*1 G9 disсiplinary appeals Barber's and REMAND correctly AS 09.19.010 "limits plained filing authority statutory to waive fees filing courts' for recalculation of the fees against brought prisoners lawsuits proceedings. and further 70 Alaska Statute government." state - - - timely provides that expressly "[ilf 09.19.010 made, the court payment is not appeal." any filing in the case or accept mandatory language precludes us
Such a common law ruling Alaska courts have litigation filing authority prisoner to waive entirety. in their fees Appellant, HELLER, Richard Be Remand 09.19.010 Cannot D. On AS Unconstitutionally Deny Applied To To Court. Barber Access Alaska, DEPARTMENT STATE supe for the specific note instructions We REVENUE, Appellee. OF superior remand. The court rior court on mandatory filing shall recalculate Barber's No. S-13551. of the date of fees under AS 09.19.010 as mandatory filing remand. If the fees exceed Supreme Court of Alaska. paid funds and cannot be Barber's available Dec. 2013. through time extensions or in a reasonable superior court payments, installment litigation proceed allow Barber's
shall furthering, possible, extent while to the best requiring prisoners legislature's goal portion litigation of the costs of to bear a [litigating] is worth the to "consider whether cost, litigants For just as other must." superior may allow the example, court litigation proceed placing while a hold on filing fees if аnd
Barber's OTA to secure the when funds become available.72
v. CONCLUSION above, the reasons we RE-
For stated superior VERSE the court's dismissals of (Alas- against Georgev. litigate inadequate the state but have 70. See App.1997). filing pay mandatory ka funds to 09.19.010, fee under AS superior a hold could allow the court Am., 71. Brandon v. Corr. 28 P.3d Corp. of unconstitutionally depriving prison to avoid (Alaska 2001). furthering legisla er access to court while purpose requiring prisoners ture's to "consid argued 72. Barber that a hold is not allowable cost, [litigating] just er whether worth the is superior temporarily placed when the court one Brandon, litigants must." See 28 P.3d at other during pendency peti- of his on his account aligns 279. Such an accommodation therefore only legal tion for review. He asserted that the give legislature's 09.38.030(f), with our duties to effect to the basis for a hold under AS which protect the Alaska Constitution. provides money intent and in an incarcerated [alll Cf. Kritz, facility Language, person's account at a correctional Alaskans a Common Inc. v. leyy (Alaska 2007) ("Where available for disbursement under a notice of n. 54 170 P.3d judgments satisfy [inter alia} narrow construction of a statute will avoid con . entered against prisoner litigation against the state." infirmity doing without violence to the stitutional judgment He reasoned that because there was no intent, legislative interpret manifest we will him, 09.38.030(f) against apply would not Bonjour Bonj accordingly." (quoting statute our, We and a hold would thеrefore be untenable. 1979))). (Alaska provides disagree that AS 09.38.030 prisoner seek to basis for a hold. Should a
Andy Harrington, Legal Alaska Services Fairbanks, Davis, Corporation, and James J. Jr., Legal Corporation, Services An- chorage, Appellant. Kane, General, Attorney
Michele Assistant Juneau, Bottstein, and Ruth Assistant Attor- General, ney Anchorage, and Daniel S. Sulli- van, General, Juneau, Attorney Appellee. CARPENETI, Justice, Before: Chief FABE, WINFREE, STOWERS, and MAASSEN, Justices.
OPINION
CARPENETI, Chief Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION military A member of the moved to a new post in Alaska in June 2005. Two months later, deployed Iraq. he was After 16 Iraq, months of service he returned to Shortly Alaska in December there- after, applied for the 2007 Permanent (PFD), paid Fund Dividend which ree- ognition applicant's eligibility during of the Department The Revenue denied application. his The service member filed an appeal appeal informal and later a formal Department, of which both were superior denied. The court affirmed the de- nial, concluding exactly year that the relevant statute re- one earlier. It also stated that had quired him to reside in Alaska for six months Heller failed to obtain an Alaska driver's claiming license, an allowable absence for mili- Alaska, register regis to vote in Alaska, tary actually and that the statute did not ter a vehicle in when he had service errors, equal protection Pointing under the U.S. and done all three. out violate these The Alaska Constitutions. service member request Heller filed a hearing. for a formal eligible he was not appeals. Because Hearings The Officeof Administrative held 48.28.008, under AS stat- 2007 PFD hearing a formal on December 2007. De with the of the ute is consistent spite adopting Heller's corrected version of Constitutions, U.S. and Alaska we affirm the facts, judge administrative law denied judgment superior court. appeal. judge Heller's noted that under 43.23.008(a)(8), possible it is for a II. AND PROCEEDINGS FACTS serving in the armed forces to retain *4 Army assigned In the U.S. June 2005 eligibility living while in another state or Headquarters Compa- Richard Heller to the country during qualifying year. the Howev ny Stryker Brigade, of the 172nd an Alaska- er, judge explain the went on per to that a based unit. He arrived in Alaska on June can advantage son take of this allowable ab arrival, Upon registered Heller to provision only sence if he was an Alaska vote, license, an Alaska obtained driver's and days immediately resident for at least 180 changed military his records to indicate Alas- leaving before the state.2 Because there is 14, 2005, residency. August ka On Heller absences, exception involuntary no for and deployed Iraq. Although was to Heller's ser- Heller was a state resident for at most 59 Iraq initially vice in was scheduled to last one days leaving Iraq, judge for the con year, army stay the extended his an addition- cluded that Heller was not entitled to the days. finally al 120 Heller returned to Alas- 2007PFD. ka on December appealed court, superior to the applied March 2007 Heller for a Perma closely which examined the and af- issues paid nent Fund Dividend to be in 2007 for firmed the administrative decision. Heller qualifying year.1 the 2006 Several months appeals, arguing superior that the court's later, Heller received a letter from Alaska's misinterpretation decision relies on a of the (the State) Department of denying Revenue alternative, statute. In the Heller asserts application. explained his The letter superior if reading court's pursuant to AS Heller was not correct, statute precluded and he is from eligible for the PFD because he was not an PFD, receiving a 2007 the statute violates Alaska resident for at least six consecutive equal protection under both federal and state leaving months before the state. Heller filed law. request appeal, for arguing informal stay the short duration of in prior his III OF . STANDARD REVIEW leaving prevent the state should not him receiving from a PFD position because his in superior When the court acts as an Army required go court, him Iraq. A PFD appellate intermediate indepen we However, appeal. technician denied Heller's dently underlying review the merits of the the denial included sеveral erroneous facts. administrative specific decision.3 The form It stated that Heller independent had arrived in Alaska on our review takes is de novo actually June when he had arrived adopt review: We the rule of law that is most "qualifying year" given 1. The PFD is the 3. See Pub. Ret. Bd. v. Morton, 123 Emps. year immediately preceded January 1 of the (Alaska 2005) State, Dep't of year paid. in which the PFD is See AS Inc., Greenpeace, Natural Res. v. Thus, 43.23.095(6). qualifying 2006 was the (Alaska 2004)). year for the 2007 PFD. (AAC) 2. See 15 Alaska Administrative Code 23.163(b)(1) 48.23.008(a) reason, physical enumerates ab light precedent,
persuasive pertinent part, sences that are allowed.10 In policy.4 states: it agency's an inter Heller contests (b) (c) (a) section, Subject of this governing statutes. pretation of one of its eligible otherwise individual who is absent interpretation legisla involves Because during qualifying year from the state agency expertise, we tive intent rather than eligible year perma- remains a current well.5 independent review here as But apply if nent fund dividend the individual was specific independent form our review absent pure de novo review. takes is distinct substitution-of-judgment apply standa We standard, again adopt we rd.6 Under (3) serving duty on active aas member persuasive rule of law that is most of the armed forces of the United States reason, policy,
light precedent, but weight dоing give we due deliberative "to so done, especially agency
what
has
where
any
reason consistent with the
longstanding."
