Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
02/25/2019 01:00 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): Department of Law, Attorney General | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 25, 2019
1:01 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Vice Chair
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Adam Wool
Representative Laddie Shaw
Representative David Eastman
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Attorney General, Department of Law
Kevin Clarkson - Juneau
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
KEVIN CLARKSON
Attorney General Designee
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during his
confirmation hearing for attorney general.
ROBIN BRENA, Managing Attorney
Brena, Bell & Clarkson
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Kevin Clarkson
during the confirmation hearing.
CLARK NICHOLS
Perkins & Coie
Bellevue, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Kevin Clarkson
during the confirmation hearing.
ERIC SANDERS, Attorney
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Kevin Clarkson
during the confirmation hearing.
JEFF FELDMAN, Professor
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Kevin Clarkson
during the confirmation hearing.
LOREN LEMAN
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Kevin Clarkson
during the confirmation hearing.
JOHN THORSNESS
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Kevin Clarkson
during the confirmation hearing.
MIKE GERAGHTY
Former Attorney General
State of Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Kevin Clarkson
during the confirmation hearing.
KARYN WARNER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Kevin Clarkson.
BESSIE ODAM
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Kevin Clarkson.
ZHENIA PETERSON
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Kevin Clarkson.
ROBIN SMITH
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Kevin Clarkson.
LIN DAVIS
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Kevin Clarkson.
ALYSON CURREY, Legislative Liaison
Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Kevin Clarkson.
STACEY LUCASON
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Kevin Clarkson.
DARIO NOTTI
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Kevin Clarkson.
MIKE COONS, President
Greater Alaska Chapter of the Association of Mature American
Citizens (AMAC)
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Kevin Clarkson
during the confirmation hearing.
LYNETTE CLARK
Fox, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Kevin Clarkson
during the confirmation hearing.
CRIS EICHENLAUB
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Kevin Clarkson
during the confirmation hearing.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:01:58 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:01 p.m. Representatives Claman, Eastman,
Kopp, Shaw, and LeDoux were present at the call to order.
Representatives Wool and Stutes arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S): Department of Law, Attorney General
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Department of Law, Attorney General
1:02:31 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the only order of business would be
a confirmation hearing for the Attorney General.
1:03:07 PM
KEVIN CLARKSON, Attorney General Designee, Department of Law,
shared his personal background, growing up in Oregon, attending
college at Oregon State University, and graduating from the
Willamette University law school. He noted that his father was
a police officer at Oregon State University. He explained that
his plan after law school had been to work with a law firm in
the Pacific Northwest, but that, upon interviewing with the law
firm Perkins Coie, he was informed the Portland and Seattle
openings had already been filled. Perkins Coie informed him
that there was an opening in the Anchorage office and,
subsequently, when he flew to Anchorage in March 1985, he was
impressed and decided to work there for two years before
returning to the Pacific Northwest.
1:07:39 PM
MR. CLARKSON discussed his 34-year law career in Alaska, the
first 10 years with Perkins Coie, and the subsequent years with
Brena, Bell, and Clarkson. He offered his belief that this lack
of movement among firms reflected his dedication and loyalty,
adding that "anyone who looks at me and thinks that I don't have
a depth of experience, with all due respect to them, they really
don't know me very well." He reported that about 90 percent of
his legal practice consisted of a wide range of civil litigation
for a wide variety of clients, adding that "every case brought
something new." He acknowledged that, although this brought
stress, he had appreciation for this depth of experience. He
stated that "challenges are a good thing." He listed his
clients to include individuals, small businesses,
municipalities, boroughs, electric utilities, the Alaska State
Legislature, the State of Alaska, Alaska Native Corporations,
air carriers, the Alaska Bar Association, and Fortune 500
corporations. He reported that he had participated in and
chaired both disciplinary and fee arbitration panels for the
Alaska Bar Association. He noted that he had represented his
clients in both federal and state courts throughout Alaska. He
added that he had worked on more than 50 appeals, with about 30
cases in front of the Alaska Supreme Court. He shared that he
had litigated cases involving tax issues, employment issues,
contract disputes, construction disputes, professional liability
claims, business dissolutions, partnerships, joint ventures, and
complex oil and gas sale contracts involving producers,
shippers, and refiners. He added that he had litigated cases
involving elaborate criminal and fraudulent schemes, including
six cases involving the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO). He pointed out that, after the recent
gubernatorial election, when he was asked to create a list for
prospective attorneys general he had not listed himself. He
shared that the governor had then persuaded him by explaining
his vision for "what he wanted to accomplish for Alaska... to
promote and protect Alaska's interests and protect public
safety, support our law enforcement and our prosecutors." He
opined that upon reflection on the memory of his father as an
Oregon State police officer and "how good Alaska's been to me
and my family," he had decided "it was time to give something
back." He asked, "for the honor of your confirmation to the
Alaska attorney general."
