Morse v. Frederick Issue: high school student suspended
for display of banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” Case Number: 03-35701 (Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals), 06-278 (U.S. Supreme Court) Status: ACLU of Alaska loss, U.S.
Supreme Court decision reported at 127 S.Ct. 2618 (2007) Summary: In January 2002, Juneau Douglas
High School senior Joseph Frederick was suspended from school
because of his off-campus display of a banner that read “Bong
Hits 4 Jesus.” The banner was displayed as many
JDHS students gathered along Glacier Avenue to watch the
Olympic Torch Relay pass along the street. After confronting
him about the banner, then-school principal Deborah Morse
suspended Joseph on the grounds that the banner advocated
drug use and violated the school’s drug policy. Joseph’s
banner did not advocate drug use, but merely referenced drugs
in a nonsensical, meaningless way. Moreover, Joseph was not
suspended for using or possessing drugs; he was suspended
only for mentioning “Bong Hits” on a banner. The
ACLU of Alaska believed this was a violation of his right
to free speech, so we filed a lawsuit to challenge the suspension
on his behalf. In 2003, U.S. District Judge John Sedwick
ruled that although Joseph’s speech was protected by
the First Amendment, the school could censor his speech if
it perceived his message to be advocating drug use in violation
of the school’s anti-drug policy. This decision
was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and in
March 2006, the court reversed the decision, finding that
Joseph’s speech was protected by the First Amendment. The
court based its decision on the longstanding rule that a
school cannot censor a student’s non-offensive speech
if it does not cause a material disruption to the educational
process. The Juneau School Board then petitioned the
U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. The Court granted
the request and overturned the Ninth Circuit’s decision. The
Court found that the phrase on the banner advocated illegal
drug use and ruled that a school could restrict such student
speech about drugs.
Hornyak v. University of Alaska Fairbanks Issue: Public radio DJ fired after
making political comments on-air Status: settled; UAF agreed to reinstate
DJ and compensate him for lost wages and damages Summary: In June 2004, University of Alaska
Fairbanks student Scott Hornyak, a/k/a DJ Spider Bui, had
his volunteer DJ privileges suspended and was fired from
his job as business manager for KSUA-FM, the University’s
radio station. Shortly after President Reagan passed
away, Hornyak was hosting his weekly show and was very critical
of Reagan’s foreign policies and his response to the
AIDS epidemic. Hornyak made very pointed comments about
Reagan’s death itself and used the show to counter
what he called the media’s “sugar-coating” of
Reagan’s record as his death was reported. Many
people, however, were offended by Hornyak’s comments. KSUA
officials responded by suspending his DJ privileges and firing
him from his work-study job as business manager for the station. Because
Hornyak was punished for speaking his mind on a public radio
show and engaging in constitutionally protected political
speech, the ACLU of Alaska Foundation represented him as
he appealed both decisions through UAA’s internal appeals
process. As a result of the ACLU of Alaska’s
advocacy on his behalf, Hornyak’s DJ suspension was
lifted, and he was reinstated as KSUA’s business manager. UAF
also reimbursed him for all lost wages during the three months
he could not work at the station and provided compensation
for all other damages he incurred.
Bussard v. Varni Issue: State employee fired after
publicly criticizing elected officials Status: settled; State of Alaska agreed
to settlement Summary: Daniel Bussard worked as a security
guard at the Capitol Building in Juneau. In February
2005, he was fired from his job after he wrote a letter to
the editor of the Juneau Empire that alleged some legislators
were drinking alcohol in the building. Because Mr. Bussard’s
letter was about a matter of public concern, firing him for
expressing his views was a violation of his right to free
speech. The ACLU of Alaska Foundation represented
Mr. Bussard when he challenged the termination decision. The
case was settled and Mr. Bussard was compensated in the amount
of $10,000 for his lost wages and other damages.
