In re 2011 Redistricting Cases
Alaska Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CARPENETI, Chief Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
Earlier in the current redistricting cycle, we issued an order remanding to the superi- or court with instructions to remand to the redistricting board to formulate a new plan in compliance with our case law. We agreed with the superior court that, in drafting its plan, the board failed to follow the process we mandated in order to ensure that the redistricting plan would comply with the Alaska Constitution and thus may have unnecessarily violated the Alaska Constitution. Upon remand, the board was instructed to follow this process so that we…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Bartlett v. StricklandSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Groh v. EganAlaska Supreme Court · 1974
- Carpenter v. HammondAlaska Supreme Court · 1983
- Kenai Peninsula Borough v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1987
- Hickel v. Southeast ConferenceAlaska Supreme Court · 1993
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- In the Matter of the 2021 Redistricting Cases, In the Matter of the 2021 Redistricting Cases, In the Matter of the 2021 Redistricting Cases, In the Matter of the 2021 Redistricting Cases, In the Matter of the 2021 Redistricting Cases (Alaska Redistricting Board / Girdwood / East Anchorage)Alaska Supreme Court · 2023
- Marcy v. Matanuska-Susitna BoroughAlaska Supreme Court · 2018