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.