Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions


Touch N' Go
®, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother.

 

You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. Kevin Meyer, Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska and State of Alaska, Division of Elections v. Alaskans for Better Elections (6/12/2020) sp-7460

Kevin Meyer, Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska and State of Alaska, Division of Elections v. Alaskans for Better Elections (6/12/2020) sp-7460

           Notice:   This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC  REPORTER.  

           Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,  

                                                                                                                        

           303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email  

                                                                                                                          

           corrections@akcourts.us.  



                       THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA                                      



KEVIN  MEYER,  LIEUTENANT                                        )  

GOVERNOR  OF  THE  STATE  OF                                     )    Supreme Court No. S-17629  

                                                                                      

                                                                                                       

ALASKA  and  STATE  OF  ALASKA,                                  )  

DIVISION  OF  ELECTIONS,                                         )    Superior  Court  No.  3AN-19-09704  CI  

                                                                 )  

                                Appellants,                                               

                                                                 )    O P I N I O N  

                                                                 )  

           v.                                                                                           

                                                                 )    No. 7460 - June 12, 2020  

                                                                 )  

                                

ALASKANS FOR BETTER                                              )  

ELECTIONS,                                                       )  

                                                                 )  

                                Appellee.                        )  

                                                                 )  



                                                                                                              

                                            

                     Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third  

                                                                                                        

                     Judicial District, Anchorage, Yvonne Lamoureux, Judge.  



                                                                                                              

                     Appearances:               Margaret  Paton  Walsh  and  Laura  Fox,  

                                                                                                                 

                     Assistant  Attorneys  General,  Anchorage,  and  Kevin  G.  

                                                                                                                  

                      Clarkson, Attorney General,Juneau, for Appellants. ScottM.  

                                                                                                      

                     Kendall,  Jahna  M.  Lindemuth,  and  Samuel  G.  Gottstein,  

                                                                                                      

                     Holmes Weddle & Barcott, P.C., Anchorage, for Appellee.  



                                                                                                       

                     Before:  Bolger, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, Maassen,  

                                           

                      and Carney, Justices.  



                                          

                     WINFREE, Justice.  



I.         INTRODUCTION  



                                                                                                                                        

                       The Alaska Constitution provides that all political power is inherent in  


----------------------- Page 2-----------------------

                                                                                                           1  

Alaska's people and "founded upon their will only."                                                            The people may exercise this                         



political power in a number of ways.                                      The people have the constitutional right to vote in                                           

                                                    2  and "it is basic to our democratic society that the people be  

any state or local election,                                                                                                                                           



afforded the opportunity of expressing their will on the multitudinous issues which  

                                                                                                                                                               

confront them."3                   As a corresponding check to the constitutional right to elect officials,  

                                                                                                                                                          



and a check on those elected officials' conduct, the people have the constitutional right  

                                                                                                                                                                  

to petition to recall elected officials.4                                  And, as a check on legislative action or inaction,  

                                                                                                                                                           



the people have the constitutional rights to reject legislative acts by referendum and to  

                                                                                                                                       

legislate directly by initiative.5                              This appeal arises from the State's action limiting the  

                                                                                                                                                                      

people's constitutional right to legislate directly by initiative.6  

                                                                                                       



             1            Alaska Const. art. I, § 2 ("All political power is inherent in the people. All                                                              



government originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted                                                                 

solely for the good of the people as a whole.").                           



             2            Alaska Const. art. V, § 1 ("Every citizen of the United States who is at least  

                                                                                                                                                                   

eighteen years of age, who meets registration residency requirements which may be  

                                                                                                                                                                       

prescribed by law, and who is qualified to vote under this article, may vote in any state  

                                                                                                                                                                   

or local election.").  

                 



             3            Boucher v. Bomhoff, 495 P.2d 77, 78 (Alaska 1972).  

                                                                                                                      



             4            Alaska Const. art. XI, § 8 ("All elected public officials in the State . . . are  

                                                                                                                                                                     

subject to recall by the voters . . . .").  

                                                                  



             5            Alaska Const. art. XI, § 1 ("The people may propose and enact laws by the  

                                                                                                                                                                      

initiative, and approve or reject acts of the legislature by the referendum."); see also  

                                                                                                                                                                   

AS 15.45.010-.245 (restating constitutional initiative powers and providing procedures  

                                                                                                                                                      

for law-making by initiative).  

                                       



             6            We note "that,  of the three  branches of our  state government,  we are  

                                                                                                                                                                     

entrusted  with  the  'constitutionally  mandated  duty  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  

                                                                                                                                                                     

provisions of the Alaska Constitution,' " a duty that "sometimes requires us to answer  

                                                                                      

constitutional questions surrounded by political disagreement."  Wielechowski v. State,  

                                                                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                                                                 (continued...)  



                                                                                   -2-                                                                           7460
  


----------------------- Page 3-----------------------

                        A proposed initiative instituting three substantive changes to Alaska's                                               



election laws was submitted to the lieutenant governor for review, certification, and                                                                  

                                                     7     Determining  the  initiative  violated  a  constitutional  

printing   signature   booklets.                                                                                                    

                                                                                                                                 8  the lieutenant  

requirement that proposed initiative bills be confined to one subject,                                                                      

                                                                                                                   

governor denied certification.9                            The initiative's sponsors filed a superior court action  

                                                                                                                                        

challenging that decision.10                         The superior court concluded, contrary to the lieutenant  

                                                                                                                                            



            6           (...continued)  



                                                                                                                                                       

403 P.3d 1141, 1142-43 (Alaska 2017) (quoting Malone v. Meekins, 650 P.2d 351, 356  

                

(Alaska 1982)).  



            7           See Alaska Const. art. XI, § 2 ("An initiative or referendum is proposed by  

                                                                                                                                                          

an application containing the bill to be initiated or the act to be referred. The application  

                                                                                                                                          

shall be signed by not less than one hundred qualified voters as sponsors, and shall be  

                                                                                                                                        

filed with the lieutenant governor. If he finds it in proper form he shall so certify. Denial  

                                                                                                                                                  

of certification shall be subject to judicial review."), § 3 ("After certification of the  

                                                                                                                                                        

application, a petition containing a summary of the subject matter shall be prepared by  

                                                                                                                                                          

the lieutenant governor for circulation by the sponsors."); see also AS 15.45.030 (setting  

                                                                                                                                                 

out form of initiative application); AS 15.45.040 (setting out required form of proposed  

                                                                                                                                             

initiative  bill,  including  that  it  "shall  be  confined  to  one  subject");  AS  15.45.070  

                                                                                                                                           

(providing lieutenant governor shall review initiative and certify or notify initiative  

                                                                                                                                             

committee of denial grounds); AS 15.45.080 (setting out bases for denying certification,  

                                                                                                                                       

including if initiative bill is "not confined to one subject").  

                                                                                          



            8           See Alaska Const. art. II, § 13 ("Every bill shall be confined to one subject  

                                                                                                                                                 

unless it is an appropriation bill or one codifying, revising, or rearranging existing  

                                                                                                                                               

laws."); AS 15.45.040 (providing for form of proposed initiative bill, including that it  

                                                                                                                                                   

"shall be confined to one subject").  

                                                



            9           See  Alaska Const. art. XI, §  2 (providing for certification of initiative  

                                                                                                                                             

application if lieutenant governor "finds it in proper form"); AS 15.45.070 (providing  

                                                                                                                                           

lieutenant governor shall review initiative and certify or notify initiative committee of  

                                                                                                                                                          

denial grounds).  

             



            10          See Alaska Const. art. XI, § 2 (providing that "[d]enial of certification shall  

                                                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                                     (continued...)  



                                                                            -3-                                                                     7460
  


----------------------- Page 4-----------------------

governor, that the initiative's various provisions were confined to the single subject of                                                          



"election reform" and it accordingly should be certified; the court directed that the State                                                                  



distribute petition booklets for the sponsors to collect signatures for placing the initiative                                                       



                                                  11  

on a future election ballot.                           



                          The lieutenant governor and the State's elections office appeal the superior  

                                                                                                                                                      



court's decision.  But because the court correctly adhered to our prior interpretation of  

                                                                                                                                                                  



the relevant constitutional provisions - and because we reject the request to reverse  

                                                                                                                                                        



precedent that the people's power to initiate laws generally is equivalent to that of the  

                                                                                                                                                                



legislature - we affirm the court's decision.  

                                                                                        



II.          CONSTITUTIONAL BACKDROP  

                                                           



             A.           Law-Making By Initiative  

                                                             



                         Understanding  the  one-subject  rule's  application  to  an  initiative  first  

                                                                                                                                                             



requires understanding the people's law-making power under the Alaska Constitution.  

                                                                                                                                                                       



Article XI, section 1 provides in simple fashion:  "The people may propose and enact  

                                                                                                                                                            



laws by the initiative, and approve or reject acts of the legislature by the referendum."  

                                                                                                                                            



                          The constitutional convention delegates debated extensively whether to  

                                                                                                                                                                  

include an initiative provision in the Alaska Constitution.12 

                                                                                                                   Delegates recognized that  



             10           (...continued)  



                                                                                                                                                         

besubject tojudicialreview");AS15.45.240 (authorizing superiorcourtaction to review  

                                           

lieutenant governor's determination).  



             11          See Alaska Const. art. XI, § 4 (stating procedures for initiative election);  

                                                                                                                                                    

see  also  AS  15.45.090  (regarding  petition  preparation);  AS  15.45.110  (regarding  

                                                                                                                                                 

circulating petitions for signatures).  

                                               



             12          See 2 Proceedings oftheAlaskaConstitutional Convention(PACC)929-82  

                                                                                                                                                         

(Dec. 16, 1955); see also id. at 931-33, 960 (statements of Del. Warren Taylor describing  

                                                                                                                                                  

committee's research into initiative's history and other states' application); id. at 964  

                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                                                                            (continued...)  



                                                                                -4-                                                                         7460
  


----------------------- Page 5-----------------------

an initiative provision would be a check on the legislature.                                                  13  But they also recognized  



                                                                                                                                                      14  

that   an   initiative   provision   should   not   apply   to   certain   areas   of   law-making,                                                       and  



             12          (...continued)  



                                                                                                                                                           

(statement  of  Del.  Frank  Barr)  ("[T]he  question  is,  'Can  the  people  trust  the  

                                                                                                                                                           

legislature?[']               If  they  can,  there  is  no  need  for  any  initiative  .  .  .  .  I  believe  the  

                                                                                                                                                               

referendum is necessary, but the initiative is not necessary.  It is cumbersome, at least it  

                                                                                                                                                           

is more so than our usual method of introducing bills in the legislature . . . ."); id. at 966  

                                                                                                                                                          

(statement of Del. Maynard Londborg) ("I will have to admit that on this particular item  

                                                                                                                                                        

[the initiative] I would like to hear more or have a little time to think about it.  I have  

                                                                                                                                                      

been  on  both  sides  of  the  question  myself  .  .  .  .");  4  PACC 2991  (Jan.  24,  1956)  

                                                                                                                                                            

(statement of Del. Victor Fischer) ("I don't think the initiative is actually a view of the  

                                                                                                                                                     

people  as  a  whole,  of  the  individual  Alaskan.                                           Initiative  lends  itself  only,  almost  

                                                                                ICTOR  FISCHER, A               LASKA 'S  CONSTITUTIONAL  

exclusively, to use by pressure groups."); V 

CONVENTION  79-81 (1975) (summarizing delegates' debates on inclusion of initiative in                                                                         

Alaska Constitution). The delegates eventually voted by a substantial majority (43 yeas,                                                                 

 10 nays, 2 absent) to adopt the article granting Alaskans the initiative right.                                                                  4 PACC   

2992-93 (Jan. 24, 1956).           



             13          2 PACC 934 (Dec. 16, 1955) (statement of Del. Warren Taylor) ("It might  

                                                                                                                                                       

be [there is] some very badly needed legislation but which the legislature would refuse  

                                                                                                                                                       

to act upon. . . . [I]f that was the case, and the people had the right to initiate this  

                                                                                                                                                           

legislation they could possibly cure the ills that were existing by reason of the legislature  

                                                                                                                                               

not working."); id. at 947 (statement of Del. W. O. Smith) ("That is one of the chief  

                                                                                                                                                        

reasons  why  I  support  very  strongly  the  inclusion  of  the  initiative  process  in  the  

                                                                                                                                                           

constitution, even though it is not used, it is there.  I think that the legislators, if they  

                                                                                                                                                          

know it is there, they will be very careful in ignoring the will of the people."); id. at 959  

                                                                                                                                                           

(statement of Del. M. R. Marston) ("When a man says 'I don't like that,' you can say  

                                                                                                                                                            

'You have a right.'  The people themselves can go into the courts of the land to have  

                                                                                                                                          

your word made law by a certain procedure."); id. at 967-68 (statement of Del. Douglas  

                                                                                                                                                   

Gray) ("I believe that the real value of the initiative is not in its use.  It is in the fact it is  

                                                                                                                                                               

there. It is a threat. That is the real value of the initiative."); id. at 978 (statement of Del.  

                                                                                                                                                          

Frank Barr) ("I am against the basic idea of an initiative but I realize it has some value  

                                                                                                                                                        

if it is in the constitution.  In fact it may be a deterrent on the actions of [the] legislature  

                                                                                                                                               

if they know it is there and could be used . . . .").  

                                                                                     



             14          2  PACC  1272  (Jan.  5,  1956)  (statement  of  Del.  Jack  Hinckel)  ("The  

                                                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                                        (continued...)  



                                                                              -5-                                                                       7460
  


----------------------- Page 6-----------------------

article XI specifies limitations in section 7:                                           "The initiative shall not be used to dedicate                           



revenues, make or repeal appropriations, create courts, define the jurisdiction of courts                                                                            



or prescribe their rules, or enact local or special legislation."                                  



                           The delegates voted late in the constitutional drafting process to include the                                                                   

                                        15   But the style and drafting committee had been using "by law" and  

initiative provision.                                                                                                                                                     



"bythelegislature"interchangeably intheconstitutional text, raising concern therecould  

                                                                                                                                                                       



be confusion whether the phrase "by law" applied to both the legislature's power and the  

                                                                                                                                                                            

people's initiative power.16                                 To avoid confusion, the delegates included article XII,  

                                                                                                                                                                         



section  11,  a  general  provision  regarding  law-making  power:                                                                              "Unless  clearly  

                                                                                                                                                                  



inapplicable, the law-making powers assigned to the legislature may be exercised by the  

                                                                                                                                                                            



people through the initiative, subject to the limitations of [a]rticle XI."   (Emphasis  

                                                                                                                                                          



added.)  



              14           (...continued)  



                                                                                                                                                                          

Committee was very deliberate about writing this the way we did.  We did not feel that  

                                                                                                                                                                        

the initiative should be used to propose constitutional amendments. We discussed it very  

                                                                                                                                                             

thoroughly and therewas no divided opinion.");4 PACC2837 (Jan. 21, 1956) (statement  

                                                                                                                                                                          

of Del. Victor Fischer) ("I personally am not a believer in the initiative; however, if you  

                                                                                                                                                              

have it, let's be honest about it . . . . If you believe that certain items should be exempted  

                                                                                                                                                                      

let's put them in[] . . . and specifically exempt them from the initiative instead of going  

                                                                                                                                                                        

through each article, section by section, and by hidden meanings prevent the people from  

                                                                                                                                                                  

exercising the initiative."); 4 PACC 2967 (Jan. 24, 1956) (statement of Del. George  

                                                                                                                                                                   

Sundborg) (explaining that legislativebranch committeecreated articleXI, §7 to address  

                                                                                                                                                                          

law-making  by  initiative  and  enumerate  items  "the  Convention  intended  that  the  

                                                                                                                                                                       

initiative should not apply to"); id. at 2977-87 (discussion regarding removing from  

                                                                                                                                                                     

initiative right power to create courts, define court jurisdiction, or prescribe court rules).  



