SJUD-260501-1330

Meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee to order is 1:30 PM on Friday, May 1st, 2026. Before we begin, I want to thank Juliana Singh, the Senate Judiciary Secretary, who makes sure we have a transcript of our meetings, and Doug Bridges from the Juneau LIO, who makes sure we have sound. At this time, I want to remind committee members and all those in the room to please silence your cell phones. Present today, we have Senator Tilton, Senator Stevens, Senator Tobin, my Vice Chair Senator Keele, and myself, Senator Clayman. We have a quorum to conduct business.

The first item on our agenda today is confirmation hearings. The President referred the following governor's appointment to the Judiciary Committee: the Attorney General for the Department of Law. Members have already received Mr. Cox's resume, and Mr. Cox is here with his family. Mr. Cox, if you would please join us in the front, put yourself on the record, and you may begin your remarks.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, members of this committee. If it's all right, I'd like to introduce my family before I begin. Please. My wife, my lovesome wife Christina, is behind us.

To her left is Hulda. She is 11. She's really enjoying all of the popcorn in our office. That's her favorite part of this trip so far. I've got Lawrence here to my right.

Lawrence is hoping that Alaska gets Waymo, although he's very uncertain as to whether the Waymos will be able to handle moose and bears and ice. And then in the back, all the way back, if you can wave your hand. That's my oldest, Esther, and she thinks that the legislative branch is the most interesting.

Well, that will just show that she's exercising sound judgment.

Well, thank you again. I've had the opportunity to testify yesterday before State Affairs, so I'll try not to be repetitive. I'll abbreviate some of the background and focus a little bit more on how I approach this role as a lawyer, particularly the rule of law and the responsibilities that come with this office. It's a privilege to be here. I'm grateful for the opportunity to be considered for confirmation, and I, and I thank the governor for his decision to appoint me.

And thank you to my family and to my colleagues at the Department of Law. It is a privilege to work alongside them every day. I appreciate this opportunity. I don't take this process lightly. As I said yesterday, borrowing a phrase, I wasn't born in Alaska, but I got here as fast as I could.

I've lived and practiced in a lot of places, but Alaska is now home to me, and we love it here. We came here with purpose. Yes, there was a job working for Bristol Bay Industrial, but it was more than that. It was the people, the community, and the opportunity to raise a family in a place that builds character. We told ourselves we'd give ourselves a few winters before deciding whether it was a permanent move.

My oldest daughter figured it out first. Within a year, she said she wanted to stay. But we are here for good. My connection to Alaska goes back about 15 years. I worked on Alaska energy projects earlier in my career, starting in 2011.

Helping to navigate the legal and regulatory challenges of operating in the Cook Inlet for Apache Corporation. 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 and grant-making components. That includes work touching Alaska, reviewing settlements involving Alaska Native plaintiffs where subsistence impacts were part of the remedy, and helping support the deployment of over $10 million in emergency and public, public safety funding to rural communities after Attorney General Bill Barr's trip in 2019. I've now worked with, within two state attorneys general offices. I've worked for two federal law enforcement office agencies, and I've worked at DOJ headquarters and as a United States Attorney.

These roles require exercising judgment in real time over investigations, enforcement priorities, and legal decisions where the consequences were immediate and significant. Then I came here and I served as a general counsel for an investment platform within the Bristol, Bristol Bay Native Corporation. That gave me a different perspective, seeing firsthand both the opportunities and the challenges of operating in the state. But also in Western Alaska, where logistics and fuel costs and remoteness, uh, are very challenging and shape everyday life. Before I turn to the work we've been doing over the last 8 months, let me just say a word about how I approach the 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. I've spent much of my career in law enforcement settings where the stakes are real. Decisions affect liberty, public safety, and public trust. That experience shapes how I approach this office. The question is not just what we can do, it's what we should do consistent with the law, the Constitution, and the responsibilities of the office.

Some of the hardest decisions in the job are not what to bring, but what not to bring. And that's where judgment can matter the most. That brings me to what we've been working up on over the last 8 months, or at least what we've been prioritizing in my tenure. This job became very real for me very quickly. You're dealing with problems people see every day on their streets, in their stores, and in their communities.

And one of the hardest challenges we're taking on is quality of life crime, particularly in Anchorage. What I saw early on is that it's not just a prosecution problem, it's a systemic problem. Retail theft, public disorder, and drug activity are connected, and they're often driven by a relatively small number of repeat offenders and problem locations. So we've taken an all-of-government approach, working with the municipality, law enforcement, other state agencies, and the private sector. We've cross-designated prosecutors so state and municipal attorneys can use each other's authorities.

We're using civil tools like abatement actions and data from retailers to identify patterns and build stronger cases. That approach comes directly from my federal experience, where coordination and shared information are essential to addressing complex problems. At the same time, I want to be clear about the department's top priority, and that's domestic violence and sexual assault, especially in rural Alaska. Those are our hardest cases. They require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, careful investigation, strong coordination with law enforcement.

They also require sustained partnerships across agencies and jurisdictions, and we can't afford to approach those cases in isolation. Another area I focused on is consumer protection. Alaska has some of the strongest consumer protection laws in the country, and I believe we can afford to enforce them more aggressively. So we've leaned in. We've taken actions against platforms that solicited donations for Alaska nonprofits with their— without their We've addressed grocery pricing practices where customers were charged more than the shelf price.

We've challenged utility practices that required customers to opt out of programs that they never affirmatively joined. A third area is helping to allow— unleash Alaska's potential, particularly through federal partnerships and the execution of the executive order on Alaska. Many of the barriers here are not about policy. They're about execution, layers of process, overlapping jurisdictions, and slow-moving systems. So I've spent time working those channels.

Much of that work is not visible, but it matters. Before I close, I want to briefly address a couple of issues that I understand are of interest to the committee in particular. Alaska has joined in multi-state amicus briefs for decades. Over the last 20 years, the state has been asked to join well over 1,000 briefs and has joined hundreds, including more than 500 in the last 7 years. These briefs that Alaska has joined are drafted by another state attorney general and circulated for others to join.

We are not asked to edit or rewrite those briefs. The review is therefore narrow and often done on short timelines. Does Alaska have an interest? Is the legal position sound? And is it consistent with states— with the state's past positions?

That's sort of the narrow review that we engage with. And because these briefs often raise both law and policy issues, we coordinate with the governor's office. If you step back and look at the categories, what you see is continuity. In the past decade or two, Alaska has joined dozens of briefs across the same core areas: Second Amendment, state sovereignty, federal overreach, First Amendment and religious freedom, election law, executive authority, environmental issues, and immigration. Dozens across each of those categories.

These are not new categories of cases. Alaska has been in those lanes for years. Going forward, I'd like Alaska to take more of a leadership role Authoring more of our own briefs and shaping the arguments directly, as opposed to just being a joiner. When Alaska writes, if you see our briefs, the focus is always on the law. Our briefs are measured and lawyerly.

They avoid much of the rhetoric you might see elsewhere, uh, from elected attorneys general who, who write those briefs. That's the department style, and that's my approach. And that's part of the reason why I created the Office of the State Solicitor General. And to be fair, we had two incredible civil and criminal appellate teams. Um, and, and, and, and I'll, I'll just be candid.

I think we called each of the heads of those briefs, uh, State Solicitor General of Criminal, State Solicitor General of, of Civil. What I did is I created an office that was in the front office called the State Solicitor General. And I made those two section chiefs Deputy Solicitors General. And I hope that it's a little bit more coordinated. But the reason that I did that, or part of the reason I did that, is because nearly every state has a State Solicitor General.

And I recruited somebody to fill that role, and she's working closely with our appellate teams, civil and criminal, and she adds capacity. She brings a more strategic approach to appellate litigation, especially in cases outside the state. Now, some have criticized me for hiring someone from outside Alaska. I see it differently. I came here 5 years ago.

And I'm not leaving. I hope to stay. Since then, I've been in the recruitment business. For all 5 years, I've been trying to recruit people for private sector jobs, public service jobs, lawyer jobs, non-lawyer jobs, and I'll keep doing that. We're the only store— uh, we, we're the only state without a law school, and one day I'd like to see that change to help train lawyers here and to keep them here.

But in the meantime, I want to keep bringing talent into the state, and I'm proud that we recruited a talented appellate lawyer to work alongside the outstanding lawyers that we already have in Alaska. Let me just close with this. My family chose this state. We love it here. If confirmed, you'll get my best judgment.

You'll get straight answers. You'll get someone who understands that this office belongs to the people of the Alask— of the State of Alaska. And thank you. I'd be happy to answer any questions. So just a quick note.

We have—. I think there may be lots of questions. We're going to spend about 15 minutes, questions from the committee. Then we'll take both invited and public testimony and then return to committee questions. And somewhere with 5 or 10 minutes left in our session, we'll need to wind up with questions so that we can take up the one bill that's on our agenda after the confirmation hearing.

Senator Stevens, you're first up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Attorney General, for being here and the opportunity to meet your spouse and your children. I'm going to start with a softball question, but nonetheless a very important one. We've been experiencing public distrust in government, political polarization around the country, around the state. You had some misunderstandings with the Anchorage School Board on teaching the importance of basic American documents, Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution.

You can address that or not, whatever you like. But I really want to focus on the bigger issue. The Pew Research Center recently conducted a survey. It showed that public trust in our government at its lowest level since 1958. 70%— Only 17% of respondents said they trust their government to do the right thing.

So distrust, polarization, is rampant in this country and in this state. We're seeing a widespread civic ignorance, I believe. We're seeing a distrust in our institutions, in the US Supreme Court even, distrust in one another, toxic levels of political polarization. And assuming we can respect each other, respect every citizen, every Alaskan, whether they're to the left of you or me or to the right of you or me, what can you do as one of the highest officials in this state in our government to bring Alaskans together, to help them understand what it means to be a citizen, particularly our young people, to help them, to help all of us in the polarization we are seeing that is separating Alaskans one from another. Through the chair, Senator, thank you very much for that question.

I share your concerns and I appreciate the question. I'm happy to address the the issue about Anchorage School District, but let me just start with sort of the broader question. I don't know how we solve the problem of distrust in government. I wish I did. I think there are a lot of problems that we face, even with respect to just sort of the social media and sort of the viral nature of how political attacks here and there are slung about and then become viral.

I think, I think part of what we're experiencing is an addiction to that kind of viral political attacks on one another. What I think I can bring to the table is a measured approach, an interest in working across the aisle alongside people who I know disagree with me, in terms of a variety of issues. This is something that I've done all throughout my career. I've, I've, I've worked in most of the enterprises that I've worked with inside. I was surrounded by people who might disagree with me with respect to politics or public policy, or even the law and how to interpret the law.

But what you find is that I can work with, with anyone, and I'm happy to sit down with anyone. I take the same measured approach to identifying problems, finding solutions, finding obstacles in the way, attacking those, those problems head-on. And I, and I don't want to worry about the politics. A case in point is the one that I just mentioned with respect to the city of Anchorage. We have a a quality of life crime situation and a public safety situation that is very hard, multifaceted, lots of different challenges, not just with respect to prosecutorial resources or investigative resources or, you know, decades of non-enforcement or decades of lack of resources.