United States v. Corrie
Bosman and Kenyon Fields Issue: protestors charged with federal
crime for wearing federal agency insignias Case Number: J05-0001 MJ (PMP) (U.S. District
Court, District of Alaska) Status: criminal charges dismissed Summary: In September 2004, several
environmental activists staged a demonstration outside of
the U.S. Forest Service Building in Sitka. The demonstration
involved a parody of U.S. Forest Service employees shredding
public comment documents. Among the demonstrators,
two were dressed as Forest Service employees, one as President
Bush, one as Smokey the Bear and another as Vanna White. About
four months after the protest, two demonstrators who wore
old Forest Service sport coatswith the agency’s
insignia on the frontwere charged with violating an
obscure federal law that prohibits use or possession of a
federal agency insignia without permission. The demonstrators
dressed as President Bush, Smokey the Bear and Vanna White
were not charged. The demonstrators had purchased the
jackets at a thrift store and used them in conjunction with
an exercise of their First Amendment right to peacefully
protest. Since the law was only intended to prevent
individuals from using a federal agency logo or insignia
to intentionally deceive the public, the ACLU of Alaska saw
this as an attempt by the Forest Service to punish the protestors
for exercising their free speech rights and assisted with
their defense in federal court. The charges were quickly
dismissed after the ACLU of Alaska became involved in the
defense.
Alaskans for a Common Language v. Alakayak Issue: State law requiring government
to conduct business only in English Case Number: S-10590 (Alaska Supreme Court) Status: Alaska Supreme Court
ruled that the portion of the English-Only Law that required
the State government and government employees to communicate
only in English is unconstitutional; decision reported at 170
P.3d 183 (Alaska 2007) Summary: In 1998, Alaskans approved a ballot
initiative proclaiming English to be the official language
of the State of Alaska. This law would restrict the state government
from conducting business in any language other than English,
with limited exceptions. This “English-Only” law
would apply both to written government documents and to oral
communications as well. The ACLU of Alaska determined the law
was unconstitutional and filed suit, along with the Native
American Rights Fund and others, against the State. In 1999,
Superior Court Judge Torrisi issued a preliminary injunction
suspending enactment of the law until a hearing regarding its
constitutionality could be held. After three years of delays
and additional litigation, Judge Torrisi ruled that the English-Only
initiative violates the Alaska Constitution’s free speech
provision by unduly limiting the ability of public officials
and government employees to communicate with members of the
public in need of their assistance. The judge agreed with the
plaintiffs’ argument that allowing government employees
and public officials to communicate with members of the public
in languages other than English actually makes government more
efficient, not less efficient, as supporters of the
law claimed. The sponsors of the initiative appealed this ruling
to the Alaska Supreme Court. Oral argument was in June 2003,
and a final decision was rendered on November 2, 2007. Under
the Court's ruling, the portion of the English-Only Law that
required the State government and government employees to communicate
only in English is unconstitutional. However, the Court's
ruling allowed one part of the English-Only law to stand: the
State government may communicate in any language, but must
keep English versions of official records and documents.
II. PRIVACY
ACLU of Alaska, Jane Doe, and Jane Roe v. State
of Alaska Issue: possession of small amounts of
marijuana in the home for personal use Case Number: 1JU-06-7893CI (Superior Court),
S-12370 (Alaska Supreme Court) Status: ACLU of Alaska victory; decision on
appeal pending before the Alaska Supreme Court Summary: In June 2006, the Governor signed
HB 149 into law. This legislation provides criminal penalties
for all possession of marijuana, despite the fact that such
penalties contradict longstanding Alaska legal precedent. In
1975, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in Ravin v. State that
possession of small amounts of marijuana in one’s home
is protected by the State Constitution's privacy provision – a
decision repeatedly affirmed by Alaskan courts, most recently
in 2004. The ACLU of Alaska Foundation filed a lawsuit to challenge
the law. In this case the ACLU of Alaska represented two individuals
who use marijuana within the privacy of their homes, Jane Doe
and Jane Roe. Both plaintiffs had to remain anonymous, as they
were subject to arrest and prosecution for their use of marijuana
under the new law. The ACLU of Alaska is also a plaintiff on
behalf of itself, as a civil liberties organization, as well
as its members, some of whom use marijuana in the privacy of
their homes. In July 2006, Superior Court Judge Patricia Collins
struck down the law as an unconstitutional violation of the
right to privacy. Judge Collins ruled that the right to privacy
protects an adult’s personal use and possession of up
to one ounce of marijuana in the home. The State appealed this
decision to the Alaska Supreme Court and oral arguments were
heard on March 20, 2008.
