Alaska Law Review

The Item Veto and the Threat of Appropriations Bundling in Alaska

Nicholas Passarello — Tue, 14 May 2013 11:48:00 PDT

The item veto power forms an important check on the legislature in many states, including Alaska. The power allows the governor to veto individual items in an appropriations bill rather than vetoing or signing the bill as a whole. In 2011 the Alaska State Legislature contemplated challenging this crucial executive power. A proposed draft of the annual capital appropriations bill contained language that linked each energy appropriation to all the others, providing that if the governor struck one item then none of the items would go into effect. Further, the legislature inserted language providing that none of the proposed energy appropriations would go into effect if the section of the bill linking them together were successfully challenged in court. While neither provision was included in the final version of the bill signed into law, they prompted a controversy about whether such language would comport with the requirements of the state constitution. If they had been passed, the provisions would indeed have been unconstitutional and invalid, as they usurp the governor's constitutional item veto power and violate the confinement clause's requirement that the content of appropriations bills be limited to appropriations.

The Awareness of Wrongdoing Requirements in the Wake of Hazelwood

Brian Flanagan — Tue, 14 May 2013 11:47:52 PDT

State v. Hazelwood shook Alaska's jurisprudence and suggested the end of the due process requirement of awareness of wrongdoing for serious criminal convictions. However, prior and subsequent case law suggest a more limited principle that the awareness of wrongdoing requirement only applies to cases involving omission liability or willful violation, not to the entirety of criminal law, and Hazelwood would survive only as an extension of this distinction. Still, premising such a requirement on judicial classification of offenses as positive action or omission liability does not appear to have emerged by design, and the result has the potential for inconsistency, arbitrariness, and misapplication. This Note first demonstrates that the only recognizable pattern to emerge from the case law is to require an awareness of wrongdoing for omission offenses and for violations of statutes that specifically require willful violation and second argues that the requirement of awareness of wrongdoing should not hinge on omission versus affirmative action liability, because it has too great a potential for arbitrary and inconsistent application.

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act Compliance & Nonsubsistence Areas: How Can Alaska Thaw Out Rural & Alaska Native Subsistence Rights?

Miranda Strong — Tue, 14 May 2013 11:47:38 PDT

The Alaska Constitution prevents the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act's (ANILCA) rural subsistence priority from being enforced. The Federal Government currently manages subsistence on federal lands in Alaska and Alaska can only resume management if it becomes ANILCA compliant. The current federal management system does not sufficiently protect rural and Alaska Natives' subsistence rights. Alaska's Legislature must overcome the rural-urban divide to amend its constitution to become ANILCA compliant again by providing a modified rural priority that includes urban Alaska Natives. The Alaska Legislature should repeal the nonsubsistence zones statute because it denies federally defined rural areas the state's subsistence priority.

Protection of Our Elderly: A Multidisciplinary Collaborative Solution for Alaska

Elisia Gatmen Kupris — Tue, 14 May 2013 11:47:13 PDT

The Right to Challenge the Accuracy of Breath Test Results Under Alaska Law

Paul A. Clark — Tue, 14 May 2013 11:47:05 PDT

Section 28.90.020 of the Alaska Statutes provides that in prosecutions for drunk driving, "if an offense described under this title requires that a chemical test of a person's breath produce a particular result, and the chemical test is administered by a properly calibrated instrument approved by the Department of Public Safety, the result described by statute is not affected by the instrument's working tolerance." This provision appears to prohibit the defense from calling into question the accuracy of a breath test by introducing evidence of uncertainty inherent in the testing procedure. The statute is problematic because due process requires that defendants be permitted to challenge the evidence presented against them. Moreover, there is a strong argument that basing conviction on a single breath sample that is within a known margin of error is a per se violation of due process, as it bases guilt or innocence on a purely fortuitous result. This Article examines the issues with Alaska's statute and proposes using multiple breath tests as a simple, cost-effective solution to this potential abuse of due process.

Copyright Protection’s Challenges and Alaska Natives’ Cultural Property

Stuart Schüssel — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:35:17 PST

Anderson v. State: The Consent to Search Doctrine Revisited

Andrew G. Perrin — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:35:16 PST

Your Papers, Please: Police Authority to Request Identification from a Passenger During a Traffic Stop in Alaska

Patricia Haines — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:35:15 PST

Where the Wild Things Were: A Chance to Keep Alaska’s Challenge of the Roadless Rule out of the Supreme Court

Kirsten Rønholt — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:35:14 PST

The Continuing Vitality of Ravin v. State: Alaskans Still Have a Constitutional Right to Possess Marijuana in the Privacy of Their Homes

Jason Brandeis — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:35:13 PST

Alaska Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Year in Review 1996

J. Catherine Bramlage et al. — Thu, 10 May 2012 18:33:19 PDT

Assignability of Legal Malpractice Claims

Jennifer K. McDannell — Thu, 10 May 2012 18:33:17 PDT

Jurisdiction and the Hunt: Subsistence Regulation, ANILCA and Totemoff

David G. Shapiro — Thu, 10 May 2012 18:33:16 PDT

Creditors’ vs. Debtors’ Rights under Alaska Foreclosure Law: Which Way Does the Balance Swing

Joseph E. Gotch Jr. — Thu, 10 May 2012 18:33:14 PDT

Hitting Deadbeat Parents Where It Hurts: Punitive Mechanisms in Child Support Enforcement

Pamela Forrestall Roper — Thu, 10 May 2012 18:33:13 PDT

Improving the Court Process for Alaska’s Children in Need of Aid

Susanne Di Pietro et al. — Thu, 10 May 2012 18:33:12 PDT

Converting to a Limited Liability Company: Considerations for Alaska Business Organizations

Katherine Quigley — Thu, 10 May 2012 18:33:06 PDT

Sexual Abuser Insurance in Alaska: A Note on St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. F.H.; K.W.

Ward S. Connolly — Thu, 10 May 2012 18:33:05 PDT

The State of Caveat Emptor in Alaska as it Applies to Real Property

James R. Pomeranz — Thu, 10 May 2012 18:33:04 PDT

ANCSA Corporation Lands and the Dependent Indian Community Category of Indian Country

David M. Blurton — Thu, 10 May 2012 18:33:03 PDT