Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
02/22/2017 01:30 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): | |
| HB104 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 69 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 22, 2017
3:18 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Chair
Representative Zach Fansler, Vice Chair
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative David Eastman
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Lora Reinbold
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Charisse Millett (alternate)
Representative Louise Stutes (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
Alaska Attorney General
Jahna Lindemuth - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION (S) ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 104
"An Act relating to collecting information about civil
litigation by the Alaska Judicial Council; repealing Rule
41(a)(3), Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rules 511(c) and
(e), Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED HB 104 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 69
"An Act repealing the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission;
relating to decisions and orders of the Workers' Compensation
Appeals Commission; relating to superior court jurisdiction over
appeals from Alaska Workers' Compensation Board decisions;
repealing Rules 201.1, 401.1, and 501.1, Alaska Rules of
Appellate Procedure, and amending Rules 202(a), 204(a) - (c),
210(e), 601(b), and 603(a), Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure;
and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 104
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL COLLECTION OF CIVIL LITIG. INFO
SPONSOR(s): JUDICIARY
02/03/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/03/17 (H) JUD
02/22/17 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
JAHNA LINDEMUTH, Appointee
Alaska Attorney General
Alaska Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the position of
Attorney General, Alaska Department of Law.
LIZZIE KUBITZ, Staff
Representative Matt Claman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 104 on behalf of the House
Judiciary Standing Committee, sponsor by request, chaired by
Representative Claman.
SUSANNE DiPETRO, Executive Director
Alaska Judicial Council
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 104, answered
questions.
KEN JACOBUS, Attorney
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 104, spoke in
support of the legislation.
SARAH BADTEN, Attorney
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 104, offered
support for the legislation.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:18:26 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 3:18 p.m. Representatives Fansler, LeDoux,
Eastman, and Claman were present at the call to order.
Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins and Kopp arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Alaska Attorney General
3:19:03 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
the confirmation hearing regarding the governor's appointee,
Jahna Lindemuth, to the position of Attorney General, Alaska
Department of Law. He advised that members have received the
appointee's application and resume, and the appointee is present
and will testify.
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony.
3:19:23 PM
JAHNA LINDEMUTH, Appointee, Alaska Attorney General, Alaska
Department of Law, advised that she was born on Elmendorf Air
Force Base [currently Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER)]
and raised in Anchorage, Alaska. She offered that she attended
West High School, and Drew University in New Jersey, and
returned to Alaska working in the field of social services for a
few years before deciding to go to law school. She then
attended the University of California, Berkeley, and graduated
in 1997, Order of Coif, the top 10 percent of that law school.
Upon her return to Alaska, she clerked for Justice Robert
Eastaugh on the Alaska Supreme Court, and then joined the law
firm of Bogle & Gates which became Dorsey & Whitney where she
has spent her entire career. Attorney General Lindemuth
explained she started as an associate and worked her way to
managing partner of 8 to 18 attorneys in the firm's Anchorage
office, and explained that the law firm is international having
more than 500 attorneys.
ATTORNEY GENERAL LINDEMUTH advised that in 2015 she was involved
with the Fairbanks Four pro bono case and spent more than 1,000
hours on pro bono work that year when the public service bug hit
her. In October 2015, Alaska Supreme Court Justice Dana Fabe
announced her retirement and Attorney General Lindemuth
submitted her application. She explained that going through the
Alaska Judicial Council process is fairly complicated and
intense, taking approximately six months. The Alaska Judicial
Council submitted her name on the short list of applicants, and
subsequent her interview with Governor Bill Walker, Justice
Susan M. Carney was appointed to the Alaska Supreme Court. In
June 2016, she received word from the governor's office to meet
with him, he asked her to be the attorney general, and she
decided it would be an honor and a privilege to accept this
position. She related that she has had no regrets and enjoys
all of the people at the Department of Law working on all of the
important issues for the state.
3:24:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD expressed appreciation to Attorney
General Lindemuth for the entire day she spent in Eagle River
listening to Representative Reinbold's heart-felt concerns, and
her advocacy toward abused women and children in particular.
She stressed that the position of attorney general is one of the
most important jobs in the state and this is the committee's
opportunity to give the people of Alaska a light into Attorney
General Lindemuth and what she believes is the role of attorney
general. She turned to the fiscal crisis noting that Department
of Law (DOL) has grown 40 percent in the last seven to eight
years, and asked what Attorney General Lindemuth is doing to
help the legislature close the fiscal gap.
3:25:50 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL LINDEMUTH agreed the state is in a fiscal
crisis and that she fully supports the legislature's efforts in
trying to solve the budget concerns. She related, the big
picture is that the department, over the last four years, has
taken significant cuts "23 percent since 2014, and 28 percent
since FY2012," and it also lost many positions. She related
that she joined the department with fresh eyes and with her
management experience met with all of the sections to really
understand what the department is doing, what services it is
providing, and whether it is providing the best services to the
state. In looking at the budget, she stated, the department's
budget has been cut too far and it has cut into the bone,
thereby, impacting core services such as, criminal prosecutions,
child protection, pursuing state rights in fighting state
sovereignty issues with the federal government, and collecting
taxes and other types of revenues for the state. The
department's general fund dollars are focused on those main
issues, and as part of the governor's budget this year the
department recommended a fairly flat budget to the governor and
to this legislature. Recognizing that times are tough, she
commented, the department's goal is to stay even and not suffer
further cuts moving forward as its part for the fiscal certainty
and budget. In the event this legislature does achieve fiscal
certainty and the pieces of the pie are put together in how the
state will move forward into the future fiscally, she said she
would like to revisit the Department's budget to consider what
is best for the state regarding cost benefit analysis on public
safety issues and cost benefit analysis on pursuing other types
of state resources.
