Alaska Legislature: House Judiciary, 5/4/26, 1pm

This meeting of the House Judiciary Committee will now come to order. The time is now 1:01 PM on Monday, May 4th, 2026. We are meeting in the Grunberg Room, Capitol Room 120. The following members are present: Representative Underwood, Representative Eichide, Representative Vance, Representative Mina, Representative Costello, Vice Chair Kopp, and myself, Representative Gray, Chair. Let the record reflect that we have a quorum to conduct business.

I would like to recognize the staff supporting this meeting: Sophia Tenney from House Records, Kyla Tupou from the Juneau LIO, and Rosie Kowet, my committee aide. We have one item of business on today's agenda: consideration of the governor's appointee to the position of Attorney General of the State of Alaska, Stephen Cox. Mr. Cox, would you please come forward and put yourself on the on the record.

Chairman Gray, members of the committee, thank you very much. Would there be time for some opening remarks? Yes, go ahead. Before I do that, could I introduce my family? Of course.

With me, I've got my, my wife, my lovesome wife, Christina. My oldest, Esther. Holda is next up, and Lawrence is, uh, is on, is on, on your right or on your left. Um, they, uh, they're happy to be here. They spent the last 3 or 4 days in Juneau, and, uh, they got the best day for last.

I've had the opportunity to testify last week before two Senate committees, so I'll try not to repeat too much here. I'll focus today on how I approach the job, our top priorities, and the work we've been doing over the last 8 months. It is a privilege to be here, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to be considered for confirmation. I thank the governor for appointing me, and to my family and to my colleagues at the Department of Law, it is a privilege every day to work alongside them. A phrase from the state where you and I grew up: I wasn't born in Alaska, but I got here as fast as I could.

I've lived and I've practiced a lot of places, but Alaska is now home to me, and we love it here. My connection to Alaska goes back about 15 years. I worked on Alaska energy projects earlier in my career, starting in 2011. helping navigate the legal and regulatory challenges of operating in the Cook Inlet.

Later, at the Department of Justice, from 2017 through 2020, I worked in the Associate Attorney General's Office, helping to oversee the department's civil litigating components and grant-making components. That included work that touched Alaska directly, reviewing settlements, for example, involving Alaska Native plaintiffs. And subsistence, and helping support the deployment of more than $10 million in public safety funding to rural communities in 2019, thanks to Attorney General Bill Barr after his trip here. Then I came here 5 years ago and I served as general counsel for an investment platform within Bristol Bay Native Corporation, seeing firsthand the challenges of operating Alaska and for our shareholders in Bristol Bay. Before I turn to the work, let me just say a word about how I approach this role.

At bottom, this job is about the rule of law, what the law requires, how it is applied, and how we exercise the state's power within those limits. And that starts with a simple question: Who is the Attorney General's client? At the end of the day, my client is the people of Alaska, but I don't serve them directly like a private attorney. Serves a client. I serve them through their representative institutions, through the governor, through the legislature, through the courts, and through the agencies that carry out the work of government.

That attorney-client relationship ensures that the Attorney General exercises independent legal judgment within the framework of the Constitution and, and, and the framework that the laws provide. Not as a free agent and not as a rubber stamp. In Alaska, the Attorney General's responsibility is broader than in most states. Every agency's lawyers sit inside the Department of Law. We are the state's law firm.

We also have a unified criminal justice system, so we oversee all of the state's prosecution of crimes. As Attorney General, you wear a lot of hats: advisor, litigator, prosecutor, sometimes mediator. Between agencies when they disagree. Unpacking that a little bit more, by law I serve as the state's lawyer advising the executive branch, providing legal opinions to the legislature when requested and as directed, defending the laws that you pass and enforcing them in court. I also step in as public advocate in certain settings when the public interest calls for that.

And candidly, this is why I love the job so much. People have asked, why would I ever leave a high-paying job in the private sector for a role that could end in a matter of months? The answer is simple: this is the most meaningful work I've ever done. I've loved every day on the job, even on the hardest days. Let me turn to our priorities, starting with our top priority: domestic violence and sexual assault.

Especially in rural Alaska. These are our hardest cases. They are hard because of the facts. The evidence turns on questions of consent—what happened, what didn't, what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That places a real burden on victims.

It requires careful, disciplined work from investigators and prosecutors. They're also hard because of the scale of the problem in Alaska. Too many women in this state especially in rural and Alaska Native communities, have experienced domestic violence or sexual assault. It takes coordination. These cases cannot be handled in isolation.

They require close partnership between.

Partnership with law enforcement, with victims, with communities, and the resources to support all of it. When I was at the Department of Justice, I worked on these issues, albeit from a further distance. Throughout my oversight of the department's grantmaking components, including the Office of— the Office on Violence Against Women, the SMART Office, the Office for Victims of Crime, I worked with the component leads to review programs and approve awards I visited shelters to see that work firsthand. I pursued priority initiatives directed at sex trafficking. Closely tied to those issues is the work we've done on missing and murdered Indigenous persons and rural prosecution.

As background, in 2019, Attorney General Barr, as I mentioned, came to Alaska, and my office helped push out more than $10 million in emergency public safety funding focused on rural and Alaska Native communities. DOJ also launched later that year the MMIP initiative and Operation Lady Justice focused on cold cases. Here in the Law Department, our Office of Special Prosecutions works these cases in close partnership with the Department of Public Safety, supported by a tribal liaison and ongoing coordination across agencies. More broadly, this work is about access to justice. Most Alaska communities are off the road system.

That affects everything—investigations, prosecutions, and victim services. We are trying to build capacity in hub communities, working with VPSOs, strengthening partnerships with tribal courts, and looking at how to build on Rural Prosecution Unit. Just recently, I've begun conversations with the federal government about potentially expanding our Rural Prosecution Unit. Now let me turn now to some newer initiatives that we've been working on over the last 8 months, particularly around quality of life crime. One of the most visible challenges, particularly in Anchorage, is quality of life crimes.

What I saw early on is that this isn't just a prosecution problem, it's a systemic problem. Retail theft, public disorder, and drug activity are connected. So we've taken an all-of-government approach, working with the municipality, law enforcement, and the private sector. Another area I've focused on is consumer protection. We've taken action against deceptive practices and worked to enforce Alaska's strong consumer protection laws more aggressively.

A third area is helping unlock Alaska's potential through federal partnerships. Much of that work is not highly visible, but it matters. Before I close, I want to briefly address, address a few issues that I know are of interest to the committee. First, multistate amicus briefs. This is a small but important part of what state attorneys general do.

These cases often involve— thank you— questions about federal law and the role of states, and states have an interest in being heard. We don't get invited to every brief, every multistate brief, but we do receive hundreds of requests, and we don't ignore them. We're not able to rewrite or edit those briefs. They are not our work product. Our review is limited.

A member of our staff reviews each one, often on short timelines, and we look to whether Alaska has an interest, whether the legal position is sound, and whether it's consistent with our prior briefs. These briefs raise matters of law and policy, so we always consult with the governor's office in advance of joining. This is just part of the job. It's not going away. We don't ignore the requests that come in.

We review them in due course. Second, I want to talk about the matter of voter rolls and the state's cooperation with the Department of Justice. I want to be careful about the details, because it is now in active litigation, but it is the Department's position that the Division of Elections acted lawfully in sharing limited information with DOJ pursuant to a state law, a valid state law, and consistent with the state's precedent of cooperation. The information was protected, subject to confidentiality requirements, and used for lawful government purposes, helping ensure accurate voter rolls and election integrity. The data can only be used for lawful government purposes, here to test and analyze voter registration lists for compliance with federal law, and any findings that will share— will be shared back with the state.

We have to address those consistent with state and federal law. This kind of information sharing is not unusual. Alaska law routinely allows limited disclosure of otherwise non-public information to law enforcement and other government agencies when there's a lawful purposes— purpose, whether that's motor, motor vehicle records, public benefits fraud investigations, child protection matters, or professional licensing enforcement. The same principle applies here. State law expressly allows the Division of Elections to share information with law enforcement agencies, including the Department of Justice, as was done here.

It is important to note that the state has always— has also worked with DOJ across administrations for decades on civil rights and election-related issues. In recent years, that's included accessibility issues under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and language assistance obligations in rural Alaska. And in each instance, the state has cooperated with DOJ. So this is not a departure from fa— past practice. It's a continuation of how Alaska has long approached this relationship with the Department of Justice carefully, lawfully, in a way that respects both state law and federal responsibilities.

