Alaska Legislature: Senate State Affairs — April 30, 2026 3:30pm

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] I'd like to call the Senate State Affairs Committee meeting to order. Let the record reflect it's Thursday, April 30th. Time now is 3:30 PM. I'd like to welcome Vice Chair Bjorkman, Senator Gray Jackson, Senator Tilton, myself, Chair Kawasaki. We do have a quorum to conduct business.

Senator Wilkowski will be here shortly. I'd like to thank Carrie Tepeau from Senate Records and Zachary Lawhorn, moderator with the Legislative Information Office. We have a couple items today on the agenda. We have a— I'm sorry, we have confirmation hearing on the Attorney General designee Stephen Cox. We have a final hearing on SB 243, definition of prohibited weapons.

Under bills previously heard, we have a first hearing under Senate Bill 169, welcoming Alaska Office. That's sponsored by Senator Tobin. So first we're going to go ahead and dispatch Senate Bill 243. Senate Bill 243 has been in committee for several months now. We've heard it.

We heard a potential committee substitute. That's the N version of the bill. We have talked internally and decided to move out the A version so it can be sped along to the next committee, which is the Senate Judiciary Committee. So with that, I would ask Senator Tilton.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move SB 243, Work Draft 34, LS1456/A, as in Alaska, be reported out of committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. Was that N?

A. Okay. All right. Are there any objections? Hearing and seeing none, Senate Bill 243, Work Draft 34LS1456/A is reported from committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal notes.

We will take a brief adieu.

Okay, I'd like to call the Senate State Affairs Committee meeting to order. We now have before us Attorney General designee Stephen Cox, appointed this year and will go through confirmation hearings today. Just wanted to offer you the floor to see if you had any comments about yourself, maybe history, where you're from, things like that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, and thank you, members of the committee. Uh, if it's all right, I'd like to introduce my family.

With me, I've got my wife, my lovesome wife Christina, and next to her is my daughter Hulda. She's 11. Sometimes she refers to herself as Hattie. Especially when she's playing soccer. In the back, I've got Esther.

She's my oldest. She's 13. And then last but not least, I've got Lawrence, who is 9.

Okay. Well, it is a privilege to be here, and it is a privilege to be considered for confirmation to this role. I'm beyond grateful for being nominated. And I, and I want to thank my family for standing with me and my wife and my kids here, my parents, Jack and Meryl Cox, my mother-in-law, Julie De La Torre, and my late father-in-law, Jorge De La Torre, and all my siblings, in-laws, and extended family. I'm also grateful to the many friends and mentors and colleagues who have supported me over the years.

And to the team at the Department of Law. I genuinely love working with them and alongside them. I appreciate this opportunity and I don't take this process lightly. I wasn't born here, but I got here as fast as I could. That's a line people say in another state, but I use it here because it rings true for me in Alaska.

I've lived and I've practiced a lot of places, but like so many people I've met in this state, Alaska feels more like home to me. We love it here. We came here with purpose. Yes, there was a job. I was working for Bristol Bay Industrial at Bristol Bay Native Corporation, but it was more than that.

It was a beautiful place, a welcoming people, salt-of-the-earth people, a great place to raise a family, a strong Catholic community that we could plug into. But it was also something deeper. Alaska is the last frontier. It's a place of extremes. The weather, the light, the darkness, rugged landscapes, wildlife, the bigness, the remoteness.

All of which builds character, I say. We told ourselves we needed to get through 3 winters to make sure that this was a permanent move. My oldest daughter, Esther, figured it out first. Within a year, she said she wanted to stay. Now my kids and my wife will tell you that winter is their favorite season.

For me, my favorite season is fishing, and I especially love the fall when the rainbow trout get big like footballs. I've had the chance to meet all of you, um, already, and I appreciate that, but I'm grateful for the opportunity to introduce myself more fully and to the people of Alaska. I grew up in Texas, public schools, public universities. Math was my favorite subject until I found computer science, which I studied in college. I was also a bike tour guide in Paris.

That's where I met my wife. She took my tour. We've been married almost 23 years. My personal connection to Alaska goes back about 15 years. I worked on Alaska energy projects earlier in my career.

Starting in 2011, working on Cook Inlet exploration projects with Apache Corporation. My role was helping to navigate the legal and regulatory challenges of operating here. Later, at the Department of Justice, from early 2017 through mid-2020, I worked in the Associate Attorney General's Office, helping oversee the department's civil litigating components and grant-making components. For example, we reviewed and approved numerous federal tort settlements involving Alaska Native plaintiffs, where part of the remedy addressed the loss of disruption of subsistence fishing and hunting and gathering. And when Attorney General Barr visited Alaska in 2019, our office worked closely with our grantmaking components to help push out over $10 million in emergency public safety funding targeted to rural communities, especially Alaska Native communities that face some of the most acute public safety challenges.

Then I came here. I served as general counsel for an investment platform of Bristol Bay Native Corporation. That gave me a, a different perspective. I spent time in the region. I saw the fishing traditions.

I came to understand both the opportunities and the challenges, especially in western Alaska, where the cost of fuel, logistics, and remoteness shape everyday life. And that brings me to why I'm here and what I've been doing over the last 8 months. For me, this job became very real very quickly. You're dealing with problems that people see every day on the streets and their stores in their communities. And one of the hardest challenges that we're taking on right now is quality of life crime, particularly in Anchorage.

What I saw early on is that it wasn't just a prosecution problem, it was a systemic problem. Retail theft, public disorder, drug activity— they're all connected, and they're being driven relative— by relatively small number of repeat offenders and problem locations. There are also other aspects that bring challenges: mental health, drug addiction, homelessness. So we've taken an all-of-government approach, working with the municipality, with law enforcement, with other state agencies, and even looking to partner with business community. We've cross-designated prosecutors so that state and municipal attorneys can use each other's authorities.

