Alaska Dispatch

Major changes to the Alaska Legislature's makeup are anticipated as lines are erased and redrawn on the state's map of political boundaries, an endeavor that will start in 2011 once federal census data is in.

Redistricting has potentially enormous implications given the flow of people out of the state's rural areas and into the population hub of Southcentral in recent years. Based on state population estimates, some are expecting that Southeast and the Bush could lose legislative seats as the rapidly growing Mat-Su Valley gains. Most at risk of vanishing from Alaska's political map are House District 5, spanning Southeast from Ketchikan north through Yakutat and Cordova, represented by Rep. Bill Thomas, and Senate District C, which covers a swath of the Interior the size of Texas, then falls in a tail covering Southeast all the way to Metlakatla, sweeping up around 130 communities on the way. Also expected is the loss of one district in Bush Alaska, possibly along the Western coast.

New lines will be drawn lassoing enough population per district to abide by the federal mandate of one person, one vote, but those lines are expected to fail to combine people with similar cultures and socioeconomic characteristics, people who are likely to share political positions on critical issues like energy, fisheries management and state spending.

"There are going to be some really horrific, huge districts in the rural areas that are going to cut across not only huge, different geographies, but that will combine Eskimos and Indians and Aleuts," said Gordon Harrison, an Alaska constitution expert who served as executive director of the state's most recent redistricting undertaking in 2001. "There are going to be some really awful decisions to make about how to draw the lines in the rural areas."

Redistricting is a hot-button issue that shapes representation in the state capitol. In Alaska, lawmakers band together in regional blocs as much as with political parties for voting purposes. Anchorage lawmakers, and those hailing from Southeast, or the Interior and Bush caucuses, show time and again they're willing to ditch party politics for regional interests. There's also a fairly sharp distinction between urban and rural legislators, who are known to cross traditional lines on votes where the divide is felt deepest.

Little can be done to avoid losses in some parts of the state, unless lawmakers can gather support for increasing their own numbers. Such changes would have to be approved in the Legislature during the coming session in order to put a constitutional amendment before voters on the 2010 ballot -- the last election before redistricting.

A larger Legislature?

The Senate Community and Regional Affairs Committee, led by Nome Democrat Sen. Donny Olson, sponsored a resolution late last session to increase the number of lawmakers representing Alaskans. If approved by voters, the proposal would bump the number of representatives from 40 to 48 and the number of senators from 20 to 24. Introduced on April 9, about 10 days before the session ended, the bill was referred to the Senate State Affairs committee but hasn't yet enjoyed hearings.

Republican Sen. Bert Stedman represents a district covering Sitka and the Ketchikan area -- two holes carved out of the broader Southeast Islands supersized district under Kookesh's care. Stedman agreed Southeast will probably lose a seat during redistricting, simply because of the numbers. The number of Senate districts is based on a division of the state's total population by 20, and under that equation his District A, covering Wrangell, Petersburg, Ketchikan and Sitka, is at least 3,000 people short of a full district.

Informal discussions among Stedman's colleagues have included talk of adding politicians in order to offer better representation for all the state's far-flung areas.

"There's nothing magic about 20 senators," Stedman said, pointing out that Alaska started out with fewer.

Harrison, the executive director of the 2001 redistricting board, has grave concerns about the likely lack of representation for Alaskans outside of the major population areas, and advocates increasing the total size of the Legislature from 60 to 90. That would generate some pretty small districts in Anchorage, but people in rural areas would benefit.

He expects the current proposal, offered through Olson's committee, to make little real difference.

"The Legislature should be substantially enlarged," Harrison said. "There should be some coherence in geography, in socioeconomic conditions, and so on. You can't square those constitutional requirements or standards with the overriding constitutional problem of one person, one vote. (The standards) fall by the wayside. You simply cannot make districts that have that sort of political coherence."

Stedman would like to see the question of expanding the Legislature at least considered.

Name

Email

Title

Comment

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Post