Finally, a third issue that has come up during the last week's hearings and may be of interest to the committee is the labor relations function now housed at the Department of Law. I understand there are questions about whether the function belongs in law or should be located elsewhere. That is ultimately a policy decision for the governor and for lawmakers. My responsibility is to ensure whatever the— wherever the function sits, the state's labor relations work is well done consistently and in accordance with law. What I can say is that the transmission has been significant, and we've made real progress.

We've built a dedicated team, filled key roles, and taken on a high-volume workload, reviewing more than 150 letters of agreement, bargaining 7 contracts, and resolving over 60 grievances. We've also worked through a backlog of arbitrations while continuing to build capacity. There's more work to do, as always, but the focus is on consistency, discipline, and getting this right for the state. And its employees. Thank you for indulging me in these opening remarks.

I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much, Attorney General Cox. I want to wish welcome to you and to your family to House Judiciary. I'll state up front that I did watch the two hearings in the Senate, so I have no plans to ask about any amicus briefs that you've already spoken about. I actually have no plans to ask about voter rolls.

I don't know what the other committee— but I mean, you You answered a lot of questions about them there, so I don't have any planned questions about that. Um, as you mentioned, you and I have a lot in common. We're about the same age. We grew up in suburbs of Houston. Your father worked on NASA Road 1.

My parents lived on NASA Road 1. Um, and, uh, we were both raised in versions of fundamentalist Christianity that we've moved away from and are own specific ways. I don't think there's many people in this building that I have a level of familiarity with that I have with you, and I appreciate the very open, honest dialogue that we've already had. Unlike the previous hearings that you had in the Senate, none of us here are attorneys, so I, I really don't think that we want to have like a contentious gotcha, uh, cross-examination style hearing. I really want it to be more of a conversation, so just from the outset, everyone has permission to dialogue.

You do not need to say through the chair, and you do not need to ask for follow-up, and the same goes for you. Thank you.

I wanted— I had said that I wanted it to feel like no one was watching, and we were just having a conversation, but people are watching. This committee has a history of talking about pretty adult topics, and there's certainly been hearings that I have chaired and been a part of that I wouldn't really want my kids to watch. So, um, I give— you have full latitude to call an at ease. We can call it at ease at any point if we go into an area that you don't feel comfortable with, um, your family watching. Thank you.

Um, I would like to start with the very end of Senate Judiciary. So the last question that Chair Clayman asked was about a quote from a Federalist Society talk that you gave in October 2025. I'm going to read your quote. You said, "If I wanted to accomplish one thing as AG, it would be to stand up a kind of all-of-government counter-China initiative that lasts beyond my office, beyond this administration, something that is integrated and multi-domain and uniquely Alaskan." Alaska is a frontline in many respects. So I'm just hoping for more explanation about the all-of-government Contra China initiative that you hope to stand up.

Thank you, Chairman Gray. It's a great question. I, uh, I will say at the outset, um, you know, a lot of these conversations you, you, you start.

Talking and you say things like, if there's one thing that I could accomplish, it would be this. Um, I, I would say if there's one thing that, that I would want to accomplish, it's, uh, it's, it's an increase to public safety. I mean, that— I'll just, I'll just be very candid with you. Um, but I believe that, uh, that webinar was about China, um, and so I might have been speaking more, uh, specifically about that. And I'll tell you what I mean on that.

I think there are a lot of Chinese technologies that are consumer products. And when I think about consumers, I'm not just talking about individuals or families going to a retail store and picking up, uh, you know, a nanny camera or something like that. I'm talking about sometimes the government is a consumer. We buy infrastructure, we buy technology for the Internet of Things. And I think we have to be very careful based on some of the reporting about some of these technologies, some of these products that, that have been manufactured in China because they have been reported to include kill switches and backdoors.

And that's a problem not just for privacy interests in the home but also for critical infrastructure. Protection. And so when I talk about all of government, one of the things I'm thinking about is conversations that I've had with the Department of Transportation, which has probably the biggest Internet of Things presence, and, and having a conversation with them about taking an inventory of the kinds of products that exist in the infrastructure here in Alaska and and looking for any kind of potential vulnerability. So that's just one example of what I mean by an all-of-government approach. Thank you.

And that was in line with your answer that you gave to Senator Klaiman on Friday. But I did listen to most of that Federalist talk along with— it was you and the Attorney General from Nebraska. It was not just about consumer protection. It was an all-government approach, including national security, including infrastructure. There was also a lot of talk about, um, renewable energy projects that might require products from China.

So can you speak a little bit more beyond consumer protection about the role, and specifically your role as the state attorney general, playing a role in our national defense infrastructure and in what whether or not we should be doing renewable energy projects. Chairman, thank you for the question. Um, and this goes back to sort of that broader point that I, I mentioned about who is the consumer. Um, normally when we think about consumer protection, we think about families, we think about you and me going to the store. Um, but in— and the point that I was making is that, um, sometimes the government is, is, uh, is a consumer, and, uh, and sometimes utility companies are, uh, consumers.

And there have been reports that some of the infrastructure, whether it's in renewable energy or whether it's in transportation infrastructure, for example, highway cameras and whatnot, that there might be some technologies that include some of these kill switches and backdoors. And there are also these laws that exist in China. One, for example, is a national security law from 2017 that arguably requires any person or business in China to cooperate with Chinese intelligence services. And so the question is, is if you've got infrastructure, and we can all say that that presents some national security concern, critical infrastructure, and if there are vulnerabilities that could potentially be exploited by foreign adversaries, that presents a national security threat. And I would say that all of government on the state level and local level and federal level, they have responsibilities to look into these kinds of risks, not necessarily from a litigation perspective, which is what you might ordinarily think about with respect to the Attorney General, but just sort of a good government approach.

And so, this is why I made— I gave you kind of the example of conversations that I've had with the Department of Transportation, for example. And so that's what I mean. Who's in charge of the initiative, the All of Government Counter-China Initiative in Alaska? Chairman, I would say that I think that might presume more of a formality around what I'm talking about. But I have talked to my consumer protection unit.

And of course, I've talked to others in government, our, you know, our IT department. I've talked to the governor's office. I've talked to the Department of Transportation. And I would say, as I mentioned to Senator Clayman, there hasn't been a whole lot of movement on this. These kinds of things take time, and sometimes it takes time to to learn about these.

And of course, you want to make sure that you understand the facts before you take any initiatives. Do other states have counter-China initiatives within their attorney general's offices? Chairman Gray, I believe the answer is yes.

I could probably think of a handful, whether they call them initiatives or they call them, you know, part of their consumer protection priorities. I don't know. But I think some attorneys general have looked into this. I guess my final question for now about this issue is that that quote that I read from your talk at the Federal Society in October made it seem like it was a very important initiative to you.

But from your answers right now, it just seems like something that you're exploring, that it's not a, um, something that your department is investing a lot of resources in. Would that be fair to characterize it that way? Chair McRae, I, I wouldn't say I'm investing a whole lot of resource into it. I do think it's important. I do think these risks are real, and I do think there's an opportunity for us to do more on this front.

But if you're asking whether I have an army of consumer protection lawyers looking into this kind of thing, it's nothing like that. But it is something that I do prioritize, and I hope to do more on this front if confirmed. I— whenever I say it's the last thing I'm going to say, I always say one more thing. So we have not, as a legislature, we haven't really done a lot of China policy. We did do a resolution that we sent to the federal delegation about fish.

But we're not doing a lot of China law. And so as the state attorney general, it does— I have a fear that it's wading into federal issues. And I guess, how do you draw the line between what you as a state attorney general can do with regard to an all-of-government counter-China initiative without stepping on the toes of the feds? Sure, Mr. Gray. It's a fair question.

I would say that I do think that some of the consumer protection actions that you've seen over the last recent years with respect to technologies, whether it's technologies on your iPhone, whether it's technologies in the nanny cam, and whatnot, they are making use of state deceptive Trade Practices Act laws that are similar in kind to what we have here in Alaska. And I would say that's, that's right in the lane and wheelhouse of what an attorney general can be focused on. But I also feel comfortable thinking outside of the box and taking on all of government ideas and initiatives. And I think we can sometimes leverage each other's resources and partner together. This is an approach that I'm comfortable with.

You see it in my work with respect to public safety in Anchorage, for example. You see it in others, that I like to break down silos. I like to work together in partnership.

With the indulgence of the committee, I'm going to go to my next topic and then You guys can interrupt me. In February 2026, Alaska joined an 11-state coalition in sending a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice asking it to thoroughly scrutinize Netflix's proposed merger with Warner Brothers. I would like to read from the Department of Law press release. So I'm quoting from your press release. Streaming now dominates how consumers watch film, television, and sometimes the news, said Alaska Attorney General Stephen Cox.

When one company moves to consolidate streaming platform control with studio production power, that risks vertical consolidation on a massive scale, and it could mean higher prices, fewer choices, and less innovation for Alaskans who already face limited options. The Department of Justice has the responsibility to review mergers like this, and we are insisting on a.

Hard Look. So ultimately, that proposed merger fell through. So that was with Netflix and Warner Brothers. But Paramount Skydance has stepped in, and last month Warner Brothers shareholders approved an $81 billion deal. If finalized, the deal would give Paramount Skydance, the parent company of CBS News, Paramount Pictures, BET, MTV, Nickelodeon, and more, ownership of HBO and HBO Max, Warner Brothers movie and TV studios, CNN, TBS, TNT, HGTV, Discovery Plus, and on and on.

Multiple state attorney generals have promised to look into that merger. That would be the merger between Paramount Skydance and Warner Brothers. Um, since you set out these concerns about the Netflix-Warner Brothers, I'm curious about, um, if you're going to be looking into the Paramount-Warner Brothers deal. Chairman Gray, thank you for the question. If you look back at the letter, what the states were asking was a hard look from the Department of justice.

Um, and, and, uh, and I think it was important, uh, for a couple of reasons. Um, not only because of, uh, the market share that, that Netflix, uh, had, uh, and would have had, uh, with the combined, uh, merger, but also because some, some of the statements that, uh, the, uh, Netflix leadership had said about, uh, the theater business. I think those, those were concerning to me, and I thought it merited a hard look. And ultimately, I would defer to the federal antitrust agencies on that kind of hard look. With respect to the Paramount merger, I think it was a little bit different in kind.

I think it was a smaller, market share that the combined, uh, entity would have. Um, and, uh, and I, I can't remember the exact figures, but we— I think you had sort of the, the number 2 or the number 3 merging with the number 5 or the number 6. Um, and, uh, but you also didn't have, uh, the Goliath of streaming, um, uh, that, uh, that would result, uh, in that merger. Any of the, the comments that had been said about the, the theater business. To me, that, that merger seemed more of a kind that the Department of Justice and the FTC are familiar with and, and able to review.

And so, yeah, so I'll leave it at that. So what I'm hearing you say is that the Netflix-Warner Brothers merger warranted a hard look from DOJ, but Paramount Skydance Warner Brothers doesn't warrant the same hard look by DOJ. Would that be fair to say? Chairman Gray, I think, I think a lot is in those, those words, hard look. I think a better way to think about it is the Netflix proposed merger was more concerning and we wanted to to voice that to DOJ.

But I think the Justice Department and the FTC, having been at the Department of Justice and in an office that oversees the Antitrust Division, these are some of the finest antitrust lawyers I've ever had a chance to work with. And they do excellent, excellent work. And so I think they probably would say they take a hard look at any large merger. There are some critics who say that Paramount is receiving preferential treatment from the Department of Justice because Paramount's owners, the multimillion-dollar father-son duo Larry and David Ellison, are close friends and allies of Donald Trump. I mean, I'm just saying that that's what a lot of folks are saying.

But it sounds like that you trust DOJ. They're doing as hard a look at this as they did to Netflix. And it has nothing to do with a close relationship between the owners of of Paramount Skydance and the president? Chairman, I don't know anything about that. Are you familiar with Larry Ellison's statements about using artificial intelligence to supervise American citizens?

Chairman, no. I'm going to quote Larry Ellison, who holds a significant stake in TikTok, whose company Oracle is massively invested in artificial intelligence. He has stated, quote, citizens will be on their best behavior "Because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that's going on." End quote. Given Ellison's stated goal of using his control over technology and the media to supervise the behavior of everyday Americans, do you think the proposed Paramount-Warner Brothers merger is in the best interest of Alaskans' constitutionally guaranteed privacy rights? Chairman Gray, I don't want to get into a statement that I haven't I haven't read in context or, or anything like that.

I also don't want to presume any motivations from people I don't know and have never worked with. And so I don't, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to weigh into something like that. I appreciate that. I'll just make the comment that based on your concerns about China and potentially kill switches and nanny cams and being able to watch Alaskans and the need for us to take this all-of-government counter-China initiative in order to protect Alaskans' privacy, that we should apply the same standard to a potential mega media deal that could also compromise Alaskans' privacy. So, um, I, I think we maybe need to reconsider sending a letter to DOJ to ask to take a closer look at this, Mr. AG.

Representative Mina.

Thank you, Chair Gray, and I will use the permission to dialogue. And thank you, Attorney General-designee Cox, for being in front of made today. I know we've been through a lot of these different hearings. Um, I, I wanted to build off of Representative Gray's earlier mention of that Federalist Society forum and just talking a little bit about renewable energy. That was a point of discussion.

The President of the United States has spoken about the Green New Scam in opposition to the previous administration's policy initiatives on climate and energy. And I know the green use scam was brought up by the moderator of that particular forum, and there is a discussion about how a move towards renewable energy in America was a win for China. So could you talk a little bit more about that? Um, Representative Mita, thank you very much. And, uh, I'm not sure if I'm familiar with the green use scam, uh, terminology, but I'll get into the, the point that you ended with.

I do think that China did have a stake and an interest in renewable energy. I think a lot of the, the, uh, the elements that go into the infrastructure do come from China, and so I do think that infrastructure presents those kinds of risks. Oh, and then just to follow up, I know there's been a lot of discussion about rare earth minerals being a major component of, of renewable energy projects. And, you know, there are several rare earth mineral projects and proposals here in Alaska. And so if our state is able to supply rare earth minerals and be able to move forward on certain renewable energy projects without depending on China would that still be a, a win for their country, or how does that fit into this, the China initiative?

Representative Mita, thanks for the follow-up question. Um, it, it certainly wouldn't propose the, uh, the, uh, the same kinds of risks that I was talking about. And, uh, and I am in all of— from a public policy perspective, and speaking as a citizen, I'm in all of, uh, all of the above. Energy guy. Okay, great.

Thank you. Uh, I just have, uh, just one, uh, more of question, a topic just related to energy. I know in the last committee hearing, uh, in response to another senator, you spoke about your alignment with the president's executive order to open more of Alaska for fossil fuel drilling. And so I just wanted to learn a little bit more about your role as attorney general to further fossil fuel development in our state. Representative Mita, thank you for the question.

What I would say is that Alaska is, is, is again here, like many other places, unique. We are the only state, I think, maybe in history to have an executive order directed just to our state. That executive order, if I recall correctly, has 23 different paragraphs that are directing various cabinet departments at the federal level and agencies to consider and do things that would potentially unleash Alaska's potential with respect to resource development. Some of those, of course, go towards oil and gas. And, and, and what I would say my role is, is obviously I, I provide first and foremost advice to the, the commissioners and, and the governor's office with respect to.

State interests and state partnerships with federal government on implementation of those provisions. But I also do have good working relationships with officials at many of the cabinet departments that are subject to that executive order. And sometimes when it comes to implementation, It, you know, you have to navigate bureaucracy, you have to navigate process, you have to navigate, you know, the personnel checks and balances within the department. Sometimes you have to navigate litigation risks, and sometimes it's a matter of picking up a phone and talking to somebody about an issue that might be stuck and trying to understand their perception of the problem and sharing the state's perception and seeing if you can unstick it. So that's a role that I can provide as well.

I appreciate that. And I also know that, you know, we've had a little bit of discussion about, you know, components of our Alaska Constitution. Article 8, Section 1 and 2 is specific about natural resources, both about the utilization, development, and conservation of those resources. So I'm wondering how you balance that constitutional obligation with not only fossil fuel development, but just other energy projects, renewable energy projects, etc. Representative Mida, thank you for the question.

My oath is to defend and uphold the Alaska Constitution and Alaska laws. And, uh, and, and, and some of those laws, uh, relate to the best interests of the state. And there are processes in, in place at the various departments when it comes to permits and, and whatnot. And we, we work with our client agencies, with the departments, for example, the Department of Natural Resources, to advise on those, uh, those legal issues, uh, the obstacles in the way of, uh, of, of permits and, uh, and, uh, regulatory compliance. And we do that every day, all day.

Um, and, uh, and that's part of the job. And that's my commitment, is to follow the law and work with our client agencies to make sure that those laws are upheld, uh, and, uh, and defended.

Thank you.

Thank you. Um, we'll do Representative Kopp and then Representative Eichshaid.

