Court Opinion

ID: 9574355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:04:23.48661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:25.457208
License: Public Domain

RABINOWITZ, Justice,
with whom BURKE, Chief Justice, joins, concurring.
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that Irby-Northface should be considered an Alaska bidder under AS 37.05.230 for the reasons stated in the opinion of the court.
I would, however, address the clear unconstitutionality of the bidder preference statute under our precedent of Lynden Transport, Inc. v. State, 532 P.2d 700 (Alaska 1975).1 In Lynden we stated that:
A discrimination between residents and nonresidents based solely on the object of assisting the one class over the other economically cannot be upheld under either the privileges and immunities or equal protection clauses.
Id. at 710. In this case, “it is clear that the statute’s purpose is to give Alaskan businesses a competitive chance with nonresident businesses in the award of state contracts,” 2 as noted by the majority. Under Alaska’s equal protection clause, such a purpose does not justify a statute which discriminates against nonresidents. Lynden, 532 P.2d at 711.3

. Normally it is appropriate to avoid constitutional rulings unnecessary to the decision of a particular case. In the present context, however, the constitutional defect of AS 37.05.230 is manifest and, as the state notes in its amicus brief, the disruptive consequences of uncertainty in the law are considerable in the area of public construction. Thus, in this circumstance I think it appropriate to address the constitutional issue.

. The state and Susitna argue that the real purpose of the preference statute is to strengthen the local economy. Such an argument was advanced and rejected in Lynden, 532 P.2d at 709.

.Lynden was decided under the federal rational basis equal protection analysis. 532 P.2d at 707, citing, Morey v. Doud, 354 U.S. 457, 463-64, 77 S.Ct. 1344, 1348-1349, 1 L.Ed.2d 1485, 1490 (1957). Since Lynden, we have established that the lowest level of scrutiny to be employed under Alaska’s equal protection clause is more stringent than the minimum federal standard. Gilman v. Martin, 662 P.2d 120 at 125 (Alaska, 1983); State v. Erickson, 574 P.2d 1, 12 (Alaska 1978); Isakson v. Rickey, 550 P.2d 359, 362 (Alaska 1976).