisions of compactness and contiguity, this court adopts the masters’ plan, with changes noted, which keeps Adak in the Aleutians.

Fairbanks

This court believes that the Fairbanks redistricting problem differs from the problem presented by multi-member districts in Juneau. The unconstitutionality of the governor’s original plan required rearrangements in other districts, and these rearrangements forced changes in the Fairbanks districts. (Masters’ Report p. 55)
Meanwhile, the masters, unable to agree on a redistricting scheme for Fairbanks, presented masters’ alternative plans “A” and “B”. The two masters from Fairbanks implicitly agreed that their alternative plan “B” was a better plan for Fairbanks, (p. 23 of the transcript of their presentation; *72p. 57-59 of report) All three masters agreed on and recommended certain changes because of their knowledge of so-cio-economic relationships with respect to Livengood, Central and Circle Hot Springs.
One master recommended masters’ alternative plan “A” because it was similar to a plan brought forward by the governor after the reapportionment board’s original plan was ruled unconstitutional, and because this master believes the governor is given the responsibility for reapportionment in Alaska.27 (Tr. 21-23, Masters’ Report p. 56-57 and Appendix P) That master believes the State’s plan should receive deference.
After the original plan was ruled unconstitutional, the State presented two separate, widely varied alternative plans to the masters, and there would seem to be a real question which, if either, is to be accorded deference. These State alternative plans were offered during litigation. They were not derived through any particular political process involving public participation or formal structured decision making.
Despite this court’s respect for that particular master, this court is unwilling to give any deference to the political process that led to the original reapportionment board decision relating to Fairbanks. That process was the most suspect of all the Board’s efforts. The chair of the reapportionment board sent hand drawn scenarios to the executive director and these drawings became the basis for the eventual alternatives. Neither these scenarios nor the correspondence were part of the public record nor was it made known that the communication was occurring. There was little discussion of the Fairbanks alternatives in hearing transcripts. The chair has now announced his candidacy for the legislature from one of those Board-created Fairbanks districts with no incumbent.
Giving deference to that process would be giving deference to violations of the Open Meetings Act, violations of the Public Records Act and violations of constitutional requirements produced by. this skewed political process.
The court believes that the state’s alternative plans offered during litigation deserve no greater deference in this situation than alternatives offered by any other litigant. If the districts have to be changed, they should be changed to conform to the best possible redistricting in accordance with law. Masters’ alternative plan “B” does that best, with exceptions noted.
The masters’ Fairbanks plan “B” best meets the socio-economic integration goal of reapportionment. It keeps urban and rural populations together. It helps with speedy clearance of the plan under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act by the U.S. Department of Justice in two ways. It creates a mixed minority influence district and it avoids placing any portion of the old District 17 (the only Alaska district where voting was polarized in 1990, according to voting expert, Dr. Bernard Grofman) in a Native influence district. The plan “A” District 34 is much like the plan the supreme court found unconstitutional.
This court accepts the masters’ plan “B”, except as noted.

Senate Pairings

In creating senate districts, permanent governor-created plans have ignored the requirements for compactness and contiguity, socio-economic integration, observance of local boundaries and geographical features that are mandated in the state constitution for house districts. This court feels bound, however, to observe those restrictions in preparing an interim plan. Again, the priority Alaska constitutional concern is compactness and contiguity. Only the restrictions of the United States Constitution and the Voting Rights Act take priority over that requirement.
The lack of population gain in Southeast Alaska, as compared to the rest of the state between 1980 and 1990, creates a conundrum. Southeast Alaska has five *73house districts. Four Southeast house districts can be paired to create two senate seats, but the remaining house district must be paired with a district outside the geographical confines of Southeast Alaska. In one scenario, the Southeast Alaska Islands district could be joined with neighboring Prince William Sound to form a compact and contiguous senate district. That combination, however, dilutes the proportion of Natives in that district to such an extent that a senate Native influence district would be lost. Such a pairing is impermissible and must yield to the federal Voting Rights Act. The masters reviewed an alternative that would join a Prince William Sound district with the Sitka-Wran-gell-Petersburg house district, or with a Ketchikan house district. None of the above alternatives is attractive.
This court, believing that the Southeast Alaska Islands district has interests in common with the marine-oriented community of Kodiak, accepts the masters’ suggestion and combines these two house districts. Such a pairing maintains Native voting power under the Voting Rights Act.
As discussed above, there is no constitutional requirement in Article VI, Section 6 that senate districts be contiguous. There is an Alaska equal protection guarantee against hodge-podge senate pairings. The supreme court has also restricted masters in what should be attempted in interim plans, supra. However, that requirement must yield to the Voting Rights Act when drawing a plan. Given the requirements for keeping Adak in the Aleutians and for passing muster with the Department of Justice under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the court makes that one senate pairing that is not contiguous.
This alignment allows other senate pairings that will help to meet the requirements of the Voting Rights Act. The court pairs Kodiak with the Southeast Islands district, Bethel with the North Slope/ NANA district and the Bristol Bay district with the Aleutian district. The Interior Rivers district is joined with the Fairbanks Badger Road district that has no previous non-Native voters from old District 17.
This provides two Senate Native majority districts and two Senate Native influence districts.
To the extent it is possible, the court pairs Fairbanks and Anchorage according to the contiguity and population and surrounding district characteristics. The Prince William Sound district, including Cordova, Valdez and Whittier, is paired with Seward and Soldotna because of the commonality of interests of those communities. Mat-Su pairings are done much as the borough requested for the reasons the borough stated. A list of senate pairings is attached.
It is ordered that all senators must run for office this year. Length of terms shall be two years or four years, depending on the toss of a coin, in a manner and place to be stipulated to by counsel.

Western Alaska

The masters adopted the State’s alternative “B” for Western Alaska. The court believed that “B” unduly disrupted the so-cio-economic fabric in Bristol Bay and substituted State’s alternative “A” instead. Changes then had to be made in State’s alternative “A” to establish contiguity, to maximize socio-economic integration, to avoid pitting incumbent minorities one against another, and to equalize population. This was done as the court ran into the same problems the masters had undoubtedly run into. Many people have talked about earthquake zones in reapportionment. Bristol Bay has felt that trembler this year. The requirement to keep Adak in the Aleutians and to comply with the voting rights act requires splitting of groups and traditional district associations in that area.

