Opinion ID: 1145375
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: referendum petition to repeal a special homosexual ordinance

Text: In much smaller print, the petition read as follows: In accordance with the provisions of Section 3.02, Article III of the Home Rule Charter for the Municipality of Anchorage and Section 2.50 Anchorage Municipal Code, we the undersigned qualified voters of the Municipality of Anchorage submit this Referendum Petition calling for the repeal of Anchorage Ordinance 92-116(S), initially passed January 12, 1993 (Amending Title 5 of the Anchorage Municipal Code). In particular, the undersigned request that the question: Should AO 92-116(S), which adds sexual orientation to the list of protected classes for the purpose of public employment or municipal contractors, remain law? YES [] NO [] be placed before the voters of the Municipality of Anchorage as a referendum question. This petition, first circulated on January 20, 1993. All signatures must be secured within 90 days from the date of first circulation; and have the required signatures, date of signatures, residence and mailing address of the signers. Faipeas contended that the referendum petition was inflammatory, inaccurate, and misleading. Additionally, they argued that the proposed ballot question was too abbreviated to impart to voters a reasonable understanding of the ordinance in question. As noted in our order, we accepted Faipeas' characterization of the referendum petition, stating: The title of the referendum petition is partisan and potentially prejudicial. It reads: Referendum Petition to Repeal A `Special Homosexual Ordinance.' While opponents of the ordinance regard it as giving special rights to homosexuals, proponents view it as merely adding sexual orientation to the list of other important personal characteristics and choices such as gender, religion, race, and marital status, which are protected from discrimination in public employment. Order at ¶ 3.a. [2] The true controversy in this case is not, however, whether the referendum petition characterized the ordinance in a biased and partisan way. It clearly does so. [3] The controlling legal question is whether referendum petitions which do not accurately and fairly characterize ordinances which they propose to repeal are legally acceptable. We hold that they are not. Misleading referendum petitions in elections conducted by the State of Alaska are clearly not permitted. We held in Burgess v. Alaska Lieutenant Governor, 654 P.2d 273 (Alaska 1982), that referendum petitions must be truthful and impartial. In that case we approved of language used by the Colorado Supreme Court that a petition summary must be a fair, concise, true and impartial statement of the intent of the proposed measure. The summary may not be an argument for or against the measure, nor can it be likely to create prejudice for or against the measure. Id. at 275 (quoting In Re Second Initiated Constitutional Amendment Respecting the Rights of the Public to Uninterrupted Service by Public Employees of 1980, 200 Colo. 141, 613 P.2d 867, 869 (1980)). We also approved the Arkansas Supreme Court's statement that a petition summary should be complete enough to convey an intelligible idea of the scope and import of the proposed law, and that it ought to be free from any misleading tendency, whether of amplification, of omission, or of fallacy, and that it must contain no partisan coloring. Id. (quoting Hope v. Hall, 229 Ark. 407, 316 S.W.2d 199, 201 (1958)). Whether these requirements apply to a referendum conducted by the Municipality of Anchorage is the question we must decide. Burgess interpreted the procedure for initiatives under state law. This procedure differs from the initiative and referendum procedures prescribed by the Anchorage Charter and Ordinance. Under state law the initial application proposing an initiative or referendum needs to be signed by only one hundred qualified voters. Once the application is filed with the lieutenant governor, the lieutenant governor prepares a petition which must contain a summary of the subject matter. [4] The petition is circulated by its proponents, and if signed by qualified voters equaling at least ten percent of those who voted in the last general election, the proposition must be placed on the ballot. [5] The summary prepared by the lieutenant governor is required by statute to be impartial. AS 15.45.090, AS 15.45.320. In contrast, the statute governing petitions of a home rule municipality states only that [a] home rule charter shall provide procedures for initiative and referendum. AS 29.10.030(a). There is no specific requirement of impartiality. In addition, the initiative and referendum process governing the Municipality of Anchorage does not contain a number of the steps required in state elections. Petition proponents are not required to file an application for a petition with the municipality, nor does a city official prepare the petition. Instead, the proponents prepare the petition and solicit signatures of qualified voters without the assistance of municipal officials. Petitions must contain signatures in an amount equal to at least ten percent of the vote from the last mayoral election. [6] When the proponents believe that they have obtained the necessary number of signatures, they may