You've got jurisdictional challenges. You've got mental health issues. You have homelessness issues. You have drug addiction issues. And you have politics.

There are politics. If you read how the media have been covering these issues over the last, say, year, 2 years, 3 years, you see the politics. When I approach this this problem, I asked the governor if I could work on it with the mayor and that we could take the politics out of it and partner it, partner together and take an all-of-government approach. And I was very glad that he was excited about doing that. And we have had, I think, a very constructive dialogue and partnership with the mayor.

And I'm very proud of that. There is a risk of failure. This is a hard problem. And when you announce an initiative on such a hard problem, the people expect results immediately. And I won't be able to deliver results.

It'll take months, maybe years to reverse some of these challenges. But I'm willing to do that. I'm also willing to talk about it. I'll have those discussions here. I'll have those discussions with you.

I'll have those discussions with the media. I think that's a good thing to restoring public trust in government. But that's a big problem and I don't know how to solve it. But that's what I would do. Thank you.

Senator Tobin, what I'm going to do is everybody gets one question and then we'll get a second round if we have time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, thank you, Mr. Cox, for some of the historic look back. Talking about the amicus briefs, and I'm sure you're not surprised that I have deep disagreements with many of the unrelated-to-Alaska amicus briefs that you signed on to. But I appreciated you pointing out that over the last 7 years, Alaska signed on to 500, which is about a rate of 5.9 a month.

You've signed on to about 13 to 14 per month, and you indicated in your opening remarks that you're intrigued with the idea of us taking more of a leadership role. So I'm curious about staff capacity and time. How much staff capacity and time are you allocating to signing on to these hundreds of unrelated to Alaska amicus briefs? And particularly when you talk about your prioritization, how do you balance that with the other things that are facing Alaska? Which I, I will note, you didn't mention missing and murdered indigenous women, which is very concerning to me, especially after you discussed working with Bill Barr and some of that work.

So, I hope you might reorder the prioritization that you provided in your opening remarks to include that group as well. I appreciate it. Through the Chair, Senator, thank you for those questions. I will try to take those in turn. If I forget, I hope you will give me a chance to remember.

I think, first of all, I think I might disagree a little bit with the premise. Of these briefs not having any relationship to Alaska. Um, and I know that we may disagree on that, but the way that we sort of think about those issues is that each of these briefs presents a legal issue that will ultimately be litigated, whether it's in Alaska or whether it's in other courts of appeal or all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and ultimately will govern Alaskans, because that's how these sort of court decisions play out. And across those categories, Alaska has historically decided that it does have an interest in those issues. In terms of the staffing that goes into it, I— like I said, the review is relatively narrow.

We have probably received over the last 7 years over 1,000 requests to join multi-state briefs. We're not requested or invited to join every multi-state brief, but those are the ones that we have been invited. I would say the review time for each brief, because it is fully researched and written and drafted and cited, you know, site-checked and everything, is probably a few hours per brief summarized for me. There's also analysis to see whether or not it's consistent with prior briefs, and that's usually also part of the recommendation. I look at these, you know, in a smaller time capacity, but that's about the time that it takes.

And I've got a lawyer in the front office who probably spends, I would say, a third of her time working on this. And so that's a rough estimate, the best estimate that I can give you on this. As for murdered and missing Indigenous women and Indigenous people, I just want to clarify one of the things I made the point of in, in my opening remarks are some of the, the new initiatives that, that we've undertaken in the last 8 months. But that is a top priority. It is a, it is a top priority for our partner as well in the Department of Public Safety.

It was something that we worked on when I was at the U.S. Department of Justice in 2019. We actually rolled out an MMIP initiative, and we put coordinators, MMIP coordinators in every U.S. Attorney's Office of the 11 or 12 states that were facing this, this problem, including Alaska. I have a rural prosecution unit. I have a tribal liaison who focuses on these, these cases. Within the Office of Special Prosecutions.

We have attorneys dedicated to this, and we work closely with the Department of Public Safety. There's also, thanks to the legislature, we have a new commission. We— and I recently just appointed a top homicide prosecutor to be the Department of Law representative for that commission as well. It is a very challenging problem. This is affecting rural Alaska especially.

But it has— it is a top priority for the department. And I would love to talk to you more about what we could do to do more. Senator Tilton, any questions? Okay. Senator Keel.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Attorney General-designee Cox, I warned the chairman I had more than 2 questions. But we'll only get 1 at this point. I was going to take Senator Tilton's. We'll start easy, if maybe a little grumpy.

Yesterday, you told one of our state affairs colleagues that you hadn't had the opportunity to take a serious look at the issues that she described of having labor relations in the Department of Law.

You and I talked about that in December when we met. You told me you'd take a look at it.

So, will you take a look at the problems? And if so, when?

Through the Chair, Senator, thank you for that question and thank you for the reminder. And I will take a look at that this weekend. I will say that I have had several conversations about the work of the Labor Relations Section. We have talked about capacity building over the last several months to make sure that we're hiring enough people to work on those issues. We have a relatively new section chief whom I helped hire last fall, and I think in terms of the capacity, I I think the capacity is really good.

What I didn't know when Senator Gray Jackson asked me that question was the reason why it had been moved from the Department of Administration over to the Department of Law. I'm sure I probably learned about that early in my days. But it is not something that I have engaged the governor's office about. And to the extent I may have miscommunicated that yesterday, I'm here to clear the record. That's what I meant in terms of looking into that.

But if there are any particular questions, I'm happy to look at that. And I will look at it this weekend. Thank you. Senator Tilton. See, Jesse, uh, Senator Kill, I wasn't going to let you have this— have my question.

Thank you, Miss— thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, it was a shot. Good one. Um, Mr. Cox, um, you and I have had some conversations about consumer protection issues, and, um, there's, there's some big issues that we have going on, not just in our state, of course, all around the nation. Um, and we've talked a little bit about, um, about Alaska law and Alaska's consumer protection laws.

And what is the balance of the consumer protection laws with also keeping our state open for business? And what is— what are your thoughts on that? Through the chair, Senator, it's a good question. I think, I think we do have some of the best and the strongest consumer protection laws, and that goes to the breadth of the consumer protection laws. It's also goes to the size of the penalties.

I think we— I think what you're asking is the quintessential question of prosecutorial discretion. And what you want to do in order to invite business and to make sure that business is attracted to a state like Alaska is even administration of justice. And that means that the laws that apply to Party A will also be applied to Party B and Party C and Party D based on the same facts. You don't want to have any kind of politics involved in that. You want to have even-handed administration of justice.

This is something I care deeply about. This is something that I have a lot of experience with, especially from my background in the federal side at the Department of Justice. But that means you have to talk about these things with the team. You have to have good guidelines for the prosecution and the civil enforcement lawyers. And you have to play things by the book.

And always seeking to do justice, and that means whether you're deciding to take on a case, whether you're deciding to not take on a case or decline to investigate or decline to prosecute, it meets all of it.

Thank you very much. We're actually at about the 15-minute mark, so what we're going to do now is we're going to first start with invited testimony. Testimony. First, with invited testimony, we have John Sturgeon. Mr. Sturgeon, if you would like to identify yourself for the record as somebody with invited testimony, I'm going to allow you 4 minutes.

Don't feel like you must use it all, but please proceed, Mr. Sturgeon. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. Again, my name is John Sturgeon. I'm a 56-year resident of Alaska.

And today I am speaking for myself. I'm testifying today in support of Steve Cox as Alaska Attorney General. He has shown how to take the president's executive order on Alaska and move it through agencies, through process, and there are real results on the ground. One of the issues that was talked about is near and dear to my heart, and that's Alaska getting its navigable waters that it was promised at statehood. 2 U.S. Supreme Court unanimous decisions on navigability, with the latest being in 2019, the federal government has not passed a single navigable water title to the state of Alaska, not one, not since that decision.

In 68 years, we have only received title to 6% what we were promised. At that rate, it would take hundreds of years for Alaska to get title to its navigable waters and its promised statehood. However, thanks to AG Cox's— Acting AG Cox's effort, that logjam was finally broken last December, and Alaska got title of navigable waters, the first navigable water in 7 years, the 40 Mile River near Chicken. That's because he understood how to engage the Department of the Interior and Department of Justice with the right arguments. His efforts have set the stage to hopefully secure the title to many more of Alaska's rivers and Lakes.

I think everyone would agree that Alaska is a resource development state. I've worked in Alaska's forest product industry for the past 56 years. Securing federal permits has always been one of the major hurdles in starting resource development projects. Since Mr. Cox has operated inside those agency systems at a senior level, he understands where decisions are made and where they will quietly stall and die. That kind of judgment is hard to replace, but much needed if we want Alaska's economy to grow.

Personally, that is very important to me. I want to see my children, my grandchildren, and maybe if I live long enough, great-grandchildren to stay and work in Alaska, a wish that a lot of us have, most everybody has. The president's executive order can help with developing our resources only if someone can execute it. That requires coordination across federal agencies that don't naturally move together. Mr. Cox has already shown he can align state, federal, and local players and keep them moving in the same direction.

Alaska needs that kind of leadership and skill. I believe Mr. Cox has it. Alaska's future runs through federal decisions— lands, water, energy, infrastructure. Steve has spent his career in that space. And knows how to translate Alaska's interests in the terms agencies will actually act on.

Regarding the 8(a) program for Alaska Native Corporations, one of the most fundamental challenges facing the state is the future of the 8(a) program that now applies to Alaska Native Corporations. That's jobs, revenue, economic stability for communities all across Alaska. I work for Alaska Native Corporation for the past 40 years and know firsthand how important that 8(a) program is to those Native corporations. I don't think anybody in the state is better positioned to advance Alaska's interest in an issue than Mr. Cox. He watched the 8(a) program debate play out in Washington for nearly 20 years from the Department of Justice and the private sector and from inside the Alaska Native Corporation.

He understands the law, and the politics. He knows the federal decision-makers. He knows how they think on these issues, and he knows how to engage them effectively. Let's not lose a good man that we really, really need in this place and time in Alaska. I ask you to confirm Steve Cox as Alaska's AG.

Thank you very much for your time, Mr. Chairman and committee members. Thank you very much, Mr. Sturgeon. I I see no questions from the committee. Next we have former Attorney General Bruce Botello, who is in the room with us today. I would just note that, uh, many years ago when he and I were both much younger lawyers than we are today, and before he was the Attorney General, I had the privilege of trying a case against him in the courthouse across the street, I think twice, and that was before he became the Attorney General.

So back in those days I had confidence that we had an Attorney General that had tried a case or two. Mr. Botello, please proceed. Mr. Chairman, and you're still younger.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Bruce Botello. I'm a resident of Juneau, Alaska. I began my career in the Department of Law and served under 6 attorneys general of both parties before I had the honor of being named as attorney general myself. And in the subsequent years, I've had an opportunity to work with I was fortunate to work with most of the attorneys general who followed me, including some whose politics and policies were, to say the least, not aligned with my own, but whose commitment to serving Alaska was never in doubt. In no case did I feel compelled to speak against their confirmation or for that matter against any Cabinet officer.

