OPINION: Court decision in Alaska redistricting case is a win for good governance

Democracy dies in darkness. That is the thought I kept coming back to as I read the decision on the multiple challenges to the Alaska Redistricting Board from Anchorage Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews.

Make no mistake, Judge Matthews’ ruling striking down the East Anchorage/Eagle River Senate pairings is a win for good governance, transparency and democracy.

Alaska’s once-a-decade redistricting process engages the public by design. The redistricting board received thousands of pieces of public testimony — both written and verbal. It is undoubtedly a tall task to read and absorb all of that information, but it is what each member signed up for when they accepted their appointments to the board.

In his decision, Judge Matthews posed the question, “If the board could hold public hearings but with no intent to ever listen to or incorporate public comments in the first place, then what purpose would those public hearings serve?”

This gets to the heart of the issue. Objective observers who followed this process could see that there was overwhelming opposition to the pairing of Eagle River with East Anchorage (the public testimony is still available to read at https://www.akredistrict.org/).

And yet, a member of the board approached this very situation wearing proverbial blinders. When advocating for her preferred map, she defied the clear and convincing argument made by the lion’s share of public testimony that Eagle River and East Anchorage should not share a legislative district.

In fact, she went a step further in stating that her plan would give Eagle River “more representation” in the Legislature.

The decision by the board to ignore the public when convenient in order to achieve their ends was even flaunted by the Alaska Redistricting Board during the trial. At one point, a member scoffed at the idea that they should have to listen and incorporate public testimony. Repeatedly, counsel for the Alaska Redistricting Board condescended public testimony and its important role in helping the board come to a final decision on an acceptable map.

Ultimately, Judge Matthews found that the Alaska Redistricting Board failed in properly weighing public testimony and that the board is required to systematically collect, absorb, and incorporate public testimony as part of its constitutional duties. His decision stated “Rather than drawing districts based on individual prerogatives, the board must make a good-faith effort to harmonize both ‘The greater good of the state’ and the desires of each community ‘to the greatest extent possible.’”

This decision was a win for good governance, transparency and democracy. The decision was fair and swift, and it should have been a clear sign to the board to conclude a long, arduous process. Instead, the board voted to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, wasting time, resources, and losing even more trust from the public in the legitimacy of their version of the process.

Joelle Hall is president of the Alaska AFL-CIO. She is a member of a coalition, Alaskans for Fair Redistricting, that provided financial support for the lawsuit challenging the Alaska Redistricting Board’s district map.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.