The Alaska Redistricting Board today brought the battle over Alaska’s election districts to a close when it adopted the map the Alaska Supreme Court ordered for use in the 2022 election as the permanent map for the rest of the decade.
The three-member conservative majority grumbled about the Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling that found the board had committed an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander when it twice split Eagle River but ultimately supported finalizing the plan without trying to redraw Alaska’s election maps again.
Though the Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling was scathing about the board’s attempts to enhance the conservative Eagle River’s representation in the Legislature, it ultimately sent the map back to the board for finalization. The ruling left the option open for the board to redraw the maps, but it would have had to convince Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews that it was warranted.
Several of the members said they didn’t think it’d be a worthwhile exercise.
“It would be disingenuous of me to say that I agreed with everything in the court decision, particularly with respect to many of the representations of fact that were included in there,” said member Budd Simpson, whom Gov. Mike Dunleavy appointed. “I think it would be disruptive and an exercise in futility, honestly, to attempt to make any substantive changes.”
The only member who spoke in favor of attempting to alter the maps further was board member Bethany Marcum, who was reappointed to the board by Gov. Dunleavy after her appointment to the University of Alaska Board of Regents was rejected by the Legislature last week. Marcum was the key architect behind the Eagle River pairings, whose statement about the split giving Eagle River the opportunity for “more representation” was cited throughout the rulings.
“I do think that we should have the opportunity to make the plan, and I don’t think it’s a heavy lift to do that. I think that we should be able to discuss whether or not there’s a better way to comply with what the court decided,” Marcum said. “Eagle River with Eagle River, the court has made that clear, so if that’s the case, there are other ways we can suggest those pairings.”
Marcum also argued that the board following the court’s lead on the mapping would be an abdication of the board’s responsibility to the courts.
None of the fellow members agreed.
Board member Melanie Bahnke pointed out that the board had only adopted two Senate plans during its deliberations—one that the board picked that was rejected by the courts and the one that the court ordered the board use—and if there were a better third plan, it would have been presented at that time.
“If there were other plans that we should have considered, we should have done it when we had that opportunity the second time around,” she said. “I don’t think it’d be the best use of the people’s resources to put forward another plan.”
Board Chair John Binkley, appointed by former Senate President Cathy Giessel in 2020, also agreed with Simpson’s reading of the situation and agreed that it would better serve the public not to alter the maps further. He also noted that both were the Board’s plans, arguing that nothing good would come from reopening the plan for a third time.
“I think it will cause the least amount of confusion for the public, both in terms of what might happen with redrawing lines and for legislators to focus on the important things they’re doing now and not worry about if they’re shuffled into another district,” he said. “It saves the state money and resources as well if we simply adopt this plan.”
The board ultimately voted 5-0 in favor of adopting the interim plan as the board’s final plan.
What’s next
Aside from some clean-up motions over the attorney fees, this round of litigation has ended. However, that’s not necessarily the final word on redistricting. The adoption of the final plan opens a window for third-party groups to bring challenges against the map, a window that didn’t exist ahead of the 2022 elections because of how close it was decided before the candidate filing deadline.
That said, challenging the current legislative district layout would be an uphill battle given the court’s lengthy explanation of why Eagle River ought to stick together in a single political subdivision and why East Anchorage ought to remain as-is.
Matt Acuña Buxton is a long-time political reporter who has written for the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner and The Midnight Sun political blog. He also authors the daily politics newsletter, The Alaska Memo, and can frequently be found live-tweeting public meetings on Twitter.