We're looking at civil tools like abatement actions to go after drug houses. We're even using data from retailers to identify patterns and repeat offenders. That approach comes directly from my experience at the federal level, where you have to coordinate across agencies, share information, and use every available tool to address complex problems. At the same time, I want to be clear about the department's topmost priority: domestic violence and sexual assault, especially in rural Alaska. And that remains at the center of our public safety mission.

Those are our hardest cases, requires partnerships and coordination, breaking down silos across agencies and jurisdictions, and we can't afford to tackle those problems in isolation. We have to bring people together, use the tools we already have more effectively, and partner with other agencies to build a more coordinated response to the most serious challenges we face. Another area I've focused on, uh, increased attention on, is, uh, consumer protection. Alaska has some of the strongest consumer protection laws in the country, and I think we can be enforcing them more aggressively. So we've leaned in.

We've taken action against platforms that solicited donations for Alaska nonprofits without their consent. We've addressed grocery pricing practices where customers were charged more than, than the shelf price. We've taken on utilities that were rounding up customer bills without clear affirmative consent. That work draws on my time overseeing similar consumer enforcement efforts at DOJ and on relationships with other states. And federal partners.

A third area is working to help unlock Alaska's potential, particularly through federal partnerships and the execution of the executive order on Alaska. A lot of the barriers to development here are not about policy, they're about execution, layers of process, overlapping jurisdictions, slow-moving systems. So I've spent time working on those channels, leveraging relationships, understanding how those agencies operate, and helping position Alaska to move projects forward under existing law. It's not always visible work, but it matters. There's a common thread across all of this.

It's the same lesson I've taken from every role that I've had. The job is not just to identify problems, it's to bring the right people together, break down silos, understand what the law allows, and navigate around obstacles in the way. This job is the most interesting job and the most meaningful job I have ever had. It is, without question, the best job I've ever had. I get to work on matters that are central to the state, and there's nothing quite like it.

And I couldn't pass up the chance to do this. It's a rare opportunity to serve Alaska, and I consider it a privilege. I'll just close with this: my family chose this state We love it here. I'm committed to serving it well. If confirmed, you'll get my best judgment.

You'll get someone who understands that this office belongs to the people of Alaska. Thank you. I'd be happy to take any questions. Great. Thank you very much, Attorney General Cox.

There's a handful of questions here. I know Senator Gray Jackson has the first shot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank you for your willingness to serve, number one, and I also want to thank you for the meeting that we had a couple weeks ago in my office, and also it's really kind of you to introduce us to your family. But I've heard recently that the Labor Relations Division that was formerly under Personnel, which is where it should be, not only at the state level but at the local level, is now under the Department of Law. And I just heard this recently, I was really, really surprised, but what I've also heard is that there are concerns with unions when they're requesting information that they're entitled to get, that they're having a hard time getting that information, and that there is a shift away from settlements toward increased arbitration and litigation, which takes a lot of time and is costly.

And I'm also hearing, lastly, that the institutional expertise that used to be in Labor Relations is no longer there. It's diminished significantly. And so my question— with all— with that said, my question to you is, can you share how this change came about and if you intend to keep Labor Relations under the Department of Law? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Through the Chair, Senator, thank you for the question. I believe The change occurred before I took the, the role, and at the time I remember getting briefed on the challenges about that transition. Anytime there's a chance in transition from one department to another, there's transition costs, and, and it's been challenging. My understanding is that the expertise has been built up since that happened. I want to say, although again, I'm a little bit fuzzy on this because it occurred before I entered public service, but I want to say it was sometime earlier in last year.

And I do think you raise a great question about the costs of litigation and arbitration. That is something that I would— I would like to look at and think about why that happens so often. I don't have any great answers for you, but I'd be happy to look into these things and to talk to you afterwards so I can get briefed up and we can chat and brainstorm about how to deal with some of the problems that you just raised. Thank you. May I follow up, Mr. Chairman?

Please, Senator Gray Jackson. Thank you for your answer. But to me it's really unusual to have labor relations under the Department of Law. So are you able to say whether or not you think it's a good idea right now? And also, again, if you plan on maintaining labor relations within the Department of Law?

Through the Chair, Senator, I have— I do have concerns. It is an odd place to put it when you just sort of think about the role of the lawyers.

Normally, the lawyers are representing the employer in the— in collective bargaining agreements and those negotiations. And who is the employer in Alaska? That's the state, it's the department. So it's unclear to me where that is best housed. I'm not as familiar about why the Department of Administration wasn't working or why it was moved over to the Law Department.

But I would concede that it is an interesting place to put it. And I would certainly be happy to talk more with the governor's office about the thinking there.

But I'd have to get smart on it first and understand the background. Understood. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator.

A major question earlier came up regarding election materials and voter data that was released by the State of Alaska to the U.S. Department of Justice. In April of 2026, there were requests. The original requests were made. It—. Middle of— by middle of summer.

I've got the date somewhere. July— August 4th. Sorry. August 4th.

The director had responded saying that We'll give you the limited voter data, data that's typically provided by request and is fully— it's not private information. The Department of Justice responded on August 14th of that year that they needed a more complete list. So in December 19th, 2025, Lieutenant Governor agreed to provide Department of Justice with the complete list of eligible voters. And this is the question that I have: were you involved in the discussion and decisions to release that critical data to the Department of Justice? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for the question. I was involved, and I'm happy to tell you my sort of perspective in all of this. I had— when I first arrived, I had learned that there was a request and there was dissatisfaction by the Department of Justice about providing the public list only. And frankly, I think for a couple of months, we were grappling with whether they were going to actually follow through and press on this. I think it was probably around November that we started hearing threats of litigation.

