The meeting was called to order at 9:10 a.m. by Cochairman Senator Denton Darrington. Other members present were Cochairman Representative Bill Deal, Senator Sheila Sorensen, Senator Sue Reents, Representative Frances Field and Representative John Alexander. Staff in attendance were Susan Bennion, Ross Borden and Harriet Walters. Others in attendance were Gary Moncrief, Boise State University Professor and Mary Hartung representing the Governor's Office.

Cochairman Darrington called the meeting to order and instructed the secretary to conduct a silent roll call showing that all six members of the interim committee were in attendance. Senator Darrington was asked by Pro Tem Twiggs to be the Senate chairman of this committee and Representative Deal was asked by Speaker Simpson to be the House chairman. There is a constitutional amendment creating a reapportionment commission and the charge to the committee is to develop the legislation and policy necessary to implement this amendment.

Cochairman Deal stated that he felt the work cut out for this committee is to decide basically three things: (1) to set up the commission; (2) how much technology we are going to be able to provide this commission and; (3) the implementation of reapportionment.

Susan Bennion, Legislative Services, reviewed SCR105 which charges the committee with implementation of the reapportionment commission, including terms of members, their qualifications, staff, and procedural processes which must be enacted by the Legislature. Cochairman Darrington pointed out that in the last paragraph of SCR105 the committee shall report its findings, recommendations and legislation to the next session of the Legislature. This committee is up against a time line and it needs to complete its work by the time the legislature meets in January. Mrs. Bennion continued by discussing areas of concern which this committee needs to address including Article III, Section 2. which in paragraph (2) describes the creation of the commission to reapportion, which will be done on order of the secretary of state. She stated there might be a necessity to establish a date for when that order should be made. Mrs. Bennion continued by saying the commission is composed of six members and the constitution states who will appoint those members. Some states have opted to provide qualifications for those members, which this committee is specifically authorized to do in paragraph (3) of the constitution. This would include terms of the commission members, the method of filling vacancies on the commission, qualifications for commissioners and standards to govern the commission. Under the category of terms, the question arises about when the commission will expire. Will it be upon its final report, and this depends on if or how the commission would respond if that report is challenged in court. Will they be reconvened in someway, although the constitution is silent on that subject. Under qualifications, should commission members be required to be a resident of the state or a registered voter. The Constitution prohibits commission members from being an elected official. Other questions the committee may address are whether to create a geographic distribution of the state for the commission members and, which of the appointing authorities make their appointments first. The question of compensation during the terms of the commissioners, and staffing needs to be addressed.

Mrs. Bennion pointed out that in the packets for the committee, there were some statutes from the states of Washington, Montana and Colorado. First in each collection is the constitutional language for that state on redistricting. Washington and Montana are quite similar to Idaho. The enacting statute follows. Some states do use Legislative Council staff. One thing to bear in mind about all of this is, once the commission has been appointed and receives the census data, they have a constitutional time limit of ninety (90) days to report. The staff will have to do advance preparation before the appointments of the commission members.

Cochairman Darrington felt that the committee should take one issue at a time and if the committee chooses to give direction to Legislative Council then Susan Bennion can prepare legislation for review at the next committee meeting. Mrs. Bennion began by reviewing the statutes from Washington and Montana. The Washington statutes begin with a definition of a lobbyist and later on in the statutes they prohibit persons who have lobbied within the past two years from serving on the commission, in addition to people who are elected office holders. Montana, right from the beginning sets up a plan for legislative districts from which the members are to be appointed. This is not done in Washington. In both states they deal with vacancies. If a member resigns, dies, or is found ineligible, the same appointing authority at the time of the vacancy makes the appointment. The Washington statutes define terms, such as lobbyist, chief election officer, etc., which could also apply in Idaho. They created the commission and provided for the appointment of a chairman which our constitutional amendment doesn't address. In Washington, the members who are appointed select their own chairman, but in Idaho there is no provision for doing this. The committee needs to provide for election of officers within the commission and address the qualifications for persons eligible to serve. Also, the Washington statutes provide for the employment of experts, consultants and staff. Washington has a more permanent staff than Idaho probably would contemplate.