              15           4 PACC 2992-93 (Jan. 24, 1956).  

                                                                                    



              16           4 PACC 2820-30, 2835-51 (Jan. 21, 1956); see id. at 2841 (statement of  

                                                                                                                                                                             

Del. John Cross) ("[W]hen we were writing this constitution and these articles we made  

                                                                                                                                                                       

no distinction between 'legislature' and the 'law.'  I am opposed to going ahead and  

                                                                                                                                               

making that distinction now.  I can foresee hours and hours of debate on that.").  

                                                                                                                                                      



                                                                                      -6-                                                                              7460
  


----------------------- Page 7-----------------------

                            We previously have explained article XII, section 11's language:                                                                           "The  



phrase 'unless clearly inapplicable' was included in the Alaska Constitution 'so that the                                                                                    



 initiative would not replace the legislature where the legislature's power serves as a                                                                                          



 check on other branches of government, such as legislative power to define courts'                                                                                  

                                                                                 17  Common sense about law-making determines  

jurisdiction or override judicial rules.' "                                                                                                                  



when, under article XII, section 11, the people's law-making power is not co-equal with  

                                                                                                                                                                           



the legislature's:  "To test whether the initiative is 'clearly inapplicable,' one must ask  

                                                                                 

whether 'even 55 idiots would agree that it was inapplicable.' "18                                                                           The constitutional  

                                                                                                                                                       



provisions and the delegates' debates on the initiative thus make clear that the delegates  

                                                                                                                                                                



 intended the people's initiative law-making power be equivalent to the legislature's law- 

                                                                                                                                                                           



making  power,  except  in  specifically  enumerated  and  other  "clearly  inapplicable"  

                                                                                                                                                       

 circumstances.19  



              17            Kohlhaas   v.   State,   Office   of   Lieutenant   Governor,   147   P.3d   714,   717  



 (Alaska 2006) (quoting                           Brooks v. Wright                   , 971 P.2d 1025, 1029 (Alaska 1999)).                            



              18            Id. at 717 n.8 (quoting Brooks, 971 P.2d at 1028 (quoting 4 PACC 2849  

                                                                                                                                                                         

 (Jan.  21,  1956)));  4  PACC  2848-49  (Jan.  21,  1956)  (statement  of  Del.  George  

                                                                                                                                                                   

McLaughlin) ("All we are asking is that the Convention notes immediately that where  

                                                                                                                                   

we use in any article . . . 'by the legislature' or we have used in any article the proposal,  

                                                                                                                                                                 

the words  'the legislature,'  unless those things obviously  are inapplicable  they  are  

                                                                                                                                                                            

 subject  to  the  initiative  and  the  referendum  unless  they  are  otherwise  specifically  

                                                                                                                                                           

 excluded fromthe article on the initiative and referendum. . . . [W]e are clearly indicating  

                                                                                                                                                               

here  that  where  we  use  the  expression  'by  the  legislature'  or  the  expression  'the  

                                                                                                                                                  

 legislature' we mean completely, thoroughly and [we] wholeheartedly know that it is  

                                                                                                                                                                            

 subject  not  only  to  the  initiative  but  to  the  referendum,  and  where  it  is  clearly  

                                                                                                                                                                    

 inapplicable, even 55 idiots would agree that it was inapplicable.").   The humorous  

                                                                                                                                                              

reference to "55 idiots" arose from having 55 convention delegates; it was "the same  

                                                                                                                                                                        

number that drafted the United States Constitution."  FISCHER, supra note 12, at 14.  

                                                                                                                                                                       



              19            We have explained on numerous occasions our deferential view toward the  

                                                                                                                                                                              

people's initiative right.  See, e.g., City of Fairbanks v. Fairbanks Convention &Visitors  

                                                                                                                                                                    

                                                                                                                                                       (continued...)  



                                                                                       -7-                                                                               7460
  


----------------------- Page 8-----------------------

                       It is worth noting that the initiative is only one of numerous check and                                                



                                                                                                                                       20  

balance mechanisms found in our separation of powers form of government.                                                                     This  



                                                                                                                             

particular  people's  check  on  government  has  much  in  common  with  constitutional  

                    21                  22  rights:  

                        and recall           

referendum                      



                       The initiative and  referendum are devices that permit  the  

                                                                                                            

                       electorate to participate directly in the law-making process.  

                                                                                                                                



            19         (...continued)  



                                                                                                                                                  

Bureau, 818 P.2d 1153, 1155 (Alaska 1991) ("The usual rule applied by this court is to  

                                                                                                                                        

construe voter initiatives broadly so as to preserve them whenever possible."); Thomas  

                                                                                                                                       

v. Bailey, 595 P.2d 1, 3 (Alaska 1979) ("The right of initiative . . . should be liberally  

                                                                                                                                      

construed to permit exercise of that right."). When reviewing a challenge to an initiative  

                                                                                                                                      

prior to its submission to voters, we liberally construe the constitutional and statutory  

                                                                                                                                              

requirements pertaining to the use of initiatives so that "the people [are] permitted to vote  

                                                                                                                                              

and express their will on the proposed legislation." Boucher v. Engstrom, 528 P.2d 456,  

                                                                                                                                               

462 (Alaska 1974) (alteration in original) (quoting Cope v. Toronto, 332 P.2d 977, 979  

                                                                                                                  

(Utah 1958)), overruled in part on other grounds by McAlpine v. Univ. of Alaska, 762  

                                                                                                                                                  

P.2d 81 (Alaska 1988).  "To that end 'all doubts as to technical deficiencies or failure to  

                                                                                                                          

comply with the exact letter of procedure will be resolved in favor of the accomplishment  

                                                                                                                                           

of that purpose.' "  Municipality of Anchorage v. Frohne, 568 P.2d 3, 8 (Alaska 1977)  

                                                      

(quoting Boucher, 528 P.2d at 462).  



            20         See Bradner v. Hammond, 553 P.2d 1, 5 (Alaska 1976).  We discussed  

                                                                                                                                    

prior cases in which we stated:   (1) the Alaska Constitution follows the traditional  

                                                                                                                                   

framework with three branches - executive, legislative, and judicial - of American  

                                                                                                                                    

government; (2) it can be fairly inferred that Alaska recognizes the separation of powers  

                                                                                                                                         

doctrine; and (3) that doctrine's underlying rationale "is the avoidance of tyrannical  

                                                                                                                                    

aggrandizement of power by a single branch of government." Id.  We then stated: "The  

                                                                                                                                             

complementary doctrine of checks and balances must of necessity be considered in  

                                                                                                                                                 

determining the scope of the doctrine of separation of powers."  Id.  

                                                                                                                



            21         Alaska Const. art. XI, § 1 ("The people may . . . approve or reject acts of  

                                                                                                       

the legislature by the referendum.").  

                                      



            22         Alaska Const. art. XI, § 8 ("All elected officials in the State, except judicial  

                                                                                                                                         

officers, are subject to recall by the voters . . . . Procedures and grounds for recall shall  

                                                                                                                                             

be prescribed by the legislature.").  

                                     



                                                                        -8-                                                                 7460
  


----------------------- Page 9-----------------------

                              Through the initiative the voters may enact legislation, and                                                                

                             through   the   referendum they                                      may  veto   laws   passed   by   a  

                             recent legislature. Through the recall, the voters may remove                                                        

                              an elected official from office. The initiative and referendum                                             

                              are   known   as   "direct  democracy"   provisions.     They   first  

                              appeared    in    this    country   during    the    populist    reform  

                             movement of the early twentieth century, and they are found                                                             

                              in      one         form           or       another             in       about           half         of       the       state  

                              constitutions.[23]  



There are corresponding checks on the people's right to initiate laws.  One, involving  

                                                                                                                                                                          



restrictions on subject matter, is described above.  Another is the legislature's power to  

                                                                                                                                                                                           



effectively terminate an initiative by passing "substantially the same" legislation prior  

                                                                                                                                                                                    

to an election.24                    We will later return to this checks and balances theme.  

                                                                                                                                                



               B.             One-Subject Rule  

                                                             



                              1.            Constitutional history  

                                                                                



                             Alaska'sconstitutionalone-subject ruleiscontainedin articleII, section13,  

                                                                                                                                                                                         



entitled "Form of Bills":  

                                        



                             Every bill shall be confined to one subject unless it is an  

                                                                                                                                                            

                              appropriation bill or one codifying, revising, or rearranging  

                              existing laws.  Bills for appropriations shall be confined to  

                                                                                                                                                             

                              appropriations. The subject of each bill shall be expressed in  

                                                                                                                                                              

                             the title.  The enacting clause shall be:  "Be it enacted by the  

                                                                                                                                                           

                             Legislature of the State of Alaska."  

                                                                                        



                              The  one-subject  rule's  origins  lie  with  the  Roman  Empire.                                                                             The  Lex  

                                                                                                                                                                                      



CaeciliaDidia, enacted in 98B.C., wasalegislativeprocedural lawprohibiting unrelated  

                                                                                                                                                                           



               23             GORDON  HARRISON, A                                LASKA 'S   CONSTITUTION:    A C                                   ITIZEN'S   GUIDE   179  



(5th ed. 2018), http://akleg.gov/docs/pdf/citizens_ guide.pdf.                                                                          



               24            Alaska Const. art. XI, § 4 ("If, before the election, substantially the same  

                                                                                                                                                                                    

measure has been enacted, the petition is void.").  

                                                                                            



                                                                                            -9-                                                                                     7460
  


----------------------- Page 10-----------------------

                                                                                                                                      25  

provisions being combined within one bill (                                                              lex satura               ).        The one-subject rule has been                                



used   over   the centuries to                                       maintain clarity                          and   transparency   in   law-making   and   to  

                                                                            26    "Log[]rolling consists of deliberately inserting in one  

eliminate logrolling and riders.                                                                                                                                                                            



bill several dissimilar or incongruous subjects in order to secure the necessary support  

                                                                                                                                        

for passage of the measure."27                                                   "Riders" are provisions often "unrelated to the main  

                                                                                                                                                                                                        

purpose of the bill"28 that are "attached to bills that are popular and so certain of adoption  

                                                                                                                                                                                                



that the rider will secure adoption not on its own merits, but on the merits of the measure  

                                                                                                                                                                                                 

to which it is attached."29  

                                                                



                                 The first state to adopt a constitutional one-subject rule was Illinois, in  

                                                                                                                                                                                                               



                 25              ROBERT LUCE,L                           EGISLATIVE PROCEDURE: P                                        ARLIAMENTARY  PRACTICESAND   



THE                                                                                                            

           COURSE OF BUSINESS INTHE FRAMING OF STATUTES  548-49 (1922). The                                                                                                             one-subject  

rule had a central place in Rome's history after an omnibus law proposed by Marcus                                                                               

Livius Drusus in 91 B.C. combined provisions on adding "three hundred members to the                                                                                                                          

 Senate,   the   taking   of   jurymen   from the                                                      Senate   instead   of   the   equestrian   order,   the  

encouragement of emigration by devoting to that purpose the undistributed lands in Italy                                                                                                                  

and the best part of Sicily, [and] the granting of the franchise to the Italian allies," among                                                                                                      

other provisions, into one law.                                                Id.   at 549; F                    RANK   FROST  ABBOTT, A H                                           ISTORY AND   

DESCRIPTION OF ROMAN POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS  101 (3d ed. 1911). The Senate struck                                                                                                                     

                                                                                        

down the law as a violation of the                                                       Lex Caecilia Didia                               , and ensuing events included                        

Drusus's murder and a war between the Roman Republic and the Italian allies.                                                                                                                         LUCE,  

supra, at 548-49; ABBOTT, supra, at 101-02.  Today's one-subject rule dispute is not  

                                                                                                                                                                                                             

 surrounded by quite the same dramatic context.  

                                                                                                  



                 26              Millard  H.  Ruud,  No  Law  Shall  Embrace  More  Than  One  Subject,  

                                                                                                                                                                                                

42 MINN. L. R                      EV. 389, 391 (1958).                                 

        



                 27              Gellert v.                State,   522   P.2d   1120,  1122   (Alaska 1974);                                                               see also               Alaska  



Legislative Council v. Knowles                                                 , 21 P.3d 367, 373 n.33 (Alaska 2001); Ruud,                                                                           supra  

note 26, at 391.  

                            



                 28              Rider, BLACK 'S  LAW  DICTIONARY  (11th ed. 2019).                                                            

                                                  



                 29              Ruud, supra note 26, at 391.  

                                                                                             



                                                                                                     -10-                                                                                               7460
  


----------------------- Page 11-----------------------

              30 

 1818.    By 1958, the year before Alaska officially reached statehood, nearly 40 states                                                                                       

had adopted varying constitutional one-subject provisions.31  And the one-subject rule  



                                                                                                32  Perhaps because the one-subject rule was such  

                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                        

existed in Alaska well before statehood. 



a common fixture, the delegates agreed with little fanfare to its inclusion in the Alaska  

                                                                                                                                                                                                     

Constitution.33  



                                 During the Constitution's creation, standing committees drafted proposed  

                                                                                                                                                                                               



                 30              Id.   at   389.     Illinois's   1818   constitutional   provision   required   that   bills  



appropriating salaries for members of the legislature and government officials be limited                                                                                                            

to that single subject.                                Id.  



                 31              Id. at 390. Ruud notes that although some states' constitutional provisions  

                                                                                                                                                                                            

use the term "object" instead of "subject" there appears to be "no real difference" in how  

                                                                                                                                                                                                            

courts handle cases dealing with the one-subject or one-object rule.  Id. at 395-96.  

                                                                                                                                                                                        



                 32              The United States Congress formally organized the Territory of Alaska  

                                                                                                                                                                                                    

through passage of the 1912 "Second Organic Act."  Act of Aug. 24, 1912, ch. 387, 37  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                

 Stat. 512.  Section 8 of the Act provided: "No law shall embrace more than one subject,  

                                                                                                                                                                                                   

which shall be expressed in its title."  

                                                                             



                 33              Alaska is not the only state to have adopted a one-subject rule without  

                                                                                                                                                                                                  

 substantive debate.   See  Justin  W.  Evans & Mark  C.  Bannister,  The Meaning  and  

                                                                                                                                                                                                            

Purposes of State Constitutional Single Subject Rules:   A Survey of States and the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                             

Indiana Example, 49 VAL. U. L. R                                                    EV. 87, 90 & n.13 (2014) (speculating on reasons for                                                                       

                                                      

lack of single-subject-rule historical record and noting:                                                                                      "[T]he rule had become so                                        

common by the late nineteenth century that new constitutional conventions included it                                                                                                                             

in their constitutions as a matter of course. Another likely explanation is that some states                                                                                                            

produced    only    journals    that    described    the    general    procedural    events    of    their  

constitutional conventions, neglecting to record the actual substance of the debates that                                                                                                                    

took place.");                     see also Migdal v. State                                     , 747 A.2d 1225, 1229 (Md. App. 2000) ("One                                                           

reason for the relatively limited discussion, in Maryland constitutional history, of the                                                                                                                      

reasons   for   the   single-subject   rule   may   be   that   it   is   one   that   has  been  applied   for  

centuries.").  



