State v. Lewis

al., Appellants, et STATE Inc., Appellant Region, Inlet

Cook Intervention, Jr., Galliett, H. and Harold R. LEWIS

J. Taxpayers of the State

Citizens Appellees.

Alaska,

No. of Alaska.

Jan. Reeves, Gen., Atty.

James N. Asst. An- Gross, Gen., chorage Atty. Avrum M. Juneau, for of Alaska. Snodgrass, John R. Allen McGrath and Jr., Region, Anchorage, for Inlet Inc. Cook Nesbett, Anchorage, ap- Raymond A. pellees.

OPINION BOOCHEVER, J.,C. and RABI- Before WITZ, BURKE, CONNOR, ERWIN and NO JJ.

BOOCHEVER, Chief Justice. we are asked to resolve appeal difficult state issues involv- exchange of three-way land between Alaska, United States the State however, Region, Inlet Inc. Government Cook severe difficulties arose. Existing (Cook), corporation withdrawals, regional state land selections organized under the Alaska Native Natives non-Native patterns and other settlement Act of 1971. The issue Claims Settlement denied Cook freedom of expe- selection court is whether the Alaska regional corporations. before this rienced For statute, Chapter authorizing years SLA approximately following three ANC- enactment, exchange violates state constitutional negotiated Cook SA’s with the against prohibitions Secretary alienation of mineral Interior over the matter of rights in state lands and enactment of local finally brought land selection special acts. state and Cook fur- matter before the Federal District Court.3 standing as to the ther raise issues While Cook unsuccessful in District plaintiffs, join Court, the failure to appeal pending. now Should indispensable America as an par- prevail appeal, could, Cook Cook’saction superior effect, court held that the stat- ty.1 require the United States to chal- authorizing exchange the land was un- lenge validity prior ute state land selec- The state and Cook have attempt constitutional. tions and to recover title to those lands, reverse the trial appealed. We court’s rul- in order to make land available for 19, Chapter ing and find SLA 1976 selection Cook. authorizing exchange the land is constitu- Pending appeal its in the United States

tional. Appeals Circuit, Court of for the Ninth sought legislative relief in Congress. Cook

FACTS Department The Cook and the 1971,Congress enacted the Alaska negotiations Na- entered into Interior concern- (ANCSA)2 exchange pursuant tive Claims Settlement of land to Sec. goal providing just 22(f) a fair and settle- resulting agree- ANCSA in an aboriginal all land claims Native whereby ment of ment the state relinquish was to groups regional lands, in Alaska. Twelve Native including the subsurface minerals corporations given therein, were established and United States in order to and share in right to select land revenues augment holdings the federal from which derived from the sale of minerals. In most corporations the Native will obtain their state, this mechanism worked reason- purposes entitlements. For of this transac- ably tion, the Cook Inlet Region, well. Within expressly waived the restric- reached, pass 1. In view of the result we do not Secretary, Secretary Defense, on the contention that the United States is an Secretary Agriculture are authorized party. indispensable For cases where the in- exchange any lands or interests therein in argument dispensable party was raised but not jurisdiction Alaska under their for lands or court, Hickel, decided see Schraier v. Village Corporations, interests therein of the 81, 663, U.S.App.D.C. 419 F.2d 668 n. 13 individuals, Regional Corporations, or the (1969); Udall, 339, U.S.App.D.C. Miller v. purpose effecting for the land con- 676, Udall, 307 F.2d 678 n. 2 Safarik v. management or to facilitate the solidations 68, 944, U.S.App.D.C. (1962). 304 F.2d development Exchanges the land. Airways, See also Pan American World CAB, Inc. v. value, equal party on the basis of and either 483, U.S.App.D.C. 392 F.2d exchange pay accept cash n. 4 equalize properties order to the value of the exchanged. 92-203, seq. 2. 43 U.S.C. 1601 et Public Law § approved 85 Stat. 688 December agreement 5.The entitled “Terms and Condi- Management tions for Land Consolidation Morton, Region, 3. See Cook Inlet Inc. v. Area, Inlet December 1975” is Cook (unreported D.Alaska No. A — 40-73 Civil mem Representatives Report set out in the House of February 1975), appeal orandum decision 94-729, Congress, First No. 94th Session. docketed, Region, sub nom. Cook Inlet Inc. v. 75-2232, Kleppe (No. Cir.). 9th 22(f) 4. Sec. of the Alaska Native Claims Settle- ® provides: ment Act right restricting the state’s 38.05.125 contained in of minerals alienation

tions and AS 38.95.060autho- 94-204, alienate minerals Act, P.L. 6(i) of the Statehood Sec. exchanges corpo- of land rizing with Native For First Congress, Session. 94th equal value. the basis of rations on state lands to of certain relinquishment its States, would receive the state brought ques- plaintiffs below suit times as and a half two approximately legislative tioning validity of or execu- located else- federal lands many acres of exchange. On June consent to tive elements of con- where, plus various other enjoined prospec- the trial court including public purpose four sideration transfer. tive area, improved Anchorage se- tracts greater role rights statewide and lection I. PLAINTIFFS’ TO SUE6 STANDING Cook Inlet’s land se- determining where liberally past, In the this court has The Act becomes effec- may occur. lections standing judicial limitation construed irrevocably (1) commit- tive if: accessibility has favored increased transfer before March to the land ted itself not, however, specifi courts.7 We have prejudice (2) withdraws with Cook taxpayer with considered whether a cally (3) Cook case from the Ninth Circuit particular in a financial stake out a direct irrevocably from and waives all withdraws government expenditure or citizen who lands. existing rights in certain standing loss has suffers no economic passed Chapter Legislature The Alaska Although in public interest.8 vindicate 19, authorizing the Governor to SLA 1976 typical taxpay many respects this case designated action, state lands to the convey the we do not now decide er or citizen in accordance with the government interpretation our should be whether liberal to conveyance pass all standing The in all agreement. permit to such extended including rights particu in the land under the the state’s We hold suits. here,9 (3) plaintiffs have al subsurface estate. Section facts involved the mineral lar personal stake in the out- leged sufficient the Act waives the AS standing the de- law review articles cited there- was raised and 6. The issue authorities view, summary expansive adopting and on fendants in the trial court For cases not in. argued Seldin, 490, judgment in is further motion and v. 422 U.S. 95 S.Ct. see Warth however, points appeal, 2197, Schlesinger (1975); make The briefs. v. 45 L.Ed.2d 343 only general War, to the “denial of summa- Stop reference to 418 U.S. Reservist Committee specific ry judgment” 2925, no mention of 208, with S.Ct. 41 L.Ed.2d 706 94 standing. trial court and all counsel Since the Cohen, Douglas v. Justice in Flast As stated argued contested and knew the issue was 108, 4, 1957, 20 n. 88 S.Ct. at U.S. 392 briefs, question. See in we will review the (concurring opinion): at 966-67 n. 4 L.Ed.2d State, 1100, (Alaska Jager 1103 v. 537 P.2d to how The estimates commentators so, however, 1975). should decision to do Our specifically upheld many jurisdictions have encourage to or condone such de- not be read taxpayers’ range 40. from 32 to See suits required by Appel- partures precision from the Davis, generally, Law 3 K. Administrative 9(e). late Rule (1958), (1965 22.09-22.10 22.09 § §§ Treatise Jaffe, Standing Supp.); To Secure Judicial State, 8, (Alaska P.2d 7. Moore v. 553 23-25 See Actions, 1265, 74 Harv.L.R. Review: Public Court, Family 1976); Wagstaff Superior Comment, (1961); Taxpayers’ Suits: 1276-81 1220, Division, (Alaska P.2d 1225-26 Court 535 Summary, Survey 69 Yale L.J. 895 A and 1297, Boucher, 1975); Coghill v. 511 P.2d 1299 Smelt, Raceway, 13 St. v. Yonkers Clair 1973); (Alaska Ref. United States & 45-49, 72, 77-81, 43, Comm’n, 242 N.Y.S.2d N.Y.2d Mining 489 P.2d Co. v. Local Bound. 15, (dissenting (1963) opin- Distributors, 140, 1971); (Alaska N.E.2d 16-19 192 142 K & L 351, Fuld, J.). Murkowski, (Alas 486 P.2d 353-54 ion of Inc. v. 1971); Alyeska Corporation ka Ski v. Holds 101, Cohen, 83, 392 9. As in Flast v. U.S. stated 1006, worth, 1967). (Alaska P.2d 1008 426 1942, 1953, 942, (1968): 962 S.Ct. 20 L.Ed.2d 88 may requi- may taxpayer not have the background A comprehensive on the de- 8. For outcome, depending personal standing stake in the expansion site velopment and doc- particular 83, Cohen, trine, the circumstances 392 U.S. 88 S.Ct. see Flast v. 1942, (1968), many 20 L.Ed.2d 947 case.

