If, as it has often been said, politics is indeed Alaska’s second favorite indoor sport then redistricting is the ugly, bloody side of it where sportsmanship often goes out the window (and, for some, is perhaps a four-letter word). Why? Because there are few things more fundamental to the political process than determining how neighborhoods will be represented. And as the state’s redistricting process moves forward the situation in which the municipality finds itself is, sadly, no surprise – hence our title term “snafu.”
Let me back up a bit. About a week ago the mayor presented his plan for how legislative districts in Anchorage should be formed to the Alaska Redistricting Board. We’ve been here before; during the redistricting process ten years ago then-mayor George Wuerch presented a plan that, “shockingly,” sought to place then-representatives Eric Croft and Ethan Berkowitz in the same house district. Critics of the current mayor’s proposal quickly pointed out a myriad of similar, and more substantial, flaws, noting among other things the parallels between it and one advanced by partisans with whom the mayor often aligns himself.
While this is disappointing it’s sadly consistent (remember his endorsement of Joe Miller?). If the mayor wishes to shed the remaining vestiges of non-partisanship attached to his office no one can stop him, but that’s not why I found this bothersome. Instead, what concerns me is our Assembly Chair accompanied and, apparently, affirmed the mayor’s position. Bad move.
Quick government 101 refresher; the Assembly is a legislative branch of government, not executive. If we’re going to present a position we must vet that position through a public process that allows all Assembly members and the neighbors we represent to weigh in, offer suggestions and arrive at a shared consensus. That didn’t happen here, so I dashed off a little note to the redistricting board:
Dear Board members & staff,
First off, thank you for accepting the immense challenge of re-drawing Alaska’s legislative districts. As you know better than I, this is a hugely complex task and I appreciate your time and efforts.
I write to clear up some apparent confusion surrounding a recent presentation by my colleague, Debbie Ossiander, and Mayor Dan Sullivan to the Alaska Redistricting Board. The plan they presented was not reviewed by the Anchorage Assembly in either an official or unofficial capacity. Indeed, I have not spoken with either of them on this topic, nor have I seen the plan.
In short, please understand that plan should not be considered as the “official” plan of the Municipality of Anchorage, merely a suggestion by two individuals.
Best of luck with your continued deliberations.
Regards,
Patrick Flynn
Anchorage Assembly
Those wiser than I expect that whatever the redistricting board ultimately approves will end up in court anyway, so I’m not sure any of these hijinks truly matter unless you’re the sort who keeps close track of the score in political games.
Regards,
Patrick
« Port committee update, eighth edition – Bumps in the night »
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Copyright - Patrick Flynn, All Rights Reserved
Thoughtful and on target.
Comment: friend43 – 14. May 2011 @ 10:30 am
Mr. Flynn,
I consider redistricting a distasteful, though necessary, part of the political process. I haven’t seen the plan, but in the past I have seen an enormous number of presentations on how various individuals thought redistricting ought to be done. These principles seem to apply:
1. Districts should be the same (or nearly the same) size, to the extent possible.
2. Districts should be the same (or nearly the same) population, to the extent possible.
3. It’s best to minimize the length of the borders between districts.
4. It’s best to physical boundaries such as rivers and mountains to the extent possible.
The notion that community council boundaries should factor into redistricting is really quite interesting. Some community council members seem to think that community council boundaries should factor into redistricting very strongly; I am not aware of any resolutions supporting this notion, nor have any community council members with whom I have discussed redistricting mentioned any legal backing for it, but there is a underlying sentiment in favor of the idea among community council members.
Also:
5. Redistricting should provide for fair minority representation. This is the most difficult and distasteful part.
It is often argued that where possible, geographic divisions between minority groups should be taken into account where they exist (this is the difficult and distasteful part). While this sort of consideration is somewhat objectionable, it is often seen as better than dividing minority groups among districts in such a way to neutralize their vote, and claims against neutralizing the influence of minorities may have some merit. Note that there is a strong distinction made between taking existing geographic segregation into account for purposes of fair representation and supporting or encouraging geographic segregation. It is very difficult if not impossible to take into account the needs of minority groups in such a way as to wholly satisfy all parties; providing for representation in proportion to the popular vote is seen as a lofty goal in some jurisdictions, but both minorities and majorities have regularly opposed measures that could limit their influence, and in many cases rightly so.
In all cases, the goal is to provide for fair democratic process. I do not envy the Board in this difficult and weighty task.
Comment: Geoffrey G. Humphreys – 14. May 2011 @ 10:39 pm