*1 $2,153 expenses by per exceeds his income
month, expenses, for and his himself and for his
one child exceed those wife and two per approximately
children month. $900 Ronald could
It is clear that well afford higher support
substantially child than is him,
required requiring without him to lifestyle,
restrict his own while Susan will equities substantially
have to invade her
maintain the children’s accustomed stan- $20,000 living.
dard of if she Even takes
year equities, earning out of her or was
$20,000 year, that would still leave a
significant up by to made balance her
over and above that which Ronald is re- pay.
quired forgotten is not to be paying
that she is a month $100 for the son,
support of their so the net effect is support
that she child receives month, per
amount of $600 $700. sup-
We therefore conclude that the child
port inadequate award was and remand Upon
this issue to the trial court. reconsid- specifically
eration the trial court should
identify the reasonable needs of the two
children, considering the station in life to are accustomed and the ability parents to meet those needs. superior
The decision of the court is AF- part, part
FIRMED in REVERSED in
REMANDED further proceedings con- opinion.
sistent with this ALASKA, INC., AIR
YUTE et
al., Appellants, McALPINE,
Stephen A. Lieutenant Alaska,
Governor of the State of al., Appellees.
et
No. S-548.
Supreme Court Alaska.
April *2 Burke,
Avrum M. A. Gross Susan Burke, Juneau, appellants. Gross & Baldwin, Gen., Atty. James L. Asst. Nor- Gorsuch, Gen., Juneau, Atty. man C. appellees. BURKE, C.J.,
Before and RABINOW- ITZ, MATTHEWS, COMPTON and MOORE, JJ. of Alaska’s intra-state air
OPINION
and motor carri-
federally regulated,
ers and on the
inter-
PER CURIAM.
carriers,
is,
state sea
subjects.
on two
After the decision in State v. First Nat’l
I.
(Alaska
Anchorage,
Bank
“A close many of the cases finds magistrate carry the chief will out analytically of them to be defective. Laws law, and this court will not entertain frequently prior reverse administrative de- any argument contrary. to the policies and set cisions new for administra- nothing legally tors to follow. There is however, argues, “Yute Air also Indeed, wrong precisely with that. it is power state’s making law does not include set, policy which law is intended to and the directing (or the law maker’s the executive executive is bound under the constitution judiciary) respect with to the relation- Const., carry policy. out that Alaska ship between the of Alaska State and the § Ill, art. words, legisla- In other United States. law, “Nothing people may, in the constitution of this state ture or the establish legislature’s public policy subjects on all power limits the to enact laws which are with- state’s, establishing policy change jurisdiction as this in their under the constitution. Indeed, existing they step jurisdic- But outside their law. the Alaska when Legislature, very repeal Territorial tion—here to seek of a federal law creature of power shipping they power maritime limited under federal law and con- on have no — trol, by subject may law an Alaska to make law on the established State- that, is, purport making power to use the just hood Committee to do law proclaim public policy subject. make Alaska a on the Stat- state rather than territo- ry. Chapter way, may, ed another the law SLA 1949. And it is makers with- (was?) jurisdiction, knowledge public policy common that one of their establish vexing must followed most drawbacks of territorial status which be executive where, judiciary. perceived by promoters and the But as here the statehood was the subject jurisdiction, matter is outside their very legislation Jones Act which the here making power may governor repeal. the law not be invoked. would have seek to certainly surprise come as a to the would “It follows under this view that the law framers of the Alaska Constitution that may lobby makers themselves the Con- they prohibited legisla- had somehow direct gress or send resolutions but that subject. tion on that doing they exercising so are not the law “Analytically, may making power. legislature’s enacted on While the en- any subject They acting subject on under the sun: can com- a law could not be restraint, judicial King subjected mand the tides to stand still for Ca-' the use of judicial oversight “Presumably, pro- the initiative is under section 4 of the initiative, posed governor if the bounds au- would del- restraint it exceeds egate personnel of the Alaska office by the constitution. Boucher v. thorized Washington, D.C. the additional function ([Alaska] 1974). P.2d 456 Engstrom, 528 persuading Congress repeal the Jones (sic) Where, here, theory goes, so as compile