Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
02/11/2022 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 | |
| SB23 | |
| SB119 | |
| SB129 | |
| SB118 | |
| SB31 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 118 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 119 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 129-ELECTION PAMPHLET INFORMATION RE: JUDGES
1:55:20 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, 2/2/22, and
2/9/22. Public testimony was opened and closed on 1/28/22.
Amendments 1,2, and 3 were considered on 2/9/22.]
1:56:18 PM
At ease
1:57:38 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting.
1:57:51 PM
SENATOR HUGHES moved to adopt Amendment 4, work order 32-
LS0751\O.5.
32-LS0751\O.5
Radford
2/3/22
AMENDMENT 4
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HUGHES
TO: CSSB 129(JUD), Draft Version "O"
Page 2, following line 30:
Insert a new subparagraphs to read:
"(I) a description of previous political
and governmental positions held by the judge,
including any political office held;
(J) a description of the judge's primary
practice areas before appointment, including the
approximate percentage of the judge's pre-appointment
career spent as a trial lawyer;
(K) a description of the types of clients
the judge represented before appointment;"
Page 3, line 1:
Delete "(G), and (H)"
Insert "and (G) - (K)"
Delete ";"
Insert "[SHALL CONTAIN A BRIEF STATEMENT
DESCRIBING EACH PUBLIC REPRIMAND, PUBLIC CENSURE, OR
SUSPENSION RECEIVED BY THE JUDGE UNDER AS 22.30.011(d)
DURING THE PERIOD COVERED IN THE EVALUATION. A
STATEMENT MAY NOT EXCEED 600 WORDS]."
Page 3, lines 2 - 14:
Delete all material.
CHAIR HOLLAND objected for discussion purposes.
1:58:02 PM
SENATOR HUGHES explained that Amendment 4 would require a judge
standing for retention to provide the same information for the
voter pamphlet, whether it is their first retention election,
their third, or fourth one. First, the more information a voter
has is helpful. Second, if it is possible to fit the
biographical and performance information for the first retention
election, it should be possible for subsequent ones. She
suggested that doing so would create less confusion for the
voters. Otherwise, voters would review the judges for retention
elections and wonder why specific information was omitted.
Third, she said the jobs, positions, and education that shapes
judges before becoming judges is relevant since what shapes us
remains constant throughout life. For example, childhood
experiences shape a person, and it remains so whether the person
is 25 or 65 years old. Therefore, voters need to consider a
judge's pre-judicial work, whether they held a government or
political position, and the specific area of law the judicial
candidate had practiced. She emphasized that this remains
relevant background information throughout their tenure.
SENATOR HUGHES related a scenario to illustrate this. She
explained that a superior court judge appears on the ballot for
retention election every six years. She highlighted that nearly
30 percent of Alaska's population is new to the state every
election. New voters will not have the background information on
judges on the retention ballot unless it is provided. Further,
she questioned whether the average person would recall prior
judicial retention election information.
2:01:13 PM
SENATOR MYERS, speaking as sponsor, said he appreciated the
spirit in which Amendment 4 was offered, which fits the bill's
spirit. He said his objection to Amendment 4 was more
administrative because the space in the election pamphlet is
limited. He highlighted that the goal was to provide the voters
with information, specifically the most applicable information.
He expressed concern that including personal or professional
endeavors that occurred before the person became a judge might
mean not providing more relevant information. For example, the
description of the continuing legal education acquired, or any
disciplinary proceedings might be relevant to voters. As Ms.
DiPietro mentioned, the council might provide some information
for some judges in the pamphlet but not for others. He said he
hoped that would prompt some voters to go to the Alaska Judicial
Council's website to obtain more information.
