Katie John et al. v. United States

A case that is now over ten years old, Katie John has become a primary legal focus in the state's struggle for control over its own lands and waters. The primary issue concerns whether the state or the federal government has the legal right to manage fish and game in navigable waters throughout the state. Traditionally, that power has rested solely with states, but under a previous Ninth Circuit ruling, the federal government, by virtue of the Reserved Water Rights Doctrine, claimed it had the right to manage resources within those state waters. Recently, the entire Ninth Circuit panel agreed to take up the appeal. The State of Alaska briefed the issue for the court, and the legislature offered its own help. By filing both its own amicus brief in support of the State and by convincing 13 other states to join, the legislature hopes to sway the Ninth Circuit. The briefing has been completed and filed, and oral argument is set in San Francisco for December 20.

University Lands Grant Litigation

On April 21, the legislature voted to override the Governor's veto of SB 7, the University Lands bill, (HCS CSSB 7(FIN) am), by a vote of 41 yeas and 19 nays -- a result that represents greater than 2/3 of the legislature voting to override but less than 3/4. In a letter dated June 14, 2000, to Mike Burns, University Regent, the Governor stated his position that his veto was sustained because SB 7 was an appropriation requiring a 3/4 vote to override his veto and a 3/4 vote was not attained. The Governor also announced that his administration would not be implementing SB 7. On July 18, the Legislative Council sued the Governor for a declaratory judgment that April 21 vote overrode his veto of SB 7. To date, the complaint and answer filed in the case establish that the Governor currently contends that SB 7 is both an appropriation and a bill to raise revenue, either one of which would require a 3/4 override vote. A scheduling conference has been set for Nov. 29 before Judge Patricia A. Collins, the judge assigned to the case.

Native Village of Barrow v. National Indian Gaming Commission

The native Village of Barrow has filed a lawsuit against the National Indian Gaming Commission is Washington, D.C. to try to obtain a court order authorizing them to conduct gaming on a Native townsite lot in Barrow in violation of the State of Alaska's gaming statute. The Akiachak native Community and the Kenaitze Indian Tribe have filed similar lawsuits. Since only federally recognized Indian Tribes may conduct gaming in violation of state law, whether these villages are federally recognized tribes has become a critical issue for the court to decide. The State Attorney General's office has intervened in the lawsuit, but will not challenge the groups' status as federally recognized tribes. The Alaska Legislative Council, on the other hand, believes that under federal law, Alaska Native villages are not federally recognized Indian tribes, and that the proposed gaming is therefore impermissible. Toward that end, the legislative Council hired an attorney to intervene in the lawsuit and raise this precise issue relating to tribes in Alaska. The issue has been briefed and we are currently awaiting court action on the issue.

Reapportionment

All members of the Redistricting Board have been appointed and the Board has held several organizational meetings. The Board elected Vicki Otte as chair, hired Gordon Harrison as the executive director, and Phillip Volland as their independent counsel. The Board also acquired lease space on the first floor of the DEC building in Juneau. The Board has held no substantive discussions regarding how they will approach the redistricting process but should begin doing so shortly now that an executive director has been hired.

We are expecting the census information in March; then the board has 90 days to issue a final plan; 30 days to draft a proposed plan and 60 additional days to conduct public hearings and work on the final plan.