03/17/2022 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB187 | |
| SB207 | |
| SB214 | |
| HB123 | |
| SB129 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 207 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 214 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 123 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | SB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 17, 2022
3:39 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Mike Shower, Chair
Senator Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair
Senator Mia Costello
Senator Roger Holland
Senator Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 187(STA)
"An Act relating to the elimination or modification of state
agency publications that are outdated, duplicative, or excessive
or that could be improved or consolidated with other
publications or exclusively delivered electronically; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 207
"An Act restricting the release of certain records of
convictions; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 214
"An Act relating to civil liability for censorship of speech by
a social media platform."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 123
"An Act providing for state recognition of federally recognized
tribes; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 129
"An Act relating to information on judicial officers provided in
election pamphlets."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 187
SHORT TITLE: STATE AGENCY PUBLICATIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KAUFMAN
04/22/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/22/21 (H) STA, FIN
04/29/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/29/21 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
05/06/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/06/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/06/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/11/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/11/21 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/13/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/13/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/13/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/15/21 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
05/15/21 (H) Moved CSHB 187(STA) Out of Committee
05/15/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/18/21 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 5DP 1NR
05/18/21 (H) DP: STORY, VANCE, KAUFMAN, TARR,
KREISS-TOMKINS
05/18/21 (H) NR: CLAMAN
02/02/22 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM ADAMS 519
02/02/22 (H) Heard & Held
02/02/22 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
02/10/22 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM ADAMS 519
02/10/22 (H) Moved CSHB 187(STA) Out of Committee
02/10/22 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
02/11/22 (H) FIN RPT CS(STA) 6DP 5NR
02/11/22 (H) DP: LEBON, CARPENTER, THOMPSON,
JOHNSON, RASMUSSEN, FOSTER
02/11/22 (H) NR: ORTIZ, EDGMON, WOOL, JOSEPHSON,
MERRICK
02/17/22 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
02/17/22 (H) VERSION: CSHB 187(STA)
02/22/22 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/22 (S) STA
03/10/22 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/10/22 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/17/22 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 207
SHORT TITLE: ACCESS TO MARIJUANA CONVICTION RECORDS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) SHOWER
02/22/22 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/22 (S) STA, JUD
03/10/22 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/10/22 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/17/22 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 214
SHORT TITLE: LIABILITY: SOCIAL MEDIA CENSORSHIP
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) REINBOLD
02/22/22 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/22 (S) STA, JUD
03/10/22 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/10/22 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/17/22 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HB 123
SHORT TITLE: STATE RECOGNITION OF TRIBES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) ZULKOSKY
03/03/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/03/21 (H) TRB, STA
03/30/21 (H) TRB AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/30/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/30/21 (H) MINUTE(TRB)
04/01/21 (H) TRB AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
04/01/21 (H) Moved HB 123 Out of Committee
04/01/21 (H) MINUTE(TRB)
04/05/21 (H) TRB RPT 3DP 1NR
04/05/21 (H) DP: FIELDS, TARR, ZULKOSKY
04/05/21 (H) NR: CRONK
04/17/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/17/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/17/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/22/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/22/21 (H) Moved HB 123 Out of Committee
04/22/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/26/21 (H) STA RPT 5DP 1NR
04/26/21 (H) DP: VANCE, CLAMAN, STORY, TARR, KREISS-
TOMKINS
04/26/21 (H) NR: KAUFMAN
05/19/21 (H) LIMIT ALL DEBATE TO 2 MIN EACH Y23 N16
E1
05/19/21 (H) MOTION TO TABLE UC
05/19/21 (H) TAKEN FROM TABLE UC
05/19/21 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
05/19/21 (H) VERSION: HB 123
01/18/22 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/22 (S) STA, CRA
02/10/22 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/10/22 (S) Heard & Held
02/10/22 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/15/22 (S) CRA REFERRAL REMOVED
02/15/22 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/15/22 (S) Heard & Held
02/15/22 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/03/22 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/03/22 (S) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/10/22 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/10/22 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/17/22 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 129
SHORT TITLE: ELECTION PAMPHLET INFORMATION RE: JUDGES
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MYERS
04/21/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/21/21 (S) JUD, STA
05/05/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/05/21 (S) Heard & Held
05/05/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
05/12/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/12/21 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
05/14/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/14/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
01/28/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/28/22 (S) Heard & Held
01/28/22 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
01/31/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/31/22 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
02/02/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/02/22 (S) Heard & Held
02/02/22 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/09/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/09/22 (S) Heard & Held
02/09/22 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/11/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/11/22 (S) Moved CSSB 129(JUD) Out of Committee
02/11/22 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/15/22 (S) JUD RPT CS 1DP 2NR 1AM NEW TITLE
02/15/22 (S) DP: HOLLAND
02/15/22 (S) NR: SHOWER, KIEHL
02/15/22 (S) AM: HUGHES
03/10/22 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/10/22 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/17/22 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KAUFMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 187.
MATTHEW HARVEY, Staff
Representative James Kaufman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis for HB 187.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Alaska Court System
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered legal questions during the hearing
on SB 207.
NOAH KLEIN, Legislative Counsel
Legal Services
Division of Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions as the legal drafter
during the hearing on SB 214.
CAMERON SHOLTY, Director of Government Relations
Heartland Institute
Illinois
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified by invitation in support of SB
214.
LAURA WOLFF, Assistant Attorney General
Opinions, Appeals, and Ethics Section
Civil Division
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the Department of Law's assessment
and conclusion that the text of HB 123 does not impact the
powers or authorities of tribes or the state.
