Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
02/09/2022 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 | |
| HB155 | |
| SB129 | |
| SB23 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 119 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 155 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 129-ELECTION PAMPHLET INFORMATION RE: JUDGES
1:41:57 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 129 "An Act relating to
information on judicial officers provided in election
pamphlets."
[SB 129 was previously heard on 5/5/21, 1/28/22, and 2/2/2022.
[Public testimony was opened and closed, and a committee
substitute (CS) for SB 129, Version O, was adopted on 1/28/22].
1:42:43 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND stated that the committee would take up
amendments. He said he intended to hold the bill in committee.
1:42:59 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND moved to adopt Amendment 1, work order 32-
LS0751\O.2.
32-LS0751\O.2
Radford
2/1/22
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HOLLAND
TO: CSSB 129(JUD), Draft Version "O"
Page 2, line 10, following "a":
Insert "superior court judge or district court"
Page 2, line 31:
Delete "justice"
Insert "supreme court justice or court of appeals
judge"
1:43:03 PM
SENATOR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.
CHAIR HOLLAND asked Ms. DiPietro to explain Amendment 1.
1:43:15 PM
SUSANNE DIPIETRO, Executive Director, Alaska Judicial Council
(AJC), Alaska Court System, Anchorage, Alaska, explained that
Amendment 1 would differentiate between the information AJC
would provide for trial and district court judges. She said it
specifically related to performance evaluations for appellate
judges, which includes the Supreme Court justices or Court of
Appeals judges.
1:44:03 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked whether this was for clarification or if it
would change policy.
MS. DIPIETRO replied that the proposed committee substitute (CS)
for SB 129, Version O identified the information AJC will
provide for all judges, including appellate judges. However, AJC
does not collect some information for appellate judges since
their jobs are slightly different from trial court judges. Thus,
the council's evaluation of the two different levels of courts
is slightly different. AJC wanted to be clear the information
provided on trial court judges was slightly different from
appellate court judges. She summarized that the language in
Version O was not applicable because it treats both levels of
judges the same.
1:45:58 PM
SENATOR MYERS, via Teams, speaking as sponsor, related that he
had discussed Amendment 1 with Ms. DiPietro. He remarked that he
had intended to make this change, so he was comfortable with it.
He characterized Amendment 1 as clarifying language.
1:46:52 PM
SENATOR HUGHES removed her objection.
CHAIR HOLLAND found no further objection, and Amendment 1 was
adopted.
1:47:07 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND moved to adopt Amendment 2, work order 32-
LS0751\O.6.
32-LS0751\O.6
Radford
2/4/22
AMENDMENT 2
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HOLLAND
TO: CSSB 129(JUD), Draft Version "O"
Page 2, lines 21 - 22:
Delete all material and insert:
"(F) the number of decisions by the judge
that were reviewed and disposed of by a written
decision of an appellate court, the percentage of
issues in those decisions that were affirmed by the
appellate court, and the significance of the
affirmation rate based on the type of case appealed,
historical statewide averages, affirmance data from
similarly situated judges, and other relevant
factors;"
SENATOR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.
1:47:21 PM
MS. DIPIETRO explained that Amendment 2 would clarify the
information presented on judicial decisions issued by trial
court judges. She explained that the appellate court reviews the
outcome of judicial decisions that are appealed, which is
referred to as the affirmance rate. She explained the process.
Judicial decisions made by trial court judges can be appealed to
the Court of Appeals or the Alaska Supreme Court. Once cases are
appealed and the appellate courts issue their decisions, the
Alaska Judicial Council analyzes and catalogs each decision as
to whether it was affirmed, partially affirmed, mostly affirmed,
or mostly reversed. For example, if a trial court judge had 10
cases appealed and the appellate court affirmed 2 but reversed 8
cases, it would result in a 20 percent affirmance rate. The
calculation and analysis for each trial court judge whose cases
were appealed to the higher court are posted to AJC's website.
MS. DIPIETRO related her understanding that subparagraph (F)
describes the type of information on affirmance rate that would
be provided in the voter pamphlet. However, AJC's analysis is
complex, typically 10-15 pages in length, providing context and
information. Due to the complexity and length, this analysis is
not currently inserted in the voter pamphlet. Instead, AJC
provides a summary and directs those seeking the in-depth
analysis to AJC's website.
1:49:53 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked whether the sponsor would comment on
Amendment 2.
