Opinion ID: 2600380
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The OEI, as enacted, governs more than the official or formal acts of government.

Text: ACL argues that AS 44.12.310 and .320, when read together, support its argument that the OEI was meant to apply only to the official or authorized acts of the State, and prove that the OEI recognizes a common sense distinction between formal and informal acts of government. These sections of the initiative provide: Sec. 44.12.310. Official language. The English language is the official language of the State of Alaska. Sec. 44.12.320. Scope. The English language is the language to be used by all public agencies in all government functions and actions. The English language shall be used in the preparation of all official public documents and records, including all documents officially compiled, published or recorded by the government. (Emphasis added.) According to ACL, if the first sentence of section .320 applied to all acts by government employees, the second sentence would be unnecessary; thus its inclusion plainly modifies the reach of the initiative to govern only official state functions. ACL maintains that the OEI's language plainly contemplates a category of informal, unofficial, written documents which it does not purport to govern. ACL argues in addition that because the OEI contemplates instances in which the government may use informal written materials in languages other than English, it is reasonable to construe the statute to permit informal oral communication in languages other than English as well. While ACL concedes that the government must act through its officers and employees, it claims that the OEI requires only that they use English to the extent that they are carrying out the government functions and actions of public agencies  that is, only to the extent they are performing official, authorized acts of government. We disagree regarding the first sentence of AS 44.12.320. A similar argument was attempted  unsuccessfully  by proponents of English-only laws before the highest courts of both Arizona and Oklahoma. The Arizona court addressed the distinction between official and unofficial acts of government in Ruiz v. Hull, [39] after the Arizona Attorney General, in defending the law, argued that only official acts of government would be affected by the implementation of Article XXVIII of the Arizona Constitution (the amendment). [40] While somewhat more broadly applied than the OEI, [41] the amendment similarly provided that English must be the language of all government functions and actions, [42] that all employees of the state must act in English, [43] and that all government documents must be written in the English language. [44] The attorney general maintained that the Amendment should not be read to prohibit public employees from using non-English languages while performing their public functions that could not be characterized as official. [45] The court noted the inconsistency of that interpretation with both the language of the amendment, which applied to all government functions and actions, and with the ordinary meaning of those terms, which do not impose such a limitation. [46] The Ruiz court concluded: By its express terms, the Amendment is not limited to official government acts or to the formal, policy making, enacting and binding activities of the government. Rather, it is plainly written in the broadest possible terms, declaring that the English language is the language of . . . all government functions and actions  and prohibiting all government officials and employees at every level of state and local government from using non-English languages  during the performance of government business. [ [47] ] The Supreme Court of Oklahoma reached a similar conclusion in In re Initiative Petition No. 366. [48] The initiative at issue in Oklahoma required that [a]ll official documents, transactions, proceedings, meetings, or publications issued, which are conducted or regulated by, on behalf of, or representing the state and all of its political subdivisions shall be in the English language. [49] The court construed this provision to prohibit all governmental communications, both written and oral, by government employees, elected officials, and citizens, of all words, even those which are of common usage, in any language other than English when conducting state business. [50] The court concluded that this restriction prevented non-English speakers from effectively communicating with government officials and from receiving vital information about government. [51] The same issues are presented in this case. The first sentence of AS 44.12.320 requires the use of English in all government functions and actions. Because the plain language of the initiative is so clear, ACL bears a correspondingly heavy burden of demonstrating contrary [voter] intent. [52] We next turn to an examination of the ballot materials to determine whether ACL has met this burden. ACL points to no ballot materials that indicate that the voters might have contemplated distinctions between official and unofficial or formal and informal acts of government when they enacted the OEI. The Legislative Affairs Agency summary explicitly stated that, pursuant to the OEI, every public officer or employee of the state would be required to use English in all functions, except in situations governed by the eleven enumerated exceptions. While ACL's statement in support of the initiative claimed that it would limit only government speech and would have no effect on the speech of private individuals, it did not state that the initiative would allow government employees to engage in informal or unofficial conversation with private citizens regarding government business in a language other than English. Because the meaning of the first sentence of AS 44.12.320 appears plain and unambiguous, and because ACL has not offered sufficient evidence of contrary voter intent, we have no basis to find that the voters shared what ACL calls its common sense reading of the initiative. The first sentence of Section .320 plainly mandates the use of English by government officers and employees in the performance of their jobs, whether communicating with English or non-English speakers, except in specific circumstances. Accordingly, we reject ACL's contention that the plain language of the first sentence of AS 44.12.320, permits the unofficial or informal use of languages other than English by state officials or employees in the performance of their duties.