## Facts

- Supporters proposed a statewide initiative titled “Reducing Government Regulation of Transportation” for the November 1984 general election.
- The initiative would repeal state statutes regulating intrastate motor and air carriers, open entry to financially responsible carriers, and bar municipal regulation of those activities.
- The initiative also required the governor to seek repeal of the federal Jones Act, which regulates maritime shipping between U.S. ports.
- Regulated carriers (existing certificate holders) sued to enjoin ballot placement, claiming constitutional defects.
- The superior court rejected the challenges and upheld the initiative’s legal sufficiency for ballot placement.
- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed in a per curiam decision adopting the superior court’s memorandum.

## Issues

1. Whether the initiative violated the Alaska Constitution’s single-subject rule by combining intrastate carrier deregulation with a provision concerning federal maritime policy (the Jones Act).
2. Whether the Alaska Constitution implicitly required verification of initiative petition signatures in time for a full legislative session (convening and adjourning) before the election.
3. Whether including a provision directing the governor to seek repeal of a federal statute exceeded the scope of the initiative power.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment allowing the initiative to appear on the November 1984 ballot.
- The court held the initiative satisfied the single-subject requirement because its provisions were reasonably unified by the purpose of reducing transportation-related regulation affecting Alaska.
- The court declined to impose an implied constitutional timing requirement for signature verification tied to a complete intervening legislative session.
- The court upheld the directive to the governor to seek Jones Act repeal as a permissible component of a state initiative, since it did not purport to change federal law directly.

## Legal Principles

- Alaska’s single-subject limitation for initiatives is applied broadly; provisions may be grouped when they share a reasonable policy connection, even if they involve different legal regimes (state regulation and federal policy).
- Courts will not add extra-textual procedural barriers to the initiative process; implied restrictions are disfavored where the constitution and implementing law do not clearly require them.
- An initiative may direct state executive officials to pursue policy objectives (including advocating federal legislative change) so long as it operates as state law governing state officials and does not attempt to enact or repeal federal law.

## Conclusion

The Alaska Supreme Court permitted the transportation deregulation initiative to go to the voters, holding that the measure presented a single, unified subject, complied with initiative procedures without an implied legislative-session verification requirement, and could validly direct the governor to seek federal statutory repeal without intruding on federal lawmaking.


Yute Air Alaska, Inc. v. McAlpine, 698 P.2d 1173 (Alaska 1985)