Alaska is a pretty red state. 1960— the Goldwater debacle— was the last time a Democratic presidential candidate won the state. Even Dole, McCain and Romney won there. And in 2016 Trump beat Hillary 51.3% to 36.5%. In 2020, Trump beat Biden 52.8% to 42.8%. The last Democrat elected governor was Tony Knowles (1994 and 1998). The state legislature is a wild bunch of shifting caucuses. In the 20 seat Senate, there are 9 Democrats and 8 Republicans working together against 3 MAGAts. And in the 40 seat state House, there are 19 Republicans, 2 independents and 2 Democrats in a majority caucus against 11 Democrats, 4 independents and a Republican. There’s also a MAGAt floating around on his own. And in the midst of all that… gerrymandering. Until Friday.
On Friday, the state Supreme Court ruled the way the U.S. Supreme Court should have, namely that partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional under the Alaska Constitution's equal protection doctrine. Sean Maguire reported that “The decision follows a contentious recent reapportionment cycle: The Alaska Redistricting Board was twice found by the state's highest court of having unconstitutionally gerrymandered the state's political maps by attempting to give solidly Republican Eagle River more political representation with two Senate seats. Following a court order, the board approved an interim map last year for November's general election that kept Eagle River intact in one Senate district.”
The court ruled Friday that the redistricting board would have 90 days to appear before a Superior Court judge and show cause why the interim political map should not be used until the 2032 general election. A board meeting hasn't been scheduled yet to discuss the court's decision, but that could happen as soon as next week.
John Binkley, chair of the Alaska Redistricting Board, said that the five-member board would need to carefully consider the court's ruling, and that members would likely hear public testimony before deciding how to proceed. Binkley said he was personally satisfied with the interim political map, and the process he oversaw to redraw Alaska's political boundaries.
Alaska Federation of Natives attorney Nicole Borromeo, who was in the minority of board members opposed to giving Eagle River two Senate seats, warned at the time that a court would likely rule that was partisan gerrymandering. In an interview Friday, she said she supported the interim map because it comported with the constitution, but she was interested in hearing if other board members wanted to reopen the map for additional drafting.
The court's 144-page opinion explained in detail why the five justices believed board members engaged in unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering. The opinion— written by retired Chief Justice Daniel Winfree— described "secretive procedures" used to draw two Eagle River Senate districts to benefit Republicans behind closed doors, which the justices said was a violation of the state constitution's equal protection doctrine.
Racial gerrymandering and drawing districts to penalize an incumbent lawmaker would likely already have been struck down by state courts before Friday's decision, attorneys said. But the Alaska Supreme Court had not explicitly made a ruling that drawing maps for political purposes was illegal.
"We expressly recognize that partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional under the Alaska Constitution," the court's opinion says on page 91.
"This is an incredibly important case," said Scott Kendall, an attorney and former chief of staff to independent Gov. Bill Walker. "For the first time the Alaska Supreme Court has interpreted the equal protection doctrine to prohibit gerrymandering for partisan purposes. This decision will put vital sideboards on the redistricting process to prevent political abuse of the process in the future."
Kendall said the court's reading of the equal protection doctrine meant that there would effectively need to be a level playing field between communities. Maps could not be drawn to give more political power to residents of Eagle River over those of Muldoon, he said, referring to one map struck down by the court.
At a federal level, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 2019 case that partisan redistricting was a political matter and beyond the reach of federal courts. The Alaska Supreme Court cited that decision, but said state constitutional convention delegates made clear that partisan gerrymandering was intended to be unconstitutional from the outset.
Stacey Stone, an attorney who has often appeared in court on behalf of Republican candidates, agreed Friday's ruling was a landmark decision. She said that there was "significant case law" in the decision that would take a while to digest, and noted that the justices repeatedly admonished the board to reiterate the importance of drafting maps transparently for the public.
Redrawing the state's political map is constitutionally required to take place every 10 years after the release of U.S. Census data, so that population changes are accurately reflected in new boundaries for 40 state House districts and 20 Senate districts.
Former Anchorage Democratic Sen. Tom Begich, who has long been involved in state redistricting cycles, was elated by Friday's decision. He said that it put the burden of proof onto the board to show why the interim map should not be used for the next several election cycles. But the clear prohibition on partisan gerrymandering was a surprise.
"As soon as I read that, I actually said to my wife, "Oh my God, they've made it explicit," Begich said.
Begich said to his knowledge, that was clearest prohibition against partisan gerrymandering issued by any state supreme court.
