Submitted by: ASSEMBLY MEMBERS HALL, TRAIN!

Transcription

1 Submitted by: ASSEMBLY MEMBERS HALL, TRAIN! Prepared by: Dept. of Law CLERK'S OFFICE For reading: October 30, 2012 APPROVED As Amended. ~ l).~j 3 ~J;;J.. - O pfa'lfej ;;;:J..._. 1 :. A~~...:--- bl El. ANCHORAGE, ALASKA ~cia. ssem y ection District Map Amended and AO No Approved Immediate Reconsideration Failed AN ORDINANCE OF THE ANCHORAGE ASSEMBLY PROVIDING FOR 2 REDISTRICTING OF THE ASSEMBLY ELECTION DISTRICTS WHEREAS, after the federal census and the State of Alaska's adoption of a final 6 state redistricting plan, the Assembly declared itself malapportioned (AR ), 7 and having determined redistricting will result in properly apportioned districts; and 8 9 WHEREAS, a number of alternatives were explored, keeping in mind the mandates 10 of federal, state and local law, including principles of "one person, one vote", equal 11 protection, and the requirement to maintain compact and contiguous districts 12 containing as nearly as practicable relatively integrated socioeconomic areas; now, 1 3 therefore, THE ANCHORAGE ASSEMBLY ORDAINS: Section 1. The official Assembly apportionment map is amended as indicated in 1 8 ExhibitA(1 DTVers.3.1) Section 2. The reviser of ordinances shall replace the existing map in Anchorage 2 1 Municipal Code section with Exhibit A Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon passage and 24 approval by the Assembly PASSED AND APPROVED by the Anchorage Assembly this ,/f?/7/ /,e;r, /31-t.- day of Chair of the Assembly t,d~q. ~ Municipal Clerk 4 0 AM

2 DISTRICT,. 1 26, , , , , % 3.24% 0.98% 0.21%..J -@ ;;;:: J _,_-: ")\ AO as Amended i j l. -5_. ' r i \ j - \. ' ' \ i \ - i -- - :.::J '- ~ - i / / i \. i,.. i --- _;-:::j. ~._; / /! I I J J - -.! i J J j ; J I ; ~ \ \.,. \ ' '. I ' i I // - - / --- I ~4 i j l - I '.J l. i ---- '. ) \ ' / ' '

3 MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE ASSEMBLY MEMORANDUM No. AM Meeting Date: October 30, From: ASSEMBLY MEMBERS HALL, TRAINI 2 3 Subject: AN ORDINANCE OF THE ANCHORAGE ASSEMBL y PROVIDING 4 FOR REDISTRICTING OF THE ASSEMBLY ELECTION DISTRICTS. 5 6 The ordinance, as represented in Exhibit A ( OT Vers. 3.1) keeps intact the current 7 configuration of Assembly representation, with Downtown continuing to be 8 represented by a single assembly member. As indicated in Exhibit A, the greatest 9 deviation is 6.82%, with Downtown being 4.29% above, and Midtown being 1.53% 1 o below, the target. The official map does not contain split precincts This map does not require truncation of any assembly member's current term in 13 office Respectfully submitted: ASSEMBLY MEMBERS HALL, TRAINI 1 6 AO

4 MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE ASSEMBLY INFORMATION MEMORANDUM No. AIM Meeting Date: November 13, From: 2 Municipal Attorney's Office 3 Subject: Assembly Reapportionment process, Voting Rights Act considerations. 4 5 In the Anchorage Assembly's current process of reapportioning its election districts, 6 compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended ("VRA"), is 7 required. This memorandum is intended to assist the Assembly in meeting those 8 requirements to ensure the Municipality adopts a reapportionment plan in 9 accordance with the VRA that will be precleared by the U.S. Department of Justice 1 o in time for the April 2, 2013 municipal election. The purpose of the VRA is to protect 11 the voting power of racial minorities and members of language minority groups. The 12 State of Alaska was listed in 1975 as a jurisdiction covered by the VRA based upon 13 the specified language minority of Native Alaskans. While that was the basis for 14 listing, it does not limit the VRA considerations to changes affecting only Native 15 Alaskans; the effect on any minority group may be considered in the VRA process 16 described herein In general, we need a determination from either the U.S. Department of Justice 19 ("DOJ") or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that any change 2 o affecting voting does not have a discriminatory purpose and will not have a 21 discriminatory effect. The burden is on the Municipality of Anchorage ("MOA'') to 22 demonstrate the reapportionment plan adopted does not violate the VRA. Under 23 section 5 of the VRA, a reapportionment plan is invalid if it would lead to 2 4 impermissible retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their 2 5 effective exercise of the electoral franchise. This does not mean a reapportionment 2 6 plan must maximize the voting strength of minorities, rather it means diminishing the 2 7 voting strength of minority groups to an extent less than the Benchmark level (called 2 s "retrogression") may render the plan invalid, unless such retrogression is 2 9 unavoidable and the plan is justified by other legitimate government purposes Discriminatory purpose. Amendments to the VRA in 2006 clarified the term 3 2 "purpose" includes any discriminatory purpose and is not limited to a purpose to 3 3 retrogress only. The DOJ will examine the circumstances surrounding the adoption 3 4 of a redistricting plan to determine whether direct or circumstantial evidence exists 3 5 of any discriminatory purpose of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of 3 6 race, color or membership in a language minority group. The direct evidence the 3 7 DOJ will look at includes public statements of members of the Assembly or others 3 s who may play a significant role in the process. The DOJ will consider subjects 3 9 determined proper for such an inquiry by the Supreme Court of the United States 4 o and includes: ( 1) the impact of the plan adopted; (2) the historical background of the 41 plan adoption; (3) the sequence of events leading up to the decision; (4) whether

