Alaska Legislative Council v. Knowles

COUNCIL, LEGISLATIVE ALASKA

Appellant/Cross-Appellee, KNOWLES, in his official Tony

Governor State

capacity as Governor Boyer, his official

Alaska, Mark Adminis

capacity as Commissioner Alaska, Appel the State

tration

lees/Cross-Appellants. S-8842, S-8851.

Nos. Alaska.

Supreme Court

April20,2001.

368 nonetheless passages

invalid, the struck were held, because invalid, requirement constitution's they violated approp confined bills ? judg independent our Applying riations2 issues, we con constitutional ment violated passages the five three clude four the and clause confinement the the challenged on been have vetoes not were passages the grounds that basis. invalid are "items" PROCEEDINGS AND II. FACTS Alaska the bills Among the chapters 1997 were in enacted legislature Tony July 1997 Governor In and 1003 bills two signed these Knowles gover invoking the law, only after but into specif striking out and power veto item nor's vetoes, these Five of them. 4 parts ic challenged are subjects, three relating to Agency, Affairs Legislative Finley, Pamela ap relevant the A contains Appendix here. Juneau, Appellant/Cross-Appellee. for words vetoed the and shows propriations Gaguine, B. and John L. Baldwin James form. strikeout M. General, Bruce Attorneys Assistant Juneau, Ap- Legislative General, for Alaska the Attorney Botelho, In October Com Knowles Governor sued pellees/Cross-Appellants. Council Boyer Mark Administration missioner Justice, MATTHEWS, Chief Before seeking a decla governor") (collectively "the BRYNER, and FABE, EASTAUGH, Coun invalid. were vetoes ration CARPENETI, Justices. asserted governor terclaiming, OPINION Consti Alaska violated vetoed parties Both clause.5 tution's EASTAUGH, Justice. judgment. summary for moved I. INTRODUCTION superior opinion, well-reasoned In a gov Knowles, invoking the Tony Governor were (1) vetoes of the four that: held court power constitutionally granted ernor's be veto item of the bills, struck invalid exercises "items" veto "item" not language was vetoed cause five descriptive toas "item" issue reaching the (the not court in' 1997. enacted Alaska (2) veto one appropriation); fifth invalid, as vetoes constitutionally Were suffi did governor because invalid declared, because either (3) despite objections; explain his ciently "items" were passages vetoes, five vetoed all five invalidity of the ex adequately did because invalid nonetheless were were passages if the And vetoes?1 his plain vetoes SLA chs. 3. See (''The § 15 II, art. Const. Alaska 1. See He legislature. by passed bills may appropria- veto, I1, items or reduce by strike may, art. Const. Alaska 4. - See bill, with a any vetoed return shall He bills. tion of ori- house objections, his statement II, parties § 13. The Const. art. Alaska gin."). counter- governor's treat agreed to later legis- defenses, question of avoid claims ("Bills appro- II, § 13 art. Const. Alaska -See ' immunity. lative appropriations."). confined be priations shall they violated the constitution's "confinement provisions tutional implicated here.13 We requirement clause" bills therefore reach the merits of appeals. confined appropriations; There is a second mootness issue. In Part passages invalid were severable from the re 1II.C.3, we hold that the vetoed language in mainder of their bills.6 the three Alaska Seafood Marketing Insti- appeal.7 Both sides (ASMT) tute appropriations violated the con- finement clause. holding technically III, DISCUSSION any question moots about validity those vetoes. And our A. conclusions in Standard Parts Review IILC.1 and IILE.1-that four of the struck appeals These raise constitutional is passages were not "items"-also moot the sues of law which we decide applying our dispute about adequacy independent judgment.8 In doing so we will objections " statements of passages. those adopt 'a reasonable practical and interpre again, But public the interest exception to tation in accordance with common sense' the mootness doctrine prompts us to consider upon based plain 'the meaning purpose and these issues. of provision the and the intent of the frame Moreover, rs'"9 because ques these are C. The Alaska Marketing Insti- Seafood law, tions of we will precedent, consider rea tute Appropriations son, policy.10 and legislature The enacted three appropria B. Mootness tions for ASMI.14Each contained identical language which made the governor The argues that the issues "[clontingent on having [ASMI] employ no relating to validity the of his vetoes are moot ees who are located outside Alaska whose because year the fiscal at issue is now over. positions are classified at more than Range But agree we with the council that we should 21 on the state salary schedule under AS consider these issues under public the inter 15 89.27.011...." governor struck this exception est to the mootness doctrine.11 language from the three ASMI appropria Appropriations are every year enacted and tions. are spent often any before dispute can reach 2Further, court.1 public the interest is Although it held that governor the ade- directly affected disputes about the consti quately explained objections, his superior the 6. As to other vetoes not at issue appeals, in these 12. See Thomas (Alas- v. Rosen, 569 P.2d 793, 795 the court held that the 1977) ("[A] council's chal- ka challenge to an may item veto lenges moot, were appropriated because the come within sufficient fully time litigate to the money already had spent. been matter...."). 7. We commend all counsel quality for the of 13. Fordice v. Bryan, So.2d 998, Cf. their briefs arguments. and oral (Miss.1995) ("[PJublic policy magnitude and the importance of the of these require[ issues ] this Botelho, 8. See 1126, Cook v. (Alas- 921 P.2d Court to review the Governor's actions with re- 1996). ka spect bills as such .... actions repeated continue to be and forever 9. Alaska, Id. at (quoting 1128-29 Arco Inc. v. escape review State, 708, (Alaska 1992)). 98, 6, 1997; § See ch. 47, 70, SLA §§ ch. Langdon Champion, See (Alaska SLA 1997. 1988). chapter Section 70 of 100 amends chapter section 6 of State, Kodiak Processors Ass'n v. Seafood (Alaska 1995). P.2d 1191, 1196 1997; Ch. 47, 70, SLA public §§ ch. exception interest requires (1) us to consider: the SLA 1997. salary The state specifies schedule possibility of repetition recurrence or twenty-six is- ranges, labeled thirty. five to See AS sue; (2) danger the that mootness 39.27.011(a). would re- In 1997 Range Step A em- peatedly issue; circumvent review of the and ployee $4,155 paid was to be monthly, subject to importance the public the issue to the interest. cost-of-living adjustments. 39.27.011(a), See AS See id. at 1196. (e), (£)(1996). language descriptive "the veto attempt to held appropriated. amount specify does appro- the ASMI language" contingency It not. it does held superior court effect," rea- noof "illegal and was priations encompasses power veto item "the held encompass power veto item "the soning that sums or strike reduce to power 'only the sums strike reduce to power only the es 1 agree. 8We money." disputed nonetheless money." It meaning of violated analysis its inclusion focuses because Our what addressed never bave clause. "item." confinement the item in context means "item" are vetoes argues not define does constitution Our power. vetoed invalid, because term. Alaska meaning of the within "item" consti of our Constitution, because on the also Based and to objections his item state adequately purposes tution, historical failed constitu- contrary policy consid language, public pertinent vetoed veto, vetoes responds as "a sum "item" erations, define now tion. we purpose." event, particular any that, in dedicated valid were inclusion its invalid Alaska Con with the begins analysis Our violated bills gives It stitution. clause. gives It appropriate."21 legislate 20 state's influence power the governor "item"? an vetoed Is the 1. a submit her to him or by requiring budget appropriation general Alaska Consti budget the and II, 15 of proposed section Article striking or by and legislature 22 the exercise to to power bill governor the gives tution legislatu by the appropriated first sen Its reducing items vetoes. types of different two is power veto item governor's a veto power re.23 to general the confers tence can governor pow bill,"16 the limitation. of confers one thus sentence second Its constitution the away, in but items take reduce veto, or strike delete er, "by [to] 17 to to add power is this here governor At issue the give bills." does appropria the purposes other by exercis items" or divert reduce or "strike to power legislature. by the parts other enacted tions approving while veto item ing the bill. same earli with our consistent is approach This budgetary governor's the of er discussion veto item the is question noted we Rosen v. Thomas In power. an from strike to governor the permits power Carlson, 478 Faculty Org. bill."); v. Inter tion ("The governor § II, art. Const. Alaska 16. (defining of "item (Minn.1991) N.W.2d He legislature. by the passed may veto bills specific statute of context within appropriation" appropria- veto, in items or reduce strike may, of sum identifiable separate and "a as a bill, with return any He shall bills. tion dedicated general fund the appropriated of ori- house the objections, his of statement Dodson, v. Commonwealth purpose"); specific a gin."). (defining (1940) 11 S.E.2d Va. "an indivis- bill" an an "item Id. 17. pur- a stated money dedicated of sum ible pose"). Legis- State the Alaska Rules The Uniform 18. in an item "[aln state lature an allocation, § fiem, an 1. II, line a art. includes Const. bill Alaska See 20. - State Alaska Rules Uniform appropriation." (1998). definition 42(c) But Legislature R. State II, art. Const. Alaska See Cf. "item" an what constitutes address does 1140, 1142- Borough, N. Star Fairbanks power. item veto the context the ap- recognizing 1987) (implicitly (Alaska can- legislature and power resides propriation Justice, U.S. Secretary Bengzon v. executive). Cf. delegated to not be 414-15, 81 LEBd. S.Ct. obviously ("An an item IX, § 12. art. Const. Alaska 22. See appro specific is a itself which in an item means provision of money, not some priation of II, § art. Const. Alaska appropria- put into happens to be law Alaska's constitutional convention delegates ting appropriations never ena intended to "create strong a cted.28 executive branch strong 'a control on purse strings' of The definition we adopt here also seems the state." 