Opinion ID: 2633201
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Petition Is Confusing and Misleading.

Text: At times relevant to this appeal, the Anchorage Municipal Code required petition summaries to describe the law proposed by the petition. [7] We have held that this provision requires the description to be truthful, impartial, and comprehensible. [8] This requirement stems from the public interest in informed lawmaking [9] and guides our inquiry here. [O]ur main concern should be that all matters (legislative enactments, initiative petitions and even proposed resolutions) should be presented clearly and honestly to the people of Alaska. [10]
CIMM argues that because the whereas clauses would not have been placed on the ballot if the petition had been certified, our review should be limited to whether the proposition itself would have confused or misled voters. [11] This argument ignores the important screening function that the signature requirement plays in the initiative process. [12] The signature-gathering requirement ensures that only propositions with significant public support are included on the ballot. [13] But when a petition, including its title and summary, is confusing or misleading, petition signers may not understand what they are signing. Signatures on a confusing or misleading petition therefore may or may not indicate support for the measure. Under such circumstances, it cannot be known whether the signature-gathering requirement has served its screening function. Moreover, the municipality correctly points out that a biased and partisan title [14] was a factor in our determination that the citizens challenging the petition in Faipeas v. Municipality of Anchorage had shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their contention that the petition was legally insufficient. [15] Similarly, confusing and misleading titles and summaries are valid grounds for refusing to certify a petition.
The petition is entitled An Initiative Allowing Those Items Used with Marijuana Legal as Medicine or a Right To Privacy. The superior court concluded that the title's literal meaning suggests that the proposition would declare paraphernalia to be medicine (and therefore legal) and/or declare that paraphernalia is a right to privacy. (Emphasis in original.) This conclusion accurately reflects the title's grammatical difficulties. The superior court also noted, however, that the confusion engendered by the title, standing alone, might not render the petition legally insufficient. CIMM correctly points out that we relax procedural and technical requirements for citizen initiatives because they are often drafted by non-lawyers. [16] Likewise, courts liberally construe constitutional and statutory requirements so that `the people (are) permitted to vote and express their will on the proposed legislation.' [17] But confusing or misleading petitions frustrate the ability of voters to express their will. Contrary to CIMM's contention, therefore, we are not required to interpret unclear language in the petition in a manner which does not render it invalid. The title's grammatical difficulties stem from its use of the term marijuana. It appears only once in the title but serves several functions. Ordinarily, a word is used as only one part of speech each time it appears in a sentence. Here, marijuana is first used in the clause (those items used with marijuana) that describes the objects that are the subject of the initiative. The superior court correctly characterized these objects as paraphernalia, even though that word does not appear in the petition. [18] Marijuana also seems to be used to refer to the substance marijuana itself, because it seems to be modified by the phrase legal as medicine or a right to privacy. This implies that the proposition would allow marijuana paraphernalia either when the marijuana with which the paraphernalia is associated is used in accordance with Alaska's medical marijuana statute [19] or when its use is protected by the right to privacy. [20] It is therefore not obvious from the words of the title exactly what is intended. Persons considering whether to sign the petition could not reasonably be expected to engage in the grammatical analysis required to discover exactly what the title means. Nonetheless, we agree with the superior court that the title's puzzling grammatical deficiencies would not render the petition legally insufficient, absent any problems with the rest of the petition. The title at least conveys some sense of the initiative's purpose: to allow items whose use is somehow related to marijuana. But readers confused by the rest of the petition could derive little guidance by referring back to the title for clarification. Most importantly, the title does not assist in understanding what conduct the proposition would protect. The title does not help resolve deficiencies discussed in Parts III.B.4 and III.B.5.
The text of the proposed initiative reads: Shall Article II of the Municipal Charter be amended to add the following section: (14) The right to buy, sell, or possess those items which could be used to consume, grow or process marijuana for medicine, or as is in accord with the right to privacy protected by Article I, Section 22 of the Alaska Constitution. Because the petition does not explain the context and purpose of Article II of the Anchorage Municipal Charter, it is unclear from the face of the proposition even whether it would create or abolish rights respecting marijuana paraphernalia. A reader would have to infer the effect of the proposition from other sources, such as the name of the group promoting the petition or possibly from other parts of the petition. The uncertainty created by this lack of context violates the principle of informed lawmaking that underlies all petition requirements. [21] Because potential petition signers could not know with sufficient certainty what they were endorsing, the petition is legally insufficient. [22] Although we do not have to decide the issue here, we note in passing that the text of the proposition might also be misleading in regards to its scope. The text may be read narrowly, thus suggesting that it would protect the acquisition, sale, or possession of items only when circumstances would support a belief that the items would be used with marijuana actually used in accordance with Alaska's medical marijuana statute or the right to privacy. Or the text may be read broadly, suggesting that it would protect the acquisition, sale, or possession of those types of items that conceivably could be used in connection with marijuana potentially usable in accordance with Alaska's medical marijuana statute or the right to privacy. Because this ambiguity in the text of the initiative might cause voters to sign the petition who would not sign if they perceived the broader possible reading, the text itself is potentially problematic. But we do not have to decide if the text is actually problematic given the petition's other deficiencies.