635 controversy guarantee come of “the interests sufficient to create an adversity judicial Here, which is fundamental “injury in fact”.13 plaintiffs are proceedings”.10 seeking protect resources land originally selected from govern- the federal Looking allegations of the com- ment under the Statehood Act. Their in- which, we several plaint, find factors terest in the state’s retention of mineral together, mandate viewed our conclusion. state lands is no less significant (cid:127) transfer two allegedly land violates than aesthetic and environmental val- limitations; specific constitutional re- sought ues vindicated in Sierra Club on the alienation re- straints of mineral and SCRAP. sources and the restriction on local and Moreover, special legislation.12 the com- Finally, although requisite injury can- plaint magnitude underscores not be created the absence aof more potential and im- transaction economic appropriate plaintiff,14 we note that there is pact state. Plaintiffs have claimed no one in a position better to complain of participation land transfer will the constitutional violations alleged here. losses in K treasury result estate and As we Distributors, & L Inc. v. stated Murkowski, taxpayers money. of vast sums (Alaska 1971), slightly different context: alleged injury here involves more greater one has a interest [n]o injury. than the Supreme economic Like outcome appellants, than [of SCRAP, case] in issue, if they cannot raise the it is 93 S.Ct. 37 L.Ed.2d unlikely that the issue will be raised. Morton, Club (1973), Sierra 727, 734, 1361, 1365, U.S. L.Ed.2d governor While the gener- and the attorney (1972), are we inclined to recognize generally al charged are protecting intangible public interest,15 harm nontraditional position their in this (Alaska vis, Standing: Others, In Moore v. Taxpayers P.2d 1976), explained: we U.Chi.L.Rev. party standing judi- Whether a has to obtain Schlesinger Stop 14. See v. Reservists to the controversy depends cial resolution on of War, 208, 227, 2935, 2925, 418 U.S. 94 S.Ct. party personal whether the has a sufficient 706, (1974); L.Ed.2d United v. Rich- States controversy. of In stake outcome the ardson, 166, 179, 2940, 2947, 94 S.Ct. Wagstaff Superior our recent decision of (1974). 41 L.Ed.2d Court, Division, Family 535 P.2d (Alaska 1975), requirement we described this VII, 15. Art. Sec. of the Alaska Constitution fact,” “injury explained of in and terms provides: purpose adversity its is to assure the judicial proceedings, is to which fundamental Authority. governor Governor’s shall be omitted) (footnotes responsible for the faithful of execution the may, by appropriate Constitution, VIII, laws. He court action 9; 11. Alaska Art. Sec. Alas- proceeding brought Act, 85-508, 6(i). or in the name of the ka Statehood Public Law State, compliance any enforce with constitu- Constitution, II, 12. Alaska Art. Sec. 19. On mandate, legislative tional or or restrain vio- appeal, standing argued the issue of any legislative constitutional lation of or respect prohibitions 6(i) of Sec. and any officer, power, duty, right by depart- or VIII, Art. Sec. 9. We have considered cases ment, agency any of the State of its involving II, Sec. 19 in which the of issue authority political subdivisions. This standing has not been raised. Abrams v. any to authorize not be construed action (Alaska 1975); Eng 534 P.2d 91 Boucher v. legislature. proceeding against the strom, (Alaska 1974). 528 P.2d 456 provi- party has drawn attention to this Neither sion of the Alaska Constitution. As stated Wagstaff, 7, where, 13. See 535 P.2d at 1225 n. Alyeska Corporation attorney’s Ski considering right represent Justice Rabinowitz an to Holdsworth, minor, quoted at n. P.2d 1013-14 28: we Professor Davis who states: of before us make refer- None the briefs basic idea that comes numerous “The out provision to this of constitution and enough ence our cases that an identifiable trifle is possible impact standing standing its on issue in fight question princi- out a for of ple; standing case at bar. In such circumstances we the trifle is basis and for supplies principle appropriate the motivation.” Da- will await a more occasion to production the time of the repre- cial mineral to that controversy clearly adverse ownership grants, were retained federal by plaintiffs. sented management disposition for under totality of circum- In view of theoretically system of federal min- unified strong policy favoring re- stances litigation part In to avoid the law. eral specific alleged constitutional viola- view of from this titles which had resulted officials,16 appro- we over by state find it tions Congress passed School Lands policy,19 of this controver- to reach the merits priate This act of 43 U.S.C. 870. § sy- original land statehood extended OF II. THE CONSTITUTIONALITY mineral character. lands embrace OF THE PROPOSED TRANSFER however, were grants, These additional MINERAL RIGHTS a mineral alienation condi- subject made disposal land prohibited state of tion which Alaska, Territory through of per- a reservation minerals without legislature, provided for its by the a forfeiture action instituted mitted delegates adopted a convention.17 Elected on behalf Attorney General 5, 1956, February Constitution disposal in the event such [43 people Alaska on was ratified 870(b)]. § U.S.C. adopted April 1956. This Constitution people Alaska served the basis of most states Although constitutions subsequent petitions for for by Congress passage written after were accept and constituted offer to statehood acts, Alaska’s Consti- relevant privileges responsibilities of that pre- of a drafted in absence tution its in accordance with terms.18 status delegates were existing act. While the restric- particular unsure therefore drafting the Throughout process might be chosen language which tive adoption, there was and its history of were aware of the they Congress, surrounding controversy public considerable disposition of over state control federal control over Alaska’s the issue likelihood that lands and the dispose of its mineral resources. power retaining would insist states, United States legislation for other In statehood many delegates powers. To grants to non- usual Congress had limited land state, these restric- lands, Public which were mineral lands. unpopular.20 were chiefly to be valuable commer- tions known Egan, ganized Village of interpret portion Kake constitu- U.S. Alaska’s 7 L.Ed.2d 573 82 S.Ct. tion. States, Wyoming See, g., v. United See, Smelt., e. g., e. Ref. United States & Comm’n, L.Ed. 742 41 S.Ct. Mining U.S. v. Local Bound. Co. Sweet, 563, 38 S.Ct. 245 U.S. (Alaska 1971). v. United Deffeback L.Ed.2d 473 opinion discussion in this The historical Hawke, 29 L.Ed. 6 S.Ct. Fischer, following sources: drawn from V. (Anchor- Alaska’s Constitutional Convention Press, 1975); Naske, age, Univ. of Alaska C. 20. See Alaska Constitutional Pro- Convention Interpretative History An ceedings, Alaskan Statehood example, at 3001 and For Del- Co., (Alaska Publishing 1973); Northwest C. egate White Committee on Resources Naske, “103,350,000 Acres,” II Alaska Journal told convention: 1972); (Autumn Alaska Constitutional Con- of all the hundreds of I have talked to (Juneau, Legisla- Proceedings vention Alaska pro- about . . mineral [the alienation Service, Council); I tive Public Administration vision act under consideration Constitutional Studies 44-70. by Congress], ... I can count on some- thing less Community, than one hand those who like Annette Is- Indian 18. Metlakatla requirement (Alas- that the will Egan, state have retain P.2d land Reserve may only grounds, title its 1961), part to minerals and lease sub them. on other ka nom., rev'd in Community Egan, 4 Alaska Constitutional Convention Proceed- Indian Metlakatla ings explained (1962), provi- at 3001. He later that the 7 L.Ed.2d 562 U.S. part grounds, sion sub. nom. Or- was: aff’d in other hand, protect delegates were other the need to concerned specific that re- On the drafted into against exploita- of the state strictions resources Constitution satisfy might Congressional require- not pressure special interest tion Alaska’s Union, ments for admission to the emphasized at the outset groups provision could have been calling added Bartlett, by in an address L. convention E. for might such additional restrictions as be Delegate time Alaska’s that by Congress. required suggested provision A natu- Congress.21 drafted Admin- ral resources the Public have What we said with reference Art. Services, consulting or- national istration VIII, applies equal Sec. force to the provide retained to research ganization XII, of Art. provisions speci- Sec. which to the Alaska Commit- Statehood services fies: tee, have a reservation to would admitting All the act sold, lands of all minerals in the state Union rights which reserve patented by deeded or the state.22 granted, States, to the powers well as as drafting provision, In which became prescribing those the terms or conditions VIII, 9, however, delegates Art. See. grants of lands or property, other the view rejected that absolute restraints fully by are consented to of mineral should on alienation be people. part affirmative Constitu- made an specific limitations No to mineral alienation Instead, they provided tion. that: were set forth in the . All sales or shall contain provision. Nor were any terms or condi- of all re- such reservations to the State incorporated tions reference to exist- may required by Congress be sources or code since statute provide and shall for access or the State be enacted yet Congress. Art. resources. Reservation of access to these XII, VIII, 13 is similar Sec. to Art. 9 in Sec. unnecessarily impair shall not owners’ advance expressing consent to terms con- use, prevent trespass, the control of might required by be ditions which Con- compensation damages.23 preclude condition gress as a to admission of Alaska not, however, It did to the Union. embed delegates clearly thus not elected any particular restrictions state into the specific include restrictions on alienation of Constitution. rights in the Constitution. Had that such they intended restrictions con- be no we believe there can While mandated, stitutionally have been as to the question serious intent spell matter to out in simple them drafting VIII, delegates in we many manner as same careful were so cognizant that a state dif are constitution It provisions of the is with- Constitution. legislative construing In fers from a act. that a dispute out state in its constitution act, we legislative need look impose stringent more restrictions on A of the members who enacted it. intent disposal of state re- provision, however, lands than those must by Congress. fact, quired voters, In there no and it ratified is therefore requirement dispose meaning necessary a state to look to the also at all. placed provi- its lands the event would have the voters on its away 1, 59, unpopular among Proposal, far and most Vol. 22. P.A.S. at Alaska Consti- necessarily just of Alaska and not Proceedings. tutional Convention Provision among mining industry. unpopular alienating by gen- It is rights for was made mineral among homesteaders, in the man the case of lesser law in homesteads and eral everyone and I street have talked to. . acreage. Id. at 3062. VIII, 9, 23. Sec. Alaska Constitution. Fischer, 21.See, supra at Mr. Bartlett la- 134. with ter served distinction as senior United Senator for States Alaska. 24, 1956, April years prior almost three probably not voters were While