publish Act and information and an exercise of the initiative is used not as report annual on the Act’s effects and their making power rather as a the law but (or progress thereof) getting lack it re- jurisdiction of the law directive outside pealed. It would not make section 4 makers, enjoined. it should be more in making of an exercise if law it problem argument is that “The provided for a commission or council to legislature frequently pre- enacts laws promote of the Jones Act and scribing agencies the conduct of officials or report annually on its efforts. government on matters over which of state “It seems to this court that section legal jurisdiction. the state has no For usurp does not powers, executive’s Geographic example, the State Board is not the exercise of an quasi-ju- executive or in the by law office Gov- established function, dicial and is not an exercise of ernor, 44.19.054, among other AS to— power barred to the law makers things representatives state —serve Accordingly, constitution. it is valid. Geographical Board and the United States “III. 1981 cooperate with that to avoid conflicts board that, argues Air “Yute even if the initia- designations geo- of state and federal single-subject challenge, tive survives their graphical Obviously, features in the state. *5 may placed it not be on the ballot making power does not ex- the state’s law that, XI, 4, It reasons under Article section designations, tend but to those Constitution, of the Alaska the initiative is state officials can influence them. The to be voted on at ‘the first statewide elec- Development Alaska International Commis- twenty tion held more than one hundred sion in the Office of the Governor is to days adjournment legislative of the after prepare plan joint development for and following filing the the initia- session [of upper of the of the Yukon use resources ‘filing,’ argues, it read This must be tive].’ (in Canada) cooperate River and with Cana- consistently requirements Arti- with the agencies re- dian and United States for XI, 3, cle section of the constitution that development the source near Alaska-Can- signed by a petition must be The Alaska ada border. AS 44.19.064. prescribed ‘qualified voters’ number be- Tokyo promotes trade State Office be- may fore ‘it filed with the lieutenant be and the Far East. AS 44.19.- tween Alaska this, argues From that the governor.’ Yukon-Taiya stud- 074. The Commission verified, is, signatures must be information, ies, publishes compiles and ascertained, qualifications before voter’s promotes development of the interna- petition may deemed to ‘filed’for be Yukon-Taiya Hydroelectric project. tional calculating proper election purposes of 44.19.181. AS at the initiative should be submitted which the voters. Steering apt example “The most is the Council for Alaska Lands. AS 38.95.100- argument its “Yute Air buttresses 140. The inter-branch council was estab- Election Code which of the lobbying ‘develop lished in 1977 to a unified prescribed within a provide for verification and informational effort’ on Alaska lands 15.45.150, provide period (sixty days), AS by legislation being then considered Con- determining impropriety with the basis for course, gress. assigned subscribers, 15.45.160, pro- Of the law respect to AS (sic) supplementary petitions counsel other functions—as does sec- to cure vide 15.45.170, purpose provide principal improprieties, tion 4 its AS here —but 15.45.180, pro- preparation, AS lobby Congress ballot on ANILCA. go on the vide for the initiative to ballot “AS 15.45.190. It seems obvious that the days contemplated verify election held 120 framers the need the first statewide signatures. Vol. adjournment legislature Minutes Alaska Const. after the nothing petition But in the con- after the Conv. convened says implies stitution that the verifica- supplementary petition were ‘filed.’ AS tion tolls the time which the 15.45.190. by legisla- initiative is to be considered argues meaning “It of these proceeds (or ture and onto the ballot doubted, interlocking provisions cannot be voided enactment of substan- clearly statutory provisions measure). tially the same in conflict with the constitution but rather “Similarly, statutory provisions nei- Const., contemplated by it. Alaska Art. express imply any tolling ther nor § XI, and Vol. Minutes Alaska Const. legislature ‘file,’ time. The used the terms (1955), and that clear- Conv. 2965-2967 ‘filed,’ filed,’ ‘properly or improperly ‘prop- ly illustrate how for of determin- filed,’ erly ‘filing’ places at various ballot, ing place when to on the throughout through sections 140 190 of prerequisite petition’s verification is a for a chapter relating title to the initiative being ‘properly filed.' AS 15.45.180. petition. differing Each of the uses denot- “McAlpine argues long- that there is a particular meaning appropriate ed a standing contemporaneous construction of use. The unmodified term ‘filed’ is used statutory provi- these constitutional and ballot). (placing proposition section contrary sions which is to the carriers’ in- legislature contemplated Had the the mean- However, terpretation. reply carriers’ ing Air, attributed to the term Yute it is argument prevail. to that must There sim- likely precise more than not more that a ply has been no consistent construction of Indeed, term would have been used it. the constitution the statute on the issue unlikely, given precision it is most here; indeed, precise raised issue has terms, legislature’s use of these that— never been raised before. meaning Air’s had Yute been intended —the question logic “The here is close. The unmodified term would have been used. McCall, Kays likely legislature the decision in Or. more much [244 *6 511, (1966), 361], highly appropriate language is would have added to P.[2d]1d sense, 190, persuasive example, and makes excellent and section for the underlined ‘(1) possessing power following: petition those the to make law in the the and words may any supplementary petition it. well wish to consider But this have been re- court’s role is not to amend the constitution viewed and determined to have been them, interpret properly or the statute but rather to filed.’ and it seems clear that neither contem Elec- “The Alaska Constitution and the plates sought by the result Yute Air. Code, prior tion to the made amendments provisions, unusually of their to some were Code, McAlpine the “Under Election was drafted, interlocking each with its own well place the initiative on the it is ballot ‘[i]f parts carefully and with terms chosen and properly filed.’ AS 15.45.180. He had six- consistently specific things. used to denote ty days after it filed in to make which respective generally authors followed Their that determination. AS 15.45.150. drafting: Say statutory the first rule of question goes on the after the first ballot you you say. mean mean what and what statewide election held after say The constitution and the code do not “(1) petition any supplementary the and (or fairly imply) says they what Yute Air filed, (2) petition legislative have been a mean, and therein lies the fatal flaw adjourned, session has convened or and argument. Air’s Yute (3) period days expired a of 120 has since is, however, adjournment legislative argument Air’s the ses- “Yute more may ready It be to assume that sion. subtle: legislature nor re- “The two Warren cases establish the the framers the neither ally contemplated necessary the effect of that the of section proposition Thus, requiring verification. it is immateri- adopted XI on amendment of of article al XI and of language article voiding pending initiatives initia- fairly chapter says title neither nor legislature pow- tives vest the with broad implies signatures subscribing the against the the protect ers to state un- qualified vot- must be verified those of toward effects initiatives. Warren v. ers initiative deemed to can be before Thomas, id., important- More n. 7. properly The constitution have been filed. convincingly illustrate ly, they more than requires petition that an clearly initiative argument any fortiori that verification a by the signed specified must be number petition legislature initiative before qualified filed. It may before it be voters legis- prerequisite is not a for the convenes that, may requires before the initiative also invoking powers. lature’s those filed, voters, be it must be submitted disagrees the court way “While in no session convened then a must be importance safeguard af- and then hundred twen- adjourned, one requiring forded to lie be- Thus, ty pass. give full ef- days must complete legislature, fore a session of the an initiative provision requiring fect to the language on the it concludes basis of the legislature complete lie before the the constitution and code the election filed, must session after it is its verification experience on the basis of that actual filing perforce before the session convenes. occur facially valid initiative suffices to in- argument “The overlooks the obvious. safeguard. Certainly, legis- voke that practical logically Both and as matter of lature is at least as as this or capable experience, legislature not need an does apprehending appraising court of it petition initiative to be verified before priority assigned which should be subject. the same It suffices considers many brought matters it. Had before facially all valid practical important considered