ALASKA CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

January 12, 1956

FIFTY-FIRST DAY

PRESIDENT EGAN: The Convention will come to order. Reverend Armstrong, would you give our daily invocation?

REVEREND ARMSTRONG: Our loving Father, we ask Thee to use us in this day, we pray, that in the service of our future state that we might mark well those sign posts of life and liberty and pursuit of happiness for those yet to come. Keep us vigilant, keep us peaceful, and make us progressive in our thinking, for this we pray in Jesus' name. Amen.

PRESIDENT EGAN: The Chief Clerk will call the roll.

(The Chief Clerk called the roll.)

CHIEF CLERK: One absent.

PRESIDENT EGAN: A quorum is present. The Convention will proceed with its regular order of business. Are there any communications from outside the Convention? Are there reports of standing committees? Reports of select committees? Are there any proposals to be introduced at this time? The Chair would like to state that General Dean will make his speech in the college gymnasium this afternoon at 1 o'clock. Following that speech over there he will come here and we don't know the exact time, so we will just have to hold that in abeyance, but General Dean will be here this afternoon to make a few brief remarks. We invited him to do so. Mr. Smith.

SMITH: Would it be in order to make a committee announcement at this time?

PRESIDENT EGAN: If there is no objection, Mr. Smith, you may make a committee announcement.

SMITH: I want to announce that the Committee on Resources will meet Sunday at 2:00 p.m. at Apartment 504 in the Polaris Building. I would like to announce also that the Committee on Resources will meet tomorrow at 12:50 during the noon recess in one of the committee rooms upstairs.

PRESIDENT EGAN: The Committee on Resources will meet Sunday at 2:00 p.m. at Apartment 504 in the Polaris Building and at 12:50 p.m. tomorrow in one of the committee rooms. Are there other committee announcements? Mr. Coghill.

COGHILL: Mr. President, it has been brought to the attention of the Committee on Administration as to whether the delegates wish to meet this evening. It seems there is some feeling among

the fair sex of the delegates that they would like to have this evening off for purposes of getting their hair fixed and what not.

PRESIDENT EGAN: What was the motion made on Sunday that was generally agreed to? That we go through the week or through Friday, what is it? What is the feeling of the delegates as to the evening meeting? We should let the committee chairman know so he can notify the lunch room upstairs. Is there objection to meeting this evening? If there is no objection we will proceed on the assumption that the Convention will meet this evening at 7 o'clock.

COGHILL: I will notify the food center.

PRESIDENT EGAN: If there is no objection, that is the procedure

we will follow. We have before us Committee Proposal No. 14. It is not open for amendment at this time, and we will proceed with the discussion that we began last night. Mr. Barr.

BARR: I have a few simple questions which I would like to have answered. I won't ask them of Mr. Gray, I am afraid I will be confused by figures. I would rather ask Mr. Hellenthal, our able defender of principle. I agree with the Committee's report on all the detailed work they have done. I will have to make a little statement first to give you an idea of what I am getting at. I agree to their formula for proportionment of the general boundaries. I think they have done a good job on boundaries. I am acquainted with the people and the topography. The doubt in my mind has to do with your basic approach to the thing. For instance, the number of members in the legislature. It seems to me that rather than having the Apportionment Committee decide the number, the Legislative Committee should decide the number, taking into recognition the procedure in the legislature, what kind of men you want there, and terms of office and all that. Once the number was decided, that should have been turned over to your Committee and then they should be apportioned. The other thing is the number of election districts. Of course, we must have everyone represented, the different areas and small villages. I am strongly for that, but I don't see why one of these representatives could not represent a little larger area. Can you tell me how it was decided that we should have that number of election districts and that number of representatives?

HELLENTHAL: I will try, Mr. Barr. Your first question was aimed to determine Why the number of legislators should not have been fixed first and then the apportionment made. Well, the Committee felt it was like the question of the chicken and the egg, and that the two could not be separated, and that an analysis of the necessary election districts must precede the fixing of the figure, and the Committee firmly so believed. Now for the moment let me pass any further discussion of that

first question and get into your second, because it is kind of co-related. Now on the second question, as to why was the number of election districts fixed at 24 and not some smaller number -- well, I don't want to repeat any matters that we went into last evening, but it was felt, first broadly, that to give adequate representation to Alaska with its many facets and many little distinct areas, that "24" was a necessary figure. Perhaps to approach it from the legislature, the legislature made the analysis and felt that "17" was a necessary figure coupled with certain representation from areas at large as represented by the judicial division at large and further representation from the Territory at large. I think there were seven chosen at large from the Territory in this body. So looking at it from that analysis, the legislature felt that was the way to do it. The Committee felt there were 24 separate socio-economic units with sufficient population at the present time to merit a representation based on present population figures.

BARR: Do you say with sufficient population? Now I notice from your figures here in the less densely populated sections, at least, your lowest figures, one representative should represent about 5,000 people. Now, where do you get that figure and how many states use that figure? It seems to me that in Illinois, the city of Chicago would be represented by 1,200 people in the legislature.

HELLENTHAL: We do not have that figure, one for 5,000. That was not the approach used.

BARR: I saw that figure somewhere.

HELLENTHAL: No, I don't know where.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Hellenthal, if the Chair may, is it not true that as the population increased that figure would automatically increase?

HELLENTHAL: That is correct.

BARR: I understand that. Well it seems to me, as I said, I approve of your boundary lines, but I disagree with the number of districts and the number of representatives for the reason I don't think they are necessary at the present time, and as long as you have provisions to increase the number of representatives with the increase in population that would be sufficient. And our first cost during the first years of statehood concerns me on the salaries -- we show concern here about the high salaries paid the members of the legislature -- well, they increase in number as well as increase in costs. The large number of election districts might have an indirect bearing on cost also. I have a feeling that future political subdivisions will take their cue from that. There might be more of

them smaller, and I mean such as boroughs and what not where we might have more courts and all. What was the representation you figure on population?

HELLENTHAL: It was not approached in that manner, but working back on it I would say, subject to correction by any of the mathematicians here, that excluding the two very large cities of Fairbanks and Anchorage, that the average election district contained approximately 3,500 people.

BARR: Just one other question, sort of important to this division, I just question your boundary in one place. As the boundary goes north from Fairbanks here, takes a jog around Livengood -- now I can see if you wanted to throw one village into another area, that would be okay with me. Livengood is connected to Fairbanks by a road; it is connected by scheduled airline. They get all supplies and mail from Fairbanks. Now I can see you followed the height of land there more or less, but Livengood is just in the edge of the hills, and you would not necessarily have to abandon that principle if you just came down off the summit down to the foothills there.

COGHILL: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hellenthal, would you like me to try to answer that?

HELLENTHAL: You certainly know all about it, and I know nothing.

COGHILL: Mr. Barr, we used the watershed principle in drawing these lines. The water from the Livengood area flows into the Tolovana River, and the Tolovana River flows into the Tanana River at the community called Tolovana. It is on the south side of that range. The watershed flows this way. There will be no question in anybody's mind if these boundaries are preserved as to what election district they are in because on one side of the line all the water flows to the Yukon on the north side of the range and all the water flows south into the Tanana and into the Yukon on the other side.

BARR: I understand that perfectly. And you used that method in utter disregard of the social or economic aspects of the case?

COGHILL: I don't believe so, Mr. Barr. I believe it would be just as contiguous to Fairbanks as Manley Hot Springs or Rampart.

BARR: No, there is no road to Manley Hot Springs. There is no comparison at all. I think you have abandoned your principle of boundaries in that decision there.

HELLENTHAL: Livengood was never mentioned as such in committee discussions, and you may very well have a point there. That is one of the aspects of this plan. That is where your

redistricting would be an adequate subject for redistricting that, and I imagine there will be other similar cases. Whittier was a dandy. I ask you to focus your attention on the problem of Whittier which was on the other side of the watershed where the mountain was pierced by a tunnel, thus eliminating the barrier. Your point would be Livengood and similar points. If an error has been made, that is a beautiful job for the redistricting boards, and a good illustration of flexibility. In that connection I do point out, although this is of minor importance, that according to the 1950 census, Livengood had a population of 40 people and in 1939 had 153. From what I have heard I imagine the curve is declining somewhat there.

BARR: It has declined but I don't believe it will any further. You say this is a good job for the board. It is also a good job for your Committee right now, because I imagine when the election comes up the referendum on this constitution, the people of Livengood will object.

COGHILL: I would like to point out to Mr. Barr also that although we have maybe violated the socio-economic concept there and provided for the watershed, if you will go further down onto the Yukon River basin or the Kuskokwim basin you will find that the district between 22 and 21, we have provided for the socio-economic area, and we have violated the concept of watershed. You have to take and weigh one against the other in every instance.

BARR: The watershed will not complain but the people of Livengood will.

COGHILL: I don't think so.

MARSTON: With your permission, and the chairman of our Committee, I would like to elucidate just a little further on Mr. Barr's first question. We took for making these districts the patterns laid out by the legislature that made possible this Convention. It was a beautiful program they gave us, but we merely corrected that by adding to Cape Prince of Wales Island, the Kuskokwim River, the Bristol Bay, and the great Barrow district and took their plan and corrected the errors and gave representation to all of Alaska. Now to make these larger -- that Barrow district up there, that one voting district is larger now than half of all the states of the United States individually, so they are big pieces of ground we are throwing around, and I think they are plenty big enough right now. I merely add that to what Mr. Hellenthal said.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Davis.

DAVIS: May I ask Mr. Hellenthal a question? Mr. Hellenthal, in the report of your Committee and in your explanation you have several times mentioned the term "socio-economic". Now I

think that I know what you mean, but I am wondering if that is a term, a political science term, or something with any definite meaning; if it is a term that is used someplace else so that when somebody looks at this they can tell what we are talking about?

HELLENTHAL: It cannot be defined with mathematical precision, but it is a definite term, and is susceptible of a definite interpretation. What it means is an economic unit inhabited by people. In other words, the stress is placed on the canton idea, a group of people living within a geographical unit, socio-economic, following if possible, similar economic pursuits. It has, as I say, not mathematically precise definition, but it has a definite meaning.

DAVIS: I agree, but I still want to know whether or not it is a term that is used. Is it a political science term, so that when somebody uses it they will know what we are talking about?

HELLENTHAL: Yes, definitely. It is in common use among political scientists.

SUNDBORG: A few minutes ago when Mr. Barr addressed a question to you, Mr. Hellenthal, I heard him say, and I did not hear you say otherwise, that you had made provision here for an increase in the future for a number of representatives. Is that correct?

HELLENTHAL: No, that is not correct.

SUNDBORG: Mr. Barr stated there is no provision in this proposal for an increase in either the number of representatives or senators. There would always be 40 representatives and always be 20 senators?

HELLENTHAL: Correct.

JOHNSON: Mr. President, may I address a question to Mr. Hellenthal?

PRESIDENT EGAN: You may, Mr. Johnson, if there is no objection.

JOHNSON: In connection with this word "socio-economic", I had a question also as to whether or not it has ever been defined on a legal basis. In other words, do you know of any court that has ever had occasion to define it in an opinion?

HELLENTHAL: I do not.

JOHNSON: I can see where this might come into play if this particular section gets into a state supreme court, and I just wondered if there were any legal precedents for this type.

HELLENTHAL: I think it is a political and economic term rather than a legal term.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. McNees.