5 Page 2of6 1 the plan adoption departs from normal practice, either procedurally or substantially; 2 and (5) contemporaneous statements and viewpoints held by the decision makers. 3 4 DOJ Guidance specifically notes that the single fact a redistricting plan does not 5 contain the maximum possible number of districts in which minority group members 6 are a majority of the population or have the ability to elect candidates of choice to 7 office does not require the DOJ to object. The DOJ reviews the plan in its entirety. 8 A plan can be invalidated under the VRA by a reviewing court if plaintiffs challenging 9 the reapportionment plan can prove: (1) under the totality of the circumstances, the 10 redistricting results in unequal access to the electoral process; and (2) racially 11 polarized bloc voting exists Discriminatory effect. The DOJ starts its analysis of whether there is a 14 discriminatory or "retrogressive" effect by comparing the Benchmark Assembly 15 districts and the proposed reapportionment plan, using the updated 2010 Census 16 data for each. The MOA must establish that the proposed redistricting plan will not 1 7 have the effect of diminishing the ability of any citizens because of race, color or 18 membership in a language minority group to elect their preferred candidate of 19 choice. The ability to elect either exists or it does not in any particular circumstance The factors the DOJ considers to determine whether a reapportionment plan 2 2 complies with Section 5 of the VRA includes: ( 1) whether minority voting strength is 23 reduced; (2) whether minority concentrations are fragmented among different 24 districts; (3) whether minorities are over-concentrated in one or more districts; (4) 2 5 whether alternative plans satisfying legitimate governmental interests exist and were 2 6 considered; (5) whether the reapportionment plan departs from objective 2 7 redistricting criteria applicable to the MOA, or ignores relevant factors such as 2 8 compactness and contiguity, or disregards available natural or artificial boundaries; 2 9 and (6) whether the plan is inconsistent with MOA's reapportionment standards The DOJ does not rely on any fixed demographic percentage in making this 32 assessment. Instead, it is a functional analysis of electoral behavior that looks at 3 3 electoral participation within portions of a population, election history, voting 34 patterns, voter registration and turnout, and other information important to this 3 5 determination. A reapportionment plan that preserves current minority voting 3 6 strength is entitled to preclearance. A plan that reduces voting strength in specific 3 7 districts is not retrogressive if it can be shown those losses are offset by gains in 3 8 other districts in the overall plan. Finally, it is not considered retrogressive when a 3 9 plan adjusts minority group numbers in specific districts so they reflect the 4 o percentage of minorities in the area overall The DOJ Guidance recognizes that in some instances, retrogression is unavoidable. 4 3 If that is the case, the MOA must demonstrate that a less-retrogressive plan cannot 44 be drawn. The factors above outline some reasons that a less-retrogressive plan 45 could not be drawn, when objective redistricting goals are required by the 4 6 constitution or legitimate governmental purposes. For the MOA, the 4 7 reapportionment plan adopted must comply with the Anchorage Municipal Charter, 48 Alaska Constitution, U.S. Constitution, and the VRA. Courts and the DOJ will not 4 9 require modifying districts to avoid retrogression to an extent that produces a more 5 o than 10% total deviation in population equality, nor will they require modifications 51 that draw lines based solely on race and ignore the Charter requirements of

