In Jones v. State, Department of Revenue,[1] the supreme court held that the requirement for Public Fund Dividends (PFD) eligibility that a person be physically present in Alaska for a cumulative 30 days in the preceding five years (the “30 days/5 years requirement”) is unambiguous and constitutional when applied to exclude PFD eligibility for a couple absent for military service. Jones and his wife left Alaska during Jones’ military service and, while maintaining significant ties to the state (e.g. Alaskan drivers’ licenses, vehicle registrations, and property), were not physically present for more than 30 days in over five years. Under the statute imposing the 30 days/5 years requirement, the Department of Revenue denied PFD eligibility for some of the years of Jones’ absence. Jones argued on appeal that the legislative intent included assisting Alaska’s career military personnel and that his ties to the state should be considered. He also argued that the statute violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause by creating an irrebuttable presumption of nonresidence and that it infringes upon the right to travel under the privileges and immunities clause. The supreme court held that the statute unambiguously imposes a physical presence requirement that cannot be overcome by other connections to the state. They held that the 30 days/5 years requirement’s presumption of nonresidence is not invalidly irrebuttable because it does not prohibit Alaskans from becoming eligible for future years. The court also held that the state has a legitimate interest in imposing a physical-presence requirement for PFD eligibility and that the 30 days/5 year requirement is not onerous enough to infringe upon the right to travel. The supreme court affirmed the Department’s denial of Jones’ PFD and held that the 30 days/5 years requirement is constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.
[1] 441 P.3d 966 (Alaska 2019).
