leases of state lands...without prior public notice and other safeguards of the public's interest..." The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, an injunction voiding the project's existing permits, including water-use permits. The requested injunction was specific to Pebble permits and would not directly apply to other mining projects. The suit alleges that DNR's "pattern of permitting," is defective because it was not sufficiently rigorous in determining that issuing a permit would best serve public interest, as demonstrated by a lack of documented scientific studies and by lack of public review and input, prior to issuing permits. A Declaration by one of the plaintiffs references the Commentary on Article VIII on State Lands and Natural Resources of December 15, 1955; "As requirements change and many tasks become routine, appropriate modifications can be made in procedures if rigid requirements are not specified in the Constitution itself." The suit also alleges that significant, and documented, adverse effects on land, water, and wildlife have already occurred as a result of drilling and other exploration activities at Pebble since 1989. In late 2009 the presiding judge rejected a State of Alaska motion to dismiss the case and also denied a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop mining exploration. A Petition for Review on the preliminary injunction decision was filed with the Alaska Supreme Court. In July 2010, the Alaska Superior Court ruled that Nunamta Aulukestai et al. v. State of Alaska DNR would proceed to a non-jury trial in December 2010. The ruling dismissed one of the six claims in the lawsuit and limited the scope of the upcoming trial to the Pebble permits, rather than to the Alaska mineral exploration permitting system in general. Political actions Two bills designed to outlaw large-scale mining in the Pebble area were introduced in the Alaska state legislature in 2007; both stalled in committee. A third attempted (by ballot measure) piece of legislation was the Alaska Clean Water Initiative, 2008. It was voted down after months of high-profile public debate, heavy advertising, and a series of judgements by the Alaska State Supreme Court. The measure remained an active public issue; in June 2009 the state of Alaska's Alaska Public Offices Commission reported violations of campaign funding laws during the contest. Then-Governor Sarah Palin was a strong supporter of the project and faced criticism about her opposition to the initiative, the involvement of state government and the intended