*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.

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 660 P.2d 406 in full the Memoran We set out 1982), argu- it is difficult to sustain that superior court which dum Decision say, ment. Suffice to if that even the court *3 and, explains questions presented in in went too far that case and were in- view, properly our resolves them: although sign there is no of if—to clined— decision, step back from that “MEMORANDUM DECISION two, here not does embrace unrelated sub- “I. Introduction. Indeed, jects. the economic of effects (McAlpine) “The defendants have decided regulation these two sources of over trans- place proposition an initiative on the portation freight in may of and to Alaska November 1984 election ballot perceived by deregulators well be as one of repeal regulating which will statutes motor this state’s problems. most serious Alaska, open in and air carriers carrier are, regulation two sources of from that financially respon- business to and all related, viewpoint, inextricably certainly persons, prohibit municipalities sible from integrated far more and related than boat activities, require regulating these and projects and flood harbors control or than governor repeal to seek of the federal stat- trooper improved facilities and new and (the Act) requires the ute Jones which use prisons. shipping goods of United States vessels repeal “Nor should matter that the of ports. The initia- between United States repeal the federal law and the of the state entitled, proposition “Reducing tive is legally do not interact interrelate laws or Regulation Transporta- Government To the Minto with another. miner at who project tion.” The initiative is a Seattle, bring supplies wants to his from Party Stipu- for 1984. Alaska Libertarian the interaction and interrelation is more lation No. 1. just glaringly so. than self-evident—it (Yute Air),1 plaintiffs all of “The which existing While one could address the regulatees are under the state laws to be bills, in two or three it is rational to ad- ready repealed apparently for free together. them dress all of enterprise prevent seek single- part of Yute Air’s “The second ballot, proposition being from on the either interesting. subject argument is more invalidity or at permanently grounds argues provisions of the initiative election fol- least until the first statewide require governor to seek the which lowing convening adjourning the next Act3 are not law but Jones Legislature. of a session of the Alaska plebicite directing administrative rather a following The raise the issues: activities, therefore, proper not a sub- single- “1. The initiative violates the initiative under the Alaska Con- ject for an subject rule. of the initia- stitution which limits the use requires implicitly “2. The constitution Alaska the enactment of laws. tive to support signatures § Const., XI, art. 1. It cites Build- Seattle legisla- initiative be verified before City Trades Council v. ing Construction adjourns ture both convenes and order Seattle, 740], 620 P.2d 82 Wash.2d [94 to the voters. for it to be submitted (Wash.1980), example the case law as an point. support of its Single-Subject “II. The Rule.2 line of Building is one of a argument Air’s here divides into “Seattle “Yute cases, all of limit all or almost which parts. The first is the traditional one: two initiatives, municipal in which the deregulation use of The initiative acts both on the attempt line courts to draw a between laws nute or the mountain to come Mo- usually acts. The cases they may may and administrative hammed. That or not be because, municipalities unlike state hardly involve effective is of moment. no It will governments great pow- the three say may do to that a law not be enacted separated, governing ers are local bodies silly because it is at least at this late —not generally vested with admixture of Only point prohi- date. if one can to some powers. both and administrative expressed implied bition in the state or councils, commissioners, county City can constitutions it be said that borough only assemblies not enact laws but some law would violate the con- they very great also administer them a not, therefore, may stitution and be the extent and also sit as boards of re- argues of an initiative. Yute Air view, exercising quasi-judicial powers only the provisions of the initiative making times and fundamental executive relating to the Act are Jones not ‘law.’ policy city at other times. Where argument simply That not correct. county voters seek to exercise these latter public policy Those establish a *4 initiative, powers through kinds of so they duty make it the chief executive’s theory goes, they exceed the law mak- carry policy They to that out. are a solemn ing power vested in them under initiative will, expression provisions. what law is all Black’s Dic- about. Law (3rd 1933). tionary presumed ed. It is reading

