lieutenant governor of the state of alaska v. alaska fisheries conservation alliance, alaska (2015)
TRANSCRIPT
7/25/2019 Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska v. Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance, Alaska (2015)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lieutenant-governor-of-the-state-of-alaska-v-alaska-fisheries-conservation 1/22
Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the P ACIFIC R EPORTER.
Readers are requested to bring errors to the at tention of the Clerk of the Appel late Courts,
303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, em ail
THESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFALASKA
LIEUTENANTGOVERNOROFTHE
STATEOFALASKA,
Appellant,
v.
ALASKAFISHERIESCONSERVATIONALLIANCE,INC.,
Appellee.
)
) SupremeCourtNo.S-15662
SuperiorCourtNo.3AN-14-04558CI
OPINION
No.7073–December31,2015
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
AppealfromtheSuperiorCourtoftheStateofAlaska,Third
JudicialDistrict,Anchorage,CatherineM.Easter,Judge.
Appearances:JoanneM.GraceandElizabethM.Bakalar,Assistant Attorneys General, Anchorage, and Craig W.
Richards,AttorneyGeneral,Juneau,forAppellant.Matthew
Singer,Holland&KnightLLP,Anchorage,SusanOrlansky,
ReevesAmodioLLC,Anchorage,andJeffreyM.Feldman,
Summit Law Group, Seattle, Washington for Appellee.
WilliamD.Falsey,SedorWendlandtEvans&
Filippi,LLC,
Anchorage,forAmicusCuriaeResourcesforAllAlaskans,
Inc.
Before: Stowers, Chief Justice, Winfree, Maassen, andBolger,Justices.[Fabe,Justice,notparticipating.]
BOLGER,Justice.
7/25/2019 Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska v. Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance, Alaska (2015)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lieutenant-governor-of-the-state-of-alaska-v-alaska-fisheries-conservation 2/22
I. INTRODUCTION
TheLieutenantGovernordeclinedtocertifyaproposedballotinitiativethat
would ban commercial set net fishing in nonsubsistence areas, reasoning that the
initiative was a constitutionally prohibited appropriation of public assets. But the
superiorcourtapprovedtheinitiative,concludingthatsetnetterswerenotadistinct
commercialusergroupandthatthelegislatureandBoardofFisherieswouldretain
discretiontoallocatethesalmonstocktoothercommercialfisheries.Inthisappeal,we
concludethatsetnettersareadistinctcommercialusergroupthatdeservesrecognition
inthecontextoftheconstitutionalprohibitiononappropriations.Wethereforereverse
thesuperiorcourt’sjudgmentbecausethisproposedballotinitiativewouldcompletely
appropriatesalmonawayfromsetnettersandprohibitthelegislaturefromallocatingany
salmontothatusergroup.
II. FACTSANDPROCEEDINGS
A. Facts
The directors of Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance, Inc. (the
sponsors),anonprofitorganizationwiththestatedgoalof“protect[ing]fishspeciesthat
are threatenedby over-fishing,bycatch[,] or other dangers,” sponsored a proposed
statewide ballot initiative, 13PCAF, to prohibit the use of commercial set nets in
nonsubsistenceareas.1Initsstatementoffindingsandintent,13PCAFdeclaresthat“set
netfishingisanantiquatedmethodofharvestingfishthatindiscriminatelykillsorinjures
large numbers of non-target species,” making the practice “wasteful of fisheries
1 “Anonsubsistenceareaisanareaorcommunitywheredependenceupon
subsistenceisnotaprincipalcharacteristicoftheeconomy,culture,andwayoflifeof
theareaorcommunity.”AS16.05.258(c); see alsoAS16.05.258(c)(1)-(13)(listingthe
specific characteristics the Boards of Fisheries and Game must consider when
designatingsubsistenceandnonsubsistenceareas).
-2- 7073
7/25/2019 Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska v. Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance, Alaska (2015)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lieutenant-governor-of-the-state-of-alaska-v-alaska-fisheries-conservation 3/22
resources.” To address this stated concern, the executing portion of the proposed
initiativeprovides:
Article 6 of AS 16.05 is amended by adding a new
section...toread:
16.05.781. Set gillnetting in nonsubsistence areas
prohibited.
(a) Exceptforcustomaryandtraditionaluseorfor
personalusefishing,apersonmaynotuseashoregillnetor
setnettotakefishinanynonsubsistencearea. Thissection
shallcontroloveranyotherprovisiontothecontrary.
(b) Forpurposesofthissection,“customaryand
traditional” has the meaning used in AS 16.05.940(7),
“personal use fishing” has the meaning as used in
AS16.05.940(26),“shoregillnet”and“setnet”havethe
meaning asused inAS38.05.082[,] and “nonsubsistence
area”hasthemeaningasusedinAS16.05.258(c).
(c) Nothinginthissectionshallaffecttheuseof
shoregillnetsandsetnetstotakefishinsubsistenceareas.
(d) Nothinginthissectionshallbeconstruedasa
limitation on the legislature’s or the Board of Fisheries’
discretiontoallocatefishamongcompetingusers.
TheDepartmentofLawreviewedtheinitiativeapplicationandconcluded
that13PCAFmetthreeofthefourstatutoryrequirementsforcertification:theproposed
initiativewasconfinedtoasinglesubject,thesubjectwasexpressedinthetitle,andits
enacting clause contained the proper introductory phrase.2 But the Department
concludedthat13PCAFeffectedanappropriationandwasthereforeaninvalidsubject
See AS 15.45.040(1)-(3) (setting requirements for form of proposed
initiatives).
-3- 7073
2
7/25/2019 Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska v. Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance, Alaska (2015)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lieutenant-governor-of-the-state-of-alaska-v-alaska-fisheries-conservation 4/22
foraninitiativeunderarticleXI,section7oftheAlaskaConstitution.3Citing Pullen v.
Ulmer ,4theDepartmentconcludedthat13PCAFviolatedthecoreobjectivesofthe
prohibition against appropriative initiatives because it would transfer salmon to a
majorityusergroup—sportandpersonalusefishers—attheexpenseofaminorityuser
group—commercialsetnetters—andwouldreducethelegislature’sandBoardof
Fisheries’controloverallocationdecisionsregardingsalmon.
RelyingontheDepartmentofLaw’sanalysis,theLieutenantGovernor
declinedtocertify13PCAF. 5
B. Proceedings
AftertheLieutenantGovernordeclinedtocertifytheinitiative,thesponsors
filedacomplaintfordeclaratoryjudgmentandinjunctiverelief,askingthesuperiorcourt
toordertheLieutenantGovernortocertify13PCAF.Thesponsorsarguedthatthe
proposed initiative would not appropriate state assets but was instead an attempt to
“regulat[e]themethodsandmeansforthetakeofwildlife”that“leavesallallocation
decisionstothediscretionofthelegislatureandtheBoardofFish[eries].”
3 “Theinitiativeshallnotbeused to. ..makeorrepealappropriations.”
AlaskaConst.art.XI,§7. See also AS 15.45.040(4)(prohibiting initiatives from
“includ[ing] subjects restricted by AS 15.45.010,” which mirrors the subjects —
includingappropriations—listedinarticleXI,section7oftheAlaskaConstitution).
4 923P.2d54,64-65(Alaska1996)(holdingthataproposedinitiativegiving
preferentialtreatmenttosubsistence,personaluse,andsportfisheriesattheexpenseof
commercialfisherieswouldeffectanappropriation).5 Certificationisthefirststepintheinitiativeprocess. Ifaninitiativeisnot
certified, it will not appear on the ballot. See AS 15.45.090 (requiring lieutenant
governortocirculatepetitionsifinitiativeiscertified);AS15.45.180,.190(requiring
lieutenantgovernortoplaceinitiativeonballotifpetitionisproperlyfiled).
-4- 7073
7/25/2019 Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska v. Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance, Alaska (2015)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lieutenant-governor-of-the-state-of-alaska-v-alaska-fisheries-conservation 5/22
ThesponsorsandtheLieutenantGovernorfiledcross-motionsforsummary
judgment. Thesponsorsarguedthat“[v]oterinitiativesmustbeconstruedbroadlysoas
to preserve them whenever possible,” that Alaskanshavehistorically regulated the
methodsandmeansfortakingfishandwildlifebyinitiative,andthat13PCAFwould
“merelyregulate[]theuseofonegeartype”whileplacingnorestrictionsontheBoard
of Fisheries’ ability to allocate fish between commercial, sport, guided sport, and
personaluses.Inhismotionforsummaryjudgment,theLieutenantGovernorcontended
that13PCAFeffectedanappropriationbecauseitwas“designedtoappealtotheself-
interestsofamajorityusergroup—sportandpersonalusefishers—byeffectively
transferringsalmonfromamuchsmallerminorityofcommercialusers.” TheLieutenant
Governoralsoarguedthat13PCAFwould“significantlyreduce[]thelegislature’sand
BoardofFisheries’controlofanddiscretionoverallocationdecisions”bypreventing
themfromallocatingsalmonstocktocommercialsetnetters.
Thesuperiorcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentinfavorofthesponsors,
concludingthat13PCAFwouldnot effectaprohibitedappropriation. Rejectingthe
LieutenantGovernor’sclaims,thecourtconcludedthat13PCAFwasnotagive-away
programbecauseit“wouldnottargetanyparticulargrouptoreceivesalmonorresultin
thevotersvotingthemselvessalmon.”Andthecourtconcludedthat13PCAFdidnot
narrowthelegislature’sandBoardofFisheries’rangeoffreedominmakingallocation
decisionsbecausetheBoard“wouldbefreetocontinuetoallocatethesalmonpresently
harvestedbycommercialsetnetfisherstoothercommercialfisheries...[or]authorize
newgeartypesforcommercialfishermen.”Thecourtthereforeconcludedthat13PCAF,
if passed, would be a permissible regulatory measure, and the court ordered theLieutenantGovernortocertifytheproposedinitiative.
TheLieutenantGovernorappeals.ResourcesforAllAlaskans,Inc.,an
organization representing the interests of commercial fishers, filed an amicus brief
-5- 7073
7/25/2019 Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska v. Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance, Alaska (2015)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lieutenant-governor-of-the-state-of-alaska-v-alaska-fisheries-conservation 6/22
supportingtheLieutenantGovernor’spositionandadditionallyarguingthat13PCAF
wouldenactimpermissiblelocalorspeciallegislation. 6
III. STANDARDOFREVIEW
“Wereviewasuperiorcourt’sdecisiononsummaryjudgmentdenovo,
drawingallinferencesinfavorof,andviewingthefactsintherecordinthelightmost
favorable to, thenon-moving party.”7“Wereviewquestionsoflaw,includingthe
constitutionalityofaballotinitiative,usingourindependentjudgment,adoptingtherule
of law that is most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy.”8 “The
interpretationoftheconstitutional term‘appropriation’isaquestionoflawtowhichwe
applyourindependentjudgment.”9
IV. DISCUSSION
A. 13PCAFWouldEffectAProhibitedAppropriation.
TheLieutenantGovernorarguesthatthesuperiorcourterredbyordering
himtocertify13PCAF.Herenewshisclaimthattheproposedinitiativewouldeffecta
prohibitedappropriation.
ArticleXI,section1oftheAlaskaConstitutionprovidesthat“[t]hepeople
mayproposeandenactlawsbytheinitiative.”Thisinitiativepowerisnotlimitless,
however,andarticleXI,section7expresslyrestrictstheuseoftheinitiative. Onesuch
6 SeeAlaskaConst.art.XI,§7(“Theinitiativeshallnotbeusedto...enact
localorspeciallegislation.”).
7 Pebble Ltd. P’ship ex rel. Pebble Mines Corp. v. Parnell ,215P.3d1064,
1072 (Alaska 2009) (citing Anchorage Citizens for Taxi Reform v. Municipality of
Anchorage,151P.3d418,422(Alaska2006)).