3:28:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said the bottom line with regard to
agency operations, including unrestricted general fund (UGF,
designated general fund (DGF), other, and federal funds, Alaska
is spending 7.5 billion. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates
that amount is approximately three times the national average,
if the permanent fund is backed out, and according to the
Department of Law's (DOL) figures, since 2008 the department has
gone up 40 percent, and in the last ten years the state has gone
down from roughly $10 billion to $1 billion with regard to
revenues. She then acknowledged she was generalizing. She
advised that she needs Attorney General Lindemuth to help the
legislature reduce the budget. She paraphrased Senator Lisa
Murkowski as follows: "Not only are we in a recession, but we're
the number one, I believe she said, for unemployment." The
decisions of Attorney General Lindemuth impacts the private
sector and whether Alaska is a friendly place to do business.
She asked Attorney General Lindemuth to consider the impacts on
the private sector and economy with the department's decisions.
3:30:00 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL LINDEMUTH responded that she views her role as
the attorney for all Alaskans and that she seriously considers
what is best for Alaskans and the state as a whole. She
stressed that the department will continue making legal
decisions with that in mind and not focus solely on the private
sector or the public sector.
3:30:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked who she represents, what she sees
as her role as attorney general, and the most important thing
she does.
3:30:39 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL LINDEMUTH referred to her role as attorney
general and advised it falls into three buckets. She explained
that, currently, the department has 455 filled positions and she
is managing the largest law firm in Alaska with almost 300
attorneys, and paralegals and staff to support the attorneys.
The second bucket is that being the top lawyer for the state,
she is involved in the major legal decisions of the state.
There is no doubt, she related that she has great attorneys
helping her with expertise in various issues, and explained that
a few of the issues rising up to her level are whether to take a
course of action, initiate litigation, or settle a big case.
Her staff briefs her and they usually collectively come to a
decision. Although, when it comes down to it, "the buck stops
here" and she is the one responsible for those legal decisions.
She explained that with the third bucket, it is important to
have a lawyer on the cabinet to offer advice on legal issues the
state faces at that high policy cabinet level. She stressed
that all of her roles are important and she certainly realizes
the seriousness and import of the attorney general's role in
those issues for all Alaskans.
3:32:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked what Attorney General Lindemuth
thinks about right-to-life, gay marriage, and "what will you do
if, you know, an opinion comes out from the courts versus when
you swear to uphold and ... not only uphold but defend the
Constitution of the State of Alaska for right-to-life issues,
for a marriage between one man and one woman. I know some
lawyer, you know, federal, you know, basically decided to
overrule us and our constitution, but I swear to uphold our
constitution." She asked when push comes to shove, where she
would lean and whether Attorney General Lindemuth would lean to
defend and uphold Alaska's constitution or yield to the opinion
of a lawyer.
3:33:42 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL LINDEMUTH answered that the role of the top
lawyer in the state is to focus on the rule of law on any
particular issue. The Constitution of the State of Alaska and
the Constitution of the United States are the most important
guiding principles, and then there are the statutes this
legislature passes. On any particular issue, the most important
thing is to follow the law and uphold that rule of law, and
noted that her opinion on any particular issue really doesn't
matter because at the end of the day she follows the law.
3:34:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD followed up that as the constitution
clearly states, it is the supreme law of the land, and that she
swears to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United
States and the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and asked
whether that will be her tallest order.
ATTORNEY GENERAL LINDEMUTH replied that that is the oath she
took and she takes it seriously.
3:34:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised that Attorney General Lindemuth
represents the executive branch, but she does not solely serve
the executive branch, and that to a certain extent she is part
of the interplay between all three branches of government. He
offered a scenario of the judiciary branch overstepping its
bounds and usurping the legislature's authority by legislating
from the bench, and asked what her role would be as attorney
general in that situation.
3:35:59 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL LINDEMUTH explained that the attorney general
needs to step in where the constitution is being violated, or on
any particular issue. Again, she said, she represents the
entire state and often that is the executive branch, and there
are times the Department of Law (DOL) can be involved in
defending and representing the court system. The Alaska Court
System has its own attorneys advising on particular issues, and
Legislative Legal and Research Services represents the
legislative branch. Although, there may be times where the
attorney general's office becomes involved in representation of
a particular matter, she said.
ATTORNEY GENERAL LINDEMUTH, in response to Representative
Eastman's scenario, advised that the issue would be first dealt
with within the court system in the event a superior court judge
made a decision that did not follow the rule of law, but rather
was implementing policies, such as a "judicial activist type
judge." Which, she continued, is why appellate courts are in
place, to help review the issue and address those concern and
the Alaska Supreme Court is there to help interpret the law,
including the constitution and its principles. In the event the
legislative branch believes the interpretation doesn't reflect
the law it enacted or what the constitution reflects, the
legislature has the ability to enact policy, laws, and statutes
addressing its policy concerns in a particular case.
3:37:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered a scenario where a judge
overstepped its bounds, and "as an attorney one might expect
Attorney General Lindemuth to give a certain amount of deference
to the Alaska Supreme Court on any number of issues." As an
attorney general, he asked whether there are things she would do
if she believes an Alaska Supreme Court decision was decided
improperly.
ATTORNEY GENERAL LINDEMUTH answered that obviously the attorney
general's office participates in many court cases heard in the
state's court system. Whether a party or not, if there are
constitutional issues raised in a court case, the department is
notified and has the ability to weigh in on the
constitutionality of any particular statute. In the event the
Alaska Supreme Court decided a case the department disagrees
with and there are issues of federal constitutional law, it can
decide whether to appeal to United States Supreme Court. Again,
she reiterated, the Alaska Supreme Court is the constitutional
interpreter of Alaska law as the final arbiter, and the
department has to defer to it. The issue can then go back to
the legislature and if it disagrees with the policy issues
addressed in any particular case the legislature can change the
policy, she pointed out.
3:40:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised that once the Alaska Supreme
Court makes a decision, she will defer to that judgment.
ATTORNEY GENERAL LINDEMUTH reiterated, in the event it is an
Alaska constitutional issue or an Alaskan law, the Alaska
Supreme Court is the final arbiter of interpreting that law. In
the event it is a federal constitutional issue, the United
States Supreme Court could be the final arbiter, she said.
3:40:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that Attorney General Lindemuth
certainly has the demeanor "we're looking for," and pointed out
that the legislature has struggled over the years deciding
whether to pass legislation to separate out the attorney
general's office from the executive branch. He said his
observation has been that the legislature gets frustrated when
it passes legislation that possibly the executive branch
"doesn't want to go to bat" to support the lawfully passed
legislation. He related that, "We who support the whole
definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, the fact
that Attorney General Richards filed an amicus brief and
Governor Walker let him do it, 'said, I'm stayin out of it, he
can file a brief supporting the state's position on this issue
which was in our constitution.'" Regardless of how it all plays
out, he said, it gives the people of Alaska confidence when they
see the attorney general looking at what the people want and the
legislature passed, that the attorney general would argue it and
go to bat for the people regardless of the attorney general's
personal opinion. He said he anticipates Attorney General
Lindemuth will face situations where she is on the hot seat
deciding whether to advocate for what the legislature passed, or
not. He warned that there can be political pressure by
particular groups, and asked how Attorney General Lindemuth
would approach those situations.
3:43:16 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL LINDEMUTH related that having been in this
position for six months it gives her some experience to speak
from that she may not have had if only a month into the job.
She expressed that she appreciates the role the Department of
Law (DOL) plays in how legislation moves through the
legislature, and that it tries to weigh in early when concerns
are raised in a bill that may have constitutional issues. By
doing so, when the bill gets to the end of the process and the
legislation is passed, the department must write a letter to the
governor as to whether the governor should sign it into law, and
at that point the department can advise that it is
constitutional and that the department has no concerns. She
explained that the process is in place for the legislature to
pass constitutional laws which works and is a functional system.
In the event a law passes, the department reviewed it, and the
governor signed off, yet there is a lawsuit down the road, the
department certainly should be defending the constitutionality
of any validly passed legislation reflecting a policy decision
by the legislature. Even if it is something she personally has
issues with or would have decided differently, her role as
attorney general is to defend the constitutionality of any
validly passed legislation, she stated.
3:44:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP noted that recently the Alaska Supreme Court
struck down the parental notification initiative, with a vote of
4 to 1, and he strongly agrees with Chief Justice Craig Stowers'
dissent. He then paraphrased Chief Justice Stowers as follows:
"we've told the people of Alaska that there is no way they can
pass any prolife legislation protecting the unborn." He
acknowledged that he is picking extremely emotionally charged
subjects or politically charged because he would like to know
whether she is comfortable supporting a law and arguing for its
merits in court.
ATTORNEY GENERAL LINDEMUTH said, "Absolutely, that's what we're
here for." She continued that part of Representative Kopp's
premise was that even though it might be difficult with this
court, if there is a constitutional defense, the role of the
attorney general is to defend the constitutionality of that
statute.
3:47:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the role of the attorney
general is to represent the governor or the people, and noted
that she supports the idea of an elected attorney general
because it makes clear that the attorney general's client is the
electorate. She added that she always thought the governor
called the shots as to what positions the attorney general
takes, although Attorney General Craig Richards thought
differently during his confirmation hearings. She asked
Attorney General Lindemuth's philosophy as to how she would deal
with something she thought was a winnable case for the people of
Alaska and the governor thought differently - to whom is her
obligation.
3:48:33 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL LINDEMUTH said she does not tie those two
things together in her mind. The attorney general in Alaska is
appointed by the governor and serves at the pleasure of the
governor, and she continued that she does not think of the
governor as her client because her client is the people of
Alaska. She said she wears different hats and represents
different clients representing the people, such as all of the
different departments of the state, the different boards, and
the Board of Game, for example, is a client of the Department of
Law (DOL). Oftentimes, there could be conflicts between
clients, such that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and
Department of Transportation (TRA) may look at something
differently whether there is an easement through a property, for
example, and different attorneys are appointed. The governor is
just one of those clients, although the governor is the top
elected official and as such with the vote of Alaskans he does
make the final policy call when policy calls are to be made. As
far as making the call on the law and what the law is, that is
the role of the attorney general. Again, she said she
approaches this job in a traditional framework after twenty
years in private practice advising clients and explaining the
legal framework of a particular issue. Since she is not elected
and there are people who are elected, the policy with any
particular issue should be made by elected officials. Again,
she said, there are instances where there are no policy calls to
be made and the attorney general is actually a more direct
representative of the people. For instance, in the regulatory
affairs world with the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA), by
statute and definition the department represents the people in
those proceedings. Within any particular issue she has to look
at who the client is and who is the final decision maker.
Constitutional issues are the purview of the attorney general's
office and validly passed legislation needs to be pursued in
defense of that statute even if it is something the governor's
office may not want to pursue.
ATTORNEY GENERAL LINDEMUTH related that it is a complicated
issue and her role and experience in private practice led her to
understand those issues. She noted that within her sub-
specialties, she has been involved in fiduciary duty cases,
different corporate government-type cases where a board has been
challenged, an executive officer has been challenged, there have
been fraud cases, and issues of self-dealing of any particular
person or board who have been deemed to represent their people,
shareholders, or government and the lawyer needs to advise they
acted outside of their fiduciary duties, and such. The attorney
general does need to keep those things in mind and make certain
the different representatives of the state are obeying their
fiduciary duties as the attorney general advises the state and
its different representatives, she explained.
