Alliance of Concerned Taxpayers, Inc. v. Kenai Peninsula Borough
2012 Alas. LEXIS 52
| Alaska | 2012Background
- In Oct 2007 voters approved term-limit propositions for the Borough Assembly (Prop 2) and School Board (Prop 3).
- Propositions prohibited consecutive-term incumbents from serving another term until three years after the second term.
- Five incumbents were reelected in 2007 despite the term-limit provisions, triggering a dispute over applicability.
- ACT filed for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking application of both initiatives to the 2007 election and vacancy for the incumbents.
- The Borough challenged validity of the initiatives and their applicability; ACT sought attorney's fees if successful.
- The superior court split: Prop 3 invalid; Prop 2 invalid as applied to 2007 but valid generally; no prevailing party named; fees denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ACT prevailed on the main issues to warrant prevailing-party status | ACT prevailed on Prop 2 validity and applicability. | Borough prevailed on Prop 2 as applied to 2007 and Prop 3 validity. | No prevailing party; both prevailed on distinct main issues. |
| Constitutional/statutory basis for term limits on school board | State law permits school-board term limits. | School-board term limits are not authorized by statute. | Prop 3 invalid; school-board term limits not authorized by statute. |
| Validity of Prop 2 and its application to the October 2007 election | Prop 2 is valid and applicable to 2007 | Prop 2 burdens rights and cannot apply to the 2007 election. | Prop 2 valid generally but not as applied to the 2007 election. |
| Whether applying Prop 2 to the 2007 election violated voters’ or candidates’ rights | Application did not unconstitutionally burden rights. | Application would nullify voters’ choices and burden rights. | Application to 2007 was unconstitutional; severed from Prop 2 for 2007. |
| Entitlement to attorney's fees under AS 09.60.010(c) as a prevailing litigant | ACT is a public-interest litigant asserting a constitutional right. | Local initiative power is statutory, not constitutional; no fees under § 09.60.010(c). | No entitlement to fees under AS 09.60.010(c); local initiative power is statutory. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fernandes v. Portwine, 56 P.3d 1 (Alaska 2002) (prevailing-party standards; reasonable discretion reviewed for abuse)
- Tobeluk v. Lind, 589 P.2d 873 (Alaska 1979) (main-issues approach; prevailing party when appropriate)
- Progressive Corp. v. Peter ex rel. Peter, 195 P.3d 1083 (Alaska 2008) (standard for prevailing party and fee-shifting considerations)
- K & K Recycling, Inc. v. Alaska Gold Co., 80 P.3d 702 (Alaska 2003) (definition of prevailing party; nuanced outcomes when both sides succeed)
- Taylor v. Moutrie-Pelham, 246 P.3d 927 (Alaska 2011) (recognizes issue-raising in complaint may define main issues)