1:13:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES, referencing the letters submitted in
opposition to his confirmation, asked who were his supporters.
MR. CLARKSON opined that this support would be offered during
live testimony, directing attention to those comments for his
confirmation offered during the Senate committee hearings.
1:15:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for his assessment to the role of
attorney general.
MR. CLARKSON offered his belief that the role would be as a
legal advisor to the governor and as a representative of the
State of Alaska and the Office of the Governor. He stated that
his role would include the offer to give the Governor and the
various departments, and perhaps the legislature "from time to
time," "the best legal advice that I can give them based on what
the law is."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if he would characterize the role
of attorney general as the top prosecutor for the state.
MR. CLARKSON acknowledged that he would be the highest official
within the Department of Law with responsibility over the
criminal division.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how, as attorney general and head
of the Department of Law, he would handle a situation if the
governor was violating state law.
MR. CLARKSON replied that he would explain to the governor what
the law required and explain how this conduct was not compatible
with the law. He pointed out that the check on the governor was
the judiciary, the other co-equal branch of government, which
was charged with protection of the constitution and enforcement
of the state laws.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if he would prosecute, as head of
the Department of Law, should the governor persist in violating
the state law.
MR. CLARKSON opined that no one in the state was above the law,
noting that there were prosecutors in the state who would be
charged with prosecuting any crime no matter who committed it.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if he would personally be
comfortable prosecuting the governor, or would he delegate this
to another prosecutor.
MR. CLARKSON shared that in some cases it was necessary for an
attorney to recuse himself. He questioned whether this would be
necessary even as he had been appointed by the governor and
offered his belief that this prosecution would be his job and
responsibility.
1:19:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked if the duties of the attorney
general included a responsibility to be the moral compass for
the state.
MR. CLARKSON replied that the law determined the moral decision
for conduct, and it would be his job to enforce the law of
Alaska. He declared that it was not his job to enforce "some
other moral compass."
1:20:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for more information regarding Mr.
Clarkson's earlier reference that a small percentage, 10
percent, of his work was on divisive social issues.
MR. CLARKSON replied that this was primarily a series of two
cases which spanned over ten years as they were not resolved
quickly. He referenced a parental consent law, passed in 1996,
adding that the Alaska Supreme Court had issued a decision which
stated that the right to privacy protects the right to abortion.
He noted that this resulted in many nuances for what was
permissible regarding the state regulation of abortion. He
pointed out that the Alaska State Legislature had overwhelmingly
passed a parental consent law in 1996, noting that passage
included the override of a veto from Governor Knowles. He
explained that the law required:
that before a young girl who was 16 years or younger
could obtain an abortion she had to have either one
parent's consent or the approval of a judge through a
bypass proceeding which meant she'd have to appear in
front of a judge and either prove that she was mature
enough to make her own decision or that her parents
weren't fit to participate in that decision for
various reasons.
MR. CLARKSON stated that this law was challenged by opponents to
the law. He reported that the law "didn't put Alaska out in
some fringe, 80 percent of the states in this country have
parental involvement laws, so 40 out of 50." He added that this
law put Alaska in the mainstream. He explained that the Alaska
State Constitution was applied independently by the Alaska
Courts System. He noted that after the challenge to the law was
filed, the case went to the trial court, which ruled that the
law was unconstitutional. He pointed out that he was then hired
by the Alaska State Legislature to help defend the statute,
alongside the attorneys from the Department of Law. He reported
that the trial court "struck the law down" and, as it
subsequently went to the Alaska Supreme Court, he was invited,
along with the Assistant Attorney General, to argue the case.
He stated that the Alaska Supreme Court was split on its
decision, 3 votes to 2 votes. He explained that two of the
justices would have upheld the law as a matter of law; however,
the other three justices wanted the case returned to the trial
court for a trial so the court could receive evidence about
"what the state's compelling interest might be, which was
necessary to uphold that law and how that law might be
implemented in the least restrictive means possible." The case
was returned to the trial court and, again, the law was struck
down. He stated that he was again hired by the State of Alaska
to represent the State in the appeal to the Alaska Supreme
Court, noting that the Supreme Court was again split on its
decision, 3 votes to 2 votes, and "struck the law down." He
added that upon re-hearing the case, the Alaska Supreme Court
was split, with the retirement of one judge, 2 votes to 2 votes.
He explained that a tie in an appellate court affirmed the
decision of a lower court.