24But gives this control gov most consistent with the words of our consti ernor no appropriation power. The item First, tution. power expressly applies to permits veto governor only tighten or "items in appropriation bills."29 The word close the purse state's strings, not to loosen conveys "item" a notion of unity between two them or to divert funds for a use legisla essential elements of an appropriation: ture did not approve. governor's power amount purpose.30 and the Altering pur purse control the strings fully is realized pose of the appropriation by striking descrip by recognizing governor's constitutionally tive words interferes with that unity because defined-and limited-role in the appropria the result longer no the item legisla process. ture enacted. In comparison, striking amount is equivalent argues complete veto particular item power appropriation. negative.25 And agree. reducing expressly True, amount is a result striking out language constitution might be charac permi terized as an positive ts.31 act of creation to some extent; in the broadest sense a new bill Second, governor may either "strike" results. But such characterizations are se or "reduce" an item. Reduction implies dim mantic. Our constitution does give inution. suggests that an item reduc power to rewrite appropriation tion must quantitative have a effect, implying except bills by striking or reducing items, that reduction must affect appropriation's and if the constitutional delegates had in amount. -It seems unlikely that the constitu give tended to to add tional drafters intended the word "item" to divert, they easily could have done so.26 have two widely divergent meanings, one in corporating the essential element of amount The council argues also that the item veto not, the other depending on whether a power is an executive legislative exercise of governor chooses to reduce or strike."32We power, and therefore should strictly be con therefore think that "item" was intended to strued. Professor Briffault reasons that include the element of amount. arguments such fail recognize to the differ ence between the item veto and the traditional Third, phrase "strike or reduce" ve to.27 However the item power veto is implies also greater/lesser a relationship be characterized, we conclude that it was in tween these two forms of exercising the item tended only to limit legislature's appro power. veto Reducing an appears item to be priation power, not grant to the executive a a lesser form of striking an item. This im quasi-legislative appropriation power permit plies that these two forms are qualitatively Rosen, 24. Thomas (Alaska Consider, 28. example, the effect striking of 1977) (quoting 3 Proceedings of the Alaska Con- from appropriation's an descriptive language a (PACC) (Jan. 11, Convention stitutional negative, limiting a date for expending the mon- 1956)). ey, or one purposes. of several 25. e.g., See, Caldwell v. Meskill, 164 Conn. 299, IL, 29. Alaska Const. § art. (1973). A.2d 788, 791-92 26. During discussion of the item veto, one dele- ("Bills AS 24.08.030 appropriation Cf. ... gate cautioned that governor while the should be shall include the amount pur- involved and the allowed to veto an bill, item in an pose. ..."). he should not be "entitled right to (Jan. amend." 3 PACC 1956). II, See Alaska Const. art. imply minutes do not any that delegate intended give item veto to governor power to Andrus, affirmatively Cenarrusa v. appropriations. amend 99 Idaho ("Obviously the word Briffault, 27. Richard The Item Veto in State item given can not be different meanings within Courts, Temp. (1993). L.Rev. sentence."). the same have an veto item states ie., they Other effects, equivalent have and similar definitions.35 judicial of range a nounced Redue- appropriated. amount diminish these considers Briffault Richard Professor amount; striking its lessens item ing an ap three reflect to definitions implies This nothing. to its amount lessens (1) favoring describes he which proaches, money. of a sum include must "item" an that and legislative (2) balancing legislature, a include not does Likewise, passage a (8) favoring the or prerogatives, executive pur arparticular to money dedicated of "sum adopt to urges us governor executive.36 which "item" an not is pose" executive; favoring the approach an Therefore, veto a reduce. or strike can favoring approach adopt an us to asks amount reduce or delete not does adopted court legislature. exercise a valid not money appropriated legisla favoring the generally approach an grants. II, section article power recognizes, Briffault Professor As ture. easy "resist decisions however, veto item item, or of the purposes historical cate three-approach classification," his and It analysis. our support also veto partial, oversimplification." "enormous risks gorization prevent to measure reform aas originated to require us not does 37 case they enact when "logrolling" legislators approaches. any adopt necessarily address bills way in a "item" a defined to have Many confined courts not be need subjects and many an the amount makes some governors give to subject, single They reason the item."38 part essential an These expenditures.33 state limit ability to "negative" power is a veto item amount at the directed most seem purposes authority to limiting the power, Permitting a appropriation. anof creative through the legislation new create limit not language would descriptive strike held: As one vetoes. of item use And, budget. a help balance or expenditures power is the veto partial power only de language that striking although or a power, negative a This is disapprove. doing so logrolling, reduce might scriptive item, or destroy part a or delete power For amount. purpose, only alter would aor power, positive a and is result below, could discussed reasons effect increase alter, enlarge or legis with what at odds Thus, par items.... or remaining parts passed. lature it elimi so exercised must tial item or anof destroys whole reading of nates disfavors policy public Finally, legislative distort executive does permit part "item" in legislation create intent, effect legislature's substantively alter branch Legis by the enacted consistent resulting in effectively bills, words, striking of careful lature, by the protec without passed or sentences [39] clauses phrases, contemplates.34 constitution our mem- majority of the aof vote an affirmative 252; 57 S.Ct. 415, U.S. at Bengzon, 299 See 33. bership house. of each Briffault, also 1091; see at P.2d Cenarrusa, 582 Wells, The Roger H. 1177-80; 27, at note supra 27, Briffault, 1184-85. at supra note See 35. Pol. Reform, 18 Am. Budget State Veto Item Briffault 782, (1924). Professor 786 Rev. Sci. adding at 1184-98. See id. practice 36. as "the "logrolling" describes by supported provisions single bill a together in legislative a to create order legislators in various at 1184. 37. Id. Briffault, 1177. at supra note majority." - (defining Dodson, at 127 See, SE.2d 11 eg., "an indivis- as bill" Consti- Alaska an 14 of "item in an II, section article See - pur- a stated tution, part: money providing in dedicated sum ible pose"). passed has unless may law become bill No days, separate on house readings each three 86 N.M. Sego v. Kirkpatrick, ex rel. from State may advanced be any bill except omitted); (citations see day by same reading on third second (Iowa 479, 482 Ray, 362 N.W.2d v. Rush also con- house three-fourths concurrence negative one is a power 1985) ("[The governor's without law may become sidering No it. A few states define "item" as something confinement policies clause in defining an less than coupling of a sum purpose. and a "item."46 Doing so problematic. seems example An is found in State ex rel. Wiscon First, it allows governor to exercise the sin Senate v. Thompson.40 The Wisconsin item veto not because the struck passage is Supreme Court there held governor that "the an item of appropriation, but because it is may, in the exercise of partial his veto au not,"47i.e., because the struck language vio thority over appropriation bills, veto individu lates requirement that appropriation bills words, al digits letters and ... long as "be confined to appropriations." Second, what remains after veto is a complete, entire, allowing governor to veto language be and workable law." No other state seems governor cause the thinks it violates the con to have lead, followed Wisconsin's although finement clause would confer on the chief the Washington Supreme Court held in executive an amendatory power Alaska's con Washington State Legislature v. Lowry that stitution grant. does not We are therefore Governor's line item "tlhe veto should ex unpersuaded by relying cases on this ratio tend to provisos nondollar in appropriations nale. Lowry, on which governor bases bills." much of argument, his is among these A few prefer courts cases.49 An to focus on the assertion that cireum- a bill violates the stances of particular appropriation provi clause should be by resolved sion at issue. debate squarely As in focusing Colorado issue, General As rath sembly Lamm,43 er by than allowing courts determine confinement clause to that whether there used subject is an gubernatorial "item" enhance a power item power veto having accomplished "best different historical origins. on a case-by-casebasis." Applying the "item" here, definition Each approach has benefits and we conclude that the language struck from approach drawbacks. An more favorable to ASMI "item." the executive certainly would advance the It does not appropriate a sum item veto's purposes. historic But our defini dedicated to a purpose. stated By striking tion of "item"-"a sum money dedicated to language, governor was not vetoing particular purpose"-does prevent by striking or reducing, but rather editing using the item veto for those appropriations. Upholding these purposes. We are persuaded therefore not vetoes give would power by Professor suggestion Briffault's spend appropriated monies without observing result erode the item anti-logrolling veto's limitations by enacted legislature. etion.45 fun permit a de facto re-appropriation. Courts upholding gubernatorial item ve Granting power here would not advance toes have sometimes done by so invoking the anti-logrolling and budget-balancing pur that does not legislate allow him to striking (citations Id. at omitted). qualifications in a manner which legisla distorts intent."); tive Ray, Welden v. 229 N.W.2d 45. See Briffault, note 27, at supra (Iowa 1975) (" 'It is obvious that the item does not contemplate striking out 46. See Welsh v. Branstad, 470 N.W.2d 644, 649- items, conditions and restrictions alone as (Iowa 1991) (inquiring as to provi whether that would be legislation, affirmative whereas the sion was related to neighboring appropriation};

