## Facts

- The Lieutenant Governor certified a ballot initiative titled “An Act Relating to the Use of Snares in Trapping Wolves.”
- The initiative proposed (1) banning use of snares with intent to trap wolves and (2) banning certain transactions in wolf pelts known to have been taken by snare.
- Opponents sued for pre-election review, seeking to decertify the initiative and remove it from the ballot.
- Opponents argued that Alaska’s public-trust obligations over natural resources made wildlife management “clearly inapplicable” to the initiative power and reserved such decisions to the legislature.
- The superior court agreed, held initiatives could not be used for fish and game management, and ordered the initiative decertified.
- Initiative proponents and the State appealed; the Alaska Supreme Court expedited review, reversed, and ordered the initiative returned to the ballot.
- Voters later rejected the initiative in the general election.

## Issues

1. Whether Alaska’s initiative power may be used to enact statutes regulating wildlife management, or whether natural resource management is “clearly inapplicable” to initiatives under the Alaska Constitution.
2. What limits govern pre-election judicial review of ballot initiatives.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court reversed the superior court’s judgment decertifying the initiative.
- The court held that wildlife and natural resource management are not categorically excluded from the initiative process.
- The court rejected the claim that the public-trust doctrine or Article VIII grants the legislature exclusive lawmaking authority over natural resources.
- The court reaffirmed that pre-election review is limited to determining whether an initiative complies with constitutional and statutory provisions regulating initiatives, not the measure’s policy wisdom.
- The court ordered the initiative to remain on the ballot (consistent with its earlier expedited order).

## Legal Principles

- Pre-election judicial review of initiatives is confined to compliance with constitutional and statutory rules governing initiatives; courts do not weigh the merits of proposed legislation before an election.
- The initiative power is a component of Alaska’s legislative power reserved to the people and is broadly available absent an express constitutional limitation.
- Alaska’s public-trust provisions require management of natural resources for public benefit but do not bar direct popular legislation on resource management.
- Subject-matter exclusions from the initiative power must be explicit; absent an express constitutional prohibition (e.g., appropriations or local/special legislation), an initiative may regulate natural resources and wildlife.

## Conclusion

The Alaska Supreme Court held that a wolf-snare ban and related pelt restrictions were proper subjects for the initiative process because neither the public-trust doctrine nor Article VIII removes natural resource management from popular lawmaking, and pre-election review is limited to initiative-specific constitutional and statutory constraints.


Brooks v. Wright, 971 P.2d 1025 (Alaska 1999)