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

Heading: Did the language struck from the CRC appropriation violate the confinement clause?

Text: Applying the Hammond factors and the presumption of constitutionality discussed in Part III.C.3, we next determine whether including the struck passage violated the confinement clause. Some of the factors seem to be in relative balance. The qualifying language in the first sentence is the minimum necessary to explain the Legislature's intent about how the money is to be spent. The second sentence also describes how the money is to be spent, but can be read to specify standards; the third specifies procedures and does not describe what the money is for. These two sentences can be read to administer the program or to impose substantive requirements better addressed in a substantive bill. Likewise, the first sentence is clearly germane and appropriate to an appropriation bill, the second may be, and the third is not. None of the vetoed language seems to extend beyond the life of the appropriation. Therefore, the first, second, and fifth Hammond factors are in balance and the fourth favors finding no violation. Further, the struck language does not clearly offend the third Hammond factor (no enactment of new law or amendment of existing law). The governor argues that because the words not owned or controlled by municipalities [96] prevented the department from using this appropriation to contract with municipalities to provide CRC space, they substantively changed existing law, which allowed the commissioner to contract with municipalities. [97] The council responds that AS 33.30.031(a) allows for use of public or private facilities, [98] and that a decision to fund one type of facility over the other does not enact new law. We agree with the council. Alaska Statute 33.30.031 authorizes the commissioner to contract with municipalities. But it does not require the commissioner to put municipalities on footing equal with private enterprise as potential providers of new CRC bed space. The appropriation therefore does not preclude the commissioner from fulfilling the department's statutory mandate. Instead, it specifies the type of CRC space the money covers. [99] We conclude that the CRC appropriation does not violate the confinement clause.