Sitkans for Responsible Government v. City & Borough of Sitka
274 P.3d 486
| Alaska | 2012Background
- In 2008, Sitka petitioned to repeal Sawmill Cove special land-disposal procedures and require conformity with Title 18 for all land transactions there.
- Sawmill Cove is a Board-controlled, Sitka-managed site created for economic development, with broad Board powers to operate, develop, budget, and dispose of property.
- Under current law, Sawmill Cove disposals require only Board action with assembly support, while large general land transactions require voter referenda; Sitka voters must approve high-value disposals.
- The petition would remove the Board’s special authority and apply standard Title 18 procedures to Sawmill Cove, including voter referenda for certain disposals.
- Sitka clerk denied the petition twice as confusing, misleading, and inconsistent with existing law; sponsors sued for an order to place the initiative on the ballot, with a superior court ruling upholding the denial on two grounds.
- The Alaska Supreme Court reversed, holding the petition was not contrary to law and not misleading or confusing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition is contrary to existing law or charter | Litman argues petition does not create new law and aligns with existing ordinances | Sitka asserts petition would conflict with the Sitka Charter and existing law | Not contrary to law; petition valid |
| Whether the petition language is confusing or misleading | Sponsors contend the petition clearly states its purpose and changes | Sitka argues the petition is misleading/inaccurate about Charter implications | Petition language not confusing or misleading |
| Whether the right to petition was violated | Alaska Constitution rights apply to state initiatives; municipal action governed by statute | Municipal charter/statutes govern local initiatives and do not violate constitutional rights | Not violated; charter/statutory framework applicable |
| Whether the petition improperly dispenses with referendum requirements | Petition brings Sawmill Cove into conformity with general land-disposal rules | Petition impermissibly creates blanket compulsory referendum without proper signatures | Not improper; it aligns with existing general referendum framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitson v. Anchorage, 608 P.2d 759 (Alaska 1980) (upholds clerk denial when petition conflicted with higher law)
- Faipeas v. Municipality of Anchorage, 860 P.2d 1214 (Alaska 1993) (describes description requirements for petitions and accuracy standards)
- Med. Marijuana v. Municipality of Anchorage, 129 P.3d 898 (Alaska 2006) (legal sufficiency of petition descriptions; clarity and fairness)
- Carmony v. McKechnie, 217 P.3d 818 (Alaska 2009) (constitutional look at local initiatives and related standards)
- Pebble Ltd. P'ship ex rel. Pebble Mines Corp. v. Parnell, 215 P.3d 1064 (Alaska 2009) (deference to initiative/ballot procedures; standards for review)
- Ulmer v. Alaska Rest. & Beverage Ass'n, 33 P.3d 773 (Alaska 2001) (mootness and ballot initiative considerations)