Objections of the Parties to the Masters’ Plan

The parties have raised the following objections to the redistricting plan drafted by the special masters.
Interior Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs Demientieff et al. object to the inclusion of Cordova and Prince William
*74Sound communities into District 35, the exclusion of substantial Ahtna population from District 35, and the exclusion of Ne-nana from District 35. The basis for their objection to the Prince William Sound combination is the lack of socio-economic integration between the Sound and the Interior Athabascan villages. These plaintiffs believe that the line between District 35 and District 6 fails to place the bulk of the Ahtna Native population in District 35, and suggest that this placement may have been the unintentional result of a technical problem. These plaintiffs argue that Nenana should be placed in District 35 because this placement is required under the court’s May 11 decision which held that Nenana is more integrated with the Interior Rivers district than with the Highways district. The reapportionment board had come to the same conclusion. Interior plaintiffs also suggest that Tok should be in District 35.
The court has modified the recommendations of the masters to the extent that Cordova and the Eyak region west of Cor-dova is included with Valdez and Whittier in District 6 as a part of the Prince William Sound District. This is based on the socioeconomic integration of the area, the need for additional population in that district and the unanimous public comment with respect to that area. The Native communities believed themselves more integrated into Prince William Sound than into an interior district. The court sees this area as being dominated by its connection to the sound. This is different from the court change with respect to Tok that is both interior and on the road system.
The court has moved Copper Center, Kenney Lake, Tonsina, parts of Mentasta, Chistochina, Tok, Nenana and areas around Gulkana and Gakona into District 35.
This is based on the socio-economic relationships testified to by Ms. Evelyn Beeter of Chistochina, and by the anthropologists, Polly Wheeler and Dr. Steven McNabb. These experts and local people said the Ahtna people are most integrated with the Athabascan villages comprising an important part of District 35. The decision is also based on testimony before the court and the Board, as well as on the Board’s decision to include Nenana in this district. Nenana and Tok both include non-Native population once included in former District 17. That non-Native population is unable to dominate an election in a district with a 60 percent Native population. Both Tok and Nenana are hubs of surrounding interi- or areas. Nenana is the hub of the “Rivers” area. It is 42 percent Native and it contributes significantly to the sparse population of this district. Tok is a highway hub of surrounding villages.
Interior plaintiffs prefer masters’ alternative “B” for Fairbanks. These plaintiffs argue that no deference should be given the governor acting as a party in this phase of the litigation, as distinct from the governor promulgating the Board’s plan. They argue that the District 34 in masters’ alternative “A” is similar to the District 34 that was found unconstitutional by this court and the supreme court, and that the Board’s plan for Fairbanks was highly suspect due to the actions of the chair in drawing up that plan. Finally these plaintiffs suggest a senate pairing of District 35 with the University district. Senate pairings are discussed later in this decision.
Southeast Conference
Plaintiffs Southeast Conference, et al., object to the City and Borough of Juneau being districted as two single-member house districts, preferring that it be combined as one two-member district. These plaintiffs argue that the masters ignored Instruction 5 which specifically authorized them to create multi-member districts, and misread Instruction 7 to restrict their flexibility rather than to grant them authority to make changes. These plaintiffs note that the masters did, despite their reading of Instruction 7, make changes to Juneau districts, and that all three masters believe that a two-member district is preferable for Juneau. Southeast plaintiffs list the extensive testimony to this court and the Board favoring a single district for Juneau. These plaintiffs point out that this court’s decision of May 11 said that the Board had not adequately considered the issue of sin*75gle- versus multi-member districts, and that the supreme court Order of Remand does not address the issue of multi-member districts but specifically states that the Board’s guidelines need not be followed. The court has addressed this issue above.
Southeast plaintiffs also object to the masters’ placement of the land mass between Petersburg and Wrangell and the Canadian border in the Islands district. They point out that the masters’ report and map are inconsistent in this respect, and suggest that the placement may be inadvertent. They argue that this area is more integrated with Petersburg and Wrangell than with the Islands district, pointing to Rep. Jerry Mackie’s plan, the state's Department of Community and Regional Affairs “model” borough boundaries, potential road development, fishing in the area, and the lack of evidence in the record to support moving this area from one district to another. Finally, they argue that considerations of contiguity do not require this configuration; both the State’s alternative plan “A” and plaintiffs’ proposal are contiguous only over water.
The court upholds the masters’ intent to incorporate the land mass next to the Canadian border into the Islands district. This area, although not now populated, is contiguous to the Islands district. Adding this area makes that district itself contiguous and the people in that area in the future are as likely to be integrated in the Islands district as in the Sitka-Wrangell-Peters-burg district.
Mat-Su Borough
Plaintiffs Matanuska-Susitna Borough, et ah, object to the masters’ treatment of the eastern boundary of the rural Mat-Su district, arguing that the district boundary should be the same as the borough boundary. The placement of the boundary, they argue, unnecessarily fragments the borough, placing 1,177 borough residents in the Interior Highways district, and failing to give due consideration to local government boundaries and socio-economic integration. These plaintiffs suggest moving the above population into a Mat-Su district, replacing them in District 6 by moving Cordova and nearby communities into District 6 from District 35. Mat-Su plaintiffs argue that the proposed highways district has the same infirmities as did District 28 from Governor Hickel’s plan which was found unconstitutional partly because it ignored local government boundaries and so-cio-economic integration within the borough.
The Mgt-Su plaintiffs’ second objection is to proposed District 26 which combines Wasilla and Chugiak. They argue this proposed district suffers from the same problems as did the governor’s District 26, which was found unconstitutional. They argue that the southern boundary of the Mat-Su districts should be the southern boundary of the borough. They point out that this court found that the governor’s District 26 was unconstitutional and the supreme court affirmed this finding. They argue that the masters’ proposed District 26 still lacks socio-economic integration between the Mat-Su portion and the Chugiak portion. Mat-Su plaintiffs suggest that adding the Chugiak population to Anchorage districts would increase the average Anchorage district population by only 1.18 percent, well within tolerances. The court upholds the masters recommendations with respect to these objections for the reasons stated in their report. The addition of 2600 persons from the Chugiak region does not significantly change the character of the region. The population of District 6 is insufficient to withstand taking 1,266 people out to make the Mat-Su borough boundary tidy. The court believes that preserving the ethnic and cultural unity of the Athabascans and Ahtna and the maintenance of a Native majority district and senate Native influence district weighs more heavily than the preservation of this boundary.
The third objection made by the Mat-Su plaintiffs is with respect to the senate pairing of districts within the borough. They argue that the Wasilla and Palmer house districts should share a senate district. The senate pairing problem stems in part, Mat-Su plaintiffs argue, from the fact that under the masters’ senate pairings, An*76chorage will effectively control nine senate seats instead of the 8.2 to which they are entitled using the chosen population base. That objection is dealt with in the senate pairings section of this opinion.
Alaska Democratic Party
Plaintiff Alaska Democratic Party, et al., (ADP) argue that adoption of the masters’s plan will result in rigorous and prolonged Department of Justice review, that the masters’ plan does not adequately respect local government boundaries, and that it rubber stamps districts in Anchorage which were likely created based on improper motives. ADP argues that Adak does not have to be districted with the Aleutian Chain, that keeping Adak within the Chain results in many problems, such as a fractured Bristol Bay district. The proper district for Adak is with Elmendorf Air Force Base, ADP argues.
ADP plaintiffs argue that the masters gave undue weight to what the masters understood as a restriction on their authority to redraw districts which were not found unconstitutional. In particular, ADP argues that Master Gillam’s deference to the State’s litigation proposal was unfounded. Finally, ADP argues that it is error to incorporate into the court’s plan Anchorage districts which were created with the strong appearance of impropriety as found by this court. The court deals with these objections in appropriate sections of this opinion.
Fish and Game Fund
Defendant Fish and Game Fund is not pleased with the masters’ proposed reapportionment plan. This plan, they argue, fractures the largest language minority group in rural Alaska, the Yupiks. The Yupik groups are split.among District 35, (the Interior Rivers district), District 37, (the Bering Straits district), and District 38, which has a Yupik majority. In Districts 35 and 37, Yupiks are left as a minority in districts controlled by others. Fish and Game Fund’s second objection is to the proposed senate pairings, which, they argue, leaves them without a majority in any senate seat. The court’s adoption of State’s alternative “A” with respect to Western Alaska meets most of the Fish and Game Fund objections. They had endorsed this plan. To the extent that changes were made they were mostly made in accordance with recommendations that had been made by the Fish and Game Fund. Senate pairings are discussed elsewhere in this opinion.
State
Defendant State of Alaska recommends that the court adopt House District 26 as proposed by the special masters and by the State in both its alternatives. The State argues that the district is well integrated and that leaving it as they have proposed it will save considerable time and effort in preparing for the election because no district or precinct in Anchorage will have to be changed from the governor’s proposed plan.
With respect to Fairbanks, the State argues that masters’ alternative “B” should be rejected because it ignores the governor’s plan and that alternative “A” should be accepted because it conforms most closely to the governor’s plan. Even alternative “A”, however, changes every Fairbanks district from the governor’s plan. The State argues that the governor’s plan for Fairbanks has been through a public process, and that masters’ alternative “A” most closely resembles that plan. The State also argues that the advantages claimed in the masters’ report for alternative “B” are illusory. For example, the state says, alternative “B” splits ten Voter Tabulation Districts (VTD’s), while alternative “A” splits only 18 VTD’s, and the related manual work with so-called geographic information files (“GIFing”) in the Division of Elections has already been completed for the governor’s plan. The stated goal of avoiding a pairing with parts of former District 17 is accomplished as well with alternative A, the state says. The creation of a mixed minority influence district in South Fairbanks in masters’ alternative “B” does not justify that plan, the State argues, because mixed minority dis*77tricts have no legal significance, and, in any event, alternative “A” creates two such districts.
With respect to Southwest Alaska, the State recommends that the court adopt the State’s alternative plan “A” instead of the plan recommended by the masters. To bolster this recommendation, the State cites the support of the Fish and Game Fund for this proposal and the fact that plan “A” increases the ratio of Alaska Natives in proposed District T, an Alaska Native majority senate district. The State also suggests a system for district numbering.