3:52:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the topic of immigration and
sanctuary, and asked whether, as attorney general, she can
decline to enforce laws she disagrees with without violating her
oath.
3:52:52 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL LINDEMUTH pointed out that that is a
complicated question and she would need more context to answer.
She opined that Representative Eastman was referring to Senator
Lisa Murkowski's comments to the legislature this morning and
questions asked about the Administrative Order received from the
current administration yesterday. She advised that when she
heard Senator Murkowski's comments, she immediately asked her
folks to look at the order, evaluate whether there is something
there the state needs to evaluate, whether it comports with the
law, what the state will be asked to do, and whether it is
legal. At this point she does not yet know the answer. She
pointed out that Alaska needs to pay close attention when
looking at directives from the federal government and determine
whether it falls within the purview of the federal and state
constitutions and the frameworks given. In that regard, the
state can decide whether it objects to that prerogative or not,
but she does not know what the final answer will be.
3:54:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered the scenario of a law requiring
the governor to present a balance budget to the legislature and
the governor declines to do so. He asked, as attorney general,
how she would approach the tension between her understanding of
the law and her observation that the governor was not in
compliance.
ATTORNEY GENERAL LINDEMUTH stated that is one of the positives
of the attorney general being part of the governor's cabinet and
being part of the close advisory group of the governor. In that
regard, these concerns can be addressed early on and she can be
part of a privileged conversation with the governor and offer
advice on the issues he needs to address, and that her advice as
the top lawyer would be to X, Y, or Z, on whatever the issue
was. She described a good process is when that kind of top
legal advice is available for the administration while working
through issues, thereby, having less problems going forward.
Attorney General Lindemuth commented that the flip side of that
is that she recently met some elected attorneys general and one
fellow advised that within the two years of his tenure he had
already sued his governor four times. She described, that is
not a functional system and, possibly, that's not the best way
to address concerns. She remarked that the soft advice behind
the scenes is the best way to keep the administration on task
and within the rule of law.
3:56:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN reiterated his previous scenario wherein
the attorney general viewed a law to say a certain thing and her
advice the executive decided to not conform behavior to a
statute. He asked whether she should wait for someone else to
raise that kind of issue.
ATTORNEY GENERAL LINDEMUTH said it is hard to imagine where that
would come up or how that would present itself, and it would be
a difficult situation no matter what. The attorney general
would have to evaluate the options at the time and how best to
address it. She pointed out that in the event she thought the
governor was going down a road she believed was contrary to law,
she would take that seriously.
3:56:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX turned to the idea of whether or not the
state has an obligation to enforce federal laws, and noted it
first came up in the marijuana legislation. In the event
attorneys general have an obligation to support federal laws,
the laws ignored by attorneys general of probably more than one-
half of the states would have to be challenged. She opined
there was a line of federal law stating that the federal
government could not obligate a state to enforce a federal law,
although, possibly at the loss of federal dollars. She
described it as a separation of powers argument in that it
wasn't unconstitutional to pass legislation in violation of
federal law because one sovereign couldn't force another
sovereign to do something. She asked whether she was correct.
3:58:38 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL LINDEMUTH opined that the principle may not
apply in every circumstance and it is necessary to evaluate any
particular issue and decide whether the federal law is the
controller and whether there is a way the state could be
mandated to do something. She said it is a complicated area of
law being evaluated, and she does not have the final answer on
that.
3:59:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP opined that the Alaska legislature passed
possibly one or two laws directing the attorney general to not
enforce a federal law that would further restrict firearms
ownership.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX responded that she was unsure whether the
entire legislature passed it, but the House of Representatives
did pass it.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP determined that it is not unheard of for
this body to be fairly prescriptive at times, and it may be
something Attorney General Lindemuth could be faced with.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that the law passed in the House
of Representatives obligated the state to arrest federal agents
if they did something in violation of Alaska's gun laws.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that gun rights is a fairly non-
partisan issue in this state.
4:00:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that Attorney General Lindemuth is
on the Criminal Justice Commission and asked whether she sees
her role as shaping or enforcing policy. She said the
commission gave specific recommendations of which she found
appalling with regard to public safety, and that public safety
is the legislature's most important mandate. She opined that
there is a severe separation of powers issue with judges and the
executive branch weighing in on law. The legislature "only gets
to do two things here, write the law and budget," and she opined
it was completely invaded with judges and the executive branch
and there needs to be a "much bigger separation" of this body
versus the executive branch versus the judicial branch.
ATTORNEY GENERAL LINDEMUTH answered that said she sees her
primary role as enforcing the law as currently written, and
there would be a small policy role involved because she is a
commissioner on the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission. As a
commissioner, that is a subset of the role of attorney general
as policy issues are addressed on the commission. She continued
that when there are legal issues or changes to the law,
especially those that the department is recommending, including
amendments to Senate Bill 91, Criminal Justice Reform, that is
certainly a policy issue the department is advocating so there
is a small policy role there. She stressed that the primary
role of attorney general is enforce and to be certain the laws
of the State of Alaska are compiled with and followed.
4:02:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that some people reviewed the
Criminal Justice Commission's recommendations as gospel, whereas
she looked at the recommendations as a horror book. She asked
whether there is a separation of powers issue, and further asked
Attorney General Lindemuth to look at "the other side," and help
the legislature make this law better by keeping victims in mind,
and that, possible, the legislature went too far with this
policy. She reiterated whether Attorney General Lindemuth sees
public safety as one of the most important mandates in law as
her role.