                                                                                                      -11-                                                                                               7460
  


----------------------- Page 12-----------------------

                                                                                                                              34  

constitutional articles that were submitted to the delegates for consideration.                                                    The  



                                                                                                                             35  

Committee   on   Legislative   Branch's   proposal   included   a   one-subject   rule.                                            The  



                                                                                                                                      

committee explained that, despite deference to the legislature on form and procedure for  

                                                                                                                               36   The  

                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                  

enactment, the Constitution would require a bill to be "confined to one subject." 



committee also stated:  "The use of riders on appropriation bills is prohibited, because  

                                                                                                        



of the abuses that have arisen in the Congress and in some states which do not have such  

                                                                                                                                   

a restriction."37  

    



                     The delegates only briefly explained the one-subject rule's inclusion in the  

                                                                                                                                      

Alaska Constitution;38  they expressly recognized that most states had adopted similar  

                                                                                                                               



rules and that a one-subject rule would establish "minimum safeguards" in the bill  

                                                                                                                                     

enactment process.39               Delegate Steve McCutcheon stated:  

                                                                                  



                     The  theory  of  requiring  that  all  bills  be  confined  to  one  

                                                                                                               

                     subject with certain exceptions . . . is that nothing can be  

                                                                                                                 

                     gotten through the legislature under the guise of some other  

                                                                                                             

                     things.  Often times a bill that is very popular and has a great  

                                                                                                              

                     deal  of  public  support  and  sentiment  will  have  a  rider  

                                                                                                             

                     attached to it which may defeat the very purpose of the bill or  

                                                                                                                  

                     may  pertain  to  some  other  idea  entirely,  and  the  theory  

                                                                                                          



           34        FISCHER,  supra  note   12,  at  36,  46-47,  56-59.  



           35        Constitutional Convention Committee Proposal No. 5, § 16  (Dec. 14, 1955),  



http://www.akleg.gov/pdf/billfiles/ ConstitutionalConvention/Folder%20310.5.pdf.   The  

Committee   on   Legislative   Branch   made   several   revisions   to   the   one-subject   rule's  

language,  most  notably  separating  the  one-subject  rule  from  the  one-title  rule.   Compare  

id.,  with  id.  §   13  (Jan.  23,   1956).   



           36        Id., cmt. on § 16 (Dec. 14, 1955).  

                                                                             



           37        Id.  



           38        See 3 PACC 1746-47 (Jan. 11, 1956).  

                                                                        



           39        Id. at 1747.  

                               



                                                                  -12-                                                            7460
  


----------------------- Page 13-----------------------

                     behind   the   requirement   that   each   bill   be   confined   to   one  

                     subject indicates th[at] thinking.                [40]  



                     Returning to the checks and balances theme discussed earlier, it also is  

                                                                                                                                    



worth noting that in conjunction with other constitutional provisions - like the "direct  

                                                                                                                            



democracy" provisions for the people to "veto" legislatively enacted laws through the  

                                                                                                                                  

referendum and directly initiate laws through the initiative41  - the one-subject rule  

                                                                                                                                

works to implement checks and balances in our form of government.42                                              For example,  

                                                                                                                         



under the Alaska Constitution a governor has the power to veto a legislative bill enacting  

                                                                                                                          



a law, but only in its entirety, and the power to veto or reduce individual items in  

                                                                                                                                   

legislative appropriations bills,43 which are immune fromthe one-subject rule.44  Like the  

                                                                                                                                  



one-subject rule, the constitutional "item veto" for appropriations bills "originated as a  

                                                                                                                                     



reform measure to prevent legislators from 'logrolling' when they enact appropriation  

                                                                     



bills which necessarily address many subjects and need not be confined to a single  

                                                                                                                             

subject,  and  to  give  governors  some  ability  to  limit  state  expenditures."45                                        If  the  

                                                                                                                                 



legislature could pass bills enacting laws about multiple subjects in the same way it can  

                                                                                                                                 



pass appropriation bills with multiple subjects, a "governor's veto power would be  

                                                                                                                                  



compromised because the legislature could pair a subject that the governor opposed with  

                                                                                                                                



          40        Id.  at   1746-47.  



          41         See  HARRISON,  supra  note  23  and  accompanying  text.  



          42         See Bradner v   . Hammond, 553 P.2d 1, 5 (Alaska 1976), discussed  supra  



note  20  and  accompanying  text.  



          43         Alaska   Const.   art.  II,   §   15   ("The  governor  may  veto  bills  passed  by  the  



legislature.   [The  governor]  may,  by  veto,  strike  or  reduce  items  in  appropriation  bills.").  



          44         Alaska Const. art. II, § 13 (excepting appropriations bills from one-subject  

                                                                                                                     

rule).  



          45        Alaska Legislative Council v. Knowles, 21 P.3d 367, 373 (Alaska 2001).  

                                                                                                                            



                                                                -13-                                                          7460
  


----------------------- Page 14-----------------------

one that [the governor] favored."                     46  



                                                                                                     

                      2.         Our case law applying the one-subject rule  



                                                                                                                                           

                      The delegates described the one-subject rule as a minimum safeguard to  



                                                                                                                                          

law-making, but they did not define "one subject."  We therefore have identified its  



                                                                                 

parameters when asked to apply the one-subject rule.  



                                                             

                                 a.         Gellert v. State  



                                                                                                                        47  

                                                                                                                                       

                      Our  seminal  one-subject-rule  decision  is  Gellert  v.  State.                                      That  case  



                                                                                                                                  

involved the legislature's enactment of a bill to issue general obligation bonds funding  



                                                                                                                     

(1) small boat harbor projects for coastal towns and villages and (2) a Fairbanks flood  



                         48                                                                                              49  

                                                                                                                                  

control project.              The bond proposition was ratified at a general election.                                        A lawsuit  



                                                                                                                                       

sought to block the bonds' issuance, in part on the ground that flood control and boat  



                                                                                                                           

harbor projects were two distinct subjects in violation of the constitutional one-subject  



       50                                                                                                                51  

rule.                                                                                                                               

            After a trial the superior court rejected this constitutional challenge.                                         On appeal  



                                                                                                                                  

we generally agreed that constitutional one-subject rules are primarily meant to restrain  



           46         See  HARRISON,  supra  note  23,  at  63.  



           47         522  P.2d   1120  (Alaska   1974).  



           48         Id.  at   1120-21;  id.  at   1124  (Fitzgerald,  J.,  dissenting).  



           49         Id.   at   1121   (majority   opinion).     Article   IX,   section   8   of   the   Alaska  



Constitution  -  yet  another  people's  check  on  legislative  power  -  provides  in  relevant  

part:     "No   state   debt   shall   be   contracted   unless   authorized   by   law   for  capital  

improvements  .  .  .  and  ratified  by  a  majority  of  the  qualified  voters  of  the  State  who  vote  

on  the  question."  



           50         Gellert, 522 P.2d at 1121.  

                                                        



           51         Id. at 1122.  

                                



                                                                    -14-                                                              7460
  


----------------------- Page 15-----------------------

                                                       52  

legislative logrolling.                                      But we explained that such provisions should "be construed with                                                                                         



considerable breadth" to avoid undue restrictions on the "scope and permissible subject                                                                                                                       



matter" of legislation, which otherwise would result in "multiplying and complicating                                                                                                         

                                                                                                                                                                          53  We stated that one- 

the number of necessary enactment[s] and their interrelationships."                                                                                                                                                   



subject-rule decisions "must be made on a basis of practicality and reasonableness" and  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

generally must be analyzed "only in terms of the particular facts of each case."54                                                                                                                                     We  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



ultimately adopted the Minnesota Supreme Court's "germaneness" test:  

                                                                                                                                                                                



                                   All that is necessary is that [the] act should embrace some  

                                                                                                                                                                                

                                   one general subject; and by this is meant, merely, that all  

                                                                                                                                                                                       

                                   matters . . . should fall under some one general idea, be so  

                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                   connected with or related to each other, either logically or in  

                                                                                                                                                                                         

                                   popular understanding, as to be parts of, or germane to, one  

                                                                                                              

                                   general subject.[55]  

                                                                                    



                                   Turning to the case's facts, we declined to adopt the State's argument,  

                                                                                                                                                                                                      



accepted by the superior court, that with bond propositions the general subject is "the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



                  52              Id.  



                  53              Id.   As one commentator on the Alaska Constitution puts it, our broad view                                                                                                       



of the one-subject rule is to show "deference to the judgment of the legislature on how                                                                                                                              

                                                                                                                                                 ARRISON, supra note 23, at 62.  

best to structure individual pieces of legislation."                                                                             See  H                                                                                 



                  54               Gellert, 522 P.2d at 1123.  

                                                                                        



                  55              Id. (quoting Johnson v. Harrison, 50 N.W. 923, 924 (Minn. 1891)). Other  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

states have adopted this "germaneness" test.  See Michael D. Gilbert, Single Subject  

                                                                                                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                   ITT. L. R               EV. 803, 826 (2006) (describing                         

Rules and the Legislative Process, 67 U. P 

                                                                                                       

language of tests across jurisdictions and noting other states, including Pennsylvania,                                                                                                     

Maryland, and Kansas, follow"germanenessstandard"adoptedbyMinnesotacourt);                                                                                                                                              see  

also   Richard   Briffault,   The   Single-Subject   Rule:     A   State   Constitutional   Dilemma,  

              LB.    L.    REV.   1629,   1640-42   (2019)   (discussing   "germaneness"   standard   and  

 82  A 

variations state courts have adopted).                                   



                                                                                                           -15-                                                                                                    7460
  


----------------------- Page 16-----------------------

                                                                                      56  

issuance of bonds for capital improvements";                                              we discerned a narrower single subject.                                      



We noted trial evidence showing that both projects would receive federal funding and  



be administered by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, that both projects were                                                                        



"part    of    a    continuing    program    of    federal-state    cooperation  in  water    resources  



                                                                                                                                                                  57  

development," and that preexisting law authorized the State to enter into both projects.                                                                               



We concluded that the two "topics pertain[ed] to one ongoing plan for the development  

                                                                                                                                             

of water resources and to the method of funding that plan"58  and that the plan logically  

                                                                                                                                                     



and conveniently could encompass the flood control and boat harbor projects without  

                                                                                                                                                       

violating the one-subject rule.59  

                                                 



                                      b.           North Slope Borough v. Sohio Petroleum Corp.  

                                                                                                                                      



                          Our next one-subject-rule case, North Slope Borough v. Sohio Petroleum  

                                                                                                                                                  



Corp., involved a legislative act that included provisions regarding income tax credits  

                                                                                                                                                         



for fuel expenses, amendments to a state excise tax on cigarettes, and restrictions on  

                                                                                                                                                                 

                                                        60   The superior court concluded that the act violated the  

municipalities' ability to tax.                                                                                                                                 

                                                 



one-subject rule because it included two separate subjects: municipal taxation and state  

                                                                                                                                                             



             56           Gellert,  522  P.2d  at   1121-23;  id.  at   1124  (Fitzgerald,  J.,  dissenting).  



             57          Id.  at   1121,   1123  (majority  opinion).  



             58          Id.  at   1123.  



             59          Id.   Justice  Fitzgerald  dissented,  concluding  that:   (1)  the  generally  accepted  



view   seemed  to  be  that  the  projects  to  be  financed  were  a  bond  proposition's   subject  

matter;  (2)  Fairbanks  flood  control  and  coastal   small  boat  harbors were  not  the   same  

subject  matter;  and  (3)  the  bond  proposition  was  a  good  example  of  logrolling  because  

it  was  designed  to  gather  voter  support  by  linking  projects  in  different  areas  of  the  state.   

Id.  at   1124  (Fitzgerald,  J.,  dissenting).  



             60           585  P.2d  534,  544-45  (Alaska  1978), superseded  by  statute  on  other  

                                                                                                                                                           

grounds, ch. 23, §§ 2-3, SLA 1991, as recognized in State, Commercial Fisheries Entry  

                                                                                                                                                            

Comm'n v. Carlson, 270 P.3d 755 (Alaska 2012).  

                                                                                    



                                                                               -16-                                                                         7460
  


----------------------- Page 17-----------------------

                61  

taxation.            The State appealed, arguing that                         Gellert's one-subject rule was "very                             liberal,"  



that the challenged subject of "taxation" was more limited than                                                 Gellert's subject of water          



resources   development,   and   that   the   legislative   record   showed   no   indication  of  

logrolling, inadvertence, stealth, or fraud.                                62  



                        We reiterated that what constitutes one subject is to be liberally construed63  

                                                                                                                                          



and that no act will be set aside for failure to comply with the one-subject rule "except  

                                                                                                                                                

where the violation is both substantial and plain."64   Because the state and municipal tax  

                                                                                                                                                         



provisions were intertwined and had a direct impact on state tax revenue, we held that  

                                                                        



            61          Id.  at 545.   



            62  

                                                                                                                                                      

                        Brief of Appellant State of Alaska at 50-55, North Slope Borough, 585 P.2d  

534 (Nos. 3460/3513/3659).     



            63          North Slope Borough, 585 P.2d at 545 (citing Gellert, 522 P.2d 1120).  

                                                                                                                                              



            64          Id. (citing Suber v. Alaska State Bond Comm., 414 P.2d 546, 557 (Alaska  

                                                                                                                                                

 1966)). Suber v. Alaska State Bond Committee, a post-statehood decision, actually was  

                                                                                                                                                       

our first consideration of the one-subject rule.  See 414 P.2d at 556-57.  Suber involved  

                                                                                                                                              

legislation  providing  financial  relief  for  some  mortgage  and  lienholders  on  homes  

                                                                                                                                           

destroyed in the 1964 earthquake.  Id. at 549.  A taxpayer raised several constitutional  

                                                                                      

challenges to the act, including that it violated article II, section 13's one-subject rule and  

                                                                                                                                                        

its related requirement that a bill's subject be expressed in its title, because the act  

                                                                                                                                                        

included an unnoted criminal provision authorizing punishment for false statements or  

                                                                                                                                                          

misrepresentations to obtain financial relief under the act.   Id.  at 556-57, 556 n.23.  

                                                                                                                                                                

Drawing on territorial court interpretation of the one-subject rule in Alaska's Second  

                                                                                                                               

Organic Act, we explained that the constitutional rule is intended to prevent logrolling  

                                                                                                                                            

and "to guard against inadvertence, stealth and fraud in legislation."  Id.  at 557.  We  

                                                                                                                                                       

stated that when considering adherence to the one-subject rule, courts should "disregard  

                                                                                                                                           

mere verbal inaccuracies, resolve doubts in favor of validity," and set aside an enactment  

                                                                                                                                            

only if the violation were "substantial and plain."  Id.  We concluded that the criminal  

                                                                                                                                        

sanctions provision was related to the subject expressed in the act's title and did not  

                                                                                                                                                        

violate the one-subject rule.  Id.  