8 Id .(citing Anchorage Citizens for Taxi Reform,151P.3dat422).
9 Id .at1072(citingStaudenmaier v. Municipality of Anchorage,139P.3d
1259,1261(Alaska2006)).
-6- 7073
7/25/2019 Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska v. Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance, Alaska (2015)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lieutenant-governor-of-the-state-of-alaska-v-alaska-fisheries-conservation 7/22
restriction is that “[t]he initiative shall not be used to . . . make or repeal
appropriations.”10Although“[w]e‘construevoterinitiativesbroadlysoastopreserve
themwheneverpossible...’[a]nd‘weliberallyconstrueconstitutionalandstatutory
provisionsthatapplytotheinitiativeprocess,’”11we“careful[ly]consider[]”“whether
aninitiativecomplieswitharticleXI,section7’slimits.” 12
In the initiative context, we have construed the term “appropriation”
broadly, looking to the intentions of the delegates at the Alaska Constitutional
Conventionforinterpretiveguidance.13Wehaveconcludedthatthedelegateshad“two
coreobjectives”inmindwhentheydraftedtheprohibitiononappropriationbyinitiative:
“(1) ‘to prevent give-away programs that appeal to the self-interest of voters and
endangerthestatetreasury,’and(2)‘topreservelegislativediscretionbyensur[ing]that
thelegislature,andonly thelegislature,retainscontrolovertheallocationofstateassets
amongcompetingneeds.’”14 Byfocusingourinquiryonthesetwocoreobjectives,we
haveconcludedthatnonmonetarystateassets,suchaslandandfish,maybethesubjects
ofappropriations.15
10 AlaskaConst.art.XI,§7.
12 Id .
13 See Thomas v. Bailey,595P.2d1,4-8(Alaska1979).
14
Hughes,341P.3dat1126(alterationinoriginal)(emphasisinoriginal)(quoting Pebble Ltd. P’ship,215P.3dat1074-75).
15 See Pullen v. Ulmer ,923P.2d54,64(Alaska1996)(holdingthatproposed
initiativeallocatingsalmonspeciestononcommercialfishersatexpenseofcommercial
(continued...)
-7- 7073
11 Hughes v. Treadwell ,341P.3d1121,1125(Alaska2015)(firstquoting
Pebble Ltd. P’ship,215P.3dat1072,thenquoting Kodiak Island Borough v. Mahoney,
71P.3d896,898(Alaska2003)).
7/25/2019 Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska v. Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance, Alaska (2015)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lieutenant-governor-of-the-state-of-alaska-v-alaska-fisheries-conservation 8/22
Withtheseconsiderationsinmind,“[w]eemployatwo-partinquiryto
determinewhetheraninitiativemakesanappropriationofstateassets....Firstwemust
determine‘whethertheinitiativedealswithapublicasset.’Second,iftheinitiativedeals
withapublicasset,thenwemustdetermine‘whethertheinitiativewouldappropriatethat
asset.’”16Toanswerthesecondquestion,weevaluatewhethertheproposedinitiative
would violate either of the core objectives of the prohibition on appropriations by
initiative.17 If we determine that an initiative is either a give-away program or a
restrictiononthelegislature’sabilitytoallocatestateassetsamongcompetingneeds,
thenwewillholdtheinitiativetobeaprohibitedappropriation.
ThesponsorsarguethatinCity of Fairbanks v. Fairbanks Convention &
Visitors Bureau,wedefined“appropriation”inthearticleXI,section7contexttomean
the“set[ting]aside[of]acertainspecifiedamountofmoneyorpropertyforaspecific
purposeorobjectinsuchamannerthatisexecutable,mandatory,andreasonablydefinite
withnofurtherlegislativeaction.”18 Theyclaimthatthiscourtdoesnotneedtoevaluate
thetwocoreobjectivesifaninitiativedoesnotmeetthisdefinitionofappropriation.
TheCity of Fairbanks discussionrelatedtodefiningappropriationsinthe
context of an initiative seeking to repeal a municipal code section that “arguably”
15 (...continued)
fisherswouldeffectaprohibitedappropriation); Bailey,595P.2dat8-9(holdingthat
proposed initiative granting state land to state citizens would effect a prohibited
appropriation).
16 Hughes,341P.3dat1125(quoting Pebble Ltd. P’ship,215P.3dat1073).
17
Id .at1126.18 See 818P.2d1153,1157(Alaska1991). TheyalsociteThomas v. Rosen,
569P.2d793(Alaska1977),forasimilarproposition.But Thomasdidnotaddress
appropriationsinthecontextofarticleXI,section7,anddidnot“purport[]tooffera
generaldefinitionofappropriations.” Bailey,595P.2dat5n.21.
-8- 7073
7/25/2019 Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska v. Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance, Alaska (2015)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lieutenant-governor-of-the-state-of-alaska-v-alaska-fisheries-conservation 9/22
constitutedanappropriationoftaxrevenues.19 Wedefined“appropriation”as part ofour
analysisofthetwocoreobjectives,notasaprerequisiteforthatanalysis.20In Pullen v.
Ulmer werecitedtheCity of Fairbanksdefinitionof“appropriation”assimplypartof
thecaselawfromwhichthe“twocoreobjectives...canbedistilled.”21In Pebble Ltd.
Partnership ex rel Pebble Mines v. Parnell wemadeclear that “[when evaluating]
whethertheinitiativewouldappropriate[public]assets,welookprimarilytothe‘two
coreobjectives’oftheconstitutionalprohibitionagainstinitiativesthatwouldmakean
appropriation.”22Andmorerecently,in Hughes,wereiteratedtheprimacyofthetwo
coreobjectives.23
Thepartiesagreethatfishareastateassetthatmaybethesubjectof
appropriations. Asaresult,theprimaryissuebeforeusiswhethera banon setnet
fishingconstitutesanappropriationofsalmonawayfromsetnettersandtowardsother
fisheries.
TheLieutenantGovernorarguesthat Pullengovernsthisdetermination.
