Opinion ID: 2633201
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The petition title is confusing.

Text: The petition is entitled An Initiative Allowing Those Items Used with Marijuana Legal as Medicine or a Right To Privacy. The superior court concluded that the title's literal meaning suggests that the proposition would declare paraphernalia to be medicine (and therefore legal) and/or declare that paraphernalia is a right to privacy. (Emphasis in original.) This conclusion accurately reflects the title's grammatical difficulties. The superior court also noted, however, that the confusion engendered by the title, standing alone, might not render the petition legally insufficient. CIMM correctly points out that we relax procedural and technical requirements for citizen initiatives because they are often drafted by non-lawyers. [16] Likewise, courts liberally construe constitutional and statutory requirements so that `the people (are) permitted to vote and express their will on the proposed legislation.' [17] But confusing or misleading petitions frustrate the ability of voters to express their will. Contrary to CIMM's contention, therefore, we are not required to interpret unclear language in the petition in a manner which does not render it invalid. The title's grammatical difficulties stem from its use of the term marijuana. It appears only once in the title but serves several functions. Ordinarily, a word is used as only one part of speech each time it appears in a sentence. Here, marijuana is first used in the clause (those items used with marijuana) that describes the objects that are the subject of the initiative. The superior court correctly characterized these objects as paraphernalia, even though that word does not appear in the petition. [18] Marijuana also seems to be used to refer to the substance marijuana itself, because it seems to be modified by the phrase legal as medicine or a right to privacy. This implies that the proposition would allow marijuana paraphernalia either when the marijuana with which the paraphernalia is associated is used in accordance with Alaska's medical marijuana statute [19] or when its use is protected by the right to privacy. [20] It is therefore not obvious from the words of the title exactly what is intended. Persons considering whether to sign the petition could not reasonably be expected to engage in the grammatical analysis required to discover exactly what the title means. Nonetheless, we agree with the superior court that the title's puzzling grammatical deficiencies would not render the petition legally insufficient, absent any problems with the rest of the petition. The title at least conveys some sense of the initiative's purpose: to allow items whose use is somehow related to marijuana. But readers confused by the rest of the petition could derive little guidance by referring back to the title for clarification. Most importantly, the title does not assist in understanding what conduct the proposition would protect. The title does not help resolve deficiencies discussed in Parts III.B.4 and III.B.5.