Court Opinion

ID: 9791542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:13:24.041607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:36.830431
License: Public Domain

FITZGERALD, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I would accept the governor’s revised apportionment plan as submitted. I disagree with the majority that the southern end of the Ken-ai Peninsula should be separated from proposed House District 16 (Bristol Bay) and incorporated in House District 13 (Kenai-Cook Inlet). My disagreement with the majority is based on the procedural aspects of the Kenai separation issue.
Kenai Peninsula Borough was not a party to the reapportionment action, nor have we decided its standing to become a party. The Borough appeared before this court *892only amicus curiae. The court accepted the Borough’s memorandum two days before final argument without providing an opportunity for the litigants to respond. Moreover, the Borough was then given leave to appear before the court at oral argument. As the majority opinion states, reasonable arguments could be advanced on behalf of other communities that different districting would better represent their interests.1 To accede to the Kenai Borough’s objections to the proposed plan may lead to questions of the right for other communities to raise similar arguments. In light of these circumstances I would accept the governor’s revised reapportionment plan without the southern Kenai exclusion despite any reservations I may have about the merits of the particular district boundaries.

. Supra, p. 5.