Opinion ID: 1155514
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: constitutional objections.

Text: Handley states two constitutional objections to the permanent fund dividend scheme. First, Handley contends that 15 AAC 23.190(a)(1991), which requires submission of other information, is so vague that it violates due process. Second, he contends that the definition of state resident in AS 43.23.095(8) is overbroad and violates equal protection. In view of our affirmance on the ground that the forged signatures on false verifications of Handley's original 1987 application were made with the intent to deceive DOR, we need not address Handley's constitutional arguments. Handley's first objection is not relevant because other information need not be requested when intentional deception is found. Handley's second objection need not be addressed because it pertains only to intent to reside in Alaska, the DOR's alternative ground for rejection.