“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. 600 P.2d 20 Friday Earthquake. victimized the 1964 Good upheld legislation authorizing bonding court challenged single subject The Act was under the public safety both correctional facilities and ground rule on the that one of its sections "[Ijn opinion, administration services. our provided for criminal sanctions. Id. at 556. ‘protection public’ and ‘administration of The court held that the criminal sanctions were objectives justice’ which are to be served "fairly general subject incidental ex- sufficiently these correctional facilities are relat- Act, pressed" upheld in the the Act. public safety ed to to be served State, (Alaska Gellert v. 522 P.2d 1122-23 buildings constitutionally administration to be 1974), upheld this court under the one included in the same enactment and provided funding rule a law which for flood bonding proposition." Finally, Id. at 25. projects. control and boat harbor The court Anchorage, State v. First National Bank "part cooperative characterized this Act as *8 406, 1982), (Alaska up- P.2d 414-15 this court development.” water resources Id. at 1123. In containing myriad held a bill in Slope Borough Corp., North v. Sohio Petroleum way relating general topic some of "land.” 534, (Alaska 1978), 585 P.2d 545-46 this court Finding that the issue was “indeed close" the upheld legislation pertaining to a scheme of " court nevertheless concluded that ‘land’ is not taxation, municipal stating state and “State taxa- unduly subject broad for the of [the unduly category tion is not an broad under the subject at one Id. rule].” [Sjince subject provi- one rule.... all of the Third, popular in under- logically ther or an initiative is an act of of, democracy guaranteed by direct parts germane or our consti standing, as to be petitions tution. Because pre are often to, general subject.” one pared by inexpert sponsors who none 1120, 1123, State, quot- v. 522 P.2d Gellert espouse worthy causes, theless popular Harrison, v. 47 Minn. ing Johnson from both, courts are reluctant to invalidate 923, (1891). 575, This formu- 50 N.W. 924 merely legality. them cases of doubtful general- lation is similar in breadth to those referendum, In matters of initiative and ly adopted by other state courts. See previously recognized we have Ruud, No Law Embrace More Than Shall people exercising power reserved to 389, Subject, 42 Minn.L.Rev. 393-95 One them the constitution and the laws of (1958). only narrower standard of state, and that the constitutional and adopted which we are aware is statutory provisions under which subject relating Florida to that state’s one proceed liberally should be construed. applicable to initiatives. The Florida rule Engstrom, Boucher v. 528 P.2d 462 forbids, among things, other initiatives rule (Alaska 1974). To that end “all doubts than one which direct the function of more as to all technical deficiencies or failure leg- department government, such as the comply proce with the exact letter of judicial departments. Evans v. islative and dure will be resolved in favor of the (Fla.1984) Firestone, 457 So.2d 1354 accomplishment purpose. of that Bouch (“The proposed amendment now before us Engstrom, supra, quoting Cope er v. legislative affects the function Toronto, 255], 2d 332 P.2d Utah [8 judicial government.”) We branches departmental think that the Florida do not Frohne, Municipality Anchorage v. apt Many function rule is an one. (Alaska 1977) (footnotes omitted). P.2d embracing single subject direct more (discussed Justice Moore’s contention department governmental than one to act. 1184-1185) p. dissent at single example, nearly codes For all uniform have subject requirement strictly more should be provisions directing judicial and executive (as opposed legis- applied passed in action and thus would have to be lative) only context is adverse to our separate enactments under the Florida initiatives, deferential attitude toward (Uniform seq. E.g., rule. AS 25.25.010 et ignores explicit constitutional di- also Act); Support Reciprocal Enforcement of Art. contrary. rective to the Alaska Const. (Uniform seq. Limited Part- AS 32.10.010et §XII, clearly inappli- provides: “Unless (Uniform nership Act); seq. 45.01.010et AS cable, law-making powers assigned to Code); seq. AS 47.70.010 et Commercial legislature may exercised be (Interstate Compact the Placement of A people through the one initiative....” Children). subject for initiatives which is more rule rule for ac- restrictive than the Second, sponsors of the initiative permitted. tion is not precedents preparing on our have relied present proposition undertaking argues also