Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Planned Parenthood of Alaska v. Campbell

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided June 2, 2010No. S-13826, S-13835, S-13845Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWinfree, Justice

1. I agree with the majority that the superior court correctly concluded that omis*735sions in the initiative petition summary rendered it inaccurate.1 I write further on this point to emphasize that regardless of an initiative’s subject matter, if the initiative regulates conduct and creates criminal penalties for a violation of the new code of conduct, the petition summary must, as a matter of law, generally describe both the regulated conduct and the potential penalties for misconduct. Any purported regulation of conduct must include consequences, otherwise it is meaningless; the penalties for…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. McAlpine v. University of AlaskaAlaska Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Alaska Action Center, Inc. v. Municipality of AnchorageAlaska Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Yute Air Alaska, Inc. v. McAlpineAlaska Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Municipality of Anchorage v. FrohneAlaska Supreme Court · 1977
  5. Faipeas v. Municipality of AnchorageAlaska Supreme Court · 1993

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API