And so, we started talking with the Department of Justice. I think my staff had been talking with the Department of Justice alongside, I think, the Division of Elections all along.

And one of the things that was that was offered was a memorandum of agreement that spelled out what are the purposes for which the voter rolls were being requested, what were the parameters and the restrictions around those. We did seek to attempt to negotiate, and we passed along a redline version. We were told in no uncertain terms that they were not accepting— the Department of Justice was not accepting redlines. And I was told that this was because the Department of Justice had represented in court that they were not accepting changes to these MOUs. What I advised the Lieutenant Governor is whether we could include a cover letter that at least set forth that this was done pursuant to an Alaska statute where we had authority to act this way.

And with a statement that in connection with any requests in implementation of this MOU, that the state would comply with federal and state law in implementing the MOU. We looked at this from really two perspectives. One, was there a statute that authorized disclosure of confidential information? There was, for lawful government purposes. And two, we— took the posture of cooperation.

Alaska has a longstanding history of cooperating with the U.S. Department Civil Rights Division, no matter what kind of administration we're dealing with. And I will be candid with you, I have a disposition of cooperating with law enforcement. And so those are the two sort of lenses through which we viewed the request, and that's a little bit about kind of the, the perspective that, that, uh, that we brought to the table. But in all of this, I have to rely on the experts in the building. There's no better experts on these laws, especially state law, but even on the federal election laws, than we have in the Department of Law here at Alaska.

And we want to make sure that we're doing everything by the book. Thank you. Mr. Cox, the laws that the federal government cited were both the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act. This was sent to all 49 other states and potentially, I don't know if every, even potentially non-state territories.

We were the two states that complied. Texas and Alaska were the two states that complied. Several other states decided to go to court, Michigan, California, to name a few. Why was the decision not made after the request was for data that clearly is against, is not as confidential and strictly to be confidential between the state. Why wasn't that the recourse that you chose?

And why was it just to follow what the federal government, Department of Justice wanted you to do? Mr. Chairman, um, my understanding is that, uh, there were over a dozen states that actually did cooperate and do the same thing that we did. And we were certainly not the first. Uh, if I recall correctly, I think it was the state of Indiana that was the very first to to cooperate. I don't think all of the states were able to get an MOU.

Some of the states did not. But it is a fair question and is a good question because some states did choose to not cooperate and they were sued. And in general, they are prevailing in court. In terms of whether those statutes under which the Department of Justice sued those states require the states to provide that information. Yes.

Senator Wilkowski. Yeah, thank you. Just on that point, and good afternoon.

The Lieutenant Governor —in this particular issue on the turning over of confidential voter data to the Department of Justice, originally declined to provide the information to the federal government. They were advised by—they testified and they provided this information—that they were advised by the Attorney General's office to not provide that information. When you became Attorney General, that advice changed. Did you change that opinion, or did you—did you advise them after they were previously advised after our legislative attorneys advised that this was illegal and that they shouldn't provide that information, did you change the opinion? Through the chair, Senator, I don't know if that's exactly how the Law Department advised the Lieutenant Governor before I was Attorney General.

I do think the Law Department advised the Lieutenant Governor, let's let's try to, uh, provide just the public information. Um, I do not think, uh, the Law Department ever advised the Lieutenant Governor that it was illegal to provide that information. And I do believe that, uh, the, the Law Department would back me up that there's a statute that authorizes that disclosure. Um, that is the position of the Law Department. Um, I recognize that, uh, there could be disagreement about this.

Follow-up, Senator Lekauski. In retrospect, do you— would you do it all over again? Would you advise the department to turn over the confidential information of Alaskans to the Department of Justice after they've been sued multiple times and every single court in the country has said that was a violation of law, and our legislative attorneys have said that was a violation of the law? Would you still advise them to do that? Through the chair, Senator I think I would still handle the situation the same way.

It's not that it was a violation of— no court has said that it was a violation of the law for the state to provide that information. What the courts have said in litigation is that the federal government does not have the authority under the statutes that they have cited in their lawsuits to compel. The states to cooperate. I think I would still have advised that we have a statute that authorizes disclosure and authorizes cooperation. And I think in terms of the policy choice, I still would have deferred to our statewide policymakers, the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor, in terms of whether or not to cooperate.

And like I said, my general disposition is to cooperate with law enforcement, and Alaska has a long-standing history of cooperating with multiple Civil Rights Division investigations, even those that, that, that could arguably be viewed as, as overreaching. So it's just—. Let me ask them, just on that point, that the state also has a constitutional right of privacy. It's one of the, I think, bedrocks and one of the most important things I think some people recognize in the state constitution. So I'm— and I know you're not from Alaska, but why would you not side on the side of what says constitutionally we as Alaskans have?

And we've sort of— we've been guaranteed and sort of— I don't know, we're rugged. We're Alaskans, right? We're so far away from the rest of the U.S. when the U.S. does something, we tend to first take a pause and look and see if it's something that Alaskans want to do. Why was that not your first thought, is that Alaska's got a constitutional right to privacy? Let's take a pause before we do anything more that the Department of Justice has requested.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. I think it's a fair question. And I'll just share my perspective on this. The rights of privacy, I will concede, I am learning about the right to privacy, and the legislature has far better expertise on the right to privacy. But I will also say that the right to privacy under the Alaska Constitution calls for the legislature to implement the right to privacy.

There is a statute on the books and there has been no challenge to that statute under the right to privacy. And the Law Department's position is that that statute is a valid statute and that it is not unconstitutional. Okay. Senator LaCausse. Mr.

Chairman, I want to point out the revisionist history that's going on here. Because I'll tell you the timeline exactly what happened. Because I have, I have the documents here. On July 16, 2025, my office called the Lieutenant Governor's office to ask how they were planning to respond to the Fed's request for this data, and we were informed that the division was still working on a formal response, but that the, that the Department of Law had advised that they could only share non-confidential data. On August 4, 2025, the division, with Chief Assistant Attorney General Thomas Flynn from the Department of Law, CC to proceed responded to the feds providing only non-confidential data.