                                                      



                                                                           -17-                                                                     7460
  


----------------------- Page 18-----------------------

                                                                                                                                        65  

"[s]tate taxation is not an unduly broad category under the one[-]subject rule"                                                             and  

concluded that there was no constitutional violation.                                   66  



                                                            

                                  c.         Short v. State  



                                                                                                                                               

                       In a subsequent one-subject-rule case, Short v. State, we stated:  "[I]t is  



                                                                                                                                             

apparent that the Gellert test requires no more than that the various provisions of [a]  



                                                                                                                                

single legislative enactment fairly relate to the same subject, or have a natural connection  

                   67   That case involved another voter-approved legislative bond package,68  

therewith."                                                                                                                      



unsuccessfully challenged in superior court under the one-subject rule for combining  

                                                                                                                                

public safety and correctional facilities capital projects.69                                      The public safety buildings  

                                                                                                                                  



were for "state troopers, fish and wildlife protection, a motor vehicles division, a fire  

                                                                                                                                            



prevention division" -essentially all publicsafety services "the Fairbanks and Soldotna  

                                                                                                                                    

                            70  Thecorrectional facilities were "pre-trial detention facilities, juvenile  

regions"needed.                                                                                                                      

                

offender institutions and new jail facilities in various regions of the state."71  

                                                                                                                                 



                       On appeal we concluded that the bond proposition projects fell within the  

                                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                                       72   We  

single subject of "general public safety function of protecting life and property."                                                          

                                                                                                                       



           65         North  Slope  Borough,  585  P.2d  at  545.  



           66         Id.  at  546.  



           67          600  P.2d  20,  24  (Alaska   1979).  



           68         See  Gellert,  522  P.2d  at  1121;  see  also  Alaska  Const.  art.  IX,  §  8  (requiring  



voter  approval  of  statutes  authorizing  capital  improvements).  



           69         Short,  600  P.2d  at  21-22.  



           70         Id.  at  22  n.2.  



           71         Id.  



           72         Id.  at  24-25.   



                                                                     -18-                                                                7460
  


----------------------- Page 19-----------------------

expressly rejected the challenger's argument that the one-subject rule requires a stricter                                                                                                                                                     



                                                                                                                                                   73  

standard when measures are submitted to voters,                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                                                         reasoning that Gellert also involved  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

a bill ratified by voters and that the policies behind the one-subject rule are the same  



                                                                                                                      

whether the law is before voters or the legislature:  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

                                         The  argument  that  measures  submitted  to  the  voters  are  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

                                         deserving of enhanced protection under the one-subject rule  

                                                                                                                                                                                                               

                                         of art[icle] II, [section] 13 of the state constitution has little  

                                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                        merit.  .  .  .  The  one-subject  rule  is  not  restricted  to  those  

                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                         legislative acts which also must be approved by the voters;  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

                                        rather, it applies equally to all enactments of the legislature.  

                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                        Further, we have applied the provision to bond propositions  

                                                                                                                                                                                                             

                                         in the past in the same way as it has been applied to other  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

                                        types of legislation.  Thus, there does not appear to be any  

                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                        valid purpose to be served by adopting a more restrictive  

                                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                         interpretation   of   article   II,   [section]   13   of   the   state  

                                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                         constitution  in  cases  where  voters  either  initiate  or  ratify  

                                                                                                                                                                                               

                                        proposed legislation in their capacity as the larger legislative  



                    73                   TheStateargued that                                           our one-subject reviewofavoter-approvedact should                                                                                          



be  even more                            deferential than in the pure legislative act context:                                                                           



                                         The single-subject provision is a constitutional requirement                                                                                    

                                         imposed regardless of whether the act is to be presented to                                                                                    

                                        the voters for their approval, and essentially provides that the                                                                                                             

                                         only reason an act will be set aside for failure to comply with                                                                                                        

                                        the single subject provision                                                             is when the violation                                                 is both   

                                         "substantial   and   plain."     However,   it   is   clear   that   the  

                                         substantial and plain rule is even more stringently applied                                                                                                  

                                        when the issue is one presented to the voters.  At that point,                                                                                                      

                                         only  substantial bias                                        plus  substantial error                                          can permit a court                  

                                        to overturn an act . . . .                                    



Brief of Appellee State of Alaska at 29-30,  Short, 600 P.2d 20 (No. 4578), (emphases  

in original) (citations omitted).                                 



                                                                                                                             -19-                                                                                                                      7460
  


----------------------- Page 20-----------------------

                     body of the state.         [74]  



                                                                                            

                               d.        State v. First National Bank of Anchorage  



                                                                                                                               

                     Questions about the Gellert test's feasibility were raised in State v. First  

                                               75   In that case the State sued certain defendants under  

                                                                                                                             

                              

National Bank of Anchorage.  



provisions of the Uniform Land  Sales Practices Act for misleading statements and  

                                                                                                                                

omissions related to the sale of real property.76                        One defendant claimed the Act violated  

                                                                                                                          

the  one-subject  rule  because  of  amendments  enacted  in  1977.77                                      The  amendments  

                                                                                                                  



(1) "br[ought] in-state sales of subdivided land within the Act's scope and . . . add[ed]  

                                                                                                                           



a  general  antifraud  section" and  (2)  changed  separate  Alaska  Land  Act  provisions  

                                                                                                                      



"pertain[ing] to the leasing of state-owned lands and the Division of Land's zoning  

                                                                                                                            

power."78        The superior court declined to decide the single-subject challenge, ruling on  

                                                                                                                                   



           74        Short,   600   P.2d   at   22   n.4 (citation   omitted).    Short,   of   course,   did   not  



involve  application  of  the  constitutional  one-subject  rule  to  a  voter-proposed  initiative;  

our  comment  about  initiatives  thus  was  dictum.   See  VECO,  Inc.  v.  Rosebrock,  970  P.2d  

906,  922  (Alaska  1999)  ("Dicta  is  defined  as  '[o]pinions  of  a  judge  which  do  not  embody  

the  resolution   or   determination   of   the   specific   case  before  the   court.'   "   (alteration   in  

original)  (quoting  Dicta,  BLACK 'S  LAW  DICTIONARY  (6th  ed.  1990)));  Scheele  v.  City  of  

Anchorage ,   385   P.2d   582,   583   (Alaska   1963)   ("We   look  upon  what   we   said   in   [a  

previous]   case   .   .   .   as   obiter  dictum,   since  it  was  not  necessary  to  the  decision   in the  

case."),  superseded  by  statute  on  other  grounds,  AS  09.65.070.  



           75        660 P.2d 406, 414-15 (Alaska 1982).  

                                                                                



           76        Id. at 408-10.  

                               



           77        Id. at 414.  

                                      



           78        Id.  



                                                                -20-                                                          7460
  


----------------------- Page 21-----------------------

                       79                                                                   80  

other grounds.              We considered the challenge on appeal.               



                                                                                                                                      

                     Citing  North  Slope  Borough  and  Gellert,  the  State  argued  that  the  

                                                                                                                                 81  The  

                                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                   

challenger had not met his substantial burden to prove a one-subject rule violation. 



State emphasized the "liberal construction in favor of the validity" we previously applied  

                                                                                                                                



to  legislative  acts  challenged  under  the  one-subject  rule,  arguing  that  even  if  the  

                                                                                                                                      



challenged amendments to the Act contained numerous provisions under the broad title  

                                                                                                                                     

of  "land"  they  all  were  "obviously  and  logically  connected."82                                            Countering  the  

                                                                                                                                      



challenger's argument on appeal that if "land" can be a proper subject the one-subject  

                                                                 



rule has no meaning, the State observed that an act relating to "land" or "transportation"  

                                                                                                                  



would  not  be  logically  connected  if  it  were  to  "include  provisions  dealing  with  

                                                                                                                                   



unemployment compensation, child labor laws, state funding of abortions, or state usury  

                                                                                                                                   

laws," thus making the one-subject rule meaningful.83  

                                                                  



                     We determined that the Act's challenged amendments satisfied the one- 

                                                                                                                                    

                                                                84  but we acknowledged:  

subject rule under the subject of "land,"                                       

                                                     



           79        Id.  



           80        Id.  at  414-15.  



           81        Brief  of  Appellee   State  of  Alaska  at  69,  Brown  v.  State,  consolidated  on  



appeal  with  First  Nat'l  Bank  of  Anchorage,  660  P.2d  406  (Nos.  5006/5107/5085).  



           82        Id.   at   70-74.     The   State   further   explained   how   broadly   it   asked   us   to  



construe  the  subject  of  a  legislative  act  by  quoting  the  Minnesota  Supreme  Court:   "The  

term  'subject,'  as  used  in  the  constitution,  is  to  be  given  a  broad  and  extended  meaning,  

so  as  to  allow  the  legislature  full  scope  to  include  in  one  act  all  matters  having  a  logical  

or  natural   connection."   Id.   at   71   (quoting   Wass   v.  Anderson ,   252  N.W.2d 131,   137  

(Minn.   1977)).  



           83        Id. at 74.  

                                



           84        First Nat'l Bank of Anchorage , 660 P.2d at 414-15.  

                                                                                             



                                                                  -21-                                                             7460
  


----------------------- Page 22-----------------------

                           Were we writing on a clean slate, we would be inclined to                                                           

                           find   this  subject   impermissibly   broad.     Permitting   such  

                           breadth   under   the   one-subject  rule   could   conceivably   be  

                           misconstrued as a sanction                               for legislation embracing "the                        

                           whole body of the law."                              Nevertheless, while the issue is                               

                           indeed close, we are unable to say that the legislature has                                                      

                           transgressed the limits of article II, section 13 established by                                                   

                           prior decisions of this court.                          [85]  



                                        e.            Yute Air Alaska, Inc. v. McAlpine  

                                                                                                        



                           Yute Air Alaska, Inc. v. McAlpine is our first case directly addressing the  

                                                                                                                                                                        

one-subject rule in the initiative context.86  The proposed initiative would "repeal statutes  

                                                                                                                                                               



regulating motor and air carriers . . . , open the carrier business to . . . all financially  

                                                                                                                                                        



responsible persons, prohibit municipalities from regulating these activities, and require  

                                                                                                                                                                



the governor to seek repeal of the federal statute . . . which requires the use of United  

                                                                                                                                                                

States  vessels  for  shipping  goods  between  United  States  ports."87                                                                      The  lieutenant  

                                                                                                                                                         



governor's initiativecertification was unsuccessfully challengedinsuperiorcourt, in part  

                                                                                                                                                                      

on the one-subject rule,88  and allowed on the ballot.89  

                                                                                           



                           The challengers appealed, arguing that combining provisions about state  

                                                                                                                                                                    



and local transportation regulations with provisions about a federal maritime statute  

                                                                                                                                                                



              85           Id.  at  415  (citation  omitted)  (quoting Trumble  v.   Trumble,  55  N.W.  869,  



870  (Neb.   1893)).  



              86           698  P.2d   1173,   1175  (Alaska   1985).   



              87           Id.  



              88           Id.  at   1175,   1179.  



              89           Id.   at   1179.  Voters   approved  the  initiative  in   a  general   election   several  



months  before  our   decision  was  issued.   See   STATE OF ALASKA,   DIV.   OF   ELECTIONS,  

Initiative History  3 (June 24, 2019), http://www.elections.alaska.gov/doc/forms/H26.pdf.  



                                                                                   -22-                                                                            7460
  


----------------------- Page 23-----------------------

                                                  90  

violated the one-subject rule.                         The State countered by agreeing with our                                Short  dictum  

that the constitutional one-subject rule applies equally to legislation and initiatives,                                                           91  



arguing that "the Alaska Constitution makes the law[-]making power equal between the  

                                                                                                                                                 

                                                    92   The State again emphasized our case law setting out a  

legislature and the electorate."                                                                                                                    

                                 



liberal construction of the one-subject rule and the requirement that alleged violations  

                                                                                                                                     

of the rule "must be substantial and plain before the court will declare a bill invalid."93  

                                                                                                                                                        



The State then  argued  that the proposed initiative focused on the single subject of  

                                                                                                                                                  



alleviating the negative economic effects of unnecessary transportation regulation on  

                                                                                                                                                  



commercial  enterprise  in  Alaska,  and  particularly  on  abolishing  anti-competitive  

                                                                                                                         

practices.94  Arguing that the case's facts were more like Gellert than First National Bank  

                                                                                                                                              



of  Anchorage,  the  State  countered  the  challengers'  argument  by  stating  that  "the  

                                                                                                                                              

logrolling of similar subjects is not a proscribed activity."95  

                                                                                     



            90         Yute  Air ,  698  P.2d  at   1175.  



            91         Short   v.  State,  600   P.2d   20,   22   n.4   (Alaska   1979);   but   see   supra   text  



accompanying  note  74.  



            92         Brief   of   Appellee   State   of   Alaska   at   27,   Yute  Air ,   698   P.2d   1173   (No.  



S-548)  (citing  Alaska  Const.  art.  XII,  §   11).  



            93         Id. at 26-28.  

                                  



            94         Id. at 28-30.  

                                  



            95         Id. at 29-31.  This is an important point, but one we have not had occasion  

                                                                                                                                       

to address.  In Gellert we generally defined logrolling as "deliberately inserting in one  

                                                                                                                                           

bill several dissimilar or incongruous subjects . . . to secure the necessary support for  

                                                                                                                                                 

passage of the measure."  522 P.2d  1120, 1122 (Alaska  1974).  But logrolling can be  

                                                                                                                                                  

more  broadly  defined  as  "the practice  of  several minorities  combining their  several  

                                                                                                                                         

proposals as different provisions of a single bill and thus consolidating their votes so that  

                                                                                                                                                

a majority is obtained for the omnibus bill where perhaps no single proposal of each  

                                                                                                                                              

minority could have obtained majority approval separately."  Ruud, supra note 26, at  

                                                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                                              (continued...)  



                                                                       -23-                                                                  7460
  


----------------------- Page 24-----------------------

                       We relied on a common sense reading of the initiative, noting:                                                  "To the   



miner   at   Minto   who   wants   to   bring   his   supplies   from   Seattle,   the   interaction   and  



interrelation [of Alaskan intrastate and federal interstate provisions] is more than just                                                      

                                                            96   We concluded, in light of previously approved  

self-evident - it is glaringly so."                                                                                                  



legislation covering broad subject matter, that it was rational and convenient to combine  

                                                                                                                                       

the initiative's various provisions into one bill under the subject of "transportation."97  

                                                                                                                                                       



We further explained that the initiative's provisions all contained "a common thread  

                                                                                                                                          



narrower than 'transportation' ":  the provisions related to eliminating "regulations and  

                                                                                                                                               

statutes thought to create needless transportation costs."98  

                                                                                      



            95         (...continued)  



391.   This  distinction  matters  because  in  practice  legislators  often  engage  in  political  

bargaining   resulting  in   various   provisions   being   combined   in   one   bill.     John   G.  

Matsusaka   &  Richard L. Hasen,  Aggressive  Enforcement   of   the  Single  Subject  Rule,  

9   ELECTION   L.J.   399,   405   (2010)   ("It   should   be   recognized   that   legislatures   rely  

extensively  on  logrolls  to  implement  their  agreements.   Indeed,  without  the  ability  to  

logroll  it i  s  hard  to  imagine  how  complicated  legislative  bargains  could  be  struck  and  

enforced.");   Unity  Church  of S                    t.  Paul  v.  State,  694  N.W.2d  585,  592  n.3  (Minn. App.  

2005)  ("Dissimilar  or  nongermaneness  is  the  key  word.   That c   annot  be  lost i  n  all  the  

smoke   and   mirrors   that   surround   this   debate.     Legislation   that   someone   claims   is  

'log[]rolling  legislation'  has  always  been  permissible  when  similar  subjects are united  

in  one  bill  and  the  bill  is  passed  by  a  combination  of  legislators,  all  of  whom  are  united  

in  wanting  their  part  of  the  bill  to  go  through."  (emphasis  in  original)).  



            96         Yute Air Alaska, Inc. v. McAlpine, 698 P.2d 1173, 1175 (Alaska 1985).  

                                                                                                                                       



            97         Id. at 1175, 1181-82.  

                                             



            98         Id.  at  1182.   Justice  Moore  dissented,  believing  that  it  was  wrong  to  

                                                                                                                                                 

continue giving the one-subject rule liberal interpretation.  Id. (Moore, J., dissenting).  