I sadly do so today, and I want to make clear that in, in my opposition to Attorney General Stephen Cox, it's not in any way connected to a person, uh, from all indications has the highest moral character. So I want to start off with that premises. But as I see it, and this is where we, um, perhaps part ways, The Attorney General of Alaska must be the state's chief legal officer, not its chief cultural warrior. I think the office demands sound judgment. It means independence from partisan and private interests, respect for Alaska's constitutional framework, and a disciplined sense of when the power of the office should, and as importantly, should not be used.

Based on his record of office up to now, I don't believe that Mr. Cox's conduct meets what the public should expect and which— what the office demands. I would start with his decision to relitigate the Katie John case, the line of cases through the Kuskokwim subsistence, as a serious misjudgment. The Supreme Court's widely expected denial of review left Katie John not only intact, but freshly vindicated, while I think wasting state resources and raising false expectations that one more try might somehow produce a different result. The only real beneficiaries for that action were the outside lawyers who represented the state. Attorney General Cox has talked about the number of briefs that have been filed as amicus briefs.

In my review of the first 7 months, Alaska was a participant in some 110 cases, all of which I would describe as ideological litigation. Those filings in which the State of Alaska is putting its own premature— per matter on, on these issues include supporting the— or opposing in this case— birthright citizenship. We've opposed mandatory immunization for communicable diseases. We've supported attacks on DEI-related school funding. We've backed forced arbitration in nursing homes.

We've supported the mid— —decennial partisan redistricting. We've opposed court review of, uh, Kristi Noem's decisions to terminate temporary protected status for thousands of refugees. And we supported the president's removal of a Federal Reserve governor. Whatever one's personal views on these issues, there was no Alaska-specific necessity for our attorney general to take these positions. In some instances, such as the attack on birthright citizen citizenship.

They carry profound and I think harmful implications for Alaskans in the military, on work visas, and in mixed status families. And they stand in direct tension with the inclusive values of Alaska's own Constitution. Mr. Chairman, I noted Senator Stevens' concerns, comments about the divisiveness in our country and asking what steps might be taken. I would suggest that positions such as these, uh, in these, uh, amicus briefs have the effect basically of dividing Alaskans. And one area I would urge, uh— Mr.

Ruteller, you're up to that 4:30 mark. I'll give you about 15 seconds to conclude. Okay. I will, uh, make two final points. I would contrast, um, those cases with one where Alaska had a clear and direct outcome, uh, stake in the outcome, and that is the case that will decide when absentee ballots are counted.

And in this case, Alaska did not defend our— Alaska's Attorney General did not defend our system. Instead of clearly supporting Mississippi's position, which mirrors Alaska's longstanding protections for mailed ballots, he meekly requested that the court provide clarity on the deadlines. In my view, that was an embarrassing abdication of the advocacy Alaskans are entitled to expect from their chief legal officer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

I don't see any questions for Mr. Botello at this point. We're going to open public testimony on the nomination of Stephen Cox, and we're going to start online. Public testimony is open. And if you are— if you are Online, I'd ask you to make sure you're not on a speakerphone. We're going to start in the Anchorage LIO.

Thomas Garber. Mr. Garber, we're limiting time to 2 minutes. Please proceed. [Speaker:THOMAS_GARBER] Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Thomas Garber.

I'm a 30-year resident of Nakiski, Alaska. I ask you to withhold confirmation of Stephen Cox as Attorney General. Mr. General, my concern is not political, it is constitutional. This committee deals with constitutional law. Alaska's Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, declares that the investigative grand jury's power shall never be suspended.

The Alaska Supreme Court confirmed in O'Leary that this anti-suspension clause operates independently of legislature and administrative actions, and that it places no limits on the type of investigation investigations the grand jury may conduct. On April 2nd, Attorney General Cox submitted comments to the Criminal Rules Committee opposing proposed amendments to Rule 6.1. His proposal was to route citizens' grand jury petitions through court-appointed counsel under Administrative Rule 12(e). He called it a simple path. It is not.

It is constitutionally defective on its face for 3 reasons this committee should weigh carefully in evaluating his fitness for office. First, his own cited authority defeats him. He relied on a Harvard Law article written by his personal friend, Professor Richard Garnett, as his strongest endorsement. But that article concludes explicitly that neither the executive nor the courts may come between the citizens and the grand jury by screening out petitions. His proposal does not— does practically what his own authority forbids.

It replaces one gatekeeper with another. The robe changes, the gates do not. Does not. Second, the Administrative Rule 12(e) is a procedural appointment mechanism. It cannot bootstrap itself to a substantive the legislative constitutional framework under Wilson— Whiteman versus—.

Mr. Garber, that's 2 minutes. Thank you very much for your testimony. Next in the queue, we have Betty Moore. Ms. Moore, you have 2 minutes.

Chair Senator Clayman and members of the Senate Judiciary, my name is Betty Jo Moore. I live in Anchorage. I represent myself. June 2020, the justices released a letter to fellow Alaskans. The justices pledged to address systemic racial injustices within the judicial system and reaffirming their commitment to equal justice, equal protection of the laws, et cetera.

When we do not get equal protection of the laws because the laws were not faithfully followed, the result for many is that the American legal system The system is not working in Alaska. Another result is corruption of justice. I have written AG Cox many times about major crime injustices that plague many Alaska Natives like myself. I have had meetings with former AG Taylor and the DOL tribal liaison attorneys, and to date, the same old statements are, "Go here, go there, DOL is not equipped," etc. The Attorney General's His first allegiance is to the public.

Mr. Cox took an oath, a binding pledge to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and Alaska. The statute reads that the Attorney General shall defend the Constitution of the State of Alaska and the Constitution of the United States of America. S.B. 1993 Is not consistent with Alaska statutes. Did A.G. Cox report SCO-1993, an action making of a Supreme, uh, rule that was unconstitutional, to the chairs of the House and Senate committees that have jurisdiction over judicial matters by January 15, 2026?

At this time, I do not recommend Mr. Cox as Attorney General. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next in the queue, also from Anchorage, David Gottstein. Mr. Gottstein, if you want to put yourself on the record and please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. And, and I didn't know Betty Jo until just recently, and, and everything she says I'm very concerned about. Alaska is no longer safe for Jews. Governor Dunleavy's candidate is a Attorney General Stephen Cox has made it unsafe for Jews in Alaska in the 9 short months he has been in office due to either gross incompetence or prejudice.

He is guilty of allowing his courts to approve more than $100 million being stolen from my father's Alaskan Jewish intended charity right under his nose. In my attempts to recover my father's missing $100 million of intended charity, the acting Attorney General, while he is professionally, personally responsible for investigating the alleged organized crimes taking place, has been repeatedly notified of ongoing massive threats set from what was supposed to be the second-largest Alaska-based charity behind the Rasmussen Foundation, the Gopstein Family Foundation. It was supposed to receive $150 million but received nothing as a result of elder fraud. Yet a formal Investigative Grand Jury investigation has has been blocked by Mr. Cox. Even though he has irrefutable evidence in the form of under oath admissions, along with all the evidence needed to secure justice that I am also providing members today, he still does nothing as required by law.

Ultimately, this Cox incompetency could result in the loss of nearly a half a billion dollars in charitable donations to Alaskan Jewish causes in the decades ahead. Mr. Cox is obligated law to review my formal petition of criminality filed with the state's investigative grand jury regarding a multi-state enterprise of coordinating individuals working to profit illicitly from my father's estate. He is totally AWOL on protecting the Jewish community. Shame, shame, shame. I can categorically say without hesitation, as a decades-long Alaskan leader in protecting Jews and Jewish charities around the world, that if the The state of Alaska, within the Dunleavy administration, under the AG's direction, doesn't take this matter as seriously as it deserves.

The tragic consequences will be massive, and the reputation of Alaska's judicial system will likely be tarnished for decades. Mr. Gottstein, you're at the 2-minute mark. Thank you very much for your comments. Thank you. Now, if there's anyone in the room that would like to testify, please go in the hall and sign in on the sign-in sheet so we have you recorded.

Next online we have Stephen Ruth. Mr. Ruth, you have 2 minutes. Hi, uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Stephen Ralph.

I've been a licensed attorney in Alaska for 50 years. I hold an AV rating from Martindale-Hubbell, the highest rating attorney can earn, awarded to a very small percentage of attorneys nationwide. I'm speaking today, um, on my own behalf in support of Steve Cox. I've known Steve for several years, both professionally and privately. I've been nothing but impressed consistently by his intellect, professionalism, and practical approach.

He's a thoughtful problem solver and has valuable private sector experience, something that strengthens, in my view, his effectiveness in the public service. In my view, Alaska Attorney General must combine strong legal judgment, which Steve has in with independence and a clear commitment to serving the public interest. In all my interactions with him, I see that consistently. Based on his extensive record, I sincerely believe he's well qualified to meet that standard. Here in Alaska, we're so fortunate to have somebody of his caliber available to serve as our Attorney General.

In my view, folks like him don't come along very often. For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to confirm Steven is Alaska's Attorney General. Happy to respond to any questions. Thank you. Thank you very much.

I don't see any questions. Next in the queue, we have Jennifer Johnson. Ms. Johnson.

My name is Jennifer Johnson. I am a survivor of child sex trafficking in Alaska. I was trafficked from the age of 3 until I was 13. I was moved across multiple states and brought to Alaska at the age of 10 through an international child trafficking ring. From the age of 10 to 13, I was trafficked in downtown Anchorage.

After I escaped, the Office of Children's Services continued to traffic me until I ran away at 16. That same deplorable situation, plus Alaska's epidemic of missing and murdered Indigenous women, is still happening now. The cartels flooding our state with fentanyl are the same networks trafficking our children. These crimes are all connected, yet we have zero coordination, zero communication, and zero cooperation between agencies. It does not appear that AG Cox understands how federal, state, and local law enforcement must work together.

Otherwise, we are just spinning our wheels. Public Law 280 gives us concurrent jurisdiction. We refuse to use it. OCS cases get buried, people shuffle the deck, and no one ever gets held accountable. Kids like little Dashaun McCormick, who went missing in 2013 at the age of 6 years old, Atasia Banks, Kelly Hunt, and Caitlin Schellenhammer, all victims of lack of accountability, still have no justice.

People in positions of power are perpetuating the cycle of abuse by refusing to use the worthy they already have. If you confirm A.G. Cox, I pray to God that no one in this state is beyond reproach. We must put Alaska first. I strongly oppose confirming A.G. Cox. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Next in the queue, we have Bridget Smith.

Yes, um, uh, Chair Clayman and Vice Chair Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Mr. Deal, and members of the Senate Judiciary. Thank you for taking my testimony. My name is Bridget Smith, and I've lived in Juneau for 58 years. I am calling to oppose the confirmation of Mr. Cox to the Attorney General of Alaska for several reasons.

My understanding is that Mr. Cox has not even been a member of the Alaska Bar for a year yet, which makes me wonder about his knowledge and experience experience of the Alaska legal system. It takes a long time to understand our vast state, not only as an attorney but as a resident. His nomination to this very important post is baffling to me.