1:23:50 PM
MR. CLARKSON moved on to discuss his second case. He reported
that the parental notice case was a result of the parental
consent decision, as the Alaska Supreme Court struck down the
parental consent law because a less restrictive but equally
effective alternative for the state was found with the parental
notice law. He paraphrased the court in the parental consent
decision "our constitution will permit a statutory scheme which
ensures that parents are notified so that they can be involved
in their young daughter's decision regarding pregnancy and
abortion." He added that this had encouraged an attempt at
creation of a full notice law, first by the legislature, and
then by a citizen initiative which was subsequently challenged.
He reported that he was hired by the initiative sponsors to work
with the attorneys from the Department of Law to once again
defend the parental notice law. The case was upheld in the
trial court but was struck down by the Alaska Supreme Court. He
pointed out that the existing law was a result of these cases.
1:25:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if Mr. Clarkson had been involved with
the issues of same sex marriage.
MR. CLARKSON, in response, explained that in 1998, after a
challenge to keep a marriage amendment to the constitution on
the ballot, he had been hired by the Alaska State Legislature to
defend the amendment and keep it on the ballot. He shared that
the amendment was passed with a 69 percent approval. He
reported that although 31 states had passed and ratified
marriage amendments, the U.S. Supreme Court has since ruled for
the constitutional right to marriage of someone of the same sex.
1:26:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL reported that Fairbanks was currently
hearing about a city ordinance for non-discrimination based on
gender and sexual identity. He asked if Mr. Clarkson would
support such a law if passed by the legislature.
MR. CLARKSON replied that it was the job of the attorney general
to enforce and uphold the law, regardless of whether he
supported it.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if he had served on the grant
committee for the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).
MR. CLARKSON replied that he had served for 14 years and mused
that he had left the ADF grant review committee in 2017. He
explained that the ADF was a "public interest, non-profit law
firm that represents individuals and constitution cases
involving rights to free exercise of religion, rights of
conscience, protecting a person's rights to free speech, and
also on right to life issues from time to time." He explained
that the organization raised money and provided grants to
lawyers looking for support.
1:28:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how Mr. Clarkson would handle a
situation whereby he philosophically agreed with a restrictive
abortion or LGBT proposed law, even if the passage of this law
would be unconstitutional.
MR. CLARKSON, in response to Representative LeDoux, said that he
did not see his role as one to engage in the political debate
for whether this proposal should become law. He opined that his
role, unless the law was "black letter clear as day
unconstitutional," would be to defend the law. He pointed out
that it would be up to the judiciary to determine the
constitutionality of the law. He reiterated that the law would
"literally have to be just as clear as day that it's
unconstitutional. I'm not going to be refusing to defend laws
in areas where it's questionable." He stated that it was the
job of an attorney to zealously represent a client within the
bounds of the law. He acknowledged that, although the question
would be for the bounds of the law, if there was a reasonable
argument to be made on behalf of his client, the State of
Alaska, it was his job to defend the law.
1:30:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether much of the representation by
Mr. Clarkson on the aforementioned cases had been by invitation
from the State of Alaska.
MR. CLARKSON expressed his agreement that his participation on
the abortion related cases had been by invitation from the
Alaska State Legislature or the State of Alaska. He clarified
that his representation on the parental notice case was by
invitation from the sponsors of the initiative. He added that
this participation had been as co-counsel with the Office of the
Attorney General.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that, upon review, Mr. Clarkson
appeared to have extensive experience representing Alaska Native
village corporations.
MR. CLARKSON expressed his agreement, noting that this had been
his work for 6 - 7 years of his career. In response to
Representative Kopp, he explained that much of this work was for
professional liability cases in representation for Native
corporations "who had been significantly wronged by legal
professionals, attorneys, who were representing them and had
committed significant malpractice and or breaches of fiduciary
duty in the course of representing those Native corporations and
had harmed those Native corporations." He added that he had
successfully represented the Native corporations, and that later
work had included representation for the timber interests of
some village corporations in Southeast Alaska. He declared "I
am a litigator, and these are civil cases that I found
interesting and intriguing. These were clients that needed
representation and they deserved representation." He added
that, in his view, his clients had been wronged.
1:33:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP directed attention to the discussions
regarding educational outcomes and asked about the suggestion
for a different path forward with the state entering into an
agreement with tribes through state-tribal compacts. He noted
that this would allow more local control for the delivery of the
education and the curriculum. He asked if Mr. Clarkson
recognized any barriers to prevent this within the Department of
Law.