Pullen concernedaninitiativeproviding,inrelevantpart,that
subsistence,personaluse,andsportfisheriesshallreceivea
preference to take a portion of the harvestable surplus ofsalmonstocks.Subsistence,personaluse,andsportfisheries
mustbeensuredofareasonableopportunitytotakeenough
19 City of Fairbanks,818P.2dat1156-57.
20 See id .(“Ourpriorcasesdefining‘appropriation’inthecontextofarticle
XI,section7haveconcentratedonthetwoparallelpurposesforpreventingthemaking
ofappropriationsthroughtheinitiativeprocess.”).
21 923P.2dat63.
22 215P.3d1064,1074-75(Alaska2009).
23 See341P.3d1121,1126(Alaska2015).
-9- 7073
7/25/2019 Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska v. Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance, Alaska (2015)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lieutenant-governor-of-the-state-of-alaska-v-alaska-fisheries-conservation 10/22
salmon necessary to satisfy the harvest needs of those
fisheries before other fisheries may be allocated the[ ]remainingportionoftheharvestablesurplus.24
Weheld that “thestate’s interest insalmonmigrating in state and inlandwaters is
sufficientlystrongtowarrantcharacterizingsuchsalmonasassetsofthestatewhichmay
notbeappropriatedbyinitiative.” 25 Further,weheldthattheinitiativeviolatedbothcore
objectivesof theprohibitiononappropriationsbyinitiative. Weconcludedthat the
initiativewasagive-awayprogrambecause“it[was]clearthattheproposedinitiative
[was]designedtoappealtotheself-interestsofsport,personal[,]andsubsistencefishers,
in that [those] groups [were] specifically targeted to receive state assets in the
circumstanceofharvestableshortages.”26
Andwealsoconcludedthat“theinitiative
[would]significantlyreduce[]thelegislature’sandBoardofFisheries’controlofand
discretionoverallocationdecisions,particularlyintheeventofstock-specificorregion-
specific shortages of salmon between the competing needs of users.”27 We made
particularnoteofthepossibilitythattheproposedinitiative,ifapproved,“couldresult
intheclosureofsomecommercialfisheries.” 28
TheLieutenantGovernorarguesthat,similartotheinitiativein Pullen,
13PCAFwouldbeagive-awayprogram,allocatingfishawayfromsetnetterstowards
24 923P.2dat55.
25 Id .at61.
26 Id .at63.
27
Id .(citing McAlpine v. Univ. of Alaska,762P.2d81,88-89(Alaska1998)).ThelegislaturehasdelegatedtotheBoardofFisheriestheauthorityto“allocatefishery
resources among personal use, sport, guided sport, and commercial fisheries.”
AS16.05.251(e).
28 Pullen,923P.2dat64.
-10- 7073
7/25/2019 Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska v. Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance, Alaska (2015)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lieutenant-governor-of-the-state-of-alaska-v-alaska-fisheries-conservation 11/22
allotherfishers.Andhecontendsthat13PCAFwouldnarrowthelegislature’sand
BoardofFisheries’rangeoffreedominmakingallocationdecisionsbyeffectively
prohibitingthemfromallocatingsalmonstocktosetnetters.
1. 13PCAFwouldbea“give-awayprogram.”
Thesuperiorcourtconcludedthat“13PCAF[would]notresultinagive
awayprogram.”Thecourtreasonedthat“commercialsetnettersarenota‘usergroup’
[underAS16.05.251(e)]anymore...thansportfishersusingflyrodsareadistinctuser
groupfromthoseusingspinningrods.” Relyingonthisreasoning,thecourtappliedour
holdingin Pebble29 toconcludethat“[i]nitiatives thatregulatepublicassetsare not
prohibitedsolongastheregulationsdonotresultintheallocationofanassetentirelyto
onegroupattheexpenseofanother.”
TheLieutenantGovernorarguesthatthecourt’sapplicationof Pebble was
flawed because the court’s reliance on AS 16.05.251(e)’s broad categories was
misplaced.Specifically,heclaimsthatitwaserrortoconcludethattherelevantuser
groupwas“commercialfishers”asawholeinsteadofthesubsetofcommercialfishers
whousesetnets.Heiscorrect.AlthoughAS16.05.251(e)grantstheBoardofFisheries
theauthorityto“allocatefisheryresourcesamongpersonaluse,sport,guidedsport,and
commercialfisheries,”theBoardisnotprecludedfrommakingintragroupallocations
withinthosegeneralcategories.
Indeed,thestatute’sdefinitionof“fishery”demonstratesthatintragroup
allocationsaremorethanappropriate:AS16.05.940(17)providesthat“‘fishery’means
aspecificadministrativeareainwhichaspecificfisheryresourceistaken with a specific
type of gear ;however,theBoardofFisheriesmay designateafisherytoincludemore
See Pebble Ltd. P’ship ex rel. Pebble Mines Corp. v. Parnell ,215P.3d
1064,1077(Alaska2009).
-11- 7073
29
7/25/2019 Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska v. Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance, Alaska (2015)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lieutenant-governor-of-the-state-of-alaska-v-alaska-fisheries-conservation 12/22
than one specific . . . type of gear.”30 (Emphasis added.) Under this definition, a
commercialsetnetfisheryisdistinctfromacommercialdriftnetfishery,unless the
BoardofFisherieschoosestodesignatethemtogether.
Thesponsors respond that “[b]ecause theBoardofFisheries isfree to
definea‘fishery’inamoreexpansivemannerthan‘commercialsetnetters,’itisnot
accurate tosay thataregulationprohibitingcommercialsetnetswould ‘eliminatea
fishery.’”Thisargumentisunpersuasivebecause,regardlessoftheBoardofFisheries’
freedomtodootherwise,theBoarddoes differentiatebetween“setgillnetfisheries”and
“driftgillnetfisheries.”31Banningsetnetswouldtherefore,quiteobviously,eliminate
setnetfisheriesastheyarecurrentlydesignatedby theBoard. Relatedly,asamicus
curiaeResourcesforAllAlaskanspointsout,commercialsetnetpermitsareissued
separatelyfromdriftnetpermitsandhavedifferentmonetaryvalues.32Asaresult,
commercialsetnettersaffectedby13PCAFcouldnotimmediatelyoreasilytransition
tootherformsofcommercialfishing.Notonlywouldtheyneedtoobtainthenecessary
gear,theywouldalsoneedtoobtainthenecessarypermitstooperateintheseparate
30 See alsoAS16.43.990(4)(defining“fishery”similarlyforpurposesof
limitingentrytocommercialfisheries).