                                                                                                                                                       

Contending that the Gellert "standard seems to be no standard at all," he proposed the  

                                                                                                                                                

test simply be that "all matters treated should be logically connected" and "reasonably  

                                                                                                                                

interdependent." Id. at 1185-86 (emphasis in original).  Justice Burke dissented on the  

                                                                                                                                                

same ground.  Id. at 1189 (Burke, J. dissenting).  

                                                                



                                                                       -24-                                                                 7460
  


----------------------- Page 25-----------------------

                                 f.         Evans  ex  rel.  Kutch  v.  State  



                      In  Evans  ex  rel.  Kutch  v.  State  we  briefly  discussed  the  one-subject  rule  

                                                                        99  The legislation was codified into various  

when  upholding  1997  tort  reform  legislation.                                                                                  



sections of the Alaska Statutes and  

                                                    



                      included many new tort  law provisions,  including caps on  

                                                                                                                    

                      noneconomic and punitive damages, a requirement that half  

                                                                                                                  

                      of all punitive damages awards be paid into the state treasury,  

                                                                                                           

                      a ten-year "statute of repose," a modified tolling procedure  

                                                                                                        

                      for   the       statute   of   limitations   as   applied   to   minors,  

                                                                                                          

                      comparative  allocation  of  fault  between  parties  and  non- 

                                                                                                                

                      parties,  a revised  offer  of judgment  procedure,  and partial  

                                                                                                              

                      immunity  for  hospitals  from  vicarious  liability  for  some  

                                                                                                               

                      physicians' actions.[100]  

                                           



After noting that we, and the court of appeals, had upheld "legislation that was in some  

                                                                                                                                      



cases very broad," we concluded that the various tort reform provisions fell "within the  

                                                                                                                                          

single subject of 'civil actions.' "101  

                                                      



           99         56 P.3d 1046, 1069-70 (Alaska 2002).                 



           100  

                                                           

                      Id. at 1048 (footnotes omitted).  



           101  

                                                                                                     

                      Id. at 1069-70.  We cited two court of appeals' decisions:  



                                                                                                               

                      Galbraith v. State, 693 P.2d 880, 885-86 (Alaska App. 1985)  

                                                                                                           

                      (legislation modifying various diverse aspects of the criminal  

                                                                                                                   

                      law  -  sexual  assault,  assault,  presumptive  sentences  for  

                                                                                                            

                      certain felony offenders, telephonic search warrants, disposal  

                                                                                                                   

                      of seized and recovered property, the insanity defense, the  

                                                                                                     

                      defense   of   necessity,   joyriding,   immunity,   sentencing  

                                                                                                                  

                      procedure  - is  within  one subject,  "criminal law");  Van  

                                                                                                               

                      Brunt v. State, 646 P.2d 872, 874-75 (Alaska App. 1982)  

                                                                                                                      

                      (statute relating to sale of alcohol and to drunk driving is  

                                                                             

                      within one subject, "intoxicating liquor").  



                    

Id. at 1069 n.136.  



                                                                    -25-                                                              7460
  


----------------------- Page 26-----------------------

                                    g.          Croft v. Parnell     



                        We struck a proposed initiative for violating the one-subject rule in                                                    Croft  

                    102     In  that  case  the  lieutenant  governor  denied  certification  of  a  "clean  

v.   Parnell .                                                                                                                                 



elections" initiative that would publicly fund state elections through a newoil production  

                                                                                                                                        



tax, with a non-binding directive to transfer excess tax funds to the Permanent Fund  

                                                                                                                                                  

Dividend.103             The superior court upheld the lieutenant governor's certification denial,  

                                                                                                                                               



explaining that there was no connection between the type of revenue created and the type  

                                                                                                                                                    

of program the initiative established.104  

                                              



                        On appeal the State argued that the one-subject rule extends to initiatives  

                                                                                                                      

and that the purpose of the rule is to prevent logrolling.105   The State acknowledged our  

                                                                                                                                                     



deferential standard for determining whether the rule has been violated, but it did not ask  

                                                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                                             106   The  

that we change that standard or that we adopt a stricter standard for initiatives.                                                                  

                                                                                                                    



State instead argued that "[e]ven under the most deferential of standards . . . oil taxes and  

                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                             107   that  there  was  "no  logical  connection  

campaign  finance  are  different  subjects,"                                                                                          

                                                           

                                                                                108  and that logrolling was a large concern  

between oil taxation and campaign finance,"                                                                                                  

                                                                



            102         236 P.3d 369, 371-74 (Alaska 2010).                     



            103         Id.  at 370-71.   



            104  

                                   

                        Id. at 372.  



            105         Brief   of   Appellees   State   of   Alaska   at   7-11,   Croft,   236   P.3d   369   (No.  



S-13200).  



            106         Id. at 8.  

                                   



            107         Id.  



            108         Id. at 10.  

                                   



                                                                          -26-                                                                    7460
  


----------------------- Page 27-----------------------

in light of the focus on oil taxes.                            109  



                                                                                                                                                                   

                          We noted the need to balance the one-subject rule's purpose against the  



                                                                                                                                                                   

need for legislative efficiency and indicated that "[o]ur solution" has been to apply the  

                                                 110  but we rejected the initiative sponsors' argument that the  

                                                                                                                                      

                                  

one-subject rule broadly, 

initiative's provisions could be related under the subject of "clean elections."111                                                                              We  

                                                                                                                                                                 



explained that in the initiative context the one-subject rule "protects the voters' ability  

                                                                                                                                              



to effectively exercise their right to vote by requiring that different proposals be voted  

                                                                                



on separately," "allows voters to express their will through their votes more precisely,"  

                                                                                                                                                    

and prevents logrolling, stealth, and fraud.112   We noted that the initiative "proposed the  

                                                                                                                                                                   



creation and 'soft dedication' of a new revenue source, and proposed the creation of an  

                                                                                                                                                                    

entirely  new  government  program."113                                             We  concluded  that,  because  the  Alaska  

                                                                                                                                                          



Constitutionprohibitsearmarkingtaxrevenues,"a'soft dedication' cannot beconsidered  

                                                                                                                                                    



for purposes of a single-subject analysis and therefore cannot be used to make two  

                                                                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                                    114   We ultimately held that  

independent provisions of an initiative address one subject."                                                                                                     

                                                                                                    



combining the distinct proposals for an oil production tax and election campaign finance  

                                                                                                                                                           



reform "r[an] afoul of the single-subject rule" by depriving voters of the opportunity to  

                                                                                                                                                                     



             109          Id.  at 10-11.   



             110  

                                                                                                                        

                          Croft v. Parnell, 236 P.3d 369, 372-73 (Alaska 2010).  



             111  

                                      

                          Id. at 374.  



             112          Id.  at 372.   



             113          Id.  at 373 (emphasis in original).                             We concluded the non-binding directive                        



that the legislature transfer excess tax revenue to the Permanent Fund Dividend was                                                                              

entirely unrelated to the clean election program and an example of logrolling. Id. at 374.  

                                                                                                                                                                 



             114          Id. at 374.  

                                      



                                                                                -27-                                                                           7460
  


----------------------- Page 28-----------------------

vote on each separate proposal.                      115  



                       

III.       THIS INITIATIVE  



                                           

           A.         Facts And Proceedings  



                       1.         Initiative  



                                                                                                                                              116  

                                                                                                                          

                      Alaskansfor Better Electionsisaballotinitiativecommittee(Committee) 

seeking to place on a future ballot an initiative entitled:117  

                                                                                



                      An Act prohibiting the use of dark money by independent  

                                                                                                       

                       expenditure groups working to influence candidate elections  

                                                                                                             

                       in  Alaska  and  requiring  additional  disclosures  by  these  

                                                                                                                  

                       groups; establishing a nonpartisan and open top four primary  

                                                                                                               

                       election system for election to state executive and state and  

                                                                                                                      

                      national legislativeoffices; changing appointmentprocedures  

                                                                                                          

                      relating  to  precinct  watchers  and  members  of  precinct  

                                                                                                             

                       election  boards,  election  district  absentee  and  questioned  

                                                                                                         

                      ballot  counting  boards,  and  the  Alaska  Public  Offices  

                                                                                                              

                       Commission; establishing a ranked-choice general election  

                                                                                                              

                       system;  supporting  an  amendment  to  the  United  States  

                                                                                                                 

                       Constitution to allow citizens to regulate money in Alaska  

                                                                                                                

                       elections; repealing the special runoff election for the office  

                                                                                                                  

                       of United States Senator and United States Representative;  

                                                                                                  

                      requiring  certain  written  notices  to  appear  in  election  

                                                                                                             

                      pamphlets and polling places; and amending the definition of  

                                                                                                                         

                       "political party."  

                                                     



The initiative contains 74 sections, all but two of them amending current provisions of  

                                                                                                                                               



           115        Id.  at 373.   



           116        See  AS 15.45.030(3) (requiring that initiative application designate three-                                       



                                                                                                                                              

sponsor  committee  to  represent  all  sponsors  and  subscribers  in  matters  relating  to  

initiative).  



           117        See Alaska Const. art. II, § 13 ("The subject of each bill shall be expressed  

                                                                                                                                  

in the title."); AS 15.45.040(2) (requiring proposed initiative bill to contain "the subject  

                                                                                                                                       

of the bill" in its title).  

                             



                                                                     -28-                                                                7460
  


----------------------- Page 29-----------------------

Title 15, Alaska's Election Code.                                                       The initiative most significantly changes Alaska's                                                        



election laws by:                            (1) replacing Alaska's current party-based primary system with an                                                                                       



open, nonpartisan primary; (2) establishing ranked-choice voting in general elections;                                                                                                          



and    (3)    adopting    new    disclosure    and    disclaimer    requirements    for    independent  



expenditure groups and their donors.                                                          



                                 2.               Certification denial   



                                 In   July   2019   the   Committee   submitted  an   initiative   application   to  

Lieutenant Governor Kevin Meyer.118  The Division of Elections designated the ballot  



                                                             119  

                                                                                                                                                                                                   

initiative as "19AKBE."                                              The lieutenant governor requested legal review by Attorney  



                                                                120                                                                                                          121  

                                                                                                                                                                                                   

General Kevin Clarkson,                                                 who recommended certification denial.                                                                           The attorney  



                                                                                                                                                                                                

general concluded that the initiative was not in the proper form because it contained  

                                                                                                                                                            122      Briefly, the attorney  

                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                                                                                                                            

more than one subject in violation of the Alaska Constitution. 



general's constitutional analysis focused on  concerns  we  have expressed about the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                

Gellert test's possible over-broadness123 and our rejection of the proposed initiative in  



                 118             See  Alaska Const. art. XI, § 2 (requiring initiative application be filed with                                                                                              



lieutenant governor); AS 15.45.020 (same).                                                 



                 119             See AS 15.45.245 (authorizing lieutenant governor to delegate initiative- 

                                                                                

related duties to Division of Elections).  

                                                                        



                 120             See Alaska Const. art. XI, § 2 (providing for lieutenant governor's review  

                                                                                                                                                                                                        

of initiative for proper form); AS 15.45.070 (requiring lieutenant governor to review  

                                                                                                                                                                                                       

initiative application within 60 days and either certify or state reasons for denial).  

                                                                                                                                                                                         



                 121              STATE OF                ALASKA,D                   EP 'T OF           LAW,O              P.A       TT'Y  GEN., 2019200578 (Aug. 29,                                            



2019),http://www.law.state.ak.us/pdf/opinions/opinions_2019/19-003_2019200578.pdf.   



                 122             Id. at 10, 13.  

                                                          



                 123             Id. at 7-8.  

                                                



                                                                                                       -29-                                                                                                 7460
  


----------------------- Page 30-----------------------

              124  

Croft.               The attorney general concluded that the initiative raised the concerns identified                                                                                 



                                                                                                                                                           125  

in  Croft  and therefore violated the constitutional one-subject rule.                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                                                   On August 30 the  



                                                                                                                                                                                                

lieutenant governor denied certification based on the attorney general's opinion.  



                                                                                       

                                3.              Superior court proceedings  



                                                                                                                                                                                      

                                Days later the Committee filed suit in superior court against the lieutenant  



                                                                                                                                                                                                     

governor and theDivision ofElections (collectively, the State), seeking adeclaration that  



                                                                                                                                                                   

the  initiative  is  in  proper  form  and  does  not  violate  the  Alaska  Constitution  and  



requesting injunctive relief directing certification and distribution of initiative petition  



                      126  

booklets.                                                                                                                                                                   

                             The parties agreed to an expedited briefing schedule and filed cross-motions  



                124            Id.  at 8-9.   



                125            Id. at 10, 13.  

                                                       



                126             Alaska Statute 15.45.090(a) provides:  

                                                                                                    



                                If the application is certified, the lieutenant governor shall
                                                                   

                               prepare  a  sufficient  number   of  sequentially  numbered
  

                                                                                                                                                   

                               petitions to allow full circulation throughout the state.                                                                        Each
  

                               petition must contain
            



                                                               (1)  a copy of the proposed bill;                                



                                                               (2)  an impartial summary of the subject                                      

                                               matter of the bill;             



                                                               (3) a statement of minimum costs to the   

                                                state          associated                   with           certification                     of       the  

                                               initiativeapplication and reviewoftheinitiative  

                                                                                                                                          

                                               petition, excluding legal costs to the state and                                                      

                                               the costs to the state of any challenge to the  

                                                                                                                                                      

                                               validity of the petition;  

                                                                                  



                                                               (4) an estimate of the cost to the state of  

                                                                                                                                                         

                                               implementing the proposed law;  

                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                                                                                             (continued...)  



                                                                                                  -30-                                                                                           7460
  


----------------------- Page 31-----------------------

for summary judgment.                              The superior court held oral arguments in mid-October.                                  



                            The superior court ruled in the Committee's favor in late October, rejecting                                                         



the State's contention that                           Croft  provided "new guidance" on the one-subject test.                                                             The  



court instead quoted                         Gellert's holding that Alaska's decades-old one-subject test is                                                                   



construed "with considerable breadth" and concluded that the test applies equally to                                                                                          

                                                      127    Explaining that the initiative's substantive provisions all  

legislation and initiatives.                                                                                                                                                 



related to election reform, the court quoted  Yute Air and found "no indication that the  

                                                                                                                                                                            



[initiative's]  provisions  are  targeted  to  different  constituencies  or  that  any  of  the  

                                                                                                                                                                           



provisions were calculated to obtain sufficient votes to pass the proposed initiative by  

                                                                                                                                                                             



attaching something of popularity 'likely to carry along the enactment of whatever state  

                                                                                                                                                                         

law is attached for the ride.' "128   The court ordered that the State immediately distribute  

                                                                                                                                                               



petition booklets for the sponsors to collect signatures for placing the initiative on a  

                                                                                                                                                                                



future election ballot.  The State moved for a stay pending appeal; the court denied the  

                                                                                                                                                                            



request.  Final judgment was entered in early November.  

                                                                                                                       



              126           (...continued)  



                                                                                                                    

                                                       (5) the statement of warning prescribed  

                                                       

                                         in AS 15.45.100;  



                                                                                                                              

                                                       (6) sufficient space for the printed name,  

                                                                                                                                      

                                         a numerical identifier, the signature, the date of  

                                                                                                                          

                                         signature,  and  the  address  of  each  person  

                                                                                    

                                         signing the petition; and  



                                                                                                                                    

                                                       (7) other specifications prescribed by the  

                                                                                                                       

                                         lieutenant governor to ensure proper handling  

                                                   

                                         and control.  



