Opinion ID: 1123453
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Is the Proximity of the Domicile Factor Unconstitutional?

Text: We turn first to the question of whether linking eligibility for Tier II subsistence status to proximity of the domicile of the subsistence user to the target fish or game population violates article VIII, sections 3, 15, and 17 of the Alaska Constitution. This question is governed by our decision in McDowell v. State, 785 P.2d 1 (Alaska 1989). At issue in McDowell was whether provisions in the 1986 subsistence statute which barred all nonrural Alaska residents from eligibility as first or second tier subsistence users violated the article VIII equal access clauses. Id. at 1. We held that the rural preference was a special privilege explicitly barred by the first sentence of section 15 and implicitly barred by the common use and equal application clauses, sections 3 and 17. Id. at 6, 9. We concluded that the requirement contained in the 1986 subsistence statute, that one must reside in a rural area in order to participate in subsistence hunting and fishing, violates sections 3, 15, and 17 of article VIII of the Alaska Constitution. Id. at 9. Concerning sections 3, 15, and 17 of article VIII, we observed that while they have varied ramifications they share one meaning: exclusive or special privileges to take fish and wildlife are prohibited. Id. at 6. We noted that these clauses afford protection against the creation of a closed class of fish and game users. Id. at 6-7. We observed that although the state was empowered to make decisions concerning which among such diverse groups as commercial, sport and subsistence users would have a preferred right to harvest a certain species, that authority does not imply a power to limit admission to a user group. Id. at 8. We explained that the constitution does not bar all methods of exclusion where exclusion is required for species protection reasons. Id. at 9. While we had no occasion to state what exclusionary criteria might be permissible in such circumstances, the opinion makes it clear that residence-based criteria are not permissible. We both quoted and stressed language holding that people who reside near a fish or game population do not have a higher claim to that population than state residents whose domiciles are more distant: Where the necessity for the preservation of the wild game and fish exists in certain territories of the state, that territory may be segregated for the purpose of regulating the right to taking game and fish therein; but the privilege of taking and using same must be extended to the people of the state outside of the territory upon the same terms that are given to those who are residents of the territory embraced in the legislation. Id. at 12 (quoting Lewis v. State, 110 Ark. 204, 161 S.W. 154, 155-56 (1913)) (emphasis added by this court in McDowell ). Our holding in McDowell is controlling here. The requirements of the equal access clauses apply to both tiers of subsistence users. Just as eligibility to participate in all subsistence hunting and fishing cannot be made dependent on whether one lives in an urban or rural area, eligibility to participate in Tier II subsistence hunting and fishing cannot be based on how close one lives to a given fish or game population. [21] We conclude that AS 16.05.258(b)(4)(B)(ii), which uses the proximity of the domicile of the Tier II subsistence permit applicant to the fish or game population which the applicant wishes to harvest as a basis for the applicant's eligibility, violates sections 3, 15, and 17 of article VIII of the Alaska Constitution. The question which flows from this conclusion is whether the entire subsistence statute should be declared unconstitutional or whether AS 16.05.258(b)(4)(B)(ii) may be severed from the rest of the statute. A general severability clause is contained in AS 01.10.030: Any law heretofore or hereafter enacted by the Alaska legislature which lacks a severability clause shall be construed as though it contained the clause in the following language: If any provision of this Act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this Act and the application to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. In Lynden Transport, Inc. v. State, 532 P.2d 700, 712-13 (Alaska 1975), we indicated that this clause reverses the common law presumption against severability and creates a slight presumption in favor of severability: A provision will not be deemed severable unless it appears both that, standing alone, legal effect can be given to it and that the legislature intended the provision to stand, in case others included in the act and held bad should fall. Id. at 713 (quoting Dorchy v. Kansas, 264 U.S. 286, 290, 44 S.Ct. 323, 324, 68 L.Ed. 686 (1924)). The key question is whether the portion remaining, once the offending portion of the statute is severed, is independent and complete in itself so that it may be presumed that the legislature would have enacted the valid parts without the invalid part. Sonneman v. Hickel, 836 P.2d 936, 941 (Alaska 1992). Deleting subpart (ii) from AS 16.05.258(b)(4)(B) results in a subsection which requires the creation of a Tier II class of subsistence users based on dependence on the target fish or game population and the ability of the individual subsistence user to obtain food if subsistence use of the particular population were restricted or eliminated. The subsection as thus redacted is logically complete and capable of being given legal meaning. Whether the legislature would have intended the subsection as redacted to stand had it known that the proximity of the domicile clause would be held unconstitutional is a question which cannot be answered with complete confidence. However, given the importance of subsistence as reflected in the legislative findings prefacing the 1992 act, [22] periods in which individuals needfully dependent on subsistence are deprived of an opportunity to harvest fish or game are to be avoided. A holding that subsection (B)(ii) is not severable could result in such a period. Given this, and the statutory presumption in favor of severability, we conclude that (B)(ii) is severable.