The Alaska Supreme Court on Friday issued a 144-page explanation for its 2022 ruling, which declared that the newly drawn political boundaries in Alaska were politically gerrymandered by the Alaska Redistricting Board in favor of a particular party.
The court emphasized that such partisan gerrymandering goes against the equal protection clause of the Alaska Constitution.
However, the decision has effectively made the court the new redistricting board, as it now has granted itself the authority to be the final arbiter on what can be gerrymandered. There is little need for a redistricting board in the future, since every decision will be argued through the lens of partisan gerrymandering.
One concern raised by critics is that the justices, who are appointed through a highly partisan process and are associated with the liberal Alaska Bar Association, now have an excessive amount of power in the redistricting process.
The court’s previous denial of the Redistricting Board’s plan to grant Eagle River two Senate seats, resulting in a temporary map with only one Senate seat for Eagle River, has been a point of contention. The court, in fact, sided with Democrat partisans in most instances where there was debate.
The consequences of the Supreme Court gerrymandering can be seen in the election results. Alaska is a state where Republicans vastly outnumber Democrats (141,000 to 74,000), and in the statewide election Gov. Mike Dunleavy, a conservative candidate, won handily in 2022, with over 51% of the vote. President Donald Trump also won easily statewide in 2020.
But in 2022, the Supreme Court’s redistricting maps resulted in a disproportionate Democrat Party representation in the House, with 21 Republicans and 16 Democrats elected, and a narrow balance in the Senate, with an 11-9 split between Republicans and Democrats — just one senator away from a 50-50 split.
Adding to the controversy, two of the five justices who made the decision are not subject to retention by the public as they are technically retired due to age but are allowed to serve anyway. Critics argue that this goes against the constitutional intent on age limits and that the justices are setting their own rules and serving past the constitutional limit.
In response to the court’s ruling, the Alaska Redistricting Board has been given 90 days to appear in Superior Court to defend its rejected redistricting map. If the board fails to do so, the Supreme Court will declare its own gerrymandered map as the law of the land.
The issue of redistricting and the role of the Alaska Supreme Court in the process continue to be contentious and raise concerns about fairness and impartiality.
The entire ruling follows:
