Alaska Legislature: House Judiciary — May 4, 2026 4:15pm

Back on the record after a shorter than expected floor session. I will just say for any folks watching that I will keep my word and begin public testimony at 6 PM. I'm going to, I'm going to take up public testimony at 6 PM even if we could do public testimony earlier, but I will be here at 6 PM in case anyone calls in at 6 PM as we instructed earlier, and we will allow public testimony at 6 PM. We left off in our questions for Attorney General Cox with Representative Mina. Did you have any additional follow-ups about originalism?

Okay. I will state that you did mention that our kids have the same piano teacher.

This is a comment I probably shouldn't make, but I will just say that I do pay for my kids' piano lessons with my salary. I— my kids go to public school, so I have to pay for, um, junior Nordic and Divos and piano lessons and swim team with my legislative salary because I don't have the allotment. Um, I want to ask a question about education though. Uh, can you talk about, um, I believe Mr. Charles Gartland, um, joined the Alaska Bar in September and is— he's working for the Department of Law. You recruited him to come up to Alaska, is that correct?

Jeremy Gray, I certainly recruited him to the position. He is a retired Air Force JAG officer. He, I think, retired in September. He grew up here in Anchorage, went to the University of Alaska in Anchorage. And served his country for 20-some-odd years, just retired.

And he applied for the position of director within the Civil Division. And I think he became a member of the bar around that time. Okay. So he's in a position of director at the Department of Law? Yes.

And he's also the president of Thomas More Classical Christian School?

He is the chairman of the board. Chairman of the board. I guess there was a line of questioning about recusal. Would he need to recuse from any cases dealing with allotments and private schools? And I guess just the same thing, since he is serving in the Department of Law and also chairman of the board for a private Christian school.

So Chairman Gray, if I can go back to the way that we thought about this last fall, was with respect to our use of allotment funds for homeschool and tutoring and piano, because we are enrolled in the Correspondence School program. I would assume that the same analysis that existed for me would also apply with respect to Mr. Gartland. Um, uh, the question that we're dealing with presently is, given that we learned that on the website there is an anticipation that the school may, uh, ultimately be a vendor for some of the, um, correspondence school programs and correspondence schools, um, That's a question that I've asked my ethics lawyers to consider in addition to what they considered last fall. Okay. But I do not have an answer on that question yet.

Thank you. Well, I'll just say, and it's my opinion and I'm not an attorney, that there's an appearance of conflict of interest if there are lawyers in the Department of Law who are basically working on, uh, private schools and allotments and public money going to private schools, even if it's all above board, that, that's— as a member of the public, I see that, and I think that I would be more comfortable if, um, the chairman of the board of a private school and the treasurer of the board of the private school wouldn't work on those particular cases. Chairman, if I, if I may, the exact question that I asked on Friday after learning of this development was exactly that. Okay, thank you.

Any questions right now? I have a few. Seeing none, I'll proceed. I'm wondering if you could just teach us about the separation between church and state and what role the Alaska AG would play with regards to maintaining a separation between church and state. Chairman Gray, separation of church and state is a phrase, but I prefer to go through kind of the Establishment Clause.

And what you're looking for there is whether the government would respect or do something that would respect an establishment of religion. And what you're looking for is whether the government is therefore kind of regulating or giving preference to a particular establishment of religion.

I know that there's a lot of discussion about separation of church and state, but that's how I see it, is the Constitution, the establishment. Well, thanks. I'm just bouncing back to the conversation we had just before our break about the case with the crucifix in the classroom. And I guess it's my perhaps misunderstanding that part of the separation of church and state was that when you're in public school, your teacher isn't promoting a particular religion, namely hers, for example, to the students. Chairman Gray, this is an issue that was actually resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Kennedy case.

Several years ago, and the issue in that case, if I remember the facts correctly, was whether a coach could pray and allow students to voluntarily participate in such prayer, and whether that amounted to the establishment— respecting the establishment of the establishment an Establishment Clause problem. Sorry for jumbling my words there. That's okay. And that's the, really the narrow position of the brief in the case in the Second Circuit that we discussed before, and we think that the district court just got that wrong. Roger that.

I'm sorry, I'm still coming to terms with my notes after the break. I just want to make sure. So it's Arroyo-Castro v. Gaspar is the— what we've been corrected, it was an Iowa case not authored by Jenna Lawrence, RSG. So we've corrected that. And that case is not about separation of church and state, or maybe misunderstanding, because our— Alaska's position is that it is okay for teachers to display foot-high crucifixes in their classroom.

