Opinion ID: 2570810
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Does the vetoed language in the treatment program appropriation violate the confinement clause?

Text: This bill appropriated $400,000 for an inmate program in Valdez where cost per inmate day (exclusive of treatment costs) will not exceed the statewide average cost per inmate day for correctional institutions. [104] The governor struck the quoted language. Did including the vetoed language violate the confinement clause? The correct answer is not obvious, primarily because it is not clear what effect, if any, this language has. It is unclear whether it conditions the way the Valdez facility was to be run or simply describes the program. The former reading would violate the confinement clause; the latter would not. Despite this ambiguity, we conclude that this language does not violate the confinement clause. Because one permissible reading of the language is constitutional, and because we think it preferable to choose the reading that avoids unconstitutionality, [105] we conclude that this language is descriptive and non-binding. We therefore hold that its inclusion did not violate the confinement clause.