4:03:55 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL LINDEMUTH stressed that public safety is one of
the top priorities of the department and of Governor Walker's
administration. She explained that the way laws are prosecuted
within the State of Alaska, the department has primary
prosecutorial responsibility which is a huge component of
keeping the public safety.
MS. LINEMUTH turned to Representative Reinbold's original
question and advised that the legislature has the sole power on
legislation and that is not something that should be deferred to
other areas. The Criminal Justice Commission made
recommendations, and the legislature could then take those
recommendations and determine what is best for the state when
looking at the policy issues. She remarked that the
commission's recommendations are certainly helpful, and the
recent amendment recommendations for Senate Bill 91 do not go
far enough in the department's viewpoint. She pointed out that
both the Department of Law and the Department of Public Safety,
with the support of Governor Walker, are advocating for
additional changes to the laws that go further than the
recommendations of the commission.
4:05:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD queried whether she would support the
attorney general being elected by going through an intense
vetting process from the public and truly representing the
people of Alaska
ATTORNEY GENERAL LINDEMUTH related that in having looked at
this, understanding that most other states have elected attorney
general positions, she expressed that this state was blessed in
being one of the last states to join the union, with a
constitutional convention wherein the delegates could evaluate
the results of the actions of every other state. Those
delegates took a long hard look at how to put this state
together, and the delegates taking politics out of the
department was actually a good thing. She explained that to
have an elected attorney general the state would have a fourth
branch of government in a sense, and then adding in money and
politics to the attorney general position complicates matters.
The question then becomes, she pointed out, whether the
corporations contributing money to the attorney general's
campaign are being treated better in regulatory issues and
criminal prosecution issues, and the like. She acknowledged
there are pluses and minuses to both systems, but her personal
opinion is that the delegates got it right and it is best the
attorney general position be appointed.
4:07:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that she does not necessarily
think its politics, it's the people vetting who they want in
that position, and it's a decent idea to look at. She stated
that companies don't vote - people vote, and the legislature
could decide there would be no financial contribution, or
whatever, or have tight restrictions such as those of the
legislature.
4:07:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said the attorney general is the chief
law enforcement official for Alaska, and asked whether she will
permit law enforcement to break the law in order to enforce it,
if not, what tools would she consider using to prevent that from
taking place.
ATTORNEY GENERAL LINDEMUTH expressed that she does not believe
law enforcement can or does break the law in enforcing the laws
and, that it is not an issue that needs addressing. She
commented, in the event there is any particular officer breaking
the law, it would be dealt with in the legal processes in place.
4:09:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP related that resource and resource
protection is a big deal, and the Alaska Supreme Court ruled
that a fishery cannot be managed from the ballot box. He asked
whether she is comfortable defending that position.
ATTORNEY GENERAL LINDEMUTH stated that she is not familiar with
the court case ...
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP explained that the state recently had a
ballot initiative precluding setnetting in Cook Inlet wherein
the group of fisherman who harvest fish in that manner would be
prohibited, and the Alaska Supreme Court decided the fishery
would not be managed in that manner. He remarked there is a lot
of politics in fish in Alaska, and asked whether she feels
strong enough to engage in the Alaska Supreme Court's decision.
4:10:12 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL LINDEMUTH commented that Representative Kopp is
returning to the theme previous heard. Again, if the Alaska
Supreme Court has spoken on an issue of Alaska law, and whether
some action can be taken by ballot initiative or whether a
statute needs to be passed by the legislature in order to
address some particular policy issue, the Department of Law
(DOL) defers to the Alaska Supreme Court on that particular
issue. She said she fully agrees with the importance of fish
and wildlife issues in Alaska and the many legal issues involved
in that particular endeavor. She advised that the department
has at least one person fully dedicated to representing the
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) and those issues. The
Constitution of the State of Alaska has a provision addressing
natural resources and fish and wildlife in Alaska and, she
pointed out, it is important to maintain and defend those
principles. She remarked that this includes the filing of
litigation in early January against the federal government, both
to the National Park Service and the fish and wildlife
regulations that impacted the state's ability to manage its
resources, those issue are in the forefront of the Department's
agenda.
CHAIR CLAMAN advised that each member can now ask one question
because the members were asking the same questions just a little
differently, and the answers were pretty much the same.
4:12:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to Article IX, Section 13,
Constitution of the State of Alaska, which read as follows:
No money shall be withdrawn from the treasury except
in accordance with appropriations made by law. No
obligation for the payment of money shall be incurred
except as authorized by law. Unobligated
appropriations outstanding at the end of the period of
time specified by law shall be void
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that there have been occasions
in recent years where the Alaska Supreme Court has endeavored to
direct the legislature to fund programs the legislature chose
not to fund. Considering that the constitution gives the
authority to make expenditures exclusively to the legislative
branch, he asked how the courts can be corrected from
overstepping and impinging upon a responsibility solely given to
another body of government.
4:13:26 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL LINDEMUTH related that she is unfamiliar with
what particular court case Representative Eastman was referring,
but again, the constitutional principle that the legislature has
the power of appropriation is fundamental. That is an issue the
department keeps in mind when briefing constitutional issues,
and it is aware of the constitutional provisions that govern.
She explained that part of the process is making sure the issues
are properly briefed to the courts to be certain Alaska has a
good strong constitutional analysis so the courts can make the
correct final decision on those particular issues. She noted,
this includes pointing out when there is an unfunded mandate on
any particular issue in the statutes, and then not appropriating
the money to fund it.
4:14:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS noted that Attorney General
Lindemuth is the chief attorney in Alaska's largest law firm,
and with particularly complex pieces of legislation and
especially constitutionally complex pieces of legislation, the
expertise that resides in the department and Legislative Legal
and Research Services can't ably be found elsewhere. He asked
Attorney General Lindemuth to speak to her perspective on the
appropriateness of the collaboration between the two branches in
advising or offering a perspective on crafting legislation and
working with the legislative branch.
