Opinion ID: 2570231
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Is the Proposed Initiative Void Under Article XI, Section 4 of the Alaska Constitution Because It Is Substantially the Same as H.B. 414?

Text: Article XI, section 4 of the Alaska Constitution provides: An initiative petition may be filed at any time. The lieutenant governor shall prepare a ballot title and proposition summarizing the proposed law, and shall place them on the ballot for the first statewide election held more than one hundred twenty days after adjournment of the legislative session following the filing. If, before the election, substantially the same measure has been enacted, the petition is void. [16] (Emphasis added.) The proposed initiative states in relevant part that: When a vacancy occurs in the office of United States senator or United States representative, the governor shall, by proclamation, call a special election to be held on a date not less than 60, nor more than 90, days after the date the vacancy occurs. However, if the vacancy occurs on a date that is less than 60 days before or is on or after the date of the primary election in the general election year during which a candidate to fill the office is regularly elected, the governor may not call a special election. The proposed initiative would repeal the statutory provisions in AS 15.40.010 empowering the governor to make a temporary appointment to fill a senate vacancy. According to the impartial summary of the initiative prepared for the petition booklets by the lieutenant governor, the initiative would repeal state laws by which the governor makes a temporary appointment of a Senator who serves until an election can be held. Following the submission of the initiative to the lieutenant governor for placement on the ballot, the Alaska legislature passed H.B. 414. In contrast to the proposed initiative, H.B. 414 retains the governor's temporary appointment power in every case in which a senate vacancy might arise. House Bill 414 states in relevant part: When a vacancy occurs in the office of United States senator, the governor may, at least five days after the date of the vacancy but within 30 days after the date of the vacancy, appoint a qualified individual to fill the vacancy temporarily until the results of the special election called to fill the vacancy are certified. If a special election is not called for the reasons set out in AS 15.40.140, the individual shall fill the vacancy temporarily until the results of the next general election are certified. Notwithstanding this difference, the lieutenant governor determined that the initiative and H.B. 414 are substantially the same. Accordingly, he deemed the initiative void and removed it from the ballot. The parties sharply dispute whether the initiative and the bill are in fact substantially the same. The definition of substantially the same is not apparent from the text of the Alaska Constitution. And in Warren v. Boucher , [17] we noted that there is nothing in the legislative history of the article, or in the vigorous floor debates thereon, which points to an agreed upon meaning or a consciously adopted definition of what this critical language should mean or that offers any helpful discussion of what was the intended scope of the words. [18] We also noted that the words `substantial' or `substantially' are relative, inexact terms, whose meaning is quite elusive. [19] We therefore examined the question against the total structure of Alaska's constitutional system of direct legislation. [20] We noted that the original proposal of the Constitutional Convention Committee called for [l]aws proposed by initiative [to] be submitted to the voters ... unless the legislature enacts the measure initiated. . . . [21] The insertion of substantially the same measure in place of the measure demonstrated that the framers wished to allow some flexibility to the legislature. [22] At the same time, we noted the framers' conviction that popular enactment of legislation should not be frustrated by legislative veto. [23] We ultimately decided that a legislative act is substantially the same as the initiative it seeks to supersede if in the main the legislative act achieves the same general purpose as the initiative [and] accomplishes that purpose by means or systems which are fairly comparable. [24] We also noted that [t]he broader the reach of the subject matter, the more latitude must be allowed the legislature to vary from the particular features of the initiative. Thus, Warren developed a three-part test to determine whether a proposed initiative and legislation are substantially the same: A court must first determine the scope of the subject matter, and afford the legislature greater or lesser latitude depending on whether the subject matter is broad or narrow; next, it must consider whether the general purpose of the legislation is the same as the general purpose of the initiative; and finally it must consider whether the means by which that purpose is effectuated are the same in both the legislation and the initiative. Turning to the first part of the test, we note that the subject matter of the legislation and the initiative before us  filling senate vacancies  is narrow. It is far narrower than the subject matter of campaign finance reform that we considered in Warren. The legislation in Warren was broad and complicated, touching upon a great range of topics, including campaign spending limits, reporting of contributions and expenses, restrictions on anonymous contributions, penalties for non-compliance, the creation of an elections oversight committee to monitor elections, and several other topics. [26] In the present case, the legislation is simple and straightforward, essentially