6 Page 3of6 1 compactness, contiguousness and integrated socio-economic areas. The Supreme 2 Court of the United States has established that redistricting processes cannot use 3 race as the predominant overriding factor to draw district lines. Where retrogression 4 is unavoidable, there must be justifications supporting a determination that it is 5 unavoidable. 6 7 The Municipality of Anchorage reapportionment process. Taking into account 8 the numerous factors to consider, and analyzing the 2010 decennial census data 9 and its implications for the several proposed reapportionment plans, can be 10 overwhelming. However, the Alaska Supreme Court's orders in the State of 11 Alaska's current redistricting process provide some guidance: After receiving the decennial census data, '[t]he Board must first 14 design a reapportionment plan based on the requirements of the 15 Alaska Constitution. That plan must then be tested against the Voting 16 Rights Act. A reapportionment plan may minimize [Alaska 1 7 Constitutional] requirements when minimization is the only means 18 available to satisfy Voting Rights Act requirements.' 19 2 o In re 2011 Redistricting Cases, 274 P.3d 466, 467 (Alaska 2012), quoting Hickel v. 21 Southeast Conference, 846 P.2d 38, 51 n. 22 (Alaska 1992) The Anchorage Assembly has thus far followed an analogous procedure: the 2 4 Anchorage Municipal Charter and Equal Protection requirements were the first 2 5 considerations when designing the Assembly's various possible reapportionment 2 6 plans. The reapportionment plan drafts were discussed at a work session on 2 7 October 26, Each draft plan brings the total deviation from population 2 8 proportionality under the presumptively valid threshold of 10% deviation in 2 9 satisfaction of the Equal Protection requirements. Each draft plan created 3 o Assembly district boundaries that appear to satisfy the Anchorage Municipal Charter requirement that the districts be "formed of compact and contiguous territory 3 2 containing as nearly as practicable a relatively integrated socioeconomic area.'' 3 3 Four of the five plan drafts have no split precincts, in accordance with the objectives 34 of AM (in support of AO ) to avoid Assembly reapportionment 3 5 that creates split precincts for municipal elections. The remaining draft plan (1 OT 3 6 Vers 2.1) splits only a single precinct The task for the Assembly now is to test the plans, and the one ultimately adopted 3 9 by ordinance, against the VRA. The overriding considerations of the Charter and 4 o constitutions in developing the draft plans should only be minimized to the extent 41 necessary to conform the draft plans to the VRA requirements. Thus, the 4 2 Department of Law recommends the Assembly now consider the available 4 3 demographic data relevant to the VRA requirements in order to not allow 44 retrogression unless justified The Benchmark Assembly districts establish the baseline against which the DOJ will 4 7 compare the adopted redistricting plan to determine if there is retrogression. The 48 Assembly district boundaries established by AO , incorporated with the census data, show the following: 50 Benchmark 2002 Assembly Districts

7 Page 4of6 District TApersons Target Dev. Minority% Native% , % 56.90% 19.80% , % 25.52% 7.54% , % 37.79% 13.14% , % 41.92% 14.24% , % 46.89% 14.51% , % 26.57% 8.98% Totals 291, % 12.32% 1 2 The total deviation of the district with the population greater than the ideal and the 3 lesser from the ideal is 10.2% and led to the Assembly's declaration of 4 malapportionment in AR It should be noted District 1 has a population 5 that is 56.9% minority. However, that number is comprised of a variety of minorities 6 and there is no one identifiable minority group that has had the potential to 7 unilaterally elect their preferred candidate of choice. Absent evidence of racial bloc s voting or cohesiveness of the diverse minorities, it is not necessarily a minority 9 effective election district. 1 The district is now comprised of 19.8% persons 1 o identifying as at least part Alaska Native, 10.36% black persons, 9.65% Hispanic, 11 with the remainder being other minorities Proposals 1 OT 3.1, 1 OT 1.2, MT 1.1, and ES 1.1 each bring the total deviation 14 under the presumptively valid threshold of 10%. The tables below show selected 15 demographics of all minority populations and the percent population of persons that 16 identified themselves as Alaska Native - even if they also identified themselves with 1 7 multiple races. The data selected below serves to illustrate the overall changes with 18 each proposal and any retrogression for Alaska Native language minority groups. 19 MOA Assembly 1 OT Vers 3.1 District TApersons Tarqet Dev. Minoritv% Native% , % 54.86% 19.01% , % 24.17% 6.65% , % 38.11% 13.27% , % 43.02% 14.52% , % 47.33% 15.13% , % 24.85% 8.44% The 1 OT Vers 3.1 plan maintains the downtown district as the single member 22 district, with all other districts being two-member. In this proposal, when compared 2 3 with the Benchmark the minority language group of Alaska Natives decreases by 24 less than 1 % in Districts 1, 2, and 6, and increases in Districts 3, 4 and MOA Assembly 1 OT Vers 1.2 District TApersons Tarqet Dev. Minority% Native% , % 54.86% 19.01% , % 24.17% 6.65% , % 37.61% 12.80% , % 42.49% 14.35% ; % 46.95% 15.10% , % 26.33% 9.11% The 1 OT Vers 1.2 proposal also maintains the downtown district as the single 1 A minority effective election district where a single minority group is highly likely to be able to elect its candidate of choice. Typically, a high% Voting Age Persons (35%+) indicates such a district, as would the fact that a minority incumbent occupies a seat.