BETTY JO MOORE, representing self
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 123.
JULIE KITKA, President
Alaska Federation of Natives
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 123.
SENATOR ROBERT MEYERS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 129.
THERESA WOLDSTAD, Staff
Senator Robert Myers
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Delivered a PowerPoint on SB 129 on behalf
of the sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:39:45 PM
CHAIR MIKE SHOWER called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:39 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Holland, Reinbold, Costello, Kawasaki, and
Chair Shower.
HB 187-STATE AGENCY PUBLICATIONS
3:40:38 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of CS FOR HOUSE BILL
NO. 187(STA) "An Act relating to the elimination or modification
of state agency publications that are outdated, duplicative, or
excessive or that could be improved or consolidated with other
publications or exclusively delivered electronically; and
providing for an effective date."
3:40:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KAUFMAN, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of HB 187, introduced the legislation,
paraphrasing the sponsor statement that read as follows:
[Original punctuation provided.]
HB 187 in its current form, is intended to conserve
resources expended in the production, processing,
transportation, distribution storage and disposal of
excess state agency publications.
The products affected by HB 187 are publications as
defined in AS 44.99.240.
As currently written in statute, AS 44.99.220 requires
state agencies to compile and maintain a list of the
publications that they produce each fiscal year. This
bill would ensure that the state is receiving added
value from work that is already being done, by using
the list as opportunity to assess the actual need for
each document and to determine if the people of Alaska
will be best served by printing or by digital
delivery.
HB 187 also provides for the reduction in statutory
requirements to produce publications, through changes
made to AS 37.07.220. These changes will require that
the governor submit a bill to eliminate or modify
requirements for publications deemed to be outdated,
duplicative or excessive, or could be consolidated
with other publications, and which of those could be
delivered in electronic form.
Time, energy, space and materials can be all be
conserved by the passage of HB 187.
3:43:12 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO voiced support for the legislation. She asked
if the purpose behind identifying outdated or duplicative
documents is to later remove the requirement for those documents
from statute.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN replied it's a feedback loop that will
identify what needs to be changed in statute to effect the
desired change.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked whether the list would have hot links to
facilitate the search for a particular report.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN replied there isn't that explicit
requirement, "but that would be a good delivery mechanism."
3:45:19 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked whether the legislature would still have
the option of receiving an agency publication that was
identified and appeared on the list.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN answered correct. The idea is to use the
legislative processes to eliminate or modify the requirement to
produce the publication.
SENATOR KAWASAKI referenced the document in the bill packet from
Legislative Research Services that identifies the reports that
state agencies are statutorily required to produce. He said some
are very important and he wouldn't want somebody to decide it
wasn't important for the legislature or public to see them. He
asked whether there were any guarantees that the public would be
able to speak for or against a bill that proposes to eliminate a
particular report. He cited the example of the report from the
[State Vaccine Assessment Council], which is charged by statute
to produce an annual report.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN said any bill to eliminate publication of
a report would first need to go through the full legislative
process that includes public hearings. He also pointed out that
the bill provides the option to consolidate certain reports and
perhaps deliver it electronically. The idea is to use the two
year review cycle to do a better job of managing the production
of reports in hard copy.
SENATOR KAWASAKI offered his belief that if the bill were to
pass, a subsequent legislature likely would introduce an omnibus
bill and members would decide on the disposition of the
individual reports going forward.
3:48:04 PM
CHAIR SHOWER asked the sponsor if he was comfortable with the
changes that were made to the bill thus far and if it still
accomplished the original intent.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN replied he was very satisfied and
believes the changes made a better bill.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked if the list that each of the 14 agencies
prepare could be combined and submitted to the legislature as
one list.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN replied the current requirement is for
each agency to maintain a list of the publications it produces
and HB 187 does not propose to change that construct. However,
there is nothing to prevent those lists from being delivered to
the legislature as a compilation.
CHAIR SHOWER requested the sectional analysis for HB 187.
3:49:39 PM
MATTHEW HARVEY, Staff, Representative James Kaufman, Alaska
State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented the sectional
analysis for HB 187. It read as follows:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Section 1:
Amends AS 37.07.020 to add a requirement for the
governor to submit legislation to remove or amend
statutory requirements for publications deemed to be
outdated, duplicative or excessive, or that could be
consolidated with other publications, and which of
those could be delivered in electronic form as
directed in Section 2.
Section 2:
Repeals and reenacts AS 44.99.220 requiring state
agencies to use a list of publications, which is
already statutorily required to be developed, to
identify and highlight publications deemed to be
outdated, duplicative or excessive, or that could be
consolidated with other publications, or which could
be delivered in electronic form. This list of
publications, including highlighted publications, is
required to be electronically submitted to the
governor and both bodies of the legislature.
Section 3:
Provides for an immediate effective date.
CHAIR SHOWER asked for a summary of the fiscal note.
MR. HARVEY stated that the fiscal note is zero. The Office of
Management and Budget stated that it would be able to
accommodate the additional work with existing resources.
3:51:40 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI observed that the immediate effective date
means the current governor would start the process and whomever
is governor after the election would have to comply on December
15 when the budget is released.
MR. HARVEY agreed. The bill repeals and reenacts the existing
statute such that each state agency will compile a list of
publications it is responsible for, highlighting certain ones.
The expectation is that those reports, including the highlighted
ones would be submitted to the governor for the budget process.
He noted that a change in House State Affairs made the review
biannual so a bill could carry through to the next year of the
legislature.
3:52:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN added that the bill intentionally uses a
light touch. The rewritten statute leverages the requirement
that agencies maintain their list of publications, which creates
a feedback loop.
SENATOR REINBOLD offered her understanding that the legislature
would make the decision about whether a particular publication
was needed and in what form.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN answered that's correct; the idea is to
keep the legislature engaged in the assessment of whether the
reductions are valid or an overreach. It is not an opportunity
for the executive branch to stop doing work that is needed.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked whether the publications that one
legislature deleted would still appear on the list for a
subsequent legislature to see.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN clarified that a report that is required
by statute would need legislative action to change the
requirement to produce that report.
SENATOR COSTELLO referred to the phrase "the governor shall" and
questioned why it wasn't permissive because the compulsory
language assumes there are publications to be eliminated. She
mentioned balance of power and questioned tasking the executive
branch with highlighting publications for potential
consolidation or elimination when it is the legislature that
writes bills that ask for reports. She asked if there might be a
way for the legislative branch to take the lead.
3:57:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN replied the idea is to get input from the
people who are close to or doing the work. They will have ideas
about how to do things more efficiently and can send their
recommendations up through the line. The safeguard is that the
legislature conducts a review. He offered his belief that there
are a number of reports that have been required over time that
likely aren't necessary or could be delivered electronically.
Over time the biannual report will have a smaller document base.
3:59:44 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI suggested that the report from Legislative
Research Services that identified 189 statutorily required
agency reports provides one way for the legislature to review
the reports and direct the executive branch instead of relying
on the administration to make a determination.
4:00:34 PM
MR. HARVEY says the intention is for the governor to submit a
bill that is based on the highlighted list. If nothing is
highlighted, the bill would be unnecessary. There is also the
requirement for the list to be submitted to the legislature and
public. He suggested that could give the legislature the
information it needs to make its own decision about the need for
certain reports.
CHAIR SHOWER encouraged the committee members to work with the
sponsor if they wanted any changes.
SENATOR REINBOLD agreed with Senator Kawasaki and Senator
Costello that this is a legislature matter.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN said it's important to recognize that
this gives voice to the agency people who prepare the reports
and may have ideas about a better way to deliver the same or
similar content. The proposed process creates that feedback
opportunity. He opined that the opportunity for overreach is
only worrisome if the legislature doesn't do its due diligence.
SENATOR KAWASAKI said he wanted to make sure that the people
other than just the legislature who use the reports are taken
into consideration and know what is happening. He described it
as an issue of transparency.
4:05:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN said this is less about cutting reports
and more about optimizing the information and delivering it in a
different format.
CHAIR SHOWER said he always appreciates efficiencies.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN thanked the committee for hearing the
bill.
4:07:14 PM
CHAIR SHOWER held HB 187 in committee for future consideration.
SB 207-ACCESS TO MARIJUANA CONVICTION RECORDS
4:07:34 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 207
"An Act restricting the release of certain records of
convictions; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR SHOWER identified himself as the sponsor.
4:07:52 PM
At ease
4:08:24 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting.
Speaking as sponsor, Senator Shower introduced SB 207 reading
the following sponsor statement:
Senate Bill 207 would make confidential the records of
individuals who have been convicted of minor marijuana
crimes and were not charged with any other crimes in
the same incident. These records would automatically
be removed from Court View. The records would also be
removed from some background checks administered by
the Department of Public Safety, if requested by the
convicted individual.
In 2014, Alaskans voted to legalize the cultivation,
sale, and possession of marijuana for those 21 years
old or older. Despite this change in state law, some
Alaskans remain blocked from employment and housing
due to previous marijuana possession convictions that
would not be a crime today.
According to a report prepared by Legislative
Research, there were more than 700 Alaskans convicted
of low-level marijuana crimes between 2007 and 2017.
Those convictions can make obtaining housing and
gainful employment challenging.
Now that voters have legalized marijuana, this
legislation would allow those previously convicted to
move on with their lives, while ensuring those in the
criminal justice field still have access to appropriate
background information.
CHAIR SHOWER stated that he did not vote to legalize marijuana,
but he worked with the original sponsor and agreed to carry SB
207 to make sure the bill is only about possession of small
amounts of marijuana and that it only applies to the limited
number of Alaskans who have low-level marijuana convictions on
their record but would not be charged with a crime today if they
had the same amount of marijuana in their possession. The hope
is this bill will help that limited number of individuals move
on with their lives without a criminal record.
4:11:19 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO asked if there is a definition of low-level
crimes and what the penalty is for selling to minors.
CHAIR SHOWER asked Ms. Meade to respond to the first question.
In response to the second question, he said the bill doesn't
apply to individuals who are selling marijuana.
SENATOR COSTELLO clarified that she wanted to know what the
crime is for selling to minors.
CHAIR SHOWER deferred the question to Ms. Meade.
4:12:26 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, Juneau,
Alaska, said the bill uses the term low-level and suggested that
the question about selling to minors would be better addressed
by the executive branch.
4:13:01 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI noted that the bill applies to persons who have
not been convicted of any other criminal charges in the case. He
asked if a person who is charged with a crime typically is
charged with a number of ancillary crimes as well.
MS. MEADE stated that SB 207 was carefully drafted to say it
only applies to those persons who were not convicted of any
other charges in the case. The court will only look at the final
conviction, not what could be a roster of other charges some of
which could have been resolved through a plea bargain. None of
that matters under SB 207; it is only the final conviction in
the case.
SENATOR KAWASAKI offered his understanding that a person charged
with a misdemeanor assault and possession in the same case, but
only convicted of possession of less than one ounce of
marijuana, would qualify to have that record concealed.
4:15:03 PM
MS. MEADE clarified that the person would qualify under Section
4 of SB 207 to have their case removed from the public face of
CourtView, but the record would not be sealed or hidden. The
preference is to have court records open and transparent, so
those records would still be accessible at the courthouse.
CHAIR SHOWER stated that the intent is to have the marijuana
charge available and searchable at the courthouse, but it would
be removed from CourtView.
MS. MEADE clarified that the entire case would be removed from
CourtView if the marijuana charge was the only conviction in the
case. However, someone could go to a kiosk at the courthouse to
search the unpublished cases. Those cases can only be viewed at
the courthouse.
4:16:51 PM
CHAIR SHOWER restated that the intent is to apply only to those
marijuana conviction cases that are not a crime today. The idea
is to help those individuals get on with their lives. He noted
that a companion bill was moving through the other body and he
wanted to ensure that they were reconcilable.
4:17:35 PM
SENATOR HOLLAND asked if this is limited to persons 21 years of
age and older because there are no possession crimes for persons
who are younger than 21 years of age.
MS. MEADE countered that there are indeed possession crimes for
people under 21 years of age. Until February 2015, all
possession of marijuana was a B misdemeanor. The voter
initiative changed that but the only thing legalized was
possession of less than one ounce or six marijuana plants by
individuals older than age 21. SB 207 speaks solely to the
conduct that the voters of Alaska decided should not be
criminalized. Those cases would be retroactively removed from
CourtView.
4:19:18 PM
CHAIR SHOWER presented the sectional analysis for SB 207. It
read as follows:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Section 1: Adds a new section stating the legislative
intent behind this bill.
Section 2: Amends subsection (b)(8) of AS 12.62.160 by
adding criminal justice information, for marijuana
possession that meet the requirements laid out in (f)
of this section, to the list of exceptions for the
release of criminal justice information.
Section 3: Adds a new subsection (f) to AS 12.62.160,
which adds new criteria for criminal justice
information that an agency cannot release. This new
section prohibits release of criminal justice
information for convictions under AS 11.71.060 for
less than one ounce of a "schedule VIA" controlled
substance, where the defendant was 21 years or older
at the time of the offense, was not convicted of any
other criminal charges in that same case, and has
formally requested that the agency not release these
records.
Section 4: Adds a new section to AS 22.35, stating
that records of criminal charges or convictions that
meet the requirements stated in this section, may not
be published by the court system on a publicly
available website. This applies to criminal justice
information for convictions under AS 11.71.060 for
less than one ounce of a "schedule VIA" controlled
substance, where the defendant was 21 years or older
at the time of the offense, and was not convicted of
any other criminal charges in that same case.
Section 5: Adds a new section to uncodified law of the
State of Alaska saying that the Alaska Court System
shall remove court records that meet the requirements
of this bill, retroactively going back from the
effective date of the bill. It also uses the language
"to the extent practicable" to clarify that the court
system will not be legally required to expend
excessive resources or funds to ensure every single
record that meets the requirements of this bill for
removal from court view, is removed.
Section 6: Provides an effective date of January 1,
2023.
4:20:50 PM
CHAIR SHOWER said the fiscal note for SB 207 reflects the cost
of going through the individual records and making the necessary
changes. The estimated cost is about $184,000 in FY2021 and
$121,000 in FY2024.
4:21:37 PM
CHAIR SHOWER opened public testimony on SB 207; finding none, he
closed public testimony.
4:21:56 PM
CHAIR SHOWER held SB 207 in committee for future consideration.
SB 214-LIABILITY: SOCIAL MEDIA CENSORSHIP
4:22:01 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 214
"An Act relating to civil liability for censorship of speech by
a social media platform."
4:22:22 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD, speaking as sponsor, stated that SB 214
addresses social media censorship, which is a new area of law.
She offered her perspective that many social media platforms are
extraordinarily political yet they are not regulated as such.
Furthermore, some politicians have been targeted on these
platforms for their views on such things as the COVID-19
vaccine. She continued the introduction speaking to the sponsor
statement that read as follow:
[Original punctuation provided.]
SB 214 may also be known as the Stop Social Media
Censorship Act. This bill ensures that the legislature
is opposed to censorship of online content, has a
compelling interest in holding certain social media
platforms to higher standards for having established a
digital public square, and has an interest in helping
its residents regardless of religious or political
affiliations enjoy their free exercise of rights in
certain semipublic forum commonly used for religious
or political speech, and has an interest, and has an
interest in preventing social media platforms that
have substantially created a digital public square
from malicious interference in state elections.
Social media platforms may not intentionally fact
check, delete, or use an algorithm to disfavor, shadow
ban or otherwise censor the religious or political
speech of a platform user. SB 214 includes civil
liability for censorship of speech by a social media
platform.
4:25:08 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD summarized the February 17, 2022 legal
memorandum she received from Legal Services regarding work order
32-LS1577\A. It read as follows:
The bill draft you requested is attached. Please
consider the following.
1. First Amendment issues. Please be aware that the
draft bill raises significant issues under the United
States Constitution's First Amendment and art. I, sec.
5, of the Alaska Constitution. Because social media
websites are private entities and not government
actors, they are entitled to freedom of speech
protections. Government regulation of a social media
website's speech is therefore held to the same standard
as government regulation of a private individual's
speech.
The draft bill seeks to compel speech and suppress
fact-checking. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that
"[t]here is certainly some difference between compelled
speech and compelled silence, but in the context of
protected speech, the difference is without
constitutional significance, for the First Amendment
guarantees 'freedom of speech,' a term necessarily
comprising the decision of both what to say and what
not to say. "l The interplay of free speech protections
and internet forums such as social media is an evolving
area of law. Because the draft bill requires a social
media website to disseminate content with which it
disagrees, and prohibits a website from speaking
through fact checking, a court may, however, find the
provisions in the bill unconstitutional.
2. Damages. Your request provided an injured party
with a minimum of $75,000 in statutory damages, actual
damages, punitive damages, and other forms of equitable
relief. The draft bill uses the $75,000 statutory
damages but does not include punitive damages to
conform to the structure of AS 09.68. Please advise if
this is not what you intended.
SENATOR REINBOLD highlighted that she wanted the foregoing
addressed under AS 45.45 relating to trade practices, not AS
09.68
3. Jurisdiction. Although the draft bill provides an
individual with a cause of action against a social
media website, it is not clear that an Alaska court
would have personal jurisdiction over the social media
website. As a result, an Alaska court may dismiss a case
brought under this statute for lack of personal
jurisdiction.
4. Deceptive trade practice. Your request placed the
prohibitions in AS 45.45, a chapter addressing trade
practices. Because the draft regulates conduct of
platforms and generally prohibits harassing behavior,
and because the draft is imposing liability for
conduct, I placed your request in AS 09.
5. Personal bill deadline. In order to deliver a
draft before the personal bill deadline, we have
expedited preparation of this bill draft. Please be
aware that there may be additional legal issues raised
by this draft that are not discussed in this memo.
4:27:18 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI requested a copy of the memo.
CHAIR SHOWER replied it would be added to the record.
4:27:28 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD presented the sectional analysis for SB 214.
Section 1 adds the short title, Stop Social Media Censorship
Act, to the uncodified law of the State of Alaska
Section 2 amends the uncodified law of the State of Alaska by
adding legislative findings.
The legislature finds that the state
(1) is opposed to censorship of online content,
unless the content is harmful to minors or promotes
human trafficking;
(2) has a compelling interest in holding certain
social media platforms to higher standards for having
substantially created a digital public square;
(3) has an interest in helping its residents,
regardless of religious or political affiliation,
enjoy their free exercise of rights in certain
semipublic forums commonly used for religious and
political speech; and
(4) has an interest in preventing social media
platforms that have substantially created a digital
public square from malicious interference in state
elections.
Section 3 amends AS 09.68 by adding a new section regarding
civil liability for censorship of speech by a social media
platform.
(a) prohibits censoring political speech of a platform user
(b) authorizes civil action for violations
(c) allows the platform to mitigate damages by restoring the
platform user's speech
(d) prohibits a court from using the alleged hate speech as
justification for a platform to delete or censor the user's
religious or political speech
(e) allows the attorney general to bring civil action against a
social media platform on behalf of the user
(f) outlines that deletion or censorship of a user's speech does
not apply when the speech
(1) calls for acts of violence.
(2) calls for self-harm
(3) is pornographic
(4) results from operational error
(5) results from a court order
(6) is inauthentic or involves impersonation
(7) entices criminal conduct
(8) harms minors
(9) bullies minors
(g) prohibits bullying or harassing behavior on a social media
platform
(h) provides definitions for
(1) algorithm
(2) hate speech
(3) platform user
(4) political speech
(5) pornographic
(6) religious
(7) shadow ban and
(8) social media platform
4:31:36 PM
CHAIR SHOWER noted that the fiscal note for SB 214 is zero.
4:32:00 PM
SENATOR HOLLAND asked where the definition of "religious" came
from and whether the protections are limited to
a set of unproven faith-based assumptions or
assertions that attempt to answer questions relating
to how the world was created, what constitutes right
and wrong human action, and what happens to humans
after death
He observed that if he were to post about his religious
exemption, he didn't believe it would fall under that definition
and his speech could be censored. He suggested that "relating to
or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate
reality or deity" would be a more appropriate and all-
encompassing definition of religious.
SENATOR REINBOLD agreed and said she would support amending the
definition. She suggested that Noah Klein, who drafted the bill,
tell the committee where the definition in the bill came from.
4:33:36 PM
NOAH KLEIN, Legislative Counsel, Legal Services, Division of
Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, Alaska
State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, stated that Legal Services
drafts bills according to intent and the direction they receive
from the bill sponsor. As such, he could answer questions about
what the definition means or how it would be applied, but the
bill was drafted according to the direction given.
SENATOR HOLLAND stated that he might offer an amendment.
SENATOR COSTELLO referenced Section 3 and wondered whether all
speech could be protected, not just religious or political
speech. She suggested amending the language on page 2 line 7 to
read, "...or otherwise censor speech of a platform user based on
religious or political speech, race, sex, age, or identity
choice."
She said she appreciates the bill because she believes that free
speech should be protected and that people should not be treated
improperly because of their views.
4:35:39 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD maintained that she did not give Legal Services
a specific definition for religious and she much prefers the one
Senator Holland suggested. She also agreed with Senator
Costello's point, further maintaining that she did put
parameters in to target religion and politics.
4:37:19 PM
CHAIR SHOWER turned to invited testimony on SB 214.
4:37:25 PM
CAMERON SHOLTY, Director of Government Relations, Heartland
Institute, Illinois, testified by invitation in support of SB
214. He thanked the committee for hearing the bill and Senator
Reinbold for introducing it. He stated that Heartland Institute
is a 38-year-old independent, national, nonprofit organization
whose mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market
solutions to social and economic problems. Heartland focuses on
providing national, state, and local elected officials with
reliable and timely research and analysis on important policy
issues.