And that wouldn't be a violation of church and state. Chairman Gray, in that case, given that the policy that was in place, the teacher's display of a crucifix, which I think the teacher had said was something that she uses for the expression of her religion, meaning that she may pray in front of it, that, allowing that, is not an Establishment Clause violation. Okay. Any other questions? I want to talk about another case, and again, you can correct me if I'm wrong, I believe this one was written by Solicitor General Jenna Lawrence.

This would be in X-A versus Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District. Chairman Gray, that, that brief was written by our Solicitor General and our Deputy Solicitor General together. Okay, so my first question about that is that's a state court, not a federal court issue, is that correct? Chairman Gray, that's correct. Okay, so in this brief, the state is defending the Matsuko School Board and their policy that mandates students use the bathroom that corresponds with the gender that they were assigned at birth, correct?

Chair McGrath, it's, it's, uh, it's broader than that, but it's a, it's a policy that, um, uh, that it says that the students, the parents, the, the teachers, um, they would use the, the bathroom corresponding to their biological sex, um, and for everyone, regardless of reason, regardless of person, they can have an accommodation and use a private bathroom. That is the policy. Okay. So how common is it for the Solicitor General to write amicus briefs dealing with state issues? I mean, I guess she hasn't written a lot of briefs, so— I guess this would be 50% of the amicus briefs that she's written.

Chairman Gray, I believe that the State of Alaska has authored several briefs over the last— amicus briefs over the last decade or two in front of the Alaska Supreme Court. In fact, the Alaska Supreme Court does from time to time in private party litigation ask for the state's views. Right. So I guess, and again, this is just new for me, and I apologize to everyone for going over some sort of boring things, but you stated earlier that the new Solicitor General brings to the Department of Law experience in federal litigation and connections with other state attorney generals, other solicitor generals around the country. So I'm curious about how that background is relevant to a matter of Alaska constitutional law litigated exclusively in Alaska State Court.

Chairman, I believe, and I could be incorrect, but I believe that the lawsuit may raise state and federal issues with respect to equal protection and the right to privacy is Alaska-specific. But on something like this, where it's a private party litigation, that is going to decide a matter of such importance as the Alaska right to privacy. It is entirely appropriate for the state of Alaska to weigh in. This is something that I thought the Solicitor General and the Deputy Solicitor General, who has practiced law in Alaska for years, should tackle together. To represent the state's position on these matters of import.

Understood. And I guess, how long did you guys debate whether or not the state should be supporting the child or the school board? And how did you decide that the per— the folks who need the most support is the school board, not the child? Chairman, I would put it another way. Um, I think our role is to support the law, the law of Alaska.

And sometimes it's— you can write a brief that's in support of neither party.

In Alaska, the— in front of the Alaska Supreme Court, I believe there's not actually a particular rule that allows for an amicus brief in support of neither party. I think you have to take a position one way or the other. But I would view our role as speaking to the court about Alaska law. You said a moment ago that this also has possible federal implications. I'm curious about, to your knowledge, is this issue in the— with the Mat-Su School Board and this particular child, are other school districts in Alaska implicated with this ruling?

Are a lot of other school districts dealing with the same issue? Chairman Gray, I'm not sure if I know the answer to that question. I would, as a— speaking as a citizen, I would assume so, but I don't— that's not a question that I've researched, but I would assume so. Got it.

I don't mean this question to be disrespectful, but it sounds like the Solicitor General worked with another experienced Alaska attorney on this one. And so again, I'm just really trying to wrap my head around about what the job duties are of the new Solicitor General. And sounds like this particular amicus brief was written largely with this experienced Alaska attorney. I'm tracking that the only other amicus brief that she's authored is the one that she took no position on about ballots arriving on Election Day. Is that correct?

So, just to be clear, since she started, she's authored one and then with help this one. Chairman Gray, she has been contributing and working with the department on a wide number of issues. She has tried to provide additional capacity to our criminal appellate section and our civil appellate section. These are some of the finest lawyers in the state, and they're also very, very busy, and so she provides additional capacity on that front as well. She also helps with the review of the briefs that come in.

Like I said, we receive hundreds of those, and she is available to my entire team to be a resource on any number of legal issues, and so I don't want to— I don't want you to think that, you know, she's in this office and she's only worked on 2 briefs. She is working very hard for the state. She brings a lot of talent and excellence with respect to appellate litigation. And, uh, and I, I, I just want to be very clear about that, um, that she brings a lot to the table. Okay.

Um, at the beginning of the hearing, I mentioned that you and I are about the same age.

I've always wondered what it would have been like if I'd been born 50 years earlier, 50 years later. You know, my life experience is because of the time that I was born in. Um, at this particular moment in history, I believe that I was born at the exact perfect moment for someone like me.

Thanks to the gay rights movement that began before I was born, I have been able to serve in the military as an openly gay man and to marry my husband. Together we have adopted our son and have built a life together for our family. In 2022, I was elected to this body Um, I always like to believe that things get better over time, that the rights and privileges that have slowly come thanks to the LGBTQ rights movement, that they'll continue to grow. And, and, you know, the, the, the gay kids who come after me will have it better than I did.

But there are reasons to have concern that LGBTQ kids will grow up in a world where they don't have the freedoms that I had. They may not be able to serve openly in the military. They may not be able to marry the person they love. They may not be able to have children and, and have families. And so I guess maybe I shouldn't have that concern.

Can you reassure me as Alaska AG that me and my family have nothing to worry about? Chairman Gray, um, my role as Attorney General is to uphold and defend the law for all Alaskans. Um, my client is the people of Alaska. Um, my fidelity is to the law. You are right that the laws have developed, and we believe in the rule of law.

There's a, there's a reason that, uh, respectfully, you ran for office to, to put your imprint on the law, and that's a really good thing. And, and I'm glad that we have citizens who run for office and who work on developing the law. That's very important. And I will protect and defend and enforce the laws that you pass every day and all day, uh, regardless of, uh, my personal opinions about those laws. My fidelity, my oath is to the law.

My follow-up is going to be about, um, Roe v. Wade being overturned in June 2022. Justice Clarence Thomas argued in a concurring opinion with Dobbs that the Supreme Court, quote, "should reconsider its past rulings codifying rights to contraception access, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage." Thomas wrote that the justices should, quote, "reconsider all of this court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," end quote, referring to three cases having to do with Americans' fundamental privacy, due process, and equal protection rights. Do you agree with Justice Clarence Thomas that there are more cases beyond Roe v. Wade that should be reconsidered now that we have a robust conservative majority on the Supreme Court? Chairman Gray, on this issue, what we're talking about here is a doctrine called stare decisis and how the Supreme Court should respect its prior precedents. There are a number of factors that go into that analysis: reliance interests, the number of times that the US Supreme Court has reiterated and upheld prior precedents, and that's that's how those cases ought to be handled.

Justice Thomas, I think he would take a much more textualist and originalist perspective on the methodology of how those cases are decided, and would be open to reconsidering those cases in a lot more other cases than, say, some of the other Supreme Court justices. Famously, former— the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia would sometimes call himself a faint-hearted originalist, meaning that he would— he really believed in textualism and originalism as a way to interpret the Constitution, but he was a little faint-hearted because sometimes there are just cases that are precedent, or sometimes it's called super precedent, that ought not to be disturbed.

And I think there's room for disagreement on the US Supreme Court about those issues, and I am not, thankfully, in those positions of deciding when a precedent or a super precedent should be overturned, um, with respect to the cases that you cited, I have zero expectation that any of those precedents will be disturbed. I would expect that at most you'd have one or two US Supreme Court justices who would be open to reconsidering those cases. But I don't see any risk of those cases being disturbed. Thank you. I appreciate the answer.

I'll just say that Neil Gorsuch, at his confirmation hearings, gave an answer very similar to yours about stare decisis. And of course, we saw how that turned out with Roe v. Wade. So, you know, folks who say they're not here to overturn precedent sometimes change their opinion over time and are willing to overturn precedent. I mean, I guess my original question was, my family has nothing to worry about?

Chairman Gray, um, from my posture, um, I have no intent or plans to seek overturn of those decisions, um, in my capacity as Attorney General for Alaska. Thank you. Uh, last week in Senate State Affairs, you explained that you were still learning about Alaska's privacy protections Um, when we had spoken on the podcast, um, I had asked about Lawrence v. Texas and, um, U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson's opinions about it being a bad decision. You had said that you would need to reread it, but I guess, um, and for folks who don't know, it overturned sodomy laws. And I guess, do you believe it's an open question whether or not Alaska could legislate what happens between two consenting adults in their bedroom?

Sharon Gray, I, I don't— I want to be very careful about answering hypotheticals. Um, obviously there, there may be some illegal behaviors that occur inside the house that have nothing to do with sex, uh, that are still illegal. Um, but if you're asking about, uh, is there a risk of, uh legislating around sodomy? The answer is no, I hope not. Okay.

