Gellert v. State

The majority conclude they need not accept the state’s argument that Chapter 201, SLA 1972, should be sustained because its subject was simply the issuance of bonds for capital improvements. Indeed, in some jurisdictions the position taken by the state here has been upheld,1 and it was the position taken by the trial court in this case. But the generally accepted view seems to be that it is the projects to be financed which form the subject matter of the proposition.2 This seems to me to be the better rule for otherwise the Alaska constitutional limitation restricting legislative enactments…