sions.24 achieving The delegates of statehood.26 Alaska privy the comments signed Act July into law on provision, they were made adopting 6(i) of Act Section states: 1958. unambiguous lan- purpose of its aware Report People to the made or (i) A All confirmed under guage deposits. Act shall include mineral Constitutional Conven- from the Alaskan grants of mineral lands to the The State widely distributed. The tion which was (a) (b) and Alaska under subsections of of the Constitution’s treat- report explained express made this section are reservations as: of mineral ment sales, deeds, grants, that all or conditions Congressional think- reflection a direct patents any for mineral lands so Constitution . . . The ing, . granted subject shall and contain subject in gives to the flexible treatment the State of all reservation to will not be neces- that amendment order sold, granted, lands so minerals thinking should Congressional if sary deeded, patented, together with the added)25 change, (emphasis for, mine, prospect and remove right advised that restric- voters were thus The deposits same. Mineral in such lands could alienation mineral tions on subject lease by the State as necessity of constitu- be lifted without the legislature may direct: the State Provid- permitted. if so tional amendment ed, That lands minerals hereafter expression cogent We envision no more can contrary provisions to the disposed and of of the intent of the drafters those this section shall be forfeited to Unit- voting for ratification of the Constitution. by appropriate in- proceedings ed States Attorney General for that stituted compelled We are to hold that Art. purpose in the United District VIII, XII, Sec. and Art. Sec. do not for the District of Alaska. contain constitutional restraints on aliena rights. tion of be selected the state The lands to decision merely leave the as to whether to mineral lands so as to be consistent included require such reservations rights granted other states as a VIII, legislature. Art. Sec. 9 the state’s of the School Lands Act of result XII, and Art. Sec. 13 the state Constitu placed by 870. The restrictions U.S.C. § impose impediment no to an ex tion thus Congress on alienation of Alaska’s lands change of land authorized import of the same those set forth were legislature though even ex the state applicable Act conveyance change involves a of mineral states.

