Court Opinion

ID: 9756346
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:24:48.208159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:57:49.148255
License: Public Domain

STOWERS, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the order denying Pebble Limited Partnership's Emergency Petition for Review. I write separately to respond to Justice Winfree's dissenting views. I agree in principle with Justice Winfree's dissenting opinion that the superior court erred in failing to address all three of the grounds advanced by Pebble in its challenge to the proposed initiative. I agree in principle that the superior court is obligated to rule on all grounds asserted by an initiative opponent in a pre-election initiative challenge, and that the superior court must then issue a final order and judgment that can be appealed. I *602agree with Justice Winfree that the superior court "may not unilaterally transmogrify Pebble's action and keep it active beyond the complaint's limits-if the [initiative becomes law, Pebble should have the right to file a separate post-election challenge with as broad a spectrum of issues as it wishes to raise, not just those brought as pre-election challenges and deferred for later consideration by the superior court." Finally, I agree with Justice Winfree that the question whether the "controlling authority rule" applies to the issues not ruled on by the superior court-whether the proposed initiative violates AS 29.26.110(a)(8) and article XI, section 7 of the Alaska Constitution-is an important question of first impression worthy of review.
My disagreement with Justice Winfree is a practical one: given the imminence of the Borough's October 4, 2011 election and the necessity of deciding this appeal before the Borough is required to mail absentee ballots on September 14, I see no realistic way that we can effectively (1) remand for expedited decision by the superior court on the issues that court failed to reach, (2) expect the parties to prepare full briefing on the merits of the issues identified in Justice Winfree's dissent, (8) conduct oral argument, and (4) issue a decision. Because all of these pre-election challenge issues-as well as any new post-election issues-can be raised on appeal following the Borough election, and because no enduring harm will result from denying the emergency petition for review, I think it acceptable (though certainly not optimal) to deny the petition and allow the voters to express their views on the initiative. And to the extent that permitting the election to proceed will obviate the problems associated with an expedited remand and appellate briefing schedule, this will also give the State of Alaska an opportunity to either intervene in the present superior court case or file a separate action and obtain a ruling after full briefing on the new issue it seeks to raise in this emergency petition-namely, whether the initiative would be unenforceable as a matter of law because "[ilf enacted, the initiative would be preempted by state law" "[blecause article VIII of the Alaska Constitution expressly mandates that the state legislature has exclusive authority over the state's natural resources [and] the initiative therefore will inevitably conflict with, and be preempted by, state law."20 After all of these issues are decided in the superior court(s) and briefed on appeal, this court will have a fully developed record upon which to consider these important questions.

. - Amicus State of Alaska's Response at 8.