in $1967,$ large oil reserves were discovered in the Prudhoe Bay area of Alaska. as a result, state revenues increased from $$124$ million in $1969$ to $$3\mathrm{.}7$ billion in $1981.$ in $1980,$ the state legislature enacted a dividend program that would distribute annually a portion of these earnings to the state's adult residents. under the plan, each citizen eighteen years of age or older receives one unit for each year of residency subsequent to $1959,$ the year Alaska became a state. the state advance three purposes justifying the distinctions made by the dividend program: $($a$)$ creation of a financial incentive for individuals to establish and maintain residence in Alaska; $($b$)$ encouragement of prudent management of the earnings: and $($c$)$ apportionment of benefits in recognition of undefined "contributions of various kinds, both tangible and intangible, which resident have made during their years of residency. "Crawford, a resident since $1978,$ brings suit challenging the dividend distribution plan as violative of the equal protection guarantee. did the dividend program violate the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment? explain