In a screenshot from a video feed provided by 360 North, justices of the Alaska Supreme Court hear oral arguments Thursday, April 26, 2018 on the case Mallott v. Stand for Salmon in Anchorage. (Video capture)

In a screenshot from a video feed provided by 360 North, justices of the Alaska Supreme Court hear oral arguments Thursday, April 26, 2018 on the case Mallott v. Stand for Salmon in Anchorage. (Video capture)

Alaska’s high court hears dispute over salmon ballot measure

The Alaska Supreme Court heard oral arguments Thursday in a case that will decide the fate of a pro-fisheries ballot initiative earmarked for the November election.

Looming behind the justices was an enormous symbol of the argument: A copy of the state seal bearing a variety of Alaska icons including mining, the Alaska Railroad, and a solitary salmon.

In Mallott v. Stand for Salmon, the State of Alaska is attempting to overturn an Superior Court decision that found the ballot initiative acceptable.

For almost an hour, the five justices heard arguments from Solicitor General Joanne Grace, representing the state, and Valerie Brown, an attorney from Trustees for Alaska, which is representing the ballot measure group Stand for Salmon.

“We hope you will affirm the superior court and let this process of direct democracy proceed to the ballot,” Brown told the justices.

At its core, Thursday’s arguments were about the meaning of an obscure clause of the Alaska Constitution and whether the proposed ballot measure violates it. Stand for Salmon’s ballot measure proposes a sweeping reform of the state’s process for permitting construction projects that affect salmon streams in Alaska.

The State of Alaska contends that the ballot measure is so sweeping that it effectively allocates salmon streams and other bodies of water for fish alone.

“17FSH2 is the equivalent of a bill banning all discharge (into streams),” Grace said.

Article XI, Section 7 of the Alaska Constitution says that a ballot measure cannot “make or repeal appropriations,” and prior court rulings have found that the restriction applies to appropriations of public land and water, not just money.

In written arguments, and orally to the court on Thursday, Grace contends that the Stand for Salmon measure crosses that line because it creates standards so high that they cannot be met.

“It wouldn’t ban all of anything,” Brown said in opposition.

She told the justices that the initiative is more appropriately a “regulatory proposal,” such as have appeared on the ballot before. In 2014, after a series of court challenges, voters approved a measure requiring the Alaska Legislature to approve large-scale mines in Bristol Bay. The measure, seen as targeting the proposed Pebble Mine, passed by a 66-34 margin.

This year’s debate is about a much broader proposal, one that would affect projects across the state, and not just mines. Permits are required for roads, pipelines and all structures that cross salmon-bearing streams, and the measure would affect all of these.

Partially for that reason, industry groups are lining up in opposition to the measure. The Alaska Oil and Gas Association, ANCSA Regional Association and Council of Alaska Producers submitted documents in support of the state’s position.

The Bristol Bay Fishermen’s Association and Ekwok Village Council also offered their support for the state’s position, but for a different reason.

“From our position, this initiative does too much to help Pebble,” attorney Geoffrey Parker, representing the two groups, said by phone Thursday.

The justices did not take a definitive stance on either argument made by the two primary parties in the lawsuit, but they did appear to be leaning toward a Solomonic solution. Several times, justices asked whether it would be possible to delete unconstitutional portions of the initiative and allow the rest to proceed to the ballot.

“They certainly spent a good amount of time talking about that,” said Katherine DeMarest, a state attorney who supported Grace at Thursday’s hearing.

The portion of the initiative that came under particular scrutiny by the judges included sections pertaining to restrictions placed on large projects, particularly large mines. Judges repeatedly asked whether it is even possible for large mines to operate under the restrictions proposed by the ballot initative.

Brown, speaking by phone after the hearing, said that while they did spend time addressing the possibility of deleting — formally called “severing” — those sections, it’s not fair to say that’s what will happen in the end.

“You can’t really tell from argument what they’re planning on doing. They ask a lot of questions,” she said. “I wouldn’t say it’s fair to say they’re definitely going to sever.”

If the judges delete one section, it would be an action almost without precedent. Only once before, in 1988, has the Alaska Supreme Court taken that step, and in that case, it deleted only one sentence.

(The measure in that case, involving a community college program for Alaska, was defeated at the ballot box.)

The justices did not take any immediate action Thursday, as is normal for Supreme Court cases. The justices will analyze the arguments offered in print and orally, then return a decision in a matter of weeks.

Grace told the justices that as long as a decision comes before Sept. 5, the Alaska Division of Elections will have enough time to print ballots, regardless of the verdict.

• Contact reporter James Brooks at

More in News

A Princess Cruise Line ship is docked in Juneau on Aug. 25, 2021. (Michael Lockett / Juneau Empire File)
Ships in Port for the week of May 22, 2022

Here’s what to expect this week.

Coast Guard aircrews medevaced two people from Dry Bay Airstrip, approximately 30 miles Southeast of Yakutat, Alaska, after their plane crashed, May 25, 2022. (Courtesy photo / Coast Guard District 17)
Three medevaced after plane crash near Yakutat

All four aboard were injured, three critically so.

The author’s appreciation for steelhead has turned into something like reverence considering what’s happening to populations in the Lower 48 and Canada. (Jeff Lund / For the Juneau Empire)
I Went to the Woods: Silent steel

“You forget most of what ends up in the freezer, but those steelhead, they stick with you.”

Senate President Peter Micciche, R-Soldotna, seen here in this June 16, 2021, file photo, announced Wednesday he will not seek relelection in the Alaska State Senate, where he has served since 2013. (Peter Segall / Juneau Empire file)
Senate president says he won’t run again

“Honor and a privilege.”

Hoonah’s Alaska Youth Stewards helped make improvements to Moby and water the plants in summer 2021. (Courtesy Photo / Jillian Schuyler)
Resilient Peoples & Place: Moby the Mobile Greenhouse cultivates community

It presents opportunities to grow food knowledge and skills.

It's a police car until you look closely and see the details don't quite match. (Juneau Empire File / Michael Penn)
Police calls for Thursday, May 26, 2022

This report contains public information from law enforcement and public safety agencies.

Gavel (Courtesy photo)
Alaska Supreme Court orders use of interim map for elections

The decision came just over a week before the June 1 filing deadline for the August primaries.

Most Read