Opinion ID: 1405619
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sonneman Has Citizen-Taxpayer Standing to Challenge the Constitutionality of AS 15.15.030(6)

Text: The State argues that Sonneman lacks standing to raise his constitutional challenges. Sonneman counters that he has both interest-injury and citizen-taxpayer standing. Since we agree that Sonneman has citizen-taxpayer standing, we do not reach the question of whether he also has interest-injury standing. Standing in our state courts is not a constitutional doctrine; rather, it is a rule of judicial self-restraint based on the principle that courts should not resolve abstract questions or issue advisory opinions. Trustees for Alaska v. State, 736 P.2d 324, 327 (Alaska 1987) (citing Moore v. State, 553 P.2d 8, 23 n. 25 (Alaska 1976)). Standing is interpreted broadly in Alaska, and we favor increased accessibility to our courts. Id. To establish citizen-taxpayer standing, a plaintiff must meet two requirements: (1) the case must be one of public significance; and (2) the plaintiff must be an appropriate party to bring the case. Baxley v. State, 958 P.2d 422, 428 (Alaska 1998) (quoting Trustees for Alaska, 736 P.2d at 329-30). These requirements ensure that the plaintiff will serve as a true and strong adversary, even if the conduct in question did not directly affect the plaintiff. Id. A plaintiff raising constitutional issues is likely to meet the first requirement. See id. To meet the second requirement, the plaintiff must not be a sham plaintiff with no true adversity of interest and must be capable of competently advocating the position; however, a plaintiff may still be denied standing if there is a plaintiff more directly affected by the challenged conduct in question who has or is likely to bring suit. Id. (quoting Trustees for Alaska, 736 P.2d at 329-30). Here, Sonneman is alleging several constitutional violations affecting not only his right to vote, but also the integrity and fairness of public elections. These are constitutional issues of public significance. Further, Sonneman has preserved his core constitutional arguments on appeal, and the parties are truly adverse. In addition, there is no evidence that anyone who is more directly affected is likely to challenge this statute. We thus hold that Sonneman has citizen-taxpayer standing to challenge the amendment to AS 15.15.030(6). [5]