Comments and Objections by the Public

The public — as individuals, organizations, public bodies and public officials — produced an outpouring of comment on the masters’ proposed plan. It was a gratifying response to the court’s efforts to obtain public input and it dramatically demonstrates the importance of producing a tentative plan, with an invitation for specific comments about how that tentative proposal would work. The masters encouraged just this sort of participation and the court commends this procedure to future boards.
Prince William Sound
In less than 48 hours, hundreds of people from the Cordova and Eyak region let the court know in writing of their desire to be included in the Prince William Sound district. Whoever organized this effort should be in charge of any future oil spill cleanup. The comments ranged from the gruff to the amusing but they were thoughtful and valuable. They helped convince this court that the socio-economic ties cited unanimously in this public outpouring justified moving Cordova and the Eyak region into District 6.
Western Alaska
The Aleutian Chain, Bristol Bay, Kodiak and Bethel areas all provided this court with a wealth of materials describing how each area could be districted so as to maximize the particular interests of that area. Unfortunately, given the law and population, not all those needs could be met. The supreme court’s decision with respect to Adak and the Voting Rights Act drove deviations the court made from the masters’ recommended plan. The masters had adopted the State’s alternative “B” for Western Alaska in an effort to keep the Lake and Peninsula Borough intact. The court believed that goal laudable, but the resulting disruption was so severe to communities of interest in Bristol Bay area that the court instead substituted the State’s alternative “A” for this region. The court then ran into other considerations and amended that substitution. It turns out that the masters were right and the court amends its substituted plan to conform in many ways with plaintiff Leav-itt and defendant Fish and Game Fund proposals. That will make the plan with the other changes much like the masters’ plan. The court puts Bethel with the southern District 38 rather than District 37. Bethel is more integrated with the villages around it than it is with Nome. The populations make more sense together.
The court made other minor adjustments to State’s alternative “A”. The court put Akiak in the Bethel District 37. This is more in keeping with its ethnic background. The court also extended District 38 to make it contiguous with the Kodiak Borough and District 40, including Pedro Bay.
Kodiak and Aleutian Pairing
The Kodiak and Aleutian traditional senate pairing is simply impossible under the requirements of the Voting Rights Act and the state supreme court’s ruling with respect to Adak. That situation is described elsewhere in this opinion.
Anchorage
Some of the comments received from Anchorage reflect the writers’ discomfort with the Board’s original decisions about that community. The pairing of Adak with Elmendorf Air Force Base would, indeed, give Anchorage an additional house seat and would require some other re-alignments that well might be improvements in districting in Anchorage as well as all the *78rest of the state. However, this court has found that the supreme court’s order to keep Adak with the Aleutian Chain, if possible, is possible and the court accepts the masters’ recommendations to use the Board’s reapportionment of Anchorage. No person or group challenged the Anchorage configuration, as opposed to the process of reapportionment, and no illegal configuration in Anchorage has been pointed out to the court.
Southeast Alaska
As discussed above, some district in Southeast has to “go north” for a senate pairing and that is unattractive. It is, none the less, a requirement of reapportionment. All public comments received said that some other district should be paired with an over-the-water district. The court believes that the most logical pairing is that of the Islands district with the Kodiak district. This creates a Native influence district.
Fairbanks
Fairbanks, like Anchorage, did not have any litigant in the lawsuit to point out configuration illegalities, other than how redistricting affected District 34. While some public officials do not like the current plan for Fairbanks, it appears best to the court with the changes made as required.
The court received the comments from the Fairbanks masters with respect to Li-vengood, Central and Circle Hot Springs and from individuals in some of those places. In some ways, the socio-economic relations of those communities are more closely linked with Fairbanks. They are also geographically most properly within District 35 and the court moved them back to that district. At one point, the masters’ map with respect to this recommendation actually showed non-contiguous circles around those three communities inside District 35. District 35 is low on population in the court’s draft and further taking of non-contiguous areas from within the district directly detracts from its ability to be an acceptable Native influence district. The court took part of the area near Lathrop Road in Fairbanks District 32 and put it in District 30. Part of District 30 in the College Road area was put in District 29. These adjustments were made to try to equalize the population distribution.