agency interpretation is
individual's intent to remain a state resi-
interpretation presents
Constitutional
dent, provided the absence or eumulative
subject
indepen
questions of law that are
do
absences
not exceed
standard8
dent review under the de novo
(A)
any
addition to
ab
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Heller Does Not Meet
ty Requirements Of AS 43.23.008.
Eligibili-
Alaska Statute
under
*5
sence or cumulative absences claimed
(8)
43.23.008(b) provides:
of
this subsection
....
[11]
may
An individual
not claim an allowable
48.28.005(a) sets out
Alaska Statute
(a)(1)-(15)
absence under
of this section
for
eligibility
the basic
receiv
unless the individual was a resident of the
ing
pertinent part,
a PFD.
In
the statute
state for at least six consecutive months
"was,
requires
applicant
at all times
that an
state.[12]
immediately
leaving the
year, physically present
during
qualifying
only
question
if absent was absent
as The
before us is whether Heller
the state or
allowed in AS 48.23.008.9 Alaska Statute
may claim an "allowable absence" for the
Electric,
Tanana,
(quoting
Chugach
Vill.
249 P.3d
7.
period
language
of time he was
of AS
which states
serving
Iraq.
applicant
order for an
claim
an
(a)(8),
allowable absence under subsection
he
argues
Heller
that he is entitled to simul-
must have been "a resident of the state for at
taneously
claim two allowable absences:
immediately
least six consecutive months
be
(a)(8)
allowable absence under subsection
leaving the state."
The State observes
Fore
service,
military
his
and an allowable absence
that, contrary
explicit
to the statute's
lan
(a)(16)
any
under
subsection
"for
reason con-
guage,
interpretation
Heller's
of the statute
sistent
intent
to remain
a state
[his]
would allow him to claim the allowable ab
acknowledges
resident." He
that a
though
sence even
he had been a resident for
only claiming an allowable absence under
leaving.
less than six months before
(a)(8)
subject
prior
subsection
to a
residen-
cy requirement of six months. He also does
dispute
To resolve this
we must
not contest that because he did not move to
language
purpose
look to the
of the
Alaska until June
he had
been an
objective
statutory
statute.
"The
con
Alaska resident
for two months before leav-
give
struction is to
effect to the intent of the
ing the state.
legislature,
regard
meaning
with due
for the
statutory
language conveys
to others."
However,
points
to subsection
give unambiguous statutory
15 We
lan
(a){16), under which he is entitled to an addi
guage
ordinary
its
meaning,
and common
but
days
tional
any
out of the state "for
"plain meaning"
rule is not an exelusion-
reason consistent with
intent
to remain
[his]
rule;
ary
legislative history
we will
look to
(a)(8),
a state resident."
Unlike subsection
guide
construing
a statute's words.16
(a)(16)
subject
subsection
to the six-
plainer
statute,
meaning
"The
residency requirement.
month
Heller ar
persuasive any legislative
more
history to the
gues that because the
six-month
contrary must be."
(a)(16),
apply
does not
to absences under
case,
In this
(a)(16)'s
language
the statute's
is rea-
apply
should be able to
subsection
sonably
provides:
clear.
It
period immediately
to the
following
August
departure
his
Iraq.
In Hel
An individual
not claim an allowable
*6
view, by
(a)(1)-(15)
ler's
the time he had exhausted
absence under
of this section
days,
already
those 180
he had
been a resi
unless the individual was a resident of the
months,
dent of the state for over
state for at least
six
and
six consecutive months
the[18]
immediately
leaving
(a)(8)'s
before
eligible
was therefore
for subsection
military
allowable absence for
service. Hel
prohibits
applicant
This section
a PFD
from
argues
ler
that he should be allowed to com
claiming an allowable absence under former
(a)8)
(a)(186)
bine subsections
in this
48.23.008(a)(1)-(15)
AS
if that
did not
because,
Heller,
manner
according to
in
reside
the state for at least six consecutive
legislative history support
statute's text and
immediately
leaving
months
before
the state.
interpretation.
his
interpretation
Heller's
contradicts
this lan-
guage;
it would allow him to claim an allow-
disagrees.
argues
State
It
that Hel-
(a)(8)
able absence under
subsection
even
ler's interpretation ignores
plain
lan-
though he did
in
not reside
Alaska for six
statute,
guage of the
language
renders
prior
leaving
consecutive months
the state.
superfluous,
statute
leg-
and undermines the
islature's intent
per-
to limit the dividend to
Heller seizes on the use of the word
48.23.008(b)
manent
points
residents.
It
plain
to the
in
"resident"
former AS
and em-
43.23.008(a)(16)(A) (2007).
13. Former
(citing
Slope
AS
Borough
Id.
N.
v. Sohio Petro-
(Alaska
leum
585 P.2d
540 & n. 7
Corp.,
1978)).
43.23.008(b)
added).
(emphasis
14. AS
Mktg.
Nw., Inc.,
Id.
Peninsula
City Dillingham
Ass'n v.
v. CH2M Hill
(Alaska 1991)).