Hinman v. State of Alaska Issue: home addresses of licensed nurses
made publicly available on State website Case Number: 3AN-05-07050 CI (Alaska Superior
Court) Status: active litigation; Superior Court
decision pending Summary: The ACLU of Alaska Foundation filed
a lawsuit on behalf of all licensed nurses in the State because
the Alaska Division of Occupational Licensing (DOL) makes personal
address information contained in all occupational licensing
files available to the public. Not only is this address information
contained in the paper files maintained by DOL, but it is also
included in an online searchable database on the State’s
website, and on informational CDs distributed by the State.
The files maintained by DOL are public records, but a balance
must be struck between open access to public information and
protection of an individual’s privacy. This case seeks
to establish that the sensitive personal information contained
in these public records should not be subject to general public
disclosure. Nurses support this case because many fear that
the public availability of their addresses could subject them
to harassment, stalking, and other dangers, including identity
theft. Oral arguments were held last October and a Superior
Court decision is pending.
Child Support Services Division Release of Social
Security Numbers Issue: unauthorized public release
of Social Security Numbers Status: settled; State agreed to restrict
public distribution of Social Security Numbers Summary: The Child Support Services
Division of the Alaska Department of Revenue (CSSD) agreed
to the ACLU of Alaska’s request to keep the Social
Security Numbers (SSNs) of a group of commercial fishermen
private. The ACLU of Alaska filed its request on behalf
of a commercial fisherman who received a list of names of
individuals subject to child support enforcement orders that
included their SSNs. CSSD was releasing SSNs in order
to identify commercial fishermen who were in arrears on their
support obligations. This policy was in conflict with the
law governing the use of SSNs, infringed on individual privacy
rights, and provided information to the public that put people
at risk for identity theft. Upon the ACLU of Alaska’s
request, CSSD agreed to cease using Social Security Numbers
and to start using other appropriate means, such as fishing
permit numbers, to identify commercial fishermen subject
to income withholding orders for child support.
Sampson v. State of Alaska Issue: right to make end-of-life decisions Case Number: S-9338 (Alaska Supreme Court) Status: Alaska Supreme Court ruled that
the State could restrict the ability of adults to seek physician
aid in dying; decision reported at 31 P.3d 88 (Alaska 2001) Summary: The ACLU of Alaska submitted
a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that Alaska’s criminalization
of physician aid in dying violates the rights of mentally
competent, terminally ill patients who are dying and wish
to make end of life decisions free from government interference. In
its brief, the ACLU of Alaska argued that the privacy, liberty
and equal protection clauses of the Alaska Constitution protect
the right of patients who are deemed mentally competent and
terminally ill to seek physician aid in dying. Unfortunately,
the Alaska Supreme Court disagreed. The Court sympathized
with the plaintiffs in the case, but declined to find that
an affirmative right to physician aid in dying is contained
in the Alaska Constitution, explaining that this is a matter
for the legislature, not the courts, to decide.
III. RELIGIOUS
LIBERTY
Coonrod, Metcalfe, and ACLU of Alaska v. State
of Alaska Issue: property tax exemption for religious
school teacher housing Case Number: 3AN-06-8866CI (Superior Court) Status: active litigation Summary: In 2006, the Alaska legislature passed
a law that exempts from taxation any property owned by religious
organizations and used as housing for teachers in religious
or parochial schools. Both the U. S. and Alaska Constitutions
bar the government from showing favoritism for one religion
over another, or for religion generally over non-religion.
The ACLU of Alaska believes that this legislation has the impermissible
effect of carving out special privileges for religion that
do not apply to non-religious interests. The ACLU of Alaska
filed a lawsuit on behalf of two Anchorage residents to challenge
the law and have it declared unconstitutional. Oral argument
was on February 28, 2008.