Mr. Cox has signed on to more than 100 amicus briefs on behalf of Alaskans, and I suspect most Alaskans would not agree with these positions. In the interest of time, I would only point to one of his amicus briefs before the Supreme Court on birthright citizenship. According to Dermot Hole, a longtime journalist, Cox claimed that Alaska is among the states, quote, that face significant economic, health, and public safety issues, unquote, from policies that say babies born to illegal aliens within the U.S. are citizens, though he claims he is not— what the— that is not what the Constitution requires. This, this is nonsense, and this is certainly not the kind of attitude that I want in an attorney general. Mr. Cox has not demonstrated his ability to serve the people of Alaska during his time as temporary attorney general.

He should not be confirmed. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next in the queue, we have William Satterberg from Fairbanks. Mr. Satterberg, you have 2 minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you. My name is Bill Satterberg. I'm speaking on behalf of myself, and I am speaking in support of Stephen Cox to be Attorney General. You know, it's interesting, I started practicing law in Alaska in 1970.

'76. In fact, Bruce Botelho and I both knew each other when we were in law school. We met back in D.C. on a trip, and I used to sleep on Bruce's floor. I was rather surprised he's speaking negatively of Mr. Cox in this particular matter. But we diverged from each other in a certain way in that I spent 4.5 years with the Attorney General's office, did condemnation construction work.

At that time, I realized that my better part was to be in the private sector. It's interesting because We— Mr. Cox currently has, I believe, 700 employees that he's having to supervise. I have— understand there's like 300 attorneys that are involved. It's like herding cats. I've been asked a few times over the years, having been practicing law since '76, that, hey, would you like to be attorney general?

Maybe we could do something along those lines. And I have, I think, wisely said no. It is in many respects an extremely difficult job. In many respects, it's a thankless job, and it's one of these jobs that an attorney like Stephen Cox can really command much, much more extensive work in the private sector if he wanted to. It's a sacrifice on his part to agree to become Attorney General, and I admire him for it.

Why am I speaking on his behalf? I have— I work in the criminal defense field as well as the civil side, and I've had to contact the State of Alaska at various times to talk about issues. And one thing I've been really impressed with Mr. Cox about is he's been willing to accept my calls. He's been willing to meet with me. And even though we disagree on a number of areas, he has still been receptive.

He's been transparent, and he's been able to listen. We need somebody— remember, the Attorney General's office is a group of basically prima donnas, with all due respect for attorneys, and it's like herding cats. And he's doing a very good job doing that. Obviously, We hear people testifying that, hey, he's responsible for this. In the end, yes, the buck stops there.

But remember that a lot of the work is done by people that work below him, and it's a job administration. He's doing a great job. Mr. Satterberg, you're at the 2-minute mark. I would thank you very much for your comments, and I'll do my best not to be one of the cats you're trying to herd that's sitting on the Judiciary Committee. Okay, thank you.

Next in the queue, we've got Chad Collender. Mr. Collender. You've got 2 minutes.

Good afternoon, Chair and committee members. Thank you. My name is Chad Colander, and I'm a resident of Mr. Clayman's area in the Sand Lake area. I wanted to say that I have not had much extension with the law, but have been helping on several cases as a forensic economist. And just wanted to call and speak in favor of voting for Mr. Cox as the AG, as the friends that I have in the law field feel he is doing a good job and will continue to.

So thank you. Thank you very much. Next in the queue, we've got Teresa Obermeyer. Dr. Obermeyer, you've got 2 minutes.

Good afternoon, Chair Clayman and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I look at Mr. Cox's children and I feel—. Please identify yourself first. I have been on the Anchorage School Board and I would never have used my children. I don't think this is a place for his children.

I really thought Senator Borkman was so nice yesterday. We apologize, kids. We don't want to be mean, but there's some mean stuff in this world. I look at Mr. Cox's children and I would like to go back to my own and the way our family of, uh, 6— my husband, myself, and our 4 children— have been targeted relentlessly in Anchorage, Alaska. In the case of the adults, my husband and myself, we're adults, but when it When these people went after my valedictorian son in 2000, that was just the limit.

I would like to read, sir, about the rule of law, and that is in the matter of the application of Thomas S. Obermeier, Supreme Court of Alaska, April 18, 1986, 717 Pacific Second, 382 57 American Law Reports 4th, 1195. That is the law, ladies and gentlemen. I do not support any of this, the way this goes. I am trying to create— and it's probably a really uphill battle because it takes a two-thirds vote of each of the houses of the Alaska Legislature in order to get this on the ballot. We must change now.

Our Alaska Constitution is flawed that there is no elected officeholder in the state of Alaska that is required to be a member of the Alaska Bar Association. We have to, we have to do better. I just am so apologetic. Please know I don't want to be here, but I have to be an American. Thank you very much, Dr. Obermeyer.

Next in the queue, we have Ed Martin calling from Kenai. Mr. Martin, you have 2 minutes.

Yes, thank you, Chair Clayman, and members of this committee. I am a great-grandfather, by the way, Mr. Sturgeon, and those members of the committee. I am very implored by the testimony, the willful testimony that I heard yesterday in State Affairs, Senate State Affairs. This man has openly admitted that first off, he doesn't know how to do this and he doesn't know how to do that. He's, uh, in so many words, he's just sunk himself.

And as far as I'm concerned, that means he sunk his oath. He has failed us under Article 1 and Article, uh, Section 1 and 2. I currently have a petition that's been sitting in the AG's office under AG Taylor, and over a year for referral to a grand jury on bonding issues that refer to the executive branch of our state government. And this man is protecting our governor. It's what they've been doing is, uh, uh, how best to put it, selective enforcement of the laws.

That is not how it's done in this country. And you folks, I just wrote you a letter. You have all the evidence right now to bring this man up on impeachment. Charges and remove him immediately. The more he stays there, the more damage he does to the citizens of the state.

Please be— have some courage and leadership and do what really is right for the state of Alaska. The attorneys that back him up— and I do have a lot of respect for Mr. Surgeron, he went a long ways and the state helped fund him— but I can tell you this right now, This man isn't the man to do the job. He's failed and he's failed us all. Impeaching. Thank you very much for your time.

God bless you all. Thank you very much. Next in the queue, we've got Kevin Pendergast. Mr. Pendergast, you have 2 minutes.

Thank you. Hello, my name is Kevin Pendergast and I live in Anchorage with my wife and 4 children. I've I've been in Alaska for 26 years. My wife's side of the family has roots going back here about 3 generations, and I've worked across the state, both private sector and now in the federal public policy arena and land management. I've known Steve Cox for several years as he has lived and worked in Alaska.

I've worked with him professionally when he was in the private sector supporting oil and gas and other industries critical to the state. And more recently I've been privileged to work with him in his current role. I'm also very familiar with his background at the federal level. Steve loves this state. He has put down deep roots here, and I know he approaches this job desiring to serve Alaskans.

His background uniquely suits him for this role. What is most striking to me is his ability to understand and bridge the state and federal perspectives. Regardless of the issue, and develop common sense solutions founded in the rule of law. I've seen this firsthand, and in a state like Alaska where the federal government has such a large land base and presence, this is pretty essential. Steve emphasizes partnership and finding practical solutions to difficult challenges.

He also understands and respects Alaska's singular history, laws, people, and customs. Stephen Cox brings clarity, discipline, and a firm commitment to a bright future for this state, and I respectfully ask that you confirm him as Attorney General. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next in the queue, we have Judy Miller.

Ms. Miller, you've got 2 minutes.

Thank you. Um, my name is Judith Miller, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify. Chair Clayman and committee, I am opposed to the confirmation of Stephen Cox. His interview by the Senate State Affairs Committee yesterday only served to further reinforce my opposition. Mr. Cox has little understanding of Alaska, shown when he responded to Senate State Affairs Committee questions saying how he has had to make strategic choices.

Those choices often appear to be based more on his conservative politics and Alaska's interests while claiming to be excited to work on matters central to the state. He regularly filed amicus briefs which were at the least irrelevant to, or at worst actually counter to Alaskans' interests. Mr. Cox seriously failed Alaskans by participating in sending confidential voter data to the federal government after claiming he would only send non-confidential data. Time and again throughout his responses, He said he made strategic choices, but they were often counter to Alaskans' interests. On the voter data transfer, he said, quote, "I tend to support cooperating even when Fed actions are overreaching." That is not standing up for Alaska.

He not only failed Alaskans by sending the voter data, but failed to stand up for Alaska's unique and challenging absentee ballot mailing system. He did not support a lawsuit issue regarding counting ballots received after Election Day. His choice to actually further Alaskans' voting interests was squandered while he busily put his name to some detailed clarity about when a ballot is cast. In that case, Cox says he's learning about Alaska's right to privacy. Isn't understanding the state's constitution and rights the primary job of the AG?

Regarding abortion protection and same-sex marriage, he claims, quote, "I don't have any plans to revisit the state's ruling," but he wobbles and wiggles about how things may come up where he might be faced with issues that are—. Ms. Miller, you're at the 2-minute mark. I'd ask you to rapidly wind your remarks up. Okay. Alaskans overwhelmingly support privacy rights.

Mr. Cox does not understand or support that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate. Thank you very much.

I have no one else online. Is there anyone in the room that would like to provide public testimony on Mr. Cox? Hearing and seeing no one, public testimony is closed, and we will return to questions from members of the committee. Mr. Cox, if you'd come back, and we'll go in the reverse order of the last round. Senator Keele, you're first up, and this time we'll give Everybody gets 2 questions before we go to the next one.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I may as well continue on the thread that the last testifier was on, which is the privacy issue and Alaskans' confidential voter information. You indicated to the State Affairs Committee yesterday that your staff had a redlined version, had edits to the memo with the federal government for handing over that data, and that for You didn't say what reason. You didn't use it.

I have read the memo that got signed. It says protective of Alaskans' rights is wet toilet paper is. What were the edits and why weren't they used? Through the chair, Senator, thank you for the question. The edits were fairly reasonable.

Some of the edits were to incorporate the state, the Alaska statute, pursuant to which we were going to be providing the data. And we wanted to make sure that that was in there. Some of the edits involved a recognition that in implementing the MOU, that the state would comply with all federal and state law. And then there might have been some other edits of other kinds. The reason that I tried to articulate yesterday about why they weren't accepted is we were told that the Department of Justice had made representations to judges in the litigation, that they had not been willing to make changes to those MOUs.

And so, they weren't making those changes for other states. And despite the fact that I may know people at the Department of Justice, they were not willing to make any of those changes. And so, that's when we suggested, why don't we at least provide a cover letter on top of the MOU to reflect these points, some of these points. So, [Speaker:COMMISSIONER MILLER] in follow-up, those weren't edits to stop Alaska's confidential voter data from being shared with Congress, which federal law requires DOJ information, including the information they now have on Alaskans, to do. Uh, doesn't stop them from sharing it with other federal agencies, which federal law requires this information gathered under this federal statute to be shared.