              127           522 P.2d 1120, 1122 (Alaska 1974).  

                                                                                          



              128          See 698 P.2d 1173, 1189 (Alaska 1985) (Moore, J., dissenting).  

                                                                                                                                        



                                                                                     -31-                                                                               7460
  


----------------------- Page 32-----------------------

                                4.               This appeal   



                                The State appealed, asking for "extremely expedited consideration of this                                                                                                



appeal," arguing that because the Committee was gathering signatures for the initiative,                                                                                                   



any   delay   might   cause   us   to   feel   "constrained   by   the   sponsors'   mounting   reliance  



interests, which will increase every day."                                                                The State pointed to                                  Yute Air             's language   



regarding our reluctance to invalidate an initiative because "the sponsors of the initiative                                                                                                 



. . . relied on our precedents in preparing the present proposition and undertaking the                                                                                                                   



                                                                                                                                                                                    129  

considerable expense and time and effort needed to place it on the ballot."                                                                                                                



                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                We denied "extremely expedited" consideration but agreed to expedite the  



                                                                                                                                                    

appeal, noting we would "give full and fair consideration to this appeal's legal merits,  



                                                                                                                                                                                                            130  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                                                                                                                                                                              

including [the State's] stated intent to ask us to reverse long-standing precedents." 



After expedited briefing, the parties argued the case to us on February 19, 2020.  

                                                                                                                                                                                     



IV.             DISCUSSION  



                                We turn now to the State's arguments, making clear their specific nature.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



At oral argument before us, the State conceded that, had the initiative bill been passed  

        



by the legislature, the bill would comply with the one-subject rule; that is a well-made  

                                                                                                                                                                                    



concession, as we discuss further below.  The State's arguments instead are that (1) in  

                                                                                                                                   



Croft we modified the Gellert test for an initiative's compliance with the one-subject rule  

                                                                                                                                                                                                         



- making the test more stringent for initiatives so voters have the ability to vote on  

                                                                                                                                                                                                           



separate  topics  -  and,  if  not,  (2)  we  should  overrule  our  precedent  holding  that  

                                                                                                                                                                                                        



initiatives and legislation generally are on even footing for compliance with the one- 

                                                                                                                                                                                                       



subject rule and adopt a more stringent test for initiatives.  

                                                                                                                                              



                129             See id.          at 1181, discussed                            supra  pp. 22-23.   



                130  

                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                Meyer v. Alaskans for Better Elections, No. S-17629 (Alaska Supreme  

                                                     

Court Order, Nov. 5, 2019).  



                                                                                                    -32-                                                                                              7460
  


----------------------- Page 33-----------------------

              A.             Croft  Did Not Establish A Different Test For Initiatives.                                            



                            The superior court ruled that  Croft  did not create a different one-subject- 



rule test for initiatives but rather was consistent with and followed our long-existing                                                                    

                                              131  That Croft did not overruleor modify previousone-subject-rule  

Gellert  test precedent.                                                                                                                             



decisions  to  create  a  different  test  for  initiatives  is  a  simple  and  straightforward  

                                                                                                                                                      



conclusion; in  Croft we articulated tangible boundaries to help identify whether the  

                                                                                                                                                                                

initiative went too far beyond the parameters of "one subject."132  We first focused on the  

                                                                                                                                                                                 

initiative's magnitude and means of achieving "clean elections."133  We reasoned that the  

                                                                                                                                                                                 



proposed initiative created (1) a new oil-production tax and (2) a new and unrelated  

                                                                                                                                                                   

government program to fund state office election campaigns.134                                                                             We decided the two  

                                                                                                                                                                               

provisions were of such magnitude as to be distinct and unrelated subjects,135  and we  

                                                                                                                                                                                 



additionally notedthestrong appearanceoflogrollingdifferentsubjects togarner support  

                                                                                                                                                                        

for the initiative.136  

                



              131           "We review a trial court's legal analysis de novo, applying 'the rule of law                                                                        



that is most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy.' "                                                                    Dan v. Dan               , 288 P.3d     

480, 482 (Alaska 2012) (quoting                                           Vezey v. Green                    , 171 P.3d 1125, 1128-29 (Alaska                          

2007)).  



              132           236 P.3d 369, 373-74 (Alaska 2010).  

                                                                                              



              133           Id.  



              134           Id. at 371, 373.  

                                                    



              135           Id. at 373-74.  

                                         



              136           Id. at 374.  We expressly agreed with the superior court's observation that  

                                                                                                                                                                                

"record oil and gas prices, high oil company profits, the Exxon Valdez litigation, and  

                                                                                                                                                                                

controversy  regarding  a  proposed  gas  pipeline"  made  the  oil  industry  a  topic  that  

                                                                                                                                                                               

appeared to have been included to logroll support from different constituencies. Id.  We  

                                                                                                                                                                                 

further noted that the initiative's varied provisions were likely to evoke strong feelings  

                                                                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                                                           (continued...)  



                                                                                       -33-                                                                                  7460
  


----------------------- Page 34-----------------------

                     We did not completely rule out the possibility that the two distinct topics           



                                                     137  

could   be   germane   to   each   other,                                                                                        

                                                          but  we  concluded  that  the  connection  was  not  



              138                                                                              139  

                                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                    and we noted that the  

obvious.           We required a factual demonstration of a nexus, 



                                                                                                                         

sponsors' submission of "two newspaper articles and a listing of the top groups lobbying  



                                                                                                                      

the Alaska legislature" was "insufficient to demonstrate a clear or established connection  



                                                                                                                                  140  

                                                                                                                                        

between the oil industry and a need for public financing of state electoral campaigns." 



This inquiry was consistent with the  Gellert test, requiring that "all matters treated"  

                                                                                                                          



should be connected or related with each other "as to be parts of, or germane to, one  

                                                                                                                            

general subject."141            Without evidence showing a link "between the oil industry and a  

                                                                                                                                     



need for public financing of state electoral campaigns," the initiative's distinct topics  

                                                                                                                



          136        (...continued)  



                                                                               

in voters because of its focus on the oil industry.  Id.  There was a substantial risk that  

                                                                                                                                  

the initiative would tap a voter's strong feelings regarding one provision to support the  

                                                                                                                                  

other distinct provision.  Id.  But the most obvious demonstration of logrolling was the  

                                                                                                                                  

initiative's inclusion of a non-binding directive to transfer leftover oil tax funds to the  

                                                                                                                                    

Permanent Fund Dividend.  We viewed this provision, which was "entirely unrelated to  

                                                                                                                   

the purpose of the clean elections program," as a transparent attempt to garner voter  

                                                                                                                      

support for the initiative with the suggestion that voters would receive larger Permanent  

                                                                                                                       

Fund Dividend payments if the initiative became law. Id. And this logrolling discussion  

                                                                                                                 

was  consistent  with  Gellert's  explanation  that  "the  primary  aim  of  'one-subject'  

                                                                                                                                        

provisions in state constitutions is the restraint of logrolling in the legislative process."  

                                                                               

See Gellert v. State, 522 P.2d 1120, 1122 (Alaska 1974).  



          137        See Croft, 236 P.3d at 374.  

                                                         



          138        See id.  

                            



          139        See, e.g., Gellert, 522 P.2d at 1121, 1123 (reviewing evidence produced at  

                                                                                                                                    

trial).  



          140        Croft, 236 P.3d at 374.  

                                                  



          141        Gellert, 522 P.2d at 1123 (quoting Johnson v. Harrison, 50 N.W. 923, 924  

                                                                                                                                 

(Minn. 1891)).  

             



                                                                -34-                                                          7460
  


----------------------- Page 35-----------------------

could not be joined under the subject of "clean elections."                                                                                         142  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

                                  We note that in Croft the State did not ask us to establish a different one- 

                                                                             143                                                                                                                           144   We  

                                                                                     and we certainly did not say we were doing so.                                                                                

                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                                                   

subject-rule test for initiatives, 

                                                                                                                                                                                        145  And wedid  

did not differentiatebetweenimproper legislativeandinitiativelogrolling.                                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                                                              



not disturb our Yute Air ruling that "[a] one[-]subject rule for initiatives which is more  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                

restrictive than the rule for legislative action is not permitted."146   In short, we affirm the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



superior court's conclusion that Croft did not establish a new and different one-subject- 

                                                                                                                                                                                             



rule test for initiatives.  

                               



                 B.               We Decline To Overrule Yute Air. 

                                                                                                                    



                                   The State alternatively argues that if the original Gellert test still applies  

                                                                                                                                                                                     



to initiatives after Croft, we "should overrule [that precedent] and restore substance to  

                                               



the single-subject rule to protect voter choice in the initiative context."  The State notes  

                                                                                                                                                                                                               



that some members of the court previously "expressed skepticism" because the Gellert  

                                                                                                                                                                                                           



                 142              Croft, 236 P.3d at 374.                                     We added a consideration to the                                                     Gellert  test:   We  



will not accept a proposed nexus for the distinct provisions if that nexus runs afoul of                                                                                                                               

other constitutional prohibitions.                                                   Id.   We rejected the initiative sponsors' argument that                                                                      

the three-cent oil barrel tax to fund the public campaign program was merely a "soft                                                                                                                          

dedication" of funds, and we explained that the Alaska Constitution "expressly prohibits                                                                                                              

the binding dedication of state revenues for specific projects."                                                                                                  Id.  at 371, 372, 374 &                              

n.21  (citing Alaska Const. art. IX, § 7,                                                          art. XI, § 7).                    If the only connection between an                                                

initiative's distinct provisions is an unconstitutional one, then the distinct provisions                                                                                                        

cannot together constitute "one subject."                                                                 See id.            at 374.             



                 143              Cf. Brief of Appellees State of Alaska at 7-11, Croft, 236 P.3d 369 (No.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

S-13200).  



                 144              See Croft, 236 P.3d at 372-74.  

                                                                                                                 



                 145              See id. at 374.  

                                                           



                 146              698 P.2d 1173, 1181 (Alaska 1985); see Croft, 236 P.3d at 372-74.  

                                                                                                                                                                                          



                                                                                                         -35-                                                                                                   7460
  


----------------------- Page 36-----------------------

test is "extremely lax," and the State specifically requests that we overrule our                                                                        Yute Air   



holding that the               Gellert  test applies equally to legislation and initiatives.                                                 The State now       

                                                                                                  147 - that the one-subject rule is only  

argues - contrary to its argument to us in                                        Yute Air                                                                       



a procedural limitation to law-making, that the Alaska Constitution therefore allows a  

                                                                                                                                                                        



stricter standard for initiatives, and that a stricter one-subject standard for initiatives  

                                                                                                                                                      



would allow voters to more precisely express their will.  Finally, the State proposes a  

                                                                                                                                                                        



one-subject  standard  for  initiatives  that  would  "consider  both  how  the  parts  of  an  

                                                                                                                                                                    



initiative are inter-related and the overall significance of each reform."  

                                                                                                                                            



                          The Committee counters that the State has not met its high burden of  

                                                                                                                                                                     

overcoming the presumption of stare decisis.148  The Committee argues: "For the people  

                                                                                                                                                             



to have equal law[-]making power to the legislature, the single-subject rule must be  

                                                                                                                                                                     



equally applied."  And the Committee contends that the State's proposed stricter one- 

                                                                                                                                                                 



subject standard for initiatives "is unworkable in practice, would hamstring the ability  

                



of Alaskans to enact laws by initiative, and would completely muddy the waters in an  

                                                                                                                                                                     



otherwise clear area of the law."  

                                                                 



                          We agree with the Committee that imposing a stricter one-subject standard  

                                                                                                                                                         



to  initiatives than  to  legislation would  run  counter  to  the delegates'  intent that the  

                                                                                                                                                                   



initiative serve as the people's check on the legislature. Under our system of checks and  

                                                                                                                                                                   



balances, when the legislature fails to pass laws the people believe are needed, the people  

                                                                                                                                                             



have the initiative power to create those laws.  And one driving force behind article XII,  

                                                                                                                                                                  



section 11 was identifying clearly the people's broad law-making power, preventing  

                                                                                                                                                    



             147          See  discussion  supra  pp. 22-23.   



             148  

                                                             

                          See Stare decisis, BLACK 'S LAW  DICTIONARY  (11th ed. 2019) (meaning "to                                                                 

stand by things decided" and requiring courts to follow precedent when same points                                                                           

again arise).   



                                                                                 -36-                                                                           7460
  


----------------------- Page 37-----------------------

confusion about its extent.                              149  



                                                                                                                                                                 

                             The State nonetheless contends we should impose a stricter one-subject  



                                                                                                                                                                          

standard  for  initiatives  that  would  (1)  require  interrelatedness  between  the  various  



                                                                                                                                                                                  

provisions and (2) "consider the overall significance of an initiative's provisions."  The  



                                                                                                                                                                                      

State notably made no suggestion in its briefing that the legislature should be subject to  



                                                                                                                                                                                   

this stricter one-subject standard, and at oral argument before us the State conceded that  

                                                                                                                                                                           150  The  

                                                                                                                                                                                  

it was not seeking a stricter one-subject standard that would affect the legislature. 



State recognized at oral argument that applying a stricter one-subject standard would be  

                                                                                                                                                                                      



               149           See  4 PACC 2840 (statement of Del. M. R. Marston) (Jan. 21, 1956) and                                                         



discussion  supra  pp. 4-7;                           Yute Air          , 698 P.2d at 1181 ("[The dissent's] contention . . . that                                                

the single[-]subject requirement should be more strictly applied in the initiative (as                                                                                             

opposed to legislative) context not only is adverse to our deferential attitude toward                                                                                     

initiatives, it also ignores the explicit constitutional directive [of article XII, section 11]                                                                                    

to the contrary.").     



               150           We note examples of the common legislative practice of passing sweeping  

                                                                                                                                                                      

laws containing  provisions that probably  would  not have met the State's proposed  

                                                                                                                                                                      

stricter one-subject standard because not all of their various provisions were interrelated  

                                                                                                                                                                  

or interdependent.   See Evans ex rel. Kutch v. State, 56 P.3d 1046, 1048, 1069-70  

                                                                                                                                                                       

(Alaska 2002) (involving tort reform legislation, with new provisions "including caps  

                                                                                                                                                                                 

on noneconomic and punitive damages, a requirement that half of all punitive damages  

                                                                                                                                                                        

awards be paid into the state treasury, a ten-year 'statute of repose,' a modified tolling  

                                                                                                                           

procedure for the statute of limitations as applied to minors, comparative allocation of  

                                                                                                                                   

fault between parties and non-parties, a revised offer of judgment procedure, and partial  

                                                                                                                                                                             

immunity for hospitals from vicarious liability for some physicians' actions" (footnotes  

                                                                                                                                                                     

omitted)); State v. First Nat'l Bank of Anchorage, 660 P.2d 406, 414 (Alaska 1982)  

                                                                                                                                                                             

(involving 1977 amendments to Uniform Land Sales Practices Act that brought "in-state  

                                                                                                                                                                         

sales of subdivided land within theAct's scope,"added "ageneralantifraud section," and  

                                                                                                                                                                                   

included "various amendments to the Alaska Land Act pertain[ing] to the leasing of  

                                                                                                                                                                                     

state-owned lands and to the Division of Lands' zoning power"); see also Galbraith v.  

