01/26/2026 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview(s): Department of Law | |
| HB47 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 47 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
January 26, 2026
1:04 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Andrew Gray, Chair
Representative Chuck Kopp, Vice Chair
Representative Ted Eischeid
Representative Genevieve Mina
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Jubilee Underwood
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW(S): DEPARTMENT OF LAW
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 47
"An Act relating to crime and criminal procedure; relating to
generated obscene child sexual abuse material; relating to the
powers of district judges and magistrates; relating to teaching
certificates; and relating to licensing of school bus drivers."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 47
SHORT TITLE: GENERATED OBSCENE CHLD SEX ABUSE MATERIAL
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) VANCE
01/22/25 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/17/25
01/22/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/25 (H) CRA, JUD
03/11/25 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
03/11/25 (H) Heard & Held
03/11/25 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/13/25 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
03/13/25 (H) Heard & Held
03/13/25 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/18/25 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
03/18/25 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/24/25 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
04/24/25 (H) Heard & Held
04/24/25 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/29/25 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
04/29/25 (H) Moved CSHB 47(CRA) Out of Committee
04/29/25 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/30/25 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) NEW TITLE 3DP 3NR
04/30/25 (H) DP: PRAX, HALL, RUFFRIDGE
04/30/25 (H) NR: HOLLAND, HIMSCHOOT, MEARS
05/16/25 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/16/25 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
WITNESS REGISTER
STEPHEN COX, Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave an overview of the Department of Law.
CORI MILLS, Deputy Attorney General
Civil Division
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the Department of
Law overview.
ANGELA KEMP, Deputy Attorney General
Criminal Division, Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the Department of
Law overview.
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH VANCE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, introduced CSHB 47(CRA).
ISAIAH SMARDO, Staff
Representative Sarah Vance
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a summary of changes in CSHB 47(CRA),
Version I, on behalf of Representative Vance, prime sponsor.
TREVOR STORRS, President/CEO
Alaska Children's Trust
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony in support of CSHB
47(CRA).
COLETTA WALKER, representing self
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 47.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:04:43 PM
CHAIR GRAY called the House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting
to order at 1:04 p.m. Representatives Mina, Vance, Costello,
Underwood, Vance, Kopp, Eischeid, and Gray were present at the
call to order. Also present were Representatives Galvin and
Holland
^OVERVIEW(S): Department of Law
OVERVIEW(S): Department of Law
1:05:50 PM
CHAIR GRAY announced that the first order of business would be
an overview of the Department of Law.
1:06:02 PM
STEPHEN COX, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
Department of Law (DOL), referred to a PowerPoint presentation,
titled "Alaska Department of Law" [included in the committee
file], and introduced his team on slide 2.
CHAIR GRAY asked whether there have always been two Civil
Division directors.
MR. COX deferred to Ms. Mills.
1:07:53 PM
CORI MILLS, Deputy Attorney General, Civil Division, Department
of Law (DOL), answered no, it was a budgetary item two years
ago. She explained that there are 16 different sections in the
Civil Division, all overseen by one director, which was too much
work for one person. To resolve this issue, resources were
reallocated with the addition of a second division director to
provide more support to supervisors. She expressed appreciation
for the legislature's help in getting this across the finish
line, adding that it was a zero cost the state.
1:08:56 PM
MR. COX resumed the presentation and introduced the staff in the
Executive Office on slide 3.
CHAIR GRAY asked what Chief Assistant Attorney General (AAG)
Anne Helzer is working on.
MR. COX stated that Ms. Helzer is helping with the regulatory
reform initiative. He shared his understanding that she was
hired 2-3 years ago.
MS. MILLS confirmed that Ms. Helzer was hired under former
Attorney General (AG) Treg Taylor. She said most AGs have
special assistants, which is a role she has always filled.
CHAIR GRAY questioned the duties and responsibilities of Senior
Litigation Counsel, John Skidmore.
MR. COX said he asked Mr. Skidmore to tackle the department's
top priority, which is public safety. He discussed his new
quality of life initiative, explaining that he had asked Mr.
Skidmore to think about what can be done to better tackle lower-
level offenses, like retail theft and public disorder offenses,
and partner with the city on this front. He stated that Mr.
Skidmore is skilled at training new attorneys and could have a
great relationship with the city, which could help facilitate an
"all government approach" and enable DOL be the single point of
contact for the state when tackling these complex issues.
CHAIR GRAY asked how many attorneys Mr. Skidmore would be
supervising.
MR. COX answered several assistant district attorneys (DAs)
one from Anchorage, and one from the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su)
Valley. He described Mr. Skidmore as a "force multiplier,"
adding that he would be able to facilitate through his soft
skills and relationships with the entire department, as well as
other executive branch agencies.