rights by the state. 8(b) of Sec. the Statehood Act case, however, simply re-

This not so be held in Alaska submit- that an election propositions.27 solved. Alaskans ratified the Constitution to the voters three We ting January People Telephone 26. Alaska became a state on 24. ex rel. Watseka Co. (Presidential Emmerson, Proclamation President Eisen- (1922); 302 Ill. 134 N.E. 707 hower, 3, 1959). January Curators, Heimberger ex rel. v. Board of (1916); Hop- Mo. 188 S.W. 128 Steele 8(b) provides Alaska Statehood Miller, Miller St. kins & Co. Ohio part: (1915); N.E. 648 Scribner v. Okl.Cr. designated (b) by proclamation At an election 132 P. Rasmussen Alaska, be the of the Governor Baker, Wyo. 117, (Wyo.1897). 50 P. 819 pursuant (a) general election held to subsection section, election, general or a Territorial of this Proposed for the State Alas- election, special there shall be submitted to or a ka, People Report to A of Alaska from the election, qualified to vote in said the electors (College, Convention at 3 Alaska Constitutional rejection, separate adoption ballot 1956). history significance each, following propositions: Fischer, supra at this document is discussed in immediately “(1) be admitted Shall Alaska 173-74. a State? into the Union as people. legislature There was no state with the third only here concerned are the consent existence at the time of required passage of the proposition Act, legisla- of the people provisions Territorial Statehood the state approved never Act ture amendment incor- Alaska Statehood 6(i) the restrictions Sec. porating to the United rights powers reserving into the Alaska Constitution. Statehood prescribing the States, as those as well any was constitutional convention Nor grants of lands of the or conditions terms to act on the matter. The Alaska called to the therein made property or other may by popu- not be amended Constitution of Alaska. State alone, prior without action ei- lar vote of all voted in favor of Alaska people legislature ther the or a constitutional con- held at the election propositions of the three vention. It is thus clear that the Alaska 8(b) Included in 1958.28 Sec. August was not amended in the Constitution Act, although not in the of the Statehood ways permitted by that document. It two voters, was the submitted proposition beyond dispute that the is further the three in the event that provision Congress power has no to amend a majority adopted by were propositions state’s constitution.29 pro- constitution of vote, proposed “the . shall be of Alaska . . would hold that the vot posed State dissent accordingly”. Since approved amended an amendment to the Consti deemed ers plaintiffs’ it is adopted, tution, were nor although language neither the propositions the Alaska Constitution were indicated the fact of this amendment position to include “the terms amended If had desired that thereby on the ballot. of land” set forth grants contain restrictions Constitution conditions the state alienation, Act. 6(i) act could have Sec. appropriate that an amendment of the State The Constitution enacted. however, means Alaska, provides only two XIII, The dissent also contends 1 autho Sec. for its amendment. XIII, the Alaska 1 and by two-third vote Art. Secs. such amendments rizes of amend specifying means legislature thereafter house of the Constitution of each until Alaska inoperative majority vote at the next ment remained by a approved The same XIII, into the Union. pro was admitted election. Art. statewide for the entire Constitution. a constitutional be said for amendments vides agreed upon subject to ratification as the Constitution Just convention legal by majority votes cast on “(2) election The boundaries of submission, prescribed provisions in the Act of said of this Act shall shall be as n approved_and thereupon all claims of this State cease to be effective. any outside the bound- areas of land or sea Naske, irrevocably Interpretative prescribed hereby History so are 28. C. An aries of Alas- relinquished Statehood, to the United States. kan at 167. “(3) All of the Act of powers approved_reserving Smith, 559, 568-71, Coyle 29. See 221 U.S. States, pre- well as those to the United 688, 690-91, 55 L.Ed. S.Ct. 858-59 scribing the terms or conditions Municipality (3 How.) No. 44 U.S. Permoli 589, property or other therein made to of lands 609-10, (1845); Boeing 11 L.Ed. Alaska, fully by State of are consented Corp., Aircraft Co. v. Reconstruction Finance people.” and its said State 652, 171 P.2d 838 at 25 Wash.2d 842. Con- proposi- foregoing event each of the powers gress is limited to enumerated in by majority adopted at said election tions is of the proposed Alaska, and cannot invade an area of submission, legal cast on said votes exclusively sovereignty reserved to the states proposed constitution State of by tampering “essentially peculiarly at the election ratified powers”. League state National 24, 1956, Cities April amend- held on shall be deemed Usery, accordingly. 49 L.Ed.2d In the event one of the ed adopted foregoing propositions not said 44 U.S.L.W. 4974 ly, by approving 8(b) proposition to 3 of Sec. of prior to Alaska’s admission adopted Act, agreed have been the Statehood to be bound Union, could amendments alienability provisions imposed on land with its restrictions of accordance enacted government. This required. The amend- the federal constitut- so Congress had itself, compact. The real issue whether ments, ed a the Constitution like Congress has given Alaska’s admission its consent after effective become however, terms, compact al- change may be Congress, imposed to the Union. only It a state constitutional amend- to admission. seems tered condition no such Congressional re- that ment. self-evident were intended on alienation straints compacts between most new states Prior binding to be extent dif- than Alaska and arose body. This also was the required by that enabling acts ferently because the federal adopt- agreed upon and of those who

intent prior were written constitutions by vote. ed the Alaska Constitution result, the the new states.32 As a constitu- realizing in an ar- Apparently the flaws to mirror the terms of the tions were able was amended gument Constitution Even under those circum- act. set propositions approving the vote provisions of the federal where the stances Act, 8(b) of the Statehood forth Sec. actually incorporated enabling act were into compact rely the creation of plaintiffs on constitution, it held that has been the state A Congress. the future state between may be compact so reached altered agreement or contract compact merely necessity state constitu- without or with reference to nations usually applied tional amendment. argue plaintiffs The sovereign states.30 leading Boeing case is Aircraft Co. v. arose the result compact that such Corp., Finance 25 Wash.2d Reconstruction provi- of the Alaska Constitution’s adoption dismissed, (1946), appeal P.2d 838 VIII, XII, 9 and Art. Art. Sec. Sec. sions Boeing King sub nom. Aircraft Co. v. Coun- lands agreeing that all sales Washington, ty, U.S. subject to such reservations as be Washington L.Ed. 1262 en- require imposition and the federal shall abling act the state constitu- on restrictions alienation provide tional convention subsequently 6(i) set forth in Sec. by ordinances irrevocable without Act. States, of the United and the consent authority There is to the effect . . people said States that no arise, compact for a there must be imposed by State(s) taxes shall be state constitution identical property belonging to lands or therein comparison act.31 While a may purchased by hereafter provisions in the two documents for its use.33 United States reserved of assistance to determine whether an of Wash- The Constitution reached, rely we not agreement do ington, provided: Art. XXVI require narrow doctrine as would any such Compact With the United States —The language. Here is clear that identical following shall be irrevocable ordinance by ratification of the Constitution Alaskans VIII, provisions of the consent including the Sec. without 13; XII, again, separate- of this state:— and Art. (4th was drafted prior 32. Hawaii’s Black’s Law ed. rev. Dictionary providing Un- for its admission to the 1957). act March 1959. There Law 86 ion, Public pertaining decision to be no Hawaii appears Community, Is 31. Metlakatla Indian Annette United States. with the compact Egan, land Reserve v. 908-09 1961). (Alaska (Session II, Ch. February 33. Act of 180), 25 Stat. “ * * * The Washington Supreme taxes be im- no that first property on lands looked the intent of the framers state of its posed by the Congress. and that of may to or constitution belonging The therein quoted approval court “that the pole- the purchased United States hereafter * * 34 star in construction of for use: Constitutions is reserved adopters”.37 intention of the makers and Thereafter, States authorized the United It concluded that: property owned state taxation inescapable It is an conclusion that the Corporation to the Finance Reconstruction framers of the constitution and the Con- according value, to its as other same extent gress of the United States intended that Washington The taxed.35 property real agreement allowing Federal property law authorizing taxa- Legislature passed taxed, would be arrived at to be of the United States property tion of the passage of laws of the such “whenever and in agencies and its legislature United States of the taxation be authorized manner as such Washington. clearly appar- state It is laws of under the the United permitted that makers of our ent constitution States”.36 speak had mind that the declaratory judgment A action was com- through legislature the mouth of the validity contesting the of the coun- menced agreeing property Federal might that the Fi- on the Reconstruction ty imposed taxes be taxed.38 property which had been Corporation nance If with the issue facing confronted Boeing Aircraft Co. leased to Under Washington court, we would have consider- lease, Boeing required was terms of the reaching the same difficulty able conclu- lawfully imposed taxes on pay any exemption sion. The was set expressly property. provid- constitution which forth state whether, without a state At was issue ed that it was irrevocable without con- amendment, the Washington constitutional and the “people” sent United States Legislature could authorize taxation however, clear, It is of the state. property. compact be- United States’ provision in the state constitu- was inserted Washington tween the United States solely tion for the benefit federal taxation, and prohibited prohibi- such government. compelling There thus is rea- tion, restrictions on unlike the alienation the framers of the son believe that state specifically was writ- dispute, land here in ratifying it constitution and those intended Washington ten Constitution. into the restriction as to be free of that soon situation, Again unlike the Alaskan both Thus, by Congress. burdens relieved the state act and constitutional Court in Washington Boeing, prohibition following stated supra, probably was intent of against they taxation irrevocable “without when Congress and the state entered the consent of the United States and the The case has compact. into the been fol- (emphasis added). people of this state” without criticism.39 lowed disclaimer, express 34. 171 at 841. P.2d where Con accord, consents); gress Tribe of Indi Quinault Boeing Aircraft Co. Reconstruction Fi 35. 648, (9th Gallagher, F.2d 657 ans v. 368 Cir. Corp., supra, P.2d at 171 840-41. nance 907, denied, 1684, 1966), 87 387 U.S. cert. (1976) (relying Washington 18 L.Ed.2d 626 Rem.Supp.1945 Sec. 11150-1. 36. State, 164, law); Wash.2d 84 525 Tonasket 843, Am.Jur., quoting 11 37. 171 P.2d at Consti- Indian Makah Tribe v. P.2d 752 § tutional Law 61. P.2d 457 593 Wash.2d dismissed, appeal (1969), 90 S.Ct. Id. (1970). See also ex L.Ed.2d D., of 4th J. rel. McDonald v. District Ct. Paul, Wash.2d State v. 337 P.2d See (1972) (relying 496 P.2d Mont. (1959) (constitutional amendment unneces- Paul). Indians, sary jurisdiction despite over to assert was required rel. Inter- that all that to release the refers to State ex The dissent Reynolds, Congressional 71 N.M. Comm’n consent. Stream restrictions state secured, act Once this consent was provided agreeing disposition that certain lands New Mexico Legislature, trust, rights, that funds held was not land and subject same those lands be violating any specific provision from of the Alas- XXI, By New trust. ka Constitution. Constitution, express consent was Mexico (Alas- Hagglund, In Starr v. 374 P.2d 316 A arose provision. question given to that 1962), a ka divided Alaska being were whether such trust funds toas change provision a approved the purposes. The New Mex- for the trust used cap- designating Constitution Juneau as being that the funds were ico court found initiative, by statute or rather than ital designated purposes. The deci- for the used constitutional amendment. The decision to language the effect that contains sion provision based on the that the was fact incorporat- enabling provisions act were entitled was in an article the constitution is state constitution. The case ed into the Measures”, of Transitional “Schedule First, distinguishable. the New readily on certain remarks made the Chairman was enacted after Mexico Committee on and Tran- Ordinances enabling expressly act and consented to Thus, although capi- sitional Measures. provisions. Alaska’s Constitution known appeared body in the provision tal prior the enactment of the enacted to was Constitution, permitted it to act, incorporated spe- and thus no changed necessity a without of constitu- Second, provisions. cific New Mexico amendment. tional question here did not address court go We here do not that far since it held that the funds were

