SENATE BILL NO. 55 "An Act relating to judges of the court of appeals; and providing for an effective date." 9:03:02 AM SENATOR DAVID WILSON, SPONSOR, presented the legislation. 9:04:01 AM AT EASE 9:04:18 AM RECONVENED Senator Wilson continued to present the description of the bill. 9:05:48 AM Co-Chair von Imhof acknowledged SENATOR MIA COSTELLO. Senator Wilson presented the Sectional Analysis (copy on file): Section 1: Amends AS 22.07.010 to provide an exception for an additional court of appeals judge under AS 22.07.070(c) Section 2: Conforming amendment to remove the exception for an additional court of appeals judge after a three-year period Section 3: Adds a new subsection, AS 22.07.070 (c), to allow the chief justice of the supreme court to appoint acting court of appeals judges as needed to serve for no longer than two years. An acting court of appeals judge must meet the qualifications established under AS 22.07.404. Section 4: Repeals AS 22.07.070(c) after a two-year period Section 5: Adds a revisors instruction directing the revisor of statutes to change the catch line of AS 22.07.070 from "Vacancies" to "Selection of court of appeals judges" Section 6: Establishes that sections 2 and 4 of this act will take effect on July 1, 2021 Senator Hoffman wondered whether the backlogs were included in the testimony. Senator Wilson replied that it was difficult to figure out the reason for the backlogs. He remarked that there was always a possibility for appeal. He stated that the Court of Appeals recently had judges retire, and the new judge would recuse themselves, so it was difficult for the third judge to see the case. Senator Hoffman queried the location of the three judges. Senator Wilson replied that there were only three judges on the Court of Appeals. Senator Olson wondered why the legislation was presented, if the Courts were not asking for it. Senator Wilson felt that it was a need that he observed within the court system. 9:09:55 AM Senator Olson surmised that the Chief Justice would appoint the Court of Appeals Judge. Senator Wilson replied that it would be one judge for two years, which was less than the three-year cycle. Senator Olson stressed that the judges were chosen by the governor, which was chosen from a list from the Judicial Council. He surmised that the bill bypassed that process, and queried the justification for that bypass. Senator Wilson replied that there was already a statute that allowed for the Supreme Court Justice to appoint district court judges to serve temporarily for a three-year period. Senator Olson noted that the Court of Appeals did not see any new evidence, so they were on a different level than the lower courts. He felt that equating the District Court to the Court of Appeals was a "bit of a stretch." Senator Wilson replied that there was not an attempt to set up a new hierarchy. Senator Shower asked for an explanation of the Repealer section. Senator Wilson replied that Section 4 repealed AS 2.07.007c after the two-year period. He stressed that it was not in perpetuity, and had a direct calculated cost to that time period. Co-Chair von Imhof asked for thoughts about the judge addressing the backlog. 9:14:34 AM NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, shared that Court System did not seek this change in statute, but welcomed the change. She remarked that each fall, as the Court System assessed its needs, this was discussed, but took a conservative approach with its request. 9:19:45 AM Senator Bishop queried the number of backlogs. He also queried the qualifications the Supreme Court Judge would use to fill the position. Ms. Meade replied that the statute set out qualifications for a district court judge, and the bill said that the qualifications must be met. Senator Bishop asked for the number of backlogs. Ms. Meade replied that the Court of Appeals handled different types of cases, but the number of cases that had been briefed awaiting decision at the end of FY 18 were 341 cases. Senator Bishop wondered whether the temporary judge would qualify for Judiciary retirement. Ms. Meade replied in the negative, but would be eligible for Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS). Senator Wielechowski wondered whether there was a requirement for the Court of Appeals judges to issue decisions within six months. Ms. Meade responded that there was a statutory requirement that a matter could not be pending for more than six months. She furthered that the definition of "matter pending" was not about the moment a case was briefed. Senator Wielechowski queried statistics on the frequency in the last two years. Ms. Meade agreed to provide that information. Senator Wielechowski wondered whether the Court of Appeals heard the cases as a three-member panel. Ms. Meade replied in the affirmative. 9:25:01 AM Senator Wielechowski wondered how adding one additional person would work. Ms. Meade replied that the fourth judge was pulled up for a few years, and the panel rotated regularly. Senator Micciche wondered why this was not a priority for the Court. Ms. Meade replied that the Supreme Court was cognizant of the fiscal situation, by not asking for more than what was absolutely necessary. Senator Wielechowski noted that the repealer would take affect July 1, 2021. He wondered whether someone could be appointed on June 30, 2021, and that person serve for two years. Ms. Meade replied that the fiscal note only had funding available for two years. Senator Olson wondered how optimistic, with the increased cases, and decreased budgets that there would not be an additional request. Ms. Meade responded that she did not know how long it would take, but the court was optimistic. Co-Chair von Imhof wondered whether Ms. Meade had anything to add to the fiscal note conversation. Ms. Meade replied in the negative. Co-Chair von Imhof OPENED public testimony. Co-Chair von Imhof CLOSED public testimony. 9:30:01 AM AT EASE 9:30:40 AM RECONVENED SB 55 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration.