Opinion ID: 2350715
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The capital project voter approval (Proposition 4) summary judgment proceedings

Text: After the parties and superior court agreed in March 2008 that only issues of law remained in the dispute over Proposition 4, ACT filed a motion for summary judgment on the capital projects approval issue on November 8, 2008. The Borough again responded with a cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue. The superior court issued a decision on March 10, 2009, ruling that Proposition 4 was invalid both as to the supermajority requirement and the voter approval requirement. Regarding the supermajority issue, the superior court stated that a mere majority cannot impose a supermajority obligation on other voters for approval of future Borough ordinances. But the superior court determined that the supermajority provision of the initiative ordinance was severable, and so went on to address the validity of the remainder of Proposition 4. The superior court concluded that [t]he initiative ordinance crafted by ACT restricts the appropriation power of the Borough Assembly for capital projects to prior approval by voting residents and that Article XI, section 7, of the Alaska Constitution makes it clear that the initiative power cannot be used to make or repeal appropriations. The superior court granted summary judgment to the Borough.