MR. CLARKSON said that he could not see anything standing in the
way. He opined that compacting was used in numerous areas,
including the criminal area by signing criminal diversion
agreements with the tribes to allow enforcement by the villages
of lower level misdemeanor criminal activity. He stated that it
"makes a lot of sense to have those kinds of things handled by
the local communities." He offered his belief that there would
not be any impediment to funding.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP noted that there may be some federal issues
to address. He asked whether Mr. Clarkson was aware that it was
the legislature's duty to impeach a governor if there was a
transgression of law.
MR. CLARKSON expressed his understanding that impeachment would
be the legislature's role, and that his role as Attorney General
would be for any criminal prosecution.
1:36:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether Mr. Clarkson would feel
comfortable with the appeal of cases to the US Supreme Court in
which the Alaska Supreme Court had ruled against his assessment.
MR. CLARKSON replied that, if a decision by the Alaska Supreme
Court had made an error in federal constitutional law, he would
be comfortable petitioning these issues to the US Supreme Court.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how he would advise the governor
about a decision that was in issue with the Alaska State
Constitution without an appeal to the US Supreme Court as an
alternative.
1:37:56 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN interjected that the question may be for whether
the Alaska Supreme Court "ever gets anything wrong."
MR. CLARKSON, in response, expressed his agreement, noting that,
in a technical sense, the Alaska Supreme Court was always right
as they were able to have the last word with Alaska law. He
stated that he could not imagine advising the governor or any
department to simply ignore a ruling of Alaska law by the Alaska
Supreme Court.
1:38:54 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if Mr. Clarkson had represented the Native
Corporations for the defense or the plaintiff.
MR. CLARKSON replied that every case except one had been on
their behalf as the plaintiff, either suing another business or
corporation over a timber ownership dispute. He added that he
had also been the defense attorney during a tax dispute.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the malpractice cases had been
representation for the plaintiff.
MR. CLARKSON acknowledged that the Native Corporations had been
the plaintiff in those cases.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked about the current status of a lawsuit with
the Anchorage Equal Rights Commission.
MR. CLARKSON stated that he was no longer involved with that
case. He explained that he had represented the downtown [soup
kitchen] Hope Center, a homeless shelter for abused women. He
explained the situation which precluded the admittance of a
woman looking for shelter as she was under the influence of
alcohol. The woman filed a claim with the Anchorage Equal
Rights Commission that she had been discriminated against based
on gender identity. He stated that, even as this charge was not
true, the law regarding discrimination based on gender identity
law only applied to public accommodations. Shortly thereafter,
during an initiative drive over this ordinance, he received a
call from a reporter asking about the case. He sent the
reporter a copy of the response to the commission. Then, the
Anchorage Equal Rights Commission filed a charge of
discrimination against his law firm, claiming a spoken
discrimination. He questioned the charge, noting that this was
what lawyers do, they speak on behalf of their clients. He
added that the claim was dropped very quickly. He opined that
the Hope Center had a case still pending.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if the state was a party to this case, and if
so, would he recuse himself as the Attorney General because of
his prior work on the case.
MR. CLARKSON replied, "absolutely, absolutely."
CHAIR CLAMAN asked what advice he would give to a committee if
the proposal was "stretching about as far as you could."
MR. CLARKSON declared that he viewed his personal integrity and
honesty very seriously. He explained that he would "tell you
exactly what the law is, if it's grey, I'll tell you it's grey."
He emphasized that he would "shoot straight and tell you what it
is."
1:46:02 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened invited testimony.
1:46:14 PM
ROBIN BRENA, Managing Attorney, Brena, Bell & Clarkson, said
that he had tremendous respect for Mr. Clarkson both as a person
and as an attorney. He declared that Mr. Clarkson was an
excellent attorney and a good person to work with. He shared
that Mr. Clarkson was highly thought of by other attorneys, was
a conservative person, and was always respectful for people and
the law. He opined that Mr. Clarkson was the best
constitutional attorney in the State of Alaska and had dedicated
himself to improving the practice of law in the state. Mr.
Clarkson volunteered time with the Alaska Bar Association, and
often took legal, ethics, and conflict cases which the Alaska
Bar Association was not able to prosecute. He strongly
recommended Mr. Clarkson and declared that he was highly
qualified for this position.
1:49:40 PM
CLARK NICHOLS, Perkins & Coie, shared that he had worked with
Mr. Clarkson for about 10 years in the Anchorage office. He
said that he held Mr. Clarkson's legal skills in the highest
regard, and that he enjoyed practicing with Mr. Clarkson as he
was a genuinely courteous advocate. He spoke about Mr.
Clarkson's representation of a village corporation in a fraud
and bankruptcy case, and the resulting judgement in favor of the
village corporation. He emphasized the perseverance by Mr.