31 See, e.g.,5AlaskaAdministrativeCode(AAC)21.353,.354,.358,.359,
.360, .365(2015)(establishingBoardofFisheriesmanagementplansdistinguishing
between commercial set gillnet and drift gillnet fisheries); see also20AAC05.320
(establishing a Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission regulation distinguishing
betweensetgillnetandothercommercialfisheries).32 20 AAC05.245(b) (“[A] separate permit is required foreach separate
fishery resource, gear, andadministrativearea.”); see also COMMERCIAL FISHERIES
E NTRY COMM ’ N, Permit Value Report Menu, https://www.cfec.state.ak.us /
pmtvalue/mnusalm.htm(lastupdatedJan.5,2012).
-12- 7073
7/25/2019 Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska v. Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance, Alaska (2015)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lieutenant-governor-of-the-state-of-alaska-v-alaska-fisheries-conservation 13/22
fisheries,andthosepermitsareinlimitedsupply. 33
Indeed, we have previously concluded that AS 16.05.251(e) governs
allocationsamong differentcommercialfisheriesaswellasbetweenthemoregeneral
categoriesofpersonaluse,sport,guidedsport,andcommercialfisheries.In Peninsula
Marketing Ass’n v. State,weheldthat
[t]he criteria listed in [AS 16.05.251(e)] are equally
applicabletointra-groupresourceallocationastheyareto
inter-groupallocation.There is no basis for distinguishing
allocations among commercial fisheries from allocation
between different types of fisheries. Commercialfishersin
FisheryAwouldsufferthesamelossiftheboardreallocated
certain fish resources to commercial Fishery B that they
wouldsufferifthe[B]oardreallocatedthefishtosportfishers
inFisheryA.Indeed, this court has specifically rejected a
d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n c o m m e r c i a l - s p o r t a n d[ ]commercial-commercial allocations.34
Andin Alaska Fish Spotters Ass’n v. State, Department of Fish & Gamewenotedthat
“[i]ftheBoard...allocate[s]theresourcebetweencompetingsubgroupsofcommercial
uses,itmustcomplywithAS16.05.251(e).”35Thusitwaserrorforthesuperiorcourt
toconcludethatcommercialsetnettersdonotcompriseadiscreteusergroup. Because
theydocompriseadiscreteusergroup,wemustdecidewhether13PCAFwouldbea
give-awayprogram.
The Lieutenant Governor argues that 13PCAF is no less a give-away
programthanthechallengedinitiativein Pullen.Thereweconcludedthattheinitiative
33 See20AAC05.320.
34 817P.2d917,921(Alaska1991)(emphasesadded)(citing Meier v. State,
Bd. of Fisheries,739P.2d172,174(Alaska1987)).
35 838P.2d798,801n.2(Alaska1992).
-13- 7073
7/25/2019 Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska v. Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance, Alaska (2015)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lieutenant-governor-of-the-state-of-alaska-v-alaska-fisheries-conservation 14/22
inquestionwasagive-awayprogrambecauseitwas“designedtoappealto theself-
interests of sport, personal[,] and subsistence fishers, in that [those] groups [were]
specifically targeted to receive state assets in the circumstance of harvestable
shortages.”36Likewise,theLieutenantGovernorcontends,13PCAF“isdesignedto
appealtotheself-interestsofmajorityusergroups—primarilysportandpersonaluse
fishers — by making available to them the catch of a much smaller minority of
commercialusers.”Healsoclaimsthat13PCAFwould“appealtotheself-interestof
[commercial]driftnetfishers,whowouldstandtobenefitfromtheeliminationoftheset
netfisheryinCookInlet.”
Thesponsorsarguethatthecomparisonto Pullen isfaultyfortworeasons.
Theyfirstarguethat13PCAFwouldmerelyregulateamethodofcommercialfishing,
notallocatesalmonstockamongfisheries.Second,theyarguethatunlikein Pullen,
whereitwasclearwhichgroupswouldbenefitfromtheinitiative,itisunknownwhich
fisherieswouldbenefitif13PCAFwereenacted.
Thesponsorsclaimthat13PCAFcannoteffectanappropriationbecause
itwasdraftedasa regulatorymeasureanddoesnotexplicitlyallocatesalmonstock.
Theyrelyonourholdingin Pebble thattheregulationofpublicassetsisavalidsubject
forinitiative,buttheylargelyignorethesignificant—andrelevant—caveatinthat
case’sholding.Specifically, Pebbleheldthat“theprohibitionagainstinitiativesthat
appropriatepublicassetsdoesnotextendtoprohibitinitiativesthatregulatepublicassets,
so long as the regulations do not result in the allocation of an asset entirely to one group
at the expense of another .”37
36 Pullen v. Ulmer ,923P.2d54,63(Alaska1996).
37 Pebble Ltd. P’ship ex rel. Pebble Mines Corp. v. Parnell ,215P.3d1064,
1077(Alaska2009)(emphasisadded).
-14- 7073
7/25/2019 Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska v. Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance, Alaska (2015)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lieutenant-governor-of-the-state-of-alaska-v-alaska-fisheries-conservation 15/22
Thesponsorsappeartoclaimthatthiscaveatdoesnotapplyherebecause
13PCAFwouldnotallocatetheassetentirelytoonegroup,butthisisanoverlynarrow
andliteralreadingof Pebble’sholding. Pebble cited Pullen tosupportitsholding,38and
Pullen involved theallocationof fish to three separate groups.39 Pebbleexpressly
referencedthisaspectof Pullen immediatelyafteritscaveat,notingthattheinitiativeat
issuein Pullenwould“reserveapriorityofwildsalmonstockforpersonal,sport,and
subsistencefisheriesbeforeallocatinganystockforcommercialfisheries.”40Reading
Pebble and Pullentogether,aninitiativemayconstituteanappropriationifitresultsin
thecomplete reallocationofanassetfromasignificant,distinctusergroup.