Conclusion

The Court adopts the masters’ recommended plan with the exceptions noted above in detail with respect to each area. The attached maps are illustrative of the court’s plan. The reports attached show deviations from ideal size districts and the Native population. A computer diskette of this mapped plan is today provided to the division of elections.
Some of the court’s changes are:
The court substituted the State’s alternative “A” in Western Alaska and then modified it much in the way that had been suggested by the Fish and Game Fund and the North Slope plaintiffs. Bethel is put in District 38, Akiak is put in District 37, Tuluksak was moved from District 38 to District 35. Pedro Bay and nearby population was moved from 35 to 38.
Teller is left in 36 because that district is underpopulated.
The court moved Cordova and the Eyak communities from District 35 to the Prince William Sound/Interior Roads District 6.
Kenney Lake, Tonsina, Copper Center, part of Mentasta, areas around Gulkana and Gakona and Tok were moved from District 6 to District 35.
Nenana was moved from District 29 to District 35.
Parts of Fairbanks near Lathrop were moved from 32 to 30 and parts near College Road were moved to 29 from 30.
Livengood, Circle Hot Springs and Central are moved back into District 35.
This configuration with the corresponding senate pairings preserves all necessary Native majority and influence districts. It does not pair incumbent Natives against other Natives.
The court accepts the masters’ recommendations with the exceptions noted and orders that the plan be effective until a permanent plan be produced by the reap-
*79portionment board.28 The matter is remanded to the reapportionment board for preparation of a permanent plan in accordance with the supreme court’s order and opinion.
/s/ Larry Weeks Larry Weeks Superior Court Judge
Dated June 18, 1992
COURT INTERIM PLAN ALASKA NATIVE MAJORITY AND INFLUENCE DISTRICTS
With Senate Pairings
[[Image here]]
COURT INTERIM PLAN PLAN DEVIATIONS FROM IDEAL POPULATION
With Senate Pairings
[[Image here]]
*80APPENDIX E — Continued
[[Image here]]
6/18/92 PAGE 1
Population Summary Report
District Population Deviation Pet, Dev.
1 13,985 234 1.70
2 13,483 - 268 ' - 1.95
3 14,622 871 6.33
4 13,595 - 156 - 1.13
5 13,324 - 427 - 3.11
6 13,215 - 536 - 3.90
7 13,941 190 1.38
8 13,793 42 0.31
9 13,810 59 0.43
10 13,966 215 1.56
11 13,964 213 1.55
12 13,919 168 1.22
13 13,925 174 1.27
14 13,928 177 1.29
15 13,981 230 1.67
16 13,751 0 0.00
17 13,807 56 0.41
18 13,876 125 0.91
19 13,859 108 0.79
20 13,915 164 1.19
21 13.933 182 1.32
22 13,863 112 0.81
23 13,898 147 1.07
.24 13,805 54 0.39
25 13.934 183 1.33
26 13,628 - 123 - 0.89
27 13,970 219 1.59
28 13,537 - 214 - 1.56
29 13,104 - 647 - 4.71
30 13,263 - 488 - 3.55
31 13,550 - 201 - 1.46
32 13,534 - 217 - 1.58
33 13,010 - 741 - 5.39
34 13,160 - 591 - 4.30
35 13,242 - 509 - 3.70
36 13,346 - 405 - 2.95
37 14,383 632 4.60
38 13,670 - 81 - 0.59
*81District Population Deviation Pet. Dev.
to 00 <3¾ CO T — I O CO ^ rH CO ZD
Oa CO t-00 Tii ZD ZD CO rH O
550,048 0.02
Plan Type ASSEMBLY
Plan name COURTFIN
Date June 18,
Time 3:00 PM
User lizik
Mean Deviation is: to 00 tf*.
Mean Percent Deviation is: O -3
8.28 Percent Largest Positive Deviation is: CO ⅞0
— 5.39 Percent Largest Negative Deviation is: )_i
1,880 13.67 Percent Overall Range in Deviation is:
Plan Type ASSEMBLY
Plan name COURTFIN
Date June 18,
Time 3:00 PM
User lizik
DISTRICT No. 1
Total Population 13,985
Deviation 234
Dev. Percentage 1.70
Total 18 + 9,831
NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 11,331 55 286 1,847 460 6
% of Total Pop. 81.02 0.39 2.05 13.21 3.29 0.04
18 + 8,160 47 159 1,163 300 2
% of Total 18 + 83.00 0.48 1.62 11.83 3.05 0.02
DISTRICT No. 2
Total Population 13,483
Deviation — 268
Dev. Percentage — 1.95
Total 18 + 9,157
NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 8,397 16 218 4,771 75 6
% of Total Pop. 62.28 0.12 1.62 35.39 0.56 0.04
18 + 6,083 8 127 2,887 48 4
% of Total 18 + 66.43 0.09 1.39 31.53 0.52 0.04
*82DISTRICT No. 3
Total Population 14,622
Deviation 871
Dev. Percentage 6.33
Total 18 + 10,165
NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
[[Image here]]
DISTRICT No. 4
Total Population 13,595
Deviation — 156
Dev. Percentage — 1.13
Total 18 + 10,062
NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 10,265 121 424 2,215 568 2
% of Total Pop. 75.51 0.89 3.12 16.29 4.18 0.01
18 + 7,904 93 248 1,415 401 1
% of Total 18 + 78.55 0.92 2.46 14.06 3.99 0.01
DISTRICT No. 5
Total Population 13,324
Deviation — 427
Dev. Percentage — 3.11
Total 18 + 8,957
NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
[[Image here]]
DISTRICT No. 6
Total Population 13,215
Deviation — 536
Dev. Percentage — 3.90
Total 18 + 9,197 .
NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 11,061 369 402-1,002 378 3
% of Total Pop. 83.70 2.79 3.04 7.58 2.86 0.02
18 + 7,776 246 250 671 252 2
% of Total 18 + 84.55 2.67 2.72 7.30 2.74 0.02
*83DISTRICT No. 7
Total Population 13,941
Deviation 190
Dev. Percentage 1.38
Total 18 + 9,194
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 12,954 28 200 638 120 1
% of Total Pop. 92.92 0.20 1.43 4.58 0.86 0.01
18 + 8,596 16 120 394 67 1
% of Total 18 + 93.50 0.17 1.31 4.29 0.73 0.01
DISTRICT No. 8
Total Population 13,793
Deviation 42
Dev. Percentage 0.31
Total 18 + 9,436
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 12,436 82 249 878 142 6
% of Total Pop. 90.16 0.59 1.81 6.37 1.03 0.04
18 + 8,542 68 139 604 81 2
% of Total 18 + 90.53 0.72 1.47 6.40 0.86 0.02
DISTRICT No. 9
Total Population 13,810
Deviation 59
Dev. Percentage 0.43
Total 18 + 9,382
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 12,343 86 292 940 146 3
% of Total Pop. 89.38 0.62 2.11 6.81 1.06 0.02
18 + 8,460 58 167 603 92 2
% of Total 18 + 90.17 0.62 1.78 6.43 0.98 0.02
DISTRICT No. 10
Total Population 13,966
Deviation 215
Dev. Percentage 1.56
Total 18 + 9,383
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 12,401 290 387 429 440 19
% of Total Pop. 88.79 2.08 2.77 3.07 3.15 0.14
18 + 8,414 177 238 263 282 9
% of Total 18 + 89.67 1.89 2.54 2.80 3.01 0.10
*84DISTRICT No. 11
Total Population 13,964
Deviation 213
Dev. Percentage 1.55
Total 18 + 9,778
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 11,245 671 494 870 672 12
% of Total Pop. 80.53 4.81 3.54 6.23 4.81 0.09
18 + 8,109 394 288 541 438 8
% of Total 18 + 82.93 4.03 2.95 5.53 4.48 0.08
DISTRICT No. 12
Total Population 13,919
Deviation 168
Dev. Percentage 1.22
Total 18 + 9,604
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 10,825 902 589 903 677 23
% of Total Pop. 77.77 6.48 4.23 6.49 4.86 0.17
18 + 7,718 546 350 544 439 7
% of Total 18 + 80.36 5.69 3.64 5.66 4.57 0.07
DISTRICT No. 13
Total Population 13,925
Deviation 174
Dev. Percentage 1.27
Total 18+ 9,402
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 12,898 188 264 312 260 3
% of Total Pop. 92.62 1.35 1.90 2.24 1.87 0.02
18+ 8,810 112 166 168 143 3
% of Total 18+ 93.70 1.19 1.77 1.79 1.52 0.03
DISTRICT No. 14
Total Population 13,928
Deviation 177
Dev. Percentage 1.29
Total 18+ 9,865
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 10,402 1,157 562 1,157 634 16
% of Total Pop. 74.68 8.31 4.04 8.31 4.55 0.11
18+ 7,687 754 329 662 428 5
% of Total 18+ 77.92 7.64 3.34 6.71 4.34 0.05
*85DISTRICT No. 15
Total Population 13,981
Deviation 230
Dev. Percentage 1.67
Total 18+ 10,286
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 11,339 527 516 851 739 9
% of Total Pop. 81.10 3.77 3.69 6.09 5.29 0.06
18+ 8,574 347 324 532 504 5
% of Total 18+ 83.36 3.37 3.15 5.17 4.90 0.05
DISTRICT No. 16
Total Population 13,751
Deviation 0
Dev. Percentage 0.00
Total 18+ 10,419
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 11,002 687 401 882 763 16
% of Total Pop. 80.01 5.00 2.92 6.41 5.55 0.12
18+ ' 8,541 467 261 602 541 7
% of Total 18+ 81.98 4.48 2.51 5.78 5.19 0.07
DISTRICT No. 17
Total Population 13,807
Deviation 56
Dev. Percentage 0.41
Total 18+ 9,615
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 11,333 472 447 591 953 11
% of Total Pop. 82.08 3.42 3.24 4.28 6.90 0.08
18+ 8,048 295 297 351 621 3
% of Total 18+ 83.70 3.07 3.09 3.65 6.46 0.03
DISTRICT No. 18
Total Population 13,876
Deviation 125
Dev. Percentage 0.91
Total 18+ 10,549
NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
[[Image here]]
*86DISTRICT No. 19
Total Population 13,859
Deviation 108
Dev. Percentage 0.79
Total 18+ 11,230
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 9,696 662 797 1,685 997 22
% of Total Pop. 69.96 4.78 5.75 12.16 7.19 0.16
18+ 8,266 485 557 1,195 714 13
% of Total 18+ 73.61 4.32 4.96 10.64 6.36 0.12
DISTRICT No. 20
Total Population 13,915
Deviation 164
Dev. Percentage 1.19
Total 18+ 10,167
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic 1 NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 7,265 1,864 1,101 2,683 979 23
% of Total Pop. 52.21 13.40 7.91 19.28 7.04 0.17
18+ 5,788 1,244 698 1,772 659 6
% of Total 18+ 56.93 12.24 6.87 17.43 6.48 0.06
DISTRICT No. 21
Total Population 13,933
Deviation 182
Dev. Percentage 1.32
Total 18+ 9,704
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 10,949 1,176 601 651 538 18
% of Total Pop. 78.58 8.44 4.31 4.67 3.86 0.13
18+ 7,853 717 357 389 380 8
% of Total 18+ 80.93 7.39 3.68 4.01 3.92 0.08
DISTRICT No. 22
Total Population 13,863
Deviation 112
Dev. Percentage 0.81
Total 18+ 9,166
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 9,967 1,713 740 730 698 15
% of Total Pop. 71.90 12.36 5.34 5.27 5.03 0.11
18+ 6,745 1,080 418 435 480 8
% of Total 18+ 73.59 11.78 4.56 4.75 5.24 0.09
*87DISTRICT No. 23
Total Population 13,898
Deviation 147
Dev. Percentage 1.07
Total 18+ 9,323
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 9,524 2,422 949 544 444 15
% of Total Pop. 68.53 17.43 6.83 3.91 3.19 0.11
18+ 6,567 1,554 575 328 294 5
% of Total 18+ 70.44 16.67 6.17 3.52 3.15 0.05
DISTRICT No. 24
Total Population 13,805
Deviation 54
Dev. Percentage 0.39
Total 18+ 9,248
NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 11,612 800 524 578 282 9
% of Total Pop. 84.11 5.80 3.80 4.19 2.04 0.07
18+ 7,849 522 303 385 186 3
% of Total 18+ 84.87 5.64 3.28 4.16 2.01 0.03
DISTRICT No. 25
Total Population 13,934
Deviation 183
Dev. Percentage 1.33
Total 18+ 9,153
NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 12,589 272 333 480 253 7
% of Total Pop. 90.35 1.95 2.39 3.44 1.82 0.05
18+ 8,363 153 186 292 157 2
% of Total 18+ 91.37 1.67 2.03 3.19 1.72 0.02
DISTRICT No. 26
Total Population 13,628
Deviation — 123
Dev. Percentage — 0.89
Total 18+ 8,669
NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 12,418 106 312 659 126 7
% of Total Pop. 91.12 0.78 2.29 4.84 0.92 0.05
18+ 7,976 62 169 388 68 6
% of Total 18+ 92.01 0.72 1.95 4.48 0.78 0.07
*88DISTRICT No. 27
Total Population 13,970
Deviation 219
Dev. Percentage 1.59
Total 18+ 9,000
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 12,880 121 244 634 90 1
% of Total Pop. 92.20 0.87 1.75 4.54 0.64 0.01
18+ 8,403 62 127 349 58 1
% of Total 18+ 93.37_0.69 1.41_R88_064_0.01
DISTRICT No. 28
Total Population 13,537
Deviation — 214
Dev. Percentage — 1.56
Total 18+ 8,810
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 12,568 60 249 553 105 2