ATTORNEY GENERAL LINDEMUTH pointed out that the Department of
Law (DOL) does just that on a daily basis. The legislature's
counsel is Legislative Legal and Research Services, her
department assigns an attorney to each bill moving through the
House of Representatives and that attorney is available to offer
legal analysis and comment while the bill moves through the
legislative process. The reason being, she explained, is that
the department does not want to get to the end of the process
wherein a bill is passed that the department decides is
unconstitutional, or that there's a problem. The department
prefers to raise those issues early on so the legislative
process works as efficiently and effectively as possible. In
the event a legislator has questions on a piece of legislation,
the department is certainly happy to be involved early on and,
she noted that she put that offer of assistance out to
legislators at the beginning of this session.
4:17:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether she would be able to work
with the current national administration.
4:17:34 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL LINDEMUTH advised that working with any
administration, including the federal administration, is an
important part of being the attorney general. She predicted
there could be issues wherein the department disagrees or agrees
because there were issues it disagreed with during the past
administration; therefore, an open dialogue is important. She
said her philosophy is that issues need to be addressed early on
with a fruitful discussion when there is an issue of
disagreement so that litigation does not ensue. She is hopeful
the incoming administration will be more favorable to Alaska on
natural resources and the type of issues the state has been in
litigation with over the recent years.
4:18:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD encouraged Attorney General Lindemuth to
try to work with this administration, and she asked her to try
to purge political leanings out of the Department of Law (DOL).
She noted that her constituents have "called me pretty regularly
about concerns they have in your department, even a couple of
lawyers that are concerned, and staff." She described "it is
kind of hostile for some conservatives in the Department of Law
(DOL)," and she asked her to try to make it a safe work
environment for all political viewpoints.
4:19:31 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL LINDEMUTH stressed that she was unaware of any
particular issues of folks not feeling safe at the department
and it would really concern her if that were true. She further
stressed that she is definitely committed to having a safe
workplace and that folk's feel their views are respected. Her
personal view, she noted, is to hear all of the different
viewpoints and thoughts so they are fully vetted before she
actually makes a final decision.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that she has a constituent who
recently quit, and someone who feels it is a hostile environment
for their opinions. She stated that it is an issue and asked
that Attorney General Lindemuth be aware because it has come to
her attention too many times for her to not say something.
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony on the confirmation of Attorney General
Lindemuth.
4:21:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that one of the most
progressive ideals of all time is the "inalienable God-given
rights given to each American citizen." She opined that some of
the modern progressives are progressing America far away from
those most progressive ideals of all time and infringing on
right-to-life, and many liberties. She asked that Attorney
General Lindemuth not look to the modern progressives for
wisdom, and to be grounded in the mandate of public safety and
protection of these inalienable rights. She also asked that
Attorney General Lindemuth keep in mind that some people are not
working and are enjoying the fruits of the labor of those that
are working. She then asked that Attorney General Lindemuth not
look so much to lawyers, but rather look to the wisdom of
America's Founding Fathers and the principles that made America
one of the most free and prosperous nation in the world. She
thanked her for her service.
4:23:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS thanked Attorney General Lindemuth
for being willing to serve, especially given the circumstances
of the transition, and pointed out that public service can be
significant in ways financial, professional, and otherwise. He
commented that on a philosophical note he appreciated her answer
to the relationship of the attorney general relative to the
governor, which is the perspective he has followed. He noted
that in other states, the attorney general often is speculated
to be an aspiring governor, which seems messy. He noted that he
appreciates the non-political nature of the office and that he
has confidence Attorney General Lindemuth will continue that
tradition in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP thanked Attorney General Lindemuth for being
willing to do this job because her two predecessors paid a high
price by nearly working themselves to death, and he is aware
this position is of great personal sacrifice. The Department of
Law (DOL) has been through a lot, in fact one of the
department's attorneys, Brian Sullivan, was killed in Utqiagvik
three years ago. District attorneys have a tough job in tough
villages in remote spots and they need a good leader, and the
legislature is counting on her to be that person, he said.
Attorney General Lindemuth has a good heart for people, he
opined, and he is appreciative that she is willing to be the
attorney general.
4:26:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN, in remembrance of Assistant District
Attorney Brian Sullivan, advised that he worked directly for ADA
Sullivan when he was in the Army at Fort Richardson, he was one
of the folks encouraging him to become a lawyer and get involved
in politics because he had been a former state legislator
himself. He asked Attorney General Lindemuth to review the oath
she took as attorney general because it closely reflects the
perspective of his district. As a captain in the armed forces,
there was no question that if he obeyed an unconstitutional
order, no matter what happened to his commanding officers, it
would fall on him personally. The defining issue in this
decision of approving a confirmation is the balance of powers
between the three branches, and specifically what it means for
an attorney general to take the oath of office.
4:28:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that he heard in her testimony an
unwritten statement, "The Constitution of the United States and
the Constitution of the State of Alaska as interpreted by the
Alaska Supreme Court." He said he believes that language was
deliberately left out when the Founding Fathers deliberated on
checks between the various branches of government, and there was
not a desire for the United States Supreme Court to be the final
arbiter of the responsibilities of public officials. He then
applauded his district on Election Day because "My district
voted down every single judge. The voters in my district took
the time, which is amazing to me in some respects, took the time
to individually mark 'No' to every single judge, and there was
[sic] over 20 on the ballet in my district." He commented that
it reflects a level of dissatisfaction with tension between the
branches of government, the ability of the people through a
ballot measure to pass a law, such as parental notification. He
continued that a part of that might be the process by which
individuals are selected for service on the Alaska Supreme
Court.
