Opinion ID: 1305319
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the proposed initiative violates alaska constitution article xi, section 7 because it would make an appropriation

Text: ACPAC argues that the initiative would not make an appropriation because it does not involve municipal money or land. The Municipality contends that the initiative constitutes an appropriation because it would require the Municipality to give away an asset with $32.7 million equity for one dollar. The Alaska Constitution grants the people the right to enact laws by initiative. Alaska Const. art. XI, § 1. [3] However, this constitutional power specifically prohibits making appropriations by initiative. Id. § 7. [4] The same power of initiative is extended to municipal residents, subject to the same limitations. AS 29.26.100. [5] The constitutional prohibition against making an appropriation by initiative is not limited to appropriations of money. For example, in Thomas v. Bailey, 595 P.2d 1, 7 (Alaska 1979), we ruled that an initiative which would give away 30 million acres of land to Alaska residents was an appropriation prohibited by article XI, section 7. We noted that the constitutional convention delegates wanted to prohibit the initiative process from being used to enact give-away programs, which have an inherent popular appeal, that would endanger the state treasury. Id. [6] We concluded that by the term `appropriations,' article XI, section 7 prohibits an initiative whose primary object is to require the outflow of state assets in the form of land as well as money. Id. at 6-7. We conclude that the logic of Bailey also applies in the instant appeal. The prohibition against appropriations by initiative applies to all state and municipal assets. A utility with $32.7 million equity is a significant municipal asset. The initiative would require the Municipality to transfer it for the nominal sum of one dollar. This is precisely the kind of rash, discriminatory, and irresponsible act[] against which the state and its subdivisions are protected under article XI, section 7. We therefore AFFIRM the summary judgment for the Municipality on the ground that the initiative would unconstitutionally make an appropriation. [7]