matter to be (This say filed. initiative be is not to enough stayed it could have session to legislature require could not verifica- Here, legislature with it. deal chose greater tion in advance for the sake of speculate idle to not to act. would be certainty.) why. say legislature Suffice 16, 1974, January two related initia- “On itself, called, special may call into filed petitions tive were with the lieutenant matter, if to act on session interest, governor, one on conflict of voters, adopted by act campaign The former other on disclosure. regular it at its next session. amend 1, 1974, March and the was certified on judgment “Accordingly, summary legislature, latter on March for the defendants. granted 26, 1974, adjourned on con- April *7 legisla- subjects, not enact sidered both did "1- alphabeti- are in reverse Plaintiffs named leg- tion conflict of interest but enacted on order, Alaska, leading with Yute Air Inc. off cal 76, islation, 1974, campaign chapter SLA on Trucking Alaska and Alaska Airlines and the Association, Inc., closing. substantially It was held to be disclosures. “2- II, 13, Section of the Alaska Con- Article same, thereby initiative. voiding that "[ejvery requires bill shall be con- that stitution Boucher, (Alaska P.2d 731 v. 543 Warren subject....” to one The same restriction fined 1975). The conflict of interest respect at AS to initia- is enacted 15.45.040 27, by August on adopted voters Whether this is within the tives. limitation question- legislature’s power under Article XI is legislature on The 1975 convened XII, 11, Article makes able. But Section passed amend the January 20 and a bill to making power equal, Article law and the II one orders of initiative as of its first latter restriction, therefore, applies to initiatives. 2, Chapter SLA 1975. became business. “3. 4 of reads: Section the Initiative February v. on 1975. Warren effective 44.19.035. ACT REPEAL. The "Sec. JONES (Alaska 1977). Thomas, P.2d 400 appropri- 568 governor use and all shall best efforts persuade the ate means to United States Con- except that all concerned land violated gress seq., 46 U.S.C. secs. et single subject rule. We stated: known as the Jones Act. Until that Act is Thus, the issue to be resolved is whether governor repealed, publish shall an annual documenting report the harmful effects of the general heading “land” can be con- commerce, progress Act on Alaska made subject” sidered “one purposes for repeal. report towards its shall be sub- §II, writing article 13. Were we on a legislature later than its mitted to the no con- slate, clean we would be inclined to find vening year." each subject impermissibly this broad. Per- II. mitting such breadth under the one sub- colleague, Moore dissents Our Justice ject conceivably rule could be miscon- First, grounds: that two vio- legislation strued as a sanction for emb- rule, second, single subject lates the racing body “the whole of the law.” relating that the section of the initiative Id. (citation omitted). However, we con- the Jones Act is not a law and thus not a prior precedents cluded based on which had proper subject for an initiative. Our views found “water resources” and “state taxa- points accurately on these reflected in (see supra 1) tion” n. appropriate to be superior
the Memorandum Decision of the
cargo
vessels
the diverse
with which
“
following
court. We have the
additional
loaded,
they had been
‘land’ is not an
comments.
unduly
subject
purposes
broad
of arti-
§II,
Single Subject
13.” Id. at 415.
A.
cle
We still have the same reservations
primarily
Justice Moore’s dissent
di-
First National
expressed
we
which
proposition
rected to the
that our cases
reasons, however,
Bank.
Three
lead us to
interpreting
single subject
rule have
believe
we should not now overrule
legislature,1
been too deferential
to the
prior
our
cases.
we have construed it with such breadth “as
First,
meaningless.”
to render the rule
it is not at all
Dissent
clear
there are
stricter
page
1183. In our last
workable
standards. Our standard
decision concern-
ing
single
rule,
is that the
State
First
subject
National Bank
Anchorage,
P.2d
general
“act should embrace some one
(Alaska 1982),
414-15
expressed
we
subject;
meant,
by
merely,
this is
misgivings.
similar
At
issue there was
that all matters
treated of should fall
whether an
containing disparate
idea,
act
sec-
under some one
con-
be so
other,
tions which were unrelated to each other
nected with or related to each
ei-
Comm.,
directly
1. In Súber v. Alaska State Bond
sions of the act relate
to state taxation
(Alaska 1966),
upheld
P.2d 546
this court
an act
subject
we find no violation of the one
rule.” In
provided mortgage
aid to
State,
home owners
(Alaska 1979),
Short v.