file the petition with the municipal clerk who, under the charter, must certify on the petition whether or not it is sufficient. [7] The municipal charter is silent concerning the substantive content of an initiative or referendum petition. The Anchorage ordinance pertaining to initiatives and referenda does, however, impose requirements concerning the contents of petitions. Section 2.50.030 states that a petition must describe the ordinance or resolution sought by the petition and contain the date that the petition is first circulated. Framed in the terms of the Anchorage ordinance, the question is whether section 2.50.030(A)'s mandate that the ordinance be described requires that the description be truthful, impartial, and comprehensible. Stated in this way, the question essentially supplies its own answer. A description which is untruthful, misleading, or which is not complete enough to convey basic information as to what the ordinance does, cannot be regarded as a legally adequate or sufficient description within the meaning of the ordinance. The word describe in a legal context carries the requirement that the required description must be fair and accurate. The Supreme Court of Montana recognized the necessity of this requirement: Description in these circumstances signifies a fair portrayal of the chief features of the proposed law in words of plain meaning so that it can be understood by the persons entitled to vote. It must be complete enough to convey an intelligible idea of the scope and import of the proposed law. It ought not to be clouded by undue detail, nor yet so abbreviated as not to be readily comprehensible. It ought to be free from any misleading tendency, whether of amplification, of omission, or of fallacy. It must contain no partisan coloring. It must in every particular be fair to the voter to the end that intelligent and enlightened judgment may be exercised by the ordinary person in deciding how to mark the ballot. Sawyer Stores, Inc. v. Mitchell, 103 Mont. 148, 62 P.2d 342, 348 (1936) (quoting In re Opinion of the Justices, 271 Mass. 582, 171 N.E. 294, 297 (1930)). [8] The signature-gathering requirement of the referendum process serves an important screening purpose. An ordinance cannot be referred  placed on the ballot  merely because one or a few citizens disagree with the ordinance. A substantial showing of popular disapproval is required: The signature gathering requirement is important because it eliminates the initiation of an expensive campaign process when there is insufficient public support for an initiative. Neither the state nor the opponents of a proposed bill should be required to spend the large sums of money required when a proposed bill is put on the ballot if there is not sufficient public support for the initiative. [9] If a petition were to mischaracterize an ordinance in a manner designed to bring about general opposition to the ordinance, the signature requirement could be too readily overcome and the intended screening function of the requirement would be thwarted. Moreover, referendum petitions under the Municipality of Anchorage's system, as well as under the system followed in state elections, are formal documents which are part of the lawmaking process. They should be a source of accurate information for all citizens concerning what is being proposed. [10] Our state constitution contains a number of formal safeguards which are designed to ensure that legislators are fully informed and have had an opportunity to debate and deliberate on the meaning of a proposed law. [11] These safeguards are designed to engender a responsible legislative process worthy of the public trust, Plumley v. Hale, 594 P.2d 497, 500 (Alaska 1979); are meant to ensure that the legislature knows what it is passing, North Slope Borough v. SOHIO Petroleum Corp., 585 P.2d 534, 543 n. 11 (Alaska 1978); and are meant to ensure deliberation prior to passage... . Plumley, 594 P.2d at 500. [12] Safeguards with a similar purpose are contained in the Anchorage Municipal Charter relating to the passage of ordinances by the municipal assembly. [13] These safeguards underscore a vital public interest in ensuring that laws be made by informed lawmakers: A basic requirement for good governing decisions  ones which properly balance the interests of those involved and create desirable results  is an informed electorate. The decision makers need to have a thorough understanding of both sides of an issue in order to make a reasoned, rational decision. Such understanding comes only from complete and accurate information. Fountaine, supra note 9, at 738. The public interest in informed lawmaking requires that referendum and initiative petitions meet minimum standards of accuracy and fairness. [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. Yute Air Alaska, Inc. v. McAlpine, 698 P.2d 1173, 1188 (Alaska 1985) (Moore, J., dissenting.) To this end it is necessary [t]o guard against inadvertence by petition-signers and voters and to discourage stealth by initiative drafters and promoters... . Id. at 1189.
For the above reasons, we concluded that Faipeas had made a showing that they would probably succeed on the merits of their contention that the petition circulated in this case failed to meet applicable legal requirements. COMPTON, J., not participating.