governor's power veto strictly is a negative pow- Edwards, Henry 153, (La. 346 1977) So.2d 158 ") er, not a creative (quoting power.' Note, Item (inquiring as to provision general was Veto Amendment to the Iowa Constitution, 18 legislation more appropriately dealt with else Drake (1969)). L.Rev. 245, 249-50 where). 40. 144 Wis.2d (1988). 429, 424 N.W.2d 385 47. Lowry, See 931 P.2d at 896. (citations 41. Id. at omitted). 388 II, 48. Alaska Const. § art. 13. See Part infra 309, 42. 131 885, Wash.2d (1997). HLC.3. 43. 704 (Colo.1985). P.2d 1371 931 P.2d at Lowry, 896. Outside efforts marketing to impediment veto, because item the underlying

poses crisis, pro fish salmon current during the of amount the reduce not did vetoes these board fishers, ASMI the cessors, appropriations. ASMI the excep prudent as a this veto me to urged III.C.3-that Part in conclusion Our jobs having state of rule general the to tion of part constitutionally be cannot passages Alaska."[54] in located analy- our not alter bills-does concerning message veto governor's The pas- if these Even issue. "item" the of sis appro ASMI chapter the became what clause, the violate not sages did "intent" same the contained priations item the subject to "items" not be they would in above, did but quoted first objection veto. set the sort of explanation separate a clude did governor the above."55 hold indented therefore quotation We in the out item the exercise validly although the argues council The three the from struck he when to objections his stated adequately governor appropriations. ASMI ap the ASMI language he the the objection to 98, his chapter in propriation a constitu- deliver governor the 2. Did appropri ASMI two in the identical objec- statement adequate tionally of invali inadequate, chapter in ations ASMI vetoed held 'The vetoes. dating those 100? chapter of notice adequate had legislature the bill, chapter 100 governor's "any vetoed the for return reasons must the governor The the both the it received objections, because his vetoes of ASMI a statement the objection decided never have chapter origin." of house "lit at objections satisfy chapter the complete do must more governor what minute." requirement. erally same objections" of "statement no "adequate objects to council became ASMI three governor argues that theory. It The veto 100.52 tice" chapters of parts legislature give required be should chapter became concerning what message to each objections of notice specific FY98 on final action taking "In stated: the sufficien about questions constant avoid long-standing a I followed budget, operating a argues that also cy of notice. lan vetoing intent of tradition gubernatorial objections unclear provide might governor appropriate it is because guage untimely making delay and of purposes also for message That bill"53 6The veto5 to override attempt any stated: argu legislature's asserts purported vetoed I also substance, because over form elevates ment condi make at submitted were this case vetoes employees level upper having no on tional minute." same "the violates it state outside located explain requirement appro placed limits constitutional two least at serves a veto reasons unnecessary any prevent To bills. priation "immediately" and meet must 56. IL, § 15. art. Const. Alaska 50. - if item bill or vetoed passage of reconsider con also Chapter regular session 6, during message § SLA 1997. Ch. a veto 51. receives provi II, § Center Community Residential art. Const. Alaska See legislature. tains regular the first § SLA 1997. adjournment ch. See after sions. Bills no be reconsidered legislature shall session Chapter 100 47, 70, SLA §§ Ch. regular day the next fifth than later provi- Center Treatment Valdez contains also ve- and bills legislature, special session 74(a), SLA ch. See sions. regular second adjournment after toed than later no reconsidered shall session 1993. Journal House 1997 53. legislature, if special session day of a fifth 1994. Journal House 54. 1997 id. See called. one is 2114. Journal Senate 1997 376 principal functions. It legislature allows the ture, through knowledge accumulated to determine what it must do to avoid ineur- dealing with governor, capable of in- ring another veto."57 And it forces gover terpreting the sufficiency of objection, an nor to reveal his or her reasoning, "so that and is thus able to decide whether to enact Legislature

both the people and the might an amended appropriation or to seek a veto know whether or not he was by motivated override. It is no less able judicia- than the disapproval." conscientious convictions in recording his ry to compare governor's words and the 58 struck language to decide for itself whether We need not by decide receipt motivated of the "conscien- explanation tious for chapter convictions." And gave 98 veto the ultimate arbiter "adequate question notice" governor's is the objec- electorate. chapter 100, because we hold that way best to resolve disputes such governor's objection "intent" for chapter is to apply the "minimum of coherence" stan 100 was itself sufficient. dard when reviewing gubernatorial objec accept for discussion's sake the coun- tions. The Colorado Supreme adopted Court argument cil's governor's chapter this approach in Romer v. Colorado General 100 objection "intent" would have been clear- Assembly,59 adopt and we it here for Alaska. er if it had disclosed whether Under approach, courts look to see would also consider validly objection whether the comprehensible makes conditioned an appropriation to be invalid reference provision being vetoed, and intent language. do not attempt to evaluate the reasoning But in our view such a detailed disclosure underlying objection.60 In the words of is not necessary. And attempting to distin- Supreme Colorado Court, "[to disallow a guish objection between an which asserts a veto for complete absence of reasons is to facially ground veto, valid and an identi- establish objective standard-one objection cal which arguably mischaracter- which meddlesome courts tamper." cannot izes language, governor's chapter 100 objec- "intent" complex create case-by-case inter- tion meets the minimum-of-coherence stan- pretive disputes. Subjecting the substantive dard. The language struck chapter adequacy of objection each judicial seruti- can be fairly characterized as "intent" lan- ny would be unavoidably time-consuming. guage, and objection clearly refers to the Judicial involvement would unlikely vetoed passages. We therefore conclude generate bright-line distinctions that would objection is constitutionally ade- provide guidance useful in avoiding future quate. disputes litigation. And ultimately such disputes are inherently political they 3. Does the vetoed language in the implicate the appropriations and budgetary violate powers of legislature executive, and the constitution's clause? political relationship between those government. branches of judiciary has We next consider argument no special competence to settle types violated the confinement of inherently political disputes. We also clause including the vetoed language in think purposes underlying the statement- the three ASMI appropriations. Our consti of-objections requirement do not demand provides tution that "[blills for appropria case-by-case judicial review. legisla- tions shall be confined to appropriations." 57. See Arnett v. Meredith, Id. at (quoting Ky. Rockefeller, Jones v. (1938). S.W.2d 36, 40 W.Va. 303 S.E.2d J., (Neely, dissenting)). Id. (Colo.1992). Alaska Const. art. II, 13; see also AS ("Bills 24.08.030 shall be con- 60. See id. at 1084-85. fined to and shall include

