Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 29.26.110 (2026)
Application for petition
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 29.26.110. Application for petition.
(a) An initiative or referendum is proposed by filing an application with the municipal clerk containing the ordinance or resolution to be initiated or the ordinance or resolution to be referred and the name and address of a contact person and an alternate to whom all correspondence relating to the petition may be sent. An application shall be signed by at least 10 voters who will sponsor the petition. An additional sponsor may be added at any time before the petition is filed by submitting the name of the sponsor to the clerk. Within two weeks the clerk shall certify the application if the clerk finds that it is in proper form and, for an initiative petition, that the matter
(1) is not restricted by AS 29.26.100;
(2) includes only a single subject;
(3) relates to a legislative rather than to an administrative matter; and
(4) would be enforceable as a matter of law.
(b) A decision by the clerk on an application for petition is subject to judicial review.
(a) An initiative or referendum is proposed by filing an application with the municipal clerk containing the ordinance or resolution to be initiated or the ordinance or resolution to be referred and the name and address of a contact person and an alternate to whom all correspondence relating to the petition may be sent. An application shall be signed by at least 10 voters who will sponsor the petition. An additional sponsor may be added at any time before the petition is filed by submitting the name of the sponsor to the clerk. Within two weeks the clerk shall certify the application if the clerk finds that it is in proper form and, for an initiative petition, that the matter
(1) is not restricted by AS 29.26.100;
(2) includes only a single subject;
(3) relates to a legislative rather than to an administrative matter; and
(4) would be enforceable as a matter of law.
(b) A decision by the clerk on an application for petition is subject to judicial review.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Kodiak Island Borough v. Mahoney, 71 P.3d 896 (Alaska 2003).
Kodiak Island Borough v. Mahoney, 71 P.3d 896 (Alaska 2003). “” The Borough contends that the municipal initiative statute, AS 29.26.110, requires a clerk to conclude with certainty that the substantive proposal of an initiative is constitutional before she certifies it.”
Pebble Ltd. P'ship v. Lake & Peninsula Borough, 262 P.3d 598 (Alaska 2011). “The first is based on AS 29.26.110(a)(1)'s incorporation of AS *600 29.”
Swetzof v. Philemonoff, 203 P.3d 471 (Alaska 2009). “[23] This revision added AS 29.26.110, which in part (a)(3) codifies the legislative-enactment restriction on municipal initiatives.”
Faipeas v. Mun. of Anchorage, 860 P.2d 1214 (Alaska 1993). “AS 29.26.110. The clerk must certify the referendum application within two weeks if the clerk determines the application is in the proper form.”
Carmony v. McKechnie, 217 P.3d 818 (Alaska 2009). “In rejecting the application, the borough clerk stated that the proposal could not be certified under AS 29.26.110(a)(4) because it was unenforceable as a matter of law: [Tlhe ordinance proposed conflicts with Borough Code, Alaska Statute, and the Alaska State Constitution, as…”
Griswold v. City of Homer, 186 P.3d 558 (Alaska 2008). “" [2] AS 29.26.110(a) provides in relevant part: [T]he clerk shall certify the application if the clerk finds that it is in proper form and, for an initiative petition, that the matter (1) is not restricted by AS 29.”
Sitkans for Responsible Gov't v. City & Borough of Sitka, 274 P.3d 486 (Alaska 2012). “AS 29.26.110(a)(4). 41 . 608 P.2d 759 (Alaska 1980).”
Mun. of Anchorage v. Holleman, 321 P.3d 378 (Alaska 2014). “AS 29.26.110(a) now requires a municipal clerk to certify, "for an initiative petition, that the matter .”
Price v. Dahl, 912 P.2d 541 (Alaska 1996). “AS 29.26.110 provides that the municipal clerk must certify a petition for a referendum within two weeks if the application is in proper form.”
Swetzof v. Philemonoff, 192 P.3d 992 (Alaska 2008). “15] But given the mandatory and time-limited language of Application I, the nature of the proceedings that must take place before the RCA, and the uncertainty of the ultimate result, we believe that the judicial imposition of an implicit condition of RCA approval is both…”
Frank Griswold v. City of Homer (Alaska 2025). “None of these criticisms establishes or even suggests that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague. 67 C. Attorney’s Fees Griswold’s final claims relate to the superior court’s attorney’s fee award.”
Mun. of Anchorage v. Holleman (Alaska 2014). “AS 29.26.110(a) now requires a municipal clerk to certify, “for an initiative petition, that the matter .”
— Alaska Stat. § 29.26.110(a) — 5 cases
Griswold v. City of Homer, 186 P.3d 558 (Alaska 2008). “" [2] AS 29.26.110(a) provides in relevant part: [T]he clerk shall certify the application if the clerk finds that it is in proper form and, for an initiative petition, that the matter (1) is not restricted by AS 29.”
