In Re 2011 Redistricting Cases — Stowers, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Stowers, joined by Justice Winfree, dissented from the order requiring use of the April 5 Amended Proclamation Plan for the 2012 elections. The dissent argued that the plan was unconstitutional because the Board had not first applied the state constitutional requirements of contiguity, compactness, and socioeconomic integration, and that the Voting Rights Act did not require preserving a Southeast Alaska Native influence district. Justice Winfree, dissenting separately, likewise would have required use of the May 15 reformulated plan because it appeared constitutionally compliant and the asserted federal-law risk was speculative.