377 Legisla in Alaska State presiding, Carpeneti the boundaries delineated have never We superior court v. Hommond."66 ture this requirement. issues, addressed, among claims other there legis prevents clause The confinement con violated the that eleven policy out enacting substantive from lature wrote superior court clause. finement enacting process eye. public side clause, satisfy confinement that to meaningful opportuni gives bills substantive mini language must be qualifying II, Article and comment. notice ty public Legisla explain the necessary to mum re the Alaska Constitution 14 of section money ap regarding how ture's intent bill, on readings of a substantive quires three " spent. It must to be is propriated that days, 'to ensure separate three expenditures. program of administer and to passing' it is what legislature knows existing amend law or must not enact It expression for the opportunity an ensure 63 life of beyond the not extend It must This law. deliberation." opinion and due public Finally, the appropriation. pro if substantive stifled be opportunity to appropriate, germane, that is must be in bills to are attached visions appropriations bill.67 an legisla other Unlike of conditions. the form subject tion, are court authority superior find the We II, see of article requirement ap single-subject we persuasive,68 and in Hammond cited logrollin avoid meant to requirement tion 13-a as formulation five-part Hammond prove the in an enactments Allowingsubstantive g.64 deciding whether test for a non-exclusive problematic may also be confinement violates appropriation - frequently a are bills this test further elaborate We clause. and, committee free conference product of a applying it. before entirety in their such, voted on must be as "minimum suggests that the The council Con on the floor."65 amended be and cannot sim- language is best understood necessary" noted, superior court sequently, lan- "appropriation requirement ply as a legislator prevents clause confinement when, how, what or on explain guage legislation unpopular seeking to advance Therefore, part of this spent. is to popular burying it requir- simply expressed as test is better of constitution enforcement Strict measure. - legislature's explain the ing will be public helps ensure al limits appropriation." regarding the purpose legislation. proposed fully informed of propo- of these the first agree generally with factor sitions, we believe but applied a superior here permits it of what in terms stated better articulated test first clause factor requires. than what L. rather court, Judge Walter by 1983 nothing involved."" method, else were appropriations and man- purpose, involved amount ner, Barnett, N.W.2d v. Ass'n payment."). Dakota Educ. South related conditions and other (S.D.1998) (quoting v. Frohmil Sellers 386, 769, (1933)). Voluntary, P.2d 666, 24 P.2d 239, Ariz. A.L.I.V.E. ler, 42 v. 63. State 1980) Slope Borough (Alaska (quoting North 534, n. 11 Corp., Legislature Petroleum v. Sohio State Rules Alaska 65. See Uniform (Jan. 1978) (Alaska citing 1751-54 (1998). 3 PACC 42(b)-(d) 1956). (Alaska CI May Super., No. 1JU-80-1163 Comm., 414 Bond v. Alaska State Suber 1983). 1966) (Alaska (noting P.2d prevent the inclusion designed "to requirement at 44-45. 67. - Id. in the matters incongruous and unrelated which the get support for it in order same bill command, 153, 158 So.2d Edwards, v. 68. See Henry might separately subjects several Bd. 1977); Meyer (La. v. State ex rel. State against inadvertence, stealth guard and to Assessment, 185 Neb. Equalization & specifically, legislation"). More fraud (1970); Biles v. Commonwealth 920, 926 Supreme has observed N.W.2d Court Dakota South 274, 403 Welfare, 44 Pa.Cmwlth. Dep't Pub. equivalent is intended clause South Dakota's (1979); Morris, 88 Flanders legislature to be free 1341, 1343 A.2d members allow " (1977). 'knowing appropriation bill 183, 558 Wash.2d on an vote purposes legislature's ability used for limits the other than in specified those include appropriation legislation bill cloaked as a by statute.72 But in Department Edu of "deseription." cation v. SchoolBoard County, Collier of upheld court an appropriation provision that suggests The council that the Ham increased funds for all except schools those quoted mond formulation above is deficient with millage per a value student of more than appropriation because an should be able to twenty percent of the average; statewide change existing subject appro law on the of priations. court argues The council reasoned that appropriated that money the con finement clause is not leg violated when in was addition to the standard education prior appropriation islature amends a in an funding and therefore did not existing amend appropriation act. We believe that this is an law.73 accurate statement of law. But the Ham agree with the council's assertion that mond pre formulation would not seem to the differences between such cases reflect practice any event, clude this in because the the tension between a prevent new desire to appropriation legis- only bill would amend a prior appropriation, "existing not an law." latures using appropriation bills to (even programmatic make changes for a proposes additional illumina year) and the legislatures realization that do prohibition tion of the on enacting or amend not have to fully any fund or program fund ing substantive law. The council characteriz (except, possibly, constitutionally es mandated case law from other states generally programs), may and in fact dictating appropriation that an choose to for a fund statuto ry program programs subject provisions include are to conditions or changing requirements program, contingencies. of that even temporarily purposes for the of that regard With germaneness to the require appropriation.69 The council cites three - ment, usefully council's brief discusses support. Florida in cases Milligan Chiles v. jurisdictions cases from other concerning appropriation considered - - what their confinement permit clauses money have taken to be awarded un prohibit. The council following lists the con statutory der the funding education formula ditions contingencies that state courts adjusted it according to the ratio of upheld have as sufficiently classroom salaries to total salaries.70 The "ger "related" or mane" money (1) appropriated: lim struck this as an enactment of new law.71 In subsequent a its on similarly but amounts that spent could be at an (2) facility; individual case, limits on the number named v. Milligan, Chiles the court employees of for down which the language' could be (3) spent; would have prohibition a allowed education against using the funds to be e.g., 69. See, pay could be used to Lewis, Moreau v. 648 So.2d 126-28 assistance to full-time col ( 1995) (holding provision appropri- lege student participated Fla. who had not in federal ation requiring co-payment pharmacy program dependent children); for Pannell v. expenses invalid) Lewis, Murray Wash.2d 591, 589 Thompson, (Fla.1990) (1979) So.2d (declaring 265-67 require- (upholding 1239-40 appro- limit in priation ment bill on participants spent bill that amount could be program tuition entire program, waiver relief exhaust assistance other even resources invalid). though specified payments statute of certain amounts). (Fla.1995). 659 So.2d 1055, 1056-59 paraphrase 74. We description council's decisions, necessarily without endorsing ei- 71. See id. at 1059. description ther holding its or the result in each cited case. (Fla. 1996). 72. See 682 $o.2d 74, 75-77 support In proposition of this the council cites Department Educ. v. School Bd. Col (Iowa 1975). Welden v. 229 N.W.2d Ray, (Fla. 1981); lier So.2d County, 1011-13 Biles, see also (upholding 403 A.2d at 1342-43 support proposition In of this the council cites provision stating part that no Welden. 1975). (Iowa appears It also 706, 710 (4) construction; require money for new they relate upheld if will be contingencies funds;78 provi to federal related ment nonreceipt specific receipt or edu driver making an sion funds, funds, matching funds, eg., federal a tax the enactment contingent on cation expenditure, to fund intended (6) tax requirement licenses;79 a on drivers' nonoceur- or occurrence to the relate only spent be work contracted funds for that make the something that rence of perform the not laboratory could if state a However, con desirable.... expenditure work.80 other than things relate to tingencies hand, positions. ée The language vetoed therefore b. Administering program germane is not to appropriations. these three The language vetoed specify did not how Given any the absence of relationship, direct appropriations used, these three were to be it is insufficient that language arguably and staffing instead addressed funded under has some relationship-because separate appropriations. ef- generally concerns perfor- ASMI and the fectively program administered ASMI's be- mance of ASMI's ap- duties-to the ASMI cause it limited the executive's exercise of propriations in chapters 98 and 100. staffing discretion in locating executive- operations branch offices whose were funded d. New substantive law by separate appropriations. The court found the vetoed lan Because this specify did not how guage objectionable because it addressed these three spent, were to be law, hire, issue of substantive local that we do not whether, need to decide here legislature repeatedly has addressed with argues, the council appropriation power legislation. substantive agree gives that legislature authority to decide language has the creating effect of

where a "mini- personnel executive-branch will be lo Likewise, local cated. hire law." According legisla we need not decide wheth er, asserts, drafting manual, as the ture's appointment "an bill provisions." contain substantive executive officers is an executive funct ion,90and geographic whether the location of Permitting it to enact policy substantive particular levels of state officials is type one bill imposing conditions supervision" "close government of state on another bill would reduce that essentially executive character.91 public scrutiny and debate which accom pany policy making, and encourage log could