% of Total Pop. 92.84 0.44 1.84 4.09 0.78 0.01
18+ 8,260 38 128 326 58 0
% of Total 18+ 93.76 0.43 1.45 3.70 0.66 0.00
DISTRICT No. 29
[[Image here]]
NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
[[Image here]]
DISTRICT No. 30
Total Population tO CT5 CO
Deviation ^ OO CO
Dev. Percentage . Cn CR
Total 18+ 05 h-1 i — 1
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 10,392 704 425 1,210 519 13
% of Total Pop. 78.35 5.31 3.20 9.12 3.91 0.10
18+ 7,685 479 267 781 387 12
% of Total 18+ 79.96 4.98 2.78 8.13 4.03 0.12
*89DISTRICT No. 31
Total Population 13,550
Deviation — 201
Dev. Percentage — 1.46
Total 18+ 9,810
NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 10,489 858 516 1,362 303 22
% of Total Pop. 77.41 6.33 3.81 10.05 2.24 0.16
18+ 7,805 519 336 932 212 6
% of Total 18+ 79.56 5.29 3.43 9.50 2.16 0.06
DISTRICT No. 32
Total Population 13,534
Deviation — 217
Dev. Percentage — 1.58
Total 18+ 9,238
NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 8,348 2,585 971 1,109 509 12
% of Total Pop. 61.68 19.10 7.17 8.19 3.76 0.09
18+ 5,904 1,744 599 638 345 8
% of Total 18+ 63.91 18.88 6.48 6.91 3.73 0.09
DISTRICT No. 33
Total Population 13,010
Deviation — 741
Dev. Percentage — 5.39
Total 18+ 8,431
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 11,648 224 230 762 141 5
% of Total Pop. 89.53 1.72 1.77 5.86 1.08 0.04
18+ 7,669 128 144 408 80 2
% of Total 18+ 90.96 1.52 1.71 4.84 0.95 0.02
DISTRICT No. 34
Total Population 13,160
Deviation —591
Dev. Percentage —4.30
Total 18+ 8,445
NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 11,083 936 564 268 295 14
% of Total Pop. 84.22 7.11 4.29 2.04 2.24 0.11
18+ 7,245 564 292 153 184 7
⅜ Of Total 18+ 85.79 6.68 3.46 1.81 2.18 0.08
*90DISTRICT No. 35
Total Population 13,242
Deviation — 509
Dev. Percentage — 3.70
Total 18+ 8,445
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 4,927 87 142 8,034 49 3
% of Total Pop. 37.21 0.66 1.07 60.67 0.37 0.02
18+ 3,632 66 72 4,639 33 3
% of Total 18+ 43.01 0.78 0.85 54.93 0.39 0.04
DISTRICT No. 36
Total Population 13,346
Deviation —405
Dev. Percentage —2.95
Total 18+ 7,953
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 2,182 49 163 10,632 313 7
% of Total Pop. 16.35 0.37 1.22 79.66 2.35 0.05
18+ 1,744 41 96 5,850 219 3
% of Total 18+ 21.93 0.52 1.21 73.56 2.75 0.04
DISTRICT No. 37
Total Population 14,383
Deviation 632
Dev. Percentage 4.60
Total 18+ 8,445
NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 2,275 21 120 11,888 75 4
% of Total Pop. 15.82 0.15 0.83 82.65 0.52 0.03
18 + 1,666 14 67 6,647 49 2
% of Total 18 + 19.73 0.17 0.79 78.71 0.58 0.02
DISTRICT No. 38
Total Population 13,670
Deviation — 81
Dev. Percentage — 0.59
Total 18+ 8,477
NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 2,738 58 122 10,630 109 13
% of Total Pop. 20.03 0.42 0.89 77.76 0.80 0.10
18+ 2,041 34 75 6,251 71 5
% of Total 18+ 24.08 0.40 0.88 73.74 0.84 0.06
*91DISTRICT No. 39
Total Population 14,890
Deviation 1,139
Dev. Percentage 8.28
Total 18+ . 11,487
NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 8,059 688 973 3,816 1,342 12
% of Total Pop 54.12 4.62 6.53 25.63 9.01 0.08
18+ 6,519 573 852 2,349 1,182 12
% of Total 18+ 56.75 4.99 7.42 20.45 10.29 0.10
DISTRICT No. 40
Total Population 13,664
Deviation . — 87
Dev. Percentage — 0.63
Total 18+ ' 9,399
NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 9,067 133 664 2,391 1,402 7
% of Total Pop. 66.36 0.97 4.86 17.50 10.26 0.05
18+ 6,410 95 424 1,483 985 2
% of Total 18+ 68.20 1.01 4.51 15.78 10.48 0.02
*92[[Image here]]
*93REDISTRICTING PLAN
*94[[Image here]]
*95[[Image here]]
*96[[Image here]]
APPENDIX F
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT JUNEAU
[Filed June 19, 1992]
Case No. 1JU-91-1608 Civil
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The Fish and Game Fund has moved for reconsideration of the court’s decision on reapportionment, pointing out that Native
incumbents are paired against one another. All plaintiffs join in the motion, and the State agrees in substance.1 Representative Ivan M. Ivan, a Yupik Eskimo from Akiak is pitted against Representative Richard Foster, an Inupiak from Nome, in the court’s interim reapportionment plan.
The court erred.2
While the pairing or not pairing of Native incumbents is not a driving force in reapportionment it is something that the courts have considered under the Voting *97Rights Act.3 The court also understands that the Department of Justice uses a “totality of circumstances” approach in its preclearance review and considers whether proposed plans pit minority candidates against each other. The court attempted to avoid such problems where other legal requirements could be met.
Fish and Game Fund points out that placing Akiak in the district with Nome and Pedro Bay in the district with Bethel inevitably places two Alaska Native incumbent candidates against each other.
The court believes that Akiak can be placed in either 37 or 38 and meet socioeconomic integration standards. Pedro Bay has traditionally been associated with District 39. These changes require that Clark’s Point be placed in District 38 and that change will also be made.
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to reconsider is granted. The court amends the previously published decision in this case to place Pedro Bay with its traditional Aleutians District, District 39, and Akiak is placed with Bethel in District 38. Clark’s point precinct is moved to District 38 to minimize the population deviation for District 39 which is the most overpopulated district. That District has to be overpopulated to maintain it as a Native influence district under the Voting Rights Act. The heavy concentration of non-Native population at the Adak Naval Air Station skews the natural civilian ethnic make-up of the region.
Attached to this is Order is a summary report showing new population deviations from the ideal district and the minority population statistics based on this Order.
Dated June 19, 1992
/s/Larry Weeks Larry Weeks Superior Court Judge
6/19/92 PAGE 1
Population Summary Report
[[Image here]]
*98[[Image here]]
Plan Type ASSEMBLY
Plan name C0URTF2
Date June 19,
Time 10:39 AM
User lizik
[[Image here]]
Plan Type ASSEMBLY
Plan name COURTF2
Date June 19,
Time 10:40 AM
User lizik
DISTRICT No. 1
Total Population 13,985
Deviation 234
Dev. Percentage 1.70
Total 18+ 9,831
NHwhite NHblack Hispanic- NHameri NHasian NHother
[[Image here]]
*99DISTRICT No. 2
Total Population 13,480
Deviation — 271
Dev. Percentage — 1.97
Total 18+ 9,155
NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 8,395 16 217 4,771 75 6
% of Total Pop. 62.28 0.12 1.61 35.39 0.56 0.04
18+ 6,081 8 127 2,887 48 4
% of Total 18+ 66.42 0.09 1.39 31.53 0.52 0.04
DISTRICT No. 3
Total Population 14,622
Deviation 871
Dev. Percentage 6.33
Total 18+ 10,165
NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 11,267 50 323 2,579 403 0
% of Total Pop. 77.06 0.34 2.21 17.64 2.76 0.00
18+ 8,055 33 208 1,597 272 0
% of Total 18+ 79.24 0.32 2.05 15.71 2.68 0.00
DISTRICT No. 4
Total Population 13,598
Deviation — 153
Dev. Percentage — 1,11
Total 18+ 10,064
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 10,267 121 425 2,215 568 2
% of Total Pop. 75.50 0.89 3.13 16.29 4.18 0.01
18+ 7,906 93 248 1,415 401 1
% of Total 18+ 78.56 0.92 2.46 14.05 3.98 0.01
DISTRICT No. 5
Total Population 13,324
Deviation — 427
Dev. Percentage — 3.11
Total 18+ 8,957
NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 11,150 158 326 1,154 529 7
% of Total Pop. 83.68 1.19 2.45 8.66 3.97 0.05
18+ 7,707 93 186 643 324 4
% of Total 18+ 86.04 1.04 2.08 7.18 3.62 0.04
*100DISTRICT No. 6 ■
Total Population 13,215
Deviation — 536
Dev. Percentage — 3.90
Total 18+ 9,197
NHwhite . NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 11,061 369 402 1,002 378 3
% of Total Pop. 83.70 2.79 3.04 7.58 2.86 0.02
18+ • 7,776 246 250 671 252 2
% of Total 18+ 84.55 2.67 2.72 7.30 2.74 0.02
DISTRICT No. 7
Total Population 13,941
Deviation 190
Dev. Percentage 1.38
Total 18+ 9,194
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 12,954 28 200 638 120 1
% of Total Pop. 92.92 0.20 1.43 4.58 0.86 0.01
18+ 8,596 16 120 394 67 1
% of Total 18+ 93.50 0.17 1.31 4.29 0.73 0.01
DISTRICT No. 8
Total Population 13,793
Deviation 42
Dev. Percentage 0.31
Total 18+ 9,436
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 12,436 82 249 878 142 6
% of Total Pop. 90.16 0.59 1.81 6.37 1.03 0.04
18+ 8,542 68 139 604 81 2
% of Total 18+ 90.53 0.72 1.47 6.40 0.86 0.02
DISTRICT No. 9
Total Population 13,810
Deviation 59
Dev. Percentage 0.43
Total 18+ 9,382
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 12,343 86 292 940 146 3
% of Total Pop. 89.38 0.62 2.11 6.81 1.06 0.02
18+ 8,460 58 167 603 92 2
% of Total 18+ 90.17 0.62 1.78 6.43 0.98 0.02
*101DISTRICT No. 10
Total Population 13,966
Deviation 215
Dev. Percentage 1.56
Total 18+ 9,383
_NHwhite NHblaek Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 12,401 290 387 429 440 19
% of Total Pop. 88.79 2.08 2.77 3.07 3.15 0.14
18+ 8,414 177 238 263 282 9
% of Total 18+ 89.67 1.89 2.54 2.80 3.01 0.10
[[Image here]]
_NHwhite NHblaek Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
[[Image here]]
DISTRICT No. 12
Total Population I — * CO M ZD
Deviation 05 CO
Dev. Percentage í“* M tO
Total 18+ ZD 'hi O ti**
NHwhite NHblaek Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
[[Image here]]
DISTRICT No. 13
Total Population 13,925
Deviation 174
Dev. Percentage 1.27
Total 18+ 9,402
NHwhite NHblaek Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
[[Image here]]
*102DISTRICT No. 14
Total Population 13,928
Deviation 177
Dev. Percentage 1.29
Total 18+ 9,865
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 10,402 1,157 562 1,157 634 16
% of Total Pop. ' 74.68 8.31 4.04 8.31 4.55 0.11
18+ 7,687 754 329 662 428 5
% of Total 18+ 77.92 7.64 3.34 6.71 4.34 0.05
DISTRICT No. 15
Total Population 13,981
Deviation 230
Dev. Percentage 1.67
Total 18+ 10,286
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 11,339 ■ 527 516 851 739 9
% of Total Pop. 81.10 3.77 3.69 6.09 5.29 0.06
18+ 8,574 347 324 532 504 5
% of Total 18+ 83.36 3.37 3.15 5.17 4.90 0.05
DISTRICT No. 16
Total Population 13,751
Deviation 0
Dev. Percentage 0.00
Total 18+ 10,419
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 11,002 • 687 401 882 763 16
% of Total Pop. 80.01 5.00 2.92 6.41 5.55 0.12
18+ 8,541 467 261 602 541 7
% of Total 18+ 81.98 4.48 2.51 5.78 5.19_007
DISTRICT No. 17
Total Population 13,807
Deviation 56
Dev. Percentage 0.41
Total 18+ 9,615
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 11,333 472 447 591 953 11
% of Total Pop. 82.08 3.42 3.24 4.28 6.90 0.08
18+ 8,048 295 297 351 621 3
% of Total 18+ 83.70 3.07 3.09 3.65 6.46 0.03
*103DISTRICT No. 18
Total Population 13,876
Deviation 125
Dev. Percentage 0.91
Total 18+ 10,549
NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 11,415 287 458 668 1,040 13
% of Total Pop. 82.26 2.07 3.30 4.78 7.49 0.09
18+ 8,902 187 310 434 711 5
% of Total 18+ 84.39 1.77 2.94 4.11 6.74 0.05
DISTRICT No. 19
Total Population 13,859
Deviation 108
Dev. Percentage 0.79
Total 18+ 11,230
NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 9,696 662 797 1,685 997 22
