Opinion ID: 2600380
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lynden Transport is the test for severability of enacted measures, whatever their source.

Text: We originally established standards for determining whether a statute is severable in Lynden Transport, Inc. v. State. [153] In that case, we considered a statute that had been enacted by the legislature. [154] The Lynden Transport test asks (1) whether legal effect can be given to the severed statute and (2) if the legislature intended the provision to stand in the event other provisions were struck down. [155] But neither party in this case looks to Lynden Transport for the test for severance. ACL urges that we use the test articulated in McAlpine v. University of Alaska [156] and most recently applied in Alaska Action Center v. Municipality of Anchorage [157] in determining severability, and the Alakayak appellees assume its applicability. In those cases, we were faced with initiative proposals that had not yet been voted upon by the electorate. [158] The McAlpine test is substantially similar to the Lynden Transport test except in that it also requires us to look to the spirit of the measure. [159] We have never had the occasion to determine whether the standard applied in McAlpine and Alaska Action Center for the pre-election review of an initiative should also apply to an initiative after it has been approved by the voters. In other words, we have not decided which severability test to apply to enacted initiatives. We conclude that there is no compelling reason to apply a different severability analysis to statutes enacted by the people from those enacted by the legislature. Thus, there is no reason that McAlpine should apply to enacted initiatives. Whether a statute was enacted by vote of the legislature or vote of the people, the risk involved in severing a statute is that an erroneous judicial reading of the intent of those who enacted the statute will result in a statute that no one wanted. While this risk is real, it is not qualitatively different for a statute enacted by the legislature and one enacted by the voters. Thus, there is no need for a different test. [160] Several other states treat statutes the same for the purposes of severability regardless of the manner in which the statute was enacted. For example, the California Supreme Court has stated that, in matters of severability, we can discern no meaningful distinctions between statutes `enacted' by the people and statutes enacted by the Legislature. [161] Likewise the Washington Supreme Court has stated that it interpret[s] initiatives based on the same rules of construction we apply to statutes passed by the legislature. [162] For these reasons, we conclude that the proper test to apply in determining severability of the EOI is that set out in Lynden Transport. We turn now to application of that test.