CHAIR CLAMAN stopped Representative Eastman and pointed out that
while he understands concerns about court appointments, this
hearing is not about a court appointment because it is the
attorney general. He remarked that he is confused how court
appointments have anything to do with the attorney general.
4:31:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN related that his discussion is about the
attorney general stating deference to the Alaska Supreme Court
with little questioning. He said Attorney General Lindemuth
resolved some of the tension between the branches by deferring,
but the Founding Fathers did not intend for that tension to be
resolved, which is sometimes messy. Deference is first toward
the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and from there to
resolve tensions that can be resolved and "if you can't, then
you just can't." He said that his district and he have a
fundamental philosophical difference with Attorney General
Lindemuth and he will vote against her confirmation on this
committee.
4:33:11 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN then explained the confirmation process to
Representative Eastman in that the House Judiciary Standing
Committee does not make a recommendation because it is simply
making a decision to forward the name to the joint session of
the Senate and House of Representatives, and whether he approves
or does not approve, the opportunity to vote is during the joint
session. He further explained that there is no vote in this
committee as to whether he supports the nomination or does not
support the nomination, and that Representative Eastman did
articulate his views.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that Attorney General Lindemuth, having never
met Governor Walker before, applied for a seat on the Alaska
Supreme Court. He explained that previously they had been
involved in trial matters together, either on the same side or
on opposite sides, and in that regard he wrote a letter to the
governor strongly endorsing her appointment. He stressed that
Attorney General Lindemuth, more than anything else, maintains
the highest ethics in the profession and that he has the utmost
confidence she will advocate on behalf of the state's interests
in front of the Alaska Supreme Court. He then thanked Attorney
General Lindemuth for her service, and said he appreciates the
time they've gotten to know each other professionally.
4:35:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER said that the House Judiciary Standing
Committee has reviewed the qualification of the governor's
appointee and recommends that the name, Jahna Lindemuth,
Attorney General, Alaska Department of Law, be forwarded to a
joint session of the Senate and House of Representatives for
consideration. This does not reflect intent by any of the
members to vote for or against this individual during any
further sessions for the purposes of confirmation.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected
CHAIR CLAMAN said objection noted.
HB 104-REPEAL COLLECTION OF CIVIL LITIG. INFO
4:36:22 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 104, "An Act relating to collecting information
about civil litigation by the Alaska Judicial Council; repealing
Rule 41(a)(3), Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rules 511(c)
and (e), Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure; and providing for
an effective date."
CHAIR CLAMAN advised he would like to move HB 104 out of
committee today, in part because Susanne DiPetro, Executive
Director for the Alaska Judicial Council is available to testify
today in person.
4:36:59 PM
LIZZIE KUBITZ, Staff, Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State
Legislature, read for the record as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
For the record, my name is Lizzie Kubitz and I am
staff to Chair Claman. Thank you for the opportunity
to testify.
House Bill 104 eliminates the automatic reporting of
information about civil case settlements currently
required by law. The bill follows the advice of the
Alaska Judicial Council, which has recommended that
the legislature eliminate this requirement.
To give some historical context: In 1997, responding
to public interest in tort reform and the work of the
Governor's Advisory Task Force on Civil Justice, the
legislature passed tort reform legislation. One part
of the legislation responded to the Task Force's
recommendation that the Alaska Judicial Council report
on closed civil cases, using data from forms completed
by attorneys and parties in the cases. Since then,
pursuant to statute, the Judicial Council has
collected data provided by attorneys and litigants and
has produced three reports. However, much more often
than not, attorneys and litigants have failed to
comply with the reporting requirement.
In its most recent report from November 2011, included
in your bill packets, the Alaska Judicial Council
reports that from January 2001 through December 2010,
88,873 cases were resolved in the Alaska Court system
that were subject to the reporting requirement.
Because each case had at least two parties, the
Council should have received 177,746 or more reports.
However, the Council only received 23,257 reports.
This represents 13% of the Council's conservative
estimate of the number of reports it should have
received.
The low rate of reporting is the reason the Council
has not issued a report since 2011. An analysis based
on 13% of potentially available data would not be
reliable. Eliminating the requirement has also has
received support from attorneys and civil litigants,
as the reporting requirement is onerous for those who
follow it and unenforceable for those who don't.
The Alaska Judicial Council lacks the authority and
resources to enforce this outdated requirement and the
Council renews its recommendation that the legislature
eliminate it.
I'll now provide a brief sectional analysis of the
bill.
Section One repeals Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 41(a)(3) and Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure
Rules 511(c) and (e).
Section Two repeals AS 09.68.130 which requires
reporting of civil litigation information to the
Alaska Judicial Council.
Section Three provides that per the Alaska
Constitution, the Act will only take effect if section
one of the Act receives the two-thirds majority vote
of both bodies.
And finally, Section Four provides for an effective
date.
Copies of Rule 41(a)(3), Rules 511 (c) and (e), and AS
09.68.130 have all been included in your bill packets.
Before I conclude, I'll mention for the record that
Susanne DiPietro, the Executive Director of the Alaska
Judicial Council, is present and available to answer
questions.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on House Bill
104.
4:40:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether there has been push back
with regard to this bill.
MS. KUBITZ advised that to her knowledge there has not been push
back, and that this bill has received support from various
attorneys. She pointed out that attorneys currently must take
time out of their day to complete and file the form, and the
client is usually billed for their time. Due to the fact the
Alaska Judicial Council is receiving limited data, it doesn't
see a purpose in continuing with this requirement, she advised.