At oral argument before us, CIMM's counsel asserted that the ballot proposition would create a right to buy, sell, or possess any item that could be used in accordance with Alaska's medical marijuana statute or in accordance with Ravin's interpretation of the right to privacy, whether or not circumstances indicated that the marijuana would in fact be used in one of these legally protected contexts. CIMM's counsel likewise argued that it is impossible to separate people who use marijuana in accordance with the statute or the right to privacy from people whose association with marijuana is not protected by law, including people acting for commercial purposes. But CIMM's counsel also stated that the proposition would not protect purchases that were clearly [for] commercial operation[s], such as five hundred grow lights. It is not obvious that these latter two contentions are completely consistent. We nonetheless assume without deciding that CIMM's interpretation of the proposition is correct. But this means that the petition, which must [d]escribe the ordinance or resolution sought, [23] is legally insufficient because the title is misleading as to the proposition's scope. As noted above, the petition is entitled An Initiative Petition Allowing Those Items Used with Marijuana Legal as Medicine or a Right To Privacy. CIMM argues that the title states that the initiative proposes to legalize those items used with marijuana which is legal as medicine and those items used with marijuana which is legal under Alaskans' privacy rights. This is a fair reading of the title, but not the only fair reading. CIMM's interpretation of the title therefore suggests that to be protected, the paraphernalia would have to be used to grow, consume, or process marijuana only in instances in which the conduct is permitted by Alaska's medical marijuana statute or the right to privacy. Given CIMM's own interpretation, therefore, the title does not accurately describe the conduct the proposition would protect. The title proposes legalization of marijuana paraphernalia in specific situations. But as we saw above, the proposition itself could be read to legalize possession and sale of marijuana paraphernalia in virtually all situations, even if it were not actually intended to be used, or is in fact not used, in accordance with Alaska's medical marijuana statute or the right to privacy. The title is therefore misleading and consequently legally insufficient. [24] The proposition's scope is further obscured by the whereas clauses. They basically assert that (1) Alaska voters legalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes in a statewide initiative; (2) since 1975 Alaska's state constitutional right to privacy has included the right to possess marijuana in one's home; (3) Alaska's state constitutional right to privacy continues to include the right to possess marijuana in one's home; and (4) law enforcement resources are best spent on combating violent crime and the growing threat of terrorism. The first three whereas clauses therefore describe several circumstances in which marijuana possession and consumption are legal. But CIMM's interpretation of the proposition is not so limited, and would protect possession of marijuana paraphernalia even when the marijuana use is not protected by AS 17.37.010-.080 or by the right to privacy. The first three whereas clauses therefore fail to describe the proposition's full scope under CIMM's interpretation. And to the extent the clauses imply that the proposition should be given the narrow reading discussed above, they could encourage petition signatures by persons who would oppose the proposition if they gave it the broader reading. On its face, the fourth whereas clause appears to justify the proposition's scope as it was interpreted by CIMM at oral argument before us. This clause invites a comparison between the value of using law enforcement resources to combat violent crime and terrorism and the value of other unspecified uses. The superior court correctly recognized that this clause is a statement of the drafters' political opinion with which a voter may choose to agree or disagree. Read in the context of the title and other whereas clauses, the relevant comparison the fourth whereas clause invites is between (1) combating violent crime and terrorism, and (2) detecting and prosecuting protected users of marijuana for possessing paraphernalia. If this is not the comparison the drafters intended, the fourth whereas clause is meaningless in the context of the title and the other whereas clauses. Although this clause is not necessarily misleading, it does not cure the petition's other problems because it does not reveal whether the proposition is intended to protect the possession and sale of items that are not in fact used for purposes protected by AS 17.37.010-.080 or the right to privacy. This clause therefore cannot support legalizing paraphernalia beyond circumstances where the marijuana use is protected by AS 17.37.010-.080 or by Ravin's interpretation of the right to privacy. Nor can we conclude that the use of could be in the text of the proposition is sufficient to signify the difference in scope between the title and the whereas clauses and the proposition itself. Under CIMM's reading of the proposition, the use of could be renders meaningless the limitations suggested by the title, the whereas clauses, and the second half of the proposition itself. [25]