On December 10, 2021, the City of Valdez and an Alaska voter filed a state lawsuit against the Alaska Redistricting Board and its members, challenging several of the Board's actions during the redistricting process and certain districts within the Board's adopted legislative plans as violating state constitutional and statutory provisions related to redistricting and transparency. First, the plaintiffs allege that the Board violated the Alaska Open Meetings Act by holding work and executive sessions closed to the public during which time the Board made changes to redistricting plans, discussed the senate pairing process, and made agreements on pairings. Similarly, the plaintiffs assert that by reaching a final agreement on changes to the plan and senate pairings during these closed sessions, the Board violated the Alaska Constitution's requirement for public hearings on proposed plans. As to the districts themselves, plaintiffs allege that by combining the City of Valdez with dissimilar municipalities and separating socio-economically integrated communities, the Board violated the Alaska Constitution's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Finally, they assert that several of the House districts and related Senate districts violate the Alaska Constitution's redistricting criteria relating to compactness, contiguity, respect for political subdivision and geographic boundaries, and preserving communities of interest. Plaintiffs are seeking a declaratory judgment that the Board's actions violate the Alaska Constitution and Open Meetings Act, a court order declaring the Board's adopted final plans null and void and barring the state from using it in any future elections, and an order requiring the Board to either correct the issues in the present plans or to adopt new, lawful redistricting plans.
On December 14, 2021, the presiding judges of the Alaska Superior Court issued a statewide order consolidating the 5 pending challenges to Alaska's adopted legislative plans and transferring their venue to the Anchorage Superior Court.
On February 15, 2022, the Alaska Superior Court issued an opinion upholding the challenged districts as constitutional but ruling the Alaska Redistricting Board's underlying Senate pairing procedure and use of executive sessions violated the state's constitutional redistricting process and Open Meetings Act, respectively. The court found the challenged districts all complied with the Alaska Constitution's compactness, contiguity, municipal boundaries, and communities of interest provisions and the Board's decision to place the City of Valdez in House District 29 did not constitute invidious discrimination under Alaska's Equal Protection Clause. However, the court explained the Board violated Article VI, Section 10 of the Alaska Constitution by failing to adopt proposed Senate pairings by the constitutional deadline for proposed plans and also by subsequently failing to hold public hearings on proposed pairings prior to their adoption. Additionally, the court ruled the Board's use of executive sessions and their adoption of final Senate pairings during those sessions violated Alaska's Open Meetings Act. The court remanded the legislative plan back to the Board with directions to remedy the issues identified in its opinion. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Alaska Supreme Court on March 2, 2022.
On March 25, the Alaska Supreme Court issued its decision affirming the Superior Court's determination that House Districts 29 and 30 did not violate the Alaska Constitution but reversing as to House District 36 on the grounds it was non-compact without adequate justification. The Court also affirmed the Superior Court's finding that Senate District K's pairing of House districts constituted an unconstitutional political gerrymander in violation of the Alaska Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Having affirmed the invalidation of House District 36 and Senate District K's House district pairings, the Court remanded the plan back to the Alaska Redistricting Board to correct the violations identified.
On April 13, the Alaska Redistricting Board adopted revised state Senate and state House plans and issued a proclamation certifying the maps as final. Five days later, several plaintiffs in the consolidated cases filed a motion with the superior court to reject the Board's revised proclamation plan for failure to comply with the Alaska Supreme Court's remand order. They assert the new Senate District K pairings still constitute an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander and are asking the court to issue an order adopting instead one of the alternative configurations proposed at one of the Board's remedial plan public hearings.
For a complete list of filings in this case, see the litigation page for Matanuska-Susitna Borough v. Alaska Redistricting Board.
Related Cases: Municipality of Skagway Borough v. Alaska Redistricting Board; Calista Corp. v. Alaska Redistricting Board; Matanuska-Susitna Borough v. Alaska Redistricting Board; & Wilson v. Alaska Redistricting Board.
Alaska Superior Court, Third Judicial District at Anchorage - No. 3AN-21-8869CI [formerly in Third Judicial District at Valdez - No. 3VA-21-00080CI]
- Complaint - 12/10/21
- Amended Presiding Judges' Statewide Consolidation and Venue Order - 12/14/21
- Pretrial Order - 12/15/21
- Second Pretrial Order - 12/21/21
- Order Regarding Discovery Hearing Submissions - 12/21/21
- Order of the Alaska Supreme Court - 12/23/21
- Fourth Pretrial Order - 1/4/22
- Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - 2/15/22
Alaska Supreme Court - No. S-18332 [together with Nos. S18328, S-18329, S-18330, S-18332]
- Statement of Points on Appeal - 2/17/22
- Order - 2/17/22
- Alaska Redistricting Board's Emergency Motion for Reconsideration of Order Converting Appeal to Petition - 2/17/22
- Skagway-Valdez's Response to Board's Emergency Motion for Reconsideration of Order Converting Appeal to Petition - 2/18/22
- Order Issuing Stay - 2/18/22
- Motion to Permit Briefing by Amici Curiae - 2/22/22
- Order - 2/22/22
- Order - 2/22/22
- Matanuska-Susitna Borough and Michael Brown's Petition for Review - 3/2/22
- Alaska Redistricting Board's Petition for Review - 3/2/22
- Municipality of Skagway Borough and Brad Ryan's Corrected Petition for Review - 3/2/22
- City of Valdez and Mark Detter's Corrected Petition for Review - 3/2/22
- Brief of Amici Curiae Alaska Black Caucus, et al. - 3/10/22
- State's Response to Petitions for Review - 3/10/22
- Matanuska-Susitna Borough and Michael Brown's Response to Alaska Redistricting Board's Petition for Review - 3/10/22
- Alaska Redistricting Board's Response to Petitions for Review - 3/10/22
- City of Valdez and Mark Detter's Response to the Alaska Redistricting Board's Petition for Review - 3/10/22
- Municipality of Skagway Borough and Brad Ryan's Response to the Alaska Redistricting Board's Petition for Review - 3/10/22
- East Anchorage Plaintiffs' Response to Petition for Review by Alaska Redistricting Board - 3/10/22
- Intervenors' Response to Valdez and Matanuska-Susitna Borough Petitions for Review - 3/10/22
- Calista Corporation, William Naneng, and Harley Sundown's Response to City of Valdez and Mark Detter's Petition for Review - 3/10/22
- Alaska Redistricting Board's Notice of Supplemental Authority - 3/14/22
- Alaska Redistricting Board's Notice of Supplemental Authority - 3/23/22
- East Anchorage Plaintiffs' Response to Notice of Supplemental Authority - 3/24/22
- Disposition Order - 3/25/22
Alaska Superior Court, Third Judicial District at Anchorage - No. 3AN-21-08869CI