where However, resolution. when it means to Bank, supra, where National and First having binding take action a effect on “land,” suggests subject was legislature may do so those outside a is not too broad “transportation” only by following proce- the enactment Further, subject rule. a com- for the one dures.4 “transporta- than mon thread narrower It is that through judgment the initiative. The is AFFIRMED. tion” runs thought to create regulations and statutes MOORE, Justice, dissenting. eli- transportation costs should be needless to discover minated. We were unable “single- majority The concludes that the uniting theme within the similar initia- subject” rule is not violated (1) repeal category topics, of “land” First National two of state tive’s (2) Gellert, regulating transportation and Bank, supra, one statutes supra. And to the Governor to “use best directive pressed to find a relation- would be hard Congress persuade efforts” to the U.S. to resources” between ship other than “water repeal Additionally, Act. the federal Jones project Alaska flood control an interior Act majority concludes that the Jones Yet, in a coastal small boat harbor. both provision of the initiative enacts a “law” question up- legislation cases the proper subject and is thus a for an initia- held. §XI, 1 tive under Article of the Alaska I dissent from both of these Constitution. B. Law or Resolution conclusions. Moore also contends Justice First, this initiative violates the relating that section 4 of the initiative single-subject rule. This court has the Jones Act is a resolution rather than give mistakenly continued to the rule such in an ini law and thus cannot be included extremely interpretation an liberal 4 of the tiative. Under section a farce. Prior decisions rule has become governor required to use his best any hodgepodge tell us that in Alaska persuade Congress efforts to comply broadly if laws will construed and, repeal, year must each Jones Act until water, general topics as “relate to” such detailing ef publish report the harmful land, Having rule or taxation. made the fects of the Act on Alaska commerce applied legislative meaningless almost legislature.3 it to the Since section submit enactments, this court has extended the governor 4 action it is not mandates interpretation same to the initiative liberal advisory; ac come, a resolution. A resolution is process. cases what contrived only required by laws, law. As tion can we covered combination of title, comply Voluntary, would not with the ma- stated State v. A.L.I.V.E. broad 1 769, (Alaska 1980): single-subject jority’s view of the “rule”? 606 P.2d 773 expression portion is to have the force of text of the Jones Act of the initia- where that 3. The law, and bind others than the members of tive reads as follows: adopting house or houses it. governor shall use best efforts and all 773-774, quoting State v. A.L.I. V.E. at State, Mullan appropriate persuade the United means to 578, 670, (1896). P. And: 114 Cal. Congress repeal 46 U.S.C. secs. States statute, resolution, unlike a A concurrent seq., et known as the Jones Act. Until binding only the members and officers of governor publish repealed, shall Act is legislative body. documenting report ef- annual the harmful commerce, quoting V.E. at Moran v. La- the Act on Alaska State v. A.L.I. fects of progress Guardia, repeal. report N.Y. 1 N.E.2d made towards its legislature no later shall be submitted to the linking Why 1. not allow the car -related convening year. than its each (a) require in Alaska to install car dealers to airbags following: here; quoted (b) We also Gover- in cars sold direct the Congress competent persuade to make the I.R.S. nor to is not a A mere resolution ... will, grant drivers in cold-climate states expressing tax breaks to method of *10 command, Second, language arately Article guard of and to against § inadvertence, XI, clearly in legis- 1 of the Alaska Constitution stealth and fraud lation. enacting to limits “laws,” in turn are further restricted which added). (emphasis Id. at 557 §XI, specific provisions of Article 7.
by the
explained later,
As this court
primary
presents a
proposed
initiative
Part of
“one-subject” provisions
aim of
in state
qualify as a
mere resolution that does not
constitutions
“log-rolling”
is to restrain
least
proposed law and should at
be sev-
legislative process.
State,
Gellert v.
ered from the rest of the initiative. The
(Alaska 1974).
1122
522 P.2d
apparently
drafters of the initiative
fore-
decisions,
its earlier
Since
this court has
provid-
possibility
specifically
this
saw
consistently
extremely
been
liberal in find-
independent provisions
ed that these
were
ing
statutory
that various
of
combinations
least,
very
severable. At the
this initia- provisions
“fairly
could be construed to
provisions
tive’s two distinct
should be sev-
subject.3
example,
relate” to the same
For
presented
ered and
on the ballot as two
court added that
Gellert
the constitu-
effectively
independent proposals, one to
provision
tional
should be construed with
regu-
transportation
eliminate certain state
“considerable breadth.”
