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

corrections@akcourts.us.

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