None of those things were even suggested? Through the chair, uh, Senator, uh, the MOU only, uh, only allows certain kinds of uses. We did not— we did not, I don't think, suggest other prohibited uses, if that's the question that you're getting at. But what we did is we did include language to make sure that it would be implemented in accordance with federal and state law, which is, of course, a good way to incorporate all of those kinds of prohibitions. Mr.

Chairman, just a follow-up comment that the federal law referenced in the memo, cited in the memo, requires that information to be available to any committee of Congress with any kind of jurisdiction. The January 6th Committee could have that. Any future committee on— we'll make one up— on treasonous election denialism could have Alaskans' private voter data under the law cited in the memo. It's unfortunate. Thank you very much.

It's a comment, not a question, so you don't have to respond, Senator Tilton. Any further questions at this point? Okay. Senator Tobin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have two, and they're unrelated questions. The first is a similar vein of questioning as Senator Kiel. This is particularly on the March 31st, 2026 presidential executive order on elections, and in that particular memo, there is some conversation about what states should do to ensure that we secure our elections, and it requires ballot tracking. Now, there is a— 23 other states sued to say that they could not comply with this. However, I noted in the number of briefs and, of course, the number of, as you mentioned, thousands of amicus briefs and joint legal, uh, dynamics against current actions, you did not sign on to this particular, uh, particular amicus brief, and I'm just curious why.

Are you— why you did not sign on, and do you believe that the state can engage in ballot tracking? Will you be directing the Division of Elections to engage in ballot tracking, which is outlined in this executive order? Through the chair, Senator, um, with, with respect I have not read that executive order. What I would say is that an executive order is only binding on the federal administration. It is not binding on the states.

And then I am also not aware of the amicus brief that you're speaking of or whether or not we were even invited to join. I don't know if— I think there might be a lawsuit that was filed, and I don't know much about that lawsuit either. Well, thank you. I find it surprising as you sign on so many and yet this one escaped your knowledge. But a different question, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Tobin. Thank you. You and I had talked about this actually when we had a conversation, and I brought to your your attention, uh, the litigation that's ongoing around correspondent schools and allotments and use of public funds to support private education. And I just want to reiterate, our Constitution directly says schools and institutions so established shall be free of sectarian control. No money shall be paid for— excuse me— paid from public funds for the direct benefit of any religious or private education institution.

And we had mentioned that you established a private Christian school here in the state of Alaska with your spouse. I see that you're still listed as a treasurer, and I also see on the website underneath tuition assistance you direct parents to join into public correspondence programs to support their tuition for that particular classical, classical school. Can you explain to me again, as we have this conversation, uh, your that conflict? You are actively against the Constitution, and yet you seem to say that you are here to support the rule of law. Through the chair, Senator, first let me just say I am on the board of that school.

I am not involved in the day-to-day operations. I spent a lot of time working on hiring a headmaster But once we did that, I really spend a pretty minimal amount of time on day-to-day operations and focus on good governance from the board. I am not aware of that part of the website. And I am also not aware of any decisions with respect to allotment programs. What I will say is that these issues about how correspondence school programs work and to the— and the extent to which they are consistent with the Constitution.

That is in active litigation. And so I wouldn't want to opine on that sort of thing before it's litigated to finality. And I know that That's probably not the answer you wanted to say, but I also have to be very careful about matters that are in active litigation.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do encourage you to read about your fiduciary responsibility sitting on a board of an organization and what you are legally obligated to provide oversight over, which this is one of the areas. Senator Stevens. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to know a little bit more about the 8(a) program.

Program. It was brought up briefly by Mr. Sturgeon, just mentioned it. But, you know, we have 12 regional corporations. I believe almost all of them are involved in some way in ADIB, maybe not all of them. But I know my own local Kodiak Area Native Corporation— actually, no, it's the Kodiak Corporation, Kodiak Regional Corporation, one of the 12— is lightly involved in it.

It's not a major part of their holdings, but it is there and it is important and very successful. So I haven't heard any questions, I mean, about any fraud or illegal activities or even immoral activities that are taking place among those corporations. So far it's been a great benefit to those corporations and to the individual Native individuals who own stock in those corporations and to the state of Alaska. So what can you tell me about the 8(a) program? I mean, it was really started by Senator Ted Stevens, I know, when he was in the U.S. Senate.

What is the position that you— are you protecting those 8(a) programs, or where are we in that area? Through the Chair, Senator, thank you for the question. The 8(a) program is a vital program for Alaska Native corporations and has been for many decades. I have seen the debate about the 8(a) program with respect to Alaska Native corporations up close and personal for really almost 15 years or so. When I was at a law firm in Washington, D.C., our firm represented ASRC and perhaps other ANCs when, as you may recall, Senator Claire McCaskill was looking into whether or not these preferences should go to 8(a)s or to ANCs.

And of course, I worked at Bristol Bay Native Corporation. I was at the industrial side of that business, and so our companies, we had about 20 portfolio companies, our companies were not active in the 8(a) program, but we did government contracting, and we knew the stakes of compliance. Primarily because not only just the legal jeopardy of noncompliance, but also the risk that it would put and the exposure it would put on BBNC with respect to its 8(a) program that's so vital. I have been watching very carefully the federal statements about 8(a), and I've seen a couple of different threads. One has to do with waste, fraud, and abuse.

But one has to do with whether the preference is legitimate in and of itself. And I have been working for months internally with some of the best lawyers in our department and some of the best lawyers I know in this space outside of the department to make sure that we can be in a position to make the best a case to protect the 8(a) program here in Alaska because it's so vital and because I think the preference to ANCs is so different and unique in kind. And I think there's an argument to be made. And so that is something I'm actively working on. Thank you.

You get one more question this round if you'd like, Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. I have a couple of questions, then we'll continue going around. Uh, in two of the amicus briefs that you signed on to since you've been Attorney General, one involves Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens, and I think it may have been argued some of the time the same time as Louisiana v. Calais, and the Calais decision is what came down on Wednesday about Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and I've been troubled by signing on to both of those briefs, primarily because in Alaska, we have an article in our constitution, Article 6, about how we do our elections and how we do our apportionment. And every time I've read Alaska Supreme Court opinions about apportionment, including the most recent one, you were in state, but you weren't in the attorney general's office, that decision was based entirely on the Alaska constitution.

And I'm wondering why, if Alaska's Constitution provides a structure for taking up redistricting that's specific to Alaska, why we would be signing on to an amicus brief that the decision by the Supreme Court, including in the Calle case, will have little or no impact whatsoever here in Alaska because of our own Constitution. So I, I guess the question is, why, when the Alaska Constitution provides specific rights Why would you support amicus briefs that really have no impact in Alaska because of our own Constitution? Chair, that's a fair question, and I think it's an important one. I can tell you that on this issue, the state has taken that similar position over the years with respect to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. And I will just be candid with you.

When we are reviewing briefs that come in and where we're being asked to join, oftentimes in a matter of days, sometimes that review looks back to see what similar briefs that we have filed on the same issues exist, and if it's very consistent with past priorities. I will concede that our position is to consult with the Governor's Office and join those briefs consistent with the state's past practice. But I think what you just raised is an interesting question, and it gives me a reason to sort of look into that. And if you'd indulge, maybe I can get back to you on that particular issue. Sure, that's fine.

I would just note on that front, my own perspective doesn't require a response, but when we take an oath to uphold the state and federal constitutions, and there's a long doctrine in the U.S. Supreme Court that as long as the state constitution provides greater rights than the federal constitution, the state can provide more protective rights. And so I've always taken the view that failure to— taking a position that's inconsistent with the Alaska Constitution as interpreted by our Supreme Court is not stand— in my life as a lawyer, not standing up for the state constitution. And I would urge you to reevaluate that question. And then the second question I have— I have many, which we probably won't get to all of them today, but you talked about about this idea that in the future you would like to take more of a leadership on these amicus briefs in which the state is going to be the lead party on filing amicus briefs. My immediate reaction was that that sounds like a bunch of Washington lawyers at $1,000 to $1,500 an hour taking positions that may not be consistent with the Alaska Constitution.

Why would we spend that money when we have this crisis on domestic violence and sexual assault and that money is better spent on prosecution in state? Chairman, uh, thank you for the question. Um, when I say that we're talking— we're thinking about taking the lead in briefs, I'm talking about what we might be able to do in-house with a state solicitor general. Um, and for example, um, uh, you know, if, if we, if we filed a brief, uh, and we authored it, uh, we would do that in-house. And then we would then circulate it probably through an organization like the National Association of Attorneys General to other states and see if they would join our brief in that litigation.

But I'm not talking about hiring outside counsel for amicus brief writing. We're going to take a very brief at ease. Thank you.

We're back on record. We're going to take a short break from the questioning for Attorney General Designee Cox to take up— Senator Bjorkman, if you want to come forward. I have to find my place in the script. Our second order of business today, which— and then we'll return to the confirmation— is Senate Bill 207, property possession, property crime, sponsored by Senator Bjorkman. This is the second hearing of the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Before hearing from the bill sponsor's office, I'd like to First, look to the will of the committee to adopt work draft version H as our working document. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may, I move that the Senate Judiciary adopt CS for Senate Bill 207 Judiciary version H, as in Haines, as our working document and bring that before the committee.

I will object for purposes of discussion. Here to explain the summary of changes is my staff, Serena Hackenmiller. Ms. Hackenmiller, if you will. Displace one of the folks from Senator Bjorkman's office and tell us about the changes in the CS.

Thank you, Chair Clayman. For the record, Serena Hackemiller, staff to Senator Clayman. Senate Bill 207, version N to version H, has a number of changes in the title. The conforming changes are title change and renumbering and relettering. Section 1 on page 3, starting line 23, delete: If the request is verified, the peace officer shall timely serve the occupant with notice to immediately vacate and deliver possession of the dwelling unit to the owner.

Insert: The peace officer shall notify the requester of whether the request is verified. Subsection E: After a request has been verified under subsection D of this section, the owner of the residential real property, an agent of the owner of the property, or at the request of the owner or agent, a peace officer shall serve the occupant with notice to vacate and deliver possession of the dwelling unit to the owner within 48 hours. Still under Section 1, previous page 3, lines 4 through 5, delete: A requester shall pay a fee for service of process of a summons listed under Rule 11(a), Alaska Rules of Administration. Page 4, line 1, delete peace officer, insert person serving the notice. Page 4, line 4, delete a requester shall pay a fee for service of a notice under the subsection, insert once the required 48-hour period has elapsed following service under subsection E. Page 4, line 6, Delete "remain on," insert "go to." Previous page 4, lines 10 through 12, delete "The peace officer may require the requester to pay a reasonable hourly rate to the government agency employing the peace officer." Page 4, line 19, insert "an amount not to exceed before 3 times the value of 1 month of fair market rent for the dwelling unit." Page 4, following line 20, Delete paragraph 3, full reasonable attorney fees.

Page 5, lines 15 through 16, following an action insert against the person who requested the removal of the occupant. Section 2, adding domestic partner, aunt, uncle, niece, and nephew to the definition of immediate family member under AS 09-45-950, former Section 8 was deleted. That concludes the summary of changes. I'll just ask Senator Bjorkman, do you have any— what's your thought on the changes in the CS?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Um, I appreciate the addition of the additional protection for extended family members. I think that is, is a good change. Um, I'm intrigued by the addition of 40-hour waiting period. I think that's an interesting development in the bill.