Relatedly,thesponsorsarguethatitisnotentirelyclearwhichgroupswill
benefitfrom13PCAF,afactorthatdistinguishesitfromtheinitiativein Pullen. This
argumentisunconvincing.Aspreviouslynoted,13PCAFwouldresultintheallocation
ofsalmonstockawayfromcommercialsetnetterstosomecombinationofallother
fisheriesinnonsubsistenceareaswheresetnetfishingiscurrentlypermitted.41 Thereis
adistinctpossibilitythatallotherfisherieswouldbenefitfrom13PCAF.Butevenifthe
BoardofFisheriesreallocatedthesalmonstockunevenly,itisunlikelythatanyexisting
group(otherthansetnetters)wouldhaveitsallocationreducedasaresultof13PCAF:
ifthesalmonstockavailableforallocationincreaseswiththeeliminationofsetnet
fisheries,therewould be little reason for theBoard todecreaseanyother fishery’s
38 See id .(citing Pullen,923P.2dat63-64).
39 Pullen,923P.2dat55.
40
Pebble,215P.3dat1077(citing Pullen,923P.2dat63-64).41 Indeed,becausetheinitiativein Pullen benefittedonly noncommercial
fisherswhile13PCAFhasthepotentialtobenefitsomecommercialfishersaswell,
13PCAFwouldappeartohavebroader appealasagive-awayprogramthantheinitiative
in Pullen.
-15- 7073
7/25/2019 Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska v. Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance, Alaska (2015)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lieutenant-governor-of-the-state-of-alaska-v-alaska-fisheries-conservation 16/22
allocation.42Asaresult,allotherfisherieshaveafairchanceofgainingfromthepassage
oftheinitiativeandlittlechanceoflosingfromit.Therefore,liketheinitiativein Pullen,
13PCAF“tempt[s]thevoterto[prefer]...hisimmediatefinancialwelfareattheexpense
ofvitalgovernmentactivities.” 43
Forthesereasons,weconcludethat13PCAFisagive-awayprogramand
thereforeaprohibitedappropriationbyinitiative.
2. 13PCAFwouldnarrowthelegislature’sandBoardofFisheries’
rangeoffreedominmakingallocationdecisions.
Thesuperiorcourtconcludedthat13PCAFdidnotnarrowthelegislature’s
andBoardofFisheries’rangeoffreedominmakingallocationdecisionsbecausethe
proposedinitiative“doesnotcreateanexpresspreference”foranyofthegeneralclasses
offisherieslistedinAS16.05.251(e).“13PCAFdoesnottakefishfromcommercial
usersandallocatethosefishtosportusers...[or]changetheBoardofFisheries’role
intheallocationamongcommercial,sport,andpersonalusefisheries....”Butthis
analysiserrsforthereasondiscussedabove:commercialsetnettersare adiscreteuser
group,so13PCAF’sbanonsetnetfishingclearlynarrowsthelegislature’sandBoard
ofFisheries’rangeoffreedominmakingallocationdecisions. If13PCAFwereenacted,
thenneitherthelegislaturenortheBoardwouldbeabletoallocateanysalmonstockto
thissignificant,existingusergroup.
B. Alaska’s“LongHistoryOfUsingDirectLegislationToManageThe
TakingOfFishAndWildlife”DoesNotSaveTheInitiative.
ThesponsorsnotethatAlaskahasalonghistoryofusingtheinitiativeto
42 13PCAFwouldnotaltertheBoard’sdiscretiontoreduceothergroups’
allocations,butitisdifficulttoseehowitsenactmentwould lead tosuchreductions.
43 Pullen,923P.2dat63(alterationsandomissionsinoriginal)(quoting
Thomas v. Bailey,595P.2d1,8(Alaska1979))(internalquotationmarksomitted).
-16- 7073
7/25/2019 Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska v. Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance, Alaska (2015)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lieutenant-governor-of-the-state-of-alaska-v-alaska-fisheries-conservation 17/22
enactorrejectregulationsformanagingthetakingoffishandwildlife.Theypointout
thatonthesamedayAlaskansvotedtoenacttheAlaskaConstitution,theyalsovotedto
enactOrdinance3,whichprovidedthat“theuseoffishtrapsforthetakingofsalmonfor
commercialpurposesisherebyprohibitedinallthecoastalwatersoftheState.”44Since
then,thesponsorsnote,Alaskanshavevotedonavarietyofinitiativesthatwouldhave
(1)repealedthelawregulatinglimitedentryfishing;(2)alteredtheregulationsfor
personalconsumptionoffishandwildlife;(3)prohibitedthesame-dayairbornehunting
ofwolves,wolverines,foxes,andlynxes;(4)prohibitedtheuseofsnaresfortrapping
wolves;and(5)prohibitedbearbaitingandfeeding.Thesponsorsalsonotethatin
Brooks v. Wright wereversedthesuperiorcourt’sinjunctionagainstplacingthewolf
snareinitiativeontheballot.45 Theyarguethattheappearanceoftheseinitiativesonthe
ballotdemonstrates13PCAF’sconstitutionality.Thisisincorrect.
Ordinance3wasapprovedbeforetheAlaskaConstitutionwentintoeffect
andwasthusnotgovernedbytheconstitutionalprohibitionagainstappropriatingby
initiative.46 Moreover, as the Lieutenant Governor points out, the ordinance was
47 48introduced as an “emergency,” “transitional” measure designed to prevent the
44 AlaskaConst.ord.3,§2.
45 See971P.2d1025,1033(Alaska1999).
46 SeeAlaskaConst.ord.3,§2(“Iftheconstitutionshallbeadoptedbythe
electorsandifamajorityofallthevotescastforandagainstthisordinancefavorits
adoption, then[theordinance]shallbecomeoperativeupontheeffectivedateof the
constitution.”).
