In a landmark decision, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled last Friday that partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional under the Alaska Constitution’s equal protection doctrine.
The decision follows a contentious reapportionment cycle after the 2020 census: The Alaska Redistricting Board was twice found by the state’s highest court of having unconstitutionally gerrymandered the state’s political maps by attempting to give solidly Republican Eagle River more political representation with two Senate seats in the 20-member body.
Following a court order, the board approved an interim map last year for the November general election that kept Eagle River intact in one Senate district.
The court ruled Friday that the redistricting board would have 90 days to appear before a Superior Court judge and show cause why the interim political map should not be used until the 2032 general election, which will come after the next census has prompted a redrawing of legislative and congressional districts nationwide.
A board meeting hasn’t been scheduled yet to discuss the court’s decision, but that could happen as soon as this week.
John Binkley, chair of the Alaska Redistricting Board, said that the five-member board would need to carefully consider the court’s ruling, and that members would likely hear public testimony before deciding how to proceed. Binkley said he was personally satisfied with the interim political map, and the process he oversaw to redraw Alaska’s political boundaries.
Alaska Federation of Natives attorney Nicole Borromeo, who was in the minority of board members opposed to giving Eagle River two Senate seats, warned at the time that a court would likely rule that was partisan gerrymandering.
The court’s 144-page opinion explained in detail why the five justices believed board members engaged in unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering. The opinion — written by retired Chief Justice Daniel Winfree — described “secretive procedures” behind closed doors used to draw two Eagle River Senate districts to benefit Republicans, which the justices said was a violation of the state constitution’s equal protection doctrine.
“We expressly recognize that partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional under the Alaska Constitution,” the court’s opinion says on page 91.
“This is an incredibly important case,” said Scott Kendall, an attorney and former chief of staff to independent Gov. Bill Walker. “For the first time the Alaska Supreme Court has interpreted the equal protection doctrine to prohibit gerrymandering for partisan purposes. This decision will put vital sideboards on the redistricting process to prevent political abuse of the process in the future.”
At a federal level, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 2019 case that partisan redistricting was a political matter and beyond the reach of federal courts. The Alaska Supreme Court cited that decision, but said state constitutional convention delegates made clear that partisan gerrymandering was intended to be unconstitutional from the outset.
Former Anchorage Democratic Sen. Tom Begich, who has long been involved in state redistricting cycles, was elated by Friday’s decision. He said the clear prohibition on partisan gerrymandering was a surprise. “As soon as I read that, I actually said to my wife, “Oh my God, they’ve made it explicit.”
The state redistricting board has five members who are appointed to serve until a final map has been approved. Two members are appointed by the governor, and one each are appointed by the House speaker, the Senate president and the chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court.
Reader Comments(0)