That's the facts here, okay? You were appointed Attorney General on August 28th, 24 days after the division had formally refused to provide the confidential data, and then a couple months later the advice changed. Did you tell them to change that, yes or no? Through the chair, Senator, I did not, uh, I did not to say we should change our position. I did advise the Lieutenant Governor and the Division of Elections that we had been threatened with a lawsuit, but I do not believe that it was illegal to pass along that information.

I think there is an Alaska statute that authorizes that disclosure to law enforcement. Senator Wilkowski, you, uh, You've signed on to 110 amicus briefs. Is that right? Through the chair, Senator, I don't have the number, but that's about in the ballpark. And has any other attorney general signed on to that many amicus briefs?

Through the chair, yes. Who? Through the chair, my predecessor did. I can tell you that— Which one? Roughly, in general, Um, over the last 7 years of the, of the Dunleavy administration, uh, the state has joined, uh, well over 500, maybe even over 600, uh, amicus briefs.

And, um, and, uh, and that the Department of Justice is relatively on pace, uh, with that same sort of trend. And, and I would also say Uh, it's also important to understand what these amicus briefs are. And through the chair, if, if, if you'll indulge, um, I, I'd happy to talk about the process. Mr. Chair, I, I, I, I have a question.

And yep, Senator Blakowski, you, you can talk about it in, in your free time, but right now we have a limited amount of time and I want to be able to ask you some questions here because I sent you a letter on October 29th, 2025. Asking you to sign on to a lawsuit that 25 other states had signed on to, an amicus brief demanding that the federal government fulfill its obligations to release funding to states for SNAP benefits. Half the states in the country signed on to that, and I sent that letter to you, and you didn't sign on to it, did you? Through the chair, Senator, I, I think that's right. And, and I— and, and in that letter I noted at that time you had only signed on to two dozen amicus briefs in September alone, and those cases ranged from supporting President Trump's firing of a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors to declaring support for professional cake bakers who should not be forced to design cakes that violate their religious beliefs.

And I said, certainly the clear legal rights of 66,000 Alaskans to feed their families is at least similar— of similar importance to professional, like, cake bakers. Do you think the rights of 66,000 Alaskans to feed their families is at least of importance to the rights of professional cake bakers? Yes or no? Through the chair, Senator, I think it's a fair question. Just yes or no.

I, I, I, I don't think it's that simple. It's that simple. It really is. It's defending the rights of 66,000 Alaskans. It's really that simple.

Versus professional cake bakers in some ideological war that you choose to fight. It's really that simple. Through the chair. Yes or no? Senator, I just disagree with the premise.

I don't think it's that simple. And I'll tell you, if you'll indulge, how we go about making a decision as to whether or not to join an amicus brief.

We look at whether the Alaska— whether the state of Alaska has an interest. And on that, on that front, you've certainly articulated a strong Alaskan interest. We also look at the law and whether the law being argued in the brief is our position. And we also look at our past precedent of these amicus briefs that the state has already been on record on. And I would just say that on all of these issues, whether it's on whether it's federal removal power or whether it's religious liberty or whether it's grant-making authority of the federal government, the state of Alaska has for years taken consistent positions on those issues in dozens of amicus briefs.

And it would not be my job to change the state's policy. All of these amicus briefs present issues of law and policy. And on the policy, this is the reason why the Attorney General will always in Alaska consult with the policymaker, the Governor's Office, on those briefs. Follow-up, and then I'm going to move on. Did you think— I sent you a letter on September 9th, 2025, after the state lost a $125 million grant for Solar for All.

It was cut by the federal administration, asking you to go to bat for Alaska like numerous other states went to bat. Did you sign on and go file litigation over that loss like numerous other states did? Through the chair, just to be clear, that was a, that was a request from you to join a lawsuit. Yes, it was. Not an amicus brief.

Yes, it was. Through the chair, Senator, no, no, we did not join that lawsuit. Okay. Let me move on really quick to Senator Bjorkman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Cox, thank you for being here today. I just have a question. It's factual but also kind of academic in nature. The statute in question on which kind of the case about releasing the voter data rests, kind of ends with an important phrase about when that information should be released, and the phrase is "for a lawful purpose." What was the lawful purpose that you expected the federal government to execute with all of the confidential voter data that was released to them? Through the Chair, Senator, thank you for the question.

That is the way that the statute reads. And in my judgment, those lawful government purposes are set forth in the MOU that the state signed with the Department of Justice. An important part of that is compliance with the National Voter Registration Act, which is a shared responsibility between the state and the federal government. And I think that the MOU makes those points.

I cannot pretend to be an expert on those laws, but it's the position of the Department of Law that those were lawful government purposes set forth in the MOU.

Follow-up? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for that answer. I'm just curious, what violations of the Voter Registration Act or any federal law do you think that the Department of Justice may find or get insight into as a result of them having Alaska's confidential voter information? Through the chair, Senator, I wouldn't really want to speculate, but I'll just give you a couple of examples that I can think of.

But to my awareness, the Department of Justice has not done anything with the data as of yet.

But I would expect that if the Department of Justice had the voter rolls of multiple states, let alone all states, that if there were certain people who were showing up on two states' rolls, but one was newer than the other, that might be an opportunity where the state would say, this person no longer lives in your state and lives in, say, Colorado. I would I would think that would be a perfectly plausible or acceptable kind of a request. But what you should know is that if and when we ever receive any kind of a request from the Department of Justice, we will only respond in accordance with Alaska law, and we will do things by book, and there is no exception. Follow-up? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for that answer.