Id. This court
lations,
express
and the other to
a desire
has since construed it with such “breadth”
repeal
of the Jones Act.
federal
meaningless.
as to render the rule
More-
over,
majority opinion pays
this
little heed
I.
purpose
single-subject
the second
of
Turning
majority’s main con-
first to the
rule, i.e.,
inadvertence,
guard against
“to
clusion,
agree
I cannot
that this initiative’s
and fraud.”
stealth
This decision invites
“fairly
topics
two
can be said to
relate”
by
promoters,
stealth or fraud
subject.2
the same
voters,
by stretching
and inadvertence
pairings
the rule to
contrived
allow
In
v. Alaska State Bond Commit
Suber
proposal
repeal
serious
a state law with
1966),
tee,
(Alaska
electorate. Naturally, merely rewording existing case, majority automatically
In this
“test” does not
turn this
strays even
provision by
away
Anything
ap-
farther from the constitutional
court
from the
Goes
finding
single-subject
proach
germane”
“merely
rule is some-
...
stan-
Comment,
surveys
proposals
in other
7.
states voters have ex-
"some of the
were clear”.
pressed notable frustration or dissatisfaction re-
"The Future of Initiative and Referendum in
Missouri,"
garding
way
991, 1001,
in which initiative and refer-
48 Missouri Law Review
n.
proposals
presented
endum
One
on the ballot.
Ranney,
Also see D. Butler and
A.
Refer-
study
has indicated that more than half of
Comparative Study
endums—A
Practice and
(surveyed
presenta-
voters
on their views of the
Theory
proposals) reported
only
tion of ballot
expressed wish for
(actually
But it is a nec-
dard embraced Gellert.
interpret
They
Then we must
what
con-
essary
repeal)
start.
of the federal law.
Certainly provisions
“connected” means.
alleged
tend that the
interaction is self-evi-
“inextricably intertwined” are con-
that are
dent,
min-
adopting
“perspective
nected, and it is reasonable to infer from
supplies
bring
at Minto
wants to
his
er
who
intertwining language
Slope
in North
logical? Any
from Seattle.” Is this
combi-
Sohio,
P.2d at
Borough v.
ideas,
things,
and resolu-
nation of
focusing
provi-
this court was
on whether
“subject”
long
tions can be labelled as a
as
I
impact
have an
on one another.
sions
majori-
so
them. The
as someone
classifies
requiring provisions to be reason-
favor
regulation
ty notes that the two sources of
Still,
ably interdependent.
no articulation
Transporta-
transportation,
the Alaska
away
do
of a revised standard will
Act,
tion Commission and the federal Jones
amounts to connected-
debates as to what
by deregulators
“may
perceived
well be
ness,
intertwining
interdependence.
or
problems.”
one of this state’s most serious
Nevertheless, legislators
pro-
and initiative
perception,
labelling,
advanced
moters
should realize that enactments
proponents
of an initiative should not
presented clearly
candidly.
should be
parts
determine whether its different
relate
end,
plainer
Toward that
we need to use
single
fairly
logically
subject.8
to a
willing
standard and be more
to look close-
majority’s
treatment of this matter
ly
logic
at the
of an asserted connection
*13
{s)
focuses not on the initiative’s
interdependence
sep-
and the reasonable
of
general policy objectives
but rather on its
provisions.
ruling
arate
Our
should be
perceptions.
its drafters’
initiative
The
seriously
that the court
means to effect the
subjects
addresses two different
its
single-sub-
our
of
constitution’s
seek,
proponents
policy
a
title or
broad
rule,
ject
discourage logrolling
and the
statement,
single
place
under a
umbrel-
duplicity
type of
evident
the anti-A.T.C.
single-subject
But
rule is concerned
la.
the
us.
initiative before
catch-all titles.
subjects,
with
not with
Still,
vague tautology
even under the
Gellert,
Harking
majority
back to
the
adopted
standard of
that we
as our limited
parts
states that the two different
of this
Gellert,
agree
I cannot
review
are,
viewpoint, “inex-
initiative
from one
parts of the initiative at issue here can
two
related,
tricably
certainly far more inte-
fairly
subject,
relate to the same
be said to
grated and related than boat harbors and
“logically”
“popular”
or in
under-
either
disagree.