Cochairman Deal asked Susan Bennion how this staff would differ from our legislative services office staff. Mrs. Bennion stated that in some states there is a separate and distinct office, similar to legislative services, but it also would be a repository for this data so it goes beyond what legislative services does. This statute also deals with staffing, in that Washington gives compensation to members and when requesting witnesses, reimburses them for their expenses. The next Washington statute deals with duties of the commission, how many are needed for a quorum to do business, open meetings (which our commission will certainly have to have) and then preparing and publishing a report of the plan. Another statute provides for reconvening the commission and this is something this committee might need some legal guidance on because our constitutional amendment was entirely silent on this subject. Our constitution says there is original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court. The court may act, by doing their own plan or referring it back to the place of origin. Our constitution doesn't deal with the problem of referring the plan back to the commission. Mrs. Bennion said she wasn't sure we would have the authority to provide for reconvening the commission in our statute and may need to ask for the Attorney General's ruling.

The Montana statute is much simpler. It provides for qualifications of the commission members, vacancy on the commission, and compensation and expenses for commission members. It provides for restrictions on commissioners seeking election to the legislature and is similar to our constitution. It requires the Montana Legislative Council to provide clerical and technical staff which is one option available to this committee. It also requires the assistance of other state agencies and there are some state agencies in Idaho which we could use, such as Water Resources with the computer capabilities to help with the census data. In Montana and Washington, the commission submits the plan to the Legislature for adoption. This is not the case in Idaho.

Cochairman Darrington suggested the committee take one issue at a time, starting with appointment and qualification of members. Senator Reents felt that it would be unworkable to do geographic distribution when the Senate, House and the two largest political parties appoint the members to the commission because you would be limiting the ability to appoint whomever those persons or bodies thought were the best people to serve. She feels the diversity will come from those doing the appointing. Representative Fields looks at it another way and strongly supported having commission members from districts because local members would know more about the district than someone living outside the district.

Mrs. Bennion pointed out that the Montana statutes say the Senate Majority leader has the first choice and the House Majority leader has the second choice and moves on down so that the last one would have the most limited choice. Representative Field stated she just wants to have equal representation for rural as well as urban area. Representative Alexander suggested, rather than trying to lock people into a specific area, that each organization select a person who they perceive would be qualified statewide. Senator Reents feels there is a difference between the appointment to the reapportionment commission compared to other user districts because there will be six different people or entities making those appointments and those entities will be looking for people who will look at the state as a whole, not just at a certain part of the state.

Senator Sorensen stated she felt that Representative Field brings up a good point, but feels that leaders of both the Senate and House would certainly get advice from members of both Houses and will create the type of discussion on representation which Representative Fields is concerned about. Cochairman Deal recalls that one of the schemes talked about, and ended up being in the amendment, was to give the authority of appointment to both parties in the legislature. It would be a convenient way and maybe the easiest way to form this commission rather than drawing lines and forming districts. He feels very comfortable allowing the leaders of the Legislature and the state party chairmen to pick commission members and not in any particular region. Mrs. Bennion pointed out that if districts are formed the districts would have to have equal population. Cochairman Darrington asked if the districts we use need to be according to the 2000 census, and how can we arrange the districts and accomplish what Representative Field wants to do. Cochairman Deal feels that those appointing the commission members will be most sensitive to areas of representation and will take in mind the rural and urban representation.

Senator Reents moved and Senator Sorensen seconded that this committee remain silent on the issue that representation of the reapportionment commission be by geographic districts. The motion carried with Representative Field voting no. Cochairman Darrington invited Representative Field to present a plan for selecting the commission members by district or geographic area for the next meeting and the committee would look at her plan.

The next item of discussion was the qualification of members and Susan Bennion pointed out this item will require a statute. Senator Sorensen said the Washington statutes require members to be registered voters and residents of the state, and could not have been an elected official within two years. Cochairman Darrington asked how "elected official" is defined in the state of Idaho? How about a cemetery board member? Susan Bennion said they are officials as are members of a zoning commission.

Cochairman Deal moved and Representative Field seconded that the qualifications of the people eligible to serve as a reapportionment commission member must be a registered voter, have not been a lobbyist within the past year and cannot have served within two years as an elected official, elected legislative district, county, or state party officer. Cochairman Darrington asked if that is the Washington statute and Cochairman Deal indicated it was. Cochairman Darrington asked if he had included in his motion that precinct committeepersons may serve. Cochairman Deal said he did not include that in his motion as he feels they would be elected legislative district leaders. After much discussion of the pros and cons of including a precinct committeeperson in the two years services as an elected official, Senator Sorensen moved to amend the motion and Senator Reents seconded to include the language on precinct committeepersons as written in the Washington statute which says they may serve on the commission. The motion carried and the Washington provision on eligibility to serve as commission member was adopted.