% of Total Pop. 69.96 4.78 5.75 12.16 7.19 0.16
18+ 8,266 485 557 1,195 714 13
% of Total 18+ 73.61 4.32 4.96 10.64 6.36 0.12
DISTRICT No. 20
Total Population 13,915
Deviation 164
Dev. Percentage 1.19
Total 18+ 10,167
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 7,265 1,864 1,101 2,683 979 23
% of Total Pop. 52.21 13.40 7.91 19.28 7.04 0.17
18+ 5,788 1,244 698 1,772 659 6
% of Total 18+ 56.93 12.24 6.87 17.43 6.48 0.06
DISTRICT No. 21
Total Population 13,933
Deviation 182
Dev. Percentage 1.32
Total 18+ 9,704
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 10,949 1,176 601 651 538 18
% of Total Pop. 78.58 8.44 4.31 4.67 3.86 0.13
18+ 7,853 717 357 389 380 8
% of Total 18+ 80.93 7.39 3.68 4.01 3.92 0.08
*104DISTRICT No. 22
Total Population 13,863
Deviation 112
Dev. Percentage 0.81
Total 18+ 9,166
_NHwhite NHblaek Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 9,967 1,713 740 730 698 15
% of Total Pop. 71.90 12.36 5.34 5.27 5.03 0.11
18+ 6,745 1,080 418 435 480 8
% of Total 18+ 73.59 11.78 4.56 4.75 5.24_009
DISTRICT No. 23
Total Population 13,898
Deviation 147
Dev. Percentage 1.07
Total 18+ 9,323
_NHwhite NHblaek Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 9,524 2,422 949 544 444 15
% of Total Pop. 68.53 17.43 6.83 3.91 3.19 0.11
18+ 6,567 1,554 575 328 294 5
% of Total 18+ 70.44 16.67 6.17 3.52 3.15 0.05
DISTRICT No. 24
Total Population 13,805
Deviation 54
Dev. Percentage 0.39
Total 18+ 9,248
_NHwhite NHblaek Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 11,612 800 524 578 282 9
% of Total Pop. 84.11 5.80 3.80 4.19 2.04 0.07
18+ 7,849 522 303 385 186 3
% of Total 18+ 84.87 5.64 3.28 4.16 2.01 0.03
DISTRICT No. 25
Total Population 13,934
Deviation 183
Dev. Percentage 1.33
Total 18+ 9,153
_NHwhite NHblaek Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 12,589 272 333 480 253 7
% of Total Pop. 90.35 1.95 2.39 3.44 1.82 0.05
18+ 8,363 153 186 292 157 2
% of Total 18+ 91.37 1.67 2.03 3.19 1.72 0.02
*105DISTRICT No. 26
Total Population 13,628
Deviation — 123
Dev. Percentage — 0.89
Total 18+ 8,669
NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 12,418 106 312 659 126 7
% of Total Pop. 91.12 0.78 2.29 4.84 0.92 0.05
18 + 7,976 62 169 388 68 6
% of Total 18 + 92.01 0.72 1.95 4.48 0.78 0.07
DISTRICT No. 27
Total Population 13,970
Deviation 219
Dev. Percentage 1.59
Total 18+ 9,000
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 12,880 121 244 634 90 1
% of Total Pop. 92.20 0.87 1.75 4.54 0.54 0.01
18+ 8,403 62 127 349 58 1
% of Total 18+ 93.37 0.69 1.41 3.88 0.64 0.01
DISTRICT No. 28
Total Population 13,537
Deviation — 214 Dev. Percentage — 1.56 Total 18+ 8,810
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 12,568 60 249 553 105 2
% of Total Pop. 92.84 0.44 1.84 4.09 0.78 0.01
18+ 8,260 38 128 326 58 0
% of Total 18+ 93.76 0.43 1.45 3.70 0.66 0.00
DISTRICT No. 29
Total Population 13,104
Deviation — 647
Dev. Percentage — 4.71
Total 18+ 9,206
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 11,982 114 225 613 162 8
% of Total Pop. 91.44 0.87 1.72 4.68 1.24 0.06
18+ 8,500 85 139 371 108 3
% of Total 18+ 92.33 0.92 1.51 4.03 1.17 0.03
*106DISTRICT No. 30
Total Population 13,263
Deviation — 488
Dev. Percentage — 3.55
Total 18+ 9,611
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 10,392 704 425 1,210 519 13
% of Total Pop. 78.35 5.31 3.20 9.12 3.91 0.10
18+ 7,685 479 267 781 387 12
% of Total 18+ 79.96 4.98 2.78 8.13 4.03 0.12
DISTRICT No. 31
Total Population 13,550
Deviation — 201
Dev. Percentage — 1.46
Total 18+ 9,810
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 10,489 858 516 1,362 • 303 22
% of Total Pop. 77.41 6.33 3.81 10.05 2.24 0.16
18+ 7,805 519 336 932 212 6
% of Total 18+ 79.56 5.29 3.43 9.50 2.16 0.06
DISTRICT No. 32
Total Population 13,534
Deviation — 217
Dev. Percentage — 1.58
Total 18+ 9,238
NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
[[Image here]]
DISTRICT No. 33
Total Population 13,010
Deviation — 741
Dev. Percentage — 5.39
Total 18+ 8,431
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 11,648 224 230 762 141 5
% of Total Pop. 89.53 1.72 1.77 5.86 1.08 0.04
18+ 7,669 128 144 • 408 80 2
% of Total 18+ 90.96 1.52 1.71 4.84 0.95 0.02
*107DISTRICT No. 34
Total Population 13,160
Deviation —591
Dev. Percentage —4.30
Total 18+ 8,445
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 11,083 936 564 268 295 14
% of Total Pop. 84.22 7.11 4.29 2.04 2.24 0.11
18+ 7,245 564' 292 153 184 7
% of Total 18+ 85.79 6.68 3.46 1.81 2.18 0.08
DISTRICT No. 35
Total Population 13,242
Deviation —509
Dev. Percentage —3.70
Total 18+ 8,445
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 4,927 87 142 8,034 49 ' 3
% of Total Pop. 37.21 0.66 1.07 60.67 0.37 0.02
18+ 3,632 66 72 4,639 33 3
% of Total 18+ 43.01 0.78 0.85 54.93 0.39 0.04
DISTRICT No. 36
Total Population 13,346
Deviation —405
Dev. Percentage —2.95
Total 18+ 7,953
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 2,182 49 163 10,632 313 7
% of Total Pop. 16.35 0.37 1.22 79.66 2.35 0.05
18+ 1,744 41 96 5,850 219 3
% of Total 18+ 21.93 0.52 1.21 73.56 2.75 0.04
DISTRICT No. 37
Total Population 14,098
Deviation 347
Dev. Percentage 2.52
Total 18+ 8,289
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 2,267 21 120 11,611 75 4
% of Total Pop. 16.08 0.15 0.85 82.36 0.53 0.03
18+ 1,659 14 67 6,498 49 2
% of Total 18+ 20.01 0.17 0.81 78.39 0.59 0.02
*108DISTRICT No. 88
Total Population 13,858
Deviation 107
Dev. Percentage 0.78
Total 18+ 8,566
NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
[[Image here]]
DISTRICT No. 39
Total Population 14,987
Deviation 1,236
Dev. Percentage 8.99
Total 18+ 11,554
NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 8,086 688 973 3,886 1,342 12
% of Total Pop. 53.95 4.59 6.49 25.93 8.95 0.08
18+ 6,539 573 852 2,396 1,182 12
% of Total 18+ 56.60 4.96 7.37 20.74 10.23 0.10
DISTRICT No. 40
Total Population 13,664
Deviation —87
Dev. Percentage —0.63
Total 18+ 9,399
_NHwhite NHblack Hispanic NHameri NHasian NHother
Group Total 9,067 133 664 2,391 ■ 1,402 7
% of Total Pop. 66.36 0.97 4.86 17.50 10.26 0.05
18+ 6,410 95 424 1,483 985 2
% of Total 18+ 68.20 1.01 4.51 15.78 10.48 0.02
APPENDIX G
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
ORDER
[Filed June 25, 1992]
Before: RABINOWITZ, Chief Justice, BURKE, MATTHEWS, COMPTON and MOORE, Justices.
On consideration of the petition for review, filed by the State of Alaska on June 22, 1992,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The petition is GRANTED,
2. The court agrees with the arguments presented in
Parts V. C and V. B of the petition.
(a) The superior court’s instructions to the Masters regarding the population from former District 17 were not required by the Voting Rights Act.
*109(b) The superior court erred in redrawing the Fairbanks House Districts to an extent not required by this court’s order of remand of May 28, 1992.
3. The court rejects the argument presented in Part V. D of the petition. The superior court’s configuration of the Western Alaska Districts involved does not violate the Federal Voting Rights Act. Senate District T results in a district having a fifty-one percent majority of Alaska Natives. There is no evidence of racially polarized voting in Senate District T. Further, there has traditionally been a very low voter turnout among the non-native military personnel and their dependents at Adak. House Districts 38 and 39 are superior on the state constitutional grounds of compactness and relative socio-economic integration to the state’s proposed modifications of these districts.
4. The argument presented in Part V. A of the petition is mooted by our acceptance of the argument presented in Part V. C of the petition.
5. The relief requested by the interve-nor Fish and Game Fund is DENIED. The configuration of Western Alaska does not violate the Federal Voting Rights Act. The modification requested by the interve-nor would be suspect under the Voting Rights Act because it results in the loss of one Native influence senate district.
6. The interim plan adopted by the superior court is modified to reflect the changes required by our ruling in paragraph 2 of this order. These modifications are reflected in the map filed by petitioners with this court dated June 25, 1992. As modified, the superior court’s interim plan is AFFIRMED.
7. The Lieutenant Governor is to conduct the 1992 primary and general elections pursuant to the interim plan as MODIFIED.
8. The cross-petition for review is DENIED.
9. The original application for relief filed on behalf of the Kodiak Island Borough is DENIED.
10. On remand, the superior court should extend filing and related deadlines as necessary for the conduct of the 1992 primary election.
11. This case is REMANDED to the superior court for further proceedings, including the entry of a final judgment in accordance with this order.
Entered by direction of the court at Anchorage, Alaska on June 25, 1992.
Clerk of the Supreme Court /s/ Jan Hansen Jan Hansen
[BURKE, Justice, concurring, and COMPTON, Justice, dissenting in part. The separate opinions are attached to this order.]
BURKE, Justice, concurring.
Although the views which I have expressed previously remain unchanged, I concur (1) in the decision to review, in part, the orders of the superior court, and (2) in the result. I will comment further when the court publishes its opinion.
COMPTON, Justice, dissenting in part.
I would revise the superior court’s interim plan of June 19, 1992, as follows:
(a) Pair Election District 28 (Rural Mat-Su) with 35 (Interior. Rivers);
(b) Pair Election District 29 (Chena-De-nali) with 32 (South Fairbanks);
(c) Pair Election District 33 (Fox-Badger) with 34 (North Pole-Eielson).
These pairings would not require changes in any election district boundaries established by the plan. The objections of the State to the plan’s configuration of Fairbanks are answered in part, as are the objections of the Mat-Su Borough plaintiffs to Governor Hickel’s Proclamation of Reapportionment and Redistricting of September 5, 1991.
Under this court’s revisions, one of the major objections of Mat-Su is silenced by once again separating Wasilla from Palmer, a result Mat-Su sought consistently to avoid. Mat-Su does not get even half a loaf for arguments which I consider well taken, while Fairbanks gets a whole loaf.
*110Rural Mat-Su arguably would prefer not to be joined with Interior Rivers, yet that problem can be addressed during preparation of a new plan. As long as it is to be separated from Chena-Denali, I believe its realignment with Interior Rivers preferable to the wholesale realignment that will result from the attachment of Chena-Denali to the Fairbanks area.
The changes I propose would not result in significant changes in total or native population figures, thus minimizing the overall deviation percentage figure and presumably enhancing the plan’s potential for clearance by the United States Department of Justice. Furthermore, any question concerning racially polarized voting in former Election District 17 will be minimized by the continued pairing of Election District 6 (Prince William Sound) with Election District 8 (Soldotna-Seward).
*111APPENDIX H
[[Image here]]