I
projects.”
flood control
At
standing.
logic
What would determine the
legislation
the
at issue in
did
least
Gellert
of the asserted connection between the two
misleadingly
mix the enactment of a
Transpor-
parts, the abolition of the Alaska
reflecting
a mere
state law with
directive
expression
tation Commission and the
of
repeal of an un-
popular sentiment of the
anti-Jones-Act wishes to the Governor?
popular federal act.
majority states that it does not mat-
The
response
to the concern that we not
repeal
ter that the
of the state laws does
legally”
apply
or interrelate
a standard to
“not interact
amending
equal protection
the
clause or the
It is irrational to focus on the drafters’ stated
objectives
aggre-
privileges
Constitution,
of
U.S.
policy
an
and immunities clause
to determine whether
complies
single-sub-
gate
provisions
so that Alaska could enact “immi-
of
with the
sounding
gration” requirements
ject
example,
plausible
to restrict
the influx of
rule. For
a
Outsiders;
(4)
migrating
raising
objective
"Improvement
the fines
policy
would
be
driving,
Economy,”
revenue from such
a
for drunk
with the
Alaska
title under which
amounts,
(1)
present
provisions
to be used to increase
drafters could
such
fines
rates,
setting up
promote
decrease the interest
of AHFC loans avail-
a state commission to
tour-
Alaska; (2)
buyers.
perspec-
directing
Alaska home
From the
the Governor to
able to
ism
promoters,
greet
ferry ship bearing
or from
personally
out-of-
tive of such an initiative's
each
(3)
tourism-industry employee
setting up
perspective
capital;
a
state tourists to the state
home,
incongruous
buy
Washington,
promote
wants to
a
these
state office in
D.C. to
who
improve
economy.
purpose
Alaska’s
of
would
constitutional convention for
vague
apply
expresses
from that
we
to acts
directive
popular
different
legislature,
of
this court should take
desire to free
Alaska’s commerce from the
harmful
opportunity
stronger
this
to set forth a
effects of the federal Jones Act.
standard,
applicable
prospectively
to both
majority
suggests
also
pleb-
that this
of legislation.
Byayuk,
forms
CFEC
iscite is law-like
because
tells the Gover-
1984);
(Alaska
684 P.2d
117-118
Divi-
persuade
nor to do his best to
Congress to
Johnstone,
sion
Elections v.
669 P.2d
Act,
legislature
since the
“fre-
(Alaska 1983);
542-544
Warwick v.
quently
prescribing
enacts laws
the con-
(Alaska
State,
1976).
548 P.2d
agencies
duct
officials or
of state
Although agree
I
with Justice Burke’s will- government on matters over which the
apply retroactively
ruling
ingness to
we
has
legal jurisdiction.”
state
no
But what
favor,
acceptable argument
can be made
specific
provi-
conduct does this initiative
effect that
the anti-ATC/anti-Jones-
enforceably prescribe
sion
for the Gover-
promoters
relying
prior
Act
were
on our
question again
nor? The
inquiry
involves
area,
decisions
such that
had
into the meaning of “law.”
Goes,
Anything
reason to believe that
even
Recently, in
ex rel.
State
Brant v. Beer-
linking together
a law to abolish
state’s mann,
(1984),
217 Neb.
that until the Jones “the Although may a policy, statute declare as governor publish report shall an annual resolution, provides does a a statute also harmful documenting the effects of Act carry pro- the means out its substantive commerce, progress on Alaska made court, I visions. the case before this However, repeal.” clearly towards its agree Act cannot that the initiative’s Jones merely subsidiary instruction incidental provision accom- establishes means to objective the main plish purpose. its As noted the Califor- “law”; possesses relates to a matter that Court, Supreme nia there is a functional as force, merely legal to a no directive policy distinction a well formal between get do governor tells the his “best” to part declaration that is “law” or stat- repealed. Act the federal Jones simply policy ute and declaration that is reserves to Alaska Constitution instance, resolution. In the former admin- people power propose and enact agencies cite istrative courts can process. “laws” Our cases rely policy declaration when *15 liberally law-making construed this have applying statutory interpreting and other Still, power. even under the most liberal provisions. legal effectiveness is No such construction, initia- power the reserved of a is sim- policy ascribed to declaration that encompass and not ply conclusory tive referendum does a directive to the Governor regarding subject beyond his a possible legislature.9 all actions of the It to do “best” jurisdiction. The ini- legislative the state’s not to mere or ex- does refer resolutions disputed not to provision tiative’s amounts popular wishes. A statute pressions of but, most, a “law” to a cross between a must be declares law. It introduced writ mandamus resolution and a wishful of bill, passed of then with certain form a aimed at Governor. presented formalities and to the Governor leg- signature. But a resolution of the Again, our main concern should be that expression just a collective of enactments, islature is initia- (legislative all matters certainly is not to the opinion. petitions and even resolu- tive tions) consequences presented clearly formalities or of enact- and hon- same should be George Alaska. estly people of As ment. rejection only approval of acts. of and the 9. Article XI refers the enactment basis; observed, enemy of great clarity accept Orwell a forces voters to reject a Here, insincerity.10 binding package enact- of provisions only distinct on an of an state law ment enforceable should all-or-nothing basis. Voters deserve better. non-binding provision be attached to a not They deserve to have this apply court a compel implicitly promises that the Gov- more exacting interpretation of single- persuade Congress ernor a subject rule. locally unpopular act. To do so is sum, this initiative violates origi- simply misleading. nal of single-subject rule and probably good It is a idea to extend the together it improperly ties a law and a use the direct vote to resolutions or guard mere against resolution. To inad- expressions policy preferences on mat- by petition-signers vertence and voters and statewide, ters national and even inter- discourage stealth initiative drafters Indeed, national concern. promoters, I find would this initiative express seems better suited to invalid. people’s broad declarations of the desires technical, it is to often than enact convolut- BURKE, Justice, dissenting. ed, However, statutes. Article XI indicates provides This good example case a initiative was intended to function risk inherent the announcement of a legislative power, a reserved a means of prior decision to the issuance of our formal Here, enacting pro- “laws.” the Jones Act opinion.1 instance, In this the added scruti- vision of the not meet initiative does ny compelled by vigorous Justice Moore’s standard. dissent has me previous- convinced that our only way vote on such an ly wrong.2 announced decision was dead accurately initiative as this could reflect offense, Rather than a commit second I people will of the would be to sever the prefer my to eat share of the crow now. present unrelated them on If possible now, it were to do so I would independent distinctly propos- the ballot as vacate our sponte, decision sua hold “piggyback” als. This would counter the invalid, the initiative measure for reasons whereby simplistic effect resolution re- essentially expressed by the same as those garding highly unpopular federal law is my dissenting colleague, Justice Moore. likely carry along enactment of whatever state law is attached for the ride. together
Any tying insistence on such inde-
pendent proposals suggests one opportu- voters do not a clear deserve to make
nity issue-by-issue decisions on Orwell, English G. "Politics and Lan- have not found better test for the [We] (The guage,” in In Front Your Nose Collect- solution of a case than its articulation in writ- Essays, George Journalism Letters ed well) Or- ing, judge, thinking at its which is hardest. A 127-140, pp. at 137 inevitably far-reaching preoccupied with the prece- effect of an immediate solution as a practice, has 1. It been our cases where there dent, that his often discovers tentative views so, compelling reasons to do to announce jell writing. will He in the wrestles with prior decision our to the issuance formal set the devil more than once to forth a sound opinion. The order that was entered in this opinion that will be sufficient unto more than typical: judgment Superior "The case *16 day. Opinions will Court AFFIRMED. follow.” In Traynor, Open Questions R. Some on the Work instance, particular persuaded were we Courts, Appellate State 24 U.Chi.L.Rev. our decision in such manner because announce importance, being preparations its then made for the 1984 election. September Our decision was announced practice requir- This is a worthwhile cases time, joined I in the 1984. At that order of decision, ing an immediate and I do not con- Moore, supra. the court. See note Justice is, however, practice it. It demn that involves now, he does dissented. certain amount of As once observed risk. Traynor, Roger late Chief Justice