Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc. v. Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share

ELECTION LAW

Margot Graham

In Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc. v. Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share, 494 P.3d 541 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that the statute setting the petition circulator compensation at $1 per signature was unconstitutional and, thus, the lieutenant governor properly certified the petitions collected by Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share (Id. at 553–54). Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share filed a petition to place its oil and gas production tax initiative on the ballot and circulated the petition booklets, obtaining the necessary signatures for filing (Id. at 544). Six entities, known as “Resource Development Council,” opposed the petition and challenged the placement of the petition on the ballot in court, alleging that the petition circulators were paid more than $1 per signature in violation of an Alaska statute (Id.). On motion to dismiss, the lower court held that the statute requiring that compensation was capped at $1 per signature violated free speech because it was not narrowly tailored to meet the State’s compelling interests (Id. at 545). On appeal, the Resource Development Council continued to argue that the lieutenant governor improperly allowed the initiative to appear on the ballot and Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share argued that the compensation statute is not unconstitutional because the statute can be interpreted to permit compensation other than compensation per signature (Id.). Additionally, the State argued that the court did not need to reach the issue of the statute’s constitutionality (Id.). The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that the $1 per signature compensation cap was a cap on all types of compensation and that the cap placed a significant burden on political speech without any narrow tailoring towards the State’s interests (Id. at 553). The court further reasoned that the petition was properly certified by the lieutenant governor because Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share need not comply with an unconstitutional statute in its signature collection process (Id. at 554). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that the statute setting the petition circulator compensation at $1 per signature was unconstitutional and, thus, the lieutenant governor properly certified the petitions collected by Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share. (Id. at 553–54).

Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc. v. Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share

ELECTION LAW

Margot Graham

In Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc. v. Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share, 494 P.3d 541 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that the statute setting the petition circulator compensation at $1 per signature was unconstitutional and, thus, the lieutenant governor properly certified the petitions collected by Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share (Id. at 553–54). Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share filed a petition to place its oil and gas production tax initiative on the ballot and circulated the petition booklets, obtaining the necessary signatures for filing (Id. at 544). Six entities, known as “Resource Development Council,” opposed the petition and challenged the placement of the petition on the ballot in court, alleging that the petition circulators were paid more than $1 per signature in violation of an Alaska statute (Id.). On motion to dismiss, the lower court held that the statute requiring that compensation was capped at $1 per signature violated free speech because it was not narrowly tailored to meet the State’s compelling interests (Id. at 545). On appeal, the Resource Development Council continued to argue that the lieutenant governor improperly allowed the initiative to appear on the ballot and Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share argued that the compensation statute is not unconstitutional because the statute can be interpreted to permit compensation other than compensation per signature (Id.). Additionally, the State argued that the court did not need to reach the issue of the statute’s constitutionality (Id.). The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that the $1 per signature compensation cap was a cap on all types of compensation and that the cap placed a significant burden on political speech without any narrow tailoring towards the State’s interests (Id. at 553). The court further reasoned that the petition was properly certified by the lieutenant governor because Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share need not comply with an unconstitutional statute in its signature collection process (Id. at 554). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that the statute setting the petition circulator compensation at $1 per signature was unconstitutional and, thus, the lieutenant governor properly certified the petitions collected by Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share. (Id. at 553–54).