1:16:36 PM
CHAIR GRAY asked Mr. Cox to expound on how DOL has been able to
create a new division and focus on lower-level crimes without
impacting public safety at no cost to the state.
MR. COX said this is a great example of leveraging resources to
do more with less. He shared examples of ways to leverage
resources with the city attorney's office in the Municipality of
Anchorage (MOA) by aggregating misdemeanor offenses and cross
designating cases to ultimately be a "force multiplier" on that
front.
CHAIR GRAY asked whether this new initiative would operate in
the Mat-Su valley.
MR. COX clarified that he thinks of this as a new initiative,
not a new division, adding that Mr. Skidmore is now in the
Office of Special Prosecutions.
ANGELA KEMP, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law (DOL), clarified that this initiative would be
tackled in Anchorage first before expanding to the valley. She
said a special prosecutor has not been named yet. Bringing city
attorneys on to help with the bigger cases would be a "force
multiplier," and help tackle recidivist offenders, for example.
1:20:40 PM
CHAIR GRAY asked whether Mr. Skidmore asked for this position or
whether he was a demoted.
MR. COX said it's important to set the scene. He described how
he learned the "ground truth" of what was going on in the
department and where he should focus, as well as who the
leadership team should be. He said he approached Mr. Skidmore
about his desire to promote Ms. Kemp. He said he asked him
whether he would like to serve in this new role, and Mr.
Skidmore said yes, which made the conversation easy. He
clarified that Mr. Skidmore is absolutely part of the leadership
team and he relies upon him daily.
1:22:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA asked how the relationship between DOL and
the city operated before the creation of this new position.
MR. COX explained that lower-level crimes were being pushed
aside and siloed. He said cross pollinating between divisions
and breaking down siloes is one of his primary focuses.
MS. KEMP stated that DOL has always had a relationship with the
municipality, adding that MOA does the bulk of misdemeanor
prosecutions. She said the AG brought new energy and
reinvigorated that relationship with his desire to work together
with limited resources. She assured the committee that Mr.
Skidmore would be excellent at training new attorneys and would
be a "force multiplier."
1:26:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EISCHEID asked whether the municipality had
approached DOL for assistance on the quality of life initiative
and how that genesis came to be.
MR. COX said it was one of his top priorities. He had asked Mr.
Skidmore to gage the city's interest in the initiative and found
that they were very interested in felony retail theft cases
among others, so it was an easy start to the partnership at a
working group level. He added that the goal is to take policy
out of this issue and develop a partnership that works and
leverages each other's authorities.
CHAIR GRAY questioned the solicitor general's duties.
MR. COX provided historical context to the solicitor general's
role from the 1990s. He explained that in any state, the state,
circuit, and supreme courts are influencing and governing the
laws of the state, while simultaneously, being influenced by the
cases and opinions coming out of other state and circuit courts.
Often, the U.S. Supreme Court won't get involved in a case
unless there's a circuit split. So, the idea was for the
solicitor general to articulate and amplify the state's voice in
these cases to help shape the governing law. He reported that
to date, the state has been asked to join over 1,000 multi-state
amicus briefs and joined between 500-600 since the start of the
Dunleavy administration. He explained that he has spent a lot
of time on nights and weekends reading through these briefs to
ensure that if the state were to join, it's consistent with the
state's laws, and that boomerang issues were not present, which
could come back and harm the state's interests in another
litigation. The new solicitor general would be taking on the
bulk of this work to help evaluate multi-state amicus briefs
that come in, as well as the hundreds of multi-state letters
that are received. Her goal is to deliberately and thoughtfully
enhance Alaska's interests.
CHAIR GRAY shared his understanding that the position was
created for someone with a deep knowledge of Alaska's history
and state law to compartmentalize where these amicus briefs fit.
He asked what made Ms. Lorence the most qualified person for the
role.
MR. COX clarified that he has a building full of experts on
Alaska law, and 150 civil lawyers who are the state's best
lawyers regarding Alaska law. He said he was looking for
someone who has very good relationships with other solicitor
general offices to facilitate a reciprocal relationship and
multi-state coordination, which Ms. Lorence provides.
CHAIR GRAY asked whether Ms. Lorence had passed the Alaska Bar
Association (ABA) exam.
MR. COX responded no, she has not taken the exam; however, she
has been temporarily admitted to practice by the ABA. She has
submitted an application and passed the Multistate Professional
Responsibility Examination (MPRE) and said he doesn't anticipate
any forthcoming issues. In response to a follow up question, he
said Ms. Lorence was excited at the opportunity to serve Alaska
and is working with criminal appellate lawyers to ensure that
Alaska is being represented in the best interest.