dealing with only one substantive topic: filling of a U.S. Senate vacancy. We agree with Trust the People's assessment that [t]he simpler and more focused a law is, the fewer details that can be adjusted without effecting a fundamental change in the measure's purpose and effect. As such, we begin our analysis with the view that the legislature should be accorded less latitude in its attempts to vary from the particular features of the initiative. [27] Turning to the next part of the test, we consider the general purpose of both the initiative and H.B. 414. The controversy before us differs fundamentally from the issue we addressed in Warren. In that case, both the initiative and the proposed legislation imposed greater controls over election contributions and expenditures; and despite some differences, it was clear that they both addressed the subject matter in similar ways. [28] (Indeed, the dispute in Warren turned almost exclusively on the third part of the test, the means by which the competing versions of the law sought to vindicate their clearly common purpose of campaign finance reform.) We stated that the legislature's changes to the initiative did not vitiate[ ] the aims of the initiative, but ma[de] those aims more feasible of achievement. [29] The legislature had made numerous changes to the initiative that implicated the scope of the law, its enforcement mechanisms, and other structural issues concerning the regulation of campaign finance reform. But because these changes were seen as promoting the shared goals of both the bill and the initiative, we were willing to accept the legislature's bill as substantially the same as its initiative counterpart, even though there were in fact differences in the texts. [30] But we cannot find that the competing versions of the legislation before us in this case share a common purpose. Indeed, as we explain more fully below, we believe the initiative and H.B. 414 have opposite objectives. In order to determine the respective purposes of H.B. 414 and the initiative, we look to their texts to determine intent. [31] This, in turn, requires us to review the circumstances surrounding the origins of the initiative. As amended in 1998, AS 15.40.010 provided in relevant part: When a vacancy occurs in the office of United States senator, the governor, within 30 days after the date of the vacancy, shall (1) appoint a qualified person ... to fill the vacancy temporarily until the vacancy is filled permanently by election; and (2) ... call a special primary election and a special election to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term of the predecessor in office if the predecessor's term would expire more than 30 calendar months after the date of the vacancy. [32] In 2002 the legislature amended the statute to restrict the governor from filling a vacancy until at least five days had passed from the date of the vacancy. [33] It was against this background that Trust the People formed for the purpose of changing the law by initiative. What was the intent of that initiative? We have previously held that in determining the meaning that voters might attach to a ballot initiative, we will look to published arguments made in connection with the initiative. [34] At the time of our August 20, 2004 order, [35] there was very little published material available because the voters' handbook has not yet been published. However, the lieutenant governor's neutral statement of the initiative's purpose, prepared pursuant to state law [36] for the petition booklets, was available for our review. The lieutenant governor, in his neutral statement of the purpose of the proposed initiative, wrote that the initiative would repeal state laws by which the governor makes a temporary appointment of a Senator who serves until an election can be held. Trust the People insists that H.B. 414 does not accomplish this purpose, but instead achieves precisely the opposite result. The critical difference between the proposed initiative and the bill is that while the proposed initiative precludes gubernatorial appointment of a United States senator in each and every case of vacancy, H.B. 414 permits the governor to make a temporary appointment pending an election to fill the vacancy in each and every case. This means that, while the proposed initiative provides that in every instance Alaska's United States Senate seats will be filled only by Alaskan voters, H.B. 414 would allow an unelected executive appointee to fill the seat for an interim period that could last as long as five months. [37] The state argues that the initiative and the bill are substantially the same because they accomplish the same general goal. That is, under both the act and the initiative, a special election largely replaces the appointment process, unless the relevant general election will occur soon after the vacancy. But the state's argument does not take into consideration the two critical differences noted above between the texts of H.B. 414 and the proposed initiative: (1) H.B. 414 retains the executive appointment power in every case while the proposed initiative repeals that power entirely, which means that (2) H.B. 414 allows appointees to fill U.S. Senate seats while the initiative seeks to ensure that an unelected appointee will never represent Alaska in the U.S. Senate. We conclude that these differences are so important that it cannot be said that the proposed initiative and H.B. 414 are substantially the same. The state advances another argument to support its conclusion that H.B. 414 is substantially the same as the initiative. It notes that, pursuant to article XI, section 6 of the Alaska Constitution, the legislature may amend an initiative's terms at any time. [38] The