De Nardo v. State

In De Nardo v. State, 819 P.2d 903 (Alaska App. 1991) the Court explained that a statute is unconstitutionally vague only if "its meaning is unresolvably confused or ambiguous after it has been subjected to legal analysis." Id. at 908. The fact that people can, in good faith, litigate the meaning of a statute does not necessarily (or even usually) mean that the statute is so indefinite as to be unconstitutional. ... If study of the statute's wording, examination of its legislative history, and reference to other relevant statutes and case law makes the statute's meaning clear, then the statute is constitutional. Id.