c. Germameness rolling and free-riders to achieve results not argues council politically vetoed lan- in non-appropriation attainable guage germane marketing bills. seafood. 98, 6, 1997; 100, § See ch. SLA ch. SLA agency wants to establish a program, new or usually there must be two bills drafted. One up bill agency program, sets or the other Part III.C.3.c. - infra appropriates money agency pro- for the or gram. The effective date of the (Alas- 90. See Bradner v. Hammond, bill would be tied to the effective date of the 1976). ka related substantive bill. II, A second effect of the Anderson v. Lamm, 195 Colo. limitations of art. Cf. (finding 623-24 that "the mak- sec. of the state constitution, is ing specific staffing and resource allocation drafter including must avoid ap- "riders" on "powers decisions" supervision are of close propriation Money bills. appropri- should be essentially character"). are executive in specific ated purpose program, for a or but further program limitations on the itself must Legislative (1999). Manual Drafting, 35 separate they be in a bill unless can be drafted That manual states: as a lawful appropriation. condition on the These limitations have two basic effects on drafting. One requestor effect is that when pro by municipalities, controlled or legislature owned argues felons. for violent in institutions space vide result accomplished the same have could standards department will meet beds legisla- and that All 'line-item Contracts Centers. Community Residential process. equivalent followed ture competitively bid." will be here followed process think But we passage. in this three sentences all appropria- Line-item equivalent. was vetoes, subject to item have been language an struck CRC 1. Was the required the have and would "item"? each consideration individualized give legislature did budget item. of this that the veto Having decided The vetoed that course. follow invalid because passage was other use of substantively affected here superi- inadequate, explanation veto considered cannot be appropriations, the struck not decide court did chapter 98 merely attached a condition only The council an "item." passage was reaching beyond In appropriations. an item. it was not suggests that tangentially appropriations, to address appear governor does not law. new substantive created appeal. issue in Part of the item discussion Our appropriations the e. Life of appropria- III.C.1, of the ASMI in context whether not state did appropriations These language tions, the clearly indicates expired limitation staffing out-of-state the not appropriation was from the CRC struck vetoed lan- And the year. the fiscal with "item." appropria- how these direct guage does not in- instead It was spent. were to be ob- statement governor's 2. Was the It is appropriations. limit other tended jections adequate? life of unclear whether therefore chapter message for governor's veto The beyond actually extended staffing limitation on the taking final action "In 98 stated: appropriations of the ASMI duration long I followed a budget, operating FY98 chapters 98 and vetoing tradition gubernatorial standing appropriate it is not language because f. conclusion intent ASMI objec Does bill." in an language the vetoed whether Regardless of veto? explain this adequately tion these three beyond life of extend was to not. it did held superior court The the other it violates appropriations, gen- governor's court reasoned The con- therefore factors. Hammond four said objection could not be "intent" eral language in including the vetoed clude that language because vetoed CRC cover and 100ASMI chapter 98 lan- "clearly not intent passage superi- The clause. the confinement violated arguably explanation other and no guage," conclu- correctly the same reached applied. sion. III. in Part above reasons discussed For Ap- Center Community Residential D. interpretation C2, type of this is propriation considering the when avoid should courts a statement sufficiency of constitutional funds to the appropriated legislature The should sim reviewing court objections. The commu for "new of Corrections Department objection makes (CRCs). 93 ap This whether determine ply centers" nity residential provision reference comprehensible following passage: included propriation attempt to eval vetoed, and should beds, being for new CRC appropriation is "This Journal 1997 House 1997. The 39, SLA ch. existing CRCs. appropriated funds separately only veto of appeal concerns CRCs. appropriation for new from reasoning underlying uate the object in balance and finding the fourth favors no ion.95 violation. Further, the struck language does not governor's objection The "intent" meets clearly (no offend the third factor this minimum-of-coherence Hammond standard. enactment of new law or amendment of exist permissibly struck can be charac- law). ing argues that because merely expressing terized as legislature's the words "not owned or controlled mun intent. explanation for veto- icipalities"9 prevented department ing the CRC is therefore constitu- using from to contract tionally adequate. municipalities with provide space, CRC they substantively changed law, existing 3. Did the which allowed the commissioner to contract CRC violate the con- with municipalities.97 responds clause? fFinement 33.830.031(a) that AS allows for public use of Applying the facilities,98 Hammond or private factors and and that a decision to presumption constitutionality type fund facility dis one over the other does III.C.8, cussed in Part we next determine not enact agree new law. We with the coun including passage the struck cil. violat Alaska Statute 38.30.031 authorizes the ed the confinement clause. commissioner to municipalities. contract with But it does require the commissioner to Some of the factors seem to inbe relative put municipalities footing equal pri balance. The qualifying language in the first enterprise vate potential providers of new sentence is necessary the "minimum to ex- space. CRC bed there plain Legislature's intent" about how the fore preclude does not the commissioner money spent. is to be The second sentence from fulfilling department's statutory also describes how the spent, is to be Instead, specifies mandate. type the of but can specify standards; be read to the space money CRC the covers.99 specifies procedures third and does not de- We conclude that the CRC scribe money what the is for. These two does not violate the confinement clause. sentences can be read to administer pro- the gram impose or to requirements substantive 4, Does the language vetoed in the better addressed in a substantive bill. Like- CRC prin- violate the wise, the clearly germane first sentence is ciple separation powers? of appropriate of bill, to an appropriation the may be, second and the third is not. None of The Alaska provides Constitution the language vetoed beyond seems to extend that power "[the executive of the State is the life of governor."100 appropriation. Therefore, vested in the the first, second, and fifth Hammond argues factors are that the vetoed language violates this authority held under Part III.C.2; Romer, of state law or under supra 840 P.2d at 1084-85. agreement (e) entered into under of this sec- tion. If the commissioner determines § suitable Ch. state SLA 1997. correctional facilities are not available, the commissioner enter into an agreement public with a private agency 97. Counsel for the asserted at oral ar- provide necessary gument facilities. here condition violated AS added.) (Emphasis 33.30.031(a), gives the commissioner broad public agencies. to contract with Welden, 229 (holding N.W.2d at 710 Cf. But specify this municipalities. statute does not conditions and restrictions on how is to argument simply why restates spent bills). proper are in 33.30.031(a). this allegedly condition violates AS III, Alaska Const. art. 1. We addressed this 33.30.031(a) 98. AS provides, pertinent part: in Bradner, 553 P.2d provision 3-8, at and the The commissioner shall determine topic separation the avail- powers of generally of