MCNEES: Mr. President, I would like to ask Mr. Hellenthal a question. In your Committee's thinking did you give any consideration to the possibility of holding back out of your 40 members of your established house, holding back a proportion or some few of that 40 pending the 1960 decennial census? In other words, we are about midway, currently, of the decennial period and my thought was that if a certain reserve, three, four, five, or six of these 40 might be held back pending that actual population figure establishment at that time -- did you give any thought to that?

GRAY: Mr. Hellenthal, I think there has been a little confusion on that. By a matter of equal proportions, after the first group is set up, in this case it is 24, from then on all additional senators are on a priority list. With this same list you can pick the top 40, top 41, 86; if the basic in this is 24 we can pick out the 25th and from there on to infinity so that as long as you have a system you pick the top 40, why the first 40 on the priority list; that is it and the 40th man will always go to the most deserving district as the factor is there. Does that make it clear to you?

HELLENTHAL: In other words it would destroy the method of equal proportions and it would throw the remaining representatives and their distribution completely out of harmony.

MCNEES: I fail to see in my thinking your last statement where it would throw it out of harmony. It would seem to me you could hold your 24 currently or any figure beyond that as your house and add to it only as population warranted it in the future. In other words, say you take on three or four more added at the end of 1960, maybe another couple at 1970, and maybe the last one in 1980, and make it available then. You feel it should absorb the full amount now? That is the Committee thinking?

HELLENTHAL: Yes.

GRAY: It does not make any difference, Mr. McNees, and in the redistricting you have another group. I do have one of these schedules made out. I will have it mimeographed, and I think you will follow the importance of this priority list. I think it will explain the question. The individuals or the districts that deserve its 40 now might as well have them because there is no further claim. After another district is made, why there will be a district that will deserve the 40 representatives and you save nothing by holding back.

HELLENTHAL: Might I suggest, Mr. Gray, that the delegates contact you and see the list rather than wait until it is mimeographed because I anticipate only a relatively few specialists will want to analyze it. It is available and has

been as announced for several days, so be sure to see Mr. Gray about it.

COGHILL: This might clarify a point that in order to find out what the fair representation is, Mr. McNees, you have to have a common divider. The common divider is the total amount of representatives. There are 40. If you divide the population by 40 the figure you get is what each representative is truly representing in our population by numbers, and therefore, if you only give 35 representatives and you are using the 40 figure, there are five quotients that are unrepresented in Alaska. Does that explain your point?

MCNEES: Yes. The only reason the question came in my mind at all, I appreciate the Committee's thinking on this, but in the Legislative Committee we came up with a maximum figure of 40 for the house, where you established it as a fixed figure. That was the only question in my mind. I like the work you have done in this. I think it is splendid and the only question in my mind was where we established it as a maximum figure you took it as a fixed figure and I just wanted a little bit more of the Committee's thinking on it. I have it clear now I think. Thank you.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Fischer.

V. FISCHER: Mr. President, I would like to point out to Mr. McNees and anyone else who might be thinking in terms of reducing the number of house seats at this time, that following the method of equal proportions as you decrease the number of house seats allocated at this time, the quotient increases and if you knock it down to 37 the immediate result would be that Yukon Flats, Arctic Slope, and Cordova would lose the representative to which they would be authorized immediately under this plan.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Are there other questions? Mr. Doogan.

DOOGAN: Mr. President, I may have missed something along the way, but I would like to ask somebody on the Committee if they had considered reapportionment, but not redistricting. Now as I understand it, if a district loses or goes below the major fraction or quotient, they lose their representative and they are bound to the next smallest district. In the case of the senate actually being a district, it does not lose its identity because they still maintain their senate representation, and I am wondering if they had given some thought to setting these 24 districts as permanent districts and considering reapportionment in the future on that basis.

COGHILL: I think Mr. Gray could probably answer that question, but I would like to interject the point, Mr. Doogan, it would violate the concept of equal proportion from the standpoint that if a district does not come up to the standard or the amount of

40 divided into the total population, why then they would not

be eligible and a representative would not be representing an

equal amount of people.

ROBERTSON: I would like to address a question.

PRESIDENT EGAN: You may, Mr. Robertson.

ROBERTSON: In my Proposal No. 6 I proposed that the senate consist of 16 senators and that the present judicial divisions

should be made into legislative districts. Now, first, I

would like to ask, have you not in your proposal entirely

ignored the theory of having representation at large as our

federal government has in senatorial representation? Also,

have you not entirely ignored the experience we have had since

1913 in having senators at large from each division?

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Hellenthal.

HELLENTHAL: I think that we went into these matters last night, but I will repeat them briefly again. The Committee has not

ignored the principle of representation at large. In fact

eight of the recommended 20 are chosen at large. Furthermore

the remaining 12 are chosen at large perhaps from a smaller

area than historically chosen in Alaska, but they are nevertheless at large. Now, the figure of "20" was chosen with

the thought in mind of wieldiness, wieldy or unwieldy. After

the analysis of other similar states with particular emphasis

on western states with mountainous terrain and with scattered

population, such as Alaska, and the principle being kept in

mind that the Committee felt strongly that emphasis should be

placed on giving representation in both the house and the

senate to a degree to representatives from nonurban areas; I use the word "representatives" in the comprehensive sense, to include both senators and legislators in the house, and with those

principles in mind, the rigid plan, the historical plan which

you followed in your proposal and which was carefully considered by the Committee, it was in those respects that I have outlined, and for the reasons stated, the broad reasons, departed from.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Barr.

BARR: Mr. Hellenthal, I believe that Mr. Fischer misunderstood

me a bit. I did not propose to reduce the number of representatives without reducing the number of election districts. I would like to ask, suppose we cut the number of election districts in half or reduce them greatly and the Yukon Flats area was combined with another district, then they would be represented, would they not?

HELLENTHAL: Oh yes. I am sure you had that in mind. I cannot

conceive of anyone in this group who would want to leave any

portion of the state of Alaska unrepresented.

V. RIVERS: I would like to ask a question or two to clear up my own thinking. In connection with the election districts, as I understand it, under the redistricting clause -- the governor's board will have a chance to adjust not only the number to divide and subdivide them and add together, but also will have a chance to adjust somewhat the boundaries and area, is that correct?

HELLENTHAL: That is correct.

V. RlVERS: In connection with the senate districts inside of the over-all districts, that will also apply to those districts inside the senate districts?

HELLENTHAL: To a very very minor degree and subject to the five limiting factors set out in Section 2 and the additional limiting factor that the approximate perimeter must be preserved.

V. RlVERS: That's what I'm leading up to. Now on these main four districts, do you consider the boundaries of those four districts as fixed political subdivisions of the state?

HELLENTHAL: No. They are to be used only for the purpose of senatorial representation of a certain type; namely, the at large representation and that is primarily concerned with the eight recommended senators chosen at large from these senatorial districts.

V. RIVERS: In the over-all boundaries of the senatorial districts there is some slight flexibility?

HELLENTHAL: Yes, slight flexibility.

V. RIVERS: That could be made then to more or less fit into the boundaries of local government districts as they might be adopted later?

HELLENTHAL: Yes. Say there is a change on an election district on a perimeter of a senatorial district and the redistricting board feels that a change is in order. Take the Livengood matter. Assume Livengood is on the perimeter of a senatorial district, and it were determined that Livengood should be encompassed in the Fairbanks district; then that senatorial district to that very limited degree, its perimeter should be adjusted in keeping with the decision of the redistricting board.

V. RIVERS: Did you gear all other subdivisions of government to the boundaries of the election districts -- could we make them coincide with boundaries of adjacent local government districts in slight degree in this same area?

HELLENTHAL: We did not try to gear it with any other committee

or any other subject matter, but after reading the committee reports of those committees that pursue similar subjects, I was impressed, and the committee was impressed, with the similarity, almost the identity of the conclusions reached in that regard, so I think that they are, although not intentionally, I think they are geared completely.

V. RIVERS: You agree though that there is certain flexibility in the boundaries of these over-all four political subdivisions?

HELLENTHAL: To the degree outlined.

V. RIVERS: I, of course, note and I think everyone else does, that this representation plan is heavily weighted in proportion to people at least, not area, in the favor of the rural areas. I wondered if you thought how long it would be in the general trends of population before the urban areas and representation would catch up with the rural areas. Now, I don't state that as a criticism. I am merely asking you for information because I know that the general trend and tendency in a new area like this is to grow and to certain centralization. As my analysis shows it, 75 per cent of the present population and 75 per cent of the taxing power, you have approximately 18 representatives of the 40. Is that somewhere near your figures?

HELLENTHAL: I think so, Mr. Rivers.

V. RIVERS: Would it be 10 or 15 or 20 years before they might reasonably balance out?

HELLENTHAL: Frankly, I don't know, but you could say in a real sense that the urban areas will never become equalized with the hinterland areas and deliberately so. The committee deliberately made that concession to the hinterland areas feeling that the gain was well worth it.

V. RIVERS: I wanted to fix in mind where there was any coordination first with other local concepts of government boundaries and just how fixed and inflexible these boundaries might be.

HELLENTHAL: In that connection, representatives of other committees that are concerned with similar problems have worked closely with our group and observed its progress and apparently they are in accord and they find nothing contradictory with the conclusions that are recommended by this Committee.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Boswell.

BOSWELL: May I address a question to Mr. Hellenthal? I note that the senatorial districts follow somewhat the same as our old judicial divisions in numbering. We jump from one up to two and back to three and up to four. Would there be any objection to following some orderly procedure in setting up those

districts?

HELLENTHAL: No, the Committee made no recommendation as to the designation to be applied to the senatorial districts. You will notice that in the committee report they are referred to as "A, B, C, and D" in one place. In another place with the Roman designation "I, II, III, and IV", and in still another portion of the report they are referred to as "Southeastern Alaska, Southwestern Alaska, the great River section of Alaska, and the Arctic Slope of Alaska". This group could feel free to adopt designation it sought. Another designation might properly be "Southeastern, Southwestern, Central and Northern".

BOSWELL: Then that is to be taken care of when we start working on the article?

HELLENTHAL: Yes, indeed.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Are there other questions of the Committee? Mrs. Sweeney.

SWEENEY: Mr. President, I would like to ask Mr. Hellenthal if on this map of the senatorial districts, say for instance, the "D" Section should all of a sudden take a great spurt and have a great increase in population, their senatorial representation does not increase, is that right?

HELLENTHAL: That is correct.

SWEENEY: If the First Division or a division down here had a drop we would never lose our five?

HELLENTHAL: That is correct.

SWEENEY: A few minutes ago you said that there was a possibility that the Livengood area, which is in Legislative District 23, might be joined to Legislative District 24,"or is Livengood in 22? I don't know, but anyway it is in that "C" section, and it might be joined to a "B" section, and then at another point, say Legislative District 16 be jointed to 17, you are losing two legislative districts out of the "C" section. Now would there not be some question on senatorial representation? You are losing districts to two senatorial districts.

HELLENTHAL: Very careful attention was devoted to that problem, and in a few minutes some clarifying language will be submitted by the Committee in connection with that very proposal, so the intent of which is to make it crystal clear that there will be no loss in senatorial representation.

SWEENEY: My point is that, I understand if the population increases they get increased representation, but there is none in the house?

HELLENTHAL: That is unless the population of every other district in Alaska likewise increased proportionately in which case there would be no increase. It is a relative increase for which the award of extra representation is made.

SWEENEY: But there is no increase in the senate?

HELLENTHAL: That is correct.