P.2d 917, 922
(Alaska 1994) (citing
Saun-
Props. Municipality
Anchorage,
ders
(Alaska 1993)).
138 n.
43.23.008(b)
18. Former AS
he meets the basic definitionof
phasizes that
requires
applicant
physically
an
reside in
under the PFD statute because
a "resident"
the state for six consecutive months before
indefinitety
intended to remain in Alaska
he or she can claim an allowable absence
on the word "resident" is
(a)(8)."20
Heller's focus
under subsection
.19
misleading.
in
The allowable absences listed
argues
Heller
that the State's "fixation" on
exceptions
"physical
AS 48.23.008 are
to the
"immediately
leaving
before
the state"
ly present" requirement of AS 48.23.005. And
language
illogical
light
legisla-
in
(b)
specific language of
subsection
makes
military
ture's clear intent to enable
person-
requirement
clear that
set out
this
simultaneously
nel
claim allowable ab-
which,
physical presence,
subsection concerns
(a)(8)
(a)(16).
sences
subsections
case,
important
in this
serves as an
indicator
legislature clearly
Heller is correct that the
of intent
to remain in Alaska. The words
military personnel
intended to enable
to com-
"immediately
leaving"
in subsection
two
bine the
kinds of allowable absences.
(b)
understanding
per
corroborate our
(a)(16)
Subsection
an
makes
individual's ab-
claiming
sons
an absence under subsection
sence allowable if it was:
(a)(8)
period
must have a six-month
as a
reading
state resident. Heller's alternative
any
reason consistent with the
accept;
of the statute is too strained for us to
individual's intent
to remain a state resi-
does not authorize a PFD claim
the statute
dent, provided the absence or enmulative
state,
briefly
physically
ant to
enter the
absences do not exceed
remaining
the state for
entire
"leav[e]"
(A)
any
in addition to
absence
(as
portion
period
six-month
or cumulative absences claimed under
months)
period
did-a
of over four
and satis
subsection.[21]
(8) of this
fy
the six-month
from another
subsection,
applicant may
Under this
an
be
location. The modifier "consecutive"
AS
any
43.23.008(b)
military
absent for
amount of time due to
reading;
our
further
reinforces
service,
year,
and in
(b)
qualifying
the same
solely
if subsection
were concerned
any
"for
Alaska,
absent
reason consistent with [his]
intent
to remain in
and not at all
long
intent
to remain a state resident" as
as
physical presence,
conсerned with
then the
that additional absence does not exceed 180
unnecessary
modifier "consecutive" would be
days. Combining
way
the intent
subsections
because
continuous nature of
already required by
"indefinitely"
enables
individual to be out of the state
word
48.23.095(7).
purpose
military
for the
found in AS
While the word
service for nine
year,
go
"resident"
creates
some months out of the
on vacation
months;
ambiguity,
reading
provision
long
the best
of this
out of Alaska for three
as he
*7
19. A "state
in the PFD context
de-
in
resident"
about Heller's intent
to remain
Alaska or
preliminary requirement
fined as:
whether he
the
satisfies
dispute
of AS
The
01.10.055.
concerns Heller's
physically present
an individual who is
in the'
qualifications under
PFD
the
statute.
indefinitely
state with the intent
to remain
in
requirements
the state under
the
of AS
suggests
today's opinion
20. The dissent
that
cre-
or,
physically
01.10.055
the individual
is not
if
requirement
"physical presence
ates a
of
for six
state,
present in
intends to return
the state
person
consecutive months'"before a
can take an
indefinitely
requirements
and remain
under the
great
absence,
allowable
which "will come as a
of AS 01.10.055.
surprise
many high
graduates
to the
school
who
43.23.095(7)
added).
(emphasis
The PFD
spring
take an out-of-state
break or summer va-
purposes
statute defines a state resident for PFD
college
departing
cation before
for a
outside
eligibility
pеrson
as a
who meets the basic
re-
hypothetical
But
Alaska."
this
scenario is not
quirements
of AS 01.10.055 as well as other
Moreover,
the court.
our
no-
opinion
PFD-specific requirements.
|
permissible
It is
for
requires
phys-
where
six months of "continuous"
differently
pur-
Alaska to define a "resident"
presence
concept
ical
as the dissent claims. The
poses
eligibility
purposes.
PFD
of
than for other
preclude temporary
of
does not
ab-
State,
Revenue,
Dep't
Schikora v.
P.3d
of
long
sences as
as the intent to remain continues.
(Alaska 2000) ("
residency require-
'[TJhe
43.23.008(b)(2007).
Former AS
eligibility may
ment
differ
from other
residency requirements.'""
(quoting Brodigan v.
Revenue,
42.23.008(a)(16) (2007)
Dep't
(emphasis
733 n. 12
21. Former AS
added).
(Alaska 1995))).
case,
there is no
dispute
resident,
argues
legislative history
an Alaska
Heller next
that
intends to remain
supports
reading.
points
his
eligible for a PFD.
to the
remains
legislative history of the 2008 amendment
contrary
argument,
Heller's
But
lengthened
military
that
the amount of time
the State endors-
reading of the statute that
personnel can be out of the state over and
legislature's
es is not inconsistent with the
purpose
military
above absences for the
military personnel
to com-
intent
to enable
amendment,
service. Before the
those claim
(a)8)
(a)(16).
bine absences under
Un-
(a)(8)
ing military
absence under subsection
reading,
applicant may
der the State's
an
only
days
were allowed
an additional 45
out
(a)(16)
(a)(8)
in
single year.
combine
any
provi
of the state under the "for
reason"
However,
(a)B),
applicant
if the
claims under
sion of the statute.23 As a result of the
in
he must have resided Alaska
at least
amendment, military personnel were allowed
leaving
six consecutive months before
days
any
of allowable absence "for
rea
reading
give
state. This
does
rise to
son,"
away
spent
over
above time
for the
rather,
inconsistency;
internal
it evinces a purpose
military
service.24 As Heller
legislative
long
intent to treat
absences more
notes,
legislative history indicates that
stringently
than short ones. Not
must a
grew,
part,
measure
in
from a desire to show
absent
for more than 180
gratitude
military personnel
for their ser
legislatively-approved pur-
absent due to a
by relaxing
requirements
vice
apply
that
is,
pose-that
purposes
one of the
enumerat-
to them.25
(a)(1)-(15)-but
ed
subsections
such an
implementing
goal,
legisla
But in
that
immediately preceded by
absence must be
sought
ture
payment
nevertheless
to limit
least six consecutive months of state resi-
permanent
dividends to bona fide
residents.
dence.
legislature
chose to extend
more
any
than four months the allowable "for
rea
stringent
These more
are
absence;
exempt
son"
it did not choose to
legislature's
consistent
intent to lim
military personnel from the "six consecutive
payment
it
permanent
of dividends to bona fide
(b).26
requirement
months"
of subsection
requirement
res idents.22 The
that an
requires
The amended statute still
mili
applicant be a
for at
six
resident
least
tary personnel reside in Alaska for at least
leaving helps
months before
ensure
claiming
six
months before
a mil
applicant
consecutive
merely "passing
was not
(a)(8).
itary absence under subsection
Hel
state,
through" before he left the
but rather
ler
pointed
anything
legisla
has not
genuine
had a
desire to make Alaska his
history
tive
that convinces us otherwise.
Thus,
permanent
nothing
home.
there is
internally
inherently illogical
inconsistent or
Heller is correct
the statute enables
requiring
applicant claiming
(a)(8)
under sub military personnel
to claim subsection
(a)(8)
(a)(16)
section
to have been a resident for six
and subsection
absences
combina-
state,
leaving
months before
even where
claiming
tion. But
absences
combina-
applicant
justify
also claims an absence under
tion
bypassing
does not
the "six con-
(a)(16).
secutive months"
of subsection
subsection
ing
co-sponsor
See
Permanent Fund
the Committee to
the bill in order
Costo,
(Alaska
Dividend Div. v.
"patriotic
you
to demonstrate its
thank
to the
1993) (stating
*8
purpose
that the
of the subsection
Reserves,
Guards,
members
and those
defining
of AS 43.23.095
state
in the
duty military).
in active
payment
PFD context is "to limit
of dividends to
residents").
permanent
43.23.008(a)(14)(A)
Compare
former AS
(2002) ("180 days if the individual is not claim-
§
ch. 69,
23. See
SLA 2003.
(1)-(13)
ing an
under
absence
of this subsec-
tion"),
43.23.008(a)(14)(A) (2003)
24. See id.
with former AS
("180 days
any
in addition to
absence or cumula-
Minutes,
Hearing
25. See
Sen. Fin. Comm.
(3)
tive absences
claimed under
of this subsection
2003)
Leg.,
(Apr.
$.B.
23rd
Ist Sess.
claiming
if the individual is not
an
under
absence
(testimony
Riehle,
of Mark
staff
Sen.
to
John
(1), (2),
(4)-(13)
subsection").
or
of this
Cowdery,
sponsor,
introducing
bill
bill and ask-
(b).
claim a
48.23.008 does not violate
eligible
Heller is not
to
subsec-
AS
(a)(16)
spent
the U.S. Constitution.
because he
at most
tion
absence
leaving
Iraq. In
days in
argues
Heller
statute vi
(a)(8) absence,
to claim the subsection
order
equal protection
olates the
clause of the U.S.
applicant must have first demon-
the PFD
by infringing
Constitution
on his constitution
to remain in Alaska
a bona fide intent
strated
travel,
ally-protected right to
which includes
residing in
for six
by physically
the state
right
migrate
between states. He
agree with the
consecutive months We
provision
characterizes
allowable absence
spent
Iraq
does
that the time Heller
State
residency requirement
as a durational
that is
living
not count toward the
distinguishing
aimed
not
between resi
Thus,
months.
Alaska for six consecutive
non-residents,
dents and
but rather at distin
although Heller
able to claim a subsection
guishing
categories
between two
of rеsi
(a)(16)
the first 180
absence for
eligible
who are
claim
dents-those
Iraq,
satisfy
the statuto-
spent
he does
allowable absence and those who are not.
requirements necessary to claim
ry eligibility
responds
The State
that the statute furthers
PFD in 2007.
by
legitimate
ensuring
state interest
only bona fide
receive
residents
dividends
Requirements
Eligibility
Of
B. The
and is therefore
constitutional.
It distin
Are Constitutional.
guishes
invalidating
the cases
durational resi
43.23.008
dency requirements
by
cited
Heller on two
argues
the State's inter
also
First,
grounds:
none of those cases con
provi
pretation of the PFD statute violates
residency require
cerned a state's use of a
and Alaska Constitutions.
sions of
U.S.
verify
ment
that an
individual is a bona
one,
have
Typically,
in cases like this
we
resident;
second,
fide
those cases did not
exclusively
equal protec
focused
on Alaska's
readily portable
involve
benefits that are at
protective
tion clause because it "is more
high
agree
risk of abuse.
with the
We
State.
rights
equal protection
individual
than the federal
case,
analyze
se.27
In this
we
Heller is correct that some durational resi
clau
provisions separately.
the two
We take this
dency requirements have been
used
effect
clarify
develop
opportunity to
how recent
against
unconstitutional discrimination
newc
|
right-to-travel
omers.28 - Unconstitutional discriminаtion
doctrine
ments
federal
question posed in
relate to the constitutional
burdening
has taken the forms of
new residents
below,
explained
case.
we conclude
favoring previously
As
29
established
discriminatory
ones.30 And the fact that a
that AS
is consistent with the
equal
residency requirement
part
statutory
of the U.S. Constitution's
of a
provides
protection clause and article I of the Alaska
scheme that
some benefits to new
spare
Constitution.
residents does not
itself
that statute
that, by classifying
dealt
27. See Underwood v.
881 P.2d
324-25
with state laws
residents
residence,
according
they
(Alaska 1994)
to the time
established
(quoting
State v.
Anthony,
(Alaska 1991))
(internal
rights
unequal
resulted in the
distribution of
quotation
among
qualified
omitted).
fide
benefits
otherwise
bona
res-
marks
idents.").
equal-protection guarantee
The
in ar-
implicates
ticle I of the Alaska Constitution
See,
Assessor,
eg., Hooper
Cnty.
v. Bernalillo
similar
which is considered
in Part
IV.
analysis,
612, 614, 622-24,
472 U.S.
105 S.Ct.
B.2.
Equal
L.Ed.2d
Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
eg.,
Blumstein,
burdening
See,
Dunn v.
prohibits
Constitution
states from
331, 336, 360,
LEd.2d
right
adequate justification.
to travel without
Id.