presented as provision is no in the there Alaska Constitu purposes. for trust To be appropriated restricting alienability of land. tion Provid case, to comparable for such restrictions is left that grant an express have had altera- to the determination of document its earlier restrictions on the use of tion of We that a and the state. hold constitution funds which would thereafter have mandated, al is not such amendment that appropriated pur- been for altered approval poses. question legislative That was the exact in- of the Cook Inlet land Boeing, exchange no issue but such is sufficient once volved con presented court. lifting imposed New Mexico sented the restrictions against rights.40 alienation of mineral permitting changes for

The reasons necessity compact Alaskan without of a III. LOCAL AND SPECIAL are much more constitutional amendment LEGISLATION compelling Boeing than case. The argue Chapter Plaintiffs did not Alaska Constitution .contain 1976 violates specific but mere- SLA restrictions on alienation prohibition special legislation, local and to be such reserva- ly a consent bound II, 19,41 by Congress. A Art. Sec. because affects a tions as would region argument may geographical therefore be made limited state. strong arguments 454-55, 59 S.Ct. L.Ed. 1396- as to 40. Plaintiffs present policy exchange against believe why they arguments, however, These interest. public II, Constitution, 41. Alaska provides to the Alaska Public were presented properly legislature. in part: and the Since Land Commission the political find no constitutional infirmity, we legislature Local or Acts. Special exchange as to the wisdom general decision act if act no local or special pass See DeArmond Alas- general not one for the courts. Whether can be made applicable. subject Development Corp., ka State made shall be act can be applicable 1962); (Alaska judicial Miller, Coleman determination. Ample sup evidence in the record is in- the bill Additionally, they claim Chapter our conclusion that SLA pro- ports it waives the ground that on the valid designed facilitate statewide land 1976 is restrict which 38.05.125 of AS visions management and to resolve a host use minerals and AS alienate right state’s arising in legal issues the context pressing exchanges of 38.95.060(c) authorizes The conflict between Cook of ANCSA.47 equal val- corporations Native land with concerning adequa government in these contentions no merit We find ue.42 for Native selection im cy of withdrawals 1976 is Chapter SLA and hold future state selections and plicated both which is act, addressing a matter general patents. existing state Clouds title concern. A valid statewide unique, but of protracted litigation resulted in could have super- effectively repeal or act general planning effective for a varie impaired acts such as prior AS cede state needs. ty of 38.95.060. and AS 38.05.125 report prepared for use the House to be employed The test in de Committees on Natural Re- and Senate termining legislation whether contravenes evaluating Chapter SLA sources II, substantially is the same as 19 Planning the Federal-State Land 197648 nonsuspect to classifications applicable problems these summarized Commission equal protection.43 challenged as violative reso- variety of alternative considered legislative goals Examining both They concluded that the land ex- lutions. them, to advance we must used desirable and change represented the means the most legislation multiple bears a issues whether advantageous determine solution relationship” legiti The ex- confronting and substantial state as a whole. “fair response unique If this standard is satis to a purposes.44 change mate is a fied, opportuni- not be invalid because of the state the the bill will which affords offer advantages.45 challenge, the vast bulk private ty local or to secure free of incidental evenly patented all to it. In addi- operate previously need not in lands Legislation tion, selection of additional being permits classified state the state to avoid parts of previously unavailable lands which were special.46 as local Committee, Chapter claim that SLA 414 42. Plaintiffs also Alaska State Bond 45. Suber v. unconstitutionally discriminates in favor (Alaska 1966) (adjustment plan 1976 552 P.2d corporation against particular as all Native of a mortgagees mortgagors of homes to aid and, particular, grantees of state land equal damaged earthquake violative of not corporations. against Native Al- all other as protection). standing specif- question though was not claim, ically argued we in connection with this supra Engstrom, 528 P.2d 456 v. 46. Boucher and Mr. lack the that Mr. Lewis Galliet note State, 463; supra, at 94. 534 P.2d Abrams v. adversity argument. requisite to raise this alleged they are mem- not Plaintiffs have test, basis we the traditional rational 47. Under grantees corporation Native bers of a findings legislative un- aside the refused set explain why any land, they do nor state clearly they basis in lacked reasonable less against allegedly bill discriminated those See, g., v. Alaska State e. DeArmond fact. rights. vindicate their own are unable to (Alaska Corp., Development P.2d 721 Mortgage 1962), Engstrom, State P.2d 463 n.25 in Ault v. Alaska v. cited 43. Boucher (Alaska 1974). (Alaska 1963). Ass’n, Under P.2d adopted equal protection standard the new Rickey, P.2d 361-63 Isakson Isakson, supra, will not P.2d at we 1976). previous (Alaska con- decisions Our legislation”. “hypothesize The voluminous special legislation cerning local and —Abrams pre- documentary here evidence in the record (Alaska 1975); Boucher v. conjecture. for the need cludes Cease, supra; Engstrom, and Walters v. 1964) (Alaska decided before P.2d —were Report, Report Federal- Inlet 48. See Cook stringent equal protection adopted the more we (Anchor- Planning Land Use Commission We extend our dicta forth in Isakson. test set 6, 1976). age, March supra, Engstrom, and find the in Boucher applicable here. standard Isakson act, prohibition including against certain constitutional alienation the statehood under precludes purpose Anchorage rights tracts of mineral this land key public the act does exchange, and not conflict with area. prohibitions against special constitutional opposing policy Plaintiffs raise ar legislation. local the exchange to They consider guments. injunction superior issued heritage. of the state’s “give away” be a vacated, court is therefore and the declara- infirmity, however, a constitutional Absent tory judgment superior court re- is balancing arguments peculiar of such versed. As far as the legislative function. ly concerned, we find a issue WITZ, Justice, dissenting in RABINO relationship” between and substantial “fair part. purposes legislative permissible used to advance them.49 means agreement majority’s I am in with the standing spe- local or resolution present previous Our decisions no bar issues, legislation majori- cial well as holding point Plaintiffs our here. unnecessary pass it is ty’s conclusionthat Abrams, supra, the in- as determinative of the contention the United States case. There we considered a statute stant party litigation. indispensable is an to this Eagle creation of an Riv- providing My disagreement majority with the lies in a manner er-Chugiak Borough in different disposition question court’s comprehensive that set in a from forth proposed whether the of mineral transfer incorporating state scheme for new bor- constitutionally permissible. uphold Those oughs. seeking to the statute Abrams, however, failed offer evi- why explaining Before I find I cannot indicating any reason special valid for dence agree holdings with the court’s that in the procedures, incorporation applicable only to particular circumstances of this case a con- By contrast, borough.50 new proposed the stitutional amendment is and not