If it is incumbent on and a prerequisite for the release of voter information to be used for a lawful purpose, and you have not identified what the lawful purpose is that the Department of Justice will use the voter data for, I'm concerned that the release of that data, because the purpose has not been solidly identified, does not exist. And so, that's a concern that I think a lot of people have, and that's, I guess, academically how I look at the issue is if we are releasing the data for a lawful purpose, but we can't positively identify what the purpose is and then judge that according to whether or not it is indeed lawful, I'm concerned— I have a concern about that. That's all. Through the Chair, Senator, I, I— and maybe I misunderstood the question, but to me, the lawful government purpose would be compliance with the federal statutes that are listed in the MOU. What I was trying to articulate is an example of how we might see things unfold down the line consistent with those statutes.

But in my judgment and the department's judgment, the purposes set forth in the MOU are lawful government purposes.

Well, okay. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. So, it's been challenged. There's roughly 30 states that have challenged those blanket requests from Department of Justice to provide information to the— or for states to provide the information to Department of Justice.

Under the Civil Rights Act, the Privacy Act of 1974, the Help America Vote Act, and the Voting Rights Act. And now there's a, it was just filed last week, an amicus brief opposing the overreach specifically in Michigan because of the request for sensitive voter roll data. I'm not, I guess I'm not inclined to think that you would ever become a part of that amicus brief, though. Mr. Chairman, I haven't seen that make us brief, but based on your description of it, if the— I'd really have to see it. I don't want to speculate.

Okay, Senator Wilkowski. Thank you. The federal government has canceled CDC public health grants across the country, and an analysis done by A news organization, KFF Health News, showed that states that sued the Trump administration were able to get 80% of the funding restored, while those that didn't sue got less than 5% of the funding restored. There were 9 Alaska grants. All 9 of Alaska's terminated grants remain canceled.

Um, did you file a lawsuit to get those grants restored? Through the chair, Senator, no, I don't I think we did. Why?

Through the chair, Senator, I don't have a good answer for you. I'd have to look back at those lawsuits and to see what the theories were and if they're consistent with the state's position on the federal government's discretion with respect to grantmaking. But I don't have a an answer that I can give you right now. Follow-up. I know you've lived here since, I think, 2021.

How many jury trials have you tried in the state of Alaska in that time? Through the chair, Senator, I am not a trial lawyer. I am not a— I've not first chaired any trials. I have not second chaired any trials. I'm not an appellate litigator.

That is not my background. Okay. Um, follow-up. If, um, would you agree that the right to abortion in Alaska is protected by our Constitution? Through the chair, Senator, I am aware of the Alaska Supreme Court's decisions interpreting— generally aware— interpreting the right to privacy, and I believe that those, those rulings are binding and law.

Follow-up. And so you would defend the right to a woman to have an abortion in the state of Alaska? Through the chair, Senator, I want to be very careful about answering hypotheticals. The way that abortion is defined under Alaska statute, I believe it's a statute that was passed in maybe the early 1970s. I am not an expert in that statute, but I would say that I would have to look at the facts and I would have to look at the law.

But I, I To your earlier point, I do believe the Alaska Supreme Court has spoken on the right to privacy and its application to abortion, and those rules are binding. Follow-up. And you're saying that if they were binding law, you would not seek to overturn it? Through the chair, Senator, I, I don't, I don't, I don't have any plans to to ask the Alaska Supreme Court to revisit its earlier cases. That is not something that I have even broached with the governor.

But on something that large of an issue, that is a serious question that I would not do absent a lot of consideration and discussion with the governor. But I have no plans to do that. That has not been a topic of discussion. I don't anticipate doing that at all. But I also want to recognize that I can't tell you what may come up in months to come in terms of, whether there are cases that are adjacent to those issues and the state's position.

Um, the— I believe the state is currently litigating, an abortion-related case, and defending an Alaska statute on point. Um, and I think we'll, we'll hear from the Alaska Supreme Court on that. Uh, but, uh, But no, there are no plans, uh, to seek to overturn any of the Alaska Supreme Court decisions on that issue. Senator Wilkowski, in any of the 110 amicus briefs you've signed on, have you sought to overturn binding Supreme Court law?

Through the chair, Senator, I would have to I expect the answer is probably, probably yes, but nothing is coming to my head right now. But it's also, it could be no. And I also want to say that what we're talking about here is starry decisis. We're also talking about potential cases that might, from one group of lawyers, be governed by a current US Supreme Court case law, and another group of lawyers would say that, "No, this is different." And so, you know, to one lawyer, you might think I'm— you know, the brief is seeking an overturn of a decision. Uh, but it may actually just be looking for a, uh, a different outcome, uh, with leaving that decision in place.

But, but right now, I, I don't know the answer to that question. Senator Wilkowski. If lawsuits were filed challenging same-sex marriage in Alaska, would you defend the validity of those marriages?

Through the chair, Senator, could you unpack exactly what you're— what kind of a lawsuit are you talking about? Do you believe that same-sex marriages should be recognized in the state of Alaska? Through the chair, we have no plans to litigate on any kind of undoing of same-sex marriages. And— but I— that is a big question. I find it a little bit vague and I also don't want to commit to something that later in the year you might say, well, this is adjacent to that issue and it's the same thing.

Let me take Senator Gray Jackson very quickly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So through your efforts— As Attorney General, Alaska has joined, as everybody knows, several national lawsuits. And so can you tell me, um, when— before joining these lawsuits, how did you determine whether or not it was in the best interest of Alaskans? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Through the chair, Senator, for the lawsuits that For the lawsuits that we've joined that are coming to mind right now, in general, they are direct— they're directly on point with Alaskan interests. So for example, if you think about the litigation relating to some of the North Slope development where— Alaska is not a party.