1:39:31 PM
CHAIR GRAY questioned the amicus brief related to Watson v.
Republican National Committee, explaining that if the U.S.
Supreme Court were to rule against the petition, Alaska's
absentee ballot law would effectively be invalidated. He asked
why the state took no position on this case given its impact on
rural Alaska.
MR. COX said he had no authority to take a position on that
controversial case. Instead, he had the opportunity to
articulate Alaska's special position with respect to its geography
and remoteness, and in support of neither party, explain the real-
world effects if the U.S. Supreme Court were to change the
rules. He expressed his hope that the brief would be read and
taken into account as the court makes its decision.
1:43:22 PM
MS. MILLS spoke to the number of amicus briefs authored by the
state, which is few, despite receiving many. She recalled a
brief related to the Federal Communications Commission and how
certain money was provided. Similarly, in this instance, the
state detailed the drastic consequences it would have on Alaska,
without taking up support for either side.
1:44:53 PM
CHAIR GRAY asked whether the Watson case was controversial among
Alaskans and whether the governor advised DOL not to weigh in on
the issue.
MR. COX shared his understanding that its highly controversial
in any state. He explained that any brief filed, position
taken, or multi-state letter joined by the department is in
consultation with the governor and other executive branch
agencies. He added that when doing so, it's prudent to consider
past positions taken by the state during the Dunleavy
administration.
1:47:27 PM
MR. COX resumed slide 3 and described the remaining members of
his team. He continued to slide 4, "Department Mission," which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
The Department of Law upholds the rule of law,
protects public safety, and provides high quality
legal representation to executive branch agencies for
the benefit of all Alaskans.
MR. COX touched on the quality-of-life initiative, which would
take an "all government approach" in partnership with city and
federal agencies to leverage resources and allow more to be done
with less.
1:51:31 PM
CHAIR GRAY shared his understanding that the MOA prosecutes
violations of the municipal code, and the state prosecutes violations
of the criminal code. He asked whether this initiative would
empower the municipality to prosecute state crimes.
MR. COX said DOL recently signed a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) that would allow cross designation and for the city to
prosecute state felonies for retail theft, for example. In
response to a follow up question from the chair about the type
of quality-of-life crimes that could be prosecuted under this
initiative, he said there are two prongs: retail theft and
public disorder offenses. He explained the city has done a lot
of good work, closing [homeless] camps and proposing ordinances
that would enhance quality of life, but this would allow for
cross designation of state prosecutors to help with rights of
way and camping prosecutions while bringing other tools to the
table as well, such as using the state's civil authorities to
seek abatement for nuisances like drug houses.
1:54:27 PM
CHAIR GRAY shared his understanding that the Anchorage Police
Department (APD) is working on diversion programs that would
divert people to treatment rather than prison at the point of
arrest, and asked whether DOL is supportive of those efforts.
MR. COX said he's looking at ways to take an all-government
approach to this and tackle it from multiple angles. He added
that DOL is developing its own diversion policy that would have
a quality-of-life component. He considered factors such as
community service or treatment opportunities in partnership with
private sector and nonprofits.
MS. KEMP explained that if APD takes a pre-arrest posture with
focus on funneling low-risk offenders out of the criminal
justice system, the state could focus on other gradations of
tackling the problem. For example, if a repeat offender is
continuously committing trespassing crimes and the diversion
program isn't working, that could be where Mr. Skidmore steps in
to facilitate the prosecution. She said it's about finding ways
to rethink existing tools and address the complexities.
1:58:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COSTELLO recalled that the MOA signed on to an
amicus brief that supported the review of Grants Pass v. Johnson
decision under the Bronson administration, which allowed the
state to go after unlawful camping. She asked how this would
impact the quality of life initiative.
MR. COX said that was an important case because it allowed the
municipality to introduce several municipal ordinances on this
front. He deferred to Ms. Kemp, as he was not working in
government at the time.
MR. KEMP shared that she was prosecuting cases in Juneau at the
time of the Grants Pass decision and recalled that it was
challenging for law enforcement and business owners because the
conduct and had to be tolerated. She said the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision to overturn the ruling empowered local cities
to more meaningfully tackle these issues.
2:01:58 PM
CHAIR GRAY expressed concern that there would be a more
stringent criminalization of homelessness without investing in
treatment. He emphasized the high need for alcohol and
substance abuse treatment and sought to confirm that this is not
about criminalizing poverty.
MR. COX said DOL's focus is on crime. He reiterated the need
for an all-government approach, and that Mr. Skidmore would
bring a lot of experience and relationships to the table on this
issue. In response to a follow up question about whether DOL
would support a statutory diversion program like other states
have, he opined that this should be a tool of prosecutorial
discretion to ensure that it's consistently applied. He
explained that sometimes in other states there's an uneven
application of diversion programs, so preserving it as a
prosecutorial tool would be ideal.
2:05:52 PM
at-ease
HB 47-GENERATED OBSCENE CHLD SEX ABUSE MATERIAL
2:11:54 PM
CHAIR GRAY announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 47, "An Act relating to crime and criminal
procedure; relating to generated obscene child sexual abuse
material; relating to the powers of district judges and
magistrates; relating to teaching certificates; and relating to
licensing of school bus drivers." [Before the committee was
CSHB 47(CRA).]
2:12:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH VANCE, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, introduced CSHB 47(CRA) with a PowerPoint presentation
[included in the committee file]. She summarized slides 1 and
2, which stated that HB 47, would combat the creation,
possession, and distribution of artificial intelligence (AI)
generated child sexual abuse material (CSAM), adding that AI
enables the creation of virtual sexual images of children
indistinguishable from reality. She continued to slide 3, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
AI or computer-generated CSAM poses many dangers to
children, including:
• Perpetrators can now generate, alter or collage
depictions of children that are indistinguishable from
depictions of real children.
• They can use parts of images of real children to
create a composite image that is unidentifiable as a
particular child, and in a way that prevents even an
expert from concluding that parts of images of real
children were used.
• Sexually explicit depictions involving childreneven
if no physical abuse occurs during their creationhas
significant psychological and long-term impacts on the
children depicted.
• Artificially-generated or computer-edited CSAM
further re-victimizes actual child victims, as their
images are collected from the Internet and studied by
artificial intelligence tools to create new images.
• Child predators can also use artificially-generated
or computer-edited CSAM to extort minors and their
families for financial gain.
• Overwhelming law enforcement's capabilities to
identify and rescue real-life victims, child safety
experts warn.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE continued to slide 4, which showed news
headlines emphasizing the acceleration of AI and CSAM. She
turned to slide 5, which showed another article, titled "AI is
overpowering efforts to catch child predators, experts warn,"
and read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
• Creates demand for harmful content.
• Blurs legal boundaries for enforcement.
• Overwhelming law enforcement's capabilities to
identify and rescue real -life victims, child safety
experts warn
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE advanced to slide 6, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
INCREASE IN AI-GENERATED CSAM:
According to the IWF study between October 2023 and
July of 2024 over 3,500 new AI-generated criminal
child sexual abuse images were uploaded to one dark
web forum alone.
AI CSAM FEATURING KNOWN VICTIMS:
Perpetrators increasingly use fine-tuned AI models to
generate new imagery of known victims of child sexual
abuse or famous children.
MORE SEVERE IMAGES:
Of the AI-generated images confirmed to be child
sexual abuse on the forum, more images depicted the
most severe Category A abuse, indicating that
perpetrators are more able to generate complex
'hardcore' scenarios.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE played a YouTube video from the Internet
Watch Foundation that captured the issue and its impact on
children in further detail.
2:21:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE turned to slide 7, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
State Laws that Criminalize AI-generated or Computer-
edited CSAM
Research by ENOUGH ABUSE has documented that 38 states
have enacted laws that criminalize AI-generated or
computer-edited CSAM, while 12 states and D.C. have
not. Montana was added to this list just in the last
couple of weeks. More than half of these laws were
enacted in 2024 alone. The National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children (NCMEC) reports that in 2023
alone, it received 4,700 reports of CSAM involving
generative AI technology.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE continued to slide 8, which defined
obscenity and read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
EXTENDS ALASKA'S EXISTING PROHIBITIONS ON CHILD SEXUAL
ABUSE MATERIAL (CSAM)
• Includes artificially generated images depicting
identifiable children
EXPANDS CRIMINAL LAW TO COVER ENTIRELY SYNTHETIC, YET
REALISTIC AND OBSCENE IMAGES OF MINORS
• • Depicts conduct under AS 11.41.455.
• Meets obscenity criteria under the Miller Test.