in Public ability of state correctional Court, facilities suitable Agency Superior Defender for persons (Alaska 1975). detention and confinement of 950-51 objection adequately ex "intent" govern of principle thus provision veto, question discussed the same his plained it elimi powers because separation mental appro the CRC in context of Part IIILD.2 contract discretion department's nates minimum-of-cobher Applying the priation. space. CRC provide agencies public there, we conclude described ence standard policy decision argues that The council be char passage can The vetoed it did. pub rather than owned CRCs privately fund gover language and the as intent acterized legitimate exercise awas licly CRCs owned the ve coherently refers to objection nor's agree with We power. legislative provision. toed language this held above council. ful department preclude the does language in the the vetoed 8. Does Instead, this statutory mandate. filling its program treatment deci policy permissible language embodies clause? violate confinement money. It the CRC spend how to sion on $400,000 appropriated This bill separation-of- not violate does therefore per "where cost in Valdez program inmate principle. powers costs) (exclusive will treatment day inmate per average cost the statewide exceed Pro- Treatment Therapeutic E. Vaides institutions." day for correctional inmate Appropriation gram language. quoted governor struck in a language violate including vetoed governor vetoed Did Department correct answer funds appropriating clause? confinement obvious, it is not clear primarily because com treatment therapeutic Corrections It is effect, language has. any, this if The vetoed what in Valdez"101 munity program way the it conditions whether unclear efficiency pro refers to simply de- facility run or was to be Valdez legal effect."102 apparently without gram, reading The former program. seribes clause; would violate an "item"? the vetoed 1. Is not. latter would discussed the standard Applying ambiguity, we conclude Despite this IIIL.C.1, first consider we Part the confine violate language does not The council "item." language is an read permissible one Because ment clause. not, it directed it is because argues that constitutional, and language is ing Alternatively, think we appropriation's use. choose the preferable to think it we simply to describe may be read unconstitutionality,105we reading that avoids lan way, the vetoed Either program. the descriptive and language is that this conclude it does an "item" because guage is not in that its hold non-binding. We therefore particular money to a any sum appropriate not violate clusion did invalid. was therefore The veto purpose. clause. ob- statement governor's 2. Was language the vetoed 4. Does jections adequate? program treatment - - separation principle violate governor's argues that powers? ap inadequate.103 explanation the ve that contends chapter part of what became propriation impermis- language program treatment governor's toed whether question is 100. The 1233, 1237 74(a), Bonjour Bonjour, v. § SLA 1997. 105. See 101. See ch. 1979) validly enacted stat (Alaska (stating that validi enjoy presumption of constitutional utes id. (Alaska State, 404 P.2d ty); v. Hoffman reasonably 1965) be (stating statute that if although it is this issue choose to reach unconstitutionality, court to avoid. construed ruling by technically our that mooted so); State, Parker do must cf. language was not an "item." ambiguous (Alaska (noting App.1983) that interpreted avoid conflict be should statutes constitution). 74(a), with SLA 1997. 104. Ch. sibly interferes with the administration's IV. CONCLUSION managing program discretion As to the three appropriations, III, therefore violates article section 1 of language subject struck was not separation- Alaska Constitution and the to a valid exercise of power. the item veto of-powers principle. The council counters Nonetheless, disputed language be must point" there is "little language, struck from because its legitimate attempt but it is a to mini inclusion violated the confinement clause. We mize costs. agree therefore with superior the result court respect reached with appropri- to these We concluded language above that this did ations. not violate the confinement clause because it As to community the new residential cen- could description be read as a pro- of the (CRC) ters appropriation, we hold that in- gram. reasoning applies same here. cluding disputed language did not violate language Because permissibly can the confinement clause. alsoWe conclude read not to direct the executive branch to objections statement of action, any take it does not interfere with was constitutionally sufficient. Ordinarily executive discretion. We therefore conclude these two require conclusions would a re- that this princi- does violate the superior mand to the court to resolve the ple separation powers. issue which the court left undecided as to this appropriation, namely, disputed F. Other Issues subject was an item to an item veto. But because we have indicated based on the The council ap contends that if an briefing in relating this case to the other propriation is unconstitutional it vio disputed clause, lates the confinement the violative was subject not an item veto, to line-item language is not Accepting severable. moot, because this issue is is sufficient inevitably contention require us in merely to VACATE judgment validate an entire item if we superior court insofar as it relates found it contained violating the con appropriation. CRC finement clause. If routinely we were to As to therapeutic the Valdez treatment invalidate an entire whenever a program appropriation, we hold that the dis- part clause, violates the confinement we puted language subject was not to the item potentially would chill meritorious lawsuits veto and including disputed lan- seeking litigate confinement clause issues. guage did not violate the confinement clause. We decline to create such a disincentive. We We therefore REVERSE the result reached conclude that offending after the language is respect to this removed from appropriations, the ASMI appropriation. remaining language independent and com plete. presume We therefore legis that the BRYNER, Justice, with whom lature would have parts enacted the valid CARPENETI, Justice, joins, dissenting in without parts.106 the invalid part. parties dispute also whether the ve- CARPENETI, Justice, dissenting part. toed language ASMI violated principle BRYNER, Justice, with whom separation powers. Given our conclusion CARPENETI, Justice, joins, dissenting in language this must be struck because it > part. clause, violated the confinement it is unneces- sary for us to separation-of-powers reach the join I parts in all opinion except its issue as to the appropriations. conclusion that the confinement clause al Hickel, 106. See Sonneman v. presumption weak severability). in favor of (Alaska 1992); see (creating also AS 01.10.030 view, language concern my the struck In language to include legislature lowed equally least is at appropriation ing the CRC Program Treatment Therapeutic Valdez expenditures to limiting the objectionable: In I descriptive. merely that was appropriation municip by controlled "not owned language vio facilities disputed hold would the de prevented alities,1 the clause, though it even the confinement lates to using this partment from language Because merely descriptive. is municipalities provide CRC with contract 's Hammond it violates superfluous, wholly substantively changed language space. This inef factor; superfluous aas necessity the commission allowed necessarily existing law that presence its appendage, fectual municipalities with contract er from measure prevented in inappropriately language therefore Nor struck appropriation. being confined grant previously with the discretion terfered be excused appendage descriptive should by substantive branch executive ed to the without "apparently it is ground on the as law. almost presence is Its effect."1 legal binding. gover if it were

