Court Opinion

ID: 9784051
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 20:36:34.081333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:47.783247
License: Public Domain

BRYNER, Justice,
dissenting in part.
I dissent from one aspect of the court's order: its conclusion that House District 5 cannot pass constitutional muster without further justification.
Although the issue is admittedly close, I believe that the proclaimed version of House District 5 and the earlier version proposed in Board Plans 1 and 2 are both constitutionally permissible alternatives. On the one hand, as today's order correctly observes, the version proposed in Board Plans 1 and 2 is undeniably more compact than the Proclamation Plan's version; but on the other hand, the Proclamation Plan's version could reasonably be seen as offering relatively superior socio-economic integration throughout Southeast Alaska. In my view, article VI, section 6, of the Alaska Constitution gives compactness and socio-economic integration equiva*148lent stature as redistricting criteria; it thus seems to me that neither version of House District 5 can claim constitutional superiority. Because the board has broad discretion to select the most desirable among constitutionally permissible alternatives, I would uphold House District 5 as proclaimed.
In all other respects, I join in the court's order.