*1 villages their their gious connections requires a non lifestyle.70 It
subsistence Alaska to in rural parent Native custodial parent on what the support based
pay child regardless of the in urban
could earn in rural Alaska choosing to live
legitimacy of parent a rural
,71 effectively requiring a to maximize urban area' to an. to move
area finally, it support. And and child
income constitutionally protected reli
infringes rights.
gious privacy
I dissent. Hanley, Alaska, Com Michael
STATE Department of Edu missioner of Alaska Development, of Early in his
cation and Appellants and Cross- capacity,
ficial
Appellees, BOROUGH,
KETCHIKAN GATEWAY individual, on ow Moran, her
Agnes an son, of her
n John on behalf behalf and Harrington,
Coss, minor, indi John individual,
vidual, Spokely, an David Cross-Appellants. Appellees and S-15811, S-15841.
Nos.
Supreme of Alaska. Court
Jan. (b)(5) 125.550(a) (permitting 15 AAC 125.020(b) (requiring CSSD 15 AAC CL Cf obligor job opportunities area where the modifywithholding order when "in the CSSDto consider | parent physically lifestyle parent without "lives a subsistence resides"), opportunity employment"). *2 Trickey, Singer
Howard S8. Matthew Misulich, Knight LLP, Robert Holland & Curige Anchorage, for Amicus for Citizens the Educational Advancement of Alaska's - Children. Dunn,
Kim Bennett Landye., Blumstein LLP, Anchorage, Amicus Curiae NEA- for Alaska. Broker, Borough Attorney, A. Rene Fair- banks, for Curiae North Fairbanks Amicus Borough. Star STOWERS, Before: Justice, Chief WINFREE, MAASSEN, and BOLGER Justlces
OPINION BOLGER, Justice. L.INTRODUCTION funding State's local school formula requires a government to make a contri- district,. bution its local school to fund superior court held that this contribution is unconstitutional dedication of a "state tax or license." But the minutes convention constitutional and the his- proceedings suggest of those context torical that delegates intended that local com- munities responsi- State would share Kathryn Vogel, Hattan, R. Rebecca bility for pro- their local schools. And those Margaret Paton-Walsh, Attorneys Assistant ceedings indicate General, Anchorage, Craig Richards, W. cooperative for pro- intend Attorney General, Juneau, Appel- - grams the school ' like formulato be lants/Cross-Appellees. included in the term "state tax or license." Louisiana W.. Cutler and M. Jennifer distinguish pre- These factors this case from Coughlin, Gates, LLP, Anchorage, K & L vious where we- cases found that fund- Appellees/Cross-Appellants violated the mechanisms existing clause. We therefore hold Brandt-Erichsen, Seott Ketchikan Gate- funding formula does not violate the constitu- way Borough, Ketchikan, Appel- tion, superior and we reverse the court's lee/Cross-Appellant Gateway Ketchikan Bor- grant summary judgment. ough. oh n 'Sedor, II. AND FACTS PROCEEDINGS D. Falsey Sedor, William and J Wendlandt, Filippi, & Evans LLC and Saul Funding A. Schobl Formula Friedman, Jermain, Owens, R. Dunnagan & Curige P.C., Anchorage, VII, for Amici Associa- Article of the Alaska Consti requires: legislature Boards, tution tion of Alaska the state "es School Council Super- of School Administrators and Alaska tablish and maintain a open schools" to all childrenin state.1 intendents Association. VII, ('The may provide other edu- Alaska Const. art. by general institutions."). law establish and maintain a cational system public open to all children of mandate, leg district, special constitutional number students fulfillthis 'To correspondence needs, types of school three and the number has defined islature is The base student allocation according to students.8 the district where districts by a per-student statute districts, allowanceset borough sehool city school located: periodically revisits.9 districts, regional education attendance ais "[Ejach organized need, districts receive areas.2 ough bor To fulfill this basic 3 borough district"; must "es contribution, aid, *3 required and local school "state 1, ], operate[] maintain[ and tablish{ aid eligible impact aid."10 State federal ' basis.4 on an public schools areawide fund," "public comes from the education annually. control manage and school Local boards legislature allocates which the authority dele under school districts these district that a The amount aid state requires This 14.12.020. statute gated AS variables: the is three receives based on governments to raise borough city and local need," district's "basic district's the maintain money local sources "from (if any), and the district's local contribution and localschools.5 operate" their impact appropriations If aid.12 federal state of state aid calculat fall short of the amount begins funding formula local school The the must State under AS 14.17.410, ed This con concept of the need." with "basic then pro on a need each basic reduce by pro districts district's cept is intended equalize basis.13 rata taking viding them with needed resources, among A districts.6 account differences offsets the requu'ed into 'The local contribution satisfy ba statutory provided a district's aid formula determines amount state Satisfying local district's basic the need.14 variables: dis- on two sic based need average daily membership community adjusted requires a local contribution triet's that within a an amount falls stat contribute allocation.7 base student and the statewide average daily adjusted utory range mem value taxable The reflects district's of within the personal property and located real such as bership for several accounts metrics At contribution district.15 size, enrollment, costs in the relative school minimum 14.17.410(6)(1), City those 7. AS districtsare AS 14.12.010. school city area or bit out- a home-rule located within side Borough borough. organized Id. an 14.17.420(a). school 14,17.410(b)(1)(A)-(D);AS 8. AS organized boroughs. districts are those located in Regional attendance areas are education Id. 9, 14.17.470; 8-10, §§ eg., SLA 9. AS see ch. home-rule, city, organized located outside those $5,480 (setting for amount boundaries, . borough or Id. $5,680 2010); $5,580 and for ch. $5,380 010(2) (setting amount at SLA 3. AS 14.12. per-student As of November 29,35. 160(a) 14,17.470. AS $5,830, AS allowarice 1412.020(c) ("The borough assembly for a AS 141.17.410(b). 10. AS district, council borough city district, provide money city shall 14.17.300, sources to raised from local maintain must be See AS contrast, district."). leg- By operate regional located funds districts islature 14..17.410(b)(1). 12. AS areas, taxing which lack attendance educational ('The providé authority, shall 14.17.400(b). AS operate necessary money maintain state areas."); regional attendance see educational art, X, ('The may § 2 14.17.410(b)(1) (”[SJtate State dele- equals Alaska Const. aid 14. See AS organized boroughs gate taxing powers a-required basic need minus contribution only."); Sch. Matanuska-Susitna cities impact eligible percent federal aid for and 90 399-400 year."), Dist. that fiscal 1997) part, taxing power explains, (stating differently). 'why treats districts 14.17.410(b)(2). The local AS contribution of in-kind "appropriations and the value includes Earcy Dage't Epvc. Dev,, Pusuic & Auaska's Auaska or 6. - 14.17.990(6). AS a district." made Funpmg A REPORTTOTHEALASKA Formura: ScHoor. services (2001). Lfcistature 8 "equivalent equal payment. partles of a mill summary 2.65 moved for must. Both levy Judgment. on full and true the taxable value personal property real the district as superior partially granted "The court January preceding 1 of the second fiscal Borough's agreed It motion. Bor- State, however, year." require cannot ough contributionvio- organized borough city or to contribute lated funds clause dedicated under article percent "45 more than a district's basic section 7 the state constitution. The preceding year." city need for the fiscal A provides: funds clause may sehool district make a proceeds state tax 'or license contribution, voluntary statutory cap but a any special pur shall be dedicated to not prevents community a local from contribut pose, provided in section 15 of except greater "equivalent more than required by or when the federal article levy aof two mill tax full and true government participation fed personal prop real value the taxable programs. This provision *4 eral erty percent, or the district" "28 of the prohibit any the continuance dedication total district's for the basic need the fiscal special existing upon date the purp'éses Thus, year."18 current, under the frame by people the ratification organized boroughs
