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

Heading: The voters intended the remaining parts of the statute to stand.

Text: The second part of the Lynden Transport severability test asks whether the voters intended the provision to stand in the event that portions of it were struck down. [180] As we noted in Sonneman v. Hickel , [t]he key question is whether the portion remaining, once the offending portion of the statute is severed, is independent and complete in itself so that it may be presumed that the [voters] would have enacted the valid parts without the invalid part. [181] We answer this question in the affirmative. First, as discussed above, the initiative contains a severability section: The provisions of [the act] are independent and severable, and if any provision ... shall be held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder ... shall not be affected and shall be given effect to the fullest extent practicable. [182] In other words, the voters have told us that they did intend the remaining provision to stand in the event that portions of the initiative were struck. [183] We dealt with a similar provision in State v. Alaska Civil Liberties Union, [184] where in reference to a severability clause built into a campaign financing reform act we stated: The Act contains a severability clause. Its inclusion indicates that the legislature intended the remainder of the Act to stand if part of it were invalidated.  [185] This conclusion is buoyed by our analysis of the overarching purposes of the initiative: unification of our diverse state. In attempting to make English the official language of the state of Alaska, the initiative proceeds on the assumption that a common language is thought to exert a unifying force. As the statement in support noted: Like our flag, the pledge of allegiance, and our national anthem, English as our official language is our symbol. These symbols remind Americans and Alaskans of every race, religion, and background of what we all have in common. The initiative, as redacted, continues to reflect the voters' belief in the unifying force of a common language and their intent that provisions establishing a common language be upheld to the fullest extent practicable. [186] Moreover, the voters had the benefit of the sponsors' statement in the election pamphlet, and it is clear that the sponsors of the initiative  who drafted the severability clause  favored preservation of the constitutional provisions of the initiative. Alaskans for a Common Language has filed a supplemental brief so indicating: To the extent this court may now conclude that certain provisions, such as the first sentence of AS 41[44].12.320, might otherwise give rise to an unintended unconstitutional application of the act, ACL respectfully submits that both the Initiative itself and this Court's precedents require that any such provision should be severed. Such severance, rather than invalidation of the act, would give effect to the meaning of the Initiative as set forth in the Act and its stated purposes as adopted by the voters. The intent and desire of the sponsors is therefore clear. And apart from the voters' indication of intent in the severability clause, we do know that the initiative was well received. It passed with the approval of more than sixty-eight percent of the voters. It is difficult to construct an argument as to why a version of the initiative shorn of the unconstitutional provisions but still establishing English as the official language of the state and requiring that English be used in all official documents and records would be any less favorably received. The opponents of the initiative before this court have not attempted to make a case as to why this might be so. They have thus failed to meet their burden of showing, by a clear probability, that the voters would not have supported the initiative as redacted. We conclude that the initiative is severable, because (1) the remaining provisions can be given legal effect and (2) the voters intended that they be given effect. The requirement that the government use English in official documents can be given legal effect and is enforceable. Indeed, as noted, many official English acts in other states are limited to similar provisions. [187] The initiative's challengers have not met their burden of showing the clear probability that severance was not intended by the voters. [188] The presumption in favor of severability leads us to conclude that the voters intended that, if a court were to strike the first sentence of AS 44.12.320, the second sentence of that section should stand.