MR. SHOLTY stated that 97 percent of social media traffic flows
through just three firms, thereby making this the de facto
public square where political and religious issues are shared
and debated. He acknowledged that some of the debate becomes
ugly but pointed out that it is still lawful and should be
protected. He said free speech rights are not subject to
corporate capture, although there are numerous examples where
conservative speech in particular has been subject to the whims
of big tech. He cited the example of Facebook stating that a New
York Times article about an ongoing investigation into Hunter
Biden was eligible to be fact-checked by third-party partners
and that in the meantime distribution on the platform would be
reduced. He maintained that the sole issue there is that
government and big tech collude to limit speech in the de facto
public square.
MR. SHOLTY offered his view that there were competing interests
in the Commerce Clause and the First Amendment. Regarding the
Commerce Clause, he said Section 230 of the 1996 Communication
Decency Act allows states like Alaska to weigh in the way SB 214
does to forbid objectionable content. And then there are the
First Amendment claims big tech corporations have used to
prevent third-party content. He stressed that Section 230
requires a very narrow reading and "otherwise objectionable"
should not be the whim of Silicon Valley.
4:42:14 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO asked if he would recommend addressing this
issue in uncodified law or where the sponsor believes is
appropriate under [AS 45.45] relating to trade practices.
MR. SHOLTY replied this is an issue of consumer protection and
the findings tend to lean into the concept of commerce and
carriage, so it may be best in uncodified law. That being said,
he suggested discussing the question with legislative counsel.
CHAIR SHOWER thanked Mr. Sholty and said the committee may ask
him to return for a subsequent hearing.
4:45:34 PM
CHAIR SHOWER opened public testimony on SB 214; finding none, he
closed public testimony.
He asked Senator Reinbold if she had any closing comments.
SENATOR REINBOLD urged the members to look at the written
testimony from the Heartland Institute and expressed her desire
to invite Mr. Sholty to return if the committee was sufficiently
interested.
4:46:29 PM
CHAIR SHOWER held SB 214 in committee.
HB 123-STATE RECOGNITION OF TRIBES
4:47:39 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of HOUSE BILL NO. 123
"An Act providing for state recognition of federally recognized
tribes; and providing for an effective date."
He asked Ms. Wolff to provide her testimony.
4:48:23 PM
LAURA WOLFF, Assistant Attorney General, Opinions, Appeals, and
Ethics Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, Anchorage,
Alaska, stated that DOL was asked to assess whether or not the
text of HB 123 in any way impacts the powers or authorities of
tribes or the state. The conclusion was that the bill does not
in any way change or confer new rights or authority. She offered
to answer any questions about the legal memorandum regarding HB
123 that the department sent to the committee.
4:49:45 PM
CHAIR SHOWER segued to the topic of St. Patrick's Day. He
advised that his office had contacted the President of the Irish
Senate who was now online to extend his greetings in recognition
and honor of St. Patrick's Day.
The President of the Irish Senate extended his greetings, his
appreciation that people were celebrating St. Patrick's Day, and
his hope that some Alaskans would travel to Ireland either this
year for the 100th anniversary of the Irish Senate or next year
in celebration of the Notre Dame Navy game.
SENATOR COSTELLO stated that it is an honor to be one of the
cochairs of the Friends of Ireland caucus in the Alaska
legislature. She congratulated him for establishing similar
caucuses in all 50 states.
The Irish Senate President expressed his gratitude and noted
that the Irish Parliament had two bars, both of which were busy
that day.
4:52:38 PM
CHAIR SHOWER returned attention to HB 123.
4:53:15 PM
BETTY JO MOORE, representing self, Sitka, Alaska, stated that
she is a tribal citizen testifying in opposition to HB 123. She
said paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) in Section 3 regarding
jurisdiction are all very confusing. She related that Congress
enacted Public Law (PL) 280 in 1953 and Alaska was made a
mandatory PL 280 state in 1958. That law transferred
jurisdiction over all criminal matters committed by or against
Indians in Indian Country from the federal government to the
state. In Alaska that means everywhere other than Metlakatla
Island.
MS. MOORE cited the following:
similar A May 29, 2019, Alaska Public Media report about Native
leaders finding it difficult to qualify for federal resources
because of legal confusion between federal Indian Country laws
and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA).
similar An October 17, 2019 press release when Senator Murkowski said
the Alaska Tribal Public Safety Empowerment Act recognizes the
specific jurisdictional complexities that tribes in Alaska
face. Ms. Moore questioned what the specific jurisdictional
complexities were.
similar An August 25, 2013 Anchorage Daily News (ADN) article reported
that the State of Alaska intervened in a civil case from a
small tribal court in the Village of [Minto]. Then Attorney
General Michael Geraghty reported the state intervened on Mr.
Park's side to protect his constitutional rights.
MS. MOORE said the state attorney general ensures protection of
all Alaskans' state constitutional rights; the U.S. attorney
general ensures protection of all Alaskans' U.S. constitutional
rights; and the U.S. and state attorneys general have
jurisdiction over criminal matters in Alaska and protection of
Alaskans' constitutional rights.
MS. MOORE offered her perspective as a former tribal judge that
not all tribal citizen's U.S. constitutional rights are
protected within tribal government. She said there is no comity
between tribal courts and State of Alaska jurisdiction and her
belief is comity should be nation-to-nation before it is
sanctioned for a state.
