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.