In Markham v. Kodiak Island Borough Board of Equalization, the supreme court held the eligibility requirements for a senior citizen property tax exemption did not violate equal protection. Markham applied for a senior citizen tax exemption on his property in Kodiak, and the assessor denied his applications due to prolonged absences. The Borough Board of Equalization affirmed the denials. Markham appealed the superior court’s dismissal of his 2013 appeal and denial of his 2014 appeal. The supreme court affirmed, reasoning the eligibility requirements for the senior citizen property tax exemption—which were based on the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) requirements—did not violate equal protection. In order to be eligible for the exemption, Markham had to prove that his absence from Alaska was allowed by statute, as he was not present during the qualifying year, and he did not offer evidence to do so. Markham argued that the eligibility requirements violated his right to equal protection. The court previously decided that restricting the PFD to bona fide residents does not violate equal protection because the requirements furthered a legitimate state interest, and applied the same analysis for the tax exemption. The court held that Alaska has a legitimate interest in requiring “sufficiently close connections” with Alaska before conferring an economic benefit. Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held the eligibility requirements for the property tax exemption, like the PFD requirements, did not violate equal protection.
 441 P.3d 943 (Alaska 2019).