work, cities work Alaskan.[21] support public with the State to together supenor The concluded that the re- court. schools. quired pro- local contribution constituted the license; or a ceeds state that the local Procéedings Prior B. contribution statute those funds earmarked Gateway Borough orga Ketchikan is an specific purpose prevented a the borough annually nized that must contribute using from the funds in other its schools AS fund under 14.12.020.19 manner; required and that the local contri- required payment, by The set. the school not exempt bution was from the constitution- formula,20 supports the Ketchikan prohibition against al dedicated funds. Borough Gateway District. In School superior summary judg- The court denied upcoming the district's "basic for the need" Borough's on ment the other claims. It con- million; year 2014 fiscal was almost $26 the eluded that the local contribution not did required local contribution about was $4.2 appropriations governor's the or violate veto million, Though Borough the contributed equity require not did clauses State to refund the local protest," this amount "under voluntarily contribution an contributed additional million. After $8.8 Borough year. the 2014fiscal funds, contributing Borough brought appropriations IX, article against State, asking clause under superior suit money provides court, first, section 18 shall "No required to declare con local treasury unconstitutional; from in accor- second, withdrawn enjoin tribution except made, requiring Borough by from State dance law. No appropriations statute; comply and, third, obligation payment with the money to direct for the shall be except by the State to refund million incurred: authonzed law Uno- $4.2 protested 14.17.410(b)(2). ") operate AS A is ap- mill rate "a tax maintain and the district. Ketchikan : plied property whereby repre- GatewayBorough incorporated to real mill each as a second-class $1,000 per borough $1 sents of tax September assessment 1963. Ketchikan property's Alaska, value." assessed Dictic. Gateway Borough, Law Code 01.05.040 Bmacx's ° nary ed.2014), (2015). 1084 (10th AS 14.17.410(b)(2) ("[The required 20. See AS local borough city contribution of a or school district 14.17.410(c)(1)-(@2), equivalent levy is the of 2.65 mill tax on the full AS personal and true value of the taxable real and ..."). property in the 14.12.020(c)("The district. asgemblyfor AS borough money school district that must be raised from local sources Const. art. superior court's decision: prongs of the outstanding four at the bligated appropriations specified law is required local of time contribution period whether end governor's veto funds, And the the dedicated void."22 under shall be unconstitutional governor's clauses or veto appropriations, II, provides: section 15 clause under article passed refunding governor may veto equity requires and, so, "The bills if whether protested payment.24 Borough's by veto, or re may, strike legislature. He bills, He shall appropriation items duce bill, statement with a any vetoed return III, OF STANDARD REVIEW origin." The house of objections,to the his was vio clause grant concluded neither court denial review "We local contribution Questions required judgment lated because the summary de novo."25 treasury" and be state not enter the statutory interpretation, "does of constitutional and is not contribution cause the statute, constitutionality of including conclud further appropriation. court apply to which we our questions of law are that the re unproblematie it was ed that adopt judgment.26 the "rule independent never local contribution entered quired light persuasive of law that most Borough's denying treasury. reason, Legislative policy."2 precedent, refund, explained the court request context, including history historical because unjustly enriched ratification, help preceding define events not benefit contribution immediately passed constitution.28 Statutes woe the State. insight into give what after statehood presume statutes 'We intended.29 founders *5 appealed and the cross- The constitutional; party challenging to be all asking together to consider appealed, us 27, State, 13, Const, IX, 202 v. Se. Conservation Council Alaska 22%. art. Alaska - 2009) 1162, (Alaska (quoting Premera P.3d 1167 Commerce, State, Dep't Cmty. & Blue Cross v. of II, § 15. Const. art. 23. Alaska Ins., 1110, Dev., 171 P.3d 1115 Div. Econ. of 2007)). (Alaska Fairbanks briefs. The also filed 24. Six amici support Bor- Borough filed North Star Alex, 203, (Alaska P.2d 208 28. See State v. 646 support of State: ough. filed:in Five amici 1982) ("[The is used sense which 'tax' of Advancement the Educational the Citizensfor [Clonstitution of [Alaska] section 7 article each filed and NEA-Alaska Alaska'sChildren context, both in the must be determined from brief; School Alaska the Association of a Boards, and according discussions text and con- Adminis- Council of School the Alaska adopted the word- convention which stitutional trators, Superintendents Associa- and the Alaska Sys., ing."); State-OperatedSch. Hootchv. Alaska brief, of joint The Alaska Association tion filed 1975) ("[An 793, (Alaska historical 536 P.2d 800 repre- organization and is "the School Boards enlightened perspective is to an contem- essential of school agency of the members sentative constitution."); porary interpretation of our id. The Alaska Council state." boards preceding (explaining events rati- at 804 itself as an describes School Administrators um- interpretation supported the court's fication premier organization for "four Alaska's brella constitution). the state including organizations," leadership educational Association, The Superintendents the Alaska 29, Hammond, 1, 553 4 n. 4 See v. P.2d Bradner Citizens Educational Advancement. for the (Alaska 1976) interpretation ("Contemporaneous itself as a coalitionof describes Alaska'sChildren participating in its those of fundamental law educators, and districts 23 member school founded in espe drafting traditionally been viewed has aged problem of to "address 1998 intent."); weighty cially of the framers' evidence NBA- in rural Alaska." and deteriorated Jr., States, Hampton, & Co. v. United J.W. cf. U.S. labor or- itself as a "statewide describes Alaska 348, (1928) 394, 412, 72 L.Ed. S.Ct. 13,000 edu- ganziation and educators certified States, (citing Myers 272 U.S. v. United serving in support professionals Alaska's cation ('This (1926)) Court 47 S.Ct. 71 L.Ed. schools," public principle repeatedly down the that a has laid legislative exposition of the contemporaneous (Alaska Schmidt, 323 P.3d State v. our when founders [U.S.] Constitution 2014) (quoting Liberties Union Alaska Civil government of our Constitution framers and 2005)). long public actively participating in affairs were given acquiesced construction to be in fixes the provisions."). «its 26. Id. at 655. of a longstanding iteration cooper- showing the statute bears the burden of othe program rwise.30 ative in which local. communities and the responsibility State share funding IV. DISCUSSION public Alaska's schools. Accordingly,wheth- er or not it is a predated dedication Funding A. The Does School Formula statehood, local contribution is Not Violate Dedlcated Funds | not a tax or license" "state mean- within the Clause. clause. Before became Alaska Territory responsibili local areas shared Compiled Under Laws ty funding legis education.31 The 1949,. Territory local commu- funding lature derived the current school responsibility nities shared for fund- pre-statehood program, formula from this . ing local schools. largely the framework which has remained Boroughs did not exist before Alaskabe unchanged.32 came state. Under Compiled Borough contends the school Laws of city single each constituted a funding program is a "state tax or license" school district obligation had an and each subject that is the dedicated funds clause provide public school services.34 An incorpo existing because it is not a ... "dedication city adjacent rated could join areas upon of [the the date ratification Alaska