SWEENEY: I put in a proposal, you will recall, to keep the representation in the senate on an equal basis and I am wondering if it would be possible to leave your lines as A, B, C and D and not call them judicial divisions but keep your plan just as you have but instead of giving five in the Southeast and six in the Southwest and five in the Central and four in the Arctic Slope or the North Section, whatever you called it, make it equal?

HELLENTHAL: It would be possible but the Committee definitely recommends against it.

SWEENEY: I would like to recommend to the Committee that they consider this again; then if you want to have your 20 you can have them at large. I would like to see the senatorial representation equal.

V. RIVERS: Equal to what?

SWEENEY: To each other. On an area basis. On your A, B, C, and D districts you would have equal representation in the senate except for the four at large -- you might have unless you want to make them five in each district and use up the 20.

GRAY: May I help you on this? The Committee had two distinct plans. One on one extreme and one on the other extreme, and like everything else with our multiplication factors there are compromises. The one plan on the one side was the four areas with four senators from each area like you have stated. On the other side we had 24 districts and a senator to each district. So by taking half of one plan instead of taking one senator from each of the 24 districts, we took half of it, one for each two or twelve from the area spread. In the same way we took half of the other side instead of four from the major districts we took two. So what you have here is a compromise between your plan and a compromise from somebody else and their plan. I think Mr. Coghill's, but this is a compromise, half of your plan in this senate composition and half of the plan in the other extreme. It can be changed, but this is a compromise factor, and this is how they reached the two systems of senators, senatorial representatives encompassed in this one plan.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mrs. Sweeney, do you relinquish the floor?

SWEENEY: Yes.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Johnson.

JOHNSON: May I inquire of the Committee along the line that Mrs. Sweeney has been approaching that if I understand her question correctly and if the plan that she was talking about were adopted, it probably would mean that five senators would be assigned to Division A, five to Division B, five to Division C, and five to Division D. I think that is what she means by this equal proportion, or equal division. But did you consider the possibility of that sort of an arrangement when you were discussing and preparing this plan?

HELENTHAL: Yes.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Peratrovich.

PERATROVICH: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if I can answer anything that has been presented here by our able Chairman, however, as a member of this Committee, I would like to say a few words on this work that has been presented here for your consideration. As has been related here already, we had proposals from practically all parts of Alaska before commencing our work into committee, and I assure you it was not an easy matter to come out with a report that we have here before you. Some of you will recall that at times we had to have some peacemakers in on our committee meetings. But the result was we came out with a compromise program that I feel can't be much improved on. As far as I am concerned, I happen to come from a small community, a small area, and I presented my view. Fortunately we had other problems similar to mine throughout Alaska, and we compromised there. Consequently, in the house, Prince of Wales Island, incidentally the largest island under the American flag, will have one representative, etc., all through the Territory of Alaska, where a similar condition exists they shall have a voice in the government in the future State of Alaska. That is the object your Committee had in mind. In forming this new state, we wanted all sections represented, and I think we were successful through compromising here and there to give that representation to all areas of the Territory as far as the house was concerned. Now we come to the senate and as you well know, the primary concern of all of us here was to keep our expense down. Your Committee was very much aware of that also, so it decided perhaps a 20-member senate would be sufficient to conduct our government. On that basis we went to work and arrived at this conclusion that is now before you. Personally, I can't keep away from referring to my own area because I am most familiar with it. In my particular area I am joined up with Ketchikan and Hyder. We will be entitled to one senator and we go up the line, Petersburg, Wrangell, and Sitka would be in the same situation -- Juneau, Haines, Skagway, etc. Now we were confronted at the time before

making decision here whether we should have representation elected at large from the entire Territory; some of you requested it and a few of us from the hinterlands you might call it, felt that this would be unfair. We realized that perhaps once out of 20 or 30 years perhaps we would have a timber that would bo competent to participate in the state senate, but we did not rule out the fact that such a condition would be possible. Again we were asked, how would you guarantee that. My answer to that is I don't care where you come from, how small a community, if you participate in your own party, take an active part, your voice will be heard, and if you are a good man you will be recognized. I am willing to gamble on that. I am sure that these little so-called hinterlands will participate in the future State of Alaska on these grounds. I therefore support this issue. I have no fear of it being abused in one way or another. You put your checks and balances in there by redistricting and reapportionment in the proper time as provided herein, but I do think that your Committee labored in earnest here and considered all of your problems and we came out with something that I am sure will be acceptable to everyone throughout the Territory.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Are there other questions? Mr. Metcalf.

METCALF: Mr. Chairman, if I could ask Mr. Hellenthal, I think I like the plan. Just take the Seward and the Kenai area, the Kenai Peninsula, east and west side. Suppose some unfortunate circumstance would happen. The railroad has pulled out of Seward for instance and the population on the east side of the Peninsula should drop to less than a thousand, would our district collapse and join with the sister district, the Homer district, is that right?

HELLENTHAL: District No. 10, the Kenai-Cook Inlet District.

METCALF: And then the east side would become a dormant house representative district is that right?

HELLENTHAL: Dormant in the sense that if its population reasserted itself and other facts remained constant, the redistricting board would probably create it again.

METCALF: Supposing in 1960 when this reapportionment comes up, the Seward side of the Peninsula is still dormant, what would the reapportionment board use as a divisor? Instead of "24" would they use "23"?

HELLENTHAL: Forty divided into the total population. That is the fixed number.

METCALF: But it would only be 23 districts then, house districts?

HELLENTHAL: There would be only 23 house districts.

METCALF: Then the senatorial districts of Roman numeral VI, the boundaries would still remain fixed in the same and never lose its identity as a senatorial district?

HELLENTHAL: That is correct.

METCALF: Then supposing you find some oil over on the Seward side and 10,000 people moved back into the district; then redistricting again, would Seward come to life again and be an active house?

HELLENT!lAL: Correct.

METCALF: It sounds very good to me.

WHITE: I just want to get something clear in my mind. If I follow Mr. Metcalf correctly, in the case of the Seward district collapsing it is contiguous to districts 8, 10, 11 and 12, and under the current plan, it would be joined to the contiguous district where it is the smallest?

HELLENTHAL: To a senatorial pair -- that might be good language to use. I think I anticipate your question. At the meeting which unfortunately delayed us this morning and for which the Committee apologizes, clarifying language to make it "the senatorial pair" in that case has been made up and will be handed to you on this slip sheet following whatever recess may be taken this morning.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Marston.

MARSTON: One little thing I might like to suggest here that we do not continue to use that word "collapse". There is going to be no part of Alaska collapsing. Alaska is not going to collapse. I don't like the word already on tape for so long. Areas increase and decrease and this plan will take care of it. There is going to be no collapsing of Alaska.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Taylor.

TAYLOR: I just wanted to ask Mr. Hellenthal a couple of questions. One of them is along the same lines as Mr. Marston just spoke of, about a collapsing or a particular area losing its identity as election district number so and so. I feel that it would be wrong for any particular part of the Territory which has been districted to lose its identity as a district. I think that possibly we could refer to it as suspended representation in the event that a census would show that they were below the number that they must have for their representation, but that area should still remain area No. 22 or 23 or whatever representative district it is, but the representation in there is suspended.

Then because on the next 10-year decennial census, then if the census indicated in that particular area that the population had recovered its former status so that it was eligible for representation in the lesislature, then the commission would then certify that they were and would retain them. I think there should be a very serious objection to any geographical area in Alaska losing its identity.

HELLENTHAL: Perhaps we were not too clear on that point. The answer to the question is that they will not lose their identity for representative purposes in the house. It would be suspended but for the senate it would be continued, and that appears very clearly in the Committee's opinion.

TAYLOR: As I see it, they would still have senatorial representation because they are a part of a senatorial district.

HELLENTHAL: Suspended animation you might call it.

TAYLOR: This thought here of collapsing or as I would say, suspending representation.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Gray.

GRAY: Maybe I can attempt to answer your question.

TAYLOR: You don't have to answer it because I know the answer to it now, but anyway they talk about eliminating an election district; now that could only be, that change could be made only once in every 10 years, is it not?

HELLENTHAL: Correct.

TAYLOR: There is no method in the interim between the decennial census that you could do it?

HELLENTHAL: No.

TAYLOR: So any area is assured of a 10-year representation until the regular census shows otherwise.

HELLENTHAL: That is corroct.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. McNealy.

MCNEALY: I think this has gotten through my head that the senatorial districts remain fixed. On looking into the future, it was stated here that the area reprcsentation was taken into consideration with senatorial districts. I question that area played any great part at all in the Committee's thinking, and I state that merely in preface to my question, and I am not afraid to continue to call these at least for the time being, to call the four districts of Alaska "divisions". The Fourth

Division of Alaska, this area from all of this district down through here (pointing to map), to which has been added to what we have always called the Bristol Bay Area, is now as far as area is concerned, you can take all of the rest of Alaska and put it inside of the Fourth Division and possibly have nothing more than the St. Lawrence Island left over, and then for this whole area of the Fourth Division it is a matter of five senators. Then in this very small area here in the First Division is entitled to five senators which could be placed -- the whole First Division could be placed in representative districts of 15 and 16 of the Fourth Division. Now the only query that I have in mind is this, and possibly looking too much into the future, but at Rampart, for example, we will say that the hydroelectric plant was built and the population of the area in here gets to possibly 100,000 people, then regardless of the fact that the Fourth Division as a whole, still calling it that, was as large as the rest of Alaska put together and regardless of the fact that its population increased so that the population was twice as large as the rest of Alaska, then still the senatorial districts would remain the same.

HELLENTHAL: That is correct.

MCNEALY: And there would be a great possiblity that they would never change?

HELLENTHAL: I would not attempt to say that.

MCNEALY: I guess that is a political matter.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. McCutcheon.

MCCUTCHEON: It appears to me that the matter here has been belabored long enough. I don't see that we are developing anything new, and I would like to move to proceed to the consideration of the bill for amendment.

SWEENEY: I object.

TAYLOR: I second the motion.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. McCutcheon moves, Mr. Taylor seconds the motion that we now proceed to the consideration of the proposal and allow the offering of amendments. Mr. Kilcher.

KILCHER: Is a motion to a recess in order?

PRESIDENT EGAN: A motion to recess is in order.

KILCHER: I might move our 15-minute recess at this time.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Is there a second?

BUCKALEW: I second the motion.

PRESIDENT EGAN: The question is, "Shall the Convention stand at recess for 15 minutes?" All those in favor of recessing for 15 minutes will signify by saying "aye", all opposed "no". The "ayes" have it, and the Convention stands at recess for 15 minutes.

RECESS

PRESIDENT EGAN: The Convention will come to order. Does the special Committee to read the journal have a report to make at this time? Mr. Knight.

KNIGHT: I respectfully ask unanimous consent that the journal of the 46th Convention day be approved with no corrections.

PRESIDENT EGAN: If there is no objection the journal of the 46th day will be ordered approved. Is there objection? Hearing no objection it is so ordered. We have before us Mr. McCutcheon's motion that we proceed to the ammendment of Committee Proposal No. 14.

SWEENEY: I withdraw my objection.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Is there objection to the unanimous consent request that we proceed to the amendment of Committee Proposal No. 14? Mr. Nolan.

NOLAN: I object temporarily. I have a couple of questions to ask. It won't take very long.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. McCutcheon, do you have objection to that?

MCCUTCHEON: No.