The next item talked about was the time of appointment. Susan Bennion pointed out that the language in the Constitution states that a commission for reapportionment shall be formed on order of the secretary of state. The census is conducted every ten years, the next time being the year 2000. The data is reported to us in 2001 or the year ending in "one" every ten years. Some states have constitutional deadlines and the Census Bureau does its best to comply with those deadlines so those states get their reports earlier than others. Idaho has traditionally had no deadlines and has been one of the last states to receive its data. Cochairman Darrington stated that after we receive the data from the Census Bureau, the commission can be formed and will have 90 days in which to get their work done. If the staff is designated by legislation and they are prepared and ready when the data arrives, the order to form the commission by the Secretary of State can be made. We can't control the arrival of the data but we can control the date to form the commission. Cochairman Darrington requested Susan Bennion to run this question by the Attorney General; can a date be established when the order by the Secretary of State shall be made to form the reapportionment commission. He requested that she have a recommendation in the form of a legislative bill to be approved in the next meeting.

The committee discussed the question of curtailing commission members in political activities while serving on the commission. The question was raised of a commission member's employer belonging to a PAC and their corporation donates to the PAC; does this mean that the commission member has donated? It was brought up by several members of the committee that commission members should not actively campaign for any political office or candidate. What does "actively" mean? Cochairman Deal wondered if we need any of these requirements in statute because the term of the commission members is uncertain. It could be 90 days or it could be until after a court challenge, which could and probably will happen. Mrs. Bennion pointed out that it was up to the committee to determine by statute.

Another area of discussion was paragraph 2 of the constitution dealing with the reapportionment plan being challenged in court. If the plan is overturned, does it go back to the original reapportionment commission members or are there new members appointed? Susan Bennion said that could be determined by statute. Representative Field moved and Senator Sorensen seconded that the commission would serve for the duration of the court challenges or until the work will be completed. The motion carried.

Representative Field stated that she would still like to see a statute dealing with political activities for members of the commission and she likes the wording in the Washington statute. The Washington statute states that commission members can not actively participate in or contribute to any political campaign of any candidate for a state or federal elective office while a member of the commission. Mrs. Bennion pointed out that the Idaho statute states that if a person gives $50 or more to a candidate or political community it is considered a contribution. Members of the committee were still concerned about what "actively" means and how it can be legislated. The committee is in agreement that while the commission members are in office, they should not campaign for an elective office. The committee talked about the length of office for the commission members. Is it for 90 days or is it until the reapportionment plan is adopted in its final form? No decision was made.

Professor Moncrief asked if he could address the committee briefly before he needed to leave. He pointed out that in Article III, Section 2, of the constitution it precluded the commission members from serving in the Legislature for five years following their appointment to the commission, but it doesn't preclude them from serving in Congress. Professor Moncrief stated that reapportionment of the congressional districts is something the commission members will do, so the committee might need to address this area of question. Cochairman Darrington thanked Professor Moncrief for his remarks and invited him back to the next meeting.

The next item on the agenda deals with compensation. Cochairman Darrington pointed out that in the Idaho Code there are four sections which deal with compensation of people who serve in appointed positions. The decision this committee has to make is whether to give compensation to the commission members or to just give them their expenses. Senator Reents feels there should be some type of compensation because we don't want this appointment to be a hardship on anyone who is chosen to be on the reappointment commission. Cochairman Deal pointed out that in the Montana law they compensated their commission members at the same rate as a legislator and if we put that into Idaho law it would be about $50.00 a day. Representative Field moved, Senator Sorensen seconded that the members of the reapportionment commission be compensated in the same manner as Idaho legislators are compensated for interim committee meetings, which includes per diem and travel expenses. The motion carried.

Cochairman Darrington asked Susan Bennion about the next item on the agenda defined as "duties" and asked if she meant duties or was she referring to standards. Mrs. Bennion said they were standards. Cochairman Darrington said his idea for standards would be such things as: holding hearings in different regions of the state; preserving communities of interest in their plan: and, staying within the population deviation allowed by the Supreme Court. During a break Mrs. Bennion passed out information on criteria for redistricting from the 1990 reappointment committee. Cochairman Darrington feels this would be a good starting place for this committee to develop statutory criteria for the reapportionment commission. Mrs. Bennion led the discussion of each item under Appendix A. The following are recommendations from the committee for adoption to be put into a legislative bill.