Thank you, AG Cox. Appreciate you being here, sir. Um, yeah, on the, on the China risk profile, certainly I'm very empathetic to concerns about our risk exposure, both domestically, just our home state here and national security, our location, our geography, our infrastructure, and our resources. We hear almost daily in the news that our minerals, our energy systems, and our telecoms, um, are at risk and considered very valuable, especially with every geopolitical influence that those are falling under right now. So Domain awareness concerns.

As a commercial fisherman myself, fisheries is a huge deal. China and Russia are number one concerns for illegal intercept on the high seas. Keeping our shipping lanes open is a real concern. Also, foreign ownership and control of our ports, our harbors, our transportation, and our energy systems, especially our telecoms. Those are all things.

So just wanted to say everything from our undersea cables to everything else. So I do appreciate your— and I don't want to minimize that that is a concern of yours. I agree that we also want you to have a state-based focus, but I just wanted to say concerns with China, I think, are well stated. I would like you to tell us a little more about your public safety priorities. I did have the privilege of accompanying your former boss, Attorney General William Barr, to Bethel.

When he was here and did a community listening session with him. And I didn't know you were kind of his right hand, kind of setting that up for him. But I know what your public safety priorities were then, and the Department of Justice followed through, and I appreciate that. How has that evolved over the past 7 years? What do you see since Attorney General Barr declared a public safety emergency in Alaska in 2019.

How are we doing? What are we doing well? What's not working? And what do you see yourself doing to improve that public safety emergency we had in 2019? Representative Kopp, thank you so much for the, for the question.

I remember I wasn't on the trip, with Attorney General Barr. My colleague Katie Sullivan, who you probably met, traveled with him, and she oversaw the Office on Violence Against Women and the Office of Justice Programs, which are two of our largest grant-making components.

And that trip made such a difference to the Attorney General. And I've never seen, uh, the grant-making components come together so fast to push out emergency funding. Uh, and I think our Rural Prosecution Unit is doing great work. Um, they— and they deploy, deploy to, uh, all, all parts of Alaska, uh, to work on these cases. Um, and, uh, and I want to do more.

Um, I believe, thanks to the legislature, I believe that grant, uh, expired after 6 years, 5 or 6 years, and the legislature continued to fund the, that rural prosecution unit, and so I'm very grateful for that. What I will tell you though is I've recently had a conversation with some friends back in Washington, D.C. about what we could do more on this front, and I asked my team to kind of put together a proposal that we could we could send to the Department of Justice to see if we could kind of revamp and retool and refund and further fund an existing unit that does such great work. And I can't promise, I can't make any promises about what the Department of Justice will be able to deliver, but I will say that they were receptive to the idea of helping us more on that front. But I think it's, you know, to the extent of your question is about what can we do to make sure that it's continuing to be a priority, we need to be talking about it more. And frankly, I would like to get out to the field.

We have 4 rural units that I'd like to go visit. I had hoped to go visit earlier in the year during the winter. And I just— I— we couldn't make it work with the legislative session. But it is a top priority for me to get out to the field, which I think is important because it shows how important this work really is, and also to get out to the villages, but to show my team that this is a top priority for us. And to continue to have those conversations with the Department of Justice to see if we can get additional resources.

Thank you. Representative Ishii. Thank you, Chair Gray. I want to say through the chair— I just did, but there, I got it out of my system. Thank you, AG Cox, for being here and meeting with many of us individually.

I actually did want to bring up some things you said in your opening statement.

You gave some context on the voter rolls issue and the release to the DOJ, but you said something that caught my ear. You said it fell under the precedent of cooperation. So I'm not a lawyer, so please don't talk to me like I'm a peer. Uh, but is that a legal precedent, a precedent of cooperation? I understand what it means on its, uh, surface, but is that a legal concept?

Um, Representative Eichcheidt, that's a great, a great question. I don't really think about it as sort of a legal mandate precedent, if that's what you're talking about. It's, uh, it's much more of a a posture, sort of a precedent of a posture that the state might have with the federal government in terms of law enforcement investigations. I will tell you that it is a posture that I'm comfortable with. When I was at the U.S. Department of Justice, for example, I wrote policies about cooperation with law enforcement.

I wrote policies about incentivizing cooperation with law enforcement. I wrote policies.

About voluntarily disclosing information that wasn't required, but it was a voluntary disclosure of information of the federal government and rewarding that with respect to the resolution. So it's a posture I'm familiar with and I'm comfortable with. And it's a posture that I think the state of Alaska has had throughout multiple and bipartisan administrations. Okay, thank you for that.

I beg to differ from the outside looking in. I think Alaska has always been very independent when it comes to federal decisions, federal requests. I hear the word federal overreach quite often, and it just seems like— I wouldn't say Alaska has always been super cooperative with the federal government. But let me move on to my second one.

And I think Representative Kopp was kind of talking about this a little bit. You know, you were talking about in your opening statement some of your priorities working on sexual assault and violence against women. And you also, I think, mentioned quality of life initiatives like Is Happy in Anchorage and the Matsu. And I really appreciate that. I would say my constituents in Northeast Anchorage are very concerned about quality of life issues.

I know that's a fact. But you also mentioned amicus briefs. And I don't want to talk about that a lot. But the question, I guess, is, you know, I pulled up the page. And I don't know how many people are working on these amicus briefs, but like on March 30th of this year, there were 4 put— submitted, as I understand this webpage.

And, you know, I'm not an English teacher, but I know a lot of English teachers, and it takes time to look at briefs and to look at law. So I'm kind of wondering if— how much time this really takes, how many resources when you have these other priorities that you already mentioned in your opening statement, which I agree with. And then I see, boy, there looks like there's a lot of effort being put here, and in a resource-limited world. How do you balance that? Representative, I should thank you for the question.

Uh, it's a fair question, um, and, and I think, um, it's important to remember what, what these briefs are not. They're not Alaska's work product. And so we are reviewing them, uh, in a short period of time. Um, it might take a few hours of work, uh, to review a brief. And to consult with, say, client agencies, and to consult with past— the library of past briefs on that particular issue, and to provide a recommendation as to whether or not we should join, consistent with past briefs.

And it would take less time for me to review that kind of recommendation. And then of course to consult with the governor's office. So it's not— I want to emphasize it is a small part of the job and it is a job that wouldn't go away because we still have to review the briefs. We're not going to ignore the requests that come in and just say we're not interested anymore. We look at the briefs and we make a recommendation.

But it's a— I don't have an army of lawyers looking at these briefs. And they're not— except for the briefs that are written by Alaska, they are not our work product. Our review is really quite narrow. Does Alaska have an interest? Is the legal argument sound and is it consistent with past precedent, because the state has taken the same positions numerous times on— across a lot of these same topics over the course of the last several years.

Well, thank you for that. I guess, um, like I said, I, I'm not a lawyer, but I do have some familiarity with technical writing from a science standpoint. Here's one brief, NAACP versus Weaver. This was released by your office on January 20th of this year. It's 24 pages, and there's a lot of law cited into it, and I would be surprised that it would take 2 or 3 hours to review that.

Just speaking as a non-lawyer, but it seems like, you know, especially when it's the interest of the state to sign on.

You know, I'm curious about what rubric you use to decide these things. And I don't want to belabor it, but I guess, you know, related to this, just help me understand this, and I'll get to my final question for the moment. I got some information that, that these briefs may no longer be— that you sign— be published, um, on, on the website. Is, is, is that correct? Representative, thank you for the, the question.

Earlier in the year, um, uh, I think a decision was made to, uh, pull down the, the, the page on the briefs. I think, I think Alaska is one of the only states, if not the only state that actually publishes its amicus briefs and puts the link on it. I can't tell you exactly why that decision was made. I know that we lost a resource that worked on these briefs earlier in the year. I also know that our website is being revamped in light of the Americans with Disabilities Act website accessibility standards that had a compliance due date coming up this summer.

I think that's been extended. I mean, it's a lot of these briefs when they're pulled from the court website or court system, they may not actually be compliant with the website accessibility standards under the ADA that comes out of the Department of Justice. And so there is some processing that takes time. I learned about the fact that these briefs were not on the website within the last week or two. I've recently asked that they all get put back on the website, including with the links.

But that tells you a little bit about kind of what happened earlier this year. Yeah, I appreciate that. I think it's, you know, uploading a PDF to a website's one of the easiest things in the world to do. Should be. Should be.

I just—. I think it's important for the public process and accountability that we know what our Attorney General is doing and that we can kind of see and judge for ourselves, are we using Alaska law rubric? Because there's a lot of lawyers that know Alaska law really well. And I just think the transparency is key. And then my final question, I might reserve some for later on, another topic.

