uniform application clause in Alaska

2015Section 3, the common use clause, provides that “[w]herever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use.” Section 17, the uniform application clause, requires that “[l]aws and regulations governing the use or disposal of natural resources . . . apply equally to all persons similarly situated with reference to the subject matter and purpose to be served by the law or regulation.” Section 15 provides that there shall be “[n]o exclusive right or special privilege of fishery . . . in the natural waters of the State”; though the clause addr

2007See Baxley v. State, 958 P.2d 422, 429-30 (Alaska 1998) (holding that the uniform application clause was not violated "[b]ecause no other entity [was] similarly situated"); Tongass Sport Fishing Ass'n v. State, 866 P.2d 1314, 1318 (Alaska 1994) (upholding a salmon harvesting regulation that gave preference to commercial fishers because sport and commercial fishers are not similarly situated).

2015Section 3, the common use clause, provides that “[w]herever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use.” Section 17, the uniform application clause, requires that “[l]aws and regulations governing the use or disposal of natural resources . . . apply equally to all persons similarly situated with reference to the subject matter and purpose to be served by the law or regulation.” Section 15 provides that there shall be “[n]o exclusive right or special privilege of fishery . . . in the natural waters of the State”; though the clause addr

2015Section 3, the common use clause, provides that “[w]herever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use.” Section 17, the uniform application clause, requires that “[l]aws and regulations governing the use or disposal of natural resources . . . apply equally to all persons similarly situated with reference to the subject matter and purpose to be served by the law or regulation.” Section 15 provides that there shall be “[n]o exclusive right or special privilege of fishery . . . in the natural waters of the State”; though the clause addr

2015Section 3, the common use clause, provides that “[w]herever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use.” Section 17, the uniform application clause, requires that “[l]aws and regulations governing the use or disposal of natural resources . . . apply equally to all persons similarly situated with reference to the subject matter and purpose to be served by the law or regulation.” Section 15 provides that there shall be “[n]o exclusive right or special privilege of fishery . . . in the natural waters of the State”; though the clause addr

2015Section 3, the common use clause, provides that “[w]herever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use.” Section 17, the uniform application clause, requires that “[l]aws and regulations governing the use or disposal of natural resources . . . apply equally to all persons similarly situated with reference to the subject matter and purpose to be served by the law or regulation.” Section 15 provides that there shall be “[n]o exclusive right or special privilege of fishery . . . in the natural waters of the State”; though the clause addr

2007Id. at 639 . [23] McDowell, 785 P.2d at 9 . [24] Id. [25] Id. at 10 . [26] Id. [27] Id. at 10-11 . [28] Id. at 13 (Moore, J., concurring and dissenting). [29] Id. [30] Id. [31] Id. [32] Id. [33] In re Adoption of Erin G., 140 P.3d 886, 890 (Alaska 2006) (quoting Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 , 97 S.Ct. 990 , 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977)) (internal quotations omitted). [34] McDowell, 785 P.2d at 13 n. 1 (Moore, J., concurring and dissenting) (noting "[i]t may be that the enactment should receive even greater scrutiny under the uniform application clause; however, the court has not decided

2007See Kenaitze Indian Tribe, 894 P.2d at 641 (recognizing that "the more rigorous least restrictive alternative test [is] employed in cases where entry into a user class is restricted”); Gilbert v. State, 803 P.2d 391, 399 (Alaska 1990) (stating that in order "[t]o satisfy the uniform application clause of article VIII, state fish and game regulations creating non-uniform classifications must” have a legitimate and important purpose and "[t]he means used to further the important state purpose must be carefully drawn and designed for the least possible infringement on article VIII’s open access v

2015Section 3, the common use clause, provides that “[w]herever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use.” Section 17, the uniform application clause, requires that “[l]aws and regulations governing the use or disposal of natural resources . . . apply equally to all persons similarly situated with reference to the subject matter and purpose to be served by the law or regulation.” Section 15 provides that there shall be “[n]o exclusive right or special privilege of fishery . . . in the natural waters of the State”; though the clause addr