I. Population: The total state population, as reported in the 2000 Federal Decennial Census, and the population of subunits derived therefrom, shall be the exclusive permissible data for state legislative reapportionment.

II. Equality of Representation: Districts must be substantially equal in population. The plan should have an overall range which will not exceed that which is allowable by the Supreme Court. (The committee chose not to put in a percentage figure.) The committee instructed Susan Bennion to incorporate number III with number II and used language from the Voting Rights Act to ensure equality for all individuals according to that Act.

IV. Gerrymandering: The plan must not be constructed to protect a particular political party or a particular incumbent legislator. To the maximum extent possible, the plan should avoid drawing districts that are oddly shaped or that split traditional neighborhoods or communities of interest.

V. Criteria for Legislative Districts: 1. Division of counties should be avoided whenever possible. Counties should be divided into districts not wholly contained within that county only to the extent reasonably necessary to meet the requirements of the equal population principle or the Voting Rights Act. Sometimes, it will be necessary to divide a county into districts not wholly contained within that county. The number of such divisions, per county, should be kept to a minimum. 2. To the extent that counties must be divided to create districts, such district shall be composed of contiguous counties. No disagreement from the committee on 1 or 2 as long as Susan Bennion keeps the language appropriate for our time. 3. District boundaries should retain as far as practicable the local voting precinct boundary lines to the extent those lines comply with Idaho Code section 34-306. Mrs. Bennion stated there were many precinct boundaries that did not comply and the reason for not using them is that they do not follow a physical feature. If they do not follow a physical feature you cannot determine the population with 100% accuracy. There are thirteen (13) counties totally out of compliance. Items 5 and 6 are already covered. 7. Where possible, legislative districts should attempt to preserve communities of interest. Cochairman Darrington feels this should be emphasized every chance we get. Representative Alexander asked what are communities of interest? Cochairman Darrington said it is "whatever you say it is" and in the 1990 reapportionment that was absolutely the most important consideration by the members of the committee. No one can define it but everyone knows what it is. It is to avoid the blatant destruction of community interests.

VI. Criteria for Congressional Districts: Congressional districts must be as nearly equal in populations as practicable.

Cochairman Darrington asked if there were any other issues that need to be considered as a standard? Representative Fields moved Senator Sorensen seconded to adopt as the criteria for redistricting as the committee had just discussed in Appendix A. The motion carried.

The committee went on to discuss committee procedures. Legislative intent would read that the commission intends to provide for the widest range of public information about its deliberations and full opportunity for citizens to make suggestions and recommendations to the commission. It is a general statement of legislative intent that the commission will hear from many citizens.

1. All meetings of the commission shall be subject to the open meeting law.

2. The commission shall provide notice of all meetings to any citizen or organization requesting the same.

3. Copies of the validated census data base, and all other data bases available to the commission, will be provided in a form, as decided by the commission, to any person at cost. 4. The commission will hold meetings in different locations in the state in order to maximize public participation.

5. Once a plan has been submitted to the commission, it shall be subject to the open records law.

6. A quorum shall be four (4) members of the commission. In the event there is a previously scheduled meeting, less than a quorum may take testimony and information, but no votes other than to set a future agenda, to prepare for future meetings, and to adjourn or recess, may be taken. Mrs. Bennion pointed out the constitution provides that the final action of the commission must be approved by two-thirds vote of the members, which would be four (4) of the six (6) members.

7. A redistricting plan may be presented to the commission by an individual citizen or organization. All such plans shall be public information. Any citizen or organization shall provide a current mailing address and telephone number.

Cochairman Darrington asked Susan Bennion to draft legislative language which is pertinent to the discussion by this committee on commission procedures.

Cochairman Darrington informed the committee about a gap in the constitution dealing with who should be the chairman of the reapportionment commission. This commission has six members and will be a highly partisan commission. Several possibilities for this committee to discuss are: (1) have the commission members select their own chairman; (2) appoint a non-voting member to the commission who would simply be the chairman and run the meetings. If this is legal to do then this committee will need to decide who would make the appointment. Mrs. Bennion was directed to ask the Attorney General if the committee would be within the scope of the Constitution to recommend legislation to provide that the members of the commission shall select, by majority vote, a chairman who shall be a seventh, non-voting member of the commission. If the answer is positive then Susan should prepare legislation as we have discussed and if it isn't then we will need to address it at the next meeting.