Was, um, you came to my office January 26th. I enjoyed our conversation, and I did mostly listening, asked you some questions about yourself, nothing tough.

But there's something you said at that January 26th meeting that afterwards I got thinking about quite a bit, and I said one of my concerns coming from the executive branch in Washington is what seems to be almost a weaponization of the Department of Justice and other branches of the federal government, whereas certain states, not in all cases, but many blue states get ICE agent deployments, get military deployments, not in all cases but in most cases. And I said, you know, my fear is I don't want that to happen to Alaska because House District 22 is a very diverse area. English is a second language for many of my constituents. I represent them My fear is their fear.

And, and you, you said something today and it stimulated something I think I heard you say on January 26th. You're talking about good working relationships, and I think you pride yourself, uh, if I'm not wrong, on your good working relationships with, with other entities like the federal government. You, you have a long history with them, and, and what I.

I recollect from that conversation— I take a lot of notes, I'm a note guy— is when I stated my fear, you said I didn't really have to worry about that because essentially— I'm paraphrasing now— you have good working relationships with the administration. That's how I took that. And afterwards I thought— and I'm going back to the 14th Amendment now— equal protection under the law. Uh, that's for individuals, but I'm also applying the concept to the states in the context. Um, should justice, should executive decisions be based on who you know?

Representative Eichide, um, thank you for the question. There was a lot there. Um, so a short answer would be great. The short answer is no. The answer is that my first and foremost responsibility in this role is fair and even-handed administration of justice.

And that means that politics and partisanship shouldn't be at play at all. And that the law that you apply over here to an individual, uh, A should be the same law, and it should be fairly applied in the same way to individual B. Now, obviously, facts and circumstances might vary between people, but that is the goal. That is the goal. But I do think the, the point that I probably was making to you is that if we ever got concerned about something, I can pick up the phone and I can have conversations and present our concerns, our circumstances, our arguments, and be heard.

And that's an advantage. It shouldn't be why, uh, we get a particular result, but, uh, but it is something that I can, um, I can help with. But the goal is fair administration of justice, even-handed. Yes, I, I hear that. Have you ever picked up that phone and said maybe there's a better way to do this to Washington that looks more fair?

Because, you know, that that old saying, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Have you ever used that influence? I, Representative Eichide, I have, I have picked up the phone, uh, uh, here and there, um, and, uh, and, and made those, those points, um, and, and I would, I would give you an example, uh, it may not be the one that you're looking for, but for example Last fall, in December, actually last winter, I picked up the phone to talk to them about some litigation that the Department of Justice and the State of Alaska were on opposite sides of the V. We were gearing up towards a trial that would have been in the spring, and it related to navigability and the Forty Mile River. And I had a conversation with them about whether this was an efficient use of resources and whether there was a potential resolution that we could arrive at. And we were able to have a productive conversation, and I think it was— it reverberated back with the various agencies of the federal government.

And later in the year, we get a resolution. I appreciate that, sir. I just— I suspect, though, other folks in your position in other states, namely blue states, have also picked up that phone. And whether it's Minnesota or California, I'm not sure if they've gotten the same results. So good on you.

Thank you for that. Um, the optics aren't great, so I'll suspend my questions for the moment. Thank you, sir. Representative Cox. Yeah, thank you.

Uh, AG-designee Cox, just wanted to, uh, provide a little context for Alaska's sensitivity about the Department of Justice. Uh, for us, the most recent egregious thing was the prosecutorial misconduct involving the prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens. And we were collectively, you know, breathed a sigh of relief, although it was too late, when his conviction was set aside. And so it's not really a partisan concern. It's just, you know, genuine concern that no matter what the administration is, we're very sensitive about it being weaponized.

I'd like to talk to you about Alaska's relationship with our— the state's relationship with our Alaska Native corporations. And our tribes.

The state has had a long evolution of a growing appreciation for our tribes and our corporations, and— but there's been a lot of contested ground over the past, a lot of litigated cases.

In 2021, the legislature passed the State Tribal Recognition Act And for the legislature, that was a culmination of a long journey of the state no longer sometimes recognizing tribal governments and then sometimes not, but saying, "No, we do recognize tribal governments." How do you see your role as the Attorney General facilitating strong, healthy relationships with Alaska tribes and then secondarily with Alaska Native corporations so that we have maybe less, less animosity and more unity, especially towards matters of mutual concern. You just saw a unanimous resolution come out of the— this body supporting 8(a), because we see that is so central to not only the viability of our state, but it's something that we want to speak with one voice on. So how do you see us as kind of bridging that, the state tribal government issues, and working towards areas where we can show more strength together rather than litigating constantly over issues we disagree on. Representative Kopp, thank you for the question.

Boy, it is a complicated set of relationships that we have between the state and the tribes and the Alaska Native Corporations.

And these are challenges. And some of the reasons why it's challenging is because Alaska is so unique. We don't have the lands in the trust in Alaska that you have in the lower 48. We don't have the same kind of territorial jurisdiction for the tribes as you might have in the lower 48, but there are ways I think that we can coordinate and work well and partner with the tribes and through VPSOs, for example, and relationships with the tribal courts. Access to justice is something very important.

To me, and I don't pretend to have all of the answers on these issues. I have talked with our tribal liaisons at the Department of Law about what we could do to foster better discussions with the tribes on law enforcement matters, and I've also been careful to say if it's helpful or if it's not helpful for me to be present in those discussions, to be part of it. I want to defer to my team about the best way for me to be part of that discussion, but we've been having some brainstorming internally over the last month or so about some discussions that we could have with with the Alaska Native community, who are the right organizations, and, you know, whether it's the villages, whether it's the village corporations, the regional corporations, the tribes, the associations.

I want to make sure that we do this in the right way and that I approach this in the right way. And so, I defer to my tribal liaisons on these matters. You mentioned the 8(a) matter, and I haven't seen the resolution that you just mentioned, but this is an area that I've seen and been familiar with over the last 15-some-odd years. When I was at a D.C. law firm in 2008, 2009, my firm represented.

ASRC and maybe some of the other Alaska Native corporations when Senator McCaskill was asking hard questions about the 8(a) preferences that went to Alaska Native corporations. I worked at Alaska Native Corporation. I worked at Bristol Bay Native Corporation. We had an investment platform in the industrial services space and we had about 20 portfolio companies. Some of which did government contracting.

None of them were in the 8(a) space, but we knew that we had to comply with the government contracting rules by the book because if we messed up anywhere, that could potentially create exposure for the 8(a) program, which was so vital to Bristol Bay Native Corporation. And now we're having a discussion, or we're seeing, we're observing a discussion at the federal level about the 8(a) program, and I am, I am watching that very closely. I've got a team of smart lawyers really thinking about what kind of messaging is coming out of the administration and what we can say in response in communications back to the people that I might know in the administration to show what— why is Alaska different? Why do we have these Native corporations? What, you know, how they are federally recognized political entities and they serve some of the same kinds of functions that you might see tribes serve in the lower 48.

How do we make this— how do we make the folks in the federal government aware of of these kinds of things that make Alaska unique. This is something I care a lot about. This is something I'm working very hard on. And, and it's not lost on me that these are challenges, these are complicated issues, but I'm committed to, to working together. And of course, I would say to any of the members on this committee that if you have ideas about what we could do, be what we could be doing to be better, I'm all ears.

Representative Costello. Thank you. For a moment there, I thought the Majority Leader was going to steal my question because he— he's not. When Senator Stevens would fight for Alaska, and, you know, he was a long-standing a U.S. senator of ours. He used to wear a particular tie, and I was curious to know if you were aware of his tie.

I'm going to be very honest with you, Representative Costello, unless you're talking about a bolo tie, I do not know. He wore the Incredible Hulk on his tie. Oh, I should have known that. Yeah, well, that's okay because I think in our meeting, I think you had a gotcha question for me. I don't know if you remember in our visit, but it was a nice visit.

Appreciate you coming by. Um, my question has to do with the Katie John case, and I'm, um, wondering if there's been any recent activity that you want to share with the committee about Katie John and, and what your involvement is— has been in that kind of revisiting of the Katie John case. Representative Costello, thanks for the question. When I entered into the office last August, the state was already litigating or relitigating and seeking reconsideration of the Katie John line of cases, which has to do with the definition of public lands and ANILCA.

And we continued, the state continued that litigation to its conclusion, and that involved the petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. To review a Ninth Circuit decision that came out, I believe, last summer. The U.S. Supreme Court denied cert. There were no dissents from that denial of cert, and that case is over. And I'm not aware of any— anything at the Department where we are seeking to reconsider the Katie John litigation.