NOLAN: This graph of 25 people, or over, is projected on 1955 figures isn't it? You know the table that we have, I think?

HELLENTHAL: Populations of all cities and towns and villages, 1950 and 1939.

NOLAN: That is right. I think part of that is 1955, is it not?

HELLENTHAL: No, it is all 1950 or 1939, according to my understanding. It was prepared by Mr. Rogers.

NOLAN: Some of the figures I wrote up did not quite jive. The second point is that the cost as I understand by Mr. Peratrovich, the cost of this increase from 40 to 60 was considered by the Committee.

HELLENTHAL: Yes, that is from what materials we had available

at the time. A more approximate cost estimate can be made now. I am sure.

NOLAN: The third question is, I think it was answered in response to a question by Mr. McNealy, that the senatorial

districts are fixed permanently without a constitutional amendment?

HELLENTHAL: That is correct, subject to the minor modification that we discussed last night and this morning, and which will be handed to you on this slip sheet this morning in a few minutes.

NOLAN: And that in arriving at the combination for the senatorial districts is a combination of area and population?

HELLENTHAL: Yes. While I am on my feet, Mr. President, the Committee has prepared a slip sheet containing changes in the committee proposal. One way of handling this would be to ask that the report be withdrawn from second reading, returned to the Committee for insertion of the slip sheet and resubmission with the slip sheet contained, and that is one method. I can conceive of others.

NOLAN: I don't think that is necessary. We are not in second reading yet.

PRESIDENT EGAN: We are not in second reading for purposes of amendment yet. No.

HELLENTHAL: We would want to make that a part of the committee report before the consideration begins through some parliamentary device or unanimous consent procedure.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Marston.

MARSTON: It is not necessary to amend and not mandatory to amend. If you are going to proceed to amendment here, that is the order of business. He who does not amend also serves well here, and it is not mandatory that we amend, is it? (Applause)

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mrs. Nordale.

NORDALE: I think this question has been answered, but there seems to be a little confusion in a few minds, and I would like to ask the Chairman a question if I may. When a district loses its present population and is joined to another, then in order to resume its representation, that is, apart from the combined district, it must gain the full quotient? It does not get preferential treatment when new districts are established?

HELLENTHAL: In reasserting does it get preferential treatment, Mr. Gray?

GRAY: Under my understanding it does not. It must come up, because the idea of the major fraction gives a little leeway, drops down. The major fraction is a holding thing. Once you lose it you would have to go back and get full quotient for

recognition next time.

NORDALE: Otherwise it would upset the whole thing.

GRAY: Because it immediately puts the whole program on an 80-member house. The major fraction is just a protection for that particular district which loses its identity over a short figure. If they lose half, then they have lost, but up until then it gives them a little time to recover because otherwise, with a drop of one person it might lose its representation.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Buckalew.

BUCKALEW: I would like to ask Mr. Hellenthal a question. Mr. Hellenthal, I have looked at your boundaries as close as I can and I am pleased to say I think you did a fabulous job. There is only one glaring error, and I think it is an error which might upset your whole plan if this matter is ever litigated. I mean this doctrine you have set up of socio-economic units, and I direct your attention to Election District No. 20, and I invite you to inspect Election District No. 20. You call that the Arctic Slope Election District. The boundary runs along the Arctic Slope and then you cut it off and the balance of the Arctic Slope area is penetrated by Election District No. 23

Now Election District No. 23 is drained by the Yukon and Porcupine Rivers. Now of course those rivers don't cross the Brooks Range and you have violated both of your principles of the natural mountain boundary, you have violated the principle of watershed, and I don't see any logical reason for it, and the thing that frightens me about it is that I think the courts would look at Election District 20 and 23 the first thing when they went to determine this socio-economic.

HELLENTHAL: I want to turn that over to Mr. Cooper; that matter was discussed at length, and Mr. Cooper and Mr. Coghill were the ones who were fully informed.

COOPER: I definitely want to hear from Mr. Coghill.

COGHILL: Mr. President, in bringing that line up and along the river, I forget the name of the river boundary we followed there, the river that we brought this boundary right up to divide from 23. Above the Brooks Range on the other side is more closely related, the southern part of that is more closely related to the Fort Yukon-Porcupine area than it is to the Khotol River area. It is just another one of the exceptions of the watershed. This in turn leans from the watershed to the socio-economic area. We have Barter Island; we have several communities up there where they all transport their goods from Fort Yukon or commute over the Range. Does that answer your question, Mr. Buckalew?

BUCKALEW: Unfortunately it does not.

HELLENTHAL: Was not your recollection that the census showed 20 people were concerned in that area?

COGHILL: Yes.

BUCKALEW: You are making an awful concession for a few people. It just is not logical. I can't see it. In looking at the map and knowing how many people are up there, the only socio-economic unit up there would be between that little area you have got and part of Yukon because I think a bunch of caribou move back and forth up there; that is the only socio-economic unit, and it is confined to caribou.

COGHILL: We had the line across the top to begin with and we felt that by increasing the population in the 23rd district, bringing this over, that the people on the northern side of that slope who are more closely related to the Fort Yukon people in the socio-economic concept.

BUCKALEW: I can see that a lot of the people on the Arctic Slope have now migrated toward Barrow, but you have got to cross the mountain range and if there are so few people involved, just looking at it on the map, it does not make sense.

MCLAUGHLIN: I think perhaps Mrs. Wien is acquainted with the area; perhaps she could express her viewpoint.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mrs. Wien.

WIEN: I don't know what the thinking in the Committee was, but that area of the Arctic Slope and that side is served from the Fort Yukon area by air and your only connection with the other Arctic Slope area would be by dog team or your once-a-year, mostly undependable boat transportation by the Bering Sea and along the Arctic Coast, so that area is definitely served first by air from Fairbanks to Fort Yukon and then from Fort Yukon and on out.

COOPER: In addition to that, in the Committee it was discussed and brought out that last winter for the first time, certainly, a new type of method or a try was used and accomplished in your over-all winter routes by the Alaska Freight Lines up through that region, and it was definitely tied into the Fort Yukon trading center, that entire area there. The line now, as it is on the map, is where it has been in the past, but it was not changed due to the fact that Fort Yukon is the center of that entire area.

HILSCHER: Mr. President, the 64-dollar question is, "How do you pronounce the name of that river?" I have taken it off the map and I think we had better call it the "Joe Blow" River because of the way it is spelled. Would you pronounce that, Mr. President?

BARR: Does the boundary go along that river? It seems to me it goes along the Sagavanirktok.

HILSCHER: That is it.

GRAY: I believe in resolving a question like this, Mr. Buckalew has an absolute valid question there, but I think it should be resolved in, which is the fairest to the people concerned, and I think the fairest to the people concerned, as Delegate Wien has pointed out, is the Fort Yukon district. You are going to run into several of these where there is a conflict of ideas. The eventual solution of this is to represent the people and which method is the fairest concerned to those people involved, and I think that will settle most of the arguments.

BUCKALEW: At least I have accomplished one thing; the thinking of the Committee on this particular problem will be available.

HELLENTHAL: Might I add this? I think this is a very good illustration of the fact that the factors that the redistricting board are to use in redistricting that no priority is assigned to any one factor. They are to weigh it and there are the four or five principles to be weighed out to accomplish the result -- again representative government. It is fortunate that there are illustrations and this is not the only one of where a watershed boundary was deemed less important than another principle of districting, and that would guide the court, and it would show the court forcefully that it was not the intent to assign priorities to the methods, but to balance.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Barr.

BARR: In looking over this area, I see that Barter Island is included and that is evidently the largest, most heavily populated area entered at the present time. There is an army project going on there and that is served from Fairbanks, and I believe that this whole area has far greater communications facilities with Fairbanks than any other. It is true that they go along the coast by boat in summer, but that is only for two, or three or four weeks, and they can go by dog sled in the winter, but the vast expanse of tundra is just as much a barrier as the mountains, especially if you go over the mountains in an airplane.

MARSTON: I have worked that area for 10 years and only once did I go from Barrow over to that district of Barter Island, and it was John Cross who flew me over, and I waited one week for him to get the weather just right before he would take off, and there were only two families between Barrow and Barter Island. It belongs where it is as far as I can see, and John Cross knows that.

PRESIDENT EGAN: We have the motion before us. The unanimous

consent is asked that we now proceed in second reading with the amendment of Committee Proposal No. 14. Is there objection?

HINCKEL: I don't object. I would like for the purpose of information to ask, are we going to consider this slip sheet as an amendment?

HELLENTHAL: As I understand it a moment ago, that when action is taken on this motion, then this matter will be taken up and we hope it will be considered as a supplement or amendment to the committee proposal.

PRESIDENT EGAN: This matter will be taken up at that time as to whether or not this amendment will be offered as an amendment or whether or not the Convention will allow the Committee to withdraw its report and bring back its report with this proposed amendment included as part of the report.

HINCKEL: I have several other amendments to the same section, and it will make a difference as to how I will write my proposal.

HELLENTHAL: We don't mean to foreclose other amendments by this action, but we wanted to use it as a device to show the Committee was unanimous with regard to these problems, and wanted to supplement its report accordingly.

V. RIVERS: Is your slip sheet ready now?

HELLENTHAL: I believe it is before you or should be.

V. RlVERS: I would like to ask unanimous consent then that we consider the slip sheet as a part, for the record, as a part of the committee proposal at this time and adopt it as such and then go on and amend from there.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Victor Rivers asks unanimous consent that this slip sheet -- we have a motion on the floor at the present time asking unanimous consent that we proceed on to Committee Proposal No. 14 for purposes of amendment. Is there objection to that? Mr. McNees.

MCNEES: Mr. President, I was just going to suggest, why don't we act on Mr. McCutcheon's proposal and then immediately before we go into the other business, act on Mr. Victor Rivers' proposal?

PRESIDENT EGAN: Is there objection to proceeding with Committee Proposal No. 14 for purposes of amendment? If there is no objection then Committee Proposal No. 14 is before us at this time for amendment. Mr. Victor Rivers do you renew your motion?

V. RIVERS: I will ask unanimous consent, and although I personally

have something to say about the matter they are instituting, I still would ask unanimous consent.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Victor Rivers asks unanimous consent that this proposed amendment be included as a part of the proposal.

HERMANN: I will object for the moment, just by way of asking for some information. The only one I have is amendments of Proposal No. 9, and that is the finance proposal, and I just want it cleared up a little bit.

PRESIDENT EGAN: If there is no objection the Convention will stand at recess for one or two minutes. The Convention is at recess.

RECESS

PRESIDENT EGAN: The Convention will come to order. On this proposed amendment, if there is no objection, the Chair will order that where it says "No. 9" that it read "No. 14". Is there objection? Hearing no objection that is so ordered. Unanimous consent is asked that this particular amendment become a part of Committee Proposal No. 14 at this time. Is there objection to that request? If there is no objection it is so ordered, and the amendment has become a part of Committee Proposal No. 14. Mr. Harris.

HARRIS: Mr. President, we pretty thoroughly discussed this. I for one can see nothing wrong with the committee proposal as it now stands. I think if we start fooling around and amending it we are going to have trouble and therefore, I am going to move that this proposal be turned over to the Committee on Engrossment and Enrollment.

MCCUTCHEON: I second the motion.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Harris moves and Mr. McCutcheon seconds that Committee Proposal No. 14 as it is now before us be referred to the Committee on Engrossment and Enrollment. Mrs. Sweeney.