The next item discussed by the committee was staffing for the commission. Cochairman Darrington said he has not heard anyone who disagrees with having Legislative Services staff the commission. If we don't use our own Legislative Services staff, then we have to hire staff for them and that staff has to start from scratch on gathering knowledge about reapportionment. Representative Field moved Senator Sorensen seconded that Legislative Services staff be used for the staff of the reapportionment commission. Mrs. Bennion pointed out to the committee that in advance of this commissions appointment, a budget will need to be prepared outlining funding for the commission. This committee may want to make some recommendation about how much funding and how much staffing will be needed. This should be addressed at least two (2) years before appointing the actual reapportionment commission and staff. Senator Sorensen stated concern about Legislative Services not having funding for adequate staff. Cochairman Darrington said that if this statute is adopted then it would up to Legislative Services to provide adequate staff. Senator Reents agrees with Susan Bennion that this should be dealt with a couple of years before its going to happen so Legislative Council can put into their budget additional money to support the additional staffing needs of the reapportionment commission. That way the whole Legislature will speak on the budgeting for the reapportionment commission. After much discussion, the motion to use Legislative Services staff as staff for the reapportionment commission was carried.

In the statutes which Mrs. Bennion copied for the committee it indicates that the final report and records of the commission are public. This committee has already provided for that in previous action. Cochairman Darrington asked Susan if it was appropriate for the final report to be spread upon the House and Senate journals. It is to be filed in the Pro Tem and the Speaker's office and with the Secretary of State. The Legislature has no veto power on the commission's work so we can't enact it into the statute. By consensus the committee has agreed that Susan Bennion will draft something to agree with the constitution to let the final report be spread upon the journals of the Senate and House.

Cochairman Darrington asked the committee if there were other issues which needed to come before this committee. Senator Sorensen pointed out that the committee had not dealt with vacancies on the commission. The consensus of the committee is, when a vacancy occurs, the appointing authority for that particular commission member would make the new appointment.

Dealing with the question of proxy voting, Senator Sorensen moved, Representative Alexander seconded that proxy voting by the commission is prohibited. The motion carried.

Ross Borden, Legislative Services Budget & Policy staff reviewed a Technology Issues paper which he prepared for the committee. He talked about the objectives of redistricting, which are to draw legislative and congressional districts that meet legal requirements and political objectives. He discussed how this can be accomplished. He stated the reason for using technology to redistrict was to quickly, accurately and efficiently draw legislative and congressional districts that meet requirements previously discussed. He discussed the old way of redistricting with maps, colored pencils and a l0-key adding machine compared to using computer based technology. By using technology available you can quickly see the impact when generating different plans on redistricting. You have the advantages of storing data and retrieving it quickly. It can increase public involvement, because you can have the public operating off the same data as the commission.

The Census Bureau will provide the database and the opportunity to work with them to improve it through TIGER files which are the digital geographic data files and through PL-94 which is population, race, ethnicity data. A plotter is one piece of equipment that is not found in every office but will print out 36x48 inch maps quite rapidly. When working on a word processor in your office, you can do incredible things on the screen but if you can't output it onto a piece of paper it doesn't do you that much good. The same thing will be especially true for redistricting. High quality maps and the plotter will probably be our biggest consideration. Another area would be the number of workstations needed for the commission and staff. Mrs. Bennion pointed out that the quality of the information the Census Bureau will be giving us in 2000 is far ahead of what we got in 1990. Cochairman Darrington asked if it was necessary for this committee to make a decision on this information about technology? Mrs. Bennion stated it would be appropriate if this committee would choose to make a recommendation to the Legislative Council as part of the final report so when the Council prepares its budget for the reapportionment commission it will seriously consider budgeting for technology so we keep abreast of and prepare for reapportionment at least in the l998 budget process.

Cochairman Deal asked Ross Borden what type of costs we are looking at when we look at the software we will need? Mr. Borden pointed out that the software is a negligible portion of the total bill. Since the state of Idaho is a big ARC/INFO user, he was given a free copy of the desk top application of ARC/View. There was a demonstration at the NCSL meeting based on ARC/View which Susan Bennion and Ross Borden attend. Mr. Borden told the committee we would still have to purchase ARC/View with the application which would amount to about $1000. We have the core equipment now but there will be special requirements that would be wise to add on in order to make it more effective. Mrs. Bennion reminded the committee the cost of a plotter also needs to be included in the major expenses. Cochairman Deal asked Ross Borden how he foresees the commission distributing PC's around the state and making them available for the public. Mr. Borden feels that when those meetings come around we will have a highly portable way to make the technology available to the public. Senator Reents feels this committee needs to inform Legislative Council on general issues dealing with public access, the reapportionment commission, and the time frame in which these issues need to be considered. Mrs. Bennion stated she felt that she understood what Senator Reents wants to have on paper in a form of a recommendation to be acted upon at the next meeting.

