State v. Planned Parenthood of the Great Nw., 436 P.3d 984, 991 (Alaska 2019) (citing Premera Blue Cross v. State, Dep't of Com., Cmty. & Econ. Dev., Div. of Ins., 171 P.3d 1110, 1115 (Alaska 2007)). Kohlhaas v. State, 518 P.3d 1095, 1104 (Alaska 2022) (first alteration added) (quoting Planned Parenthood of the Great Nw., 436 P.3d at 991-92). We acknowledge that we have applied the facial challenge standard differently in certain cases, but we assume for the purposes of this decision that the more lenient facial challenge standard applies.
On November 3, 2020, Alaska voters made three "sweeping changes to Alaska's system of elections" by approving the "Alaska's Better Elections Initiative" ("Ballot Measure 2"). Kohlhaas v. State, 518 P.3d 1095, 1100 (Alaska 2022). Ballot Measure 2 (1) "repealed the existing system of party primaries in favor of an open primary"; (2) "adopted ranked-choice voting for the general election"; and (3) implemented a series of amendments to Alaska's campaign-finance laws that "addressed the use of 'dark money' in elections."
We interpret the Alaska Constitution "according to reason, practicality, and common sense," considering the plain meaning, purpose, and framers’ intent.Kohlhaas v. State , 518 P.3d 1095, 1103 (Alaska 2022).
Cf. id. (concluding that mootness repeatedly would circumvent review of violation of article III, section 16 ).See, e.g. , Kohlhaas v. State , 518 P.3d 1095, 1100 (Alaska 2022) (explaining reasoning for previous summary order of expedited appeal of ranked-choice voting ballot initiative); Young v. State , 502 P.3d 964, 970 (Alaska 2022) ("[D]eadlines of the initiative process are not inherently so restrictive as to thwart judicial review, especially given our courts’ practice of dealing with elections issues expeditiously."); State v. Arctic Vill. Council , 495 P.3d 313, 319 (Alaska 2021) (explaining reasoning for previous summary order issued after hearing expedited oral arguments "that same day"); Ulmer v. Alaska Rest. & Beverage Ass'n , 33 P.3d 773, 778 (Alaska 2001) (denying public interest exception to appeal of initiative proposal because, "[a]lthough such appeals typically must be decided by election day to avoid becoming moot, there is no reason to believe that we cannot resolve such appeals in a timely fashion"); McAlpine v. Univ. of Alaska , 762 P.2d 81, 82 (Alaska 1988) (reviewing expedited appeal challenging referendum under article XI, section 7
AS 15.15.350, .25.010. We provided in-depth discussion of the changes to Alaska's election law in Kohlhaas v. State , 518 P.3d 1095, 1102-03 (Alaska 2022). Ballot Measure 2 also required greater disclosure of political funding sources, Ballot Measure No. 2, §§ 1, 9, 17, SLA 2020, which this opinion does not discuss because those provisions are not at issue here.
Under Alaska’s sliding scale approach to statutory interpretation, "the plainer the statutory language is, the more convincing the evidence of contrary legislative purpose or intent must be."Kohlhaas v. State, 518 P.3d 1095, 1103 (Alaska 2022).
" "We do not mechanically apply the plain meaning rule, using instead a sliding scale approach to statutory interpretation, in which the plainer the statutory language is, the more convincing the evidence of contrary legislative purpose or intent must be."Kohlhaas v. State , 518 P.3d 1095, 1103-04 (Alaska 2022).