to independent form school district.35 Lo Constitution]" and because no other ex boards, cal school oversaw local which emption from the dedicated funds clause activities, power assess, levy, had applies, Accordingly it concludes that collect obligation to assist with this taxes required local contribution violates the dedi support Though their schools.36 territorial cated funds clause. First law amount, dictate an exact statehood, "municipalities claims that before cities "suitable school judgment independent exercised discre necessary houses ... funds to tion they as to what pay could afford to or, part [local] maintain schools" if schools" notes that "cities were not re independent district, of an to set aside *6 quired provide particular to to amount any funding for of local their share school costs.38 the school districts." Second the today, Like enjoyed local communities discre argues that the refund amount that cities tion in satisfy to determining their fund how Territory "depended received from the ing obligation. They special could dedicate appropriated by Legisla how much was purpose, they school tax to the could for purpose." ture such portion general municipal dedicate of the purpose.39 However, below, tax to the explain law also. as we re- Territorial quired required local contribution is annually the most recent schoolboards to submit to Council, 30. Se. necessary Alaska Conservation P.3d at with ... funds to maintain schools, ..."). 1167. 37-3-41, 37-3-41, -33, §§ Id.§ 31. See 37-3-31 to 37-3-62 35. (ACLA)(1949). Compiled Laws Annotated example, Compiled For 37-23-32, 37-3-53; section 37-3-62 of the §§ 36. Id. 37-3-24 -26, to see id, Territory Laws of Alaska to refund (establishing § also 37-3-33. authorized ex- part maintaining local districts for cost board). penditures by school These boards local schools. possessed power the same to tax as the then- «.existing corporations municipal incorporat- 14.17.410; § -33, ed Id. 37-3-25. §§ AS cities: See 37-3-31 to 37-3- 41, 37-3-62 ACLA. §.37-3-32. 37. Id. IX, §
33. Alaska Const. art. 7. § 37-3-53. Id. city ("'Every 34. See 37-3-32 ACLA shall consti- duty tute a school be district and shall 14.17.990(6) (defmlng Id AS see 37~3—35 [city] contribution"). council to [school district] "'local preserving anticipated ex importance budget of recognized the Territory a Through collected, state revenue.44 control over 'of all funds a record penses, IX, of article see expenses.4 funds clause for their receipts such delegates sought to balance tion support also received communities Local gener Early clause drafts concerns.45 Territory. Territo from the for local schools of state the dedication reve ally prohibited legislature to refund for the provided rial law exceptions. allowing for certain nue while expenses from time school of local portion example, recognized, for delegates The local communities amount The to time.41 should be when allowed dedications statutory formula that reflected received in federal -and when programy to of stu number like the considered factors participate preemsted One statehood. _ district, such dedications total amount in the dents provided: suchdraft system, maintain its school to spent district Territory had-approved expenses and the in a deposited shall be revenues All. budget.42Thus in the district's before and main general fund to be established state, communities became provision This the state. tained schools, supported local together Territory special continuance prohibit today. much like existing at the special purposes fund for 46] constitution.[ theof effectivedate drafted The constitution lframe‘i's cooperative such sen subsequent A draft modified first allow statehood, programs after deposited the continue "Allrevenues shall be tence: special treasury allocation without at n ie constitutional conven participation except where state purposes, recognized the benefits state- such, tion denied,"4 thereby programs will Federal they programs.43 But cooperative Art'y Opinion 37-3-55, at 3 Or. Gen. 44. 1975 ACLA. §§ 37-3-63 Format Comm'n, 2, 1975); (May 3 Araska Sratencon Constr (1955); pt. 4 PACC at 27-30 Turionat Compiled -62. Alaska §§ 37-3-61 (Jan. 1956). provided: section 37-3-61 Laws expended per total amount centum of the Such (Jan, See, eg., 4 2413-16 PACC elementary the maintenance example, rejected delegates, an amend- schools, high limits within the schools and proposed dedicated funds to the clause ment incorporated city or any incorporated Delegate have deleted a that would Buckalew may Legislature from time to as the district... existing in the clause that allowed sentence direct, refunded shall be time 2416, Delegate Id. at dedications continue. incorporated incorporated city or fund of said [only] expressed "the had concern Buckalew moneys of school district .from way run a state is to abolish sensible sound Territory.... earmarking practice funds}which leads [of Territory the cur- reflects This refund from management of the far as the fiscal evils as funding program. cooperative rent state-local: *7 Delegate Pera- Id. at 2413. state is concerned." funding). (publicschool SeeAS 14.17.410 trovich, that participated who in the committee clause, responded the committee that drafted the districts §§ ACLA. School to -64 42. See 37-3-61 sought compromise: to strike proportionally less students received with more students, Id, danger- compromise. [IJt ... have to [¥Jou with fewer than districts give not available cer- Refunds were new state in ear- 37-3-62. to free rein to the ous However, marking I realize that including levying and funds. of expenses, the cost tain by good accomplished being conducting collecting elections. there was some board taxes and budget, reviewing funds that on the we a district's those 'earmarked Im Id. 37-3-64. have support authority today feel that I cannot "disapprove or and I books Territory the 'the had condition, - calculating budget" amendment] on that any [Buckalew's the in items in reduce Id, § 37-3-63. of reimbursement. amount Id. at 2414. Grew, note 3 Art'v Formar Or. at supra See, Constitu- eg., Proceedings (internal draft) quotation marks (quoting the 19, 1956) (Jan. (PACC)2651 tional Convention omitted). (statement Londborg) (explaining Delegate programs en- cooperative would that state-local draft) quotatlon (quoting organize Id. at courage into bor- (internal local communities omitted). oughs, governance). the new of local form marks preserved exemption might gov- allocations collect on behalf of local 2] units,[5 ernment in at the time 'of existence statehood.48 delegates that this 'But the feared draft explained White the amended Delegate language might prohibit too much.49 Accord language allowed these exceptlons to contin ingly they key modified clause two going ue: saying the tax itself "By respects. First, they by reworded clause the tax shall 'earmarked, not be replacing "proceeds "[alllrevenues"with exphmt] eliminated need to make all [the Second, any state tax or they license:" re » 53 exceptmns seven those by replacing “any last vised the sentence special "any fund" with dedlcahon’" colloquyamong delegates The reflects any The state ta or proceeds this compromise by deliberate embodied :the any special shall not pur bededicated to clause, delegates as the Just voiced the pose, except provided as in section 15 of revenue, need control over state Staté this article or when federal byfthe delegates clause for preserving lauded the government participation for state in fed programs, including "high certain thosefor programs. provision eral This shall not ways,airports, Through schools." prohibit the any continuance of dedication compromise, delegates allowed dedica for special purposes existing upon the date [to] the.statute books be left in tions "now people of ratification of this long effect as as the fit saw to 0] Alaska,[5 Delegate them and, there," leave White Through recog- the delegates revisions, such noted, setting aside delegates allowed any prohibition nized on dedicated funds pursuant statute, certain monies including limits, prohibi- A reasonable flat those for cooperative programs.56 state-local tion was neither nor feasible desirable.51 delegates recognized not clause could arrange that an responsibility ment of betweenthe "strictly] interpret[ed]" legal shared because both obligations "require and contractual a State local would communities substan offered segregation money's," benefits, including: certain particularly tial the transition contributions, pension proceeds from bond borough system governance. of local Ac issues, sinking participation governance prom tive receipts, revolving fund receipts, fund contributions ised State "hundreds thou from save sands of taxpayers' money." government dollars state-local coopera- units programs, tive receipts and tax Cooperative which the programs, like those which ("This 1); provision prohibit 48. Id. at 8 supra note Se. Alaska Conservation P.3d 1162, existing Council v. upon continuance of 1169 n. 29 allocation date of of this ratification Constitution (Alaska 2009) exceptions). Both (noting (mternal draft) people (quoting of Alaska." appear agree omitted)). quotation marks interfering amended clause to avoid programs pension such as contributions and (Jan. cooperative 1956) programs. 5; 49. See id. at 3 PACC 2302 (statement Nerland). Delegate Op. Gen, supra Format Ar'v note at 12-13. Const, added). § (emphasis 50. Alaska art. (statement (Jan. 1956) PACC 2415 Pus, Serv, 51. See Abmin. Comments rrom Pusuc Nerland); (state- Delegate see also id. at 2369-70 Propos- Service AbministratIONon Finance Commitee Peratrovich). Delegate ment of Op.Att'y Gen., (Jan. 4, 1955); au 1 see also Format *8 44, Serv, supra (quoting note at 7 Pus. Admin. (statement White) Delegate 56. See id. at 2363 of 1). supra, at (explaining exceptions that the seven former clause); implicit Pup. were now in the For Serv, 51, supra (emphasis | Admin. note 1at amended 52. Op.Att'y supra (identifying Art'vy mal at 7 note Gen. added); supra see also Format Or: note Gen. exceptions the seven to which White Admin, Serv., Delegate (quoting supra, at 7 Pub. at ‘ + referred). (Jan. 17, 1956) (statement 53. PACC of Ar'y (statement White); Gen, Delegate Delegate 57. 4 PACC 2652 of Lond- see also Format Or. Serv, supra (quoting borg). note at 7 Pus. Admim. Q4 classify boroughs and legislature shall shared the ~The local communities
the State and 0] functions.[6 powers prescribe their services, en local providing cost of to delegates areas borough system, couraged unincorporated Through incorpo confusion, redundancy, they sought reassuring that would to avoid the them rate county- overlapping unnecessary of costs organizing [to] "definitely benefit by nation.61, CGiv city systems elsewhere picture of get[ government.58 into the ] local grant not to they decided en concerns such cost-sharing programs between Existing taxing power.62 Instead school districts communities, that in like Territory and dependent on delegates local schools made local con with increased education, combined money.63 delegates While the boroughs for offered other services trol over education "establish[ing] and with State entrusted the incentives.59 such open system public schools maintain{[ing]a of " State,64 anticipat they to all of children responsibility statehood, Before to boroughs likely that would levy have cities, ed to largely fell The state governance provide to schools.6 tax by creating system constitution revised this transi recognized delegates that to potential hold more boroughs with time.66 wouldtake tionto responsibility: power more responsibility power and under allocating Constitution, sought into bor shall be divided The entire State unorganized. They organized or oughs, grow to provide State with room to ac to designed in a manner and the constitution adapt,. They to be established fill could be flexible provided by so law.... cording to standards 1956) (statement (Jan..19, of (statemeht Londborg). Delegate 4 PACC of. Id. at ("The necessity, borough, Doogan) Delegate of probably would . to for its operation id.; (statement Delegate V. at 59. See id. ..."); provide schools. basic tax to have a certain Rivers) existing example (noting induce- ~ (statement Delegate Doo- id. at 2648 see also per- organize of taxes "a like refunds to ments ("The necessity provide gan) would of least, back to the centage, of which reverts at then [The [Sitate certain basic functions.... area"). organized delegate very easily whatever wanted to it could borough....'") Matanuska-Susitna do to the X, § 3. * 60. Alaska Const. art. - Dist. v. Sch. (Alaska 1997) legislature's (highlighting au- (Jan. 1956) (state- See, eg., 4 PACC responsibility thority delegate while still to such Fischer) ("Once get you Delegate V. ment 'retaining education}. over control authority}, sepa- taxing [granting each started on independent justify an well rate function could 19, 1956). (Jan. Delegate As 4 PACC 2650 you right levying authority are back and then tax explained: Rivers Victor trying government we are to type to the that thought it at the state level would Alaska, independent overlapping of avoid in past policy in the to offer as it been has. (statement taxing jurisdictions."); id. at organize. to them certain inducements ("The thing wrong Delegate Doogan) is Now, incorporated present cities time in at the autonomy [givinglocal school boards that fiscal taxing nature there are taxes certain they if authority] were not refunds taxes, taxes, liquor and other taxes of license mun1c1pa11ty they within careful break could least, percentage, reverts that are which district."). f a school organized In the extent that to the area. back up will offset the benefits sets ('The X, may § 2 See Alaska Const. art. people, ... but it was our cost to the the added boroughs organized delegate powers taxing enough thought would be inducement there only."). and cities organize home rule so exercise them gradually they would all time went on that as 2; X, 4 PACC 2632 63. See Alaska Const. art. boroughs.... incorporated become (Jan. 1956) (statement Doogan) Delegate organize thought was that inducements [borough] assembly ("Consequently, with the granting of be offeredon the basis would home having having function of more than the one powers plus other induce- rule certain schools, and so having many other functions advantageous ments that would make dollars, many be able distrib- then would boroughs, we now have as them to be possible."). equitably ute as. organize program com- same inducement munities. added) (emphases VII, Alaska Const. art. *9 7 Though governed [later]."6 "exact details districts now borough also school delegates sought powers to limit certain districts, and including those related to "financial pitfalls, they to avoid certain did not intend support general ... and other relating laws compel to pro to unravel existing State to schools."7 These support financial laws grams they prevent nor did intend to general other dargely and school laws were in place pre-statehood.73 from experimenting adapting the same as those and changing cireumstances. Territory, communities, As in the in cluding boroughs, requlred were support legislation Early upon pre- 8. built local schools.74 required statehood laws that the Ter- act, legislature In a 1962 began ritory and local communities to share adapt pre-statehood cooperative program responsibility for local schools. providing school borough services to the Early post-statehood legislation filled in system governance. legislature clari gaps framework. In constitutional organized that borough fied consti "Ielach legislature incorporation enacted borough tutes a school district." Like the required as standards under boroughs, Territory, the State continued to lo oversee X, section article Constitu operations, cal budgeting, spendin school tion, delegated significant responsibility g,"76 and it responsibility shared for admin delegates envisioned,69 to them.68 As the istering supervising system public responsibilities those the State's included schools with local school boards.77 And ' obhgatlon provide constitutional public began 1962act to refine system, develop schools.70 foundation account charged boroughs The 1961 act with "es schools on an tablish[ing], maintain[ing], operatiing] fine-tuning annual basis and the method system public calculating schools on an areawide basis." the amount of state aid mandate, boroughs "71 To fulfill this local contribution.78 The State and given responsibilities were like cit those of local communities support continued to governed ies. city State laws that together. See, Delegate Rosswog) (1962).
67. (statement eg., Id. 73. former AS 14.15.230-.750 (noting delegates sought reveals, develop legislative history that many As the of these See, unchanged "flexible" eg., framework on which the remained laws since 1949. (1962) could build fill in former AS the "exact ... 14.15.230 details enacted (originally (1949)); § as 37-3-31 ACLA former AS law"); (statement Delegate see also id. at Fischer) ("[Alt (1962) (originally § V. 14.15.240 the same visualize the enacted 37-3- as time ACLA); possibility (1962) as becomes a more (original- AS former 14.15.450 ACLA). ly government enacted as 37-3-54 years" definiteunit of over the it will § assume those functions that it could "best 1961, Ch, out."). 3.33, carr[y] § SLA 9,§ 75. Ch. SLA X, § 68. See Alaska Const. art. (1962) (originally 76. See AS- former 14.05.010 (statement (Jan. See 4 PACC 2629 1956) (1949); § enacted as 37-1-2 ACLA AS Fischer) Delegate (explaining boroughs' V. re- (1962) (originally § 14.10.010 enacted 37-2-7 schools); sponsibility for {statement at 2652 as id. ACLA); (1962) (originally AS 14.10.300 enacted Delegate Doogan) (noting boroughs likely ACLA). §as 37-2-53 schools); levy support would have to taxes to see P.2d 4 n. 4 Hammond, Bradner (1962) (originally 77. Former AS 14.05.100 enact- (Alaska 1976) ("Contemporaneous interpretation ACLA). § 37-1-12 ed participating law those in fundamental drafting traditionally espe- has been viewed as (1962); 78. Former AS 14.17.010-.040 see also cially intent."). weighty evidence of the framers' (1962). legisla- former AS 14.15.050-.070 recognized ture also transition to the VIL,§
70. See Const. art. borough system Accordingly, would take time. place many until left in 146, 3.33(a), § 71. Ch. SLA1961. parallel territorial laws cities support local schools. Ch. SLA 1966 3.33(b). 14.15). (repealing AS *10 96 gen agreed after statehood an amount defined soon to contribute enacted State Statutes 83 by statutory formula a intent.79 Post- framers' erally reflect envisioned, statehood, as notes, 1970, as the 1969to From local communi to hold legislature continued aid under state redefined the legislature supporting schools under responsible ties equal each dis- of17 Chapter statute governance. system of borough local repealed provi it need.84 And basic triect's necessity provide[d] cer "of the State
While
mandating
communities con
that local
sions
also,
functions,80it
as
dele
basic
tain
funding, including
AS
local school
tribute
delegated -some
anticipated,
-of its
gates
effort)
AS
understanding
(required
and
boroughs with the
local
1417.080
duties
14.17,180
local
(computation
required
of
eff
cer
boroughs,
probably
a,
"would
have
borough ort)85
the state-
left
But
tain basic
schools"
As
cooperation foundation untouched.
local
residents.81
1961,
organized borough
"[elach
in
was true
4, Subsequent
legislation
did
alter
borough school district" and
constitute[d] a
of
co-
the basic framework
borough
required
"es
organized
each
public
providing
operation
local
maintain,
tablish,
operate
and
86
schools.
basis."
on areawide
publicschools an
1966,
borough system began to
In
as the
1970,
again
year,
legislators
next
traction,
gain
divided school
local communities
explicitly mandated
Organized
categories.
into
districts
three
together to
local
fund
and
State work
borough
organized
outside an
cities located.
allocating
formula
revised
schools. The
managing
responsible
were
and control
and local
responsibility
State
between
district, organized bor
ling city school
experimented
new variabl
with
communities
oughs
responsible for the district within
were
aid
example,it determinedstate
es.87
orga
For
boundaries;
districts
their
outside
values within the
property
taxable
based
(and
operated
were
boroughs and cities
nized
light
of the number
students
district
Ag
funded)
before the
fully
by the State.82
required
Previously, the
served.88
district
city
borough
required
districts to
only
prop
the taxable
local effort considered
operate local schools with
help maintain and
district;
not standard-
erty
sources,"
and the
money
local
from
"raised
within
Hammond,
1,
tain,
4 n. 4
operate
system of
schools on
Bradnerv.
See
P.2d
146,
3.33(a),
basis."),
(Alaska
§
ch.
1976);
Se. Alaska Conservation Council
an areawide
("The
borough
2009).
1162,
second
first and
SLA 1961
class
P.3d
maintain,
operate system
establish,
shall
80,
19, 1956)(statement
(Jan.
4 PACC
...").
schools.
DelegateDoogan).
(1970),
14.17.021(c)(5)
by ch.
as amended
87. AS
81,
(statement DelegateDoogan).
Id. at
238,
4,
("[State
computed
§
aid as
SLA 1970
per
least 90
this
shall constitute at
under
82,
14.12.010,
(1966) (original
Former AS
.020
by
depart-
need as defined
cent
the basic
‘
1966).
98, 1,§ SLA
version at ch.
district."). A
would
mentofeachschool
district
required
only
if it satisfied
receive state aid
14.12.020(c)(1966) (original ver-
Former AS
14.17.071(a)
funding obligation, AS
local
1,
98, §
SLA
The amount of
sion
ch.
238,
(1970),
§
SLA
ch.
as amended
depended on factors like
the state contribution
("Payment
district
aid to a
district,
in the
the dis-
of schools
number
matching
upon
contingent
chapter
under
,_
services,
special education
trict's need for
in the
district
amount
district,
specific
AS
characteristics
district
'effortfor that
ratio
14,17.050-.070
(1966).
local effort. ...").
|
("The
of state
amount
Ch
SLA
14.17.021(c)(3) (1970),
by ch.
need.").
AS
amended
is the basxc
aid
(defining
re-
state aid with
SLA 1970
Ch,.
real
true
of taxable
spect to
"full and
value
95,§ 11,
SLA
divided
personal property
the district
within
membership
daily
by
trict").
average
dis-
15.330(a)
(1970) (“[T]he
Compare
first
AS O7
establish,
main-
and second class
ize that value.89
reflect factors like the
schools in
number
district,
special
the district's need for
Borough points out,
as the
*11
services,
specific
education
and a district's
legislature again
funding
tweaked the school
characteristics.95
than
system,.
separately
Rather
calculate a
and a
district's "state aid"
district's "basic
legislature
The
has
refine
continued
need,"
only
the statute calculated
a district's program,
as the
envisioned it
90 Through
"basic
aid."
in
state
this shift
would,
program's pre-statehood
but the
core
focus,
longer
no
out
the statute
set
esti
has
Compiled
remained intact. Just as the
mate a
basic need or a district's
district's
charged
Laws of Alaska
local communities
before,
budget.
total
Unlike
the statute did
"provid[ing]
necessary
with
the
funds to
not considerlocal
But it
contributions.91
schools,"96
14,
maintain [local]
title
before,
all,
did not
them out.92
as
rule
After
chapter
requires boroughs
and cities to
boroughs respon
the State continued to hold
money
fund schools
from
with
raised
local
"establish[ingl,
maintain{ingl,
sible
and
sources."97
the details of this
While
state-
operat[ing] system public
of
on an
cooperative program
changed,
local
have
areawide basis."
legislature has never relieved local communi
Subsequently
legislature
in
again
longstanding obligation
1986the
ties of
sup
their
port
reformulated the
It
local public
state aid calculation.
as
schools. Rather
one
delegate
explaining
when
requirement
stated
the rationale
reinstated
commu
local
funding.94
shifting
nities contribute to local
onus of
education from cities
school
boroughs:
And the
you
amount
aid
state
continued to
come to the bor-
"When
(noting only
14.17.021(c)(3) (1970),
Compare
enactment
under session
AS
as amend-
238, 4,
§
(defining
ed
164,
1.01).
ch.
SLA 1970
state aid
chapter
laws
section
respect
"full
with
real and
to the
and true value
taxable
personal property
within the
district
29,33.050
93,
(1984) (identifying
AS
re-
the most
by average daily membership
divided
dis-
1975,chapter
cent amendment as sessionlaws of
trict"),
AS14.17.030(b) (1963) (defining
with
13,
6,
124,
34).
chapter
section
section
In
required local effortin terms of "the full and true
1972,
legislature repealed
former titles 7
personal
property
real and
with-
taxable
value
(boroughs)
(municipal corporations)
and 29
referring
in the district" but not
to the number of
29,
provisions
including
reenacted
under title
district),
legislature repealed
students
The
118,
those related
duties.
SLA
borough
Ch.
to i
1969,
95,
11,
§
AS 14.17.030 in 1969. Ch.
SLA
,
~
legislature
The
had last amended the statutein
«
14.17,030
(identify-
former AS
See
(1966)
75,
2-3,
§§
94. Ch.
SLA1986.
ing
recent
the most
amendment as session laws
1963,
70,
chapter
section
95,
5,
2,§§
See
SLA
ch.
1986. Section 2
light
defined state
for a district in
of its
26, 4,
Compare
§
(reframing
ch.
SLA1980
AS
aid
allotment,"
§
unit
"instructional
5 defined
14.17.021(a)
"[the
as
amount of basic state aid
to include
"instructional units"
some
eligible"
omitting
for which each
district
year,
legislature
above factors.
The next
need"),
2-3,
§§
references to "basi¢
ch.
with
framework,
longstanding cooperative
refined this
(separately defining
SLA 1977
"state aid" and
creating
new sections
some of the 1986 man-
need").
"'basic
combining
dates
other mandates with exist-
See,
3-4,
eg.,
§§
sections.
ch.
SLA
Compare
(noting only
ch.
SLA 1980
(recalibrating
formula for
aid and local
state
aid
light
that
federal
state
could be reduced in
contributions);
(repealing
§ 25
former
id.
contributions),
3,§
ch.
SLA
provisions).
(mandating
aid constitute
state
"at
per
least
school
cent
the basic need" of each
district).
(1949).
37-3-32 ACLA
14.17,220 (1982) ("This
14.12.020(c) ("The
chapter
borough assembly
92. AS
shall not
97. AS
for a
interpreted
preventing public
be
trict from
dis-
school district
providing
educational services and fa-
money
that must be raised from
local sources
district.")
beyond
operate
cilities
those assured
the foundation
maintain and
AS
reveal,
14.17.410(b) ("'Public
program.").
As the
annotated statutes
consists of
aid,
1982this
had
contribution,
revised since
been
eligi-
state
Id,.
..."),
provision.
impact
when the
enacted
bie federal
aid.
has
clause,
change
in borough is interested
including the
from "all
ough though,
"proceeds
revenues"
basic func
be one
It will
education.
context,
light
of this
license."
for.98
responsible
it will
tions which
dedicating not
prohibited
that the clause
held
only
special
yet to consider the
but also
assessments
like
haveWe
taxes
Alex,103
the one at issue
light
state-local
funds clause
programs.
cooperative
case,
not ask us to
Alex did
But unlike this
argues that State v.
coopera
longstanding
consider
dictate
progeny
Alex and
Alex,
program at issue
program. In
tive
*12
14.12.020(c) and
of AS
funding formula
1976, nearly
years
in
first
was
enacted
14.17410(b)
the dedicated
violates
funds
state, and there was
after Alaskabecame a
progeny do not
But Alex and its
clause.
suggesting
program
was
no
evidence
have
here. Never before
dictate the result
fall outside
delegates
would
one the
intended
longstanding
type of
we considered
regional aquaculture asso-
the clause.104The
cooperativeprogram.
state-local
clations,
from the assess
would
who
benefit
ment,
long
in
were also established
v.
a. State
Alex
Accordingly
a
after Alaska became state.105
long
a
Alex we
not consider whether
in
seope of the
dedi
first considered
We
program was
There,
standing
cooperative
a
Alex.99
in
v.
clause State
cated funds
meaning
or
of
tax license"
"state
within
alleged
fishers
group
commercial
of
clause.
the dedicated funds
authorizing mandatory assessments
statute
of
purpose
"for the
sales
on
salmon
their
qualified regional
providing revenue
City
v. Fairbanks
b.
of Fairbanks
violated the ded
[aquaculture] association[s]"
Bureau
Convention & Visitors
agreed with the
'We
icated funds clause.100
In
we
evaluated
Fairbanks,
City
rejected
accordingly
the State's
of
fishers and
constitutionality
initiative that re
of a voter
attempted
distinguish be
argument, which
city allocated bed tax
(subject to structured how
"general revenue taxes"
tween
XI,
clause)
section 7
revenues.106
"special as
Article
funds
dedicated
prohibits
Alaska Constitution
initiative
(allegedly
subject
for services
sessments"
funds,107
appropriates
or
clause).101
that dedicates
doing so,
adopted a
In
we
to the
argued that
it did
origin
opponents
the initiative's
meaning
in
light
of "tax"
broad
did not
both.108 held that the initiative
We considered
prohibition.
of the clause's
actually
Convention;
it
increased
dedicate funds because
studies
the debates
spending
to make
dec
drafting
flexibility
the council's
delegates
on when
relied
on Alex to
isions.109'Werelied
determine
section,
emphasized im
including those that
funds be
whether the initiative dedicated
control over
portance
protecting
only
other time we had
cause
revenue;
revised
and how the
1976;
§§
§
154, 14-16,
190, 1,
ch.
104.Ch.
SLA
14,12.020
since
untouched
left the AS
mandate
1977.
SLA
1975. See AS 14.12.020.
19, 1956) (statement
(Jan.
161, 2,
4 PACC2629
Ch.
SLA 1976.
105.
Fischer). Compare
Delegate
AS 14.12.020
V.
(1975),
(1966),
(2015),
former AS
id.
id.
City
Fairbanks
&
106.
Fairbanks v.
Convention
3.33,
(1966),
SLA 1961.
ch.
07.15.330
Bureau,
(Alaska
Visitors
818 P.2d
1153-54
1991).
1982).
(Alaska
XI,
("The
§ 7
initiative
107. Alaska Const. art.
Id. at 204-05
revenues,
shall not be used to dedicate
make
repeal appropriations...."}.
at 208.
Fairbanks,
City
111. Alaska
XI.
118.
Id.
Const,
Alaska
112.
art. IX.
clear,
("As
depart-
119.
Id.
all
debates make
position’
ments were to be ‘in the same
as com-
(Alaska
1992).
113. 836 P.2d
petitors for funds with
need to ‘sell
their
"
viewpoint along
everyone
Id. at 937-38.
114.
with
else.’
(quoting
(Jan. 17, 1956))).
PACC 2364-67
(stating that the
Id. at 938-39
act is based on
principle
that “the administrators
the Alas-
120. 68 P.3d
387-88
Highway
System
ka Marine
and the
Highway
will treat
the fund
if the Marine
Id. at
’).
right
System
proceeds_'
had a
to its
Id. at
permissible under
Myers
have been
would
by the estimated
secured
bonds
revenue
Finally,
the clause 131
settlement.123
present value
appropriated portion
legislature then
Second,
the Uni
we considered whether
necessary
to fund the
proceeds
bond
funds
exempt from the dedicated
versity was
improvements.124
exception
implied
prohibition
virtue
VII,
Alaska
2 of the
under article
fell within
settlement
Though
tobacco
University
Constitution, which authorized the
clause
dedicated funds
scope
rejecting
property.132 In
to hold
real
title
future
dedicated
though the scheme
explained that our case
argument, we
scheme was
revenue,
concluded
we
University
are
lands
law establishes
constitutional,125
explained
unlike
au
retains
which the State
state lands over
clearly dealt
which
Alex and Sqnnemom,
University
thority regardless whether
revenues, the revenue
the allocationof future
result,
from
all revenue
title.133 As a
holds
Myers
different.126
scheme
allocation
subject to
is state revenue
University land
Myers reduced
The scheme in
revenue
future
the clause134
used that value
se
present value
Council
Alaska Conservation
Southeast
bonds,
of which
proceeds
cure
would
might
possibility that we
rule out
improvements that
fund
dedicated
exempt
dedicat-
from the
other statutes
find
year.127
in this
Like the other cases
ed
clause.
funds
coop-
longstanding
address
did not
line,
Conservation
e.
Southeast
program,
pro-
like the school
erative
v. State
Council
governments
gram,
which local
responsibility
providing
lo-
Con
Most
share
recently,
Southeast
service,
do not
Such
cal public
programs
the dedi
returned
Council,
servation
violate the
clause.
s n ruck down an
cated funds
when
*14
clause
we
to the
land
act that
state
time
transferred
the first
we are
Univer
Here.
asked
that
sity
dwected
thcome
longstanding
then
to
contributions
whether
local
Alaska
held
trust
fromthat
derived
which
State and
cooperative programs
in
the
be
in
land
Before
concludmg
University.128
funding responsibili-
the
share
governments
local
.
the
1n a
ty
afoul
the dedicated
run
act
we
unconstitutional,
engaged
clause.