mandated problems region of the Cook Inlet the and “legislative approval that of the Cook Inlet relationship to broader state their concerns exchange land sufficient once a unique calling situation for present lifting the imposed consented restrictions treatment. No similar set facts unique against rights,” of of I alienation exist, expected and legis- appropriate my position is known or the think to clarify it is thus the peripheral lation as broad as conditions to in relation to several rather as- responds.51 appeal. it We therefore pects which hold that of this 19, general Chapter legisla- SLA 1976 is First, although I legal reach the same complex problems treatment tive of of appellees have the conclusion that importance pressing and of con- statewide appeal, court reach in this I cannot sub- cern. wrongdo- appellees’ scribe to assertions of summary, we that the plaintiffs part In hold on the of members of the executive standing the validity government. have to contest of branch Alaska’s In this of 19, Chapter regard SLA 1976 under the brief portions appellees’ facts I think 19, We embody intemperate case. hold that Chapter this further rather and reckless ac- 1976is since point, constitutional there is no More to the I have as- SLA cusations. supra, Engstrom, upheld jurisdictions 49. See also Boucher v. where 51.For which have unique that responding we found statewide interest in the location laws situations in the capital challenges, of a new was sufficient validate an see context of similar constitutional proposal g., Reynolds, initiative relocation excluded 71 v. N.M. 378 P.2d e. State Anchorage potential and (1963); County Fairbanks sites. v. Wil- 622 at 626 of Cameron son, (1959); Tex. 326 S.W.2d reasons, borough Milliken, Berry For similar we found the 234 S.C. S.E.2d v. procedures incorporation Hodgson, at issue Walters 183 Kan. State Cease, 1964), (Alaska 394 P.2d 670 to be local legislation. special and admissions, Alaska’s previous most Consti- analysis of the purposes my sumed adopted by the constitutional parties that all tution question here by the people ex- and ratified proposed land convention historic in this involved prior to Territory of Alaska the enactment good utmost faith acted in change have enabling of Alaska’s States branch the United the executive In Metlakatla Indian Commu- exchange legislation. terms obtained has government Egan, Island Reserve v. this nity, in relation to Annette entirely fair in fact which are efforts pre-statehood the viewed court interests Territory of Alaska in the part full accord with Secondly, I am in Alaska. “This constitution following manner: both the federal part attempts on subsequent petitions to a basis for equi- out an served as to work governments and state and can be con- Congress for Region, Inlet Inc. Statehood Cook table solution accept privileges as an offer to provisions of the sidered to effectuate in order of that status in accord- responsibilities Act. For Settlement Native Claims in mind Keeping terms.”4 equi- ance with its it is essential my belief new states to admit implementations power table settlement the unusual circum- claims of the Union and respective land into achieved of Territory adopted Nevertheless, that the Alaska’s stance Alaskans. Native state constitution before Con- judicial power proposed vested has legislation, I now passed enabling Supreme gress Court of Alas- had of the state extremely question difficult power this is the address A concomitant ka.1 determining legal effect of interpreting presented Alaska’s Constitu- necessity of Act and upon, provisions in accordance with tion, called when at issue in analysis. which are of constitutional Alaska Constitution principles neutral liti- particular appeal. regardless of whom For be, pro- Alaska’s Constitution gants Smith, Coyle U.S. equal enti- are persons “that all vides (1911), L.Ed. pro- rights, opportunities, equal tled to of the United with a ques- faced Thus, with these under the law.”2 tection involving ability tion of a state to act in mind, turn to matters in I now preliminary contradiction to relevant of its majority has termed question which Enabling act. The Oklahoma Proposed Constitutionality of “The restrictions, among contained numerous Rights.” Mineral Transfer of them, capital that the state was to be tem- IV, section 3 of the Constitution in porarily enabling Article located Guthrie. The provides part restrictions, in types of the United States act contained two of may by be admitted the required “New states Con- those to be inserted in the state into this . . . .”3 As the gress Union constitution and those which the Oklahoma notes, sequential procedural the majority constitutional convention was to the actual the stages prior accept by to admission of “ordinance irrevocable.” The capital provision Alaska into the Union are un- Territory of state was of the latter in sequencing upholding legisla- the of events In the type. usual. Unlike Oklahoma IV, Republican Form of Government Article section 1 of the Alaska Constitu- a unión judicial part: power in “The tion reads court, supreme superior in State is vested court, Community, 4.Metlakatla Indian Annette Is legisla- the and the courts established Egan, Reserve v. at 908-09 land ture.” 1961), (Alaska part grounds, rev'd in on other Community sub nom. Metlakatla Indian I, 2. Article section Alaska Constitution. Egan, 369 U.S. 82 S.Ct. 7 L.Ed.2d 562 (1962), part grounds, aff’din on other sub nom. IV, section 4 of the Constitution of the 3. Article Village Egan, Organized provides of Kake v. 369 U.S. that: “The Unit- United States further every guarantee in 7 L.Ed.2d 573 to ed States is plain The deduction from this case capital the to Okla- to transfer power ture’s Court established a new state is Supreme that when admitted into City, the homa Union, respect so with all of to restric- it is admitted the three subdivisions enabling sovereignty jurisdic- by Congress powers in of the insisted tions states, First, pertain original conditions which are which are tion legislation. state; powers the that such not be consti- admission of the fulfilled diminished, tutionally impaired, legisla- or shorn or affirmative “compacts are second conditions, futuro, away compacts, in which operate intended to tion act under stipulations embraced the powers scope conceded are within Union, state came into the third, which new subject”;5 are Congress over the valid if which would not be and effectual powers restrict the compacts which subject congressional legislation state in that would otherwise new matters after admission.7 sphere of state exclusively within be The Court stated: power. Supreme Thus, Congress empowered it is clear that enabling particu- such on certain inclusions in the requirements As to to insist as a to prerequisite as relate contents state’s constitution acts lar state, admission; proposed Congress new for the what is forbidden to impairs The “the essence regulation need to be said. which little concerning power Coyle the admission provision of statehood.”8 mandate, power but a Court Supreme states is not concluded new Smith moving capital From with discretion. the restriction on exercised ignored by the new it follow that could be this alone would Oklahoma denying power to a which was may require, penalty under since related state admission, organic traditionally a new ambit of law of within state’s shall be powers. time admission state approval. A Constitu- such as meet issue, analyze I restrictions As would, by Congress supervised thus tion 6(i) of the Statehood contained section state, all, be of a after a Constitution Alaska’s to alien- power Act on State of subject to alteration and amend- as such comes ate mineral interests state lands after Its ment the state admission. Coyle category relating to con- within that of a state