(invalidating
under U.S. Constitution
du-
right
at 618 & n.
from
key
shorthand in some
assess
constitutionally
quirements are
infirm.32 We
ing
residency requirement's
a
constitutionali
ty
identifying
purpose.36
is
its
We must
between,
hand,
on the one
distinguish
must
residency requirement
determine
a
residency requirements
that
treat
residents
whether
nonresidents,
designed
was
to establish the bona fides of a
differently
and on the
hand,
person's intent to remain in
residency
the state.37
require
durational
other
differently
ments that
treat new residents
48.28.095(7)
PFD,
purposes
For
AS
from established ones.33
defines "state resident" as "an individual who
physically present
is
in the state with the
residency requirement"
A
is a
"durational
indefinitely
intent
to remain
in the state un
waiting period. This term is also used to
der the
AS 01.10.055."
laws, including waiting periods,
describe
turn,
provides
01.10.055
"intent
draw
between old and new
distinctions
resi
required
to remain"
to establish
is
"Generally, a state has much more
dents.
"by maintaining
principal
authority to draw distinctions between resi
demonstrated
place of abode in the
for at
state
least 80
long-
dents and nonresidents
than between
34
longer period
longer period
or
Thus,
and short-term residents."
dura-
if
required by
regulation"
"by
law or
residency requirements
tional
are more sus
providing
proof
other
of intent as
ceptible
infirmity
to constitutional
than laws
38
such,
required by
regulation."
law or
As
distinguish
residents
from nonreside
there
no
consistent code-wide definition of
nts.35 But we hesitate to attach much
what it means to be a "resident."
importance to this label because it can be
"duration,
easily misapplied.
Indeed,
While the term
legislature
has defined "resi-
residency requirement" may
al
differently
be a useful
purposes
dent"
for different
Roe,
489,
31.
526 U.S.
119
1518,
441, 452-53,
S.Ct.
2230,
Saenz v.
93 S.Ct.
37 LEd.2d
63
Cf.
(1973);
Reiser,
629,
(9th
(invalidating
143 LEd.2d 689
California
v.
Fisher
610 F.2d
635
law under which the maximum
Cir.1979)),
welfare benefits
grounds
rev'd on other
v.
Zobel
by
year
available to
of less than one
was
Williams,
residents
55,
2309,
457 U.S.
102 S.Ct
72
capped
they
at the level of benefits
had been
L.Ed.2d 672
residence);
entitled to in their
state of
previous
Williams,
55, 57-58, 65,
Zobel v.
457 U.S.
102
Hosp. Maricopa Cnty.,
35. But see Mem'l
v.
415
2309,
(1982) (invalidating
S.Ct.
ing
purposes
for
of PFD
resident
Determining eligibility for the allowable
provision of
by using the allowable absence
provision
absence
of the PFD statute is one
distinguish
to
betwеen residents
AS 43.23.008
purpose.
program particu
PFD
such
The
is
that it
larly
and non-residents. At the same time
susceptible
passers-through
estab
subject
lishing
intending
amendments that are the
minimal
while
adopted the
ties Alaska
the
reside elsewhere.41 As
United States
dispute,
legislature
amended the
of this
Supreme
recognized,
Court has
the risk of
Employment
Relations
section of
Public
distributing
grows
benefits to nonresidents
if
defining residency
Act
as follows:
"readily portable.42
the benefits are
The
(e)
section,
resident" means
this
"state
highly portable
PFD
ais
cash benefit
present
physically
an individual who is
in
spent anywhere;
payment
can be
and the
is
perma
this state with the intent to remain
one-time,
administered on a
annual basis re
nently
requirements
in the state under the
limits,
gardless of
making
partic
income
it a
or,
the individual
of AS 01.10.055
is
if
ularly
target
attractive
for abuse.43
al
The
state,
physically present
intends to
provision magnifies
lowable absence
permanent
return to the state and remain
portability, allowing individuals who leave the
ty
requirements
in the state under
purposes
state for certain
to retain their
only tempo
AS 01.10.055 and is absent
eligibility.44
PFD
rarily
reasons
allowed under AS
for
Moreover, unlike the welfare benefits or
statute.[39]
or a successor
43.23.008
voting rights at issue in Saenz v.
Roe
Here,
legislature
defined "state resident"
Blumstein,
program
Dunn
the PFD
an individual who meets the
unique
By establishing
to Alаska.
a new
physical-
set out AS 01.10.055and is either
purposes
state of
voting
or
ly present
temporarily
in the state or
absent
benefits,
person gives up
welfare
provision,
under
the allowable absence
AS
prior
to vote or collect welfare benefits in the
that the
483.28.008. This shows
allowable ab-
state of residence. But individuals who come
provision
distinguish
intended to
sence
was
give
to Alaska to collect a PFD
up
do not
between residents
nonresidents.
permanent-fund
payment
cash
from another
legislature clearly contemplated allowing for
economy
magnet
state. Alaska's
is a
varying residency requirements
depending
seasonal workers and other
who
visitors
context-requiring
longer periods
stay just long enough
paper
on the
to establish
ties
1,§
Ch.
SLA 1998
at AS
Revenue,
43. See Schikora v.
codified
23.40.210(e)
added).
(emphasis
(Alaska 2000).
946 n. 30
40. See AS 01.10.055.
(listing
44. See AS 43.23.008
where in-
situations
dividual who is absent from the state remains
41. The dissent claims that
would not be
"lilt
PFD). Moreover,
eligible for
once an individual
unduly burdensome for the State to determine on
qualified
has
applicant
and is absent from the
an individualized basis whether an
re-
lying
provision
provision,
on an allowable absence
is in fact
state under the allowable absence
a bona fide resident." But the State must now
up
or she can continue to
the PFD for
collect
700,000
nearly
applications every year.
process
years
spending any significant period
without
Department
State of
Per-
See
43.23.008(c)
("An
of time in Alaska. See AS
Division,
manent
Fund Dividend
20/2 Annual
eligible
eligi-
otherwise
individual who
been
has
(2012) ("In total,
679,106
Report
applica-
immediately preceding
ble for the
10 dividends
2012.").
applicant
An
can
tions
tax, school,
accumulate
despite being absent from the state for more than
registration,
voter
and motor vehicle
days
qualifying
in each of the related 10
registration records in a short time-as
shown in
years
only eligible
year
for the current
divi-
present
applicant's
case. And an
intent to
dend if the individual was
absent
or less
accurately
can be
return
assessed
hind-
43.23.005(a)(4)
during
qualifying year.");
Thus,
sight
contrary
many
cases.
to the dis-
(requiring otherwise-eligible applicants
spend
assertion,
sent's
it would be
burdensome
quite
during
prior
72 consecutive hours in Alaska
for the State to determine bona fide
years).
two
an individualized basis. division received
Roe,
Saenz
in Alaska.45 In this
resid
applicant's
bona fides of an
declared intent to
remain,
requirement
the six-month
consecutive months is
was en-
ing in the state for six
attempt
distinguish
acted in an
excessively long requirement
to estab
residents
not an
from nonresidents.