Thank you very much. Any questions from members of the committee? With that, I will remove my objection. Is there any other objection? Hearing and seeing none, Senator Bjorkman, did you want to say anything before we move the bill on to committee?

Thank you very much. Questions from anyone on the committee? Senator Kiem, I have a motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move the Senate Judiciary Committee report out Senate— or excuse me, CS for Senate Bill 207 Judiciary, which is version H as in Haynes, from the committee with individual recommendations and any attached or forthcoming fiscal notes.

Hearing and seeing no objections, we're going to— this bill moves from committee. And if you'll just make sure— we're going to return to the confirmation hearing. Be sure you sign the paperwork, which will we'll pass around while we're continuing the confirmation hearing. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That brings us back to our confirmation hearing with Mr. Cox. Mr. Cox, if you want to return to the seat. And going around on my pattern, Senator Kiel, you're up again. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Because I had constituents raise the the amicus brief issue in public testimony. A question about one particular brief, maybe as an illustration. The Attorney General-designee Cox, you had the state sign on to a brief in Haggai v. Keswani, which is not an appellate court case, and I'm a little concerned— well, I'm deeply concerned about the case itself. It's lawfare against protesters. Protesters who were very badly behaved, don't get me wrong, as apologizing for them, my daughter was there and was pretty unhappy.

And it's a case that if, frankly, the amicus brief goes the way it argues, will set a precedent that can be absolutely weaponized in future against people with whom I agree and disagree. I think it would be the perfect precedent and way to attack scurrilously, unjustly attack anti-abortion protesters in future. The question isn't about the First Amendment, though. The question is, as I read that amicus brief, it cited Alabama law, it cited Arkansas law, it cited Tennessee law, but it didn't mention Alaska or Alaska law once. We didn't have any big protests here.

We don't have any violence or property destruction here. What was Alaska's interest in that case? Through the chair, Senator, it's— so that brief probably was filed maybe in my first week of being Attorney General designee. I don't have it in front of me. I probably haven't read it since late August or early September.

Um, and so I'd feel a little bit, uh, uncomfortable talking about it, uh, at length. What I can tell you, I'm not even sure which, which state attorney general authored the brief. What I can tell you is that when we are invited to join a brief like, like that, or any of these multi-state briefs, we are not invited to edit. We are not invited to redraft. And so we don't have an opportunity to say, you know what, actually we'd like to include these other Alaska laws or, you know, these other, you know, footnotes and whatnot.

And then we— but we always look for an interest for the state. And then we always look to see if it's a sound position that we agree with and consistent with past, you know, positions. I would have to look in particular at that brief to see what kind of past briefs that the state has signed on to in similar kinds of issues. I believe it was probably not a a new issue that the state took a position on. And I recognize I'm not giving you the specific answer because the brief is not in my sort of immediate recollection.

But I'm happy to take a look at it and get back to you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My concern is Alaska has a very strong protection for freedom of speech and the right to protest as part of that. And that includes speech I agree with vehemently and speech I disagree with vehemently. And I'm deeply concerned by this one because I couldn't find any Alaska laws on point when I looked in our statute books either.

You get two questions on this round. Did you have another one? Diggity. I was pretty sure you would. Well, thank you, Mr.

Chairman. I was so focused. I'd like to maybe step back from specific cases and specific briefs for a minute, um, and sort of get a sense of your, your thought process. Um, and I know, um, Ms. Cox, that you have significant, uh, background at the federal level, um, and, and in the criminal arena, we spend a lot of time thinking about Alaskans' rights and, uh, what a court might say as we consider various proposed laws, enactments. So I'm sure you are familiar with the three-tiered approach that the federal government uses when it comes to whether a law impinges somebody's rights.

Can you talk us through your understanding and how you approach— you're going to get a legal review on everything we pass— how you approach the way Alaska courts do that analysis? Through the chair, Senator, if If you'll indulge me, I'd like you to unpack a little bit what you mean by the three-tier approach. Are you talking about strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis? Right. So what we're talking about are, you know, that usually arises in the context of race-based classifications or sex-based classifications or other classifications.

Is that what you're talking about? Sort of any equal protection. Challenge, right? Sure. But of course, that's not the test Alaska courts use.

So please. So through the chair, Senator, I will say that when, when bills come over to the Law Department, they don't stop it at my office first. They actually go to my experts in the, in the legislation and regulations and legal research section. And in fact, we have an attorney assigned to every single bill. I think there are more than 300 House bills and more than 200 Senate bills.

And when the advice comes up to me, I may review that, but a lot of times, I'm going to defer to the expertise ease and the judgment of the lawyers inside the building. I think that's the right, uh, the right approach. These are the lawyers who litigate these cases in the Alaska courts, and that's my approach. To follow up, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, but sometimes, you know, you're— we have legislative attorneys too. You're not going to defer to them, right?

So the question really is, what's the direction the boss set. And so I'm interested in your understanding of how Alaska's Constitution, Alaska's courts approach that kind of analysis and how would you engage? Through the Chair, Senator, with respect, I would have to look at the law and the facts before me and the bill before me. But like I said, I don't claim to be an expert in Alaska constitutional law or Alaska statutory law or even how the Alaska courts interpret these laws. I rely on the expertise and the excellent lawyering inside the Department of Law every day, all day, and will continue to do so.

I'll just say I didn't know every single bill got assigned an attorney at Department of Law. I apologize for the length of mine. I'm only—. I'm pleased that the Senate puts less of a burden on the Department of Law than the House. Senator Tilton, any questions?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Mr. Cox, Alaska is facing some huge energy issues here in the future, and, um, we've been working on these kind of issues for a very, very long time here in our state. That could be detrimental to some of our folks in rural Alaska with the high cost of energy, and we're also working on, at a point in time, where we may have an opportunity to build a pipeline. And my question to you is, what kind of involvement or advice do you have in this role of the Attorney General regarding those issues? Through the Chair, Senator, these issues are very important.

To the state. It is a top priority of mine to do whatever I can, however I can, to unleash Alaska's potential with respect to resource development and energy. These issues are near and dear to my heart. I've been working on energy-related matters for decades. And so I would say that my involvement is, is, uh, it depends on what, uh, what we're talking about in particular.

I work closely with the Commissioner of Department of Natural Resources. I work closely with the Governor. I work closely with all of the Commissioners on issues that, uh, that are important to them and providing legal advice to them. But I also, back to the point that I was making to Senator Senator Keel, I also have a building full of experts who love their state, who are the best lawyers for Alaska. And I get the privilege of working with them on these hard, challenging issues that sometimes are not foreseeable, sometimes they're not anticipated, sometimes they're brand new.

Sometimes we're trying to do big things like the Alaska LNG project. And it's a privilege to be able to work with them on all of these important matters.

Okay, Senator Tobin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Hox, for your answers. I know sometimes this is not the most comfortable of conversations, but you do have one of the most important positions, or you potentially will have one of the most important positions in our state. And with that, I'm curious to take a similar approach to Senator Keelan and look at this from a 50,000-foot view.

And so I'd love to hear your thoughts specifically on tribal sovereignty, your interpretation, your professional, and how you approach that dynamic. Is it government to government? Is it about political subdivisions? Can you walk us through your experience and what you've learned about tribal sovereignty? Through the chair, Senator, thanks for the question.

The first thing I would say is that it's not my personal opinion that matters. I am the lawyer for the state, and so I am advancing, and our lawyers advance, the state's position on these issues of territorial jurisdiction, for example. That's an issue that That actually has been longstanding, you know, subject to what they call M opinions at the Solicitor of Interior that describe the federal government and the state's government position with respect to there being no territorial jurisdiction under Alaska law in Alaska. Same thing is true of lands in the trust. Within the last several years, we've seen some changes from administration to administration with respect to these M opinions on these things.

They've also been subject to litigation, this issue of who's got jurisdiction. Is it the state or is it the tribe? And in my position, is the position for the state, and that position is that there is no territorial jurisdiction. There are provisions of law, for example, in the VAWA amendments relating to, I think, in-person jurisdiction in some respects, but those are the issues, again, returning to a theme that I expressed with Senator Keel and Senator Tilton, where I am not an expert in these things. I've been around these issues for many years, both at the federal government level and here at the state.

But I rely every day on the good lawyers of the Department of Law to make sure that we are representing defending the state's position well and thoroughly.

Number 2. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and many things I'd like to dig in on. However, I'm going to try to keep it here at the 50,000-foot view, which is following up on you indicating that you are not an expert. I'm assuming that means that you are not an expert on ANILCA or ANCSA or Indian Self-Determination Act of 1976, and these aren't areas that you have spent a career building a set of case law and experience on. So, with that, and you have those experienced lawyers who do work with you and who do advise you, what happens when you find conflict?

What happens when you have potentially a governor or another outside entity indicate they'd like the interpretation to be different? How do you defend those who work within your department and their legal position and expertise? Expertise when it conflicts with political expediency or when it conflicts with an interpretation the governor may wish you to have? Through the chair, Senator, it's a great question. And in my experience, the times that I've gotten the question from, say, the governor's office about points of law, I work that issue with our experts within the Department of Law.

We come to a consensus on that position, and we provide that advice to the governor.

And that's that. We are— our job is to present the guardrails of what outside of which are not lawful, but inside of which maybe there's discretion. But that's our job. Our job is get— to get the law right. And I have not had any occasion in which the advice that I've gotten from the line has been something that I can't work with, understand, come to grips with.

And so therefore, in default, I back the line. And that's the approach that I've had in many jobs like this where I lack the expertise that the lawyers that I'm privileged to serve around have in spades. But if there's play in the joints, if there's wiggle room, if there's ambiguity in the statutes and in the regulations, we'll also provide that advice within which there may be discretion for the governor or commissioner to act.

Senator Stevens. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to explore the issue of birthright citizenship a little more. You know, as a retired professor of history, I've got to say, something I've always loved about American history, no matter who you are and where you come from, Whatever your wealth, whatever your religion, whatever your background, if you come to this country and you have a child and they're born in this country, they are a citizen of this country. And my students love that as well.

And I like that idea. You see it not only in our history throughout it, people escaping from terrorism, from poverty, from religious persecution coming to this country and their children here, born here, become citizens. And that struggle is really a major part of our history. I have found out because of ancestry.com that I'm 20% Irish. And that comes from a young girl named Molly Smith, whose parents escaped the potato famine.

They came here and their child, Molly, became a citizen. That's why I am, I suppose. So I just— it baffles me that people argue against that. It just baffles me. How can you or your department or anyone in the administration argue against birthright citizenship?

It's in our Constitution. It's a moral issue. I'd appreciate your honest answer. Through the chair, Senator, thank you so much for that question. It's an important issue.

This is something that I've, I've thought about for over 20 years. The first time that I, I think, arranged for a debate of a legal issue when I was in law school, it was about birthright citizenship. At the point, at that point, there were really only a couple of scholars out there really talking a lot about the issues that are being litigated right now and the issues that we think the US Supreme Court will adjudicate in June.