Clarkson in following this defendant to the State of Arizona,
where he succeeded in having the case transferred back to
Alaska. He pointed out that Mr. Clarkson had taken that case
when no one else would have taken it, as it initially did not
have a "high ability of success." He stated that he held Mr.
Clarkson in the highest regard, and he supported the
confirmation for Attorney General.
1:54:25 PM
ERIC SANDERS, Attorney, reported that he had been practicing law
in Alaska for 43 years, and he shared his extensive experiences
working with Mr. Clarkson. He said that he had, as a judge,
mediated Mr. Clarkson's cases, as an attorney, mitigated cases
against him, and served as an arbitrator with Mr. Clarkson as a
participant. He stated that he felt qualified to offer an
opinion. He noted that Mr. Clarkson's personal and political
leanings had never been an issue, and that Mr. Clarkson had
always been extremely well prepared, very thorough, very
hardworking, and very honest. He opined that Mr. Clarkson had
very high regard for the law and did not allow his personal
views to intrude into his work as a lawyer. He added that Mr.
Clarkson had tremendous respect for people, was extremely polite
and courteous, and was "probably about the least dogmatic or
argumentative person I've ever dealt with." He offered his
belief that Mr. Clarkson was an honorable person and that his
personal political views were irrelevant, as these had not been
an issue in his work as a lawyer. He offered his highest
recommendation for Mr. Clarkson as Attorney General.
1:58:26 PM
JEFF FELDMAN, Professor, University of Washington, reported that
he had been an attorney practicing in Alaska for more than 40
years, and that he was currently teaching law at the University
of Washington. He shared that he had:
litigated a great number of cases with Mr. Clarkson.
They all have been what are described sometimes as
high-profile cases involving issues of public policy.
These are cases involving issues of reproductive
freedom, reapportionment, election disputes, ballot
initiatives... I suspect that I may be, may have been,
Mr. Clarkson's most frequent adversary on these kinds
of cases.
MR. FELDMAN acknowledged that, although he and Mr. Clarkson
disagreed on all these issues, he had found that Mr. Clarkson
was a very talented lawyer, committed to the rule of law,
diligent and dedicated as a professional, courteous and
respectful, and acted with strict adherence to professional
standards and ethics. He stated his understanding of the
concern by some individuals for this appointment, as Mr.
Clarkson frequently aligned himself with one side of these
social cause issues; however, he offered his belief that it was
a mistake to judge a lawyer by the clients represented or the
positions argued on behalf of the clients. He opined that the
test for this confirmation should be addressed by the answer to
three questions: will the nominee zealously represent the
interest of the people of Alaska; does the nominee have the
requisite intelligence, skills, and professional judgement and
ethical compass to hold this position; and finally, will the
nominee lead and provide sound guidance and direction to the
more than 200 lawyers working in the Department of Law. Based
on his own experience as an advocate and an adversary, he stated
his support for the nomination.
2:01:12 PM
LOREN LEMAN shared that he was a life-long resident of Alaska, a
former legislator from West Anchorage, and a former lieutenant
governor. He stated his support for Mr. Clarkson as the
attorney general, noting that he had known Mr. Clarkson for
about 30 years. He reported that Mr. Clarkson had represented
the legislature and the State of Alaska on challenges to the
defense of marriage and the parental consent legislation. He
added that Mr. Clarkson had also represented the sponsors on a
ballot initiative for parental involvement. He said that Mr.
Clarkson was fair, thorough, thoughtful, and smart, and that he
respected the constitution and the law. He relayed that Mr.
Clarkson conducted himself with integrity and dignity, while he
remained humble.
2:04:16 PM
JOHN THORSNESS reported that he had been a lawyer in Alaska for
more than 35 years and that he had known Mr. Clarkson for many
years. He emphasized that he had represented cases in which he
was both aligned and opposed with Mr. Clarkson. He stated that
in every respect Mr. Clarkson had shown himself to be honest,
prepared, and professional. He stated his support for Mr.
Clarkson, noting that he would be a superb Attorney General.
2:05:41 PM
MIKE GERAGHTY, Former Attorney General, State of Alaska,
reported that he was currently a lawyer in Anchorage and had
practiced law in Alaska for more than 40 years. He added that
he had been the Attorney General for four years. He stated that
his relationship with Mr. Clarkson had always been professional,
without malice, even as they were often on opposite sides. He
declared that Mr. Clarkson was an excellent attorney, a
"straight shooter," direct, honest, and without artifice or
pretense. He offered his belief that Mr. Clarkson had respect
for the Department of Law and would earn the respect of the
department. He acknowledged that Mr. Clarkson had strong
personal convictions and personal beliefs which he defended. He
stated his confidence that Mr. Clarkson would put those personal
convictions aside and "do his utmost to uphold the laws of the
state and our constitution because that is the oath he will
take, and he will take it very seriously." He declared that
these qualities would serve Mr. Clarkson well as attorney
general, and he offered his endorsement to Mr. Clarkson.
2:08:20 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony.
2:08:46 PM
KARYN WARNER said that she was strongly opposed to the
confirmation of Kevin Clarkson as attorney general. She pointed
out that, although testimony by Mr. Clarkson had stated that
only 10 percent of his case work had been on controversial
social issues, "that's 10 percent too much." She declared that
Alaskans deserved an Attorney General who would uphold the
constitutionally protected rights of all, including reproductive
and sexual health access, education, and equal rights for the
LGBTQ [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer] Alaskans.
She directed attention to Mr. Clarkson's application to the
Alaska Supreme Court and his rating of 2.7 by the Alaska
Judicial Council, which she interpreted as between sufficient
and acceptable on the scale. She opined that Alaskans deserved
someone who was more than only bordering on acceptable.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked about the cases in which Mr.
Clarkson represented "the side that you did not agree with. She
asked Ms. Warner whether anyone should have represented that
side.
MS. WARNER replied, "yes, I do. That is part of the beauty of
our court system is the fair and effective testimony for both
sides."
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked about the concern for representation
by Mr. Clarkson, when Ms. Warner had expressed support for
representation by someone.
MS. WARNER opined that it was "because of his history, in terms
of those cases." She shared her employment history as a sexual
assault examiner and expressed her strong support for the
importance of qualified educators teaching sexual health,
reproduction, and healthy relationships in the schools.
2:12:36 PM
BESSIE ODAM declared that the position of Attorney General
required the utmost integrity toward all Alaskans. She offered
her belief that "it was less than acceptable to have an
appointee whose work has been marginally discriminatory." She
stated that Alaskans should be doing all that can be done to
support the LGBTQ community. She declared that these were human
rights which could not be jeopardized. She stated that Alaskans
should be represented without regard to sexuality or gender and
declared a need for the Attorney General to be fair and just,
and not driven by religious ideologies. She asked that the
committee vote no on this confirmation.
2:14:55 PM
ZHENIA PETERSON stated that she was testifying in opposition to
the nomination of Mr. Clarkson as Attorney General. She said
that Mr. Clarkson had shown disregard for many Alaskans. She
declared that the Attorney General had a clear role for
protecting the constitutional rights of Alaskans, noting that
his rating for the Supreme Court nomination had stated that he
was too biased. She added that Mr. Clarkson had used religious
liberty as a means of denying Alaskans reproductive health care
and access to sex education. She emphasized that all students
should have access to comprehensive, medically accurate [indisc]
sex education. She pointed out that Mr. Clarkson had supported
denial of services to transgender women, and that he supported
an amendment to the Alaska State Constitution to ban same sex
marriage. She said that this was not looking to the best
interests of all Alaskans, and she encouraged rejection of this
nomination.
2:16:58 PM
ROBIN SMITH stated that she was opposed to the nomination of Mr.
Clarkson for Attorney General. She said that it was necessary
to have a moderate attorney in this role, pointing out that Mr.
Clarkson's religious views "put him outside the norm of the
standard Alaskan and puts him at odds with the Alaska
Constitution." She expressed her concern for the impact of his
personal beliefs on the Alaskans that he would represent. She
stated that Mr. Clarkson was "hostile to equal rights for the
LGBTQ community. He has worked to change the non-discrimination
law in Anchorage and opposed same sex marriage in Alaska." She
added that Mr. Clarkson had worked to deny Muslims and Jews
participation with the invocations at the Kenai [Peninsula]
Borough meetings. She reported that Alaska had a high rate of
sexually transmitted infections, rapes, and sexual assault.
Although one way to reduce these was to offer teens
comprehensive sex education which included subjects such as
consent and respect, she stated that Mr. Clarkson had worked to
restrict access to sexual education. She reminded the committee
that, although women had the right to a legal abortion in
Alaska, Mr. Clarkson had actively worked to restrict abortions.
She declared that the Attorney General held "tremendous power in
the Department of Law." She questioned whether an LGBTQ, a
transgender person, or a woman seeking an abortion would trust
that Mr. Clarkson "would uphold their rights as forcefully or
use as much financial resources as he would to defend a white,
straight, pro-life Christian." She stated that "Alaska deserves
a better AG [Attorney General]." She offered her belief that
having men testify first was inappropriate and asked that the
committee realize that "attorneys are not more important than
women or anybody else."
