Egan v. Hammond ( 1972 )

OPINION IN RE OBJECTIONS TO INTERIM REAPPORTIONMENT PLAN

Before BONEY, C. J., and RABINO-WITZ, CONNOR, ERWIN and BOOCH-EVER, JJ.

RABINOWITZ, Justice.

In our Decision and Order of May 26, 1972,¹ this court declared the reapportionment plan embodied in the December 30, 1971, Proclamation of Reapportionment and Redistricting unconstitutional under the equal protection and supremacy clauses of the Constitution of the United States of America. We reached this conclusion for the reason that the proposed plan in its overall reapportionment of the Senate and House of Representatives would have established election districts which failed to encompass "as nearly equal population proportions as is practicable.” To insure compliance with the equal protection requirements of Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964), and its progeny, it was further determined that an interim reapportionment and redistricting plan, designed to meet the imminent 1972 elections, required formulation. In furtherance of this task, two Masters were appointed to assist the court in fashioning an appropriate interim reapportionment plan.

On May 26, 1972, the appointed Masters were given the following instructions in pertinent part:²

1. By use of the official Census of 1970, you should establish a population base for the State of Alaska. This population base should include military personnel who were enumerated in the 1970 Census.

2. You should make an inquiry to determine whether or not the number of nonresident military personnel included in the 1970 Census can be determined. If a determination can be made, then you should subtract the number from the total which you have arrived at in paragraph 1 above. You should also state the methods in detail by which you arrived at this determination.

After receipt of the Masters’ Report,³ an “Order Establishing an Interim Reapportionment Plan for 1972 Legislative Elections” was entered on June 14, 1972.⁴ In its relevant part this order stated:

By use of the Official Census of 1970, the Court determines that the total population base for the State of Alaska shall be 302,361. This figure includes the military population residing in the State of Alaska at the time of the Official Census of April, 1970. In the time available to the Court for the preparation of the interim plan, the Court could find no feasible method of excluding some or all of the military personnel from the total population base. Moreover, computations revealed that changes in representation under the interim plan due to the inclusion of military personnel were minimal.

Subsequent to the entry of this court’s order establishing an interim reapportionment plan, petitioners filed objections thereto on the stated grounds:

The Court erred in instructing the masters that the population base should include all military personnel who were enumerated in the 1970 census and in allowing nonresident military personnel enumerated by the census to be counted for the purpose of determining the population size and shape of particular districts. . . .

Petitioners contended that the effect of the inclusion of all enumerated military personnel was to give greater political power to those communities which adjoin major military installations. In arguing for preservation of the civilian population concept,⁵ petitioners state that Alaska’s legislature established a presumption against residency of military personnel except on affirmation of intent by the person involved that he chooses to be an Alaska resident.⁶ In overruling petitioners’ objection to the inclusion in the interim plan’s population base of all military personnel who were enumerated in the 1970 Census, in our order of June 20, 1972,⁷ we said in part:

[We] could find no feasible basis for the exclusion of part or all of the military population from the population base required for interim reapportionment. Under the Alaska Constitution this base must include all residents of the State of Alaska as enumerated in the decennial census. The base is not limited to voter population. Neither the 1971 reapportionment plan nor the materials relied upon by the petitioners provide a legal basis for identifying nonresident military personnel in order to eliminate them from the population base.

In the absence of reliable data, the elimination of the military from the population base as a class of persons would be a denial of equal protection of the law, prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Footnotes omitted.)

Davis v. Mann, 377 U.S. 678, 84 S.Ct. 1441, 12 L.Ed.2d 609, 617 (1964), instructs that it is constitutionally impermissible to discriminate against a class of individuals merely because of the nature of their employment. Given Davis v. Mann, this court is nevertheless under the duty, pursuant to article VI, section 3 of the Alaska constitution, to employ census data in determining the total population base for purposes of formulating an interim reapportionment plan.⁸ The census practice of enumeration is as follows:

In accordance with census practice dating back to 1790, each person enumerated in the 1970 census was counted as an inhabitant of his usual place of residence, which is generally construed to mean the place where he lives and sleeps most of the time. This place is not necessarily the same as his legal residence, voting residence or domicile.⁹

In light of the unconstitutionality of the civilian-military distinction made in article VI, section 3 of the constitution of Alaska for purposes of determining the requisite population base and this provision’s further requirement that Alaska’s population base be computed from census data, we concluded that in fashioning an interim reapportionment plan no lawful requirement or reliable basis existed for isolation and exclusion from the total population base of those military or civilians who were living in Alaska and enumerated in the 1970 census but did not at the time possess the intent of making Alaska their home. Alaska’s constitution requires that the requisite population total be arrived at by use of the census data. It does not mandate a population base composed exclusively of registered voters, citizens who have previously voted in Alaska, or only those people living in Alaska with the intention of making Alaska their home.¹⁰

It is for these reasons that this court decided that petitioners’ objections to the inclusion of all military personnel, who were enumerated in the 1970 census in the total population base for purposes of determining an interim reapportionment plan should be overruled.¹¹

1 .This document is attached hereto as part of an appendix to this opinion. Also included in the appendix are the Reference to Masters, Masters’ Report, Order Establishing an Interim Reapportionment Plan, and Order Denying Objections to Interim Reapportionment Plan.

2 . The complete letter of instructions to the masters is attached hereto as part of the appendix.

3 . The Report is included in the appendix attached hereto.

4 . This document is included in the appendix attached hereto.

5 . Alaska Const, art. VI, § 3 provides in part: “Reapportionment shall be based upon civilian population within each election district as reported by the census.”

6 . In support of this argument, petitioners cite AS 15.05.020. The 1971 Reapportionment Plan includes Coast Guard Personnel, 3,752 resident aliens, and all military dependents. These persons cannot be classified as citizens of the State of Alaska under the test urged by petitioners.

7 . This order is included in the appendix attached hereto.

8 . See note 1, supra. In reaching the conclusion that census data must be employed, we do no more than hold that for purposes of fashioning an interim reapportionment plan the unconstitutional limitation in art. VI, § 3 of the Alaska constitution is severable.

9 . Census Report PC (1)-C3, Alaska, Appendix A, at App-1.

10 . See note 6, supra.

11 . The relative effect of eliminating all military personnel, of eliminating only military personnel housed in group quarters, or of ineluding all military personnel in this court’s interim reapportionment plan, would be to produce only a slight change in the base population figure and to necessitate some minor redrawing of district lines; it would not change the number of legislators in any given district. On the other hand, elimination of military personnel housed in group quarters would result in substantially increased population variances among the election districts in comparison with the minimal variations present in the interim reapportionment plan as it now stands. For example, the variation in the Juneau district would shift from the present -{-4.3 to +10.2; in the Matanuska-Susit-na district from +1.5 to +7.4; in the Aleutian district from +3.4 to —37.3; in the Yukon-Koyukuk-Kuskokwim district from +1.0 to —6.5; and in the Fairbanks district from +0.1 to —7.1. Excluding military personnel living in group quarters would correct the Ketchikan discrepancy from —22.5 to —18.0.