state asserts that had the legislature not passed H.B. 414 to replace the initiative, it could just as easily have made the same changes to the law by amending the initiative once it was enacted. In Warren, we noted that the legislature's amendatory power is broad and, in dicta, we suggested that the legislature's power to supplant an initiative by enacting new legislation might be identical to its power to amend. [39] But the power to avoid an initiative by enacting legislation should not be equated with the power to amend an initiative enacted by the voters. While the dicta in Warren v. Boucher might be read to equate the two powers, they are not equal. This is because the Alaska Constitution contains no explicit limitation on the legislature's power to amend an initiative enacted by the voters, [40] but it does contain such a limitation on the legislature's power to avoid a proposed initiative: Legislation designed to avoid a vote on a proposed initiative must be substantially the same as the initiative. [41] Finally debate surrounding the adoption of article XI, section 4 reflects the framers' concern that the legislature be given only the power to amend and not the power to destroy. [42] Thus, even amendments to popularly-initiated legislation must still effectuate[ ] the intent of the electorate, [43] and an amendment that so vitiates an act passed by initiative as to constitute its repeal is not acceptable. [44] The essential inquiry, then, is whether any difference between H.B. 414 and the initiative so vitiates the initiative's uncontradicted general purpose as to render H.B. 414 not substantially the same. Trust the People asserts that, by continu[ing] the governor's appointment power and merely expand[ing] the period during which a special election is required, H.B. 414 preserves and codifies both the governor's appointment power and the incumbency advantage given to his appointees when they later stand for election. According to Trust the People, the initiative and the bill thus materially differ. The state does not deny that this difference exists, but seeks to downplay or justify its effects, insisting that [t]he act and the initiative do accomplish the same general goal, and that the short-term nature of the governor's appointment power under H.B. 414 is not significant in light of the more general goals of the initiative and the act. The state also argues that the legislature's modifications to the proposed initiative were necessary, because the initiative, as drafted, is ill-conceived legislation that could seriously cripple or frustrate the sound workings of government. According to the state, even a temporary vacancy in one of Alaska's United States Senate seats (which, under the initiative's framework could last as long as five months) could damage Alaska's interests in the national government and make a difference in the passage of legislation important to Alaska. The state further argues that [f]illing senate vacancies quickly also could be a matter of national importance, because a terrorist attack on the Capitol could wipe out the United States Senate, and [t]he ability of one branch of the federal government to function might depend on the states' ability to fill vacant seats quickly. While the state raises serious policy arguments in favor of H.B. 414, they relate to the wisdom of the legislation  and thus are more properly directed to the voters considering the proposed initiative  and not to the question whether the proposed initiative and H.B. 414 are substantially the same. As has been noted, the relevant judicial inquiry is not whether the provisions are wise, but whether the legislative act is substantially the same as the initiative. [45] The state also contends that an appointee running for a vacant seat in a general or special election may not necessarily derive any benefits from his or her status as an incumbent, thereby minimizing the differences between H.B. 414 and the proposed initiative. The state asserts that [a] temporary appointee who is thousands of miles from Alaska and is trying to learn how to be a senator right before the election might be at a disadvantage as against a candidate present in Alaska, garnering support and raising money. Indeed, the state says, someone wishing to permanently fill the seat might well decline to take a temporary appointment. But had the legislature truly sought to assure that Alaska maintained competent representation in Washington while eliminating any incumbency advantage for a temporary appointee, it could have tailored H.B. 414 to forbid a governor's appointee from running for election after appointment. In fact, the legislative history indicates that such a provision was proposed and rejected. [46] This casts considerable doubt on the state's claim that H.B. 414 is substantially the same as the proposed initiative. We conclude that the intent of the proposed initiative is to strip the governor of appointment power, to ensure that occupants of Alaska's seats in the United States Senate are chosen by the voters, and to eliminate all of the perceived advantages that an incumbent appointee might receive in a special or general election to fill the vacancy. House Bill 414 preserves the power of gubernatorial appointment in every case of a vacancy, it allows vacancies in the United States Senate to be filled first by executive appointment rather than only by the voters, and it preserves potential incumbency advantages that might be conferred on the executive's appointee. Because the initiative and H.B. 414 seek to accomplish different objectives, they do not share a common purpose and they are not substantially the same. Accordingly, we hold that the initiative has not been voided by enactment of H.B. 414.