Prayer at Wasilla Planning Commission Meetings Issue: Sectarian Prayer at Wasilla
Planning Commission Meetings Status: settled; Planning Commission
agreed to cease sectarian prayer at meetings Summary: In 2005, the Wasilla Planning
Commission was opening its monthly public meetings with sectarian
prayer in violation of the strict constitutional prohibition
of such activity. After receiving numerous complaints
from residents of Wasilla, the ACLU of Alaska sent a letter
to the City Attorney requesting that the Planning Commission
immediately cease this practice. The City Attorney
agreed with the ACLU of Alaska’s analysis and advised
the Commission on the unconstitutional nature of including
sectarian prayer at public meetings. The City Attorney
confirmed to the ACLU of Alaska that the Commission agreed
to follow his advice.
Fairbanks North Star Borough
Ten Commandments Display Issue: Ten Commandments display
at the FNSB Assembly Building Status: settled; FNSB agreed to create
a display that meets constitutional requirements Summary: In the Spring of 2004, the
Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) installed a display entitled “Our
Heritage: Words That Shape and Guide Us,” in
the FNSB Assembly Building. The display included the
Ten Commandments, the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, and
the Declaration of Independence. The intent of the
display was to show historical documents that influenced
our legal system. Because the display included the
Ten Commandments, a plainly religious document, and did not
have a clear, overall secular theme, the display was an unconstitutional
endorsement of religion in violation of the Establishment
Clause. The ACLU of Alaska challenged this display
and the Borough was forced to change it so that it would
comply with the Constitution. The title of the display
is now “Historical Influences on the Law.” The
display still includes the Ten Commandments, but now it also
includes the following documents, all arranged according
to their historical order: Hammurabi’s Code
of Laws, the Ethics of Confucius, the Roman Twelve Tables,
the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, the U.S.
Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and a Code of Conduct from
the Manataka American Indian Council. The display also
includes information about each document that explains the
document’s historical significance and how it has influenced
our current legal system.
IV. REPRODUCTIVE
FREEDOM
State of Alaska v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska,
et al. Issue: State law requiring parental consent
for abortions provided to women under 17 Case Number: S-11365 (Alaska Supreme Court) Status: ACLU of Alaska victory, Alaska
Supreme Court ruled that the parental consent law violates
the right to privacy contained in the Alaska Constitution;
decision reported at 171 P.3d 577 (Alaska 2007) Summary: This case was filed by the ACLU of
Alaska Foundation and the Center for Reproductive Rights on
behalf of Planned Parenthood of Alaska and local doctors. The
plaintiffs in this case sought to protect the privacy rights
and the health of their patients by challenging the constitutionality
of the Alaska Parental Consent Law. This law forces women under
the age of 17 to overcome state-imposed hurdles in order to
exercise their right to make reproductive choices. Under the
this law, pregnant minors who choose to carry their pregnancies
to term are deemed capable of giving informed consent for all
medical treatments including undergoing a major medical procedure
such as a cesarean section, but pregnant minors who choose
to terminate their pregnancies are deemed incapable of providing
such consent. In October 2003, Superior Court Judge Sen Tan
ruled that the equal protection guarantee in the Alaska Constitution
prohibits the State from requiring parental consent for minors
to obtain abortions. The State appealed this ruling to the
Alaska Supreme Court. Oral argument was held in April 2005,
and in November 2007, the Supreme Court struck the PCA down
as unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the law violates
the explicit right to privacy contained in the Alaska Constitution
by giving parents "veto power" over a minor's decision
to terminate a pregnancy.
State of Alaska v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska,
et al. Issue: Medicaid coverage for medically
necessary abortions Case Number: S-9109 (Alaska Supreme Court) Status: ACLU of Alaska victory, decision
reported at 28 P.3d 904 (Alaska 2001) Summary: In 1998, the Alaska legislature
eliminated Medicaid funding for medically necessary abortions
for low-income women in Alaska. Under this funding
scheme, poor women with epilepsy, cancer, heart disease and
many other conditions for whom pregnancy involves severe
health consequences, but not death, were denied Medicaid
coverage for abortions. The ACLU of Alaska Foundation
filed suit, arguing that this scheme was unconstitutional
because it violated the Alaska Constitution’s privacy
and equality guarantees. Superior Court Judge Sen Tan
agreed and ruled that although the State does not have to
fund any medical care for poor people, once it does, it cannot
then withhold funds from some eligible people simply because
they choose to exercise a constitutional right; in this case,
the right to terminate a pregnancy. The State appealed and
the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed Judge Tan’s ruling.