SWEENEY: That takes a suspension of the rules.

PRESIDENT EGAN: The Chair does feel that it takes a suspension of the rules because it states in the rules that the proposal shall be open for amendment. It would take a roll call vote and 37 votes to suspend the rules. Mr. Rivers.

R. RIVERS: Mr. President, along the same line, it would take two readings.

PRESIDENT EGAN: It would take a suspension of the rules.

V. RIVERS: Is this matter open for discussion?

PRESIDENT EGAN: It is a suspension of the rules, Mr. Victor Rivers, and it is not debatable. Mr. McCutcheon.

MCCUTCHEON: Under the circumstances and seeing that it requires a suspension of the rules, I would withdraw my second.

HARRIS: I withdraw the original motion.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Is there objection? Hearing no objection it is so ordered and Committee Proposal No. 14 is before us and open for amendment. Are there amendments to Section 1? Mr. Sundborg.

SUNDBORG: Mr. President, I have a question on Section 1. I am bothered by that word "first" which appears in line 6. The sentence says, "Until the first and subsequent reapportionments, the election districts and the number of representatives to be elected from each at the first State election shall be..." Is it not the intention that in any state election which occurs, until the first and subsequent reapportionments, that the number of representatives and the election districts shall be as set forth in the schedule?

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Hellenthal.

HELLENTHAL: What this means is that the number of representatives at the first state election will be as set forth in the schedule. After that the process of reapportionment will have set in and we don't know what they will be.

SUNDBORG: Why would it have set in? It does not set in until after each census.

HELLENTHAL: "And after the first election." You can't have it until you have your state government constituted, and the only people that can constitute the state government is the first elected body, and that must be governed by the schedule. You can't reapportion until you have an election. You have to have your governor, your legislature set up. It must come first. Then following that comes reapportionment and everything else, but you have got to have a body constituted, a legislature constituted to get the ball rolling.

SUNDBORG: Won't it say everything you intend to say if you strike the words "at the first state election", so that it will say "Until the first and subsequent reapportionments the election districts and the numbers of representatives to be elected from each shall be as set forth in the schedule in article so and so"?

HELLENTHAL: No, I don't think so.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. White.

WHITE: Mr. President, I am a little confused now. What happens if we don't get statehood until 1961?

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Hellenthal.

HELLENTHAL: If we don't get statehood until 1961 and, a further qualification, now it is possible in 1961 that the results of the decennial census will be available, but it is not probable.

WHITE: Say '62 then.

HELLENTHAL: In other words, you envision a situation after the results of the decennial census have been certified. All right, if we get statehood before that, the schedule and the number of representatives fixed in the schedule will be the composition of the legislature. If we get it after that it will still govern the first legislature. For the first meeting of the Territorial legislature, following the certification of the results of the decennial census, the schedule sets out the number of representatives. It has to. There is no other way you can do it.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Rivers.

R. RIVERS: Mr. President, I want to pursue the same thought. If we got to be a state in 1961 and we had a first state election, would there be an apportionment right after that before the next semiannual election took place?

HELLENTHAL: Yes, immediately following, and that is why this language was so carefully chosen with that precise problem in mind, and I will admit at first flush it looks clumsy, but when you see that explanation I think it clarifies it.

R. RIVERS: If we got to be a state in 1965 we would have a first election. Would there be areapportionment immediately thereafter referring back to the 1960 census?

HELLENTHAL: Yes.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Coghill.

COGHILL: Mr. President, I might answer that question. Mr. Rivers, in Section 2 it qualifies that, the first few lines of Section 2.

R. RIVERS: I was just wondering if Mr. Sundborg's language did not accomplish the purpose.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Hurley.

HURLEY: Mr. President, I don't know how to go about this parliamentary-wise, I am sure in my own mind, that Mr. Sundborg has a perfectly legitimate point, and I think that the problem is more obvious if we say we become a state next year. Then is it your intention that the apportionment board would redistrict before the next election?

HELLENTHAL: No, it could not.

HURLEY: I think you have said two different things here. Does it mean they must necessarily apportion before the second state election even though it is before a census?

HELLENTHAL: If the second state election is following the release and certification of the official decennial census, then they must reapportion.

HURLEY: If the second state election is before 1962, then what happens?

HELLENTHAL: And following the release of the certification of the census?

HURLEY: If the second state election is before the release of the next census, I think that you are ambiguous because you have said that first state election here when you really mean any election held after we become a state and before the results of the census are known.

HELLENTHAL: We may be there. I did not understand Mr. Sundborg's remarks though, as directed at that point.

SUNDBORG: That was my point.

PRESIDENT EGAN: The Chair was wondering if it might be best to take a three- or four-minute recess and you people get together on that. If there is no objection, the Convention will stand at recess in order to let the chairmen get together.

RECESS

PRESIDENT EGAN: The Convention will come to order. Are there amendments to Section 1? If not, are there amendments to Section 2? Mr. Barr.

BARR: Mr. President, I have an amendment to Section No. 1, and I can assure you it has nothing to do with the number of representatives. I thought we would probably still be on this section until after recess. I would like during the noon recess to confer with the members of the Committee and the Chairman and make it more acceptable. When we go through this will we go back to Section 1 again?

PRESIDENT EGAN: We will, but we are still on Section 1.

BARR: Will we come back to Section 1 as we have been doing?

PRESIDENT EGAN: That is the manner in which we have proceeded, but a motion such as Mr. Harris has made, if it were adopted by a two-thirds vote, the Chair could not prevent that.

BARR: I move then that this section be held open until after the noon recess.

MCLAUGHLIN: May I inquire if the Committee is going to sit today where anyone with personal questions could speak to them during the noon hour, so they might eliminate a lot of questionable amendments that wouldn't be submitted if people understood.

PRESIDENT EGAN: The Chair was wondering if the Committee had such intention to sit say, now between 12:00 and 12:30.

HELLENTHAL: I think it would be better to sit between 1:00 and 1:30. I would like at this time to announce a meeting for the purposes requested for between 1:00 and 1:30.

PRESIDENT EGAN: If there is no objection, the time has almost arrived for the noon recess.

BARR: Then I will move that we recess until 1:30.

RILEY: Rules Committee in the rear of the gallery immediately.

PRESIDENT EGAN: The Rules Committee will meet immediately in the rear of the gallery. Are there other committee announcements? If not, hearing no objection, the Convention will stand at recess until 1:30 p.m.

RECESS

PRESIDENT EGAN: The Convention will come to order. Would the Chief Clerk please read the communications we have before us.

(The Chief Clerk read a communication from Colonel Ray J. Will, Commander of Eielson Air Force Base, thanking the delegates for their contribution to the relief of the recent disaster victims.)

PRESIDENT EGAN: The communication will be filed. Are there other communications? Are there committee reports to come before us at this time? If not, we will proceed with Committee Proposal No. 14 in second reading. Do we have an amendment before us at this time, a proposed amendment?

CHIEF CLERK: No.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Are there amendments to Section 1? Mr. Barr.

BARR: I have no amendment to Section 1 if we are able to amend the schedule later on, outlining the districts.

PRESIDENT EGAN: We will come to the schedule in second reading, Mr. Barr. Are there amendments to Section 2?

V. RIVERS: I have an amendment.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Victor Rivers, you may offer your amendment.

HELLENTHAL: Point of order. The Committee has met and recommends three amendments to Section 2 and the process might be expedited if the committee amendments were put before the body first.

PRESIDENT EGAN: If Mr. Victor Rivers would accede to that. Mr. Rivers was recognized, his amendment was accepted here.

V. RIVERS: I appeared before the Committee. They had already taken action on the matter. They did not cover what my amendment covers. After I got there, five minutes before their adjourning time, I was not permitted to discuss it. I think we would like to discuss it on the floor.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Would ycu wish it to come before the body at this time?

V. RIVERS: Yes.

PRESIDENT EGAN: The Chief Clerk will please read the proposed amendment.

CHIEF CLERK: Page 2, this is an amendment to the amended Section 2, this slip sheet.

PRESIDENT EGAN: You will recall we adopted that committee amendment this morning. This is an amendment to that. You all have copies of that original amendment before you.

CHIEF CLERK: "Section 2, page 2, after the first word 'districts', insert the following sentence: 'Boundaries of election districts and senatorial districts as herein instituted shall be adjusted insofar as practicable to coincide with boundaries of local government areas as redistricting is accomplished from time to time.'"

V. RIVERS: Mr. Chairman, I will move and ask unanimous consent for the adoption of this amendment.

HELLENTHAL: I object.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Is there a second to the motion?

KNIGHT: I second the motion.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Rivers.

V. RIVERS: Mr. Chairman, with considerable reservations and a number of things in mind that I would possibly see further discussion on, I have to go along in entirety with the substance of the committee report. My intent in this matter is merely to amplify upon the idea that they have set up their districts, and they are pretty much inflexible. There are certain minor adjustments that can be made along the boundaries. I have in mind those should not be conflicting with the boundaries of other local government agencies or districts, such as recording districts. They should coincide insofar as practicable. I have given broad leeway for minor adjustments in boundaries so they could reach and match up with other local government boundaries. As you will note, the intent is not to alter anything in the substance or the intent of the whole system of apportionment and representation which they have adopted, but it does flag the idea that they should try and not have a mass of boundaries that are more or less with the same general purpose in mind but have a separate purpose within each boundary, try to coincide the boundaries insofar as practicable. I know that there will be cases when that can't be done. It seems to me if we are going to have boundaries we should try to keep as few of those boundaries as possible. That authority should be specifically stated. The Committee adopted a line which I understand from Mr. Hellenthal which says "They may give consideration to coinciding so far as possible." This says, "They shall give consideration to coinciding insofar as possible." It is a minor amendment intended to amplify the understanding of the interpreters of this constitution. The boundaries of the election districts will be established once about every 10 years we expect. The other boundaries of local government will be established and carefully thought and studied out, and it seems to me at the end of the lO-year period of time the boundries in the election districts should be more or less geared in the matter of minor adjustments to the boundaries of the local government areas. That is why I submit the amendment.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Hellenthal.

HELLENTHAL: The matter was presented by Mr. Rivers in the morning and we went over his amendment and we went over it carefully in the Committee. It is a matter of emphasis. The Committee felt and some few felt that there should be no language along this line at all, but the Committee felt that the principle should be expressed in Section 2 but that it should be deemphasized, and they were willing to adopt and recommend this language that "may give consideration to local government boundaries". Note, not to their coincidence but merely that

"may give consideration to local government boundaries". That language the Committee felt would be appropriate if it were necessary to include any such language, but that from an emphasis viewpoint the other language proposed might result in a situation where too much emphasis were given to the considerations of the local government boundaries and to whatever boundaries have been fixed.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Cooper.

COOPER: Mr. President, the way that I understand the amendment, the word says "shall" be adjusted. You have hamstrung the apportioning board as set up in this article whereby they "shall" adjust the future election and senatorial boundaries to the local government boundaries. I was one that was, that actually did not particularly care in Committee to see any mention of this. It should be in the Local Government Committee report but inasmuch as it was presented by a delegate, I thought it should at least be watered down. The seed has been planted. It should say "may be" not "shall be adjusted". I would like to amend with the permission of the delegate that submitted this amendment, amend the word from "shall be" to "may be". I so move.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Cooper moves that the proposed amendment be amended to change the word "shall" to "may". Is there a second to it?

GRAY: I second the motion.