damaging as no confinement says there is The court have branch officials executive other nor and because, AS 88.30.0831 while violation clause lan gratuitous knowing whether way of no with to contract the commissioner authorizes descriptive. mandatory or this is guage like the com- require municipalities, "it does that the guessing They choose between must footing municipalities on put missioner being risk of nothing, at the means language enterprise potential as private equal with in court challenging the wrong, or (Op. at space." bed of new CRC providers way, the Either it means. out what to find respect, I original.) With emphasis in constraining problem language ereates The issue is the issue. do not believe holding that the By action. branch executive law, existing language amends de- superfluous include free to legislature is of this purposes For I it does: believe without measures seriptions 83.30.031(e), repeals only, it AS clause, the court's violating confinement the commissioner gives otherwise routinely in the it to do so opinion allows municipalities. with to contract mistake will branch the executive hope away to take purports it. directory and follow the language enjoys un- clearly power she commissioner 83.30.03l(e). Thus, it violates AS der part. CARPENETI, Justice, dissenting in supe- I affirm clause. confinement holding that effect. opinion parts of the court's rior court's all agree I with dealing the confinement with except two the court test that the same clause. Under A APPENDIX appropria- that the ASMI applies to conclude follows are as clause, at issue I be- the confinement violated out: appro- the vetoed language in the the struck leve that Therapeutic both the Valdez