. The supreme court affirmed this court's relevant findings of fact and conclusions of law as *64to House Districts 1, 2, 3, 6, 26, 28, 34, and 35. The supreme court affirmed this court's holding that the Open Meetings Act and the Public Records Act apply to the Governor's Advisory Reapportionment Board. The court reversed this court's holding that it was arbitrary on the part of the Board not to exclude non-resident military from the population base. Justice Burke dissented in part, disagreeing with the court’s conclusion that House Districts 28 and 35 violated Article VI, Section 6 of the Alaska Constitution.

. For the final plan, the supreme court directed this court to "remand the case to the reapportionment board with instructions to formulate a final plan of reapportionment and redistricting which complies with the mandates contained in the superior court’s order of May 11, 1992, as modified by the order of this court dated May 28, 1992." Order of Remand May 28, 1992, at p. 1. Justice Burke, with whom Justice Moore joined, dissented from that part of the remand which required the superior court to formulate an interim plan, stating:
If an interim plan is needed, which is clearly the case, the governor should be directed to prepare it, within a specified period of time; the superior court should be authorized to devise an interim plan only in the event that the governor fails to act within the time allowed.
Order of Remand at p. 4 (Burke, J., dissenting).

. See Memorandum and Order entered May 29, 1992. The May 29 order also extended to June 26, 1992 the deadline for candidates filing for legislative office. Soon after this order was entered, confusion arose regarding that deadline. The issue was whether or not the deadline had been extended for congressional candidates as well as for state legislative candidates. This confusion was resolved when this court entered an order June 8 making it clear that the deadline extension included congressional candidates. The two deadlines are normally the same; they are set in the same statute (AS 15.25.040(a)(1)). At this time the court knows of no Petition for Review filed in this matter.

. See Memorandum and Order of June 3, 1992.

. This court ordered that communications with the Masters be in writing filed with the court, or in open court. The written communications with the filing dates are as follows. Instructions to Masters (June 3); First Set of Questions from Masters (June 3); Second Set of Questions from Masters (June 4); Third Set of Questions from the Masters (June 5); Amended Instructions to Masters (June 5); Fourth Set of Questions from Masters (June 8); Request to the Court From the Special Masters (June 9); Further Instructions to Masters (June 9); Amended Further Instructions to Masters (June 9); Fifth Set of Questions from Masters (June 11); Sixth Set of Questions from Masters (June 11); Additional Instructions to Masters (June 11).

. The Masters’ written report was filed June 14, 1992.

. See Order of June 9.

. Order of Remand at p. 3.

. Memorandum and Order entered June 3 at p. 1.