2:20:29 PM
LIN DAVIS stated her opposition to the nomination because Mr.
Clarkson's "discriminatory efforts" had done her family harm.
She reported that, as a state worker, she had been unable to
enroll her wife in health benefits for almost 12 years. She
referenced statewide testimony for protection to the LGBTQ
community, pointing out the vulnerability of this community.
She shared that Mr. Clarkson did not give her hope that there
would be support for equal protection. She urged the committee
not to confirm the nomination.
2:22:36 PM
ALYSON CURREY, Legislative Liaison, Planned Parenthood Votes
Northwest, stated that Planned Parenthood was in opposition to
the nomination of Mr. Clarkson for Attorney General. She said
that based on their experience, there was not a trust that Mr.
Clarkson would uphold the state constitution for all Alaskans.
She expressed her agreement with earlier testimony that Alaska
deserved an Attorney General who would advocate for the
constitutionally protected rights of all people and not elevate
the rights of one group over all others. She reported that
throughout his legal career, Mr. Clarkson had "elevated
religious freedom rights above other basic human rights and
needs," citing examples for creating a family with the person
you love or "controlling one's own body free of discrimination."
She relayed that Mr. Clarkson had consistently shown a disregard
for the reproductive and sexual health of Alaskans, as well as a
disregard for the Alaska State Constitution. She referenced
earlier testimony which stated that he had "spearheaded
unsuccessful lawsuits supporting laws that would have rolled
back the right to privacy for Alaskans." She pointed out that
these anti-abortion laws, as well as the parental notification
law, were correctly deemed unconstitutional by the Alaska
Supreme Court. She added that Mr. Clarkson had an unacceptable
record for opposing equal rights for the LGBTQ community. She
emphasized that "no one should be denied access to housing,
employment, or public accommodations in a community, based on
who they are or who they love." She stated that Mr. Clarkson's
opposition to reproductive rights and equal protections for
LGBTQ individuals demonstrated that he was unfit for the
position, adding that he could not be trusted to uphold
protections for basic human rights or uphold the state
constitution. She urged the committee to reject the nomination.
2:24:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether there should be
representation for those not in favor to those positions such as
LGBTQ or reproductive rights.
MS. CURREY acknowledged that there was a vast array of beliefs
for reproductive freedom and LGBTQ rights and she expressed her
respect for those people who represented "the other side." She
declared that she would always fight for access to health care,
housing, employment, education, and public accommodations for
all people, no matter who a person was or who they loved.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether it was a dangerous precedent
to declare against a candidate because of disagreement to a
position on LGBTQ or abortion rights. She pointed out that
preclusion of Mr. Clarkson based on his representation for a
side to which Ms. Currey did not agree was also an argument that
could be used for a candidate with whom Ms. Currey agreed on the
same issues.
MS. CURREY offered her belief that, as a member of the public,
it was a right to voice concern and opposition for any
candidate. She acknowledged that the legislature would make the
decision for confirmation. Pointing out that the precedent had
already been set, she offered two examples of prior nominees not
confirmed because of their beliefs: an appointee to the Board
[of Certified] Direct-Entry Midwives not confirmed because of
her employment by Planned Parenthood and an appointee to the
Human Rights Commission not confirmed because of his gender
identity. She asked that the committee consider all views for
the qualifications of appointees.
2:29:08 PM
STACEY LUCASON declared that, although Mr. Clarkson may be a
good person and a good lawyer, he was an inappropriate choice
for Attorney General. In response to an earlier query by
Representative LeDoux as to why question the confirmation for
someone who was a religious radical and defended certain
positions, she emphasized that the Attorney General was
responsible for serving all Alaskans and had to be more
centrist. She declared that the confirmation of someone radical
as the Attorney General was a declaration of support for some
Alaskans, in this case, specifically white Christian Alaskans
over all others. She stated that this was not appropriate and
not a way for the state "to affirm that these rights are
afforded to all citizens of the state instead of just a few."
She offered her belief that the candidate, based on his record
and his actions, did not uphold the Alaska State Constitution
for all Alaskans. She offered an example of Mr. Clarkson
"standing with Jim Minnery in a discriminatory organization,
founding a discriminatory organization, that advocates against
rights for some people and elevates specific rights above
others." She stated that these actions say that this person
should not be trusted to act in a non-partisan way and treat
everyone equally.
2:31:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if she was aware the US Supreme
Court had ruled that there was not to be any religious test
administered to an appointee for the position of attorney
general.
MS. LUCASON acknowledged that she was not suggesting the
implementation of a religious test to any individual; however,
she suggested a look at a person's record for the rights they
have upheld and the choices they have made in order to determine
the candidate's ability to consistently uphold the law and the
rights for all citizens. She added that, in the case of Mr.