MS. MOORE opined that HB 123 is not the answer to improving
lives for all Alaskans. She asked whether tribal governments and
tribal courts were properly funded by the federal government and
how much it would cost the state to address ongoing issues
surrounding Alaska Native people and Alaska jurisdiction, should
HB 123 pass. She urged the committee not to pass HB 123 as
written.
4:58:37 PM
JULIE KITKA, President, Alaska Federation of Natives, Anchorage,
Alaska, described the documents and information she had provided
to the committee during or after the five previous hearings on
HB 123.
similar A document about Alaska's Unique Forms of Self Determination
and Tribal Self Governance that was prepared in an effort to
provide examples of what is different in Alaska compared to
the rest of the United States.
similar A summary briefing for the Senate State Affairs Committee that
reiterates that the implication of state recognition of tribes
in Alaska is different because Alaska's tribes already have
federal recognition status. Thus, the effect of HB 123 is
primarily one of respect. It will start to build trust and
open the potential for cooperation and coordination on the
many issues affecting all Alaskans.
MS. KITKA emphasized that HB 123 does not affect the federal
trust responsibility; it does not affect federal tribal
recognition; it does not affect the sovereignty of federally
recognized tribes; it does not impact the federal recognition
process; and it will have no bearing on state taxation of Alaska
Native lands.
MS. KITKA stated that as she testified before, state recognition
is a matter of state law and it varies both in terms of the
mechanism and the scope. She noted that the memo that was sent
to the committee provided examples of the variations in state
recognition of tribes. She recapped that the three largest state
recognized tribes in the U.S. are the Lumbee Tribe of North
Carolina, the Miami Nation of Indiana, and the United Houma
Nation of Louisiana. The memo also described what a state
recognized tribe is and that it's distinct from a federally
recognized tribe.
MS. KITKA discussed the reason that some Lower 48 tribes sought
state recognition versus the federal recognition process. The
current research indicates that more than 100 applications for
federal recognition are pending in the Office for Tribal
Recognition within the U.S. Department of Interior. Very few
applications are processed every year and only one or two have
been processed in recent years. Because the federal process is
so slow, tribes in Lower 48 states have opted for recognition
through the state process.
She highlighted that Alaska is different because all tribes in
this state are already federally recognized. Now it is just a
matter of the State of Alaska recognizing what is already a
fact.
MS. KITKA concluded her testimony saying that HB 123 is not a
jurisdictional bill. Jurisdiction and recognition are not the
same. She reminded the members that the issue of Indian Country
was determined by the Venetie case and passing HB 123 would not
overturn that settled law or any other court case.
5:03:02 PM
CHAIR SHOWER asked the committee to keep the questions short in
the interest of time.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked: 1) if there really are 229 sovereign
tribes in Alaska and 2) whether a tribal member is recognized by
bloodline or if there were other ways to become a tribal member.
5:04:00 PM
MS. KITKA answered that a unique aspect of Indian law is that
decisions about tribal membership are considered an internal
domestic matter and the sole prerogative of the tribe. The
qualifications and requirements differ from tribe to tribe. Some
may have blood quantum while others may be residency based.
SENATOR REINBOLD expressed interest in seeing the specific
requirements for the tribes, even if it was just a handful.
MS. MOORE stated that ANCSA defines Native as a U.S. citizen who
is 1/4 degree or more Alaska Indian including Eskimos, Aleuts,
and Tsimshian Indians not enrolled in the Metlakatla Indian
community. She said there is no consistent definition among the
229 tribes in Alaska.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked Ms. Kitka if she agreed with the ANCSA
definition.
MS. KITKA answered no; that definition is part of the land
claims settlement to determine who qualified as a shareholder in
a Native corporation established as part of ANCSA. Tribal
membership is different than ANCSA enrolled shareholders. She
restated that federal Indian law stipulates that tribes may set
their own membership requirements. As such, some tribes have
members who are dual citizens of Alaska and Canada and some
membership is based on descendancy. Determination of membership
is a domestic issue for each tribe. There are no overarching
rules.
5:09:17 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD responded that not basing tribal membership on
blood quantum "opens a much broader issue in my mind."
CHAIR SHOWER asked members to contact Ms. Kitka or Ms. Moore
directly if they had questions. Thereafter, the committee would
hold another hearing to ensure those questions and the answers
were part of the record.
5:10:44 PM
CHAIR SHOWER held HB 123 for future consideration.
SB 129-ELECTION PAMPHLET INFORMATION RE: JUDGES
5:10:53 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 129
"An Act relating to information on judicial officers provided in
election pamphlets."
[CSSB 129(JUD) was before the committee.]
5:11:08 PM
SENATOR ROBERT MEYERS, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
sponsor of SB 129, stated that this legislation will give voters
additional information on judges standing for retention. Because
judges tend to stay out of the public eye and generally cannot
campaign, voters often lack information when they vote on
judicial retentions. SB 129 proposes to publish in the election
pamphlet the information the Alaska Judicial Council already
collects. The intent is that this will increase voter turnout
and trust in the system.
5:12:19 PM
THERESA WOLDSTAD, Staff, Senator Robert Myers, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, delivered a PowerPoint to introduce
SB 129. She displayed slide 2 related to the judicial merit
selection retention system. It read:
Alaska established a three-part judicial merit
selection and retention system.
1. Alaska Judicial Council screens and nominates
judicial applicants based on the candidate's moral
character, professional competence, and legal
experience.
2. Alaska governor appoints from the list provided
by the Alaska Judicial Council.
3. Alaska state voters determine whether a judicial
officer will remain on the bench during retention
elections.
