Court Opinion

ID: 9548091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:57:18.191866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:27.427482
License: Public Domain

BURKE, Justice,
concurring.
While I concur in the opinion of the court, I wish to emphasize one important point.
To me, the thorny issue in this case is one that the parties do not address: whether hiring quotas based solely on race are ever permissible, under the equal rights provision of the Alaska Constitution, article I, section 1.1 Since the parties to this appeal all concede or assume the propriety of some racial quota, as a remedy for past discrimination, we do not decide this issue. Thus, our opinion should not be read as holding such quotas constitutional; their constitutionality, at least under the Alaska Constitution, remains an open question.2

. Article I, section 1 of the Alaska Constitution provides, in part: "[A]ll persons are equal and entitled to equal rights, opportunities, and protection under the law.” The protection thus provided appears to be greater than that provided by the federal equal protection clause. See Schafer v. Vest, 680 P.2d 1169, 1171-72 (Alaska 1984) (Burke, C.J., concurring).

. Racial quotas, as a remedy for past discrimination, are commonly required and the subject of much debate. The constitutionality of such quotas under the federal constitution is not entirely clear, at least from the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Under the equal rights provision of the Alaska Constitution, article I, section 1, the answer to this question is even less certain. The issue has never been decided by this court, nor, to my knowledge, by any other court interpreting a provision containing the same language as article I, section 1.