First, we
two—part
of the constitutional convention
minutes
concluded
inquiry,
proceed-
context of those
scope
the historical
the
from
proceeds
land were within
any
"proceeds
delegates
the clause'sreference
not intend
ings
did
reveal
so,
doing
pro-
such
required
we
local contributions
or
state tax
license.129
in
grams
term "state
Alex that
to be included
warning
our
"con
reiterated
of any or license."
program for
Today's statutory
stitution
the dedication
prohibits
explained
we
squarely
source of revemue.130 And
funding
schools falls
local
cooperative pro-
type
that,
act
not contem within the
Myers, the
unlike
sought
exempt from
grams
delegates
plate non-recurring
which as
appropriation,
123.1d.
1170; Myers,
124.Id. Se, Council,202 Conservation P.3d Alaska VII, ("[The 1170-71; 125.Id.at390-9 Const. art. see real University shall have title all Alaska] Id.at392. property set personal now or hereafter aside property conveyed shall be adminis- to it. Its or 389; 127.Id.at law."). according disposedof tered and (Alaska2009). 1162,1165-66,1177 128.202P.3d Council, 202 P.3d at Conservation Se. 129.Id.at1169. Alex, (quoting P.2d 130. Id. State Id. at 1172. (Alaska 1982)). prohibition priations process governor's
the constitutional and that We therefore concludethat the exist- funds. requires governor veto clause formula does not violate given opportunity appropria- to veto this the dedicated funds clause. tion. If required assume local contri- money contends, bution is local Funding B. The Formula School Does required local contribution would not vio- Appropriations Not Violate The Or appropriations late either the or clause Clauses. Governor's Veto governor's veto clause these clauses because money, state not money, agree superior address On with the court required hand, local contribution does not vio the other if even we assume that gover late the or appropriations clause money contribution is state as the Bor- nor's veto clause of the contends, Alaska Constitution. ough local contribu- tion still would not violate either clause. The Article section appropriations local contribution enters the never state trea- clause, provides: money "No shall be with- sury, subject it is appropriations never treasury from drawn accor- except clause, appropriations per plain bills. The appropriations dance with made No law. language, applies to withdrawals from the obligation payment of money shall be treasury, governor's state ap- and the veto except incurred as authorized law. Uno- plies appropriation bills.139The bligated appropriations at the end of the does withdrawfromthe localcontribution period specified by law shall be time treasury; appropriation it is not an II, void." Article the gover state CTo bill. clause, provides: nor's veto governor "The may passed by legislature. veto He bills Borough correctly points out that the veto, may, by ap reduce items strike intentionally estab constitutional propriation bills. He return vetoed lished both which bill, statement his to the objections, governor and the would consider how to origin," house spend money year. each But while all clause, Like appro- the dedicated funds clause, three clauses-the dedicated funds priations governor's clause and the veto clause, appropriations governor's veto address, clause both spends how the State power budget, over clause-address the state Together govern state revenue. the clauses plain meaning clause each reveals legislature's governor's "joint and the Through purposes. three distinct the dedi *15 responsibility ... the determine State's clause, delegates sought cated the funds spending on an basis." priorities annual earmarking, avoid the evils'of which the dele preceding analysis, As our we must gates ] féared would the exercise of "curtaill interpret these constitutional clauses "ac simply controls and [would] budgetary reason, cording practicality, and common legislative to an amount[] abdication res sense, taking into plain meaning account the ponsibility.1 sought 'The purpose of the law as well the intent protect State control over state revenue and ofthe drafters." legislative By flexibility.141 to ensure con Borough argues trast, required appropriations the lo- the clause defines how legislature may "spend money the appropriation cal contribution by- is after passes constitutionally the appro- coffers, it has gover entered state and the mandated 15; II, IX, 139. See Const. art. AlaskaConst. Alaska Const. art. 13.. IX, § 13. art. II, § 136. AlaskaConst.art. Alex, (Alaska v. 646 P.2d Murkowski, Simpson 129 P.3d 1982) COMM'N, (citing supra STATEHOOD ALASKA note (Alaska 2006) (quoting the trial court decision}. 29-30). State, Game, 138. West v. Bd. Att'y Gen, 2010) Id.; (quoting supra Vill. see Or. Native Elim v. also Formar note (Alaska 1999)), P.2d at 3. VII, section apphcatlon of article potentlal an executive check provides veto clause nor's spending plan'142 Be adamantly insisted that constitu- legislature's parties on the my appro in -In language provision both the not plain tional was issue. cause therefore, view, question whether clauses indi governor's veto priations and constitu- local contribution is required State's State's clauses restrict that these cates publié re- schools clause treasury,. tional under the state money enters power after maing question. an undecided contribution before, not clause. does not violate either Justice, concurring. WINFREE, Borough To A Not Entitled C. Is constitutional, presumed be are Statutes Payment. Protested Refund Of Its consti- party challenging a statute's local contri- find the Because we persuasion; burden of tutionality has the constitutional, not consider need
bution of constitutional- in favor doubts are resolved a refund of its request for Borough's doubt ity.1 AlthoughI have considerable uphold Accordingly, we protested payment. statutorily of the about constitutionality Borough’ of the superior denial court's (RLC) public required local contribution request. con- component, cannot schools I 'over presumptionhas been that the clide v. CONCLUSION agree I therefore come this case. court's deci- superior REVERSE the primary decision-that superior court's judgment in favor of summary granting sion tax- dedicated is an unconstitutional RLC to allow the REMAND I not rule out an But do should vacated. of the State. judgment court enter RLC unconsti ultimate conclusion favor otherwise, tutional, or tak as a dedicated FABE, Justice, participating. not analysis court's not therefore do jdin my point.2 view the on this decision Justice, and STOWERS, Chief definitively answered question cannot be Justice, concurring. WINFREE, interpretation and understand a full without Justice, concurring. STOWERS, Chief public ing of Alaska Constitution's opinion. But like join I in the court's which, clause, apparently strate schools Winfree, I reasons, confront. am concerned that parties not Justice gic given opportunity to decide court ap- Addressinghow the RLC hasevery question controlled tax warrants a brief pearanceof a dedicated the Alaska Constitu- 7 of article Arti- clause. discussion schools appeal the fuller presented by tion as VII, Alaska Constitution cle section 1 of the public schools clause context article legislature shall part: states relevant "The I VII, section 1 Constitution. sys- maintain by general law establish today opinion court's that this do not believe open to all children tem State's necessarily determines re- ..." the State. con- survive quired contribution would *16 Macauley VII, provision this section We addressed serutiny article under stitutional parties Hildebrand,3 superior might, might not-but. 1-it it the. when reversed v.. borough require to allowing a question court intentionally litigate not did decision borough court, non-consenting school district that a or this superior court either in the system for ac borough's centralized use the pointed questions several notwithstanding to appropriated counting over funds inquiring control justices argument into in oral analysis conclusion agree 15; court's 2. I with the II, Const. 142. art. Alaska See Alaska Const. affirming superior secondary court's decision § 13. art. Consti- not violate the Alaska does that the RLC governor's claus- appropriations veto .or tution's Kritz, Language, Inc. v. a Common Alaskans for es. (Alaska 2007). 170 P.3d (Alaska1971). 3. 491P.2d public system though they schools even existing nev the school district.4 An statute al accountingupon treasury.11 er enter lowed centralized the school the State's consent, district's and the before us was issue unpersuasive I find the court's conclusion validity ordinance conflict exempt the RLC is from the dedicated general statute.5 We stated the prohibition post-statehood tax because is a that, notwithstanding rule the constitution of a continuation territorial or dedicated tax granting powers to broad home rule munici cooperative effort to establish and maintain palities,6 "the determination whether a First, public sehools..