V. RIVERS: I want to point out that Mr. Cooper took "shall be adjusted" out of context because the whole sentence reads "may be adjusted insofar as practicable." Both points cover the same substance. I object.

PRESIDENT EGAN: It has been moved and seconded that the proposed amendment to the amendment be adopted. Mr. Cooper.

COOPER: The reason I say "may be" is on line 17 and 18 of the committee report on page 2, it says, "shall contain as nearly as practicable relatively integrated socio-economic area", and it is literally covered in entirety right there. This amendment is that. That is why I move the adoption of "may" instead of "shall".

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Hinckel.

HINCKEL: I think Mr. Cooper has overlooked the fact that Mr. Rivers is not talking about the district lines as the Committee has done it but he is talking about future apportionment, reapportionment, redistricting, and I think it is imperative that any redistricting or reapportionment of lines in the future give very noticeable cognizance of the boundaries which by then have been established as local government boundaries. I would be

very much upset if somebody tried to change the local government boundaries of the area in which I was operating and attempting to be mayor or something else.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Is there further discussion? Mr. Gray.

GRAY: The way I see this is that it does not seem to me it would be practicable to divide a subpolitical district like a borough with a major election district or a senate district. I don't really believe that any such condition will ever come up or ever exist. I believe the word "may" preferable to "shall" because we are protecting ourselves with the unknown and in case there may be some good reason and it is practicable, I think the districting board has all the authority under "may" as they have "shall" and "shall be" is a restricted clause. The only

answer to any redistricting is what is the fairest to the people concerned. That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to bring fairness to the people and the only way they are going to have fairness is to have the board of apportionment with a little flexibility. That is the reason I prefer the word "may".

PRESIDENT EGAN: If there is no objection, the Convention will stand at recess for a few minutes.

RECESS

PRESIDENT EGAN: The Convention will come to order. We have before us the proposed amendment to the amendment as offered by Mr. Cooper. Is there further discussion? If not the question is, "Shall the proposed amendment to the amendment be adopted by the Convention?" All those in favor of the adoption of the proposed amendment to the amendment will signify by saying "aye", all opposed "no". The "ayes" have it and the proposed amendment to the amendment is ordered adopted.

UNIDENTIFIED DELEGATE: Question.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Victor Rivers.

V. RIVERS: I will now withdraw my amendment.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Victor Rivers asks unanimous consent that his proposed amendment be withdrawn. Is there objection? Hearing no objection it is so ordered. Mr. Hellenthal.

HELLENTHAL: Mr. President, I want to first go over them all together and then singly but there were three amendments to Section 2 that the Committee met with and recommends. One is that in Section 2, at page 2, 1ine 18, following the comma and after the word "areas" add: "may give consideration to local government boundaries."

PRESIDENT EGAN: You ask that that be taken up as an individual

amendment?

HELLENTHAL: I thought I would give all three first and then we can take up them individually. The second amendment is lines 5 and 6, page 2, strike the words "adjoining it having the least civilian population" and insert "within its senate district". The "shall" is misplaced but I will trust Style and Drafting to that limited extent.

DAVIS: It does not make sense.

HELLENTHAL: I think it does.

PRESIDENT EGAN: The Convention will come to order. What is your pleasure, Mr. Hellenthal?

HELLENTHAL: I think you will find it does make sense. Now the third amendment will be on line 3, page 2, Section 2, after the word "quotient", add "but only then" to "such election districts shall be attached". I am sure Style and Drafting will come out with "only then shall such election districts be attached." But we will overlook that for the moment, but add the words "but only then". Those are the three amendments that are proposed by the Committee following its hearing this noon.

PRESIDENT EGAN: What is your pleasure, Mr. Hellenthal?

TAYLOR: Just for a point of information, Mr. Hellenthal, would it not be better in that second amendment that the line 4 on page 2, so that it would read "such election districts shall be attached to another election district within its senate district." So that it would be attached to another election district within its senate district. That is just an idea, but I thought it might be worthwhile.

HELLENTHAL: How would it go?

TAYLOR: "Shall be attached to another election district within its senate."

HELLENTHAL: I think it would accomplish the same purpose.

TAYLOR: Another election district within the senate district.

HELLENTHAL: I think it would accomplish the same purpose and if no Committee members object, I would agree to it.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Do you move the adoption of the proposed amendment?

HELLENTHAL: Yes, as with Mr. Taylor's suggestion. In other words, that "the" in line 4 be stricken and the word "another"

inserted in its place.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Is there objection to the proposed change?

WHITE: May I ask a direct question? Mr. Hellenthal, this did not occur to me when we discussed this earlier. In view of the fact that an election district sometime in the future might be subdivided, and that you would therefore have three election districts within a senate district, is there any merit in retaining the words "having the least civilian population"?

HELLENTHAL: That has been omitted.

WHITE: I understand that. I am asking if there would be any merit in retaining those words?

HELLENTHAL: I don't think so.

WHITE: When you subdivide an election district in the future you would then arrive at a situation where you had three election districts within a senate district and if one of those election districts ceased to exist and you wanted to attach it, you would then have an option of two election districts within the senate district to attach it to.

HELLENTHAL: No, on the theory that was advanced for purposes of senatorial representation, the election district maintains its identity, you remember in response to Mr. Taylor's questioning. I don't think there is any problem.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Cooper.

COOPER: Mr. President, I would like to clear that up a little bit. Before there could be three election districts within a senatorial district the third election district in being redistricted would have to have the quotient; therefore, you would not have your minimum population in any one of the three before it could be redistricted. Do I make myself clear?

COGHILL: Maybe I can help. Mr. Hellenthal, I think the point Mr. White is bringing out there is that supposing a senate area which we have now, having two election districts in it, should have another election district added, making three. Well, then supposing something happens to the economy and another one of the districts should decline. Well, his point of asking, adjoining to the least civilian population is within that senatorial district, where is that third or that one with the minority amount of population? Which district is it going to join to get its representative area?

GRAY: I believe this case we are projecting ourselves too far to the future. We are projecting ourselves beyond three or four, beyond 30 or 40 years. We have an apportionment board to take

care of those things, and I believe that the apportioning board is in a better position to handle this situation. It may be better for them 30 years from now; there may be a reason why it should go to one district or the other. Let's leave that to the apportioning board of the future.

PRESIDENT EGAN: We actually have nothing before us. Mr. Hellenthal, do you ask unanimous consent that your proposed amendment be adopted with the wording changed as suggested by Mr. Taylor?

HELLENTHAL: I was going to move on behalf of the Committee that each amendment be considered by the body in turn, and I would then go back to the first amendment and I think it was the one involving lines 5 and 6, at line 3 of page 2, after the word "quotient" insert the words "but only then", and I move, Mr. President, on behalf of the Committee that in line 3, page 2, of Section 2, after the word "quotient", the words "but only then" be inserted.

PRESIDENT EGAN: You ask unanimous consent?

HELLENTHAL: No, I do not.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Hellenthal moves. Is there a second to it?

KNIGHT: I second the motion.

GRAY: I did not agree with the rest of the Committee on this particular item. This particular item is more important in the three words that are there, but only then. What we have used here from a mathematical basis is a quotient that represents one representative district. In order to allow a little leeway so that if you drop one behind the quotient you are not out. They fall and they can fall down to 50 per cent before they are depopulated sufficiently to lose their identity. In order to create a new district, or in this case re-create, before you are authorized or qualified to receive a representative, you must have the full quotient. In this particular one here, as soon as you get back to your half quotient you get a full representative. Now you must remember that when you give a representative to a half quotient you take it away from someone else. They necessarily don't earn it. They necessarily don't earn it until they have a full quotient, and you are taking, in respect, away from some more deserving area. In other words, if you create a new district, they have to qualify with a full quotient. When one of these districts falls below the 50 per cent, it loses. To re-qualify it must be a full quotient. Another thing you are going to get to the point, a family moves into town, they have no representative. A family moves out of town, they lose it. You have an absolute ratio of one person who makes a difference whether you lose your representative or

gain it. I don't believe that is the proper way to look at it. They maintain their election district and you give them 49 per cent leeway until they lose it, but when they start to regain it, they must come up with a full quotient to regain their adequate and full representation.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Johnson.

JOHNSON: I don't quite understand why the addition of these words would in any way strengthen this particular sentence. It seems to me that the words, "Should the total civilian population within any election district fall below one-half of the quotient" is just as direct as adding the words "but only then". I don't see the addition of the words in any way clarifies the section or makes it any stronger or less strong than it is. I may misunderstand what the Committee had in mind. I would like to ask Mr. Hellenthal or someone on the Committee.

HINCKEL: I asked that the three words be put in so I will try to explain it as I did in the Committee. I just wanted to be sure, I don't care how it is done, I thought the three words would do it. But I wanted to be sure that it was fully understood that only when a district population of the district dropped below the one-half of the quotient could they lose their individual representative. I did not want some strong governor in the future to decide that he would abolish a district for some political reason and that was my reason for asking it. It was not the reason Mr. Gray gave, and I don't agree with him that it would have that effect, although it might, but if it did, I would still agree with it because I tried to get that put in in another place but it failed. In any event, I don't care how you accomplish it. Style and Drafting can change the wording around as long as they accomplish the purpose I had ln mind. That is, once you have your district established as they are established now, that nobody can take that representation away from you at all. You have got to qualify for losing it by having the population of your district drop below the minimum figure that we set up which is half of a quotient.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Sundborg.

SUNDBORG: Mr. President, I agree with Mr. Johnson that the section already said exactly that. The condition, the only condition under which the governor or the reapportionment board could hesitate to use the term "collapse an election district" would be should the total civilian population, etc., fall below one-half of the quotient. Adding "but only then" adds nothing to it in my view. I wonder if the Committee does not have the same view, so we could dispose of this without having to put it in.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Gray.

GRAY: That protection is already restated before. What is coming out of this thing is the implication on re-creating new districts on the 51 per cent. That is the way I read it.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mrs. Nordale.

NORDALE: Is it not a little dangerous to put that in? It seems to me it implies that the provisions of the article will all have to be strengthened by some kind of a phrase like that, while as it reads now, I can't see there could be any other circumstances to cause a district to lose its representation except that it falls below the quotient.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Taylor.

TAYLOR: Mr. President, I think the section or the article could be construed to mean, with or without that phrase, I think it is emphasizing, attempting to emphasize the fact that is the only way, the only circumstances under which the representative of an election district can be merged in with another, is that when it falls below one-half of its quotient. It is just an emphasis you might say upon something that is already in there.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. White.

WHlIE: Mr. President, I think here again we are working ourselves into a pretty funny position that we have done several times before. We read a section, go over it and a member thinks that it is not clear enough and everybody is agreed on what the intent is. A delegate gets up, and proposes a few words to clarify it. We argue a long time. We vote them down and by voting them down we then create a doubt as to what we meant all along. Why not let them go in and let Style and Drafting take care of it. I think once the matter is brought up, if we are all agreed on what the intent is, why not let the wording stay in there if there is no danger.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Sundborg.

SUNDBORG: Mr. President, I think for the purpose of the record, we need to clean up right now what we mean here with respect to what Mr. Gray said. Mr. Gray said if we put in "but only then", we are saying that once a district has been collapsed, because it falls below one-half of the quotient, that when it gets back to one-half of the quotient, it shall be restored. I don't read it that way at all but that is what Mr. Gray said was the purpose of the amendment. I think we should have a clear agreement here that is not the purpose of it.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Coghill.