Planned Parenthood of Alaska v. State of Alaska Issue: restrictions on abortion procedures Case Number: 3AN-97-6019CI (Alaska Superior
Court) Status: “partial-birth” abortion
law found unconstitutional Summary: In 1997, the ACLU of Alaska
Foundation and the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy
challenged the State’s ban on so-called “partial-birth” abortions. Superior
Court Judge John Reese struck down the law, holding that
Alaska’s ban violated a woman’s fundamental right
to an abortion and her right to privacy under the Alaska
Constitution. Judge Reese found that the law was so
vague that it could apply to virtually any abortion procedure
and that this vagueness was a deliberate attempt by the legislature
to prevent doctors from performing abortions because of fear
of prosecution. The State appealed the decision to
the Alaska Supreme Court, but before the court ruled on the
case, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a similar law in
Nebraska in Stenberg v. Carhart. As a result
of that decision, the Alaska Attorney General dropped the
State’s appeal, leaving Judge Reese’s decision
that the ban was unconstitutionally vague as the law of the
state.
Valley Hospital Ass'n, Inc. v. Mat-Su Coalition
for Choice Issue: whether hospitals could decline
to perform abortions Status: ACLU of Alaska victory, decision
reported at 948 P.2d 963 (Alaska, 1997) Summary: This case is the Alaska state
version of Roe v. Wade. It established that,
under Alaska law, “reproductive rights are fundamental,” “they
are encompassed within the right to privacy expressed in
article I, section 22 of the Alaska constitution,” and “these
fundamental reproductive rights include the right to an abortion.” In
this case, the Alaska Supreme Court held that the state statute
that provided that hospitals were not required to provide
abortions was unconstitutional with respect to public and
quasi-public institutions. The hospital in question was unable
to show a compelling state interest that would allow interference
with a woman’s fundamental rights. The only interest
the hospital could show was political and “moral” – the
hospital had provided abortions and given privileges to physicians
who performed abortions until 1992, when a newly elected
hospital board enacted an anti-abortion policy.
V. LESBIAN
AND GAY RIGHTS
AkCLU, et al.v. State of Alaska, Municipality of
Anchorage Issue: employment benefits for employees
with same-sex domestic partners Case Number: 3AN-99-11179CI (Superior Court),
S-10459 (Alaska Supreme Court) Status: ACLU of Alaska victory, decision
reported at 122 P.3d 781 (Alaska 2005) Summary: In 1999, the ACLU of Alaska
filed a lawsuit challenging the denial of employment benefits
for the partners of gay and lesbian employees of the State
of Alaska and the Municipality of Anchorage. Employment
benefits were conditioned on marriage, so spouses of heterosexual
employees were entitled to health insurance, retirement funds,
and pensions. Because the Alaska Constitution prohibits
the State from recognizing marriages between gay and lesbian
couples, partners of gay and lesbian employees could never
get those benefits, and gay and lesbian government employees
were thus essentially denied equal benefits for equal work. The
Alaska Supreme Court agreed, and in October 2005, ruled that
the benefits programs offered by the State and Municipality
of Anchorage violated the right to equal protection of the
law for employees with same-sex domestic partners. The
Court ordered the State and Municipality to implement benefits
plans that provided the same benefits for employees with
same-sex domestic partners as for married employees.
