Opinion ID: 1227032
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Does the initiative repeal an appropriation?

Text: Our prior cases defining appropriation in the context of article XI, section 7 have concentrated on the two parallel purposes for preventing the making of appropriations through the initiative process. First, initiatives should not be used to enact give-away programs, which have an inherent popular appeal, that would endanger the state treasury. Thomas v. Bailey, 595 P.2d 1, 7 (Alaska 1979). This is because [i]nitiatives for the purpose of requiring appropriations were thought to pose a special danger of `rash, discriminatory, and irresponsible acts.' Id. (quoting V. Fischer, Alaska's Constitutional Convention 80-81 (1975)). The second reason for prohibiting appropriations by initiative is to ensure that the legislature, and only the legislature, retains control over the allocation of state assets among competing needs. McAlpine v. Univ. of Alaska, 762 P.2d 81, 88 (Alaska 1988). In the context of an initiative that would repeal an appropriation, only the second of these purposes  retention of control of the appropriation process in the legislative body  is relevant. We have ruled on a number of cases involving initiatives which arguably made appropriations. In those cases we construed the term appropriations broadly so that the intent of our constitutional framers in prohibiting appropriations by initiative would be fully met. Thus, in Thomas v. Bailey, 595 P.2d 1, 7 (Alaska 1979), we extended the definition of appropriation to include transfers of non-monetary assets such as land. In Alaska Conservative Political Action Committee v. Municipality of Anchorage, 745 P.2d 936, 938 (Alaska 1987), we held that an appropriation need not involve public revenues if it compelled transfer of a government asset. Most recently, in McAlpine v. University of Alaska, 762 P.2d 81, 89 (Alaska 1988), we concluded that the prohibition against appropriations by initiative applied to initiatives which simply designate[d] the use of assets. In a broad sense, FGCO 5.402 is arguably an appropriation because it designates bed tax revenues for the purpose of tourist and entertainment facilities and other economic development. However, the purposes of the constitution are not met by construing the term appropriations broadly in the context of an initiative which arguably repeals an appropriation. The purpose of the prohibition on repeal of appropriations by initiative is to ensure that the legislative body remains in control of and responsible for the budget. A broad construction of appropriations is not necessary to accomplish this purpose. Repealing a particular law that is an appropriation in a broad sense, because, for example, it permanently designates assets for a special purpose, does not disempower the legislative body from making annual spending decisions. It follows that the general rule that the initiative power will be construed broadly should control in the repeal context, and result in a more narrow construction of the term appropriations. In our view, in the context of the prohibition on repealing appropriations, the term should be used in the same sense as the legislature has used it in the municipal code, AS 29.35.100, that is as an act which accompanies the approval of the annual budget or is supplemental to that act: The governing body shall establish the manner for the preparation and submission of the budget and capital program. After a public hearing, the governing body may approve the budget with or without amendments and shall appropriate the money required for the approved budget. (b) The governing body may make supplemental and emergency appropriations. Payment may not be authorized or made and an obligation may not be incurred except in accordance with appropriations. FGCO 5.402 is not an appropriation in the sense of the term used in AS 29.35.100 because it does not reflect an action taken by the governing body after annual approval of the budget, nor can it be construed in any sense to be a supplemental or emergency act of the governing body.