Ohio is a much nastier, much redder state— and one of the most politically corrupt places on planet earth. Ohio has always defined American corruption; it’s woven all though the state’s DNA. Everything that’s wrong with American politics is exemplified by Ohio. And now the Republicans are trying to change the rules again to thwart the will of the voters— something they do frequently. This time, it’s about women’s Choice, something most Ohio voters favor… and most Republicans oppose. Dan Balz reported that “For 111 years, Ohio voters have lived with a set of rules for amending their state constitution through citizen initiative. The requirements have not changed and the threshold for enactment has always been 50 percent plus one. Today, Republicans in the legislature want to change that. The reason is abortion, and the maneuvering underway there adds to a bigger story about the Republican Party… [T]he motive is clear: Facing the possibility that abortion rights could be enshrined into the state constitution by a vote of the people later this year, Republicans want to change the rules by making it tougher to pass such amendments by requiring them to receive 60 percent of the vote. The effort is as transparent as it is cynical.”
Balz noted that “This is part of a broader pattern that spreads beyond Ohio and the issue of abortion. It speaks to the state of contemporary politics and the mind-set of many Republican elected officials, who are using their power in state legislatures to undo rules that they see as unfavorable to them. Early and mail-in voting regulations are prime examples of such action. As seems to be the case with abortion in Ohio, Republican lawmakers are trying to change rules when public opinion appears to be against them. After the 2020 elections, Republicans decried changes made during the pandemic that expanded early and mail-in voting, which has tended to favor Democrats… Where Democrats appear to have an advantage in popular-vote elections, many Republicans still favor steps to lessen those advantages. Recently, Cleta Mitchell, a conservative legal strategist, told a gathering of donors that Republicans should look for ways to tighten the rules on campus voting, where the party is getting swamped both by lopsided margins for Democrats and higher turnout, as well as mail ballots.”
Since the Supreme Court ended the constitutional right to abortion last year in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and as Republican-controlled state legislatures have enacted or are considering restrictive abortion laws, proponents of abortion rights have turned to state constitutions to preserve such access.
It happened in Kansas shortly after the Supreme Court acted, when 59 percent of voters said they wanted to keep the protection already in the state constitution. It happened in Michigan last November, when about 57 percent of voters approved a reproductive rights amendment in an election that also saw voters reelect Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) with a comfortable margin and give Democrats control of both houses of the legislature.
Proponents of abortion rights in Ohio have drawn up a proposed constitutional amendment patterned on the one approved in Michigan. They are in the process of gathering enough signatures to qualify the initiative for the November ballot. An Ohio bill banning abortions after six weeks has been blocked in the courts.
If they succeed, they will need the support of 50 percent of voters plus one to make it part of the state constitution. Ohio has recently moved toward the Republicans, but the majority of public opinion appears to favor abortion rights, as is the case nationwide. Still, it is doubtful the abortion ballot measure could achieve a three-fifths majority.
Shortly after last November, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose and state Rep. Brian Stewart, both Republicans, called for raising the threshold for passage of proposed amendments to the constitution to 60 percent. LaRose did not talk about the issue during his reelection campaign. Nonetheless, he and other proponents recommended the state legislature move swiftly to enact the change during a lame-duck session.
LaRose said the proposal was designed “to help protect the Ohio Constitution from continued abuse by special interests and out-of-state activists.” Later, Stewart said explicitly in a letter to fellow Republicans in the state House that the reason for the new proposal was because the left was trying to do “an end run around us” to put abortion rights into the state constitution and to give “unelected liberals” and allies on the state Supreme Court power to draw legislative districts.
That lame-duck session effort failed. But it has come back during the current legislative session in an even more restrictive fashion. Not only would the measure raise the threshold for passage to a three-fifths majority, it also would put a much heavier burden on the process of gathering signatures to qualify citizen amendments for the ballot.
…[Because for partisan gerrymandering] Ohio Republicans have a supermajority in both chambers and are moving forward, both to qualify their own amendment for the ballot and to enact a new law to establish an August election. The bill for an August election would require the signature of Gov. Mike DeWine (R) by May 10. The Ohio Senate approved both a few days ago. Final action by the state House could come next week, although the outcome is not preordained.
Rather than trying to convince a majority of Ohio voters that abortion rights should not be added to the state constitution, Republican legislators have decided to try to move the goal posts. As [former state Rep. Michael] Curtin has said, this represents a clear attempt to take power away from citizens and put it in the hands of statehouse politicians. That is the way things work these days.