Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
05/05/2021 01:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB129 | |
| HB109 | |
| SB11 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 109 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 11 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 129-ELECTION PAMPHLET INFORMATION RE JUDGES
1:33:45 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO.
129, "An Act relating to information on judicial officers
provided in election pamphlets."
1:34:02 PM
SENATOR MYERS, speaking as the sponsor, said SB 129 would
provide voters with additional information on judges standing
for judicial retention. Judges cannot campaign, so voters often
lack information on judges' backgrounds. Since the Alaska
Judicial Council collects information on judges, SB 129 will
require additional background information be included in the
Division of Election voter pamphlet.
1:35:22 PM
THERESA WOLDSTAD, Staff, Senator Robert Myers, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, began a PowerPoint on SB 129 on
behalf of the sponsor. She paraphrased slide 2 related to the
judicial merit selection retention system:
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 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.
1:37:01 PM
MS. WOLDSTAD reviewed slide 4, Judicial Retention and Election
Pamphlets, which depicted information on judicial retention that
is typically included in the 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 pointed out that the Alaska Judicial Council recommendation
indicates whether the judge should be retained.
MS. WOLDSTAD reviewed the table on slide 6, Alaska Judicial
Council Recommendations and Retention Votes. She reported that
voters retained judges about 33 percent of the time when the
Alaska Judicial Council recommended a "No" vote. However, it
sometimes takes two election cycles before the judges are voted
out. The sponsor surmised that voters might need additional
information on judicial performance to make informed decisions
at the polls.
1:38:06 PM
MS. WOLDSTAD read the goal of the bill shown on slide 7.
• The 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.
• We are currently working [with] the Alaska Court System,
Division of Elections, and the Alaska Judicial Council to
assess word limitations and potential information to be
provided.
CHAIR HOLLAND asked if the sponsor would like to present the
sectional analysis of the bill.
1:38:59 PM
SENATOR MYERS answered no. He stated that he would like to
provide the bill concept today, that he anticipates some
amendments to the bill, including ones the division and court
system suggested. He stated his intention to fine-tune the bill
by adding specificities, such as the judges' affirmation rates
on appeals, the types of clients, or the cases they handled in
their attorney practices. He explained typical affirmation rates
for judges often range in the 80 percent range, so voters may
wish to review judges whose rates are 60 percent or lower. This
downward trend may indicate a lack of voter trust. One goal of
SB 129 is to restore trust and to better inform voters on
judicial performance. He suggested that some information, such
as the law school they attended and the types of clients they
served, may be relevant when initially assessing judges.
However, that information may not be needed for subsequent
retention elections.
1:44:26 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked what type of information might be relevant
for the first retention but not subsequent ones. She wondered if
it would raise any constitutional issues to differentiate
between them.
SENATOR MYERS responded that it might be helpful to know the
judges' primary practice areas and their primary clients for the
first retention election. Once someone has years of judicial
experience, what they did 20 years ago seemed superfluous and
the court system agreed that information might not be as
relevant.
1:46:28 PM
SENATOR SHOWER suggested that the trend indicates people want to
be more informed about government. People tend not to know as
much about the judiciary, so providing more information on
judges could be beneficial. He offered his view that providing
more transparency in the system could help restore public faith.
1:48:17 PM
SENATOR KIEHL recalled some items that he considered adding to
the voter pamphlet. He asked what value voters would get from
knowing which law school judges attended. He wondered if this
means someone who goes to a prestigious law school will receive
additional consideration.
SENATOR MYERS recalled that there are about 3,000 universities
in the US, but only about [200] law schools, so it's a more
limited pool. He acknowledged that the location could create
bias, but it could also provide a perspective on the judges that
voters may find helpful.
1:51:21 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked what level of granular information on their
clients is needed. He stated that he does not judge or select
his doctors based on the patients they may have treated.
SENATOR MYERS said the point is not to single out specific
clients. Still, it may be relevant to know the general area of
law an attorney practices to highlight the attorney's experience
brought to the bench. For example, it would be pertinent to know
if the judges spent most of their legal practice representing
oil companies or plaintiffs.
1:53:14 PM
SENATOR HUGHES pointed out that the election pamphlet already
lists education and political involvement in the biographical
information. She asked if the candidate or the Alaska Judicial
Council provided that information. She surmised that the current
information was at the discretion of the judicial candidates.
SENATOR MYERS acknowledged the information on the left side of
slide 4 was discretionary information the judicial candidates
provided to the Division of Elections. The Alaska Judicial
Council provides judicial evaluation information per specific
requirements. He suggested perhaps melding the two pages by
developing discretionary and mandatory requirements. The surveys
from the Alaska Judicial Council are available to the public on
the council's website, but it does take time to find them.
1:56:59 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Offices, Alaska
Court System, Anchorage, Alaska, stated that the court system
has been working with the sponsor to address privacy and
security concerns. Still, it is not opposed to the bill as
currently written. She stated her intent to continue to work
with the sponsor on SB 129.
1:57:40 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked if those concerns could be remedied. She
asked her to elaborate on the privacy and security concerns.
MS. MEADE referred to page 2, lines 15 to 16, subparagraph (H),
which would require the justices or judges to disclose clients
and employers of members of the justice's or judge's household.
She surmised that some spouses might not wish to disclose their
clients. Further, disclosing information could create security
concerns, including reporting that a judge's child works at a
coffee shop. Additionally, some spouses and adult children have
different levels of privacy needs and security concerns and will
not want their information published.
1:58:58 PM
SENATOR SHOWER acknowledged privacy concerns but wanted to
ensure that a balance was struck. He suggested that the bill be
as transparent as possible within specific parameters. He said
public officials should be required to submit to a certain level
of disclosure.
2:01:09 PM
SUSANNE DIPIETRO, Executive Director, Alaska Judicial Council,
Alaska Court System, Anchorage, Alaska, echoed Ms. Meade's
comment that she has been working with the sponsor to address
issues. She explained that in 1978, the Alaska Judicial Council
first received the authority to put information about judges
standing for retention in the Division of Elections' voter
pamphlets. At that time, the council's submission was limited to
approximately 300 words. The council's evaluation process was
less comprehensive. The council conducted a survey to determine
what information voters wanted before voting. Voters responded
that the voter pamphlet information was helpful, but they wanted
more details. Since then, the council has built up the
information in the voter pamphlet to 600 words. The council
carefully considers what information best reflects the actual
performance of judges. The council has increased the evaluation
process, conducting outreach by posting information on social
platforms and conducting five user surveys instead of only two
to three that it undertook initially. These surveys are sent to
jurors, court employees and the public.
2:03:59 PM
MS. DIPIETRO stated that feedback the council receives indicates
that many voters overlook judges in the voter pamphlet, so the
council provides three layers of information on its website to
provide more detailed information. Besides the council's social
media page, it uses limited paid advertising and conducts
numerous presentations to community groups and via television.
The council's efforts to reach voters are ongoing but can always
be improved. At the sponsor's request, she reviewed voter
participation rates over the past 20 years. The number of voters
casting votes for or against appellate judges has increased by 8
to 10 percent. In 2000, about 78 or 80 percent of voters cast
ballots for judges. By 2020, it grew to 80 to 86 percent. The
council would like it to be 100 percent, she said. In 2020, the
voters also cast the highest percentage of yes votes for judges
in the past 20 years. She surmised that social media outreach
has primarily helped inform voters on judicial retention votes.
She said she shares the concerns that Ms. Meade raised on page
2, lines 15 to 16 of SB 129.
2:08:11 PM
[SB 129 was held in committee.]