That case was, if I'm not mistaken, and it predates me, it was a federal lawsuit. So it was initiated by the federal government against the state of Alaska. But that case is now concluded.

And then I was curious, when I think the department came before the Budget Subcommittee for your department, we learned about the creation of the Solicitor General position, and I was curious about that. I did a little research, and it sounds like that particular role is to argue cases in court. I'm not sure if that's the intention there, but could you talk a little bit more about why you created that position and why you created it as, as acting AG? Just curious about that, um, instead of perhaps waiting. But I, but I am interested in just the reorganization of the department at that level and what you see as the role that that position will be fulfilling.

Thank you for the question, Representative Costello. Um, I, uh, we, we created that, that office. It was something that I talked to the governor's office, or to the governor himself, about even before I took the, the position.

Almost all of the states have a statewide Solicitor General who reports to the Attorney General, who assists with amplifying the state's voices in front of the state Supreme Court and also in front of other courts, even outside of the state. This trend of state Solicitors General really began in the 1990s.

The state of Texas may have been one of the very first states to have a Solicitor General. It was a guy named Greg Coleman, and the idea was modeled off of the United States Solicitor General, who's often called the 10th Justice. It's on the 5th floor of the U.S. Department of Justice. He or she also has an office at the U.S. Supreme Court. And represents the United States in front of the US Supreme Court, and on matters that are, you know, where the US government is a party, or whether it's private parties as a, on behalf of the United States, and the states began to have state solicitors general starting in the 1990s, I think, and the reason was simple.

Each state is governed by its state's Supreme Court, its U.S. Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court, and all of those courts are influenced by the decisions of other courts outside of the state. And so the idea was that the states may want to participate in amicus, or friend of the court, litigation outside of the state to amplify the state's view of the law so that it could help shape the law that would ultimately govern the state. And over the course of the last, say, 25 to 30 years, more and more states have done this.

And now there's probably 45, give or take, maybe 47, give or take, states that have Solicitors General. And I thought it would be helpful if we had one in Alaska. Now, I will say we have some of the best and finest appellate lawyers on the civil side and the criminal side in the Department of Law. And I love working with them, and they are experts, world-class experts on Alaska law and Alaska appellate litigation. And so what I was looking to do was create an office that wouldn't necessarily supervise those sections but would help me with cases that were— that they didn't necessarily have the capacity to litigate or to work on that are outside the state, but that are important litigations.

And so we chose to create that office. We used an existing PCN to create it. And I hope— I think it's a resource that would be good for the state long-term, regardless of who the Attorney General is. Regardless of who the governor is. I think it's a resource, uh, that could be helpful, uh, to the state.

Thank you. And I, I, um, this is a personal question, but I'm, I'm curious to know, uh, what you're reading or what the most recent book is that you've read, assuming that you have a little time to read. Right now, um, I'm reading Last Branch Standing by Sarah Isgur. Um, Sarah is a dear friend, um, I've known her since, I think, 2009. She worked at the U.S. Department of Justice with me, and she wrote a very interesting book about.

The United States Supreme Court. And, and so far I love it. It reads just like her. She's a dear friend. And in fact, I think it was one of the books that I recommended, Chairman Gray, on your podcast.

And, and I recommend it to all of you. Well, I'm reading Say Nothing because we had the Irish Senate President here recently, and I've been reading about Irish history just because he recommended that. So anyway, if you're interested in a book club, that's what I'd have us reading. That's great. Thank you.

I'm going to follow up on some line of questioning from Representative Costello about the Solicitor General. You mentioned Greg Coleman as the first Solicitor General in Texas. He graduated from Texas A&M. He was a professor at University of Houston and at the University of Texas, had pretty solid knowledge of Texas and Texas law. Can you talk about Jenna Lawrence and what her knowledge of Alaska is?

Jeremy Gray, thank you for the question. I, uh, she's new to Alaska. She's one of the people that, that, uh, that I tried to recruit to the state. I'm happy to have her to the state, but she's new. She came from the state of Indiana.

Where she was most recently the Deputy Solicitor General. Before that, she was an Assistant Solicitor General in Kentucky. And I think she grew up in Virginia. And I interviewed several candidates, some of whom were Alaskan and some of whom were not. And what I was looking for was appellate litigation interest and expertise in, in the, in the appellate litigation, not necessarily looking for an area of substantive law that they knew specific to the state, because like I said, we have some of the best lawyers, the finest lawyers on Alaska law inside the building.

I also wanted somebody who would work well with others and who could work well with other appellate lawyers, and other non-appellate lawyers.

And I wanted somebody, ideally, who would have relationships with other Solicitor General offices, which can come in handy when you're working on these briefs. Like I said earlier, when you get hundreds of briefs sent your way, and the request is whether to join them, We're not asked to sight check them. We're not asked to rewrite them. We're not asked to edit them. And so our review is pretty narrow, but occasionally you do find what I would call a boomerang issue, or, you know, maybe it's a sentence that gives you a little heartburn because it's inconsistent with something that the state litigates here in Alaska.

And when you have a good relationship with the office that wrote it, sometimes you can actually call and say, hey, could you just delete this sentence, or could you drop this footnote? And that can be helpful too. A couple of quick follow-ups. Just, um, is she physically present in the state of Alaska? Does she live here?

Jeremy Gray, yes. How long has she been here? Chairman Gray, I think I hired her in October or November. Okay, so she's fairly new, I mean, to living in the state. Chairman Gray, yes.

And how long did you post that position, um, publicly? Chairman Gray, I did not post the position publicly.

I called around and I asked for recommendations and and interviewed a handful of applicants. Got that. So I'll make a comment, then I have a question specifically about the decisions that she's authored. It just seems like what I hear is that, you know, there's a lot of great Alaskan attorneys, but they just weren't right for this position.

Chair McGary, I think that's unfair. I think any of the folks that I chose to interview, I would have been very happy with. Okay. I think that's unfair. Okay.

I apologize for that.

So I don't want to rehash the 110 amicus briefs that we filed on to since you took charge, but there have been 5 that we've authored. Is that correct? Since you've been at the helm? Chair McGreevy, I— That may be correct. I don't have the figure.

And 3 that have been authored by Jenna Lawrence.

I guess before I get there, is it fair to say that the 3 cases that she has authored— so you mentioned a lot that we can't edit other states' briefs, we just sign on. But the ones that we author would be more reflective of the type of appellate litigation that you'd want the Solicitor General to focus on? Chairman Gray, I think that's, that's an accurate statement. Okay. The case of Arroyo-Castro v. Gaspar involves a middle school teacher in Connecticut who was disciplined for refusing to remove an approximately foot-high crucifix from her classroom.

An independent investigation also found that Arroyo-Castro made religious comments to her students, telling them, "I hope Papa God helps you with your lies," or, quote, "Go find God," end quote, when reprimanding bad behavior. Arroyo-Castro filed a lawsuit challenging the discipline on First Amendment grounds. A federal judge ruled against her, and she appealed to the Second Circuit. Alaska has authored an amicus brief in support of Ms. Arroyo-Castro and defending her right to display her crucifix in her classroom. Can you explain what Alaska's interest is and whether a middle school teacher in Connecticut can continue to display her crucifix in her classroom?

Chairman Gray, thank you for the question. I want to make something very clear, though. We did not author that that brief. I think that brief was actually penned by the state of Iowa. It's a brief that I'm familiar with.

It's on a particularly narrow legal issue, and it doesn't take into account all of the facts at issue in the case, but But the legal issue is whether or not a teacher— well, let me back up a little bit. It's good to set the stage. So this case was litigated in the Second Circuit.

The school had a policy where I think the teachers were invited to decorate their own personal space and put things that mattered to them and their identity and things things that mattered to them on display.

And when a school does that, the one thing you can't do is to forbid the freedom of religious expression. And so this case was about whether their teacher could display a crucifix. Other teachers had displayed other things that were, you know, maybe it was personal to them, maybe it was a political statement. Even some had displayed, I think there was a coffee cup with a scripture or a picture of Mary or a Christmas tree. But it was the teacher that had displayed the crucifix who was threatened with discipline about that expression.

And the reason that was offered by the school district and upheld by the court, the lower court, was that it would be an establishment of religion by the school to allow this, this cross to be displayed. And that is just not correct. And the Kennedy case out of the US Supreme Court several years ago put that to bed. And I think this was an easy case that the court just got wrong, and I expect the Second Circuit will vindicate what I'm saying. Thank you.