8 Page 5of6 1 member district, with all other districts being two-member. In this proposal, 2 boundaries are the same as 1 OT Vers 3.1 for Districts 1 and 2, but slightly different 3 for the other districts. Alaska Natives as a group decreases in percent of the 4 population in Districts 1, 2, and 3, and increases in Districts 4, 5, 6. 5 MOA Assembly 1 MT Vers 1.1 District TApersons Target Dev. Minority% Native% , % 52.50% 17.40% , % 24.17% 6.65% , % 39.26% 13.50% , % 43.61% 15.17% , % 42.36% 14.13% , % 25.61% 8.54% 6 7 The 1 MT Vers 1.1 proposal moves the single member Assembly district to Midtown s District 4, shrinking its boundaries, while enlarging Downtown District 1 to become a 9 two-member district. Here, the Alaska Native group decreases in Districts 1, 2, and 10 6 while increasing in the other districts. Alaska Natives are a smaller percentage in 11 the new larger District 1, and a larger percentage in the smaller District MOA Assembly 1 ES Vers 1.1 District TApersons Target Dev. Minority% Native% , % 51.71% 17.33% , % 24.17% 6.65% , % 37.35% 12.68% , % 43.46% 14.77% , % 43.41% 13.87% , % 26.33% 9.11% The 1 ES Vers 1.1 proposal moves the single member Assembly district to the East 15 Side District 5, shrinking its boundaries, while enlarging Downtown District 1 to 16 become a two-member district. Here the Alaska Native percentage decreases in 1 7 Districts 1, 2, 3 and 5, and increases in Districts 4 and 6. The percentage 18 decreases in both districts that change between one and two member 19 representation In all four proposals, the overall effect on minorities should be considered, including 22 the decreases in some districts being offset by increases in others. In addition, all 2 3 four proposals result in four of the six districts containing above the 12.32% percent 2 4 Native Alaskans within the whole MOA. Data tables for each of these four proposed 2 s reapportionment plans are available on the Municipal Clerk's website with more 2 6 detail and breakdown by voting age, each race reported by the 2010 census, 2 7 multiracial responses, and other categories. The data may be considered as 2 8 illustrative of the impact of each proposal on race and language minority groups. 2 9 However, the Assembly is reminded there is no percentage that determines a 3 o minority group's ability to elect its preferred candidate, nor absolute prohibition on 31 retrogression. For example, in Kenai Peninsula v. State, 743 P.2d 1352, (Alaska 1987) the State's increase of Native population in a district from 27.5% to % to advance the policies of the VRA by enhancing voter strength was found to 34 not be required and the record did not show retrogression would occur without the 3 s inclusion of a 41.9% Native population. Also to be considered is electoral behavior, 3 6 electoral participation within portions of a population, election history, voting 3 7 patterns, voter registration and turnout, the effect of the plan overall on minorities

9 Page 6of6 1 opportunity to participate in the political process, and other information. 2 3 Relevant to this discussion is the fact that the Alaska Supreme Court has 4 recognized that Anchorage: 5 6 Is by definition socio-economically integrated, and its population sufficiently 7 dense and evenly spread to allow multiple combinations of compact, 8 contiguous districts with minimal population deviations. 9 There are few if any homogeneous areas within Anchorage; the patterns of 10 housing, income levels and minority residency crisscross extensively Alaska does not seem to be afflicted with the racial miasma adversely 12 affecting other sections of the United States. 13 Close scrutiny of population characteristics in Anchorage do not reveal 14 clearly delineated ethnic ghettos The MOA does not have any identifiable Alaska Native or minority effective election 1 7 districts. This supports, but does not guarantee, a conclusion that none of the MOA 18 redistricting proposals are retrogressive under the VRA standards. The Department 19 of Law recommends the Assembly evaluate the factors and data described in this 2 o memorandum for compliance with the VRA. If any adjustments are proposed, they 21 must remain consistent in maintaining compact and contiguous boundaries, with a 22 total deviation below the 10% threshold. The Assembly should state on the record 23 its review of the data and its findings so that we may include the same in the 24 submittal to DOJ Prepared by: Dean T. Gates, Assistant Municipal Attorney 2 8 Approved by: Dennis A. Wheeler, Municipal Attorney