PFLAG/Anchorage, et al. v. Municipality of Anchorage Issue: censorship of Gay Pride exhibit
at Loussac Library Case Number: A01-173 CV (JKS) (U.S. District
Court, District of Alaska) Status: ACLU of Alaska victory Summary: In the summer of 2001, Anchorage
Mayor George Wuerch arbitrarily censored a Gay Pride exhibit
called “Celebrate Diversity Under the Midnight Sun” at
the Loussac Library. Organizers of Gay Pride Month
activities in Anchorage had permission from the library to
put up a display in the public display area, and they met
with library staff before the exhibit was posted to ensure
its acceptability. Nevertheless, the morning after
it was put up, Mayor Wuerch ordered the display removed from
the library walls. He issued this edict without ever
having seen the exhibit, claiming that the exhibit was “advocacy” and
that he found it to be inappropriate for a public library. The
sponsors of the exhibit met with the Mayor and asked him
how they could modify the exhibit to alleviate his concerns,
but the Mayor refused to compromise. The ACLU of Alaska
Foundation filed suit on behalf of six local organizations
and more than two dozen individuals asserting that their
First Amendment rights were violated by the Mayor’s
censorship of the exhibit. U.S. District Court Judge James
Singleton agreed with the ACLU of Alaska and issued an order
allowing the sponsors of the exhibit to reinstall it at the
Loussac Library.
VI. RIGHTS
OF CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS
Murtagh, et al.,v. State of Alaska
Issue: law restricting criminal defendants’ ability
to conduct pre-trial investigations Case Number: S-11988/S-12007 (Alaska Supreme Court) Status: ACLU of Alaska victory, Alaska Supreme court struck
down several sections of the law including the requirements that defense representatives
must provide unsolicited advice to victims, must get written consent before
interviewing victims, and must not contact witnesses who have informed the
defense that they do not wish to be contacted; decision reported at
169 P.3d 602 (Alaska 2007) Summary: In 1997, the ACLU of Alaska Foundation filed a lawsuit
on behalf of criminal defense attorneys and investigators seeking to challenge
portions of the Alaska Victims Rights Act that restricted their ability to
defend their clients and investigate their cases. The challenged laws were
aimed at shielding crime victims and witnesses from defense investigators,
but in doing so, violated the rights of criminal defendants. After a lengthy
pre-trial period, the case went to trial in November 2004. In May 2005, Superior
Court Judge Sen Tan ruled that some portions of the statute were unconstitutional.
Judge Tan ruled that the provisions of the law obligating defense representatives
to get written releases before interviewing witnesses and prohibiting them
from taping interviews violated rights of equal protection and due process.
Judge Tan upheld the provisions that require defense counsel to advise victims
verbally that they have the right to not answer questions. Because the decision
invalidated some portions of the statute and upheld others, both the State
and the ACLU of Alaska appealed the decision to the Alaska Supreme Court. On
October 26, 2007, the Alaska Supreme Court issued its decision which struck
down parts of the state law which it deemed unconstitutional, stating: 1.)
It is unconstitutional to require that defense representatives give unsolicited
advice to victims and witnesses that they are not required to talk to the defense
and may have a prosecutor present if they do (although such advice must still
be given to victims of sexual offenses or domestic violence crimes); 2.) It
is unconstitutional to require that defense representatives must get written
consent before interviewing the victim and any witnesses in a sexual offense
prosecution; 3.) It is unconstitutional to prohibit defense representatives
in sexual offense cases from contacting witnesses who have in writing informed
the defense that the witness does not wish to be contacted; and 4.) It is unconstitutional
to bar undisclosed electronic monitoring of victim or witness statements.
VII. VOTING
RIGHTS
Nick, et al. v. Bethel, Alaska, et al. Issue: enforcement of the minority language
provisions of the Voting Rights Act Case Number: 3:07-cv-0098-TMB (U.S. District
Court, District of Alaska) Status: active litigation; the case is in
the discovery stage Summary: The ACLU of Alaska Foundation joined
with the Native American Rights Fund (NARF) to file a lawsuit
on behalf of four Bethel-area Alaska Natives charging state
and local elections officials with ongoing violations of
the federal Voting Rights Act. The lawsuit alleges that state
and local officials have denied voter assistance and failed
to provide oral language assistance and voting materials
to citizens who primarily speak Yup’ik, the first language
of many Alaska Natives in the Bethel region.Under the Voting
Rights Act, state and local elections officials have an obligation
to provide oral language assistance in Yup’ik, and
ballots and other voting materials translated into Yup’ik,
an obligation the State has not lived up to. This case seeks
to ensure that people who need assistance to vote receive
it from someone of their choosing, that election officials
provide bilingual staff to help voters at the polls, and
that they translate ballots and other election materials
into Yup’ik. The case is in the discovery stage.