We have intervened in some of those litigations so that we can have a voice in that litigation. But usually those recommendations to intervene and to join lawsuits come from the sections within the department with recommendations that I review based on the facts and circumstances, and usually in consultation with the client agencies and the governor's office. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. Okay. Senator Wielechowski. There is a lawsuit dealing with the— in front of the Supreme Court dealing with the arrival of absentee ballots and saying that all absentee ballots must all ballots must be counted by Election Day. Are you familiar with that lawsuit?

Through the chair, yes. And are you familiar with the challenges that Alaska faces in getting ballots back on time and having communities sometimes where ballots don't arrive or mail planes can't get in or out for days? Are you familiar with those challenges? Through the chair, Senator, we laid that out in our brief, some of those it was a short brief, and it was about a 10-page brief that laid out some of the challenges that Alaska faces. And for example, we laid out the fact that the U.S.

Postal Service, it's, it's not like in Louisiana in terms of delivering or receiving ballots. In fact, there are some parts of the state where the U.S. Postal service will have to rely on helicopters and hovercraft, and we made that point in the brief. And, Mr. Chairman— Senator Wielekowski. Were there other states that signed on, that filed an amicus brief that urged the court to find against that and find against that provision that required that ballots be due on Election Day because of these challenges that Alaska face or because of challenges that their states Through the chair, Senator, there were two multi-state briefs, if I remember correctly, one supporting the RNC and one supporting the state of Mississippi.

We made the strategic choice to file our own brief in support of neither party. To paint the picture of Alaska, uh, and, and the geographic and logistical challenges. And we sought clarity, uh, with respect to, for example, how do you define whether a ballot is received. And, and, and, and, and that's what we did. I recognize that there could be a disagreement as to whether or not I should have just joined one of the other briefs that, that didn't necessarily discuss the kind of challenges for Alaska.

I recognize that. We made a strategic choice. I, I actually like briefs in support of neither party that are very fact-based. And I think, and again, I realize people might disagree, but I think sometimes they get noticed the most. But that was a strategic choice.

Follow-up? And is it fair to say— I mean, I've heard this said times— Alaska is probably the most challenging place in the country to conduct elections because of the geographical challenges and the weather challenges? Is that probably a fair statement? Through the chair, Senator, I think that is a fair statement. And with that, you could have signed on you could have joined an amicus brief asking, actually asking the court to rule against that prohibition on ballots after Election Day.

You could have done that, right? Through the chair, Senator, I could have joined one of the other multi-state briefs, and I would probably not have had the chance to write as much about Alaska in that brief, but again, I recognize that we can have a disagreement on the best choice, and we made a strategic choice, and I do think it will be noticed. But we may just disagree on the best choice there. Senator Lukowski. Well, since you signed— since you did your own brief, why didn't you just in your own brief urge the court to rule against the RNC?

You could have just done that since you were doing your own brief and say, hey, this is a terrible law for Alaska. Why didn't you stand up for Alaska and say to the court, this is a bad law for Alaska, we want you to strike this down, we want you to say no to this? Why don't you just take that position and say no and do that? Through the chair, Senator, I don't think the legal issue is that easy. I do think I've read the, the, the decision in the Fifth Circuit that is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

And I thought it was fairly compelling. And so we made the strategic choice to make a fact-based brief in support of neither party. And again, I recognize that you disagree and you would have preferred me to not do that. I would have actually preferred you to stand up for Alaska.

Okay. Before we go to public testimony, there's only a couple people online, but is there any final questions? We might bring you back for other questions. Okay. We will go ahead and go to public testimony.

Public testimony is limited to 2 minutes. We just have a couple people online. We're going to start with the people online. People who joined first in queue. The first person online is Thomas Garber.

Please state your name and your affiliation, and you've got 2 minutes.

Thank you, Chair Kaufman, members of the committee. My name is Thomas Garber. I am a 30-year resident of Nakiski, Alaska. I ask you to withhold confirmation of Stephen Cox as Alaska's Attorney General. My concerns are not political.

It is unconstitutional. On April 2nd of this year, Attorney General Cox submitted comments to the Alaska Supreme Court's Criminal Rules Committee opposing proposed amendments to Criminal Rule 6.1, the rules governing citizens' access to the investigative grand jury. Alaska's Constitution, Article I, Section 8, declares that the grand jury's investigative powers shall never be suspended. Mr. Cox Cox's comments reveal a troubling pattern, a willingness to use legal sophistication to preserve the substance of an unconstitutional framework while appearing to reform it. Here, the core problem: Mr. Cox cited a Harvard Law article, his personal friend Professor Richard G— Garnett, as his strongest authority, but he cited only half of what it says.

That article concludes exactly what neither the executive nor the courts may come between the citizens and the grand jury by screening out petitions. Mr. Cox used that authority to attack the Criminal Rules Committee's proposal while proposing his own alternative that does precisely what his own cited authority forbids. He would simply replace executive gatekeeping with judicial gatekeeping. The rules change, but the gates do not— does not. His proposed mechanism routing citizens' petitions through court-appointed counsel under Administrative Rules 12(e) is circular on its face.

Administrative Rules 12(e) authorizes appointments when required by a cited exciting laws, existing laws. It does not create law that does the requirement. He is bootstrapping a proposed rule into a substantial constitutional framework, exactly the kind of expedited process Gaetan, bypassing rulemaking, his own letter criticized. Please give me a second. And his, uh, Separation of powers argument, if applied consistently, condones Supreme Court Order 9— condemns Supreme Court in 1993, the very order he defends more directly than it condemns the citizens— the Criminal Rules Committee proposal.

Because under Rule— I'm sorry. No, Mr. Garber, it's— I appreciate, um, being brief. If you could send your public testimony to the committee. We will make sure it gets shared with all legislators. And Senate State Affairs— thank you, Mr. Garber.

[email protected]. We'll now move down to the next person, Mr. David Haag.