And these are friends of mine. And over the years, especially in the last couple of years, there has been an explosion of research into the original understanding of the 14th Amendment and what it means to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof, because that's at its core, that's what this Supreme Court decision is about. Uh, and I will concede that, uh, over the course of those 20 years, um, I have become convinced, um, probably starting 3 or 4 years ago, but especially in the last couple of years, that the better argument is actually that, the, the 1866 Civil Rights Act, informed, uh, the meaning of the 14th Amendment, uh, and that, uh, that act, um, was about, uh, uh, not just being subject to the jurisdiction of, thereof, but also not being subject to a foreign jurisdiction. Jurisdiction. There were discussions around that act about, you know, allegiance and whether it was— it was not just a matter of jus soli, of being born on the land, or whether there had to be some kind of allegiance.

There were also contemporary and contemporaneous decisions of Secretaries of Treasury and state dealing with temporary visitors and sojourners. And I do think it's a very hard question and a very important question, and I will acknowledge I could be wrong. Like I said, I have some of my closest friends, some of my favorite lawyers on both sides of the V on this. It's my judgment that the plaintiffs in that lawsuit are wrong in terms of the, the the theory that they're presenting. I think we'll find out in June based on the arguments.

I, you know, my guess is that you will be happy with the U.S. Supreme Court decision. But I wanted to give you an honest broker answer to that question. I think it's an important question, and it's one that I've thought about. And I've looked at some of the documents, and I realize that there is room for disagreement amongst some of the smartest lawyers I know, including, of course, at the US Supreme Court.

I'm not sure of your answer. And you— if you are saying you sup— you don't support birthright citizenship, I'm sorry to say you have not convinced me. But what is your answer? Are you supportive of it or not? Through the chair, Senator, uh, my view of the Constitution under the 14th Amendment is that it is not simply birth, uh, on the territory, uh, that you also have to be, uh, not subject to, uh, the foreign jurisdiction, and that there has to be some kind of allegiance.

And so, for example, uh, if you have a temporary, uh, visitor or if you have someone who is sent over here for the sole purpose of having a child and then returning to their home state, I do not think that the correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment would say that that child is a US citizen. But again, we will hear what the US Supreme Court decides on that issue. I would say that those who have longstanding ties to the United States or the intent to stay or domicile, I do think there's birthright citizenship for those under my interpretation of the Constitution, but I also recognize, like everything, I could be wrong, but that is my honest assessment of the issue that the US Supreme Court thought was so important to take up. Thank you. Just for clarity, I'm getting a little out of turn, but for clarity, the amicus brief that you signed onto on behalf of the citizens of Alaska, took the position that is— you don't think is going to be upheld by the Supreme Court, and I think is inconsistent with the question Senator Stevens was asking, that would say the person who was here on vacation and their child was born in Alaska, in the United States, would be a citizen.

The brief that you signed on behalf of the citizens of Alaska takes a different position, correct?

Mr. Chair, that is correct. And what I would say there is this is an issue that obviously is very important to the state. It's very important to the country. I can advise on the law, but I recognize that this is a matter of law and policy.

This is why it's so important in Alaska, especially because we have an appointed attorney general to consult with the governor's office, who is The governor is the representative of the people of the state. And I recognize—. Does that mean that the governor's position is that a person in Alaska on vacation from another country who has a child here in Alaska, that at least under the understanding that I have had of birthright citizenship for pretty much my whole life, that person would be a U.S. citizen? The governor's position as well. Is that person here on vacation, has a child, the child is not a U.S. citizen?

That's the governor's position as well? Chairman, let me make a very particular point. The brief that the state of Alaska joined, and this is the position that we took, is a very narrow brief. And what it does is it says the plaintiff's argument that jus soli, which is the, you you know, the idea that being born on the territory alone is enough for citizenship. The position of the brief is that that is not correct, and that this was not, this was not, the burden was not made below, in the courts below, that they showed that the executive order being challenged is unconstitutional in all respects.

That is a narrow position, and it does not get into the particularity of, you know, this is what it means affirmatively, but that is the position that the state took. And that's the governor's position?

You're his lawyer. Chair, I would not have taken that position without consulting the governor's office. [Speaker] And what about a circumstance, and we're going, staying on this topic rather than go around the circuit again. What about a slave or a person that was trafficked and brought here against their will? How does that fit in?

They're not here voluntarily, they have no allegiance, but they, in the 1800s a slave, but in modern days somebody that's trafficked here here under trafficking circumstance has a child here in the United States. Where does that person fit in the analysis that you argue, that you signed on to in this brief? Chair, that, that is actually one of the questions that came up at oral argument, I believe, in the U.S. Supreme Court case.

And smarter lawyers than me were arguing that case. Case in terms of how these positions would play out in those times. But I believe those positions were articulated in the briefs. Those positions were not— those issues were not litigated in the narrow brief that the State of Alaska joined. Senator Stevens, on my count, you have another question.

Unless there's any other questions about birthright citizen which I'll take from any. Okay. I have a couple of questions.

The first is that when I— you sent my office a list of cases that you've actually signed on to, and I counted those as 48 amicus briefs. And I also then went after listening to Dean Chemerinsky. He's the dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law and has been giving lectures to the Alaska Bar for, I think, 20 or more years about the Supreme Court cases. And one of the things he noted when I heard him yesterday was that they had, I think, in the 2024 Supreme Court docket that ended in 2025, there were— they heard 62 cases. And in the 2025 docket, they've— which started in October of last year, they've accepted 59 cases.

And by my count, you have 48 briefs that you've signed on to. And so in very rough numbers, you're signing on to more, probably more than half of the briefs that are in front of the court.

Why so many? Chair, it's a great question. I would just make a point of clarification. There are hundreds, hundreds of petitions for certiorari that are filed every year to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only grants cert in about 60 or so cases every year.

Certainly in the modern times, that's true. In the old days, they often had more than 100, but not recently. But, Chair, to your point though, if you looked at the list of briefs that were filed in the US Supreme Court that the State of Alaska joined, I think you would find that many of those are probably cert petitions, where there are hundreds, if not thousands, of cases that— where there's a chance for amicus briefs to weigh in on before the merits of the case are heard. [Speaker] Then the second question I wanted to follow up on.

In your— and I actually note for folks that are watching, the Resources Committee is waiting to the call of the chair. I've got communications from the Resources Committee chair that we can go as long as we need on this, on the hearing today. So the second question is, when you list the priorities, you listed first the the quality of life issues in Anchorage, things that are a priority in the department. That was the first priority you identified, and the second was domestic violence and sexual assault. And, and I have to say that I was very troubled as an Anchorage legislator and very concerned about quality of life in Anchorage.

I was troubled that, that, that made it first on your list before domestic violence and sexual sexual assault. And can you give me a little bit more reasons why that got first in line instead of a lower priority? Because we have— it's one of the hard statistics we heard in this committee just recently from the University of Alaska researchers that for all the work we've done, sexual assault in this state and sexual abuse has been— has not improved for decades. And to see quality of life as— and I love quality of life in Anchorage. I appreciate all those things, but it's just hard that that can be a higher priority than sexual assault and sexual abuse.

Chair, uh, with respect, uh, I don't want anyone to mistake, uh, what I said. Uh, that is not the top priority of the department. It is the first thing I mentioned with respect to new challenges that we have faced. And I— the way I described it was one of the hardest challenges that we're dealing with. But right after that, I said I just wanted to make sure that there was an understanding that the top priority, top priority, always will always be until we deal with the scourge of this problem of sexual assault and domestic violence.

The top priority is dealing with those issues. They are the hardest cases we have, the problems of proof, and to the legislature and the courts' credit, we do actually have some of the best rules of criminal procedure for sexual assault cases, but they are still the most difficult cases to challenge, to prosecute, and we are working every day on those issues. We've been talking in connection with our partnership with the Municipality of Anchorage about how do we make sure that we do better with respect to sexual assault and domestic violence cases between APD's work and the Anchorage District Attorney's Office. These are conversations and discussions and priorities that we we focus on every day. So make no mistake, it is the top priority.

Thank you. Senator Kiel.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Cox. I applaud that partnership. We talked about that, I think, in December as well. I think partnership is almost always the best way to move forward, both to be effective and to be efficient.

I do have another question, uh, and, and, and it applies directly to, um, to Alaska and to some of our laws. Um, in, I think it was 2020, maybe it was 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided, uh, Bostock v. Clayton County. Um, Justice Gorsuch wrote the opinion of the court, um, and he said with regard to employment law, I know Districts have differentiated the case and other things, but just looking at employment law, he said that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is discrimination on the basis of sex. Sex is a but-for cause of discrimination, and that was the, the opinion of, I think, a 6-3 Supreme Court. Alaska law prohibits discrimination based on sex in employment.

Does Justice Gorsuch's— does the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion hold? Is the logic good, or did they get it wrong? Through the Chair, Senator, um, Justice Gorsuch's, uh, decision in, in Bostock, uh, is binding law, uh, with respect to employment decisions, uh, regardless of what, uh, the Alaska laws say. About discrimination on the basis of sex. That is the law.

And I do not see any interest in overturning that decision. That is the law.

Thank you.

Senator Stevens. No questions, thank you. Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. I actually only have one point, and I just know that Mr. Cox Mr. Cox is relatively new to the state, so he might not know of the UAA partnership that allows for qualified UAA students to receive their law degrees while here in the state of Alaska.

They can do so remotely with a campus that is located in Minnesota. So I do encourage you as you continue to recruit from out of state to maybe look perhaps in-state for some of our qualified applicants. Thank you. Any further questions?

I've got a few more questions. I want to start— you know, I had some discussions in some of the work you've been doing in the minute with the municipality specifically related to the port and the pending lawsuit against the federal government relating to the port. Can you tell me a little bit more about the work you've been doing in support or in partnership with Anchorage about the port lawsuit against the federal government? Chair, thank you for that question. I want to be very careful about what I say about the municipality's litigation with the Department of Justice, or actually, it's Mayrad, the Department of Transportation.

But I would say that, as you all know better than me, the Mayrad had overseen a major project with the port. In the early 2000s. And to say it went well is not true. It was a disaster, and there were lawsuits. There was a lawsuit in the Court of Federal Claims by the Municipality of Anchorage against Mayrad.

I think the lawsuit was filed in the early 2010s. The— my understanding is that Settlement negotiations were not happening. These are government contract disputes, and I, as somebody who worked at the Department of Justice for— at headquarters for about 3 years, a little over 3 years, I used to oversee the commercial litigation branch that handled these government contracts disputes. I know the process by which settlement discussions are authorized and settlements are approved. And my understanding is that there was no real settlement discussion happening.