PFD
lish the bona fides of
elaimants before
they depart
lengthy peri
for
the state-often
comparison
A
to the earlier version of the
ods of time.
1998,
PFD stаtute is also instructive. Before
required
PFD claimants were
to demonstrate
history
legislative
supports
the conclu
their bona
fide intent to remain in Alaska
sion that AS
was enacted to
remaining physically in the state unless ab
only
ensure that
bona fide residents receive
legislatively approved purpose
sent for a
and
repre
the PFD. The six-month
statute,
length of time.50 Under the former
legislature's attempt
"prevent[]
sents the
legislatively approved
the list of
absences
coming
someone from
into the
for
few
state
incorporated
was
into the definition of "state
days, declaring residency, and then immedi
dispute
resident." And there is no
that the
ately claiming an allowable
absence."
statutory
former
residency
scheme-with
its
during
Comments from several
lawmakers
requirements-was
right-to-travel
consistent with the
meetings
legislative
on the 1998amendments
doctr
ine.52
The 1998 amendment
general
to the PFD statute reflect
concerns
created an
provision,
"allowable absence"
regarding fraud and abuse from out-of-state
separate from the definition of "state resid
applicants-particularly
those
the mili
significant
ent.5
It is
that the substance
tary-and
difficulty
determining
of
of the amended statute mirrored the sub
applicant
genuine
whether an
has a
intent to
stance of the earlier
regulati
statute
and
legislative history
remain in Alaska.47 Thе
ons.54
also demonstrates
lawmakers were
residency
aware that the
statute
contem
acknowledges
that the 1998 amend-
plated allowing
statutes,
other
such as the
only designed
ment was
to effect "technical
statute,
PFD
to include additional
for
Nevertheless,
tests
changes."
goes
argue
on to
residency.49
regarding
Given the concerns
that the amendment renders the statute un-
difficulty
because,
abuse and the
in determining the
following
constitutional
the amend-
48.
AS 01.10.055.
Auaska,
45. See State or
or LasBor «
Workrorce
-
Nonresipents
(2011),
Dev.,
Workinc in Auaska 2009
http://labor.alaska.gov/research/
available
Davis,
-
Testimony
Rep. Bettye
Tape
No.
reshire/NONRES.pdf.
HFC-97-15, Hearing on H.B. 2 Before House
(Jan.
Leg.,
Comm.,
Finance
30,
20th
ist Sess.
Williams,
aide,
Testimony
1997).
legislative
of Tom
SFC-98-24,
Tape
Hearing on H.B. 2 Before Sen.
(Feb.
Leg.,
Comm.,
Finance
20th
2d Sess.
43.23.095(8) (1997);
50. See former AS
15 AAC
1998).
23.163(c) (1997).
Testimony
Donley
47. See
of Sen. Dave
at #
43.23.095(8) (1997).
51. See former AS
SFC-97,
Tape
Hearing on H.B. 2 Before Sen.
Leg.,
(May
Comm.,
Finance
20th
Ist Sess.
See Church v.
Dep't of
1997) (expressing
regarding
concern
fraud and
(Alaska 1999), ("[The
regula-
applicants
describing
abuse from out-of-state
and
question
tions and statutes in
are bona fide re-
problem"
"very
fraud as a "serious
that was
quirements
'provided
which ensure that benefits
police"); Testimony
Jerry
difficult
of Sen.
residents,'
enjoyed only by
are
residents
Hearing
# 6,
Mackie at
SSAC-97,
on H.B.
Tape
as such do nоt violate the constitutional
Comm.,
Leg.,
2 Before Sen. State Affairs
20th
1st
(quoting Attorney
travel."
interstate
Gen. N.Y.
(Feb. 20, 1997) (expressing
regard-
Sess.
concern
Soto-Lopez,
904 n.
ing military personnel who come to Alaska for a
(1986))).
90 LEd.2d 899
time,
period
probably
short
then leave "with
returning,"
eligible
no intention of
but remain
§§
53. Ch.
SLA 1998.
PFD);
Testimony Rep.
for the
Pete Kott at #
SSAC-97,
Tape
Hearing on H.B. 2 Before Sen.
Comm.,
(Feb.
Leg.,
(1999),
State Affairs
20th
1st Sess.
former AS
43.23.008
Compare
20, 1997)
(characterizing
43.23.095(8)
(1997),
intent
"difficult
former AS
15 AAC
problem"
23.163(c)
(1997);
issue" and
"the heart of the
of deter-
Church,
see also
973 P.2d at
mining applicants
(interpreting pre-1998
& n. 2
out-of-state
such
1127-28
statute
students).
regulations).
as members
or
military
ments,
PFDs-highly
portable
payments
meet
the minimum
cash
sent
could
year-went
being
spelled out
onee a
to state residents.61
requirements for
a resident
therefore,
ineligible
predecessor,
for a Like its
the current
48.23.095 but remain
require
absence
PFD statute sets out "bona fide
result of the allowable
PFD as a
48.23.008(a)55
'provided
ments which ensure that benefits
in AS
We cannot
provision
only by
analysis.
enjoyed
are
resi
agree with Heller's
" 62
dents.
"the
It is well established that
*12
program,
eligibility may
PFD
differ
a collaborative
requirement
for
WWAMI
residency requirements.56 Eli medical school
from other
program among
universities
Alaska, Montana,
Washington, Wyoming,
meeting
a defi
gibility for the
includes
University Washington
physical
tied to
contact to
and Idaho and the
of
nition of
Medicine,
state,
may
employs
eligibil
a similar
which
be more difficult to
School of
ity
participants
of
for
scheme. Alaska
meet
than the definition
WWAMI
purposes.57
provisions set out
"must maintain at all
times an intent
to
other
Other
being
upon completion
requirements
[Alaska]
threshold
for
a state
return to
8
48.23.008(b)
"resident,5
program"
physically
sets out a
and must have
while AS
resided
requirement
specific
applicants
years
to PFD
who
Alaska for at least two consecutive
residing
prior
beginning
program, subject
of time
to
spend
period
a substantial
to an
provision-which
singling
of
borders.59 Far from
allowable absence
also re
outside
state
burdens,60
for additional
out newcomers
quires
years
physical
two consecutive
of
resi
immediately prior
dence
to the absence.63
designed
provision was
to make sure that
(2007).
