Judge strikes down redistricting decisions on East Anchorage senate pairings, Skagway-Juneau maps

If there’s a lesson from Judge Thomas Matthews’ ruling on the Alaska Redistricting trial, it’s don’t ignore public testimony.

Good morning, Alaska!

In this edition: It’s Redistricting Decision Day! Anchorage Superior Judge Thomas Matthews has issued his 171-page decision on the Alaska redistricting trial, finding that public input does, in fact matter, and in doing so invalidated the board’s decisions on the East Anchorage Senate seat pairings and the Skagway-Juneau maps; The East Anchorage map was struck down, finding the board had not only ignored public testimony but it improperly and secretively did so; The Skagway-Juneau case wasn’t convincing on the socioeconomic grounds raised by plaintiffs, but Board Member Budd Simpson’s complete refusal to listen to public testimony was; However, the remedy doesn’t necessarily mean the plaintiffs will get what they want with the board directed back to the drawing boards to incorporate the public input or at least come up with a very good reason for why it should be ignored (plus there’s still that appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court at hand); and meanwhile the great leeway afforded to the Alaska Redistricting Board on matters of socioeconomic integration, compactness, contiguity and population deviation proved to be the deciding matter in the cases raised by the Mat-Su Borough, Valdez and the Calista Corporation.

Spice level: 🌶️🌶️🌶️

Follow the thread: Early morning ramblings of a redistricting reporter.

Full decision: Judge Thomas Matthews’ order on the Alaska Redistricting trial

Judge strikes down decisions on East Anchorage senate pairings, Skagway-Juneau maps

If there’s a lesson from Judge Thomas Matthews’ ruling on the Alaska Redistricting trial, it’s don’t ignore public testimony.

In an order published early this morning, Matthews struck down the Alaska Redistricting Board’s decision to divide Eagle River’s House districts and pair one half into a Senate district with East Anchorage despite “loud and clear” public testimony against the arrangement and “ignored the clear weight of testimony” in its mapping of Skagway and Juneau. He found that in both cases, the board improperly deferred to the wishes of its conservative members and “believed they knew better than the people.”

The ruling comes as a bit of a surprise given the trial’s focus on the constitutional guidelines for drawing new maps. Matthews ultimately found a litany of arguments around socioeconomic, compactness and contiguity to be unconvincing, instead focusing in on what he ruled were clear efforts by the board to prioritize their personal agendas over the public testimony.

“This court finds that the board’s refusal to consider and make a good-faith effort to incorporate public feedback relating to the placement of Skagway and the dividing line in Juneau was arbitrary and capricious, and thus unreasonable,” Matthews wrote in his order. “The same holds true for the East Anchorage senate pairings. If the board could simply ignore the preponderance of public testimony and make decisions based on a single member’s personal views, then Section 10 (of the Alaska Constitution that requires public input on redistricting) would be rendered superfluous.”