COGHILL: I feel the way that Mr. Sundborg does that this in no way infers that a district, once it goes below the 50

per cent of the quotient and then rises again, has any chance of coming back into existence until it has reached the full quotient. That is the feeling I got in the Committee and is the intent all the way through.

GRAY: If that is true, I withdraw my objection. That is the only point I wished to make.

PRESlDENT EGAN: Mr. Davis.

DAVIS: Mr. President, I differ from what Mr. White said. It seems to me if we adopt these words, Style and Drafting will not be able to take them out, or at least will not be able to take out words of some similar importance. If we don't want them in there we had better not vote them in. If they don't add anything or subtract anything, then we probably should not put them in in the first place.

PRESIDENT EGAN: The question is, "Shall the proposed amendment as offered by Mr. Hellenthal be adopted by the Convention?" All those in favor of the adoption of the proposed amendment will signify by saying "aye", all opposed by saying "no". The "noes" have it and the proposed amendment has failed of adoption. Are there other amendments?

HELLENTHAL: I would like a one-minute recess to confer with Mr. Taylor with regard to this amendment.

PRESIDENT EGAN: If there is no objection the Convention will stand at recess for one minute.

RECESS

PRESIDENT EGAN: The Convention will come to order. The Chair notes in the gallery the Eighth Grade class from the Parochial School, and we are happy to have you here with us this afternoon. The Chief Clerk will please read the proposed amendment.

CHIEF CLERK: "Section 2, page 2, lines 5 and 6, the following words be stricken 'adjoining it having the least civilian population' and insert the following: 'within its senate district'."

PRESIDENT EGAN: What is your pleasure, Mr. Hellenthal?

HELLENTHAL: On behalf of the Committee, I move the adoption of the amendment.

COGHILL: I second the motion.

SUNDBORG: I ask unanimous consent.

HURLEY: I object.

TAYLOR: Question.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Kilcher.

KILCHER: May we hear the amendment again?

CHIEF CLERK: "Section 2, lines 5 and 6, strike the following: 'adjoining it having the least civilian population' and insert 'within its senate district'."

KILCHER: Point of information, Mr. President. I am frankly confused about senate district and senatorial district, and I think from observation some other delegates are also confused. I wonder if we could not possibly use two less equal sounding terms? Will the Chairman please explain the exact meaning of the senate or senatorial districts or areas?

PRESIDENT EGAN: If there is no objection, the Convention will be at recess for a few minutes. I think our guest has arrived. The Convention will be at recess.

RECESS

PRESIDENT EGAN: The Convention will come to order. We are extremely fortunate this afternoon to have as our honored guest a great American, a great soldier. He represents everything that we hold so dear in freedom, in loyalty, in courage and devotion to duty. He has suffered and represents all of those who have suffered so much for each of us. A grateful people, in humble recognition, have bestowed upon him our nation's highest tribute, the Congressional Medal of Honor. It is a great privilege to present to you Major General William F. Dean. (Applause)

GENERAL DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Egan. Friends, you make me feel very inadequate in this generous tribute. Would that I felt that I merited it. I deem it a great honor to have this opportunity to meet you and to address you here today. I know that you have a full schedule and that time is of the essence, so I won't talk too long. Since my visit here to the Fairbanks area I have been keenly interested in the work you are doing; in the thoughtful consideration that you are giving this problem of devising a constitution. I had a similar experience as military governor of South Korea. It fell to my lot to advise, I say I did not do the advising, I had experts employed by the United States government, doctors of philosophy in government and in political science, specialists who had had experience in the building of constitutions of newly freed states, but we were in an advisory capacity. We were trying to devise what we thought best for the Korean people, but we were only advisors. You have an advantage here. What you arrive at you can decide upon and put before your people by referendum to be accepted or to be denied. The way you are going at it I know you are going to come out, I am convinced you will come out with a

sound constitution, and I hope you every success in your request for statehood. You are right up here, the closest United States Territory to our most likely enemy. You are the looking glass of the United States. What you do is not only being watched in the United States, it is being watched across this narrow strait up here to the northwest. What you do here is important and what pleases me is that you yourselves are impressed with its importance. That is why I know you are going to do so well. I congratulate you. Thank you.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Thank you, General Dean. (Standing Ovation) The Convention will be at ease. The Convention will come to order. We have before us Mr. Hellenthal's proposed amendment. Mr. Robertson.

ROBERTSON: Mr. President, while the language is very simple, frankly it seemed to me, particularly in view of the fact that as I understand by the schedule there are four senatorial districts established, each of which has more than one legislative district, it seems to me that you would not know without that qualification adjoining it having the least civilian population. I can't see how you still would arrive at which one it is going to be joined to.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Gray.

GRAY: Mr. Chairman, I have wondered if the Chairman of our Committee, to avoid this confusion, we used the word "senatorial" district and "senate" district to differentiate between the two. Is that what you had in mind?

HELLENTHAL: I don't recall the Committee ever making that distinction.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Johnson.

JOHNSON: A thought occurs to me on the matter of distinguishing between the four large senatorial districts and what I have called subdistricts. I wonder if the phraseology could be changed. I think what they intended to include here or what they mean is within its senate subdistricts, smaller area. Now if the word "sub" could be inserted in front of "district" or some other nomenclature that would indicate a smaller district, I think that would make sense.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Hellenthal.

HELLENTHAL: We are all agreed on the intent within this subdistrict where it formally existed; we all know what we mean. We have had difficulty with the choice of the proper word, and I would accede for the time being until we can place this problem with Style and Drafting and our advisors, I would on behalf of the Committee consent to such temporary use of the word,

"subdistrict" so there will be no confusion here in this group.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Hurley.

HURLEY: I was the one that objected and I recognize that my objection to this is not exactly proper in that it has been stated before and may be stated in the article, I don't think it is in so many words, that these senate subdistricts are inviolate. They will always remain except for very minor changes. So with that in mind I can't very well object to this and still be consistent. I would like to point out that with the situation as it stands here where a legislative district having lost its quotient, half quotient in this case, having lost its half quotient will be consumed by the contiguous district in its same senate subdistrict. There are only three legislative districts in the Territory that are apt then to lose both their legislative representative and their senate representative. Now, admittedly they don't lose their senate representative, per se, but by reason of the fact they are swallowed up by an extremely large population they will in fact quite probably lose their senate representation. Those three are the ones that are along side of Fairbanks, Anchorage, and probably Juneau. As I say, I can't object to this, but it is, I make this statement, I think it is an imposition on our area which I will accept because for the better good of the Territory. I withdraw my objection.

PRESIDENT EGAN: The question is, "Shall the proposed amendment as offered by Mr. Hellenthal be adopted by the Convention?" Mr. Johnson.

JOHNSON: Point of inquiry. Is the word "sub" to be inserted in front of "districts"?

HELLENTHAL: If it has not been inserted I ask that it be inserted.

PRESIDENT EGAN: What word is that?

HELLENTHAL: The amendment will read "within its senate subdistrict".

PRESIDENT EGAN: If there is no objection it has been added to the amendment.

METCALF: Roll call please.

COOPER: I ask unanimous consent.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Kilcher.

KILCHER: Point of inquiry. Has the Committee given any thought to work out a system whereby the districts involved would have

a choice, a referendum choice as to where they would be attached to? According to our theory of a fairly strong local government and local independence, I think it should be given some thought.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Cooper.

COOPER: I thought of it. The people do have a chance. They elect the governor that appoints the reapportionment board that will take care of this problem.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Kilcher.

KILCHER: If I can be convinced of that I will rest assured. I think this amendment here makes it mandatory that the annexation will have to be within that district, so according to Mr. Hurley's idea the Talkeetna - Palmer area would have no choice, and I don't even see that the governor would have a choice, Mr. Cooper, or any apportionment board would have a choice unless by constitutional amendment. If I am wrong I am glad to stand corrected.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Unanimous consent is asked. Is there objection to the unanimous consent request for the adoption of this proposed amendment? Hearing no objection the proposed amendment is ordered adopted. Mr. Hellenthal.

HELLENTHAL: I should like a half-minute recess.

PRESIDENT EGAN: If there is no objection the Convention will stand at recess for 30 seconds.

RECESS

PRESIDENT EGAN: The Convention will come to order. Mr. Hellenthal.

HELLENTHAL: The Secretary has another committee amendment.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Would the Chief Clerk please read the proposed amendment.

CHIEF CLERK: "Section 2, page 2, line 18, following the comma after the word 'areas' add: 'may give consideration to local government boundaries'."

HELLENTHAL: On behalf of the Committee I move and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Hellenthal moves and asks unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted. Is there objection? Hearing no objection the proposed amendment is ordered adopted. Mrs. Hermann.

HERMANN: Mr. President, I move and ask unanimous consent that the introduction of the President and the remarks of General Dean be spread upon the record of this day's proceedings.

MARSTON: I second the motion.

TAYLOR: I ask unanimous consent.

PRESIDENT EGAN: If there is no objection it is so ordered. Are there other amendments? Mr. Kilcher.

KILCHER: I move that on line 4, Section 2, page 2, that the word "temporary" be inserted after the word "be".

PRESIDENT EGAN: On line 4, page 2, Mr. Kilcher? The word "temporary" be inserted between the words "be" and "attached".

HINCKEL: I second the motion.

UNIDENTIFIED DELEGATE: Question.

PRESIDENT EGAN: The question is, "Shall the proposed amendment as offered by Mr. Kilcher be adopted by the Convention?" All those in favor of the adoption of the proposed amendment will signify by saying "aye", all opposed by saying "no". The "noes" have it and the proposed amendment has failed of adoption. Are there other amendments? Mr. Hinckel.

HINCKEL: There is only one word -- on line 7 delete the words "new district" and substitute the words "combined district".

PRESIDENT EGAN: Delete the words "new district" and insert the words "combined district". You have heard the proposed amendment.

HINCKEL: I so move.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Is there a second to the motion?

METCALF: I second the motion.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Hinckel.

HINCKEL: My reason for this is the same as some of the reasons I have given before on some of the things I have spoken on, that I do not conceive that it is the intent of this article that the districts we have on the map here be abolished. Now apparently it is the intent of some people here that just as soon as a district population drops below a certain point that that district be abolished, just wiped off the map, and I don't think that is the intent of the majority. I have tried to bring it out in several different ways, and I don't seem to be getting any place, but I am trying it again in this manner to

get it into the record that we have established districts here that are from now on to remain and have an entity. They may lose their right to individual representation but at some future time when they regain their population they will again regain the right to individual representation. Now, by inserting this change I have just asked for, it does not in any way state they will regain their individual representation as soon as they get the half of the quotient again but they can by going along for possibly 50 years which is apparently what Mr. Gray wishes, that they can eventually at some time get their individual representation back. I ask that you change these two words from "new district" to "combined district" so it will be known to the people in the future that it was our intent that they have this right to regain their individual representation when the time comes that they have the population. That is all I care to say on that subject, but if you will permit me the privilege of saying a few more words I would like to say that I can't understand why when a population drops below, say five or ten persons below the minimum required, which would cause them to lose their individual representation, you are going to make them wait possibly 50 years to get individual representation back. I don't understand why it is necessary to do that. I think when the population of the individual districts get back up to the point where they have the half again they should have it. I don't think on the other hand new districts which somebody might conceive someplace should be stuck in hit or miss all over. That would ruin the whole proposition. I have never been able to find out from anybody why it is those individual districts we have established now cannot regain their right to representation when they again have the minimum requirements that the other districts do. But anyway, forget that for the minute, if you will put that "combined" back in so the intent will be known, which I think is obviously our intent. I will soon find out whether I am right or not.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Hurley.