47 See Statementof Delegate Seaborn J.Buckalew, 5Proceedingsof the
AlaskaConstitutionalConvention(PACC)3214(Jan.26,1956).
48 StatementofDelegateSeabornJ.Buckalew,5PACC3214,3219,3232
(continued...)
-17- 7073
7/25/2019 Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska v. Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance, Alaska (2015)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lieutenant-governor-of-the-state-of-alaska-v-alaska-fisheries-conservation 18/22
continued decimation of Alaska’s resources by out-of-state interests49 before the
fledgling state legislature could react.50 There was significant discussion at the
constitutional convention over whether it would be more appropriate to allow the
legislaturetoenactthefishtrapban, 51butthedelegatesultimatelyvotedtoincludethe
fishtrapordinanceontheballot.52Theargumentsthatprevailedwere(a)thatitwas
48 (...continued)
(Jan.26,1956);accord StatementofDelegateVictorFischer,5PACC3246(Jan.26,
1956).
49 SeeStatementofDelegateVictorC.Rivers,5PACC3228(Jan.26,1956)
(“[I]n1949...therewere455fishtrapsinAlaska. Theywereownedby138owners,
practicallyallresidentsofthePacificNorthwest.Atthattime,theyweretakingbetween
$80,000,000and$100,000,000ayearinfishoutofAlaskawatersforatotalcatch,
approximatelyone-halfofwhichwascaughtbyfishtraps. Theyhave,asweallknow,
seriously depleted the resource.”); see also Statement ofDelegate R.E. Robertson,
5PACC3231(notingthatsomecommercialfishers“evencomeupfromCalifornia”and
thatout-of-statefishers“fishmoreintenselythanmanyofourlocalfishermendo”).
50 StatementofDelegateSeabornJ.Buckalew,5PACC3241(Jan.26,1956)
(“Thepurposeofthisordinance...[istoguaranteethat]theminutethePresidentissuestheproclamation[ofstatehood]thetrapsareillegal. Wedon’thavetowait30days,40
days,orsixmonthsforthelegislaturetogetaroundtoacting.”);StatementofDelegate
VictorFischer,5PACC3246(Jan.26,1956)(“Thisprovisionisdesignedprimarilyto
takecareoftheperiodfromthetimewebecomeastateuntilthetimethatourfirst
legislaturecouldmeetandpassthenecessarylegislation.”).
51 StatementofDelegateJohnC.Boswell,5PACC3217(Jan.26,1956)
(“Theproblemthatfacesus...is...whetheranordinanceisaproperapproachtothe
[fishtrap]problem.”).StatementofDelegateRobertJ.McNealy,5PACC3225(Jan.26,
1956)(“Istillaminfavoroftheabolitionoffishtraps,but...Ibelieveitisalegislativematter.”);StatementofDelegateHerbHilscher,5PACC3227(Jan.26,1956)(“Thisis
alegislativematter.”).
52 See 5PACC3591(Jan.30,1956)(showingthedelegatesvoted38-16
againststrikingthefishnetordinancefromtheballot).
-18- 7073
7/25/2019 Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska v. Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance, Alaska (2015)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lieutenant-governor-of-the-state-of-alaska-v-alaska-fisheries-conservation 19/22
inevitablethatthestatelegislaturewouldbanfishtraps,53and(b)thatactionwasneeded
as soon as Alaska achieved statehood.54 Here, however, 13PCAF is neither an
emergency nor transitional measure, and the delegates’ primary considerations for
allowingthevoterstodirectlyratifyOrdinance3donotapplyto13PCAF.
Thesponsorshighlightourstatementin Brooks that“thedelegates’decision
tosubmitOrdinance3...forvoterratificationalongwiththerestoftheconstitution
evidences thedelegates’andvoters’understanding that wildlifemanagement issues
wouldbesubjecttodirectdemocracy.”55ButtheLieutenantGovernordoesnotclaim
otherwise. Instead he contends that 13PCAF does not only regulate, but also
impermissiblyappropriates. Moreover,thedelegates’decisiontosubjectOrdinance3
topopularvotehasmoreprecedentialforceinthecontextofwildlifemanagement—a
policyareanotexpresslyprohibitedbyarticleXI,section7oftheAlaskaConstitution
53 StatementofDelegateW.O.Smith,5PACC3223-24(Jan.26,1956)(“The
people of Alaska have never made any secret of the fact that, when they achieve
statehood,thetrapswillgo.”).Evensomeopponentsoftheordinancerecognizedthatafishtrapbanwasinevitable. See StatementofDelegateJohnC.Boswell,5PACC
3217(Jan.26,1956)(“[I]t’sinconceivabletomethatthefirststatelegislaturewouldn’t
[abolishfishtraps]asamatterofcourse.”);StatementofDelegateRobertJ.McNealy,
5PACC3224-25(Jan.26,1956)(“Ican’timagineanyrepresentativeorsenatorvoting
againsttheabolitionoffishtrapsunlesshewasintendingtomoveontoSeattlerightafter
thesessionwasover.”);StatementofDelegateHerbHilscher,5PACC3228(Jan.26,
1956)(“Weknowverywellthatitwouldbepoliticalsuicideforanyonetogotothatfirst
legislatureandnotbeinfavoroftheimmediateeliminationoffishtraps.”).
54
StatementofDelegateJackHinckel,5PACC3213-14(Jan.26,1956)(“[O]neofthemainthingsabout[Ordinance3]isthatitisaskingfor[fishtraps]tobe
gottenridofimmediatelyupontheacceptanceoftheconstitution...torelieveeconomic
distress....”).
55 Brooks v. Wright ,971P.2d1025,1030(Alaska1999).
-19- 7073
7/25/2019 Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska v. Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance, Alaska (2015)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lieutenant-governor-of-the-state-of-alaska-v-alaska-fisheries-conservation 20/22
—thaninthecontextofappropriations,whichareexpresslyprohibitedbythatsection.56
Regardingthesubsequentinitiativesthesponsorscite,themerefactthat
thesemeasuresappearedontheballotdoesnotdemonstratetheirconstitutionalityunder
theappropriationsclauseofarticleXI,section7. Twoofthefivecitedinitiativeswere
consideredbeforeweheldthatfishwereapublicassetthatmaynotbeappropriatedby
57 58 59initiative. Whileconsideringthesame-dayaerialhunting andwolfsnare initiatives
in Brooks,weheldthatnaturalresourcemanagementwasapropersubjectforlegislation
byinitiative,butweexplicitlydeclinedtoaddresstheappropriationsissuesuasponte,
noting that neither party made any claims relating to the appropriations clause of
60 61article XI, section 7. Nor was the bear baiting initiative ever challenged as an
56 Accord Hughes v. Treadwell ,341P.3d1121,1125(Alaska2015)(“‘[W]e
liberallyconstrueconstitutional and statutory provisions that apply to the initiative
process,’”but“whetheraninitiativecomplieswitharticleXI,section7’slimitsrequires
carefulconsideration.”(firstquoting Kodiak Island Borough v. Mahoney,71P.3d896,
898 (Alaska2003), thenquoting Pebble Ltd. P’ship ex rel. Pebble Mines Corp. v.
Parnell ,215P.3d1064,1073(Alaska2009))).
57
See Pullen v. Ulmer ,923P.2d54,61(Alaska1996);STATEOFALASKA,OFFICIAL R ETURNSBYELECTION PRECINCT:GENERALELECTION 47(Nov.2,1982),
http://www.elections.alaska.gov/results/82GENR/82genr.pdf ; STATE OF ALASKA,
OFFICIAL R ETURNSBYELECTION PRECINCT:GENERAL ELECTION 33(Nov.2,1976),
http://www.elections.alaska.gov/results/76GENR/76genr.pdf .
58 SeeSTATEOFALASKA,DIV.OFELECTIONS, Prior Initiative Petition List ,
95HUNT, http://www.elections.alaska.gov/pbi_ini_status_prior_list.php (last visited
Nov.18,2015).
59
SeeSTATEOFALASKA,DIV.OFELECTIONS, Prior Initiative Petition List ,97TRAP,http://www.elections.alaska.gov/pbi_ini_status_prior_list.php (lastvisitedNov.
18,2015).
60 Brooks,971P.2dat1028n.12(“The[appropriationbyinitiative]question
(continued...)
-20- 7073
7/25/2019 Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska v. Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance, Alaska (2015)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lieutenant-governor-of-the-state-of-alaska-v-alaska-fisheries-conservation 21/22
unconstitutionalappropriationbyinitiative.
Moreover,noneoftheseinitiativestargetedallocationstoorawayfroma
classasdiscreteascommercialsetnettersare.UndertheLimitedEntryActandits
implementingregulations,62commercialsetnettersmustobtaingear-specificsetnet63 64 permits, whicharelimitedinnumber, holdsignificantvalue,andmaybeboughtand
sold.65Andunlikenoncommercialhuntingandfishinglicenses,thesesetnetpermits
carryoverfromyeartoyear.Thismakescommercialsetnettersafarmorecohesive,
recognizable,andpermanentgroupthanindividualswhohuntwolvesusingsame-day
aerialtechniquesorsnares,orwhohuntbearsusingbaitingorfeedingmethods. The
latterindividualsmustgenerallyapplyforpermitsandlicensesannually, 66andthosewho
wishtoparticipateinmoreheavilyregulatedhuntshavenoguaranteethattheywillbe
60 (...continued)
is...notproperlybeforeus,andwedonotaddressithere.”).
61 SeeSTATEOFALASKA,DIV.OFELECTIONS, Prior Initiative Petition List ,
03BEAR, http://www.elections.alaska.gov/pbi_ini_status_prior_list.php (last visited
Nov.18,2015).
62 AS16.43.010-.990;20AAC05.010-.1990.
63 20AAC05.100.
64 20AAC05.320.
65 SeeCOMMERCIALFISHERIESE NTRYCOM M’ N, Permit Value Report Menu,
https://www.cfec.state.ak.us/pmtvalue/mnusalm.htm (lastupdatedJan.5,2012).66 SeeALASKADEP’TOFFISH& GAME, Fishing and Hunting License General
FAQ ,http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=license.general (lastvisitedNov.18,
2015)(“LicensesaregoodfromthedateofpurchasethroughDecember31ofthelicense
year.”).
-21- 7073
7/25/2019 Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska v. Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance, Alaska (2015)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lieutenant-governor-of-the-state-of-alaska-v-alaska-fisheries-conservation 22/22
permittedtodosoinanygivenyear.67
Thiscaseisgovernedbytheholdingsof Pebbleand Pullen,notbythe
existence of ballot measures that were never challenged as unconstitutional
appropriations.Underourprecedent,13PCAFwouldeffectanappropriation,andis
constitutionallyprohibited. 68
V. CONCLUSION
13PCAF triggers both of the delegates’ core concerns underlying the
prohibitiononappropriationsbyinitiative: the initiativewouldresultinagive-away
program of salmon stock from set netters to other types of fishers, and it would
significantlynarrowthelegislature’sandBoardofFisheries’rangeoffreedomtomake
allocationdecisions. 13PCAFwouldthereforeeffect aprohibited appropriationvia
initiative.WeaccordinglyREVERSEthesuperiorcourt’sorderrequiringtheLieutenant
Governortocertifytheinitiative.
67 SeeALASKADEP’TOFFISH&GAM E, Drawing Hunt Permits Information
Overview, http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=huntlicense.draw(lastvisited
October 27, 2015) (“Drawinghunts require anapplication fee and are awarded bylottery.Eachyear,theAlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame...publishes...specific
informationcontainingthedrawinghuntopportunitiesandareaboundaries.”).
68 Becausewedecidethecaseonthesegrounds,wedonotreachamicus
curiae’sargumentthat13PCAFwouldenactimpermissiblelocalorspeciallegislation.
-22- 7073