Exemptions: Protects employees and contractors of
interactive computer services, ISPs, and
telecommunications providers detecting/reporting
illegal materials.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE concluded on slide 9, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
HB 47 Generated CSAM
• Holds perpetrators accountable for exploiting
children's digital likenesses
• Enhancing law enforcement tools
• Strengthens safeguards for children
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE noted that the new material is primarily in
Section 2, on page 2 of CSHB 47(CRA). She credit the chair for
the inclusion of the Miller Test under the obscenity laws. She
explained that pornography is protected under the First
Amendment; however, obscenity is not. When it comes to abusing
children, the Miller Test has been utilized in the obscenity
laws to add further protection without raising constitutional
concerns. She further noted that the bill includes exemptions
for internet service providers and telecommunications
professionals to allow them to safely detect and report illegal
material without fear of legal repercussions. She stated that
passing the bill would greatly strengthen protections for
Alaskan children, create clear legal guidelines, and empower law
enforcement to respond effectively to the rapidly evolving
threat.
2:26:03 PM
ISAIAH SMARDO, Staff, Representative Sarah Vance, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Vance, prime sponsor,
gave a summary of changes in CSHB 47(CRA), Version I, from a
written explanation of changes [included in the committee file],
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Title Change: to remove " relating to the powers of
district judges and magistrates."
Section 2. Amends Paragraph (b) to provide a
contractor of a technology company who, while acting
in the scope of employment, accesses the prohibited
material solely to remove the material would not be
held criminally liable.
Section 4. Adds a new Paragraph AS 11.61.127(b)(2) to
provide that an employee or contractor of a technology
company who, while acting in the scope of employment,
accesses the prohibited material solely to remove the
material would not be held criminally liable.
CHAIR GRAY recalled that it's easier to prosecute a CSAM crime
when the victim is an identifiable child. He asked how an
unidentifiable is addressed in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to Section 2, on page 2 of the
bill, and explained that under current law, the child must be
identifiable, which is difficult for the prosecution. She
stated that the bill would allow AI generated likeness to be
prosecuted as well.
2:29:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA asked whether anything in the bill would
allow the state to hold a company liable for creating AI
generated CSAM.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said the bill is all encompassing for
criminally prosecuting an individual. She noted that she has
another bill that seeks to hold technology companies
accountable, but CSHB 47(CRA) would update Alaska statutes to
include AI generated images.
CHAIR GRAY announced that the committee would hear invited
testimony on CSHB 47(CRA).
2:31:24 PM
TREVOR STORRS, President/CEO, Alaska Children's Trust, gave
invited testimony in support of CSHB 47(CRA). He shared that
Alaska has the highest rate per capita of child abuse and said
the bill would ensure that the state's legal system keeps pace
with emerging threats by addressing a critical gap in state law.
Advances in AI technology has allowed for the generation of
images that are indistinguishable from real children, which has
a profound lifelong impact [on victims]. He said CSAM
normalizes exploitation, fuels demand, and perpetuates harm.
The bill would interrupt that cycle and align the state with the
national and international legal landscape to ensure that
individuals who create, possess, or distribute this content can
be held accountable. He urged support for the bill.
2:34:21 PM
CHAIR GRAY opened public testimony on HB 47.
2:34:46 PM
COLETTA WALKER, representing self, testified in support of HB
47. She said Alaska's children deserve protection, not
loopholes for predators. She said she would like to see the
state rise up to the occasion and be at the forefront with
strong legislation against these perpetrators.
2:35:59 PM
CHAIR GRAY closed public testimony and announced that CSHB
47(CRA) would be held over.
2:36:55 PM
CHAIR GRAY gave a preview of the committee's agenda for the
year, which would be framed around addressing the high rates of
incarceration and substance abuse, the long wait-time for pre-
trial disposition, and the mental health challenges among people
in the Department of Corrections (DOC) system. He referenced
several novelty diversion efforts aimed at keeping people out of
the criminal justice system and expressed his hope that the
committee would support these. He pointed out that
participation in therapeutic courts has good outcomes and said
he would like to take a closer look at removing barriers to
alternative courts. He touched on geriatric parole, which would
allow individuals over the age of 60 to get released on parole
after a certain amount of time served. This, he said, is in the
interest of the Alaska public because DOC's greatest expense is
healthcare. Research shows that the older someone is, the less
likely they are to reoffend. He pointed out that fewer people
are being paroled and questioned the barrier to parole for
eligible individuals; and further questioned the optimal
caseload for prosecutors and defense attorneys. He said the
committee would be considering racial disparities and how to
better address them, specifically in reference to the Office of
Children's Services (OCS). He said he would like to explore the
Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), and the relationship between
OCS, DOC, and DJJ. He expressed a desire to take a more
holistic view of these issues and discuss public guardians and
the pipeline from poverty to the criminal justice system.
Finally he questioned the safety of DOC's inmate population, and
said he wants to know that if someone is assaulted, harmed, or
murdered in a DOC facility, that they have recourse, and that
the investigation is taken seriously.
2:46:32 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:46 p.m.