Kodiak Island Borough v. Mahoney, 71 P.3d 896 (Alaska 2003). “” The Borough contends that the municipal initiative statute, AS 29.26.110, requires a clerk to conclude with certainty that the substantive proposal of an initiative is constitutional before she certifies it.”
Swetzof v. Philemonoff, 203 P.3d 471 (Alaska 2009). “[23] This revision added AS 29.26.110, which in part (a)(3) codifies the legislative-enactment restriction on municipal initiatives.”
Mun. of Anchorage v. Holleman, 321 P.3d 378 (Alaska 2014). “AS 29.26.110(a) now requires a municipal clerk to certify, "for an initiative petition, that the matter .”
Mun. of Anchorage v. Holleman (Alaska 2014). “AS 29.26.110(a) now requires a municipal clerk to certify, “for an initiative petition, that the matter .”
— Alaska Stat. § 29.26.110(a)(1) — 1 case
Pebble Ltd. P'ship v. Lake & Peninsula Borough, 262 P.3d 598 (Alaska 2011). “The first is based on AS 29.26.110(a)(1)'s incorporation of AS *600 29.”
— Alaska Stat. § 29.26.110(a)(3) — 2 cases
Pebble Ltd. P'ship v. Lake & Peninsula Borough, 262 P.3d 598 (Alaska 2011). “The first is based on AS 29.26.110(a)(1)'s incorporation of AS *600 29.”
Swetzof v. Philemonoff, 203 P.3d 471 (Alaska 2009). “[23] This revision added AS 29.26.110, which in part (a)(3) codifies the legislative-enactment restriction on municipal initiatives.”
— Alaska Stat. § 29.26.110(a)(4) — 7 cases
Kodiak Island Borough v. Mahoney, 71 P.3d 896 (Alaska 2003). “” The Borough contends that the municipal initiative statute, AS 29.26.110, requires a clerk to conclude with certainty that the substantive proposal of an initiative is constitutional before she certifies it.”
Pebble Ltd. P'ship v. Lake & Peninsula Borough, 262 P.3d 598 (Alaska 2011). “The first is based on AS 29.26.110(a)(1)'s incorporation of AS *600 29.”
Swetzof v. Philemonoff, 203 P.3d 471 (Alaska 2009). “[23] This revision added AS 29.26.110, which in part (a)(3) codifies the legislative-enactment restriction on municipal initiatives.”
Carmony v. McKechnie, 217 P.3d 818 (Alaska 2009). “In rejecting the application, the borough clerk stated that the proposal could not be certified under AS 29.26.110(a)(4) because it was unenforceable as a matter of law: [Tlhe ordinance proposed conflicts with Borough Code, Alaska Statute, and the Alaska State Constitution, as…”
Sitkans for Responsible Gov't v. City & Borough of Sitka, 274 P.3d 486 (Alaska 2012). “AS 29.26.110(a)(4). 41 . 608 P.2d 759 (Alaska 1980).”
— Alaska Stat. § 29.26.110(a)(8) — 1 case
Pebble Ltd. P'ship v. Lake & Peninsula Borough, 262 P.3d 598 (Alaska 2011). “The first is based on AS 29.26.110(a)(1)'s incorporation of AS *600 29.”
— Alaska Stat. § 29.26.110(a)(d) — 3 cases
Carmony v. McKechnie, 217 P.3d 818 (Alaska 2009). “In rejecting the application, the borough clerk stated that the proposal could not be certified under AS 29.26.110(a)(4) because it was unenforceable as a matter of law: [Tlhe ordinance proposed conflicts with Borough Code, Alaska Statute, and the Alaska State Constitution, as…”
Pebble Ltd. P'ship v. Lake & Peninsula Borough, 262 P.3d 598 (Alaska 2011). “The first is based on AS 29.26.110(a)(1)'s incorporation of AS *600 29.”
Swetzof v. Philemonoff, 192 P.3d 992 (Alaska 2008). “15] But given the mandatory and time-limited language of Application I, the nature of the proceedings that must take place before the RCA, and the uncertainty of the ultimate result, we believe that the judicial imposition of an implicit condition of RCA approval is both…”
— Alaska Stat. § 29.26.110(b) — 1 case
Carmony v. McKechnie, 217 P.3d 818 (Alaska 2009). “In rejecting the application, the borough clerk stated that the proposal could not be certified under AS 29.26.110(a)(4) because it was unenforceable as a matter of law: [Tlhe ordinance proposed conflicts with Borough Code, Alaska Statute, and the Alaska State Constitution, as…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.