Clarkson, this could be viewed through the lens of religion.
2:32:29 PM
DARIO NOTTI stated that he was in opposition to the nomination.
He opined that Mr. Clarkson was always on the side opposing the
rights of LGBTQ and added that discrimination was not allowed
based on religion. He offered his belief that, if Mr. Clarkson
could not fairly represent both sides, he could not be a fair
attorney general.
2:34:46 PM
MIKE COONS, President, Greater Alaska Chapter of the Association
of Mature American Citizens (AMAC), declared that he fully
supported the confirmation of Mr. Clarkson for attorney general,
stating that this was about the law, as written by the Alaska
State Legislature, the U.S. and Alaska State Constitutions, and
enforcement of the rule of law. He added that any reference to
Mr. Clarkson's religious beliefs or his past work as a lawyer
were a violation of "Article 6 in the US Constitution, which
reads in part "no religious tests shall ever be required as a
qualification to any office or public trust under the United
States."" He declared the need for a "person of strength who
will stand for our state constitution... " He added that the
Attorney General needed to work with the Alaska US Attorney
General in the prosecution of federal felonies, offering an
example of the use of firearms by felons in the commission of a
crime. He offered his belief that Mr. Clarkson would be an
Attorney General who Alaskans could be proud of and have faith
that he would uphold the rule of law.
2:36:59 PM
LYNETTE CLARK reported that Mr. Clarkson had proven where and
how he stood, and what he believed in: the Alaska State
Constitution, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. She
said that Mr. Clarkson was more than qualified and would "make a
fine attorney general." She declared that, with the condition
of the state, there was a need for "a knight in shining armor."
2:39:20 PM
CRIS EICHENLAUB stated his support for Mr. Clarkson. He stated
that the main objective was the rule of law and justice for all.
He opined that he had no doubt that Mr. Clarkson would not
support any special interest.
2:40:29 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN closed public testimony.
2:40:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if Mr. Clarkson would make the
determination whether a case would move forward for prosecution.
MR. CLARKSON replied, "not in every case."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if the governor was able to veto a
case in which the Attorney General wanted to move forward.
MR. CLARKSON offered his belief that the governor would not play
a direct role in criminal cases, noting that only some
controversial, high profile issues "might actually make it to my
desk." Regarding other cases including involvement of Alaska's
interests, he opined that there could be a discussion between
the governor and the attorney general. In controversial cases,
he would involve the governor's office to ensure they were all
in line. He offered his belief that the governor, in the end,
could make a policy call to pursue certain issues.
2:43:37 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that a significant source of revenue
for the state had been lawsuits by the Department of Law and the
Department of Natural Resources against oil companies for tax
issues, noting that the oil companies hired the best lawyers and
accountants. He asked Mr. Clarkson for his perspective on
whether the oil companies could be trusted on these tax matters,
or should the state have a strong, aggressive Department of Law
to pursue the interests of the state for tax recovery.
MR. CLARKSON offered his belief that the state did need a
strong, talented Department of Law in order to respond. He
pointed out that the [oil] companies would "do what they're
supposed to do, which is to look out for their own financial
interests. They're not lookin' out for our financial
interests." He acknowledged that there was occasional
partnership toward common goals. He opined that, for tax
issues, it was necessary for a strong Department of Law, adding
that there currently was "a lot of talent in our department."
2:45:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP offered his belief that Mr. Clarkson had
uniform support for his integrity from those people with whom he
had professionally served the longest, pointing out that Mr.
Clarkson had been referenced as "the least dogmatic, most soft
spoken and thoughtful lawyer [Mr. Sender] had ever known, and
with some of the best ethics of anybody he had ever practiced
with."
2:47:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW shared his experience of meeting and working
with people he had fought against in Vietnam, and he stated his
appreciation for the plaudits to the integrity of Mr. Clarkson.
2:48:49 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, in response to an earlier query from a testifier,
explained that those invited to testify were given the first
opportunity to speak.
2:49:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to advance the confirmation of Kevin
Clarkson, appointee as Attorney General, Department of Law, to
the joint session of the House and Senate for consideration.
There being no objection, the confirmation was forwarded. She
reminded the committee that signing the reports regarding
appointments in no way reflects individual members' approval or
disapproval of the appointees, and that the nominations are
merely forwarded to the full legislature for confirmation or
rejection.
2:50:04 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Attorney General Appointment-Kevin Clarkson Resume 2.25.19.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Attorney General Appointment-Opposition Letters 2.25.19.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2019 1:00:00 PM |