HURLEY: I certainly sympathize of course with Mr. Hinckel, but I think that maybe I have an idea that might do just the opposite. I am thinking now, and forgive the terminology again, that our legislative district is collapsed and then when the next census comes up we still do not have enough people in the old district to make the full quotient, but we can still, or the board can, by observing the four precepts that we have set here, set those district boundaries up differently so as to give us enough to make a district again. So I am not particularly concerned with the abolishment of that district because it may be to my advantage that the next time we come about, call it gerrymandering if you want, but gerrymandering within these limits, and I can show you our own election district where we certainly have not followed these four out now, we can gain enough population to have a new one; whereas, if we had to keep our old district lines we would not get a new one. I

am inclined to think on that basis I am better off by leaving it as it is than if I would be if I put in a restriction here which tended to keep the old concept that we have drawn on that map.

PRESIDENT EGAN: The question is, "Shall the proposed amendment as offered by Mr. Hinckel be adopted by the Convention?" The Chief Clerk will please read the proposed amendment.

CHIEF CLERK: "Line 7, delete the words 'new district' and substitute the words 'combined district'."

PRESIDENT EGAN: All those in favor of the adoption of the proposed amendment will signify by saying "aye", all opposed by saying "no". The "noes" have it and the proposed amendment has failed of adoption. Are there other amendments to Section 2? Mr. Hurley.

HURLEY: I would like to make a parliamentary inquiry. What does the shouted word "question" mean?

PRESIDENT EGAN: The only thing it could mean, Mr. Hurley, is they are calling for the vote at that time. Are there other amendments to Section 2? Mr. Gray.

GRAY: I believe I would like the personal privilege of the floor for a minute on account of my proposition.

PRESIDENT EGAN: If there is no objection, Mr. Gray you are granted the personal privilege of the floor.

(Mr. Gray spoke at this time under personal privilege.)

PRESIDENT EGAN: Are there other amendments to Section 2? If not, are there amendments to Section 3? Mr. Robertson.

ROBERTSON: I have an amendment.

PRESlDENT EGAN: You may submit your amendment.

CHIEF CLERK: "Page 2, delete all of Section 3 and insert the following: 'The Senate shall be composed of sixteen senators four from each of the present four judicial divisions which are hereby created into Senatorial Districts. Senators shall be elected by the qualified electors of the respective Senatorial district wherein they reside.'"

ROBERTSON: I move that the amendment be adopted.

H. FISCHER: I object.

KNIGHT: I second the motion.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Cooper.

COOPER: I don't know whether I am in exact procedure or not, but I move that the motion be laid on the table.

H. FISCHER: I second the motion.

PRESIDENT EGAN: The question is, "Shall Mr. Robertson's proposed ammendment be laid on the table?" The Chief Clerk will please read the proposed amendment.

CHIEF CLERK: "Page 2, delete all of Section 3 and insert the following: 'The Senate shall be composed of sixteen senators, four from each of the present four judicial divisions which are hereby created into Senatorial Districts. Senators shall be elected by the qualified electors of the respective Senatorial district wherein they reside.'"

PRESIDENT EGAN: The question is undebatable.

HELLENTHAL: I move that we have a one-minute recess.

PRESIDENT EGAN: If there is no objection -- Mr. White.

WHITE: Parliamentary inquiry. Under our rules when can you move to take from the table?

PRESIDENT EGAN: You can move to take from the table -- whether you could do it today --

WHITE: I mean the outer limit, for how long a time?

PRESIDENT EGAN: You could take something from the table at any time before we adjourn sine die.

WHITE: Actually a motion to lay on the table, if it should pass, it would leave the matter open for further consideration until the day of final adjournment?

PRESIDENT EGAN: Unless it never was taken up again. The Convention will stand at recess for a minute.

RECESS

PRESIDENT EGAN: The Convention will come to order. Mr. Cooper.

COOPER: Mr. President, with the consent of my second, I withdraw my motion to lay anything on the table.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Cooper asks unanimous consent that his motion to lay on the table be withdrawn.

ROBERTSON: I ask for a roll call on my motion.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Armstrong.

ARMSTRONG: I believe it might be in order to hear a communication read, and if it is the will of the assembly I would like to have Mrs. Sweeney offer Mr. Shattuck's letter.

PRESIDENT EGAN: If there is no objection the communication can be read at this time.

MCNEES: I object.

ARMSTRONG: I so move.

JOHNSON: I second the motion.

PRESlDENT EGAN: The question is, "Shall the proposed communication from Mr. Curtis Shattuck be read to the Convention?" All those in favor of reading the communication at this time will signify by saying "aye", all opposed by saying "no". The Chief Clerk will call the roll.

JOHNSON: May I have the floor on the question of personal privilege?

PRESIDENT EGAN: If there is no objection, Mr. Johnson, you may speak under the point of personal privilege.

(Mr. Johnson spoke under personal privilege at this time.)

PRESIDENT EGAN: Miss Awes.

AWES: I don't know how to vote. Does voting "yes" or "no"

mean --

PRESIDENT EGAN: Voting "yes" would mean that we have the communication read. Mr. McNees.

MCNEES: Inasmuch as I made the objection, may I answer Mr. Johnson's question? The communication was passed around the floor yesterday. I read it and the two gentlemen on the other side read it. It was passed down and I assume it has been pretty much around the floor. That is my reason for objection.

SWEENEY: Mr. President, may I speak on the privilege of the floor.

PRESIDENT EGAN: You may.

(Mrs. Sweeney spoke under the question of personal privilege.)

PRESIDENT EGAN: The question is, "Shall the communication presently before us be read to the Convention?" Mr. Marston.

MARSTON: Mr. Chairman, Mildred Hermann had a very hard time getting some very fine letters read here onetime. I worked against her. I said then I wanted all the letters read or none of them. I think we open the way to a lot of propaganda here from various organizations.

MCCUTCHEON: Point of order. The matter of reading a paper is not debatable, Mr. President, according to the rules.

PRESIDENT EGAN: If that is what the rules say, Mr. McCutcheon, the Chair would stand corrected. The Chair did not have any idea that the matter of reading papers was not debatable.

MARSTON: I am going to vote for the reading of this letter.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Marston, the Chair will uphold the delegate who has read from the rules and we have before us the matter of reading this communication. All those in favor of having the communication read will signify by saying "aye", all opposed by saying "no". The "ayes" have it and the Chief Clerk may read the communication.

SUNDBORG: May I have the floor on a matter of personal privilege?

PRESIDENT EGAN: If there is no objection, Mr. Sundborg, you may.

(Mr. Sundborg spoke under the question of personal privilege.)

SWEENEY: I think the statement was hardly necessary. This is nothing more than a statement by a member of the audience or a gallery attending our hearing in Juneau.

PRESIDENT EGAN: The Chief Clerk may proceed with the reading of the proposed letter.

(At this time the Chief Clerk read the complete text of the Shattuck letter.)

PRESIDENT EGAN: The communication will be filed. Mr. Robertson.

ROBERTSON: Mr. President, speaking in support of my motion, I would like to say that I think that this attempt to base the senatorial representation whereby population is involved in the method of arriving at the senatorial representation almost avoids my necessity or desire to have a bicameral system. I can't see any particular value if you are going to elect both senators and members of the house based entirely upon population. Now, while it is true this purports to be based partly on geography, I think one house should be based entirely upon geographical representation and be elected at large. As Mr.

Shattuck's letter has said, the smaller communities have been well represented in the senate. We not only have Doris Barnes from Wrangell and James Nolan from Wrangell, we at the present time have Marcus Jensen from the small community of Douglas, and I feel it has worked out very well that they do represent the entire division, and that is only the right way to do it. Furthermore, it seems to me we are losing sight of the value of the experience of the Territory of Alaska since 1913 in so electing, at least our senate, and I believe that we should not ignore that experience; furthermore, this constitution as necessary will be permanent, at least until it is amended, and under this principle one division gets six senators, two get five senators and or one gets four senators. Now based upon population alone can justify that differential; and furthermore, the proponents of the proposal conceded this morning that no matter how the population of the Fourth Division might increase, it is perfectly imaginable that in less than 10 years the population of the Fourth Division can be twice that of the Third or First Divisions. The Second Division one time, some 50 years ago, was the big populated division of the Territory of Alaska, no matter how small it is now. Juneau, of the First Division with pulp mills coming in, it is entirely foreseeable that within the next 10 years we will have 50,000 more permanent people there with their homes, and I submit that the permanency of it is in error. It is a mistake to make this permanent so we are going to have a different senatorial representation. The senators ought to be elected on the basis of representing their particular senatorial district and also representing the Territory, and we should not do it at large. We should confine it to the geographical situation. The judicial divisions have worked out satisfactorily in this Territory since 1909, and there is no reason under this Section 2 if they don't work out satisfactorily why this apportionment board cannot correct them. It seems to me that every delegate from the Second, the Fourth, and the First Divisions ought to be behind this amendment, and there is nothing wrong about it. It is meritorious and supports the bicameral system of legislation. Also, based upon our past experience it gives us all equal representation in the senate.

PRESIDENT EGAN: The question is, "Shall the proposed amendment as offered by Mr. Robertson be adopted by the Convention?" The Chief Clerk will call the roll.

(The Chief Clerk called the roll with the following result:

Yeas: 4 - Barr, Nolan, Robertson, Sweeney.

Nays: 50 - Armstrong, Awes, Boswell, Buckalew, Coghill, Collins, Cooper, Cross, Davis, Doogan, Emberg, H. Fischer, V. Fischer, Gray, Harris, Hellenthal, Hermann, Hilscher, Hinckel, Hurley, Johnson, Kilcher, King, Knight, Laws, Lee, Londborg,

Absent: 5 - Collins, H. Fischer, Poulsen, Robertson,

VanderLeest.)

CHIEF CLERK: 4 yeas, 46 nays, and 5 absent.

PRESIDENT EGAN: The "nays" have it, and the proposed amendment has failed of adoption. Are there other amendments to Committee Proposal No. 14? If not, if there are no other amendments, Committee Proposal No. 14 will be referred to the Committee on Engrossment and Enrollment. Mr. Riley.

RILEY: A five-minute recess would enable the Rules Committee to bring out the report yesterday requested by Mr. McLaughlin.

PRESIDENT EGAN: If there be no objection the Convention will stand at recess for five minutes.

RECESS

PRESIDENT EGAN: The Convention will come to order. Mr. Johnson?

JOHNSON: Gentlemen the time has arrived, I therefore move that the Convention stand adjourned until tomorrow morning at 9:00 o'clock.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Are there committee announcements? The Convention will come to order. Mr. Victor Rivers, do you have a committee announcement? Are there committee announcements to be made at this time? If not, Mr. Johnson has moved and asked unanimous consent that the Convention stand adjourned until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. Is there objection?

DOOGAN: I object.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Objection is heard. Do you so move?

JOHNSON: I so move.

PRESIDENT EGAN: Mr. Johnson so moves, is there a second?

TAYLOR: I second the motion.

PRESIDENT EGAN: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor of adjourning until 9:OO a.m. tomorrow will signify by saying "aye". All opposed by saying "no". The "ayes" have it and the Convention stands adjourned.