                                                                                                                                                                                       

State, 693 P.2d 880, 885-86, 885 n.7 (Alaska App. 1985) (modifying various aspects of  

                                                                                                                                                                                      

criminal law, including sexual assault, assault, presumptive sentences for certain felony  

                                                                                                                                                                             

offenders,telephonicsearch warrants, disposal ofseized and recovered property, insanity  

                                                                                                                                                                          

defense, defense of necessity, joyriding, immunity, and sentencing procedure).  

                                                                                                                                                 



                                                                                         -37-                                                                                  7460
  


----------------------- Page 38-----------------------

impractical for the legislature's efficiency.                                                               



                                 If a stricter one-subject standard would be impractical for the legislature,  



and if the constitutional initiative provision were intended to provide co-equal law-                                                                                                                       



making power to the people (subject to stated exceptions), we cannot employ a separate                                                                                                             



and stricter one-subject standard for initiatives. The purposes behind the initiative right                                                                                                                 



-  to serve as a check on the legislature and to pass needed laws - are not served if we                                                                                                                        



impose a stricter one-subject standard on the people but allow the legislature to operate                                                                                                             

                                                               151   In effect, the State asks us to put our judicial thumb on the  

under a more liberal rule.                                                                                                                                                                                      



                 151             For example, theparties                                    discuss the2014 marijuanainitiativein                                                           their briefs.                 



See   STATE OF                       ALASKA, D                    EP 'T OF             LAW, O             P. A       TT'Y   GEN.,    JU2013200236   (June 11,   

2013),                   http://www.law.alaska.gov/pdf/opinions/opinions_2013/2013-005_  

JU2013200236.pdf . Although the State describes that initiative as containing "discrete                                                                                                           

topics," the initiative created new chapters to Titles 17 and 43 of the Alaska Statutes.                                                                                                                      See  

STATE OF                ALASKA, D                    EP 'T OF           ELECTIONS, I  NITIATIVE  PETITIONS  APPEARING ON                                                                         BALLOT,  

                                                                                                           

Petition   Application   (Apr.   16,   2013),   http://www.elections.alaska.gov/petitions/  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

 13PSUM/13PSUM-Proposed-Law.pdf.  The initiative also had provisions on topics as  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

varied as:  (1) personal use; (2) personal cultivation; (3) public use; (4) operation of  

                                                                                                                                                                                           

marijuana-related facilities; (5) creation of a Marijuana Control Board in the Department  

                                                                                                                                                                                          

of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development; (6) adoption of regulations;  

                                                                                                                                                                                     

(7) local control; (8) marijuana taxation administration and enforcement. JU201320236  

                                                                                                                                                                                                      

at 1.  The attorney general concluded that the initiative bill was confined to the subject  

                                                                                                                                                                                              

of "the production, taxation, sale, and use of marijuana."   Id.  at 4.   The lieutenant  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

governor certified the initiative and it later was approved by the voters at an election.  

STATE OF                ALASKA, D                    EP 'T OF           ELECTIONS, I  NITIATIVE  PETITIONS  APPEARING ON                                                                         BALLOT,  

                                                                                                                                                                                                               

Ballot Measure No. 2 - 13PSUM:  An Act to tax and regulate the production, sale, and  

                                                                                   

use of marijuana (Nov. 4, 2014), http://www.elections.alaska.gov/Core/doc/bml/BM2- 

                                                                                                                                                    

 13PSUM-ballot-language.pdf.  This likely would not have happened under the State's  

                                                                          

proposed stricter one-subject test.  



                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                 The Committee also cites an Attorney General Opinion regarding a cruise  

                                                     TATE OF               ALASKA, D                    EP 'T OF           LAW, O              P. A       TT'Y  GEN., 663-03-0179                                         

ship initiative.  See S 

(Oct.              6,          2003),                http://www.law.alaska.gov/pdf/opinions/opinions_2003/03-019_  

663030179.pdf.     The   initiative   was   resubmitted   after   the   attorney  general   initially  

                                                                                                                                                                                      (continued...)  



                                                                                                       -38-                                                                                                7460
  


----------------------- Page 39-----------------------

scale to limit the people's constitutional check against legislative inaction, limiting the                                                      

people's law-making power to only piecemeal legislation.                                             152  



                       With all this in mind, we turn to our framework for deciding whether to  

                                                                                                                                                   



overrule precedent.  When we are asked to overrule our precedent, the importance of  

                                                                                                                                                  



stare decisis cannot be overstated:  "[S]tare decisis is a practical, flexible command that  

                                                                                                                                                



balances our community's competing interests in the stability of legal norms and the  

                                                                                                                                                 

need to adapt those norms to society's changing demands."153   A party seeking reversal  

                                                                                                                                         



bears the "heavy threshold burden of showing compelling reasons for reconsidering the  

                                                                                                                                                 

prior ruling."154   "We will overrule a prior decision only when clearly convinced that the  

                                                                                                                                                 



            151        (...continued)  



                                                                                                                                                 

concluded it violated the one-subject rule.  Id. at 1.  The attorney general reviewed the  

                                                                                                                                             

resubmitted initiative petition and concluded it satisfied the one-subject rule:   "The  

                                                                                                                                             

proposed bill covers taxes, discharge permits, gaming, unfair trade practices, and other  

                                                                                                                                                  

issues, and generally unites these topics with  the consistent theme of regulation of  

                                                                                                                                                  

commercial passenger vessels."   Id.  at 3.   Voters later approved the initiative at an  

                   TATE OF        ALASKA, D          EP 'T OF     ELECTIONS, I  NITIATIVE  PETITIONS  APPEARING ON   

election. S 

BALLOT, Ballot Measure No. 2 - 03CTAX:  An Act providing for taxation of certain  

                                                                                                                                    

ship vessels, pertaining to certain vessel activities and related to ship vessel operations  

                                                                                                                    

taking  place  in  the  marine  waters  of  the  State  of  Alaska"  (Aug.  22,  2006),  

                                                                                                                                             

http://www.elections.alaska.gov/petitions/03CTAX/ 03CTAXB.pdf.  Again, this likely  

                                                                                                                                

would not have happened under the State's proposed stricter one-subject test.  



            152        Cf. Alaska Const. art. XII, § 11 ("Unless clearly inapplicable, the law- 

                                                                                                                                              

making powers assigned to the legislature may be exercised by the people through the  

                                                                                                                                                 

initiative, subject to the limitations of [a]rticle XI.").  

                                                                                 



            153        Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc. v. Sheehan, 852 P.2d 1173, 1175 (Alaska  

                                                                                                                                         

 1993); see also Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm'n, 102 P.3d 937, 943 (Alaska  

                                                                                                                                         

2004) ("The stare decisis doctrine rests on a solid bedrock of practicality:  'no judicial  

                                                                                                                                         

system could do society's work if it eyed each issue afresh in every case that raised it.' "  

                                                                                                                                                     

(quoting Pratt, 852 P.2d at 1175)).  

                                                



            154        Thomas, 102 P.3d at 943.  

                                                                     



                                                                       -39-                                                                  7460
  


----------------------- Page 40-----------------------

rule was originally erroneous or is no longer sound because of changed conditions and                                                                                                

that more good than harm would result from a departure from precedent."                                                                                           155  We need  



                                                                                                                                

address only the first prong of the test to reject the State's argument.  



                                                                                                                                                                  

                             The  State  dismisses  Short  and  Yute  Air  as  "originally  erroneous,"  



                                                                                                                                                                                

speculating that in both cases we felt compelled to uphold the measures because voters  



                                                                                                                                                                     

already had approved them. As we noted earlier, Short's statement about the one-subject  

                                     156  Yute Air is the controlling authority, and we focus our attention on  

                                                                                                                                                          

rule was dictum; 



that decision.  

          

                               Yute Air descended from Gellert, in which Justice Fitzgerald dissented.157  

                                                                                                                                                                                               



The dissent believed the combination of Fairbanks flood control and coastal small boat  

                                                                                                                                                                                    



harbor projects was a "good example" of improper logrolling because the bill sought to  

                                                                                                                                                                                         



"gather voter support for a project in the interior of Alaska by linking it with harbor  

                                                                                                                                                                              

projects dear to the coastal towns and villages."158  The dissent argued that the majority's  

                                                                                                                                                                       



test  would  render  the  one-subject  rule  "meaningless,"  although  admitting  that  it  is  

                                                                                                                                                                                         

"difficult to determine whether a group of projects has one subject matter."159  

                                                                                                                                                   



                             We  expressed  concern  about  the  feasibility  of  the  one-subject  rule  in  

                                                                                                                                                                                        



               155           Id.   (quoting   State,   Commercial   Fisheries   Entry   Comm'n   v.   Carlson,  



65 P.3d 851, 859 (Alaska 2003)).                                           "A decision may prove to be originally erroneous if                                                            

the rule announced proves to be unworkable in practice."                                                                       Pratt, 852 P.2d at 1176;                              see  

also In re Hospitalization of Naomi B.                                            , 435 P.3d 918, 926-27 (Alaska 2019) (discussing                                   

"unworkable in practice" scenario).                      



               156           See discussion supra pp. 18-20.  

                                                                                     



               157           Gellert  v.  State,  522  P.2d  1120,  1124  (Alaska  1974)  (Fitzgerald,  J.,  

                                                                                                                                                                                       

dissenting).  



               158           Id.  



               159           Id.  



                                                                                          -40-                                                                                    7460
  


----------------------- Page 41-----------------------

                                         160  

subsequent cases,                               and in          Yute Air            we directly addressed whether there was a more                                                       



                                                161  

workable alternative.                                                                                                                                                      

                                                       In that case Justice Moore dissented, stating that we "mistakenly  



                                                                                                                                                                                              

continued to give the rule such an extremely liberal interpretation that the rule has  

                                      162  The dissent noted that the one-subject rule's purpose was "to restrain  

                                                                                                                                                                                     

                      

become a farce." 

 'log[]rolling' in the legislative process"163  and that the lax one-subject rule "actually  

                                                                                                                                                                                 

allows disparate subjects to be enfolded within the cloak of a broad generality."164                                                                                                         The  

                                                                                                                                                                                             



dissent  also  believed  that  in  the  initiative  context  "[t]here  is  a  greater  danger  of  

                                                                                                                                                                                                



logrolling, or the deliberate intermingling of issues to increase the likelihood of an  

                                                                                                                                                                                                



initiative's passage, and there is a greater opportunity for 'inadvertence, stealth and  

                                                                                                                                                                                             

fraud' in the enactment-by-initiative process."165  

                                                                                                                  



                               The dissent presented two proposals for replacing our current one-subject  

                                                                                                                                                                            



standard.  In one footnote the dissent suggested applying a "functional test," adopted by  

                                                                                                                                                                                                 



the Florida Supreme Court, when considering whether an initiative violates the one- 

                                                                                                                                                                                           



               160            See Short v. State                     , 600 P.2d 20, 25 (Alaska 1979) (rejecting appellant's due                                                               



process argument, but noting that "the one-subjectrulewould                                                                               not assure             voters sufficient   

notice of the objectives of a particular piece of legislation if diluted to require little or no                                                                                                 

connection between subjects joined therein; so construed, it could also conceivably                                                                                       

deprive the voter of his or her liberty of choice, forcing acceptance of an objectionable                                                                              

proposition   by coupling it with                                            an   unrelated meritorious objective which                                                         the voter   

earnestly wants to support");                                      see also State v. First Nat'l Bank of Anchorage                                                             , 660 P.2d     

406,   414-15   (Alaska 1982)                                      (discussing permissibility of legislation                                                      covering   broad  

subject).  



               161             698 P.2d 1173, 1180-81 (Alaska 1985).  

                                                                                                           



               162            Id. at 1182 (Moore, J., dissenting).  

                                                                                    



               163            Id. at 1183.  

                                            



               164            Id.  



               165            Id. at 1184.  

                                            



                                                                                              -41-                                                                                        7460
  


----------------------- Page 42-----------------------

                          166  

subject rule.                     Courts applying the "functional test" consider whether the proposed                                                             



initiative   was   merely   an   "aggregation   of   dissimilar   provisions   (designed)   to   attract  



support of diverse groups to assume its passage" and whether the "initiative performs the                                                                                      

                                                                                                      167     The dissent also offered a "more  

functions of different branches of government."                                                                                                                        



useful" Gellert test:  "A stronger and clearer version . . . would read as follows:  An act  

                                                                                                                                                                               



or initiative should embrace one subject. By this we mean that all matters treated should  

                                                                                                                                                                        

be  logically  connected."168                                 The  dissent  notably  suggested  that  this  new  test  apply  

                                                                                                                                                                         

prospectively to both the legislature and the initiative.169   But the dissent acknowledged  

                                                                                                                                                       



that this new wording of the Gellert test would "not automatically turn this court away  

                                                                                                                                                                          



from the Anything Goes approach of the 'merely . . . germane' standard embraced in  

                                                                                                                                        

Gellert."170  



                            We responded to the dissent, acknowledging the argument that we had  

                                                                                                                                                                              



given the legislature too much deference in  Gellert's application of the one-subject  

                                                                                                                                                             

          171                                                                                                                                                           172 and  

                But we explained that we had not found a more workable stricter standard                                                                                      

rule.                                                                                                                                                  



              166           Id.  at 1183 n.4.       



              167           Id. (quoting Evans v. Firestone, 457 So. 2d 1351, 1354 (Fla. 1984)).  

                                                                                                                                                             



              168  

                                         

                            Id. at 1185.  



              169           Id.  at 1187.   



              170           Id.  at 1185-86 (alteration in original).                   



              171           Id. at 1180-82 (majority opinion).  

                                                                                



              172  

                                                                                                                                                                              

                            Our discussions about how strictly to apply the one-subject rule are not  

                                                                                                                                                                         

unique to Alaska. Debates over the one-subject rule's application abound in state courts  

across the country.   See  Briffault,  supra  note 55, at 1636-40 (discussing application of                                    

single-subject rules in various states); Robert D. Cooter & Michael D. Gilbert,                                                                                   A Theory   

of Direct Democracy and the Single Subject Rule                                                            , 110 COLUM. L. R                        EV. 687 (2010)     

                                                                                                                                                         (continued...)  



                                                                                      -42-                                                                                 7460
  


----------------------- Page 43-----------------------

thatthedissent's proposed                                                                               Floridarulewould makeenacting                                                                                                        uniformcodes prohibitively                                 



                                   173  

difficult.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

                                                We emphasized the stability and predictability of our prior decisions, noting  



                           172                        (...continued)  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

 (examining  state court applications of single-subject rule and  proposing  "separable  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

preferences" approach); Daniel Hays Lowenstein, California Initiatives and the Single- 

                                                                                                                    EV. 936, 936-53 (1983) (discussing application of single-                                                                                                                                                 

Subject Rule, 30 UCLA L. R 

 subject rule in California). As we explained in                                                                                                                                       Yute Air                          , it remains unclear whether there                                                                           

are workable stricter standards. 698 P.2d at 1180-81;                                                                                                                                                            see  Cooter & Gilbert,                                                               supra, at 687                        

 (noting that "[l]ogic and                                                                                language cannot yield a precise definition of 'subject' ");                                                                                                                                                                         

Lowenstein,  supra, at 963-65, 975 (concluding that                                                                                                                                                      California's analogous                                                                      "'reasonably   

germane' test best serves the single-subject rule's language and purposes");                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           see also   

Matsusaka & Hasen,                                                                   supra  note 95 (analyzing more than 500 judicial votes in single-                                                                                                                                                                       

 subject cases during period 1997-2006 and concluding that "in states with aggressive                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

enforcement of the single[-]subject rule, decisions are well predicted by whether or not                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

a judge is likely to agree with the substance of the initiative under review based on his                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

or her partisan affiliation").                              