Also, at Senate State Affairs last week, you didn't directly answer a question from Senator Wilkowski about whether you would defend same-sex marriage if there were to be a challenge. Um, it sounds like you don't anticipate there being a challenge. Um, so I guess does that make it a moot question since if it's probably not going to happen then you don't really need to take a firm stance on it. Chairman Gray, I have no plans, and I can tell you that I, I spoke to my team. There are no plans.

There are no anticipated plans within the Department of Law to challenge same-sex marriage at all.

I would say I feel reassured, but I'm not sure I do. I mean, and it may just be that it's not possible for you to reassure me. I think that there's a lot of, um, worry about those particular issues. I think there are some folks who believe that the LGBTQ rights movement has gone too far, and that may not be you, but there are some that believe that, and they want to claw back some of the rights and privileges that, um, we've achieved. And in America today, I would say there is a lot of stress within that community.

And so I felt compelled to do this line of questioning, and thanks for engaging in it. Are there any other questions from committee members?

So— Representative Mina. Yeah, thank you, Chair Gray, and thank you again for being patient and being in front of the committee. I guess I, you know, I share the same concerns with Rep Gray, and I really empathize with a lot of the anxiety that a lot of the LGBTQ community is feeling right now. And so I'm trying to reconcile between what you said about your job as AG is to defend the law and what we have in the Constitution. And the worst part that we have in the Constitution right now, in my opinion, is this provision that we have in Article 1, Section 24, I believe, 25, that marriage may only exist between one man and one woman.

And so I understand the Department of Law is not interested in trying to overturn gay marriage. But if someone were to try to litigate that through the courts, how do you reconcile what's currently in the Alaska Constitution?

Representative Mena, I would assume that after the Obergefell decision from the U.S. Supreme Court, that provision of the Alaska Supreme Court is unenforceable and dead law.

And that's that. Thank you. Thank you. At this time, we have one public testimony in the room and we have one person online. I think we'll go ahead and take them now, and then we will go at ease and I will come back for my notice public testimony at 6 PM.

And I guess, uh, yes, we'll open public testimony now. Public testimony is now open, um, if there's anyone in the room who would like to come forward. You have 3 minutes to testify on the confirmation of Attorney General-designee Stephen Cox.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Bruce Patello. I'm a resident of Juneau. I testify today in opposition to the confirmation of Stephen Cox as Attorney General. The Attorney General of Alaska is the state's chief legal officer. The office demands sound judgment, independence from partisan and private interests, respect for the Alaska constitutional framework, and a disciplined sense of when the power of the office should and should not be used.

Based on his record in office, Mr. Cox's conduct falls short of what I think the public should expect and what I think the office itself demands. His decision to relitigate the Katie John line of cases was, I think, a serious misjudgment. The only real beneficiaries were the outside lawyers who represented the state. He signed off on the transfer of Alaska's voter files to the Department of Justice, disregarding Alaska's explicit privacy provisions. Will he challenge President Trump's March 31st, 2026 executive order authorizing the Department of Justice to sue any state official issuing a ballot to a person not on Homeland Security's citizenship list.

In the first 7 months since his appointment, Mr. Cox has made Alaska a serial participant in national ideological litigation, joining more than 110 cases around the country. And you've briefly touched on it today, and I will not try to catalog them now, but I would say that almost without exception, there was no Alaska-specific legal necessity for our state to take those positions. I'd also note that of roughly 50 of the cases that I reviewed, I saw none that had actually been authored by an attorney general from a Democratic state. By contrast, when Alaska's interests were clearly and directly at stake before the Supreme Court in a case that will decide whether absentee ballots received after Election Day can be counted, he meekly declared that Alaska's interest was only to seek clarity on the deadlines. To me, that was an embarrassing abdication of the advocacy Alaskans are entitled to expect from their chief legal officer.

Mr. Cox has also repeatedly used the megaphone of his office to escalate local issues into public confrontations. He attacked Chugach Electric's Cents for Community Charitable Roundup program as a First Amendment crisis. He publicly accused Alaska Airlines of undermining prosecutions and shielding criminal activity. And he portrayed the Anchorage School District's longstanding non-endorsement stickers on outside materials as evidence that the school board members had violated their oaths of office. The power of the Attorney General is largely the power of voice—what issues he chooses to elevate, how he characterizes them, and when he deploys the threat of state legal action.

When that voice is used to chase national headlines, amplify partisan talking points or intimidate local officials without clear statutory authority. It cheapens the office and erodes public trust. The office requires discipline, humility before the facts, and unwavering devotion to Alaska's Constitution and people. On the record before you, he has not met that standard, and I respectfully urge you to reject his confirmation. Thank you for your testimony, Miss former Attorney General.