1:49:59 PM
SENATOR MYERS said he supported the first half of Amendment 2,
which he viewed as clarifying language. However, he was unsure
about the second part of Amendment 2 related to the affirmance
rate. He pointed out that AJC currently provides survey
information on judges in the voter pamphlet. The language
explaining the affirmance rate provides the same 3 to 5
sentences for each judicial candidate. Since space for each
judicial candidate is currently limited to one page, he
expressed concern that the remaining space would not allow for
other pertinent information about judicial candidates.
1:51:53 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Offices, Alaska
Court System, Anchorage, Alaska, related her understanding that
the committee had questions on the data that the court system
retains. She said the court system could provide the data that
AJC needs for the first portion of Amendment 2 through line 6.
Regarding the affirmance rate, which is causing some concern for
the sponsor, she suggested it might be possible to find some
middle ground. She suggested that the language might be worded
"with appropriate context to make this meaningful to voters" or
some other phrase to ensure the information the sponsor wanted
is provided yet allows some leeway for AJC to publish
information to inform voters but not overwhelm them.
1:52:56 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked whether the court system could develop some
suggested language for the committee's review. She acknowledged
that space in the voter pamphlet was limited. She was unsure of
the length of the affirmance rate language, whether it would be
one sentence, the same language for each judge, or vary based on
the affirmance rate. For example, she said if the judge's
affirmance rate was 20 percent, it might say something different
than if it was 80 percent.
1:53:55 PM
MS. DIPIETRO indicated AJC's goal was to provide the information
in the most meaningful way for voters, which she believed was
also the sponsor's goal. She referred to the second part of
Amendment 2, beginning on line 6, and indicated that the goal
was to provide context on the affirmance rate. For example, a
judge may have an affirmance rate of 77 percent, but without
context it might be difficult for voters to assess whether that
was a good or bad rate, so AJC would want to explain that 77
percent meets performance standards or is well within the range
of the affirmance rates of other similarly situated judges and
historical records. She stated she intended to craft the
contextual language differently for each situation to be most
meaningful for voters.
1:55:23 PM
At ease
1:55:45 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting
1:55:55 PM
SENATOR MYERS responded that he hoped voters would obtain
context from comparing the information on the judges up for
retention. He noted that typically more than 1 to 2 judges are
up for retention for each election. He recalled that 6-8 judges
were up for retention in the Fairbanks area at the last
election. He surmised voters could review the pamphlet and
compare the judges' affirmance rate. If most were in the 75
percent range, but one judge had a 53 percent affirmance, that
judge would be the apparent outlier.
1:56:56 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND withdrew Amendment 2.
1:57:13 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND moved to adopt Amendment 3, work order 32-
LS0751\O.7.
32-LS0751\O.7
Radford
2/8/22
AMENDMENT 3
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HOLLAND
TO: CSSB 129(JUD), Draft Version "O"
Page 2, line 19, following "(E)":
Insert "if applicable,"
SENATOR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.
1:57:25 PM
MS. DIPIETRO explained that Amendment 3 would insert "if
applicable" in subparagraph (E). She explained that the bill
would require the judge's ratings by law enforcement officers,
attorneys, court system employees, and jurors. Amendment 3 would
solve a specific problem since jurors and law enforcement
officers do not rate appellate judges. She reported that jurors
do not appear in an appellate court, and law enforcement
officers do not appear as witnesses in appellate courts since
appellate courts do not have witnesses. In essence, this would
allow AJC to provide all the survey information applicable to
each type of judge.
1:58:21 PM
SENATOR HUGHES removed her objection.
CHAIR HOLLAND heard no further objection, and Amendment 3 was
adopted.
CHAIR HOLLAND held SB 129 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 155 SJUD Amendment B.1.pdf |
SJUD 2/9/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 155 |
| HB 155 SJUD Amendment B.2.pdf |
SJUD 2/9/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 155 |
| SB 129 SJUD Amendment O.2.pdf |
SJUD 2/9/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 129 |
| SB 129 SJUD Amendment O.6.pdf |
SJUD 2/9/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 129 |
| SB 129 SJUD Amendment O.7.pdf |
SJUD 2/9/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 129 |
| SB 23 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 2/9/2022 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/9/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB 23 Research - NCSL States that Allow Severability Clauses in Ballot Initiatives.pdf |
SJUD 2/9/2022 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/9/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB 23 Legal Memo.pdf |
SJUD 2/9/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |