Opinion ID: 2639620
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The summary statement

Text: The superior court concluded that the ballot and petition summary for 07WTR3 is a fair, true, neutral, and impartial explanation of the main features of the initiative's contents. The Council argues that Judge Blankenship's conclusion is in error because the summary is inaccurate and misleading. Specifically, the Council asserts that the summary states that the provisions of 07WTR3 apply only to `new' LSMM mining operations, when it in fact applies to existing LSMM mining operations that either (1) require any additional permit, or permit renewal or amendment, or (2) build an additional facility or expand operations. The Council also argues that the summary states that [the initiative] includes the same list of toxic pollutants as found in federal law, when in fact [the initiative] adds an additional substance, sulfuric acid, that is not on the federal list. The sponsors respond by arguing that the Council waived its specific arguments about the deficiency of the summary statement by not raising them in the superior court. The sponsors further assert that even if the Council did not waive its arguments, (1) the Council's argument that the initiative applies to existing LSMM operations lacks merit because the Council has not shown that specific existing mines will be subject to 07WTR3, and (2) the Council's argument that the summary's description of toxic pollutants is misleading lacks merit because the summary explicitly mentions that the initiative prohibits storing materials that could release sulfuric acid. Article XI, section 3 of the Alaska Constitution provides that after certification of an initiative application, a petition containing a summary of the subject matter shall be prepared by the lieutenant governor for circulation by the sponsors. Alaska Statute 15.45.090(a)(2) requires that the lieutenant governor's summary of the petition be an impartial summary of the subject matter of the bill. Alaska Statute 15.45.180(a) likewise requires that the actual ballot contain a true and impartial summary of the proposed law. [80] We explained in Alaskans for Efficient Government, Inc. v. State [81] that the basic purpose of the ballot summary is to enable voters to reach informed and intelligent decisions on how to cast their ballots. [82] A summary should be complete enough to convey an intelligible idea of the scope and import of the proposed law and ought to be free from any misleading tendency, whether of amplification, of omission, or of fallacy. [83] The summary need not recite every detail of the proposed measure, [84] but if the information would give the elector `serious grounds for reflection' it is not a mere detail, and it must be disclosed. [85] We apply a deferential standard of review for challenges to the adequacy of a lieutenant governor's petition summary and will uphold a summary unless we cannot reasonably conclude that it is impartial and accurate. [86] Those attacking the summary bear the burden to demonstrate that it is biased or misleading. [87] Here, the lieutenant governor's summary for 07WTR3 states: This bill imposes two water quality standards on new large scale metallic mineral mining operations in Alaska. The first standard does not allow such a mining operation to release into water a toxic pollutant that will adversely affect human health or the life cycle of salmon. The second standard does not allow such a mining operation to store mining wastes and tailings that could release sulfuric acids, other acids, dissolved metals or other toxic pollutants that could adversely affect water that is used by humans or by salmon. The bill defines a large scale metallic mineral mining operation to mean a metallic mineral mining operation that is in excess of 640 acres in size. The bill defines toxic pollutants to include substances that will cause death and disease in humans and fish, and includes a list of substances identified as toxic pollutants under federal law. Because the Council did not raise the specific arguments at the superior court level that (1) the summary is misleading for failing to indicate that it applies to certain existing LSMM mining operations, or (2) the summary is misleading in its description of toxic pollutants, it waived these new arguments. [88] Even if the Council had not waived its arguments by failing to present them to the superior court, the arguments would still be without merit. The Council alleges that the summary is defective because (1) it fails to adequately describe all the mining operations to which it applies, and (2) its description of prohibited toxic pollutants is misleading. We deal with each argument in turn. In regard to the first argument, the summary states that the initiative's water quality standards apply to  new large scale metallic mineral mining operations.  (Emphasis added.) This statement provides an intelligible idea of the scope and import of the initiative, which explicitly states that it does not apply to existing large scale metallic mineral mining operations that have received all required federal, state, and local permits, authorizations, licenses, and approvals on or before the effective date of this Act or to future operations of existing facilities at those sites.  (Emphasis added.) The brevity required for a summary prevents a more specific and detailed description of the initiative's scope than that provided by the lieutenant governor. As we have stated, [t]he summary need not recite every detail of the proposed measure. [89] Here, the summary adequately discloses the important details of the initiative. Thus, the Council fails to meet its burden of showing that the summary is misleading based on its description of the initiative's scope. The Council's second argument is that the summary's description of toxic pollutants is misleading. Even if it had not been waived, this argument would likewise be without merit. The Council's argument that the summary misleads voters by not mentioning that sulfuric acid was added to the initiative's list of toxic pollutants ignores the explicit statement in the summary that the initiative does not allow ... a [new] mining operation to store mining wastes and tailings that could release sulfuric acid .... Because the summary is explicit in its inclusion of sulfuric acid as a prohibited toxic pollutant that could adversely affect water that is used by humans or salmon, it is not misleading. The Council fails to meet its burden of showing the inadequacy of the summary prepared by the lieutenant governor for 07WTR3. The summary provides an accurate depiction of the scope and substance of the initiative. Thus, the superior court correctly concluded that it was a fair, true, neutral, and impartial explanation of the main features of the initiative's contents.