Opinion ID: 1131008
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Justiciability of Ordinance 91-18

Text: The superior court ultimately dismissed the suit because it concluded that the question whether Ordinance 91-18 violated the will of the people is a political question upon which the court should withhold judgment. To the superior court, the basic issue was whether the ordinance was right or wrong. This court has recognized that political questions are best left to legislative bodies. It is not a court's role to decide whether a particular statute or ordinance is a wise one: the choice between competing notions of public policy is to be made by elected representatives of the people. Concerned Citizens of So. Kenai Peninsula v. Kenai Peninsula Borough, 527 P.2d 447, 452 (Alaska 1974). McGahan does not argue that the Borough's perceived violation of the will of the people is a separate basis for invalidating Ordinance 91-18. Rather, he argues that the ordinance was adopted illegally, i.e. without voter approval. Hence, the will of the people, as expressed in 1981 and 1985, was frustrated. Construed in context, this statement is nothing more than a political comment. On the other hand, the Borough argues that the court correctly held that the ordinance was valid without voter approval. Since the suitability of the ordinance was the only issue remaining, suit was properly dismissed as presenting a nonjusticiable political question. The superior court erred in dismissing this suit as presenting solely a nonjusticiable issue. The validity of Ordinance 91-18 without voter approval presents a justiciable issue. We will therefore decide whether Ordinance 91-18 required voter approval. [6]