Yeah, can you hear me? We sure can. Can you hear me? Yes, we can.

Okay, well, I apologize. I'm sitting alongside Turnigat Arm here. Um, my name is David Haag, and I'm just on testifying on behalf of me personally, but I am a member of the Alaska Grand Jurors Association. I would ask that Mr. Cox not be confirmed as Alaska's AG. Um, there's a growing cancer within Alaska's judicial system, and, uh, it's getting bigger and bigger.

Um, Attorney General Trent Taylor refused to address this issue. Um, this cancer's most recent symptom is the massive corruption being exposed in Alaska's judicial system, or grand jury system. Um, the Alaska Supreme Court asked for comments on the most recent grand jury rule change, and before Mr. Cox responded, he asked for a report, um, by two Notre Dame law scholars, and that report is titled The Original Meaning and Understanding of the Investigative Power of the Grand Jury of the Constitution of Alaska. That report outright states this, and I'm going to quote: today, whenever the government breaks the direct connection between the grand jury and the people, it violates the historical understanding of what a grand jury is and how it exercises its reporting power.

They go on to say in their conclusion that neither the executive nor the courts should be permitted to decide what the people may protest about. They may nowhere come between the citizen and the grand juror by screening out petitions. But in his comments to the Supreme Court, Mr. Cox states there must be all kinds of things that the Department of Law and the courts can screen out, and that's unconstitutional. And I guess, is my time up here? Yes, it is, Mr. Haag, and you can send written testimony to the committee at any time.

It'll be shared with all members of our committee. And that's [email protected]. Okay, we'll move now down to Homer where we have Miss Judy Miller.

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Judy Miller. I live in Homer and I would like to urge you to not confirm the AG. Designate Stephen Cox. I came with many issues in mind and have been listening to the previous questions the committee has posed, and it's just further reinforced my huge unease with this potential appointee.

I feel that he has acted in his own political interest and that of the Denley, Denley administration and has somehow asserted that that's representative of Alaska, and it's not. We have a governor who is pushing positions that aren't supportive of Alaska. We have an education crisis in the state for funding, and here we have an AG designating Ginni, who wants to open his own religiously affiliated institution, education institution, who represents many hard over conservative views that are not representative of Alaskans. His role as Attorney General is to represent the state. I have seen nothing in his actions representative of the state.

State and many things in the numerous amicus briefs he's been involved with that are counter to Alaska's interests. At least many of them are irrelevant, but so many more are counter to Alaska's interests. He seems to have no understanding of so many issues that are so critical to the state, one of which he admitted himself he doesn't quite understand, and maybe the legislature understands better Alaska's right to privacy, which is in our state constitution. I'm very concerned that an attorney general for the state is the first one to say, "Well, I kind of get it, but I'm learning, I'm learning about Alaska's right to privacy." It's critical. It's one of the biggest questions in the state, and not so supporting our ballot situation of being able to send them delayed ballots.

There's just too much he doesn't understand. Please do not confirm him. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Miller. And you can submit written testimony.

It will be shared with the rest of the committee at [email protected]. We'll now move back up to Anchorage where we have Teresa Obermeyer. If you'd state your name and your affiliation. Good afternoon, State Affairs Committee. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Okay, I want to start by— I'm very opposed to Mr. Cox, and I want to commend the committee for your excellent questions that go right to the heart of the problems we face with another man that is not from Alaska. I want to read that all the other 49th states have elected officeholders who are required to be members of their respective bar associations. Alaska does not. We have no elected officeholder who is required to be a member of the Alaska Bar Association.

Alaska is the only state in the United States that does not have an American Bar Association or President Law School. Alaska Constitution Article 13, Section 1 requires proposed amendments must be approved by two-thirds of each house of the Alaska Legislature. The only way we can get an elected officeholder who is required to be a member of the Alaska Bar Association is by two-thirds vote of each of the houses. This is almost an insurmountable amount of votes. But I also wanted to mention that I'm appalled by Mr. Cox's resume.

On his resume, it says that he worked for Bristol Bay Industrial from 2021 to present. I thought he was acting attorney general. His resume is not current, which really offends me. Because I don't know what he's been doing since he's been acting attorney general. And of course, I did not want to take too much of the state affairs for many times.

You asked such brilliant, excellent, to the point questions about Amicus Briefs, about releasing our vote, voter information, etc. I'm really pleased. So thank you for your wonderful questions. Thank you. And you haven't missed Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Obermeyer. We appreciate your comments. We will now move on to the last testifier, Kevin Pendergrast in Anchorage. You have 2 minutes.

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

I've known Steve Cox for several years as he has lived and worked here in Alaska. I've worked with him professionally when he was in the private sector supporting oil and gas and other industries that are critical to this 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. I can tell you Steve loves this state.

He has put down deep roots here. I know he approaches this job desiring to serve Alaskans. His background uniquely suits him for this role. What's most striking to me is his ability to understand and bridge the state and federal perspective 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 local presence, this is pretty critical.

Steve emphasizes partnership, finding practical solutions to difficult challenges. He also understands and respects Alaska's singular history, laws, people, and customs. Stephen brings clarity, discipline, and a firm commitment to a bright future for this state, and I respectfully ask that you confirm as Attorney General. Thank you. Great, thank you very much, Mr. Pendergrass, Thank you for being brief.

That was the last person for public testimony. We will go ahead and close public testimony at this point and bring it back to the committee. Senator Wilkowski. The— until at least March 31st, your department had a public website with links to all of the amicus briefs filed on behalf of the State of Alaska. Recently, your department removed the links to those briefs, leaving just the names of the cases with an explanation that this was due to resource constraints.

Did you direct or authorize taking those amicus briefs offline? Through the Chair, Senator, no, and I've directed my team to put them back online. If you'll indulge, I can tell you a little bit about some of the resource constraints that were probably being considered by my staff.