Cochairman Darrington suggested that after Susan Bennion is able to put together legislative bills, she can contact the cochairmen and set a date for the next committee meeting, which would probably take place in the later part of September or October. Representative Alexander asked that a copy of the legislative bills be sent out for review before the next meeting. Nothing further coming before the committee, the meeting was adjourned.

The meeting was called to order at 9:40 a.m. by Co-chairman Representative Bill Deal. Other members present were Cochair Senator Denton Darrington, Senator Sheila Sorensen, Senator Sue Reents, Representative Frances Field and Representative John Alexander. Staff in attendance were Susan Bennion, Ross Borden and Harriet Walters. Others in attendance were Tom Gratton, Deputy Attorney General and Elinor Chehey, League of Women Voters.

Senator Reents moved, Senator Sorenson seconded to approve the minutes of the August l, 1995, meeting as they were written. The motion carried.

Cochair Deal called upon Tom Gratton, Deputy Attorney General, to respond to our request for an opinion regarding implementation of Article 3, Section 2 of the Idaho Constitution relating to the formation of a reapportionment commission. Mr. Gratton referred to a letter written to Susan Bennion dated August 17, 1995, that states that the reapportionment commission shall be "formed on order of the Secretary of State." As to a specific date for when the committee is to be formed, the language of the provision of the constitution article is silent and doesn't address the issue. The opinion says that it would be appropriate to specify a "not later than" or " not earlier than" date by which the order of the Secretary of State must occur. He went on to say the commission must propose a reapportionment plan within ninety (90) days after being formed or when the census data becomes available, whichever is later.

The second question addressed as requested by Ms. Bennion was about having a seventh, non-voting member of the commission. Mr. Gratton stated that the seventh member would upset the balance that the provision seeks to achieve in requiring equal representation on the commission by the two major parties in Idaho. Therefore, it is the opinion of the Attorney General that such a provision in the legislation would be inconsistent with Article 3, Section 2.

Senator Darrington said he was intrigued by the last paragraph of the opinion which says "adding a seventh member, even though non-voting, would be inconsistent with the constitutional provision." Senator Darrington would not disagree with this if the seventh member was a voting member but he has trouble understanding how the seventh member would upset the balance that the provision seeks to achieve when the seventh member is really ex officio. This person would not represent any type of interest and would simply have the mechanical function of conducting a meeting or setting an agenda. Mr. Gratton responded by saying that they did not have a description of the duties to be performed other than being a non-voting member. They felt that the provision was clear as far as the membership of the voting members, but even though you have a person with non-voting power, not every one is a political and this goes beyond the constitutional provision and would upset that balance. Senator Darrington said he knew we would accept the opinion of the Attorney General in this regard. He asked if there were any discussions on that subject "how to select a chairman" when this opinion was prepared? Mr. Gratton stated no they did not. Senator Darrington feels this then is a policy decision for this committee to make.

Cochair Deal pointed out that one unanswered question would be how the chairman of the commission is chosen. Ms. Bennion said that she has gone ahead and put a provision in the draft legislation in section 72-1505 which says the commissioners shall elect, by majority vote, a member or members to serve as chairman or cochairmen and other officers as they may determine. Cochair Deal said the committee would review that section when they review the legislation.

There being no further discussion about the attorney general's opinion Cochair Deal moved on to the draft legislation proposed. There are two legislative drafts, one from the committee and one from Representative Field. Cochair Deal called upon Representative Field to review her draft legislation. Representative Field asked Ms. Bennion to help on the review of her draft. Ms. Bennion said that the two drafts are identical except with the insertion of the districts in Representative Field's draft. Attached to the draft legislation was a sheet showing the population of the districts. The effort was made to have them at least roughly equal. They don't have to be exactly equal because these district are not elected districts. They should be as equal as possible to maintain the goal Representative Field wants which is to maintain some geographical representation. In the language of the draft the method of making the appointments is for the six appointing authorities to appear at the Secretary of State's office and take turns drawing lots and choosing which district they shall make their appointment from. Representative Field stated that she liked the idea of having representation by districts but was open to suggestions.