What had happened in litigation was that the Municipality of Anchorage had achieved a very large verdict upwards of $370 million in the Court of Federal Claims. However, unfortunately, in the court— in the Federal Circuit, which is the court of appeals for the Court of Federal Claims, that decision was reversed. And one of the major theories of the cities was undermined and dismissed. And so now, it's back in front of the same judge, uh, in, on the Court of Federal Claims. And what I had offered to do for the city, um, and first checking with the governor to make sure that I could, uh, offer this kind of assistance, was to, um, use some of my relationships and contacts in Washington, D.C. and, and ask for a meeting, um, so that we could actually engage and meaningful settlement discussions that are good for the Municipality of Anchorage and good for the state of Alaska.

And I know that some have said that 80% of goods go through the port, and I know that that may or may not be the right figure. But to cut to the chase, it is a very important piece, if not the most important piece of critical infrastructure for the state of Alaska. And I am happy to be helping the municipality with, uh, their discussions with the department. Um, I'm optimistic about a good resolution. Uh, and this is just one more way in which I'm trying to, um, be helpful to the state even when it's, uh, a little bit outside of my lane.

I've got additional questions. If anyone has questions, please let me know. I will stop asking and let you all take turns. One of the areas upon which I think you and I have a difference of opinion is abortion rights. And I respect your difference of opinions.

Our Alaska Supreme Court, interpreting the Alaska right to privacy in our Constitution, has found that there is abortion rights in Alaska. That's different than what rights there may be under the federal Constitution. What is your perspective with respect to filing amicus briefs and requests for amicus briefs regarding the right to abortion that is specifically— that the courts have found is specifically protected in Alaska? Do you feel you have the— you are allowed to file briefs that support a position on abortion rights that's inconsistent with the Alaska Constitution? Rights as interpreted by our Supreme Court.

Chair, um, I am, I'm certainly aware of the Alaska Supreme Court decisions on the right to privacy and, and how it protects abortion. Those are binding decisions. They are the law here in Alaska. And so I reckon even if you may personally disagree with those decisions, your job as Attorney General is to uphold those decisions? Chair, I— my, my job is to uphold the law of Alaska.

That includes the Constitution as interpreted by the Alaska Supreme Court. Um, with respect to whether there might be amicus briefs outside of Alaska in other courts of appeal relating to abortion, I don't think I've seen those briefs filed by the State of Alaska. I could be wrong, but none come to mind. It's an interesting question as to whether or not this— I would just have to think about whether the State of Alaska would have an interest in the right to abortion in other states. When our— when the right to privacy in Alaska is, you know, applies to abortion here in the state.

Well, I'll ask a very narrow, specific question. Let's say you're presented with an amicus, one of these amicus requests, of which you get thousands apparently. You're presented with an amicus brief on an abortion rights question that's before the US Supreme Court from another state. And the question that is being presented respecting that other state's rights is specifically inconsistent with the rights as interpreted by the Alaska Supreme Court, would you be comfortable advising the Governor that, that he should not— and you did not recommend joining that brief because that, that position is inconsistent with Alaska law that you are sworn to uphold? Chair, I think the best way for me to answer this question is to think back to what I would have done pre-Dobbs.

Okay. Tell us when Dobbs is so that we are all sort of the same date. Dobbs was the case decided a few years ago that overturned Roe v. Wade at the U.S. Supreme Court. Okay.

Before, before— Before that decision, I would— I don't even know if I would bring that to the governor's office, that kind of a brief.

Which, if you didn't bring it to his office, you're effectively concluding that as attorney general, you shouldn't be signing on because that's inconsistent. Consistent with their rights in Alaska. Chair, I don't know if that would necessarily be the reason why I wouldn't bring it to the governor. Might just be good judgment.

But I also, I want to be very careful because I don't know whether the state of Alaska joined an amicus brief with respect to Dobbs. The other thing I would say is that I think—. Well, you get— I give you a pass on what happened before before you became Attorney General. But I also want to make another point.

I think the way that the US Supreme Court came about the Roe v. Wade decision and Planned Parenthood v. Casey was not consistent with the way that I would approach a constitutional text. From a perspective of textualism and originalism. And I think that those were the issues that I think the states were grappling with, with Dobbs. And so, on those issues, and writing those issues, you know, I probably would have just consulted with the governor about what he wanted to do on on that because it is such an important issue of law and policy. I would not have made that decision alone, and I would not have made it without consulting with the governor.

So I probably would have had a very long conversation about it from the perspective of interpretive methodologies, which I think is different than perhaps what has happened in Alaska with respect to the right of privacy.

Mr. Chairman. Senator Keele. Mr. Chairman, I apologize. My mind is not as quick as the Attorney General designee's.

I didn't tease out the answer to the part of the question that was now in a post-Dobbs world. What would you do? It's hard for me to think about a case about the right to abortion in a federal litigation outside of Alaska, um, after— now that Dobbs is the law of the land. And so that's why I was, uh, offering an example of how I would have thought about this pre-Dobbs. Follow-up?

Uh, I guess that The imagination is infinite, Mr. Chairman, and so I'll encourage the Attorney General designee to imagine a situation where there was one.

And the amicus brief you're invited to join on behalf of Alaska would take a position inconsistent with Alaska's— Alaskans' rights in this matter.

Yeah, I— through the chair, it's very hard for me to speculate. About that kind of an issue and what would be in the brief and what the issues would be. Here's what I will give you is that on, on that kind of a brief, I would look hard at the law. I would consult the experts within the Department of Law. I would get their expertise.

If I felt that the State of Alaska did not have an interest, I wouldn't bring it. I wouldn't do anything with it. With it. If I thought that there was an interest in— that the state of Alaska did have, notwithstanding what the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled in its prior cases, I would have a conversation with the governor.

On the personnel management side. Your description of the— your description of the amount of time that one attorney works kind of primarily reviewing this question of joining amicus briefs is about one position and about a third of the time. When you hired the new solicitor for Alaska, was that a new position you created in the Department, or did you move that position from another place in Department of Law? —So you could have that further attorney that was essentially in a supervisory position? Chair, it was a vacant position.

It was actually the position that I vacated.

It was the position that you vacated? Yes. I was a special assistant in the first month before I was appointed to Attorney General designee. The question I have with regard to personnel management, so essentially we— you've taken a position that would otherwise be doing other things, top of my list prosecuting sex assault and sex abuse cases, and you've taken that position out of wherever they were in the Attorney General's office and added another person in a supervisory position. And I guess one of my questions is particularly your explanation of an interest in increasing the role the department even if it's in-house, does it increase your position, increase the work you're doing on these amicus briefs?

How do you justify, as you go forward with what appears to me a shortage of attorneys and not enough attorneys to do the work we have today already, and we're looking at some new laws that may increase the burden on your department, how will you make the decisions about directing those resources, and they're limited, to prosecution activities versus these appellate activities in amicus briefs with other states that may not directly affect the rights of Alaskans and may not directly affect victims in Alaska. How are you going to make those decisions about resource allocations? Because I again hear from your earlier comments about how much you want to be more engaged in amicus briefs, and I didn't hear the same enthusiasm about more prosecution. Mr. Peters.

Chair, I would answer it this way.

I think it's true that amongst most of the commissioner offices, there are usually 1 or 2 special assistants working directly with the commissioner. And I regard the State Solicitor General position, that position is really one of those special assistant type positions. It is not a supervisory position. It is a position that helps me oversee that, that work. That's the work with that I would probably be doing nights and weekends with, without her.

And then I don't have a second special assistant. And I prioritize the great work of the office, and I would never suggest that the filing of amicus briefs is on the level of prosecution of crimes. It's not.

I appreciate hearing that because I I share that view, and I, I, it concerns me. I, I will just say I have real concerns about the efforts that's been put in amicus briefs and the number of amicus briefs that if we asked members of the public that we represent where was the priority, they, they wouldn't think these amicus briefs should be getting even the attention they're getting today. That's, that's my suspicion. That's how public would feel. Um, let me try.

Okay, a couple of it— these are lighter questions, but you were a member— you moved to Alaska in, I think, 2021, didn't join the bar until May of 2025. Why? You're working as a lawyer in state. Why didn't you join our bar earlier, Chair? Um, it's a, it's a fair question.

Um, I was an in-house counsel I was a general counsel, and Alaska, like almost if not all of the other state bar rules, always allows an exception for being admitted to the state bar for in-house counsel. The same is also true, for example, when you are a lawyer for the federal government, as long as you are licensed to practice in a in a state, um, then you can, uh, work as a federal lawyer, uh, in another state. Uh, same thing is true as in-house counsel. Uh, I would also like to say that it may have been a mistake of law on my part. I looked at the rules and I was under the mistaken impression that I had to take the Alaska Bar Exam, uh, to become a member.

It wasn't until I was visiting with, I think, a former president of the State Bar who alerted me to the fact that I only had to take the ethics class because I had not taken that within the last 8 years. I signed up for that. That's only offered a couple of times a year. It takes about 9 to 12 months to become admitted, and the rest is history. Well, you are historically correct, but not in more modern times about whether you had to take the bar exam all over again.

And another topic you and I have discussed in not just here, but you're not a trial attorney. You haven't tried a case and haven't tried a case in Alaska. Is that correct? Chair, that's correct. I'm not a trial lawyer.

I'm not an appellate lawyer. That is not my practice.

That's not what I bring to the table. And so you haven't argued a case before the Alaska Supreme Court either? Chair, that's correct.

Let me look at a couple of other notes. I'm— oh, there was an interview. There was a discussion. It was an interview on a deal about discussion of the future of the state AG's consumer lawsuits against Chinese companies. And I believe in an interview in October, you said that if you want to accomplish one thing as AG, it would be set up a counter-China initiative that lasts beyond this administration.

Is that still one of your priorities as AG? Chair, it, it is. Um, I will say that, uh, sometimes these things move at the, at the pace of government. Uh, but I do think— which is fast, which is not fast. I do think that it's important to look at consumer protection actions relating to especially Chinese technologies where there may be backdoors or kill switches that, that, that, that may intrude on privacy interests, for example, of Alaskans, but also may present critical critical infrastructure risks for Alaska.

And so I am interested in those kinds of cases. And I have asked my Consumer Protection Unit to explore some of those kinds of matters. And I think it's important. And it continues to be important. [Speaker:COMMISSIONER ARKOOSH] All right.

Thank you. I will see if anyone else on the committee has any follow-up questions. Hearing and seeing none, thank you very much for taking the time with us today. Thank you again to your family for joining us. They thought they were going to be only here for an hour and a half, and it's turned into more than two.

Any final comments from members of the committee? Hearing and seeing none, Senator Keogh, may I have a motion? May I make a motion? You may, Mr. Chairman. As soon as I pick up my notes.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, having reviewed the qualifications of the Governor's appointee for Attorney General, recommends that the name of Stephen Cox be forwarded to a joint session for consideration. This does not reflect an intent by any of the members to vote for or against the individual during any further sessions for the purpose of confirmation.

Thank you. Seeing no objections or anything else, we will— the name will be forwarded to the joint session for consideration when we meet in joint session to take up confirmations. We're going to adjourn for the day. Our next meeting will be on Monday, May 4th at 1:30 p.m. With that, I also want to specifically thank the Resources Chair for her generosity in allowing us to work into Resources Committee time. And with that, we will stand adjourned.

The time is now 3:00 p.m. 3:51 PM.