2:03:01 PM
SENATOR SHOWER agreed with Senator Hughes' sentiment in
Amendment 4, but pointed out that currently, the bill has a zero
fiscal note. He expressed concern that if the committee pushes
for more information, it will increase the number of pages in
the voter pamphlet, increase the council and division's work,
and increase costs. This concerns him because a Finance
Committee referral might mean the bill would never get a hearing
and could die. He offered his view that the bill in its current
form works. He stated that while this is a good idea, he cannot
support Amendment 4.
CHAIR HOLLAND said he was aligned with Senator Shower. He
offered his view that SB 129 greatly improves the process.
Although Amendment 4 is not a bad idea, he was concerned about
what the changes would cost. He maintained his objection.
SENATOR HUGHES offered her view that the space and cost concerns
were not valid. First, in terms of space, the business and
professional positions held the preceding 10 years would drop
off over time and leave room for the items listed in Amendment
4. Second, nothing in Amendment 4 would trigger a fiscal note.
The judges' information provided to the Division of Elections
and the Alaska Judicial Council (AJC) for the first judicial
retention election fits on one page.
SENATOR HUGHES reiterated that more voter information is better
than less for the sake of new Alaskans and for those who might
not recall information provided at a prior election. She
surmised that AJC does not want earlier political and government
affiliations as part of information. However, she maintained her
view that having information before and throughout the judge's
career was relevant for voters.
2:07:48 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND maintained his objection.
2:08:03 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Senator Hughes voted in favor of
Amendment 4, and Senators Myers, Kiehl, Shower, and Holland
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 4 failed on a 1:4 vote.
CHAIR HOLLAND stated that Amendment 4 failed on a vote of 1 yea
and 4 nays.
2:08:37 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1.
On page 2, lines 21-22 of SB 129, 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."
SENATOR SHOWER objected for discussion purposes.
2:08:58 PM
ED KING, Staff, Senator Roger Holland, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, explained Conceptual Amendment 1 on behalf of
Senator Holland. First, he described an amendment the committee
considered at its last meeting. Senator Holland previously
offered and withdrew Amendment 2, work order 32-LS0751\O.6, on
February 9, 2022. The discussion on the current language in
subparagraph (F) highlighted that the courts might not be able
to provide that information. The sponsor of SB 129 expressed
concern that the information in Amendment 2 may be too
voluminous and requested that the second half be removed. The
Alaska Judicial Council considered the request and suggested
using language from Amendment 2. So Conceptual Amendment 1
contains the language in the first half of Amendment 2. He
stated that the sponsor could elaborate more on the effect of
the language in Conceptual Amendment 1.
2:10:05 PM
SENATOR MYERS said he supported the language in Conceptual
Amendment 1, which he viewed as a technical clarification. He
reiterated Mr. King's explanation, adding that his concern with
the previous amendment related to the amount of verbiage AJC
might use to explain affirmance or other performance. He
suggested that perhaps the Judicial Council and the Division of
Elections could provide half a page at the beginning of the
judicial retention section of the election pamphlet explaining
the different ratings and some background information on
affirmance rates. However, he preferred not to address that in
statute.
2:11:29 PM
SUSANNE DIPIETRO, Executive Director, Alaska Judicial Council,
Alaska Court System, Anchorage, Alaska, responded that the
Alaska Judicial Council does not have an opinion on the
amendment.
2:11:51 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked whether the Alaska Judicial Council and the
Division of Elections could provide explanatory information for
judges up for retention election or if it would require
statutory authority for them to do.
MS. DIPIETRO responded that she would need to discuss this with
the Division of Elections since she was unaware of the
constraints the division has on the election pamphlet length or
space. She assured members that the council would explore this
with the division.
2:12:41 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked for any disadvantages voters would have if
Amendment 2 was adopted, and they read the affirmance rate
without having an explanation in the pamphlet. She wondered if
it would mislead the voters.
MS. DIPIETRO answered that AJC always provides the percentage of
decisions affirmed in context. AJC posts a memo on its website,
approximately 10-11 pages in length, providing historical
averages compared to all judges, not just the ones in the voter
pamphlet standing for retention in order to provide context.
This contextual information highlights the significance of the
percentage so voters can determine if a judge is within the
performance range of other judges with similar caseloads or if
they rank lower or higher. AJC has always provided this
information with a significant amount of context. She suggested
that AJC, in consultation with the division, would recommend and
prefers providing any context that fits within the statutory
limit and the division's logistical issue. This information
helps voters to understand what the numbers mean.
2:14:50 PM
SENATOR SHOWER stated that voters currently receive substantial
campaign information during the election and are told that the
statutory changes contemplated were easily remedied by educating
the voters. For example, ranked-choice voting is supposedly easy
for voters to understand, but during the committee hearings
members found otherwise. He offered his view that directing
voters to a 10 - 11-page document would not be easier for them.
Amendment 2 would concisely put the judicial performance
information in the voter pamphlet rather than expecting voters
to interpret or distill the data from a 10 - 11-page
explanation.
2:15:46 PM
SENATOR MYERS said AJC currently provides the survey ratings but
not the appeal rates. The survey polls jurors, law enforcement,
and others about judicial performance. He highlighted that the
spirit of the bill was to give voters enough information, not
overwhelm them, or take up too much space in the voter
pamphlets. He stated he intended to omit the affirmance
information. He envisioned that most voters could compare the
judges' affirmance rates and ascertain if one was ranked 15
percent lower. He understood AJC's point that the council would
provide some context. For example, a voter might review the
voter pamphlet for judges up for judicial retention and see that
one judge was 50 percent lower than the others. Although he
understood Ms. DiPietro's point, he believes some context is
provided, and since the pamphlet has space limitations, he would
like to give voters a broader range of information.
2:17:15 PM
SENATOR SHOWER offered his belief that voters won't dig through
a 10-11 page document, so Conceptual Amendment 1 makes sense.
2:17:52 PM
SENATOR HUGHES stated that Conceptual Amendment 1 would remove
the explanation about judicial affirmance rates and replace it
with a percentage. She expressed her preference. She would like
AJC to provide a little explanation to ensure the voters have
enough information. Although she is comfortable with Conceptual
Amendment 1, she would like to hear from Ms. DiPietro after she
consults with the division. She suggested that the sponsor may
need to consider a floor amendment to address this.
2:20:35 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND asked if the committee should hear from Ms.
DiPietro first.
2:20:42 PM
SENATOR MYERS said he would like to consider it. He related that
this bill has one more committee referral before it heads to the
floor, so it's possible to amend it, if needed. However, he said
he didn't think it would be necessary to do so.
2:21:19 PM
SENATOR HUGHES responded that it works for her. She said she did
not realize that the bill had one more committee of referral.
2:21:37 PM
At ease
2:21:57 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting.
2:22:09 PM
SENATOR SHOWER removed his objection.
CHAIR HOLLAND heard no further objection, so Conceptual
Amendment 1 was adopted.
SENATOR MYERS thanked the committee for its work on the bill. He
stated the goal of the bill is to provide voter education, by
ensuring that voters have additional information on judicial
retention elections.
2:23:04 PM
SENATOR SHOWER moved to report SB 129, work order 32-LS0751\O,
as amended, from committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note(s).
CHAIR HOLLAND found no objection, and CSSB 129(JUD) was reported
from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 23 Letter of Support - AGC.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB 23 Letter of Support - Alaska Chamber.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB 23 Letter of Support - RDC.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB 23 Letter of Support - CAP.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB 23 Letter of Support - Alliance.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| RDC SB 23 Comment letter 2-11-22.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB23 - Letter of Support - APF.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB 119 SJUD Amendment G.2.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 119 |
| SB 129 SJUD Amendment O.5.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 129 |
| SB 129 SJUD Amendment O.6 as amended.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 129 |
| SB 23 Public Testimony through 2.12.22.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB 118 SJUD Public Testimony.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 118 |