Kodiak Daily Mirror - Guest opinion State board forced to combine rural urban
  
Guest opinion: State board forced to combine rural, urban
by Taylor Bockford
Jun 11, 2012 | 4 views | 0 0 comments | 1 1 recommendations | email to a friend | print
As the state with the largest land area and lowest population density in the United States, the redistricting process in Alaska has been described as a “herculean task” by the Alaska Supreme Court. With the exception of the 1960 cycle, all efforts to redistrict the state of Alaska have faced legal challenges, requiring boundary adjustments and, on several occasions, a court-constructed plan.

Heading into the 2010 redistricting cycle, Alaskans familiar with the process were forecasting a perfect storm of demographic shifts, including rural “out-migration” and unprecedented levels of growth in urban areas of the state. There was also a very real concern that given the state’s changing population distribution, it would be impossible to maintain the same level of Alaska Native voting strength that had existed in the previous plan.

As a result, the Alaska Native community spearheaded an effort to amend the Alaska Constitution to increase the size of the Legislature from 60 to 66 members to prevent districts from being forced to expand their borders in search of new population.

Unfortunately, the measure to amend the constitution was ultimately rejected by at the ballot box, and the 2010 census found that Alaska’s statewide population had grown beyond what experts had predicted. With a statewide population totaling 710,231 and an ideal district size of 17,755, one of the inescapable truths of this redistricting cycle was established: In order to meet the “one person, one vote” requirement of the U.S. Constitution, Alaska for the first time would need to combine into one House district a rural, predominantly Alaska Native population base with an urban, predominantly non-Native population base.

The courts have recognized that “It was not a matter of whether excess population needed to be added to rural Native districts but only a matter of where to access this excess urban population.”

Faced with the inevitable, the board tackled the difficult question of where to make this historic urban/rural combination. The overwhelming majority of plans submitted by third-party groups, on both ends of the political spectrum, combined some portion of the Fairbanks North Star Borough with some collection of rural villages from Western Alaska.

After considering multiple options for incorporating each of the major urban areas of the state into a rural district, the board ultimately found the more rural areas of the Fairbanks North Star Borough to be the most logical choice. The court would later agree, writing that “The board acted reasonably when it selected Fairbanks, and specifically Ester/Goldstream, as an area from which to take excess population.”

In drawing our plans for rural Alaska, the board took its responsibility to the Alaska Native community very seriously. We hired world renowned Voting Rights Act expert Lisa Handley to serve as a consultant to the board and guide us through the adoption of a non-retrogressive plan. Handley had worked for the previous Board during the 2000 cycle in Alaska and has a long track record of protecting minority voting rights through redistricting.

Although avoiding retrogression was an incredibly difficult exercise that many did not expect would be possible, the board’s initially adopted plan successfully obtained preclearance on Oct. 11, 2011, under Section 5 of the Federal Voting Rights Act. Our amended plan, adopted in April of this year, has been submitted back to DOJ for approval and is substantially similar to the original plan. The changes made in rural Alaska came as a result of the need to reunite the Aleutian Chain into a single House district.

Along with the advice of Handley, the collective wisdom of our board members was invaluable over the course of the process. The insight of board member Marie Greene of Kotzebue, a lifelong resident of rural Alaska and current president and CEO of NANA Corp., was particularly important as the board set out to draw a plan that would avoid retrogression while representing the socioeconomic interests of the Alaska Native community to the greatest extent possible.

As a lifelong Alaskan, I have watched our state change dramatically since the days of Govs. Egan, Hickel and Hammond. Alaska’s population has grown from 230,400 people in 1960 to 710,231 people in 2010. Experts are predicting that we will eclipse 800,000 by 2020. In this period of unprecedented growth and demographic transformation, it is important that we come together as Alaskans to find workable solutions to the challenges we face. Unless additional seats are added to the Alaska Legislature by the next redistricting cycle, the ideal district size will exceed 20,000, meaning that more rural districts will be forced into urban areas.

Taylor Bickford is executive director of the Alaska Redistricting Board.

Comments
(0)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
No Comments Yet
The Kodiak Daily Mirror encourages a lively exchange of ideas regarding topics in the news. Users are solely responsible for the content. Please keep it clean, respect others and use the 'report abuse' link when necessary. Read our full user's agreement.
Search Our Marketplace
or Search by category