> the RLC was not a municipality home rule can enforce ordi part municipal of the territorial school fund- nance which conflictswith a state statute (The-territorial ing system,. tax dedicated depends regulated on whether the matter is schools discussed con- constitutional of statewide or local concern."7 We held a tebaceo vention was tax. for earmarked question was controlled article construction.12) school sys the territorial. VII, section 1: municipal tem were districts school budgets determine their own tax- pervasive This constitutional mandate levels, funding promised were but some level authority the field education of territorial reimbursement. Now the State First, could not be more clear. the lan determines a foundational"basic need" all mandatory, guage permissive. is not Sec requires municipalities school districts and ond, only requires the section not fund of that "basic specific amounts need" system, a school but "establish" districts, | system their territorial gives body continuing to that obli did include a municipali tax on dedicated not gation to system; Pinaily, "maintain" the ties; appears the current system to do so. provision unqualified; no other unit Second, duty the State has the constitutional ou-thority. government "responszbzlzty shares public to establishand schools maintain ] [8 system Alaska, municipalities. not It is VII, later confirmed that article mandatory difficult understand.how dele 1's mandate that establish and gation municipal functions and schools,system public maintain a has a dual State's can abe schools imposes nature: "It duty [constitutional] cooperative importantly, effort. More legislature, upon the state and it confers : misperceives court our earlier discussion upon age [constitu children a funding cooperative about efforts-we right tional] to education." suggest approved a state framers effort, tax cooperative dedicated to a but In what is a otherwise the RLC vacuum approved dedicating rather State reve has all the of an hallmarks unconstitutional nues, they treasury, after reach the State tax. State-imposed dedicated The RLC is a (and cooperative effort other of reve uses municipalities mandate that specified raise nues).13 system; the State's gives pause? By apparent What then me it is a revenue source for the State-and by any other name a tax remains 10-and design, may wagging dog-the the tail be parties appear using dedicated tax are revenues the State's State-Operated Sys., 9. Hootch v. Sch. Id. at 121-22. (Alaska 1975). P.2d Id. at 121. Alex, 10. See State v. X, § 208-10 AlaskaConst. art. Cf. Macauley, P.2d at & n. 4. 11. See id. at 207-08. (footnote added) omitted) (emphasis Id. at 122 *17 + 1). VII, (quoting Alaska Const. art. 12. See 4 of Alaska + Proceedings Constitutional legislature's delegation noted that the of "certain (PACC) (Jan. 17, 1956). Convention 2370 to educational functions" local school boards constitutionally "does not diminish this mandat- Alex, P.2d 209-10. at ed state control education." over days.16 The constitution than in termtonal pubhc schools clauses to define clause legisla State, through that the mandates limits, public a ture, maintain" "establish constitutional solely on the we focus If law system,17 our case estab schools taxes and conclude of dedicated prohibition public schools it is a that unified both lishes tax, may we be a dedicated is the RLC that govern unit "no system and that other concluding that necessarily inferentially but obligation.19 This the State's ment" shares is a constitutional clause public schools RLC; if cur with a seems inconsistent provide must alone the State that mandate theoretically allowable, the State rent RLC at mini- necessary to meet least the funds municipality a compelling a RLC could craft requirements mum constitutional system public schools pay to all of its system.14 public schools unified statewide whatso any contribution costs without ever,20 State contributions municipal this view Under. compelled, may not be schools public local: supplement State may be volunteered public but schools On hand the the other opportu expressly provide that the funding educational to enhanee not clause does conclu- a remarkable This would be public nities. schools must fund the statewide State considering the ever to reach without ston territory system.21 Before statehood ~ public schoolsclause.15 schools,22 there municipal not alone fund digcussion public schools little suggestthat this inter- was certainly not I do convention.23 at constitutional clause public schools clause would pretation of notes, shortly after state only at the constitu- as court And Lookmg incorrect. be public schools a hood the created law, a limited our case language and tional with the no funding inconsistent framework con- made that the argument can be credible obligated solely fund tion that the State is public requires stitution schools Perhaps, as the public system.24 schools different system in a significantly manner State, legislature, through establish 'that' the Borough Sch. Dist. v. Matanuska-Susitna Cf. system. public schools 1997) (Mat cand maintain statewide State, 391, (Alaska 931 P.2d J., Rabinowitz, J., concurrxng) thews, Joined us is wheth interesting question not before An support nught (noting public schools clause obli could avoid constitutional er the State gation "are insufficient when funds claim constitutional public unified statewide maintain which meets pay for a of education level opera refusing system by fund school schools adequacy”),l standards minimal . comply with the municipality does tions if a not 14.17.410(d)(providing See AS is not RLC mandate. Alex, recogmze P.2d I State v. made, will if the RLC State 210-11, gen- legislature's concluded that funds); Matanuska-Susit of. authority re- over natural constitutional eral 931 P.2d Dist. v. na Sch. construed to override sources could not . J.,; 1997) (Alaska (Matthews, joined by Rabinow- tax, an prohibition of a dedicated constitutional analysis J., itz, concurring) (noting public clause may apply this context well. might support constitutional claim when funds apply in rote fashion without I But decline to pay for a level of education ~"are insufficient understanding explication and full schoolsclause. adequacy"). of minimal which meets standards art, §VIL,1. AlaskaConst. Cf. pp. Opinion, 12-13. 16. Cf. pp. Opinion, 12-13. See art, § 1. Const. VIL Fiscrer, Constrturionar Con- Auaska's See Victor State-Operated Sys.,536 Sch. Hootchv. (1975) ("Except proposed vexnrion prohibition 1975). (Alaska P.2d being used for direct institutions, private benefit of educational Hildebrand, Macauley was not controversial. [public education] article disagreement to the that the fact Lack of due already were . the article functions covered territorial possiblein the been
20. This could have govern- being out under territorial carried districts were municipal because ment."). budgets public schools own to set their hope for territori- tax levelsand then related | court pp. states Opinion, 21-23. 24. See But this also seems inconsis- al reimbursement. intent the framers' subsequent directive reflects constitutional tent with the *18 not for its court concludes-but rea- not be unconstitutional tax. stated But, deliberately, interpretation constitutionally sons-the RLC viable. public litigated may schools was not clause this conclusion
But inferentially necessarily therefore, the conclusion and, that the superior court was mean- require not have a State does duty ingfully appeal. Although briefed in this I constitutional public fund the statewide schools system. considerable doubt that have RLC is constitutional, on this briefing I record and conclusions, following I am If left pre- must resolve that in favor of the doubt requires schools clause sumption is constitutional. statewide schools a con- be funded to stitutionally acceptable minimum likely RLC then the is an unconstitu- tax,
tional dedicated If the require
clause allows the sys- for the statewide unified schools
tem, then, depending parameters
requiring funding, ormay the RLC may ' could mandaté local state- contributions 'al were the 60-member 1961-62 Hammond, Hellenthal, legislature: Delegates system, citing Coghill; wide schools Bradner (Alaska 1976) ("Contempora- 4 n. 4 McNees, Nolan, Metcalf, Peratrovich, McNealy, mterpretanon neous of fundamental law those Smith, Taylor. Sweeney,and
participating drafting traditionally in its has been especially weighty viewed as evidence intent."). By my framers' count constitution-