force Constitu- imposed prerequi- as a stitutional conditions tion, Congress.6 of an act and not that In the case site admission. usual prior then went on to hold act was passed Court attempting meeting was that so far of the state’s constitutional convention, any power which was deprive the state of to insist able states, constitutionally possessed inclusion of various attempt proposed invalid. stated: Inasmuch as constitution.9 state’s Smith, 559, 568, Coyle 31 S.Ct. ‘to the From this as reserved States.’ sidered 853, L.Ed. irresistibly Congress almost that it follows right provide to that certain has not the Id. 6. Union, possessing full state- members of the hood, compe- shall have their constitutional 31 S.Ct. at 55 L.Ed. at Id. 860. less those of their sister States. tences According than Airways, Interior Inc. v. Wien Alaska Air- this, then, Congress though to lines, Inc., F.Supp. (D.Alaska conditions exact of Territories whatever 1960). precedent requirements their fit to it sees States, such, when admission as admitted as Willoughby the 9. Professor Westel discusses any privileges deny it to them of the cannot subject of of new follows: admissions states as the which other Common- and immunities Constitution, distinguishing without The enjoy. wealths States, original the and new between the to granted defines equality principle the the States of of political privileges which are the States origin adoption the of the Con- had its before enjoy, powers and declares that all not In the acts the stitution itself. of cession to be con- the United States shall electorate, majority of the adopted by a was held convention constitutional Alaska’s then Congress of enab- passage before long ex- was unable to

ling legislation, of the proposed . constitution proposed to insist power its Alaska, ercise ratified of proposed State specific provisions. contain April constitution at the election held people of the However, insist that the it did according- be deemed amended adopt, among oth- proposed State ly.10 conditions, explicit restrictions er (3) significance proposition particular Of 6(i) in section of contained restrictions 8(b) forth in section of the which was set Act, upon passage by and that Statehood re- proposition Act. This Alaska Statehood constitution of the proposed people, territory’s to the prerequisite as a quired, amended. of Alaska would be deemed State Union, majority into the that a admission 6(i) the Alaska section particularly, More to qualified electorate consent provides part that: Act Statehood Act provisions of the [statehood] [a]ll under made or confirmed grants All reserving rights powers to deposits. include mineral Act shall this States, pre- those as well as the United mineral lands to State grants scribing the terms or conditions (b) (a) and subsections of Alaska under property therein of lands or other upon express are made

this section Alaska, are consent- made to State deeds, sales, grants, that all conditions people. its fully by said ed to the mineral lands so any patents my possible view it is not to draw a subject to and contain a granted shall be procedural between the viable distinction of all reservation the State Congress in the employed by mechanism sold, granted, the lands so minerals in power of Alaska’s admission and case deeded, together with the patented, usual Congress has exercised over ad- for, mine, and remove prospect right past. For I do not discern missions same. power to de- between the any difference 8(b) proposed constitution of a proposed Section clare propositions prerequisite be submitted as a admis- three state amended particular Territory power of Alaska. to insist voters in the qualified sion prerequisite provisions as propositions of the three event each In the ordinance, admitted, through pass which the old Confed- an should several States when eracy Congress, control of the Northwest obtained the the consent of without irrevocable provided Territory, was that from this vast years public all lands sold tax for five not to by should, time, from time area new States organized, States; requirement sub- should be admitted to many stantially demanded of similar was sovereign rights Confederacy, with the same later formed. When Missouri the States enjoyed by States. required to declare in 1821 it was admitted Ordinance of The famous Northwest should never be so con- that its Constitution the United reenacted legislature pass permit strued as to general laying after down States in excluding from citizens of other States law was to be which statehood conditions accorded, ted, privileges enjoyment States, that the so admit- declared granted Federal them the Con- immunities equal footing with the should be ‘on omitted) (footnote stitution. respects original whatever.’ States all Willoughby, Law of The Constitutional however, 1 W. require- Notwithstanding, 1929). (2d 310-11 ed. early States the United equality, at an date ment of began exacting practice of from would-be 8(b) further of the Statehood Act 10. Section promises by the terms of various stipulated that: they to hold themselves bound were which after forego- any one of the [three] In the event to the Union and until their admission adopted propositions at said elec- not Thus, release them. for ex- should legal majority by cast on votes Ohio, tion ample, beginning in 1802 with the first submission, provisions of this Act the Territory, said it formed from the Northwest State thereupon be effective. by Congress cease to that that was demanded view, logical is a do I view the reached as my In de- conclusion here admission. contrary the sequence majority’s assertion that the usual admission duction from . . the passed an “. United States has had first that a state’s Territory power of to amend constitution.” the Alaska had no act and then in instant case it was within convention, For the Con- the pro- its constitutional held gress’ powers insist over admission to have contained the posed constitution prerequisite achieving a condition or of as against alienation mineral re- restriction people of Alaska consent to statehood proposed constitution sources. If power of restriction on the the state to provision, Congress would not lacked such a resources, and that its mineral alienate Alaska into Union. have admitted deemed additions to the these restraints be Thus, I conclusion the re- reach the constitution of Alaska. Such re- proposed of mineral resources straint on alienation quirements Congress’ part are constitu- 6(i) of the Alaska State- provided by section Supreme tionally for as the permissible, of part hood Act became Constitution Coyle Court said Smith by previ- virtue of the the State supervised by Constitution thus Con- [a] 8(b) language of section of ously mentioned would, all, be a gress after Constitution Act and the Alaska Statehood the elector- state, subject as such to altera- of upon (3).11 proposition favorable vote ate’s by tion and amendment the state after view, provisions my In reliance of admission.13 XIII, XIII, section 1 article and article sec- providing procedural 4 as the exclusive the prohibitions tion Given the conclusion that for amendment against mechanisms of Alaska’s alienation of mineral interests is inapposite.12 part For at became state lands of Alaska’s Consti- Territory of virtue the provisions time the electorate Alas- tution of section (3), favorably proposition 8(b) people’s ka state- of the Statehood Act and the voted Thus, pro- proposition (3), had not been attained. re- adoption question hood XIII, section visions article article mains how such restrictions can be lifted. XIII, 4, in section the factual context rel. Interstate Commis- ex Stream bar, inoperative Reynolds, until case at remained sion v. N.M. (1963),