So just to be clear though, it would be also— would you argue that it's okay for a teacher to display Islamic symbols or Buddhist symbols or Satanic symbols? Jeremy Gray, we have a pluralistic society. And the rules and the law is clear. You can't tell someone to hide their religious expression, their religious beliefs, which I think we would all agree, even for the religions that we're not necessarily familiar with, sometimes they form a very central part of their identity. And so, yes, it's a pluralistic society.

And what goes for Christianity would go for the others you mentioned. Yeah, I'm going to follow up and then I'll go to Representative Kopp and then Representative Mena. So if it's clear-cut and it's, it's pretty straightforward and you expect, you know, how the Second Circuit is going to rule, how important is it for Alaska to help? How important is it for Alaska to sign on? And what is the benefit to Alaskans?

Of the final ruling. Chairman Gray, I think it's a very important issue. I think these issues of freedom of expression.

Religious expression, and even the Establishment Clause, all of these, the reason that we call them First Freedoms, and I think every state has interest in this.

And like I said, one of the fundamental parts of sort of an amicus practice is this theory that ultimately the law that is shaped and governed, the law that is shaped outside the state can sometimes influence the courts that will ultimately ultimately govern Alaska. And so it's— I think it's important, but I also want to make very clear, again, this is a brief that, uh, we did not author, uh, and we did not spend a whole lot of time on, um, but I think it's an important issue. Thanks. I just want to follow up. The reason why we assumed it was authored is my staff asked for the Department of Law to send us all briefs that were authored by Alaska.

We were sent 5, and this was one of them. I understand now that it's incorrect. So to be perfectly clear, since becoming Solicitor General, Jenna Lawrence has authored just 2 briefs. Would that be more accurate?

That may be more accurate. I don't have the number for—. I'll bring up the other 2, and we can confirm that they were indeed authored by Alaska in a little while. Representative Kopp. Yeah, I just— back to the— The display of a crucifix piqued my attention.

A.G. Cox, is it your understanding that a school district does have some authority to restrict a speech to some degree as differentiated what a private person might say in their home? But the question is, why are you restricting it, and what is the public purpose of that restriction? And then whatever you come up with, you better apply it uniformly across. Representative Cobb, that's a, that's a fair articulation of, of, of the situation. There's a difference between government speech and private speech, and, uh, and in this, in this case a policy that invites the teachers to put on display for their personal space, to express themselves and their identities.

That is their private speech, and it doesn't automatically transform into government speech. And, and, and I think that's, that's correct. But there are differences, and, uh, and we, we And school districts could, for example, have a policy that restricts a kind of speech, for example, political speech, and as long as it's applied uniformly, that could be acceptable. But I also want to be very careful, everything would depend on the facts and circumstances of of the case, but in general, I think you're right. [Speaker:ED] Yes, so thank you.

I am— it just seems like that particular case could be resolved by a school district having a uniform policy about what may be displayed in or around your teacher's desk, and as long as it was fairly applied. But when you invite people to make it their personal space and to identify things of personal importance to them, then to me you're inviting that kind of litigation. And I just want to make sure, see if you understand that the same way. That sounds like that's a school district policy that they could have handled differently. I will agree with that, Chairman Kopp.

It is a school district policy that they could have definitely handled differently. Thank you. Thanks. I want to go to Representative Mina, but I, I'm still kind of hung up on this as well. So Just to be clear, somebody who went to public school, I just can't imagine a large crucifix being displayed in the classroom, nor could I imagine a large satanic symbol being displayed in a public classroom.

Is it my misunderstanding of what's okay in public school classrooms that's at fault here? Because I just cannot imagine a universe where people would allow large satanic symbols in their classrooms. Chairman Gray, I think it, it would depend on the school's policy.

And, uh, and, and I, I think you can't, um, look at this in a vacuum and say, you know, is this kind of thing okay in all settings, and, uh, as opposed to this. But when there is a policy that invites, uh, the teachers to make, uh, expressions of themselves, you can't, uh, ex— you can't tell them that they have to hide something that they use for freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and hide behind the Establishment Clause. That's just not, that's not the law. And again, you can correct me and forgive me for the question. A crucifix is decidedly a Catholic symbol to me.

I'm just curious, like, you would apply it universally when that case comes that somebody is challenged for putting a large satanic symbol, Alaska will be joining that case to defend that teacher's right to display the satanic symbol. Would that be a correct characterization? Chairman Gray, I, I want you to understand this clearly, that I believe in the fair administration of justice and the, and the application of the rule of law even-handedly. We live in a pluralistic society. One thing that I have learned over over the years, and especially in Alaska, people have different spiritual and religious views that I had, had never experienced or wasn't familiar with, but they are deeply part of who they are and what they believe.

And, and we have a First Amendment that protects freedom of religion, and, and we have to protect it. Universally. Thank you. Representative Mina.

Thank you, Chair Gray. I'm going to switch to a different topic. I wanted to talk about redistricting reapportionment. I know that's been in the news with the recent Supreme Court decision in Louisiana in 2019. There was the ruling of, I believe it's Rucho versus Common Cause, that said that gerrymandering based on partisanship is beyond the jurisdiction of federal courts and that that relies in state courts.

And our Alaska Supreme Court did that in— during the 2021 redistricting rulings when they struck down the Eagle River and South Muldoon map, as well as the Eagle River and South Anchorage-Girdwood maps. Does Alaska law prohibit partisan gerrymandering?

Representative Mena, I, I wouldn't pretend to be an expert in that. And for that kind of a question, I would, I would rely on the experts at the Department of Law. And I don't want to mislead you into thinking that I'm an expert in all of the laws that we administer. I am not. Would your office uphold the rulings of the Supreme— of the Alaska Supreme Court related to gerrymandering, partisan gerrymandering?

Representative Mena, our job at the Department of Law is to uphold and defend all Alaska laws. That includes statutes. And that includes the Alaska Constitution as interpreted by the Alaska Supreme Court in binding decisions. And we respect those binding decisions. They are law.

And then related to the recent Supreme Court decision with Louisiana and striking down provisions of the Voting Rights Act based on race, I was curious about your opinions on that recent ruling and how that might impact Alaska. Representative Mina, I have not read those opinions yet. They just came out within the last week or two. I certainly intend to read them probably this summer, along with a number of other U.S. Supreme Court cases, and that's part of the job of being Attorney General, is to review federal law and federal rulings as they come out. But I don't have a really good opinion for you on those decisions and how they would affect Alaska right now.

Okay, and just one final question. Do you have any other additional perspective just related to reapportionment and redistricting as it relates to partisanship or race? Representative Mena, no, other than the fact that anytime you're dealing with race-based classifications, under the US Constitution, you're dealing with strict scrutiny. So you have— you need to have a compelling state interest, and the classification needs to be narrowly tailored. Usually that means that it has to be the least restrictive means to achieving that compelling interest.

Thank you.

Representative Eishide. Thank you, um, A.G. Cox. Um, I understand you are on the board of the Thomas More Christian School. It's a school I believe that plans to open this fall, a private school in Anchorage. Is that correct?

Representative Eishide, I am on the board of Thomas More Classical school. Yeah, there's a lot of words, so I couldn't say all of them, but, um, it's a private Christian school. I think K-12, is that the intent, Representative Eichstadt? It's opening as a K-6, uh, but the goal, uh, down the line is, uh, to expand, uh, to ultimately become a K-6 school. Correct.

Okay, and it opens this fall, correct? Fall of 2026? Yes, Representative Eichstadt. And, um, You're treasurer, I believe, on the board. So does that mean you're in charge of, in part, with the board, the governance and then also the financial health of, of the school?

Representative Aishide, I think that's a fair characterization. Okay. Um, as you should know, or do know, you know, there's been a lot of talk about public money and private schools.

Since you are on the board of a private school that's opening, uh, does that mean that under Alaska ethics law you would recuse yourself about decisions that might benefit your school financially related to public money going to private schools? Representative Aishad, it's a, it's a, it's a good question.

I, I, I want to rewind a little bit to, to a decision that I kind of faced when I first came on into this role, because that might help illuminate sort of the way I think about these, these things. So when I first started, my, my children, they go to a family partnership correspondent school. And we, we use some of the allotment for our piano teacher, our wonderful piano teacher, Joy Plumell. We use it for, I think, some sports organizations and some tutors that we, we do. One of the very first things I did was recuse for the purpose of having ethics lawyers look into whether our family's use of the correspondence allotment program was itself a reason to recuse.