Fratello. We'll now go online. We have Judy Miller in Homer. If you'll please take yourself off mute and put yourself on the record and begin your testimony.

Hi, I am Judy Miller of Homer. Thank you, Chair Gray and committee, for the opportunity to testify. I oppose the confirmation of AG-designee Stephen Cox. His recent interviews by legislative committees has only served To further reinforce my opposition, Cox has little understanding or appreciation of the Alaskan Constitution. He responded to many questions saying how he has had to make strategic choices.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Based more on his conservative politics than Alaska's law or interests. While claiming to be excited to work on matters central to the state, he regularly failed Alaska. He filed many amicus briefs which were at the least irrelevant to, or at worst actually counter to, to Alaskans' interests. Mr. Cox seriously failed Alaskans by participating in sending confidential voter data to the federal government after claiming Alaska would only send non-confidential data.

He had, quote, "I support cooperating even when Fed actions are overreaching," end quote. He claimed to be continuing an Alaskan, quote, "procedure of cooperation," end quote. That's never been Alaska's default position when it's counter to Alaska interests. He claimed to have legally that have motivated to engage in data integrity. It has been shown that the review process the feds are now using is not at all accurate, not to mention counter to U.S.

Constitution Article 1 states, right? When opportunity arose, Mr. Cox failed to stand up for Alaska's unique and challenging absentee ballot mailing system. He did not support Mississippi and votes received after Election Day. His chance to actually further Alaskans' voting interests was squandered.

Kāpiti learning about Alaskans' right to privacy. Isn't understanding and enforcing Alaska's Constitution and rights the primary job of the AG? I am not at all reassured by Mr. Cox's answers. He appears willing to overturn precedent that doesn't meet his personal choices while having little knowledge of Alaska or respect for Alaskan interests.

A guy who isn't clear about Alaska's Constitution, voter sentiments, or our right to privacy is obviously not the correct choice Mr. Buck, as Attorney General, please do not confirm. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Miller, for your testimony today. I'm going to go at ease.

Public testimony will remain open. We will resume public testimony at 6 PM for anyone who wants to join us. Um, at this time, I'll have, uh, Attorney General Stephen Cox come up. I am going to ask just a couple, two questions that Attorney General Botello brought up, and then you can do any concluding statements. But in his testimony, he said that the March 31st, 2026 executive order about the Homeland Security voter list, and that if an election official were to give ballot to someone not on that list that they could be in trouble.

Can you respond to that? Chairman Gray, I have not read that executive order. An executive order is, of course, binding only on the executive branch within the federal government, and so I don't think it will have any kind of full effect here in Alaska. But again, I have not read that executive order. Okay, thank you.

And then the second question that came up from his testimony is that he'd reviewed 50 of the 110 amicus briefs. To your knowledge, have— has Alaska under your tenure signed on to any amicus briefs that were authored by Democratic Solicitor Generals or Attorney Generals? Chairman Gray, I don't know the answer to that question. We receive request to join through different organizations. For example, the National Association of Attorneys General circulates briefs.

I don't know, and I don't frequently look to whether or not it's a, say, so-called blue state or red state. I will say that We probably don't get invited to join a lot of the Democratic AG-led briefs, but again, we receive numerous requests from multi-state— or from multi-state organizations like the National Association of Attorneys General. I do believe that we have signed on to even recently some multistate letters that were authored by so-called blue states. I believe there was a letter relating to pharmacy benefit managers and the FTC's rulemaking relating to that industry that might have been authored out of California. I could be wrong, could be Massachusetts.

So there are, are some examples, but I don't know off the top of my head. Thank you. Any final questions from committee?

Seeing none, I want to thank you for coming back. It's been a really long day. Thanks to your family for sticking with us for a very long time. And if there's any last comments that you'd like to make, Thank you, Chairman Gray. Thank you, members of the committee, for considering my nomination.

This, this process is an important one. You've got an important role to play.

I love this state. I love the rule of law. I love this job. I would love to continue to serve. I respect that there's room for disagreement.

I would have taken this job even if I had known that it was only going to be 8 or 9 months. It's a privilege to work in this job for the state of Alaska, and I hope you'll consider supporting me. But that's of course your call. Thank you so much. House Judiciary will stand at ease until 6 PM for resumption of public testimony.

At ease.

In accordance with AS 39.05.080, the Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing on the following appointee: Stephen Cox, Alaska Attorney General. A signature on this report does not reflect an intent by any of the members to vote for or against ratification of the individual during any further session. We will now go at ease to sign the paperwork.