Alaska was admitted into the Union. Nor the New Mexico Court was support proposed 11.I find further for this conclusion and as an amendment constitu- VIII, provisions of section 9 which article tion. provide respect part, Alaska’s natu- XIII, provides 12. Article section 1 for amend- ral resources that: ment of Alaska’s Constitution a two-third section, Subject provisions of to the legislature of each house of the vote approved thereafter may provide legislature for the grant the sale or majority vote at the next state- lands, therein, of state interests XIII, Article wide election. section makes procedures. establish sales All sales or provision for constitutional amendment grants such to the shall contain reservations subject a constitutional means of convention required by as State of all resources Congress by the ratification electorate. provide or the State and shall resources, added) (emphasis these access to 559, 568, 688, 690, 55 L.Ed. XII, significance is article Also of the text of that: section 13 states A brief note should also made with re- provisions admitting All act majority’s position people spect to powers to the to the United which reserve Union adopted proposed of the proposed State Alaska States, pre- as well as those by Report as defined A constitution scribing the terms or conditions of the People of the Alaska Consti- Alaska from property, are of lands consented It obvious that when fully by people. tutional Convention. the State and its constitution, proposed 6(i) voted on the Admittedly the they section of the Statehood Act them; they report VIII, response did not before have to article can be viewed as a constitution, proposed proposed thus voted on the 9 of Alaska’s constitution. section leaving interpretation Congress, enabling legislation, sought Yet judicial (3) proposed proposition approval branch that document to electorate government. of admission to statehood both a condition incorporated into the In 1898Con- Constitution when problem. awith similar faced Ferguson expressly people Act which consented to thus gress enacted XXI, territory of New Mexico Section 9 of the Constitu- in Article granted “for the establishment tion.14 500,000acres of land irrigat- water reservoirs permanent Here, not unlike the analysis court’s in money derived from All ing purposes.” 6(i) I have concluded Reynolds, that section separate in a placed was to be land trust Act part the Alaska Statehood became use restricted to the trust and its fund In light fundamental law. of this Alaska’s Enabling pursu- Act of purpose. conclusion, Chapter I hold that state, became a New Mexico ant to which purportedly authorized the SLA 10: provided section exchange question, is violative of land hereby declared that all lands That it is prohibition the Alaska Constitutional which, including those hereby granted, against alienation of mineral resources in granted to the having been heretofore prohibitions lands. The relevant state hereby expressly Territory, are said of mineral against alienation resources confirmed to the said transferred lands can be removed amend- state be the said State held in to the Alaska Constitution. ment Since trust, disposed part of in whole or in ordinary legisla- Chapter SLA provided manner as herein and for only in enactment, does not have the status of tive objects specified respec- the several amendment, wholly it is a constitutional confirmatory provi- granting tive to lift the alienation restraints ineffective sions, products and and that the natural Thus, supe- that the I conclude question. any of said lands shall money proceeds of holding Chapter rior court’s SLA as the lands subject to the same trusts af- was unconstitutional should be same, added) (emphasis

producing firmed. XXI, section 9 of the New Mexico Article appropriate briefly express I think it provided: compact theory concerning views my and its consent to all This state argu- majority’s disposition of this singular of the said My point departure from the ment. Congress, approved June twenti- Act of analysis concerning appellees’ majority’s ten, eth, nineteen hundred and concern- compact theory centers on whether the granted the lands said act or con- was entered into between compact which state, the terms and condi- firmed to this state and could be al- the future which said and confir- tions methods other than an amendment tered were made and means and mations For the reasons Alaska’s Constitution. enforcing such terms and con- manner of previously, again I am led to the expressed ditions, every respect particular all in 6(i) that section of the Alaska conclusion provided. as in said act part of Alaska’s fun- became brought challenging the plaintiff suit into incorporated law when it was damental constitutionality occurred, of various state statutes Once Constitution. Alaska’s trust funds. The reservoir appropriating Congress and Alaska compact between that the Supreme Court held Mexico part by New on Alaska’s only be altered could Ferguson with the did not conflict ap- statutes amendment. Thus Act, and stated: legislature15 Alaska’s given by proval exchange is constitu-. land Enabling Act became the Cook Inlet 10 of

Section insufficient, light tionally law to the even our fundamental part Congress expressly affirmed directly if it had been fact that extent as same previ- Chapter had SLA 1976. The New Mexico ously Drainage held in Lake Arthur Dist. v. Field, (1921), 199 P. 112 27 N.M. Enabling part Act was a 10 of the section law state. fundamental imposed against restrictions of the removal mineral interests

alienation STANGE, Appellant, Dennis lands.16 of Alaska’s argu- accept the state’s I cannot simply Alaska, Appellee. “deemed amended ac- the words ment that STATE 8(c) cordingly” used section as 2725. No. Act were Statehood Alaska acknowledge simply to and con- intended of Alaska. supremacy: rule of federal firm the basic 7, 1977. Feb. of the Alaska Constitu- provision if irreconcilably directly conflicted tion Act, the

with a of the provision (emphasis give way.17

former must

original). beyond at reach

Here interests stake supremacy federal control

federal interests; mineral for the

preservation people

compact protected mineral alienation their resources

from given by approval constitu-

without their Thus, for addi- amendment. these

tional the superior I would affirm

tional reasons legislature holding that Alaska’s

court’s empowered not waive alienation

was express question without

restraints people of Alaska.

consent of Justice,

BURKE, part): (dissenting in respectfully

I dissent on the issue of

standing. my view the record fails to the kind individualized harm

show give plaintiffs necessary to interest

direct

standing action. to maintain their

Otherwise, I concur. majority’s Boeing reliance Boe- I involved believe that rationale to this case. tend its ing v. Reconstruction Finance solely Aircraft Co. to the benefit of which ran restriction (1946) Corp., P.2d 838 Wash.2d government; people Wash- the federal inappropriate. holding that “the lifting ington ex- benefited were through legisla- speak the mouth bar, emption. In the at the restriction case agreeing property might that Federal ture taxed,” repre- people of in favor of the runs merely an alterna- 171 P.2d actions state limitation on the sents a holding characterized as tive court circumstance, government. In such a it would holding compelling than ex- less emption govern- to allow the indeed be anomalous state merely declaratory taxation was from a modification the com- to consent to ment regard without of the law people. pact on behalf compact hence bind the did not state exempt property when the federal Similarly, disagree analysis I with the state’s government allowed taxation. It has not- been that the contemporaneous with the Boe- ed events adding limiting dominant intention ing made the constitutional issue in decision 6(i), merely to re- provision subsection important. See Tonasket v. the case seem less discretionary federal control over tain (1974) 84 Wash.2d management in lands of mineral State’s J., dissenting). (Utter chiefly at Statehood time to be valua- known However, accepted Boeing if as hav- even production. commercial ble for basis, there ex- are reasons not valid

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Lewis

Court Name: Alaska Supreme Court

Date Published: Jan 18, 1977

Citation: 559 P.2d 630

Docket Number: 3039

Court Abbreviation: Alaska