The advice that I received back from my ethics supervisor after an analysis was that it was not a reason for recusal because I think there are like 25,000 Alaskan students that benefit from the allotment. And so the fact that my, my kids benefit, uh, in, uh, piano class and tutoring and, and whatnot, um, wasn't itself a reason to recuse. I will say that I'm not involved, uh, in any of the day-to-day litigation or even really any of the supervision of the strategic litigation. Recently, last week, I learned for the first time that, uh, that on the website, uh, there was a reference to the school anticipating becoming a vendor of the corresponding school allotment programs. So I have asked my staff to take another look at that from a recusal perspective.

Okay, thank you.

Just to clarify what you said, uh, do any of your, uh correspondence school allotments go to private schools, uh, private institutions? No. Okay, thank you. Representative Aishat, I need to be very clear here. Well, no one's crying.

Well, for example, if I, if I, if I use the allotment for, um, uh, Junior Nordic, for example, is that a private institution? Well, it's probably a private institution, um, but To the extent you're talking about a private brick-and-mortar school, the answer is no. Yeah, thank you. And then I guess finally related to this, you know, your predecessor, his spouse is very famous or infamous for writing an article in the Alaska or Anchorage Daily News about how folks could use the homeschool allotments at private schools. And so the question I have is, since you're on the board and treasurer of the Thomas More Classical Private Christian School, uh, does your school have any plans to use public school correspondence allotments?

Will you be accepting those monies? Representative Eichide, that is the, the question that was, was asked last week based something on the schools website. I did not see it, just so you know. It's independently come up in my mind. But so the way, as I understand it, and I want to be very careful because this, this is in active litigation, and these are the issues that the judge and the judges ultimately will have to grapple with.

But as I understand it, the, the school districts and their correspondent schools So, for example, ASD's Correspondence Schools Family Partnership, the school districts will decide whether or not and to what extent the allotment can be used for private educational or private institution and vendors. And the school districts have made different decisions. So, if you look at the way the Family Partnership draws the lines, they're going to be different than, say, for example, the Matsu Correspondence School or IDEA or some of the others.

And at first, you know, a couple of years ago, there was a judge that had enjoined the whole program. That was reversed, so nothing's enjoined currently, but the litigation will address these very issues, and that's where I want to be very careful about getting into that, but I would hope that the standard is to follow the law for all of the schools, recognizing that we're going to find out over the course of this litigation what the rules are, what the law is with respect to this particular issue. Okay, thank you for that. I— you got a little bit lawyer— you were a lawyer there a little bit. I'll bet.

I'm sorry, Representative Marshall. What I've heard is that judge's decision was enjoined and is presently not in effect. It's undergoing litigation. And what was happening before the judge made that decision and it was enjoined can continue, which you did not say no to my question whether Thomas More Classical Private Christian School will be accepting allotment money. So I just— You kind of said you follow the law, so—.

Representative Aishai-Davies, this is what I literally just learned within the last few days, is that the school anticipates becoming a vendor with, uh, some of those correspondent schools. Your, your school? Yes. Yeah, your, your upcoming. But, uh, but I'm, I'm certain that, um, that the, the school will follow the applicable rules and regulations and laws that, that are set by the school district and Alaska law.

Okay, I, I heard that you're a vendor, not though now, so not yet. Yeah, I think, I, I think I know what that means, that you will accept these monies as a vendor, the home school allotment. Is that a yes or no, please? Representative Aishrad, I don't know. You don't know?

This is not something that we've been dealing with at the board level.

And it is something that I will have discussions with the school to make sure that number one, we're going to apply the law and follow the law. I will probably recommend that the school consult with a lawyer. Like I said, with respect to my job as Attorney General, if confirmed, I may— I'm asking my staff presently to consider whether I should be recused from the litigation because of this. But this is a— this is an issue that I'm looking into, and what you have my commitment for is we will— we will comply with the law. Yes, I heard that, sir.

Brief, brief, at ease. At ease.

Yeah, thank you, sir. Well, I, I understand your, your answer, and I appreciate that. So thank you. That was my final question. Representative Mina.

Thank you, Chair Gray. Uh, I have a question on a video that I did not watch, but I know that you recently spoke at a Federalist Society webinar related to originalism and state constitutions. So maybe if you could give the committee and other members of the public who didn't get a chance to watch your speech, could you talk a little bit more about your interpretation of the Alaska Constitution and the role of originalism? Representative Mena, thank you for the question. The webinar was about Originalism, which is a methodology of interpreting constitutions, most notably the United States Constitution, based on the original understanding of the, of the words of that text.

Um, you know, it, it goes perfect, uh, perfectly with textualism, which is interpreting the law in accordance with its plain meaning. But sometimes when the law is ambiguous or not not clear, the idea is to try to determine what the laws originally meant, what those words originally meant at the time the law was founded. The reason I was invited to participate in this webinar is one of the issues that I had to grapple with from the very outset of my job was I had a number of citizens who were asking questions about a provision in the Alaska Constitution about the investigative grand jury.

And what I had seen was a wide array of interpretations from lawyers and non-lawyers and judges about the meaning of those 20 words or so in, uh, in the Alaska Constitution. And, um, and so one of the things I, I did is I, I asked, uh, I asked my team, but I also asked a, a law professor, um, who, uh, uh, grew up in Alaska. He's a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, uh, and he's an expert in, uh, constitutional law, criminal law, state constitutions, and and originalism, I asked him if he'd be willing to do some independent research into the meaning of this provision. He was willing to do that at no cost to the state. He put out his article, I think maybe like a month ago or so, and I thought it was an interesting contribution to the academic exercise of determining what, what these provisions might mean, and I thought it was very interesting.

And so I was invited to participate in this webinar to talk about that project, and then others who are much more steeped into these methodologies of interpretation were talking about their project. For example, there was a professor from Oxford who has put together something called, I think it was, the Quill Project, and he is trying to put together the state constitutions and the original sources of those constitutions for all 50 states onto a website so that they're more accessible and researchable. And so we talked a little bit about that. Thank you. I appreciate that and learning more about your talk and invitation to speak.

With your conversations with your team looking into the concept of originalism as well as your colleagues' project itself, does the discussion about textualism and looking at the original understanding of the Alaska Constitution— is that in the case law? Has that been used in case law by the Supreme Court of our state? Representative Mena, it's— it's a— that's a great question. I am told by smarter lawyers than me who have worked or clerked for the Alaska Supreme Court that originalism has not been necessarily an interpretive tool by the Alaska Supreme Court, perhaps, perhaps because many of the Alaska Supreme Court justices over the last years knew the framers personally. And so maybe it wasn't viewed as necessary, but— and that was something else that sort of came up in the conversation.

There are also constitutional texts out there, I think one of the professors mentioned this on the webinar, where they expressly disclaim originalism in the Constitution. Which of course means you wouldn't use it to interpret the text. And that was talked about as well.

I'm actually curious about that. I have the book on the last—. Representative Mena, I'm going to have you do your follow-up. Okay. First, I'm just going to state for the public and for the public who's been waiting online to testify, I am so sorry.

Thank you for waiting. We have an in-person former attorney general who's also been waiting. We are going to have to go to the floor at 3:00 PM. We will take public testimony at 6:00 PM. We will resume at 6:00 PM if the Attorney General can be here.

I'll go at ease.

We'll resume— we'll begin with public testimony at 6:00 PM. Representative Mena, your one last follow-up. Thank you. So what is your personal stance on originalism? And as you discuss that, you know, it hasn't been really used as a tool by the Supreme Court in their interpretation of the Constitution, are you— how are you reconciling your own personal views on originalism with what has been precedent in our case law.

Representative Mena, I think my familiarity with originalism has stemmed mostly from the United States Constitution, and the United States Supreme Court's use of originalism to determine the meaning of the Constitution.

And I— but I should say that I have not— I have not talked to my appellate team about whether or not it should be used.

It's an interesting question, but like I said, what I've learned recently is that it is not a methodology that our Alaska Supreme Court necessarily uses. I do think there's a use of textualism, and trying to come at the plain meaning of the text by our Alaska Supreme Court. But in terms of originalism, my understanding is that it's not— it's not done. Thank you. Thank you, everybody.

So we'll go at ease. I actually like Representative Mena's idea of us starting back 15 minutes after floor adjourns. We will do— but since a lot of people who were online logged off to come back at 6:00 PM, we'll do public testimony at 6:00 PM. No matter what, even if it's just me here, we will do this, the public testimony at 6 PM, but we'll resume our questions 15 minutes after floor ends. That way we make sure that we finish, we get your public testimony, and we get the Attorney General and his family to their flight.

At ease.