4:41:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP noted that while on the Alaska Judicial
Council in 2007-2008, the information was seen as outdated and
unutilized and no one was seeking or collating the information
on the council.
4:42:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to page 1, line 10 of the bill,
which read:
CONDITIONAL EFFECT. This Act takes effect only
if sec. 1 of this Act receives the two-thirds majority
vote of each house required by art. IV, sec. 15,
Constitution of the State of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN advised that he is not familiar with this
portion of the constitution, and asked whether it is Ms. Kubitz'
understanding that the constitution does not permit the Alaska
Supreme Court to make amendments to these rules, and that the
prerogative belongs solely to the legislative branch.
4:42:47 PM
MS. KUBITZ turned to sec. 3, page 1, lines 8-12, which read as
follows:
Sec. 3. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
CONDITIONAL EFFECT. This Act takes effect only
if sec. 1 of this Act receives the two-thirds majority
vote of each house required by art. IV, sec. 15,
Constitution of the State of Alaska.
MS. KUBITZ explained that the Act takes effect only if the Act
receives two-thirds of a majority vote of each house, required
by art. IV, sec. 15, which read as follows:
Rule-Making Power
The supreme court shall make and promulgate rules
governing the administration of all courts. It shall
make and promulgate rules governing practice and
procedure in civil and criminal cases in all courts.
These rules may be changed by the legislature by two-
thirds vote of the members elected to each
house.[1][2]
4:43:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised that the Alaska Supreme Court
cannot do anything without the legislature's action in this
situation.
MS. KUBITZ deferred to Susanne DiPetro, Alaska Judicial Council.
4:44:14 PM
SUSANNE DiPETRO, Executive Director, Alaska Judicial Council,
Alaska Court System, in response to Chair Claman, said she is a
member of the Alaska Bar Association (ABA). In response to
Representative Eastman, she advised that Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure 41(a)(3), and the Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure
511(c) and (e) were promulgated in order to implement the
statute the legislature passed. The court system has rule
making ability, and the Alaska Supreme Court can change its
rules. Although, she explained, these particular rules were
promulgated in order to implement the statute which does not
provide a mechanism for the certification. The rule requires
certification of attorneys settling a case, and it is not part
of the statute, it is part of the rules, she advised.
4:45:35 PM
MS. DiPETRO, in response to Representative Eastman question as
to whether there is action the Alaska Supreme Court can take to
amend Rule 41, she speculated that the court could amend the
rule.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether it declined to do so and
that is the reason it is before the legislature.
MS. DiPETRO advised she was unsure she could answer the question
except to say that it is customary for the legislature to do it
in this manner when a rule and a statute travel together, or are
attempting to implement the same purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP advised that this court rule is in response
to the legislature's legislation. Naturally, he pointed out,
the court would want the legislature to pass the bill to change
the rule. He continued that the court would not be inclined to
change a rule it adopted to a statute that the legislature
passed, and the court would prefer the legislature go through
the process of changing the rules.
4:47:16 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN agreed with Representative Kopp, and referred to
Representative Eastman's comment about "activist judges." He
explained that one could suggest that if there was a statute on
the books and the court actively decided to repeal the authority
to collect information, it would be considered "activist judges"
by ignoring the intent of the legislature. Whereas, he
explained, if the legislature both repeals the rule and repeals
the statute collecting the information, there is no suggestion
of activist judges and the legislature is acting in its role as
the legislature. The bill combines both repealing the statute
and repealing the rule requiring lawyers to provide the
information asked for under the statute, he pointed out.
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 104.
4:48:52 PM
KEN JACOBUS, Attorney, advised that he is representing himself
and the Anchorage Bar Association.
4:49:15 PM
The committee took a brief at ease.
4:49:24 PM
MR. JACOBUS continued that he discussed this matter with the
court rules attorney and was advised that the matter of
repealing the rules would be presented to the Appellate Rules
Committee and to the Civil Rules Committee, it would then defer
to the legislature because the rules are implementing the
statute. Therefore, the ball is in the legislature's court. He
commented that the legislature should look at the 2011 report,
in which the data collected is not meaningful. Interestingly,
he noted, the civil section of the attorney general's office has
had civil attorneys performing work required to be reported
because AS 09.68.130 does not provide an exception for the
attorney general's office. Therefore, he said, either the
attorney general's office is not reporting and disobeying the
law, or it is reporting and wasting a lot of public money
providing this worthless data which could be better spent
enforcing the laws. He further commented that an experienced
probate attorney in his office recently represented a civil case
and was concerned she was in trouble because she did not know
she was required to report, illustrating that some attorneys are
not even aware of their duty to report. He described that this
statute has many problems and needs to be repealed. He added
that he personally reports and considers it an administrative
expense, and that many attorneys bill their clients for the
reporting time.
4:53:08 PM
SARAH BADTEN, Attorney, said she has been attorney in Anchorage
for approximately ten years, practices contract enforcement, and
has filled out the forms for ten years. She commented that
reporting is a complete waste of time, waste of money, and that
she bills her time, which is unfair. The purpose of the statute
was to collect data based on tort reform, and to the extent that
her reporting does anything, which it doesn't, she said she
skews the data because she does not practice tort law. She
opined that the focus should not be on the fact that people do
not fill out the form, but rather on the completely unnecessary
information on the form because no one is looking at this data.
It is archaic and she strongly hopes to get it repealed this
session, she said.
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HB 104.
4:55:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that she likes most repeal
bills, and that she was thankful that she asked in the past that
the legislature have an entire session on repeal as "there is a
lot of stuff that is not applicable any longer." She added that
she does not object to Chair Claman bringing this forward as a
committee bill.
4:56:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER moved to report HB 104, Version 30-
LS0393\D, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB 104
moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
4:57:05 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:57 p.m.