. Two Alaska Supreme Court opinions apply. The 1972 reapportionment lawsuit resulted in an interim plan prepared by masters appointed by the court. The Supreme Court in that case gave the masters the following instruction:
In establishing House and Senate districts you should, whenever feasible, create a district of contiguous and compact territory containing as nearly as practicable a relatively integrated socio-economic area.
Egan v. Hammond, 502 P.2d 856, 877 (Alaska 1972).
Plaintiffs and the State have stipulated that the 1972 masters report would be considered as evidence in this 1992 case. (Ex. S-82).
In the 1987 decision dealing with reapportionment the Alaska Supreme Court held that the Alaska constitutional requirements from Article VI, Section 6 did not apply to senate districts but:
This instruction [above] indicates that, at least in the case of a court-ordered interim reapportionment plan, Article VI, § 6 requirements apply to Senate districts. However, this standard does not necessarily circumscribe the governor's power to effect a reapportionment of the senate because of the greater discretion he exercises in carrying out his duties.
Kenai Peninsula Borough v. State, 743 P.2d 1352, 1364 n. 19 (Alaska 1987).

. Even the governor’s flexibility with respect to senate districts is not unlimited. “Senate districts which meander and ignore political subdivision boundaries and communities of interest will be suspect under the Alaska Equal Protection clause” Kenai Peninsula Borough v. State, 743 P.2d 1352, 1365 n. 21 (Alaska 1987).

. The superior court hears the case but the supreme court reviews de novo the proceedings. Article VI, Section 11. Groh v. Egan, 526 P.2d 863 (Alaska 1974)

. The original proclamation by the governor in this case was made on the 5th of September, 1991. The state submitted the reapportionment plan to the Department of Justice on the 1st of November, 1991. The Department of Justice requested additional information on the 31st of December, 1991. The State provided the requested information in February of 1992. It was not until the 10th of April, 1992, that the department notified the State that it would make no objection to the plan.

. Grofman’s report (Ex. A. p. 7096-7099).

. These other instructions were given on June 9 and included:
Minority "influence” districts and treatment of minority incumbents are part of the "totality of the circumstances" which the Justice Department will examine to determine whether a reapportionment plan will be precleared under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Accordingly, the instructions you are provided regarding influence districts and minority incumbents cannot be precise. With this in mind, the following answers to you questions are provided.
Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the United States Department of Justice will evaluate the totality of the circumstance when presented with a plan which has retrogression in an existing Native influence district, to determine whether the plan has a discriminatory purpose or effect. Creation of an alternative Native influence district will be viewed favorably as an indication that the plan does not have a discriminatory intent and effect. Only Alaska Natives are sufficiently numerous and geographically compact to be able to form a district in which they comprise a majority, or even a significant influence group. Taken separately, the Black, Hispanic and Asian populations in Anchorage and Fairbanks are not sufficiently large to be a factor under the Voting Rights Act.
The Voting Rights Act protects voters, not incumbents. However, in evaluating a reapportionment plan for preclearance, the Justice Department might view the treatment of minority incumbents as part of the totality of the circumstances. For example, the Department of Justice might view as suspect a pattern of pairing minority incumbents in districts with other incumbents. Accordingly, you may consider treatment of minority incumbents, although you should not prioritize this above other considerations.
Preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act will be denied if, under the totality of the circumstances, the United States Department of Justice cannot determine whether a proposed plan has a discriminatory intent or would have a discriminatory effect. Preclearance will almost certainly be denied if a plan results in avoidable retrogression of the number of Native majority districts ...
In Alaska any reduction to the number of Native majority or Native influence districts cannot be justified by a corresponding increase in Black or Hispanic influence districts. You should only evaluate plans for the number of Native majority and influence districts created.

. Those instructions are contained in the order dated June 5, 1992 and provide in part:
You are to the best of your ability to draft a plan which is consistent with the superior court’s order as modified. It is not your job to reconsider the lawsuit; the lawsuit has been decided. It is your job to draw up a plan consistent with the result. You are to disregard anything inconsistent with that direct order of the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska.
We have prepared a package of materials to aid you, and there will be additional materials prepared in the near future. The package includes these instructions, the relevant orders of this court and the supreme court, sections from the Code of Judicial Conduct, and other materials. This package will be made available to the public at Legislative Information Offices throughout the state.
You may have access to any part of the court record on request. Please keep a list of materials you consider.
You are to operate by majority rule. If a minority report is necessary, it may be prepared. Wilson Condon is appointed Chair.
The following restrictions apply to the plan you create:
1. Total deviation is not to exceed 16.4 percent.
2. Total deviation is not to exceed 10 percent unless required by constitutional considerations of compactness and contiguity or by efforts to conform district lines to local government boundaries or to create districts which as nearly as practicable contain relatively integrated so-cio-economic areas or to follow drainage or other geographic features, or to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act. Any such justification for deviations above 10 percent must be applied consistently by the masters in creating new districts.
3. There is to be no exclusion of nonresident military personnel or their dependents from the population base.
4. You are to strive to maintain four house and two senate districts in which Alaska Natives comprise a majority of the population, and two house and two senate Native “influence" districts. Wherever possible those influence districts should be drawn with the goal of creating a district with a Native population of 35 percent.
5. You may create multi-member districts, except in that part of the state now included in House District 17 (under the 1984 reapportionment plan).
6. The requirements of Article VI, Section 6 shall receive priority inter se in the following order: (1) contiguity and compactness, (2) relative socio-economic integration, (3) consideration of local government boundaries, (4) use of drainage and other geographic features in describing boundaries.
7. In formulating an interim plan, you may change any district in addition to those specifically found to be in violation of the Alaska Constitution under the superior court’s order of May 11, 1992, as modified by the order of the supreme court of May 28, 1992, if necessary to meet the requirements of the Federal Constitution, the federal Voting Rights Act, or the state constitution.
8. If all the other instructions of the court can be complied with, and there is a choice of whether to use an intact Voting Tabulation District (VTD), or fracturing a VTD, it is preferable to use an intact VTD.
The following are guidelines for your work:
1. You are to have no contact with the parties except in open court or in writings filed with the court.
2. You may devise your own work schedule. The court asks you to read the materials presented to you as soon as possible, and you must be prepared to be at work in Juneau on Monday, June 8, 1992.
3. If you have any questions for the parties or the court, please submit them in writing; the parties will respond within 24 hours, and the court will respond as soon as possible.
4. When working for the Special Masters, the computer operators may accept direction only from the Special Masters. The computer operators may not disclose to the Special Masters any information concerning redistricting that they have acquired from parties. The computer operators may have no contact with the parties concerning their work for the Special Masters except through the Special Masters.

. VTD's are a close approximation of precincts.

. See citations to record on pages 68 and 69 of this court’s May 11, 1992 opinion.

. The court adopts the numbering system used by the special masters. See attachment for a list.

. Single-member districts have populations of 13,751 or thereabouts and elect one representative. Multi-member districts are districts comprised of double or triple the population of a single member district, with two or three representatives elected, usually at-large.

.However, multi-member districts are of concern only when there is polarized voting. Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 51, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 2766-67, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986). In Alaska, the cost of campaigning in many districts is the same whether the districts are single- or multi-member. (Ulmer, Vol. VI, p. 157)

. Ex. A. p. 2526.

. The commander of Adak wrote the court a letter during the public comment period for the *71interim plan supporting districting Adak with Elmendorf.

. The court believes that requirements for compactness and contiguity are meant to be read to avoid geographic manipulation of districts for voter dilution or enhancement. By requiring physical limits, those requirements avoid sacrificing groups for the benefit of those doing reapportionment.
Contiguity is widely recognized as an important consideration in redistricting.
If the practice of keeping districts contiguous were seriously eroded, the ability of district drawers to accomplish partisan goals would be enormously enhanced and, for better or for worse, substantial departures' from geographic representation would become possible. A. requirement of contiguousness is the most straightforward method of avoiding this problem.
D. Lowensteen and J. Steinberg, The Quest for Legislative Districting in the Public Interest: Elusive or Illusory?, 33 U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 1, 21 (1985).

. See letter from Senator Fred Zharoff, pleadings from amicus Bristol Bay Native Association, near unanimous testimony before the reapportionment board and other materials in Exhibit A; letters from many community leaders.

. The court’s involvement in reapportionment is addressed in a different section in this opinion.

. The plan meets the maximum deviations allowed overall and maximum allowed without justification under the federal law or Alaska Constitution. The districts meet the Alaska constitutional requirements except when those requirements had to yield to the Voting Rights Act. The masters are to be commended and thanked by the citizens of Alaska for their willingness to contribute to the State.

. The State argues that this court no longer has jurisdiction because the date specified in the supreme court’s Order of Remand, June 18, 1992, has passed. The court believes it has jurisdiction to correct this error. Civil Rule 60(b)(1). This is a rather odd position for the State to take in light of its motion earlier today for the court to take action it requested in the case.

. The court made this error out of ignorance. At the time of issuing its decision, the court was unaware of the impact on any incumbent candidates except certain Alaska Native candidates to which the court’s attention had been drawn and certain Southeast Alaska candidates of which the court may have had personal knowledge. Obviously the court did not know enough.

. Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 [106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25] (1986).