Senator Reents asked if an appointing authority drew lot #l, does that mean they get to choose which district they will select their representative from. Ms. Bennion said there will be a pot with six numbers in it. The secretary of state will say in what order the appointing authorities draw and the person who has the first choice could say they want to make the appointment from District 5 and then do so. Cochair Darrington felt that in this committee's first meeting it was Representative Fields contention that counties like Owhyee, which she represents, frequently don't have a say in these kinds of matters. Yet in this proposal, in which shw helped craft the district Owhyee County is in it is dominated by Canyon County which has more people by far than the rural counties around it. Representative Field said she had no objection to having Owhyee grouped with a larger county but she wanted to have it in a contiguous area so that the person selected would know the area. She doesn't want to have someone selected from the Coeur d'Alene area to represent Owhyee County. Cochair Darrington pointed out that during the 1990 reappointment effort, every member of that committee knew every precinct and every community of interest in the state of Idaho. One person basically drew up the plan that was very close to the final plan adopted and he came from the Pocatello area. Representative Alexander told Representative Field he understood her intent but after looking at the list in District 6 he doubts that if someone who might be selected from Bear Lake County or Lincoln County would know at the time of selection about the whole area comprising District 6. The intent is to have an impartial group who will look at the benefits for the entire state rather than representing one region. Representative Field agreed with Representative Alexander when he said it shouldn't be political, but she is not sure it will ever not be political. No matter what group you have it will be political. She would just feel more comfortable with going to someone in her District area rather than having to go to someone from up north or eastern Idaho who are not even familiar with her side of the state. Senator Reents stated that she also understood Representative Field's point of view but her concern is that the appointing authorities are going to be looking for people who they feel will bring expertise and perspective to the commission, who will be fair and work well with others rather than be from a particular region of the state. She feels that those making the appointments will try to have some geographic representation and come to the group with several names. Senator Reents isn't sure we want the people on the reapportionment commission to represent only one area of the state. Their primary task is to come up with an reapportionment plan for the entire state and that means they will need to learn a lot about parts of the state they are not from. Representative Fields said she understands what Senator Reents is saying but when the appointing authorities make nominations for the position, do they know who is really qualified or is it just going to be political strategy?

Cochair Deal asked if there were further comments and then asked the committee to move to section 72-1505 which deals with the organization and procedure. This section deals with how the commissioners elect a chairman or cochairman. Cochair Darrington feels that Ms. Bennion has written into this section the only possible thing we can do regarding the chairman situation. There is no other option but to leave it in the hands of the commission to select the chairman and the cochairmen and this is an excellent procedure.

Cochair Darrington pointed out in 72-1506 under criteria governing plan we have numbers (1), (2), (3) and (4) and under number (4) you have (a) though (e). He asked Ms. Bennion to explain why the numbers don't just keep going (5), (6), (7), (8) and (9). Ms. Bennion said that at the last meeting the committee adopted the plan that had been adopted by the committee in 1990. She did not know why it was done this way, but she followed what had been approved by the committee. Cochair Darrington said that his contention is that he can't find a difference and would propose the following. The first would be to delete (a) through (e) and continue on with the numbering system. Next in paragraph number (3) the second sentence: "The plan must not be constructed to protect a particular political party or a particular incumbent legislator." is about the same as sub-paragraph (d) "Counties shall not be divided to protect a party or an incumbent." We should strike the sentence in number (3) but leave sub-paragraph (d) in, and let it assume it's natural number. The second proposal is take sub-paragraph (e): "To the maximum extent possible, district shall preserve communities of interest." and move it to beginning of the section and make it number (1) and then allow the numbers to simply fall into place. Representative Alexander asked Cochair Darrington if he saw much difference between (e) and number (3)? Cochair Darrington said that yes he does because (e) says we won't gerrymander and he feels "community of interest" is an entirely different subject than "gerrymander". Representative Alexander felt that maybe we could combine these two sentences, but he does agree it should be moved to number (1) in the section. Cochair Darrington said that he had no problem with striking "or communities of interest" in the first sentence of number (3) and leaving (e) "communities of interest" as a separate item. Senator Reents feels that the language in (4) (d) is not quite as broad as the language in (3) where it talks about the "plan" in full. She feels the language should be more inclusive about the plan as a whole instead of just related to the splitting of counties. Cochair Darrington has no problem with taking the phrase out of (3) and puting in down in (4) (d). He went on to explain why he wanted to move preserving the communities of interest to the top of the list. Even though these criteria are going to be of equal value, we all know that when we read things it is automatically assumed that the one listed first has the highest priority and so on down the line. Senator Sorensen stated she feels that number (1) should stay as number (1) and place (d) as number (2) and start re-numbering from there. She also feels that number (4) should be deleted because it makes a statement about the criteria for the legislative districts but (a) through (e) states the criteria to be followed. Cochair Darrington said he has no problem with the suggestions made by Senator Sorensen. Ms. Bennion pointed out that the original criteria adopted by the reapportionment committee in 1990 dealt with state redistricting and congressional redistricting. In this draft there is one little sentence at the end of 72-1506 that talks about congressional districts. Congressional districts are somewhat different than state districts. There are more federal guidelines and a tighter definition of equal population. You would also want most of the criteria for state re-districting when dealing with congressional districts. Ms. Bennion pointed out that very few of the federal standards are statutory standards. They are Supreme Court decisions and are open to interpretation. Representative Alexander asked Ms. Bennion to explain the language in number (4) (a). Ms. Bennion said that sentence deals with splitting counties. If the county is not wholly within a district it could be divided among districts, but, if possible, only put it into two districts not four. Cochair Darrington said this provision was very important to the 1990 reapportionment committee and we still ended up with eleven or twelve counties divided. An effort was made not to divide small counties into numerous districts. Senator Darrington moved, Senator Sorensen seconded that the issue of congressional district be moved into the lead-in sentence with language agreed upon by the committee. Number (1) paragraph remain number (1). That (e) dealing with community of interest be moved to number (2) paragraph and all others be placed in numerical order. In the present number (3) strike the last four words "or communities of interest". Rework number (4) which talks about the plan to avoid drawing districts oddly shaped and have Ms. Bennion clean up any grammatical errors. The motion carried.