60. New
55. See former AS 43.23.008
residents who have not fulfilled the six
consecutive months
of AS
-
-
-
-
43.23.008(b)
are not
State,
56. Schikora
of
ineligible
Previously
for PFDs.
established resi-
(Alaska 2000)
(quoting Brodigan v.
942
may
ineligible
given year's
dents
be
for a
PFD if
12
Revenue, 900 P.2d
733 n.
Dep't of
during
qualifying year they
comply
fail to
1995)) (internal
(Alaska
quotation marks omit-
with the allowable
absence
provisions,
by,
Church,
ted);
P.2d at 1129.
see also
973
example, staying out of state for more than 45
days
claiming any
without
absences under sub-
43.23.008,
Compare
AS
with AS 01.10.055.
(a)(1)-(16).
long-standing
section
A
resident
ineligible
for a PFD for failure to submit
58. See AS 01.10.055.
required proof
eligibility
or for failure to com-
ply
requirements
with the
of other state or feder-
43.23.005(a)(1),
(a)(7),
(d)
recognize
although
pre
a
We
is
al
laws.
See
sumption that the same words used twice in the
meaning,"
same act have the same
Jonathan v.
Church,
(Alaska
(considering
Drilling,
the Alaska Constitution.
balancing
our constitutional
test
to similar
slightly
approach under our state
different
residency requirements
past,
analyzing
challenged
"In
law
constitution.
found them to be constitutional.75 We have
equal protection provision, we
under Alaska's
noted that
the PFD is an economic interest
serutiny
ap
first determine what level of
usually
that does not
warrant
strict seruti-n
ply, using
'sliding
Alaska's
seale' standard.73
y,76
but
is not the
factor in the
'weight
be afforded the
[that]
"The
should
analysis.
important
It is
that the burdens on
impaired
interest
the chal
constitutional
alleged rights
in this case are minimal:
important
'the most
var
lenged
enactment?
The six-month
does not bar res
fixing
appropriate
level
review.""
iable
from traveling
periods
idents
for shorter
74
48.23.008(a)(16)
time under the AS
allowance
Heller,
According to
the six-month resi
provision,
prevent
absence
nor does it
bona
dency requirement
impermissible
bur
spending
fide residents
time out of
constitutionally-protected rights
den on his
they
state onee
have satisfied the six-month
travel,
engage in an
endeavor
economic
48.28.008(b).
period
Assuming
of AS
field,
particular
within a
to be free from a
to work
an economic endeavor in
*14
residents,
penalty upon short-term
and to
case,
particular
implicated
a
field is
in this
Consequently,
keep and bear arms.
requirement
we conclude that the six-month
contends,
requirement
triggers height
prevent
not
employment
does
Heller from
scrutiny
equal protec
ened
under Alaska's
military;
simply provides
it
that before
tion clause.
military personnel can claim state resources
responds
divi-
The State
that because the
through
program,
they
spend
the PFD
must
__
_
interest,
48.23.008(b)
dend is an economic
six months in state.
serutiny
warrants minimum
under Alas-
equal protection
goes
on
Nor do we find merit in
ka's
test.
State
Heller's
48.23.008(b)
argument
to
the statute
a fair and
that AS
assert
bears
burdens other
interests of his.77 As we said in Church v.
relationship
accomplishing
substantial
321, 328-39,
Bynum,
v.
461 U.S.
103 S.Ct.
(citing
tinez
Church,
P.2d
973
at 1130
State v. An-
1838,
(1983))).
(Alaska 1991)).
we AFFIRM the
established residents.3 As the court correct
court.
ly
today,
states
"durational
re
quirements
susceptible
are more
to constitu
WINFREE,
Justice, with whom
infirmity
distinguish
tional
than laws that
STOWERS, Justice, joins, dissenting
part.
If a dura-
nonresidents.4
tional
burdens
WINFREE,
Justice, with whom
right migrate,5
under federal constitutional
Justice,
STOWERS,
joins, dissenting
part.
analysis
required
the State of Alaska is
agree
I
with the court's determination that
necessary
show that
the law is
to further a
Richard Heller
did
meet - AS
compellingstate interest. 6
43.23.008(b)'s eligibility requirements
for an
allowable absence from Alaska in 2006.1 But
The distinction between
bona
fide resi-
disagree
deney
I
with the
requirement
court's determination
and a durational residen-
that AS
cy requirement
merely
is a bona fide
depend
does not
requirement's
and thus does not violate the
purpose.
actually,
If it
my
United States Constitution. In
view AS
purposely,
incidentally
or
burdens
*15
Church,
(1983) ("A
78.
applications "physically on lack of and ment is that based individual be by removing proposed doing present it so allowable in the state with the intent to remain residency indefinitely from the require- absence considerations in the state under Heller, court, posits 01.10.055"; definition. The ments of AS there can be no change really in definition of "resident" dispute physically present that Heller was in change, and that was not a substantive the state with the intent to remain indefinite- really contin- allowable absence framework ly requirements under the of AS 01.10.055. residency part ued to be of the PFD defini- short, Heller was an Alaska resident when tion. deployed Iraq he was in 2005 and he was qualifying year an Alaska resident statutory change, After for the entire (AS statutory regarding chapter PFDs 438.28), "resident" means: Having concluded that Heller was Alas- physically present
an individual who is in deployed ka resident Iraq, when was I the state with the intent to remain indefi provi- now look at the "allowable absences" nitely requirements in the state under the intentionally sions that were severed from or, of AS 01.10.055 if the individual is not residency the PFD definition 1998. Alas- state, physically present 48.23.008(a)(8) intends to ka Statute established an al- indefinitely return to the state and remain lowable "serving absence for a in the state under the of AS duty active as a member of the armed forces 01.10.055.[16] of the United dispute States." There is no description that Heller fit this in 2005-2006. provides Alaska Statute 01.10.055 the addi residency requirements per tional 48.23.008(b), But appli under AS a PFD son "make a home the state" and demon cant could not claim an allowable absence indefinitely "by strate an intent to remain "unless the individual was a resident of the maintaining principal place abode state for at least six consecutive im months days" "providing state for at least 80 mediately leaving the state.21 The proof required by other of intent as court's remarkable determination that here regulation."1 Department's law or The rel the word ambiguous "resident" and its regulations require evant "establishment and interpretation that "a resident of the state customary maintenance of ties indicative of for at least six really consecutive months" and the absence of those "physically means reside in the state for at ties elsewhere." least six consecutive months" comes from Department thin air.22 The argu makes no The dispute court concedes "there is no ambiguity ment for interpre or the need for about Heller's intent to remain in Alaska or notes, satisfied) Department tation-as the court preliminary whether he re quirement argues AS 01.10.055."19 The court although Heller was an Alaska resident, he dispute instead was not an Alaska resident concerning finds "Heller's 43.23.008(b).23 qualifications required by the six under the PFD months statute" 20-but dispute nothing Department's implementing regula has to with And the do qualifications, distinctly contrary it has to do with tion takes a residents' view from qualifications for regulation allowable absences. that of the court. The first states for PFD purposes physi that "an individual who has never been *17 48.23.095(7), set out in AS require- cally present and that in may not claim an 43.23.095(7). 16. Op. AS 19. n. 19. 01.10.055(a)-(b).