that our Justice Moore and ef- expense the considerable and time comport case does not decision place fort needed to it on the ballot.2 This have single subject standard we goes could not have been started had than our adopted and thus further governor precedents. disagree. not the lieutenant certified the We form, sections of proposition proper “transportation” as in an act also embraces all Gellert, approval of su precedents. in reliance on our AS the initiative. Our taken subject was “water re pra, where the 15.45.070. state, year. petition signed by qualified be obtained within one vot- and must 2. The must signature must be sub equal percent AS Each ers to ten of those who voted in 15.45.140. presence sponsor Signatures must come scribed in the last election. initiative. AS 15.45.130. from at least of all election districts in the 2A *9 1182 course, supra, legislature when the to sources,” Slope Borough, Of wishes North (cid:127) advisory capacity may by taxation,” act an it act subject “state was

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 414 P.2d 546 this court vague lobby directive to the Governor to stated that: Congress locally unpopular fed- purpose require- of the constitutional eral act. every ment that bill be confined to one of subject prevent majority’s single-subject ... is to the inclusion view incongruous actually disparate subjects and unrelated matters rule allows get support in order to for it enfolded within the cloak of a broad same bill Gellert, instance, subjects might sep- generality.4 not which the several (c) auto-safety E.g., Slope Borough buy options; North v. Sohio Petroleum extra make who (Alaska 1978); Corp., P.2d State v. capital-punishment 585 545 of- vehicular homicide a fense; Anchorage, 660 P.2d First National Bank (d) lobby direct the Governor to (Alaska 1982). agrees government until it to ban importation foreign subcompacts. All single-subject application rule to 4. Our cars, laws "relate to” and such these would-be functional test should also involve a initiatives comply would an assortment of Supreme the Florida much like that used extremely interpretation liberal this court’s pro reviewing recent ballot initiatives Court in single-subject rule. posing For in constitutional amendments. Firestone, stance, So.2d 1351 in Evans v. State, (Alaska 1979). 600 P.2d 2.Short (Fla. 1984), single- the court held that Florida’s majority might Actually, my difference with the Alaska’s) (quite violated like rule up turning on different defini- be summed entitled "CITIZEN'S RIGHTS a ballot initiative view, my “fairly”; word tions of the ACTIONS,” proposed a state IN CIVIL enactment, single provisions of a various would, essential amendment that constitutional initiative, should relate "in a fair manner" encourage summary judgment ly, in cases lack "moderately” subject, just relate same ing genuine dispute material facts as to the "tolerably" subject. the same Oxford Ameri- liability types also limit for certain and would (1980 ed.); Dictionary New Webster’s Third can damages. The court reiterated its view ed.). (1967 Dictionary International separate provisions of a “where topics, two a flood con- it renders the constitutional court decided that provision meaningless. and small project trol in Fairbanks boat villages, pertained both harbors for coastal at 1124. Id. ongoing plan” for water resources to “one *11 interpretation In of this court the liberal Fitzgerald point- development. As Justice single-subject developed the rule was first dissent, while it was true that ed out in his dealing legislative in cases with enact proposi- included the projects all of the ments, such as v. Suber Alaska State water, dams, bridges, so do tion involved in 1966 and Bond Committee Gellert things. many other systems, sewer Gellert, In cases after this State 1974. that: Fitzgerald explained Justice accept court continued to strained combina admittedly difficult to determine subjects complying It is the tions of group projects single-subject of has one sub- rule whether a rule.5 After the initiatives, difficulty applied of enforcement to this court continued ject matter but apply interpretation the of discharge duty of this court to same liberal does not the rule. has decided to the This court since limitations to ensure that constitutional extremely apply the same deferential stan although judg- And the are observed. applies dard of review to initiatives that it legislature is entitled to ment of the However, legislation. processes to the two issue, great weight finally the it is quite Ideally, pur if are different. the make the determination. this court poses underlying single-subject the rule are accurately by majority, noted the As is realized, courts should consider the one-subject require- purpose of the provi