Ms. Bennion requested that in 72-1508, which deals with the final report, the words at the end of the first sentence "whichever is later" be removed. They conflict with the original purpose of extending the time period by leaving some flexibility in that date. The legislation would say that the report would be filed within 90 days after the commission has been organized. Cochair Deal felt that this can be done by consensus of the committee.

Representative Alexander discussed 72-1501 and pointed out that the real driver for reapportionment is when the census information becomes available. Senator Reents pointed out the second paragraph of 72-1502, should a vacancy occur, that vacancy will be filled by the original appointing authority within fifteen days. Her concern is, if there has been a change in the person who is the state party chairman is this language broad enough to define the appointing authority at the time of vacancy. Ms. Bennion said that the appointment is tied to the position not the person. Senator Reents went on to comment that at the last meeting we discussed that someone who has served on the reapportionment commission be precluded from running for either the house or senate and we have put that in this legislation. But we didn't make any recommendation in this area for Congress and she is trying to remember the reason for not doing so. Cochair Darrington said that it would be possible for a member of the reapportionment commission to draw himself a state legislative district, but it would be impossible for them to draw a congressional district. Ms. Bennion stated that we should not specify the qualifications for federal office holders.

Cochair Deal asked if there was any more discussion on the two draft pieces of legislation before us and felt it was time to make a decision. Representative Field said that she hoped that something could be put into the legislation as a guidepost for looking at districts. Ms. Bennion suggested that a sentence could be inserted in the legislation stating that the appointing authorities shall give consideration to a broad diversity in the state of Idaho. Cochair Darrington said he would go for that if we left the word 'diversity' out of it. Senator Darrington moved, Senator Sorensen seconded to add a sentence in the legislation which says that the appointing authority give some consideration toward geographic representation in the state of Idaho. Senator Reents asked if there were other representations that we would want the appointing authority to consider. Representative Alexander feels that this additional language is unnecessary. Senator Reents doesn't feel the language would be binding but it would suggest that the appointing authority develop several names to choose from. We would hope that they would give some consideration to geographic area. The motion carried.

Senator Darrington moved, Senator Sorensen seconded to accept RSSDB308 as amended. The motion carried. Ms. Bennion asked if it was the chairmen's pleasure to have her redraft the legislation, circulate it to all committee members for approval, and then if it's acceptable prepare a final report. The committee had discussed that in the content of the final report, this committee recommend to the Legislative Council to consider funding for proper technology for the support staff and the reapportionment commission during the next reapportionment.

Cochair Darrington said that after the legislative draft, we have agreed upon today, has been circulated to all the members then the cochairmen will get together to decide when to introduce the legislation.

No further business coming before the committee Cochair Deal thanked everyone for their help and adjourned the committee.