priations Community Resi- Program and Treatment Appropriations A. ASMI also violated Center dential (as SLA Section Chapter con- Bryner's dissent join I Justice clause. amended) persuasively As he former. cerning the can merely descriptive shows, even Alaska-Seafood-Mar- having keting ] powers be- in the balance mischief cause -are-located-outside-Alaslka-whose the executive. legislature and tween agreement may into an enter the commissioner Op. at 383. provide agency private public or with a part: provides necessary in relevant 1. AS 33.30.031 facilities.... (a) determine shall The commissioner into an (e) enter commissioner If facilities.... availability correctional of state municipality state of this ... a agreement with suitable determines the commissioner facility.... available, provide a correctional ... are not facilities correctional state 11, lapses general into the fund on June 30, 2000.

Range-21-on-the-state-salary-sechedule under-A§$-89.27.011;an equal amount unexpended unobligated balance B. Appropriation CRC 80, 1997, on year June of the fiscal 98, 39, Chapter Section SLA 1997 general receipts fund from the salmon (AS marketing 48.76.110), tax from the As one of the for the De- (AS marketing seafood assessment partment Corrections, $310,000 ap- 16.51.120), fishery and from the resource propriated for community "new residential (AS 48.77.011)

landing tax appropriat- is centers." The at issue in general ed appeal from the fund immediately to the Alaska appro- followed this priation: Marketing Seafood Institute for market-

ing products during Alaska seafood fis- year

cal 100, 70,

2. Chapter Section SLA 1997

keting _Insti having f ; ide_Alas] j ] tas ] lassified -21-on-the-state-salary-sehedule C. Therapeutic Valdes Treatment Pro- under-A$-39.27.011;an equal amount gram Appropriation unexpended unobligated balance 100, 74(a) Chapter Section SLA 1997 30, 1997, year June of the fiscal $400,000 receipts fund The sum of from the salmon appropriated (AS 48.76.110) marketing tax from the federal receipts and from crime funds to Department (AS Corrections for a marketing seafood assessment therapeutic community treatment pro- 16.51.120) appropriated gen- from the gram upof to 100 beds in Valdez where eral fund to the Alaska Seafood Market- . lay ¢ Cexelust ing marketing Institute for Alaska sea- ment-eosts)-will-not-exceced-tho-state products food during year fiscal R lay id 100, Chapter rrectional institutions. Section SLA 1997 under-AS-39.27.01l,-and subject (b)-(d)

conditions set out in of this see-

tion, made section ch. page SLA lines 8- notes council the other On money or the use of for or the need provisions these down struck have courts vulnera activity, more seem need for sufficiently connected they not were because insufficiently "connect being found ble to (1) requirement a expenditures: appropriation. ed" to delega spent for trade money not be that the council's characterizations agree with executive nonpartisan unless there 81 appropria- legislature's the limits of (2) requirement a representation; council predict do so power. We specified tion a at population inmate 82 minimize the disputes or to (8) condi future reduced; provision a outcome facility be when factors the Hammond importance health department tioning a dispute, but clause analyzing a confinement mon federal relinquishing department on the 83 (4) council, for speaking council; legislative family planning because private ey to a examples usefully given has legislature, prisoners' notice of giving requirement 84 regards it which provisions prohibi transfers; escapes unconstitutional. as by attor electioneering district against tion parish.85 neys in a certain approaching In - that an act assume disputes, the differences we characterizes clause The burden constitutional.86 is as follows: cases between party unconstitutionality on the showing up courts will appears In enactment; cases doubtful challenging the (albeit with some could conditions hold of constitutionali-1 favor resolved be should effort) eg., which purposes, written be positions, which facilities, employee 231.87 buildings, the types of buildings or apply we now background, With be true This would spent on. could factors Hammond the five in the written were conditions if the even provisions. in the ASMI appropria "money from this e.g., negative, employee fund be used tion Intent a. contracts;" "money from this required The vetoed construc fund new used may not be to locations employees N.W.2d level Ray, 229 upper v. move Welden See tion" 184, 186, N.W.2d Branstad, 372 cites v. the council Colton proposition 83. support See 77. In 1985). (Iowa Welden. 191-92 cites proposition the council | support of this In Henry, So.2d at 163. 346 See Kirkpatrick, 86 Sego v. ex rel. State Welden and (1974). 359, P.2d 975 524 N.M. id. at 159-60. 85. See Governor, Advisory Opinion to the re See In (Alaska State, 428 (Fla.1970). $o.2d Baxley 958 P.2d v. 86. See 1998). at 982-83. Kirkpatrick, 524 P.2d 80. See Bonjour, Bonjour v. id.; 87. See 644, 647, Branstad, 470 N.W.2d Welsh v. 81. See Elementary 1979); Sch. (Alaska Litchfield 1991). (Iowa 649-50 125 Ariz. Babbitt, No. 79 v. Dist. Barnett, at N.W.2d (App.1980); 654, 657, So.2d Firestone, Brown (Fla.1980). Alaska in carry order ASMI to forward governor argues not, it is because appropriations prior years. monies from employee location does not relate to ASMI's appropriations These three ASMI did not statutory duties We conclude that the ve- appropriate upper themselves monies for lev toed sufficiently germane Rather, staffing. el they addressed appropriations these three do not "marketing products." [of] Alaska seafood staffing any fund at location affected The vetoed expressed therefore language. appropriations These were legislature's intent about how other ASMI for purchasing services, contractual expendi- spent, were to be not its in tures encouraging unrelated to "local hire." tent about how these were to correctly observed that be used.89 separate appropriations employ- funded state

Case Details

Case Name: Alaska Legislative Council v. Knowles

Court Name: Alaska Supreme Court

Date Published: Apr 20, 2001

Citation: 21 P.3d 367

Docket Number: S-8842, S-8851

Court Abbreviation: Alaska