17. AS 20. Id. 43.23.008(b) (2007). (AAC) 21. Former AS 18. 15 Alaska Administrative Code - 23.143(a) (2013). Department promul- The also gated objective provide proof Op. a list of indicia that 22. at 75. bearing person's on a intent to remain indefinite- ly 23.173(g). Op. inthestate. 15AAC 23. See at74. under AS 48.23.008."2 It allowableabsence response The court's this observation fallacy position-the demonstrates of its requirement predicate then states court disavows a "continous" consecutive six- person is that an allowable absence for physical presence requirement by month for at least 180 be "a state resident stating concept residency that "the does immediately departure from Alaska." before preclude temporary long not absences as as 25 agree the intent to remain continues." I regulation or the Nothing the statute completely-that why is the statute's consec presence for six con suggests physical utive six-month focus departure from Alas secutive months before statutorily on defined es and not requirement ka a for аn allowable absence. is effect, physical presence. In the court for six consec requirement come full inescapable has cirele back to the departure Alaska.26 utive months before from 48.28.008(b) conclusion that "resident" AS physical presence by A consecutive six-month means "resident" as defined AS 43.23.095(7) absence, 01.10.055, which and AS and does for an allowable "physically present." mean necessarily implies physical pres continuous ence, great surprise will come a to the as 48.23.008(b) my view AS treats new many high graduates who take an out- school residents-those who have been Alaska resi- vacation spring of-state break or summer months-differently dents for less than six departing college a Alaska for outside residents; from established it is not a bona analysis the court's these stu .27 Under residency requirement. fide Under the stat- ineligible statutorily a dents would be for utory legislature framework instituted absence, person as would a who 48.23.095(7) allowable the combination of AS 43.23.008(b)-dis- went back and forth to Seattle for medical and AS 01.10.055-not AS bong stayed in treatment and then later Seattle tinguishes passers- fide residents period receiving time for an extended through. Upon establishing principal a cursory a look at AS treatment.28 Even state, displaying abode in the an intent 43.23.008(a)'s allowable absences reveals that indefinitely, remain a resident and establish- cireumstances, state, the context Heller's customary outside ing person ties to the a 48.23.008(b) becomes a bona fide resident and must be interpretation the court's of AS requiring physical consecutive six-month as other under AS «treated 48.28. 48.23.008(b) presence support provides in Alaska to an allowable But AS that an allow- patently absence is unworkable.29 able absence not be claimed unless a 43.23.008(a)(5) (2007) (provid- 23.163(a) added). 28. See former AS (emphasis AAC ing allowable absence for "continuous medical treatment"). added). 23.163(b)(1) (emphasis 25. 15 AAC See, 43.23.008(a)(2) (2007) eg., former AS regulation Depart- It is (absence vocational, for or certain professional, physical presence aware con- ment was education); (a)(4) (absence other for merchant and therefore could have set consecutive cept, service); (a)(6) (absence providing marine for physical presence requirement, six-month but members); critically family care for certain ill give did not do so. The court states that ""we due (a)(7) (absence providing terminally care for done, weight agency deliberative 'to what the has member); (a)(8) (absence family settling ill especially agency interpretation when the (absence estate); (a)(10) family member's while longstanding.'"" appears Op. that for at 73. It serving employee). as a state I also wonder how arose, ten before this matter and to years nearly interpretation new court's that AS - day, Department interprets 43.23.008(b) requires 180-day a continuous require to be a state physical presence prior departure would work months, resident for six not to six consec- require seeking an for those allowable absence serv- physical presence. utive months of Yet the court ing Congress congressional despite or as staff disregards Department's position and fails to traveling Washington, back and forth between explain why. 43.23.008(a)(9)- D.C. and Alaska. former AS Cf. (10) (2007). 43.23.008(a)(1) (provid- former AS See *18 secondary ing 43.23.008(b) allowable absence for full-time at 75 n. 20 former AS Op. education). postsecondary imprecise." a resident of the state for at cation is all too It "was would not immediately months be least six consecutive unduly Department burdensome leaving simply this is "not fore state"3 determine on an individualized whether basis State; waiting period after arrival it a applicant relying on an allowable absence waiting period is a after residence is established." resident; provision is fact a bona fide 48.23.008(b) Consequently, AS 32 is Department already requires the establish residency requirement-not durational provides ment of an abode and a list of other residency requirement-regardless bona fide objective indicia of an intent to remain indefi purpose. of its tax, school, nitely, including registra voter tion, registration review, and motor vehicle scrutiny records.36 suspect Under strict necessary provision must be to further a Because it creates an overbroad classification interest, Moreover, compelling state by presumption, conclusive rather than suspect provision preci must be drawn with precision tailoring required under narrowly sion and must be tailored to serve 48.28.008(b) law, I conclude that AS violates legitimate objectives.33 objective of AS the United States Constitution. 43.23.008(b) help ensure per manent, bona fide residents of Alaska receive
PFDs-certainly legitimate state interest.34 compelling,
But even if the interest were
statute's
six-month
crudely excluding
creates
a classification
(or passers-through)
both nonresidents
alike,
fide
bona
and such a "classifi
(2007)
(emphasis
31. Former AS
requirement,
appropriately
fide residence
de-
added).
uniformly applied,
fined and
furthers the sub-
assuring
stantial state
interest
that services
Blumstein,
32. Dunn v.
405 U.S.
350 n. 20,
provided
enjoyed only by
for its residents are
(emphasis
S.Ct.
LEd.2d
residents.");
Dunn,
see also
405 U.S. at
added) (defining
residency require-
a durational
(''The
legitimate purpose
S.Ct. 995
State's
is to
ment).
persons
determine whether certain
in the com-
residents.").
munity are bona fide
("And
Id. at