constitutional contexts to which this i.e., prevent logrolling, ment is to applies.6 sion pet projects assembling of a number of support into one bill to consolidate through law Whenever bill becomes total. for each to achieve a sufficient process, problems initiative all of the good proposition question is" a single-subject pre- rule was enacted to provi- example of what the constitutional greater are There is a vent exacerbated. sought designed It is sion to avoid. danger logrolling, inter- of deliberate gather support project for a voter mingling increase the likelihood of issues to by linking it with har- interior of Alaska passage, of an initiative’s and there is a projects to the coastal towns “inadvertence, bor dear greater opportunity for according villages. justified, This is enactment-by-ini- and fraud” in the stealth funding majority, to the because process. The drafters of an initia- tiative projects part and the of operate independently available struc- tive Engineers program for the Corps supervised process. They often tured or agree emphasize provisions I do not with the particular state of Alaska. of their remaining such logic majority proposition, considera- while silent on other (more appealing) justify interpretation complex provi- which is or less tions sions, communicating public. applied, practical since for all when now to be legislative complied 'aggregation provisions dissimilar act's with the amendment are an (designed) support provisions single-subject light attract of di- We concluded that in rule. passage,’ groups verse to assume its ... prior decisions this court “must likewise con- application cured ... of an defect is not unduly clude that 'land' is not an broad sub- title_” Id. at 1354. Fur- over-broad ject_" 660 P.2d at 415. thermore, part Florida court’s test is func- performs an initiative tional: "where such Firestone, So.2d 6. As observed in Evans v. government, different branches of functions of (Fla.1984), process "the initiative single- clearly fails the functional test for the it subject filtering provide does not for a mechanism for our the ini- limitation....” Id. case amendments, drafting proposal through proposes perform also both tiative at issue debate, public vote. This lack of legislative functions. executive and drafting proposal input of an initiative in the single-subject important limi- reason for the Bank, again recited In First National this court tation.” deciding whether a our so-called standard Indeed, promoters typically use how not violated pairing this initiative’s simplistic advertising present their initia- non-law, of a law and a (1) pairing petition-signers potential tive to and even- proposed repeal of state regu- statutes Many tual voters. voters will never read lating transportation (2) the anti-Jones- the full text of the initiative before the Aet directive to the Governor. importantly, election. More there is no Our so-called deciding standard in wheth- amending splitting the sever- er a complies law single- with the al in an initiative proposal. subject rule has repeatedly been recited clearly distinguish These difficulties ini- this court: legislative process. tiative from the Ultimately the decision in cases of this all, To the extent that it is rational at kind must practi- be made on a basis of *12 continuing court’s rigorously ap- refusal to cality and reasonableness. In determin- ply single-subject legislation rule to ing whether a bill is confined to one represents an understandable deference to subject, agree we with the statement: legislature as a body concordant All necessary that is is that the act government. represents respect It also should embrace general one subject; for the process itself: the elabo- meant, and this is merely, that all procedure by rate originates, which a bill matters treated of should fall under by legislators reviewed experts, and and general idea, some one be so connected ultimately becomes law. There are no such other, with or related to each either safeguards, no process, such review be- logically popular or in understanding, filing tween the petition of an initiative parts of, germane to, as to be or one its proce- submission to the electorate.7 A general subject. great dural vacuum does not deserve defer- Short, 600 P.2d 24 (quoting Gellert, 522 ence. 1123, quoting Harrison, P.2d at Johnson v. emphasize my position I must here (1891)). Minn. 50 N.W. suggests disrespect people’s right no of the all, First of this standard seems to be no to make decisions and act in their own standard says at all. that all matters sovereign capacity through rather than falling “under some one idea” representatives. Indeed, their elected related, must be connected or logical- either opposite By seriously is true. implement- ly in popular understanding. or ing single-subject rule, this court would Basically, the Gellert “test” would be mandate that the essence of the initiative stripped overmodify- more useful if of its respected. be We would insure ing stronger circumlocution. A and clearer that the people accurately will of the version of the Gellert “test” would read as effectively expressed. contrast, In the ma- follows: jority’s opinion permits initiative-drafters An act or initiative should one juxtapose disparate embrace single issues in a subject.