Green Party of Alaska v. State of Alaska Issue: State’s method of determining
official party status for political organizations Case Number: 3AN0309936CI (Superior Court);
S-11964 (Alaska Supreme Court) Status: State’s method of determining
political party status upheld; decision reported at 147 P.3d
728 (Alaska 2006) Summary: In 2003, State law required
the candidates of recognized political parties to receive
at least three percent of the vote in the race for governor
in order for the party to maintain official party status.
The Green Party challenged the law on the grounds that by
selecting only the governor’s race as the qualifying
benchmark, and not also including results from the preceding
U.S. Senator and U.S. Representative races, the State did
not employ the least restrictive means of determining party
status, thus violating the Green Party’s constitutional
rights. Superior Court Judge Stowers disagreed with
the Green Party and upheld the law. The Green Party
appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court, and the ACLU of Alaska
filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Green
Party to support the ballot access rights of small political
parties. The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the lower
court’s ruling.
Green Party of Alaska & Republican
Moderate Party, Inc. v. State of Alaska Issues State law prohibited
political parties from conducting joint primary elections Case Number: S-11272 (Alaska Supreme Court) Status: law prohibiting joint primary
elections struck down; decision reported at 118 P.3d 1054
(Alaska 2005) Summary: The Alaska Supreme Court
ruled in favor of the Green and Republican Moderate Parties
and upheld the right of political parties to conduct joint
primary elections. The decision was in line with the
arguments advanced by the ACLU of Alaska in its friend-of-the-court
brief filed in support of the two parties. In affirming
the decision of the lower court, the Alaska Supreme Court
held that the Alaska Constitution protects a political party’s
right to determine for itself who will participate in its
primary election. This right now definitively includes
the ability of a party to share a primary ballot with another
political party in order to seek the participation of members
of the other party who, if forced to choose between the two,
would only vote in their own party’s primary election.
VIII. YOUTH
RIGHTS
Bartlett High School Pledge
of Allegiance Issue: right of students to
not participate in Pledge of Allegiance Status: ACLU of Alaska victory Summary: The ACLU of Alaska received several
complaints about students being chastised for not singing
the national anthem and being pressured to participate in
the Pledge of Allegiance at Bartlett High School in Anchorage. In
April 2005, the ACLU of Alaska sent a letter to the Bartlett
principal and explained that students have the right to decline
to participate in singing the national anthem, to not pledge
allegiance to the flag, to not stand during the pledge, and
may not be forced to leave the room while others pledge allegiance. The
ACLU of Alaska requested that the Bartlett administration
notify each member of the staff in writing of these rights. The
principal complied with this request and notified each Bartlett
staff member in writing of the policy regarding forced participation
in the pledge and/or disciplinary actions as a result of
non-participation.
Treacy v. Municipality of Anchorage Issue: juvenile curfew law Case Number: S-10149 (Alaska Supreme Court) Status: ACLU of Alaska loss, decision reported
at 91 P.3d 252 (Alaska 2004) Summary: In 1999, the ACLU of Alaska Foundation
filed a lawsuit on behalf of parents and teens who sought
to challenge the Anchorage municipal curfew ordinance. The
ACLU of Alaska argued that the curfew ordinance violated
Alaskans’ constitutional rights to liberty, privacy,
equality, freedom of expression, freedom of association,
and due process. In March 2001, Judge Rene Gonzalez
struck down the ordinance as unconstitutional. He
determined that the law was overbroad and violated parents’ rights
to raise their children free from government interference. The
municipality appealed, and the Alaska Supreme Court reversed
Judge Gonzales’ ruling, determining that the ordinance
was constitutional.