2015Section 3, the common use clause, provides that “[w]herever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use.” Section 17, the uniform application clause, requires that “[l]aws and regulations governing the use or disposal of natural resources . . . apply equally to all persons similarly situated with reference to the subject matter and purpose to be served by the law or regulation.” Section 15 provides that there shall be “[n]o exclusive right or special privilege of fishery . . . in the natural waters of the State”; though the clause addr

2015Section 3, the common use clause, provides that “[w]herever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use.” Section 17, the uniform application clause, requires that “[l]aws and regulations governing the use or disposal of natural resources . . . apply equally to all persons similarly situated with reference to the subject matter and purpose to be served by the law or regulation.” Section 15 provides that there shall be “[n]o exclusive right or special privilege of fishery . . . in the natural waters of the State”; though the clause addr

2015Section 3, the common use clause, provides that “[w]herever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use.” Section 17, the uniform application clause, requires that “[l]aws and regulations governing the use or disposal of natural resources . . . apply equally to all persons similarly situated with reference to the subject matter and purpose to be served by the law or regulation.” Section 15 provides that there shall be “[n]o exclusive right or special privilege of fishery . . . in the natural waters of the State”; though the clause addr

2007Id. at 639 . [23] McDowell, 785 P.2d at 9 . [24] Id. [25] Id. at 10 . [26] Id. [27] Id. at 10-11 . [28] Id. at 13 (Moore, J., concurring and dissenting). [29] Id. [30] Id. [31] Id. [32] Id. [33] In re Adoption of Erin G., 140 P.3d 886, 890 (Alaska 2006) (quoting Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 , 97 S.Ct. 990 , 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977)) (internal quotations omitted). [34] McDowell, 785 P.2d at 13 n. 1 (Moore, J., concurring and dissenting) (noting "[i]t may be that the enactment should receive even greater scrutiny under the uniform application clause; however, the court has not decided

2007See Baxley v. State, 958 P.2d 422, 429-30 (Alaska 1998) (holding that the uniform application clause was not violated "[b]ecause no other entity [was] similarly situated"); Tongass Sport Fishing Ass'n v. State, 866 P.2d 1314, 1318 (Alaska 1994) (upholding a salmon harvesting regulation that gave preference to commercial fishers because sport and commercial fishers are not similarly situated).

2007See Baxley v. State, 958 P.2d 422, 429-30 (Alaska 1998) (holding that the uniform application clause was not violated "[b]ecause no other entity [was] similarly situated”); Tongass Sport Fishing Ass’n v. State, 866 P.2d 1314, 1318 (Alaska 1994) (upholding a salmon harvesting regulation that gave preference to commercial fishers because sport and commercial fishers are not similarly situated).

1998First, the case “must be one of public significance.” Trustees for Alaska v. State, 736 P.2d 324, 329-30 (Alaska 1987).

1990Johns v. Commercial Fisheries Entry Comm’n, 758 P.2d 1256, 1264 (Alaska 1988).

1990To satisfy the uniform application clause of article VIII, state fish and game regulations creating non-uniform classifications must (1) have a legitimate purpose. 10 Owsichek, 763 P.2d at 496 -97 & nn. 13 & 14; Johns, 758 P.2d at 1264 ; Apokedak, 606 P.2d at 1265 & nn. 41 & 42. (2) The individual interest in equal access to fish and game resources is a “highly important interest running to each person within the state.” 11 McDowell, 785 P.2d at 10 ; Owsichek, 763 P.2d at 492 n. 10. (3) Accordingly, once a legitimate purpose has been established by the state, the weight of that interest must b

1989Most recently in Owsichek , we suggested that section 17 of article VIII, the uniform application clause, “may require ‘more stringent review’ of a statute than does the equal protection clause in cases involving natural resources.” Owsichek, 763 P.2d at 498 n. 17 (quoting Gilman v. Martin, 662 P.2d 120, 126 (Alaska 1983)).

1989Most recently in Owsichek , we suggested that section 17 of article VIII, the uniform application clause, "may require `more stringent review' of a statute than does the equal protection clause in cases involving natural resources." Owsichek, 763 P.2d at 498 n. 17 (quoting Gilman v. Martin, 662 P.2d 120, 126 (Alaska 1983)).