- By this mean that all petition. we mat- This court thus reduces the likeli- logically ters treated should hood connect- eventual vote on the initiative ed. precisely will reflect the will of the 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. 350 N.W.2d 18 plebiscite and a transportation commission Supreme rejected the Nebraska Court popular against sentiment federal law proposed initiative aimed at expressing the affecting prospec- A shipping. interstate populace desire for a nuclear freeze application appropriate would tive here. forwarding expression governments leaders of the United II. States and the Union. The Soviet secondary for the majority’s As conclu- “nothing initiative was held to be more sion, agree I cannot initiative’s expression a nonbinding public than provision plausibly Act” “Jones can be con- opinion.” Id. 350 N.W.2d at 23. In Beer- majority to create a strued “law.” mann court Nebraska discussed *14 “nothing observes that in the constitution advisory seeking whether a measure an legislature’s power state of this limits the “straw vote” on the electorate’s sentiments establishing as this to enact state’s particular proper a is a on issue law,” change existing a policy the initiative. The Beermann court re- question: begs but this observation the approval the discussion of a viewed distinguishes a from a resolu- What “law” question Supreme the by Judicial similar tion? Opinion of Court Massachusetts Jus- of §XI 1 Article of the state constitution Eighteenth tices Relative to the Amend- clearly people may propose states that the 603, ment, in 262 160 N.E. Mass. 439 ini- Simply and enact “laws.” because an In the Massachusetts case the provision try tells the Governor to tiative Representatives House of had asked the persuade” Congress to a federal “to “proposed justices whether a law” intro- provision not mean law does establish- petition a by really an duced initiative anything expression more than an of es meaning of the “law” within the initiative policy. The provisions of the state constitution. held not a law and stated court that it was mistakenly compares majority this following: the provision Legis- Territorial initiative imports enactment law that The word “law” a rule lature’s of a estab- appropriate the Alaska Committee to conduct with means lished Statehood of by But its some au- lobby for statehood for Alaska. declared enforcement provision thority possessing sovereign power Act over estab- Jones committee, commission, implies subject; no such it command and lishes Instead, specific entreaty; something to take actions. it is board different expression presents plebiscite, a a rather in kind provision this ineffectual from 1188 recently pertinent part As in a opinion possessing no sanction to noted of compel Supreme decision of the Court Califor- an- the views observance of nia, Eu, 36 A.F.L.-C.I.O. Cal.3d of the vote ... The result as nounced. (1984): Cal.Rptr. 206 686 P.2d 609 petition proposed in this initiative would force_ frequently “It is said that the distinc- Su- lacking effective tion and resolutions is that between bills appearances cannot clothe with perficial As generaliza- resolutions are not law. a something in sub- of law attributes accurate, probably by tion this is if ‘law’ inoperative. and The man- stance vain meant is those actions which Secretary date of the Common- society, operate persons on all to tabulate the returns wealth ... by must be enforced the executive de- copies to each votes and to “transmit ... partment, judi- and sustained congress representative in senator and (1A Sutherland, ciary.” Statutory Con- subsidiary from this commonwealth” is (Sands 1972) 335.) p. ed. struction rev. purpose the main and incidental Cal.Rptr. 686 I Id. 206 at P.2d at 624. law; proposed it relates to a matter agree Supreme further with the California standing possesses legal alone no resolution, as a Court “a distinct from force.... statute, essentially is an enactment which added). (emphasis N.E. only public purpose declares a and does not accomplish pur- establish means to court, In the case before this the second pose.” Cal.Rptr. Id. at 106 n. 4 of the initiative states sentence of Section at 626 P.2d n. 23. repealed, Act

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