                           173                        Yute Air, 698 P.2d at 1181 ("Many laws embracing a single subject direct  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

more than one governmental department to act.  For example, nearly all uniform codes  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

have provisions directing judicial and executive action and thus would have to be passed  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

in separate enactments under the Florida rule.").  Florida is known for its "aggressive  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

application"ofits one-subject rule. Daniel H. Lowenstein, Initiatives andtheNewSingle  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

Subject Rule, 1 ELECTION  L.J. 35, 41-42 (2002). But Florida at times has been criticized                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                         

for inconsistent application of its one-subject rule.                                                                                                                                                    See, e.g.                          ,  Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen.                                                              

-  Ltd. Political Terms in Certain Elective Offices                                                                                                                                                              , 592 So.2d 225, 231 (Fla. 1991)                                                                                

 (Kogan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) ("[W]e traditionally have stated that                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

 [Florida's one-subject rule for initiatives proposing constitutional amendments] requires                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

an initiative to contain a logical and natural 'oneness of purpose' . . . . [T]he erratic                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

nature of our                                              own   case law construing                                                                                 [this provision] shows just how vague and                                                                                                                           

malleable this 'oneness' standard is.                                                                                                             What may be 'oneness' to one person might seem                                                                                                                                     

a crazy quilt of disparate topics to another.  'Oneness,' like beauty, is in the eye of the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

beholder; and our conception of 'oneness' thus has changed every time new members                                                  

have come onto this Court." (citation omitted)); Rachael Downey, et al.,                                                                                                                                                                                                                      A Survey of the                                 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ONTEMP. L                                   EGAL  ISSUES  

Single Subject Rule as Applied to Statewide Initiatives, 13 J. C 

 579, 590-96 (2004) (examining Florida's application of one-subject rule over time).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                                                                                                                     -43-                                                                                                                                                             7460
  


----------------------- Page 44-----------------------

                                                                                                                                                                         174  

that both the initiative sponsors and the lieutenant governor had relied on                                                                             Gellert.               We  



further reiterated that "an initiative is an act of direct democracy guaranteed by our                                                                                          

                                                                                                        175   We believed stricter application of  

constitution" and "should be liberally construed."                                                                                                                                 



the one-subject rule to the initiative "ignore[d] the explicit constitutional directive" of  

                                                                                                                                                                                   

article XII, section 11.176                               We therefore concluded we would continue applying the  

                                                                                                                                                                                 

Gellert test equally to the legislature and the initiative.177  

                                                                                                



                            We reaffirm our Yute Air conclusion.  Contrary to the State's speculation  

                                                                                                                                                               



that we were overly swayed by the initiative's passing at the previous general election  

                                                                                                                                                      



held just before our decision was issued, our reasoning focused solely on whether the  

                                                                                                                                                                                 

initiative's provisions satisfied our Gellert one-subject standard.178                                                                         Although the State  

                                                                                                                                                                             



also now argues that the one-subject rule is "procedural" rather than "substantive" and  

                                                                                                                                                                                



that the Alaska Constitution permits the State's alternative, stricter test, that argument -  

                                                                                                                                                                                   



even assuming its validity - demonstrates nothing erroneous in our decision to apply  

                                                         



the one-subject test equally to initiatives and legislation.   When the State originally  

                                                                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                                                179  we clearly explained in  

argued Yute Air before us, it argued for the same conclusion;                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                        



our decision why we rejected the dissent's approach. Andour subsequent Croft decision,  

                                                                                                                                                                     



              174            Yute Air         , 698 P.2d at 1181.                       



              175           Id.  



              176           Id.  



              177           Id.  



              178           See id.        at 1175, 1180-82.     



              179           As discussed earlier at pages 22-23 and note 92, the State affirmatively                                                        



argued in support of our                           Yute Air          holding, citing article XII, section 11 and asserting that                                                 

the Alaska Constitution provides equal law-making powers to the legislature and to  

                                                                                                                                                                                   

Alaska's  people.                         The  State  has  not  attempted  to  explain  why  its  constitutional  

                                                                                                                                                         

interpretation suddenly has changed from one of substance to one of procedure.  

                                                                                                                                                                            



                                                                                       -44-                                                                                  7460
  


----------------------- Page 45-----------------------

striking downaproposedinitiative after application of the                                                          Gellert  test, demonstrates                        that,  

although imperfect, our one-subject-rule test is workable in practice.                                                                     180  



                           We see no basis to overrule Yute Air and create a different one-subject rule  

                                                                                                                                                                        



for the people's right to make laws through the initiative process.  The approach we  

                                                                                                                                                                         



announced  in  Yute  Air  is  consistent  with  the  Alaska  Constitution,  and  the  State's  

                                                                                                                                                                 



proposed approach runs counter to the people's constitutional law-making right.  The  

                                                                                                                                                                       



State has not met its burden to show that our Yute Air holding was originally erroneous.  

                                                                                                                                                           

                           C.            The Initiative Passes The Gellert Test.181  

                                                                                                                

                           We turn now to the Committee's proposed initiative.182                                                                  The proposed  

                                                                                                                                                            



initiative includes a "findings and intent" section setting out the goal of "increasing  

                                                                                                                                                        



transparency, participation, access, and choice" in the electoral process.  The initiative  

                                                                                                                                                              



aspires to ensure that wealth does not unduly influence state elections and that Alaskans  

                                                                                                                                                             



"know in a timely manner the source, quantity, timing, and nature of resources used to  

                                                                                                                                                                            



influence candidate elections in Alaska."  The section further provides that "[i]t is in the  

                                                                                                                                                                          



              180          See Croft v. Parnell                    , 236 P.3d 369 (Alaska 2010).                    



              181           As noted earlier, the State conceded at oral argument that the initiative                                                        



would pass the Gellert one-subject-rule test if it were legislation rather than an initiative.  

                                                                                                                                                                                 

Given our rulings above that our existing                                          Gellert  framework applies to the initiative, we                                       

could dispense with this section of the opinion. But for transparency we will outline the                                                                                 

analysis.  Again, we review the superior court's decision de novo.  See supra note 131.  

                                                                                                                                                                       



              182          We have a limited role in determining whether a proposed initiative is in  

                                                                                                                                

proper form by satisfying the one-subject rule.   We do not decide the legal or other  

                                                                                                                                                                     

merits of the initiative's substance.  Kodiak Island Borough v. Mahoney, 71 P.3d 896,  

                                                                                                                                                            

899(Alaska2003) (explainingthat "pre-election review [of initiativepetitions]is limited  

                                                                                                                                                                  

to determining 'whether [the initiative] complies with the particular constitutional and  

statutory  provisions  regulating  initiatives';  whereas,  '[g]eneral  contentions  that  the  

                                                                                                                                                                         

provisions of an initiative are unconstitutional are justiciable only after the initiative has  

                                                                                                                                                                         

been enacted by the electorate' " (second and third alterations in original) (footnote  

                                                                                                                                                             

omitted) (quoting Brooks v. Wright, 971 P.2d 1025, 1027 (Alaska 1999))).  

                                                                                                                                       



                                                                                    -45-                                                                             7460
  


----------------------- Page 46-----------------------

public interest" to adopt an open, nonpartisan primary system and a general election                                                                                                                                                                                        



ranked-choice voting system.  The extremely detailed initiative title similarly explains  



that the act would, among other things, "prohibit[] the use of dark money by independent                                                                                                                                                                      



expenditure groups working to influence candidate elections in Alaska and requir[e]                                                                                                                                                                                      



additional disclosures by these groups."                                                                   



                                              The parties agree that the initiative would make three substantive changes                                                                                                                                                    



to Alaska election law: (1)                                                               replacing the party primary system with an open, nonpartisan  



primary; (2) establishing ranked-choice voting in the generalelection;                                                                                                                                                                    and (3) mandating         



new disclosure and disclaimer requirements to existing campaign finance laws.                                                                                                                                                                                                A plain   



reading of the initiative shows that its provisions embrace the single subject of "election                                                                                                                                                                              



reform" and share the nexus of election administration.                                                                                                                                       All substantive provisions fall                                                               



under the same subject matter of elections, seek to institute an election reform process,                                                                                                                                                                                   



and,   as   the   superior   court   noted,   change   a   single   statutory   title,   Title   15,   Alaska's  



Elections Code.                                         



                                              Although the initiative's inclusion of terms such as "dark money" and "true                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                                                                                                                                     183  those feelings relate to the  

source" arguably could evoke "strong feelings" in voters,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



election reform topic; the initiative's text shows no transparent attempt to garner voter  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



support through completely unrelated provisions.   And nothing suggests the title is  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



misleading or the initiative is so unclear that it gives rise to a concern about confusion,  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

fraud,  or  inadvertence.184                                                                    The  initiative's  provisions  substantively  modify  current  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



election laws such that we can logically conclude they fall under the one subject of  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



"election reform."  

                                 



                       183                    See Croft                       , 236 P.3d at 374.                           



                       184  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                              See Gellert v. State, 522 P.2d 1120, 1122 (Alaska 1974) (noting that one- 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

subject rule "guard[s] against inadvertence, stealth and fraud in legislation" (quoting  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

Suber v. Alaska State Bond Comm., 414 P.2d 546, 557 (Alaska 1966))).  



                                                                                                                                             -46-                                                                                                                                      7460
  


----------------------- Page 47-----------------------

                                 The State argues that the three substantive changes to the election laws "are                                                                                              



not actually 'connected' through cross-references or other logical reliance" and that                                                                                                                       



"[n]one depends on the others to function properly."                                                                                     The State's argument focuses     



primarily on whether voters could vote separately on each substantive legal reform. But                                                                                                                      



neither  Gellert  nor  Croft  requires severing every provision that, in the abstract, could be                                                                                                                 



voted on separately. And we have never required that a proposed law's "subject" be the                                                                                                                        



most minute and discrete possible. We recognized instead in                                                                                          Gellert  the convenience of                                 

                                                                                                             185  In Short we further emphasized the need  

classifying related matters under a single bill.                                                                                                                                                           



to give "great latitude in enacting comprehensive legislation" and cautioned that "[t]he  

                                                                                                                                                                                                        



one-subject provision should not be construed so as to unnecessarily restrict the scope  

                                                                                                                                                                            

and operation of laws, or to multiply their number excessively."186                                                                                                        And in  Croft we  

                                                                                                                                                                                                              



rejected the initiative not simply because its provisions were severable, but because they  

                                                                                                                                                                                                           

were distinct subjects and lacked a nexus.187                                                                         Thus, the question is not whether the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                             



initiative could be split into separate measures, but rather whether the various provisions  

                                                                                                                                                                                            

"embrace some one general subject."188  

                                                                       



                                 The initiative's provisions are logically related.  The substantive changes  

                                                                                                                                                                                                  



relate to elections and are encompassed within Title 15.  The open, nonpartisan primary  

                                                                                                                                                                                                  



                 185             See id.          at 1122-23.   



                 186             600 P.2d 20, 23 (Alaska 1979) (emphases added); see also Evans ex rel.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                             

Kutch  v.  State,  56  P.3d  1046,  1069  (Alaska  2002)  (considering  broad  tort  reform  

                                                                                                                                                                                                    

legislation and stating "that 'what constitutes one subject for purposes of article II, § 13  

                                                                                                                                                                                                              

is broadly construed,' and that only a 'substantial and plain' violation . . . will lead us to  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

strike down legislation on this basis" (quoting State v. First Nat'l Bank of Anchorage,  

                                                                                                                                                      

660 P.2d 406, 415 (Alaska 1982))).  

                                                                    



                 187             See 236 P.3d at 374.  

                                                                         



                 188             Gellert, 522 P.2d at 1123 (quoting Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575, 50  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                

N.W. 923, 924 (1891)).  

                                       



                                                                                                      -47-                                                                                               7460
  


----------------------- Page 48-----------------------

 system changes the status quo by forwarding four candidates for voters to rank in the                                                                                                               



general election by ranked-choicevoting. Thesetwo                                                                         substantivechanges                             areinterrelated   



                                                                                                                                                                                                      189  

because they together ensure that voting does not revert to a two-candidate system.                                                                                                                           



                                                                                                                                                                                                   

The Committee also argues that "when moving away from party primary elections and  



                                                                                                                                                                                     

 allowing for more candidates on the general election ballot, it becomes more important  



                                                                                                                                                                                                     

than ever that voters have adequate and accurate information about who is paying for  



                                                                                                                                                                                               

 campaign  communications  to  influence  their  vote."                                                                             A  provision  increasing  voter  



                                                                                             

knowledge logically relates to election reform.  



                                                                                                                                                                                    

                                Unlike the  Croft sponsors' juxtaposing oil industry taxation, campaign  



                                                                                                                                                                                                      190  

                                                                                                                                                                                 

 finance, and Permanent Fund Dividend payments into one "clean elections" initiative, 



this initiative's provisions are properly classified under "election reform" as a matter of  

                                                                                                                                                                                                       



both logic and common sense.  They all relate to the elections process and share the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                    



 common thread of reforming current election laws.  We can logically conclude that the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                     



various initiative provisions substantively change (or reform) the state's elections.  

                                                                                                                                                                            



                                The Gellert test, despite its imperfections, has guided our one-subject-rule  

                                                                                                                                                                      



precedent for over 40 years.  The subject "election reform" is more constricted than  

                                                                                                                                                                                                 

 subjects we previously have upheld.191   The initiative satisfies the Gellert test; it now is  

                                                                                                                                                                                                        



                189             Section 37 of the proposed initiative amends current law to clarify:                                                                                           "The  



primary election does not serve to determine the nominee of a political party or political                                                                                               

group but serves only to narrow the number of candidates whose names will appear on                                                                                                                   

the ballot at the general election. . . . [O]nly the four candidates who receive the greatest                                                                                             

number of votes for any office shall advance to the general election."                                                                                                



                190             See 236 P.3d at 374.  

                                                                      



                191             See, e.g., Evans ex rel. Kutch, 56 P.3d at 1069-70 ("civil actions"); Yute Air  

                                                                                                                                                                                                     

Alaska, Inc. v. McAlpine , 698 P.2d 1173, 1181 (Alaska 1985) ("transportation"); First  

                                                                                                                                                                                                 

Nat'l Bank of Anchorage, 660 P.2d at 415 ("land"); Short, 600 P.2d at 24 ("general  

                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                                                            (continued...)  



                                                                                                 -48-                                                                                           7460
  


----------------------- Page 49-----------------------

up to the people to decide whether the initiative's provisions should become law.                                                                                 



V.            CONCLUSION  



                            We  AFFIRM  the  superior  court's  ruling  and  judgment  reversing  the  

                                                                                                                                                                              



lieutenant governor's certification denial of the Committee's proposed initiative.  

                                                                                                                                                      



              191           (...continued)  



                                                                                                                      

public safety function of protecting life and property"); North Slope Borough v. Sohio  

                                                                                                                                                                            

Petroleum Corp., 585 P.2d 534, 546 (Alaska 1978) ("state taxation"); Gellert, 522 P.2d  

                                                                                  

at 1123 ("cooperative water resources development").  



                                                                                      -49-                                                                                 7460
  

Case Law
Statutes, Regs & Rules
Constitutions
Miscellaneous


IT Advice, Support, Data Recovery & Computer Forensics.
(907) 338-8188

Please help us support these and other worthy organizations:
Law Project for Psychiatraic Rights
Soteria-alaska
Choices
AWAIC