MS. WOLDSTAD stated that CSSB 129 focuses on the third phase of
the system when voters decide whether judges should be retained
in office. The constitutional framers' belief was that the
judiciary must maintain accountability to the electorate.
MS. WOLDSTAD displayed a sample, depicted on slide 4, of the
two-part election pamphlet. The information on page one is
submitted by the judicial officer seeking retention. Page 2
contains the Alaska Judicial Council evaluation of the judge
standing for retention.
MS. WOLDSTAD reviewed the Alaska Judicial Council
recommendations on slide 3:
• The Alaska Judicial Council conducts extensive
performance evaluations, interviews, and public
hearings.
• Surveys assess judicial integrity, temperament,
diligence, impartiality, legal ability, and
administrative skills
• Based upon their research the council will decide
if they will recommend a judicial officer's
retention to the public.
• The Judicial Council's recommendation is
published in the Alaska Official Election
Pamphlet.
MS. WOLDSTAD directed attention to the table on slide 5 that
summarizes information the Alaska Judicial Council compiled from
the Judicial Performance Evaluation it conducted. She noted that
the Alaska Judicial Council recommendation indicates whether or
not the judge should be retained. That information is on the
website.
5:14:04 PM
MS. WOLDSTAD reviewed the table on slide 6, Alaska Judicial
Council Recommendations and Retention Votes. She highlighted
that Alaska judges standing for retention must receive a simple
majority of the votes cast during a retention election. She
noted the dichotomy in the sample between the Judicial Council
recommendation and the retention vote. [In the sample, the
Judicial Council recommended a yes vote for just one of 13
judges and the voters returned eight yes votes for those 13
judges.] She offered her perspective that it sometimes takes two
cycles before the judges are voted out.
5:14:31 PM
MS. WOLDSTAD read the goals of the bill shown on slide 7:
• Success of the system is based upon providing the
electorate critical information to make informed
decisions regarding judicial retention.
• This legislation will add additional information
already collected by the Alaska Judicial Council to
the Alaska Official Election Pamphlet.
• Information shall be provided except when
required by law to be kept confidential.
MS. WOLDSTAD skipped to slide 9 that recounts the information an
individual seeking retention must provide:
Individual seeking retention in office as a justice or
judge may file with the Lieutenant Governor the
following information; not exceeding 300 words.
• A photograph
• Information regarding the residency of the judge.
• Information regarding the military service of the
judge.
• Information regarding the professional activities of
the justice or judge, including public outreach and
administrative activities.
• Any additional information that the justice or judge
would like to publish to support the justice's or
judge's candidacy.
5:15:20 PM
MS. WOLDSTAD displayed slide 10 that lists the information the
Judicial Council must provide on the election pamphlet for a
superior court or district court judge subject to retention.
The Judicial Council shall provide the following
information.
• Statement written by the judge that describes the
professional philosophy.
• Description of the judicial, legal, or other
education of the judge.
• Description of business experience and professional
positions held in the preceding 10 years.
• List of service organizations with which the judge
is affiliated.
• If applicable, rating of judge by law enforcement
officers, attorneys, court employees, and jurors.
• Number of decisions by the judge that were reviewed
and disposed of by a written decision of an
appellate court and the percentage of issues in
those decisions that were affirmed by the appellate
court.
• Description of any public disciplinary proceedings
against the judge.
• Self-assessment by the judge that evaluates the
judge's judicial performance.
MS. WOLDSTAD reviewed slide 11 that lists the information the
Judicial Council must provide on the election pamphlet for a
Supreme Court justice or court of appeals judge subject to
retention.
Judicial Council shall provide the following
information.
• Statement written by the judge that describes the
professional philosophy.
• Description of the judicial, legal, or other
education of the judge.
• Description of business experience and professional
positions held in the preceding 10 years.
• List of service organizations with which the judge
is affiliated.
• If applicable, rating of judge by law enforcement
officers, attorneys, court employees, and jurors.
• Description of any public disciplinary proceedings
against the judge.
• Self-assessment that evaluates the judge's judicial
performance.
5:17:08 PM
MS. WOLDSTAD reviewed slide 12 that lists the information the
Judicial Council must provide on the election pamphlet for a
justice or judge standing for retention for the first time.
Judicial Council shall provide the following
information.
• Previous political and governmental positions held
by the justice or judge, including any political
office held.
• Justice's or judge's primary practice areas before
appointment, including the approximate percentage of
the justice's or judge's pre-appointment career was
spent as a trial lawyer.
• Types of clients the justice or judge represented
before appointment.
5:17:44 PM
MS. WOLDSTAD paraphrased slide 13:
Expansion of Word Limits slide 13
• Establishes a word limit of 300 for information
provided by an individual seeking retention as a
justice or judge.
• Establishes a 1,200-word limit for information
provided by the Alaska Judicial Council.
• Statement describing professional philosophy by
the justice or judge is not to exceed 150
words.
• Self-assessment by the justice or judge to not
exceed 250 words.
5:18:12 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO asked whether judges are required to file their
personal financial information with the Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC).
SENATOR MEYER answered yes; judges have basically the same APOC
requirements as elected officials. The difference is that
information about an elected official is publicly available on
the APOC website whereas that information must be specifically
requested for each judge.
5:18:59 PM
CHAIR SHOWER opened public testimony on SB 129; finding none, he
closed public testimony on SB 129.
5:19:46 PM
CHAIR SHOWER held SB 129 in committee for future consideration.
5:19:51 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Shower adjourned the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting at 5:19 p.m.