On Friday, the Alaska state Supreme Court ruled that the Alaska Redistricting Board — a state agency that is formally charged with redrawing political maps every ten years following the federal census — drew maps illegally, violating the state Constitution’s equal protection doctrine.
The court explicitly stated in its ruling that the maps were an illegal partisan gerrymander — the first decision of its kind for the state’s highest court, and an outcome that sets up an important precedent that will prevent blatant partisan map drawing in the future.
State legislative maps in Alaska require each state Senate district to contain two state House of Representative districts. The Alaska Redistricting Board’s rules dictate how those two House districts are chosen for each Senate district, giving consideration to neighboring communities’ geographic and socioeconomic similarities, among other factors.
The board created two Senate districts while ignoring the concerns of many area residents over which four House districts should be combined with others, and held hearings on devising maps without giving the public adequate time to respond to them, in violation of the standards that were put in place for the board.
A lower court ruled earlier this year that the board’s actions gave an unfair advantage to Republicans, determining that the maps were improperly drawn and in violation of the state’s equal protection doctrine, which states that “all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights, opportunities, and protection under the law.” The state Supreme Court said in its Friday ruling that the lower court “correctly concluded that Senate District K is unconstitutional due to geographic and partisan gerrymandering.”
The decision doesn’t change the rules for how the Alaska Redistricting Board will operate moving forward — the same standards will remain in place, and the composition of the board will not be altered to give minority political parties any say in how maps are drawn, the way some redistricting panels operate in other states. In other words, in situations where one political party controls both the executive and legislative branches, that party will still have near-total control in deciding who to appoint to the five-member Alaska Redistricting Board, with just one seat being selected by the state Supreme Court itself.
But while changes to the board’s composition will not come about due to the ruling, the court’s decision does establish that partisan gerrymandering will not be acceptable in the future, and that challenges on the basis of one party drawing maps to favor themselves will be scrutinized more thoroughly. It also requires that the Alaska Redistricting Board determine whether an interim map, used in the 2022 elections, is acceptable for use going forward, and to argue its opinion before the court within the next 90 days.
Former lawmakers familiar with past gerrymandering celebrated the state Supreme Court’s decision.
“As soon as I read that, I actually said to my wife, ‘Oh my God, they’ve made it explicit,'” said Tom Begich, a former Democratic state lawmaker who is familiar with the state’s redistricting process and how it has been used to gerrymander in the past.
“This decision will put vital sideboards on the redistricting process to prevent political abuse of the process in the future,” Scott Kendall, a former chief of staff to independent Gov. Bill Walker, said in reaction to the ruling.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.