Well, yeah, did you make requests in the budget for additional resources? Through the chair, uh, Senator, it's, it's, it's not necessarily about the budget. We lost a resource within, uh, within the AG's office, and we are actually working on a sort of a larger website project that relates to website accessibility standards that are articulated at Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. There was a compliance deadline coming up. I think that's been extended.

But I've asked for those briefs to be put back on the website. And I expect them to go up soon. Senator Wilkowski. And if there were resource constraints, why were the briefs that were already posted removed from the website?

Through the chair, Senator, I don't know.

Did you direct them to take them down? Through the chair, Senator, no. How did they come down? Through the chair, Senator, I am not really personally, individually involved in administration of our website.

I don't know what else I can say on that front. Senator Wilkowski. You—. Did you instruct the hiring of an out-of-state attorney to run— what was the out-of-state attorney you hired for? What was that purpose for?

Through the chair, Senator, we probably hired several out-of-state attorneys, but I think what you're probably referring to is we did create an office of statewide solicitor general. And I filled that position having looked at a number of candidates, some of whom were from Alaska. I ended up hiring somebody from outside of Alaska. And I understand that that may be controversial. I will also just give you kind of my perspective.

I would like to recruit more people to Alaska. I love this state. And it's a challenge when we're the only state that doesn't have a law school. I hope that we eventually do have a law school. But recruiting talent into the state is a top priority for me personally as a citizen, but also as the Attorney General designee.

Yeah. I— and I know The Solicitor General, I think she's coming before— she'll come before committee at some point in time. But I know that there was a very good federal overreach and federal defense group already within the Attorney General's office. It's been there for a long time. A lot of good experiences in that agency.

And I just wanted to thank them. Senator Wilkowski. [SPEAKING NATIVE LANGUAGE] There were Alaska applicants for this position? Through the chair, Senator, yes. I can't remember if I interviewed 5 or 6 candidates, but I think I can think of at least 3 that were from Alaska.

And— Senator Wielekowski. What is the solicitor position? Just briefly. I know we're short on time here. What's the solicitor position do?

Through the chair, Senator, the state's Solicitor General, that office has been around for most of the states, probably upwards of 45, 46, 47 states have a State Solicitor General office. The trend started probably in the late 1990s to mimic the United States Solicitor General within the Department of Justice. The idea was that, you know, in each state, the state is ultimately governed by the state Supreme Court, the relevant circuit court of appeals, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court, but oftentimes, those courts are influenced by court decisions outside the state. And so, the state solicitor general provides an— an opportunity to amplify that state's voice in amicus briefs and other state court litigation or other U.S. Court of Appeals litigation, to take positions on that and to ultimately influence the law that will ultimately govern the state.

And I thought it was a good opportunity for the state of Alaska to to create this kind of an office. We have excellent, excellent lawyers, appellate lawyers on the civil side and on the criminal side. I wanted to find someone who could work very well with others, who could supplement their work, and who could play well in the sandbox, so to speak, and I'm proud to have selected somebody who had experience in two state solicitor general's offices, and she was excited to move to Alaska. And I'm happy to have her on the team. Senator Willekeowski.

And it sounds like— I'm not debating whether it's a good thing or not, but I guess it sounds like a pretty important policy position. It just seems odd that you had Alaskans hire who applied for it, and you would hire someone for this important policy decision to advance Alaska's policies nationwide who never even lived in Alaska. Through the chair, Senator, I, I, I will appreciate that that is a, a fair point. Um, I do think that she works very closely with, uh, with our civil appellate lawyers and our criminal appellate lawyers. Who are experts in Alaska's interests and Alaska's laws, and I think that's a good thing.

What she brings to the table, though, is relationships with other state solicitor general's offices, and that can be helpful. For example, if there's a brief, for example, just hypothetically, if there's a brief being written by another state, but there's a proposition in that brief that would not be good for Alaska, or we'd like to adjust it for some reason. I can work with her, who probably knows the Solicitor General who wrote it, and that can be helpful. And so, and I, so I still think it's worthwhile endeavor to recruit people from outside to this great state. I came to this state.

I intend to stay. I love this state and I want to welcome more people to the state. Senator Bjorkman has a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cox, departing from kind of decisions about one thing or another, I'm interested in how, how is the, the morale and workplace culture within the Department of Law since you have been appointed Attorney General?

Are people, people generally happy to kind of engage in the mission and meet the mission for the state? Are, are people feeling like, like things are, are going, going well in the work that they're doing? What, what's the culture like within your department? Through the chair, Senator, it's an excellent question. This this is something I care deeply about.

I would hope that the morale is high. I certainly love working with all of the men and women who serve this state in the, in the department. And, and I love working with them. I, I back them in, in their decisions and their advice. And, and I learned from them.

And I would hope that they also feel like they have an Attorney General designee who's also willing to hear from them and work well with them. So I would hope morale is high. I think we've had a survey that is recently done. We might be in the middle of a survey on the criminal side. We might have just recently done a civil division survey.

I expect to meet with my leadership to talk about the results of that and if there's any ways for us to improve the culture, improve the coordination, the ability to break down silos, to partner together, to cross-pollinate. I'm all for that. I love the department. I love the men and women that I serve alongside. Follow-up.

Follow-up. Thank you for that answer. If someone has a concern or maybe a suggestion, what are, what are kind of the ways and pathways where someone in your department could bring that forward and then advocate for themselves or their colleagues if they feel like somehow, um, the culture isn't quite what they would like it to be? Through the chair, Senator, thank you for the question. This, uh, this issue actually was, was an issue that we were talking about just last week on the Criminal Division side, and, uh, and we were talking about, uh, the, the survey, the pending survey that that is done, I think, on an annual basis, at least.

Um, it provides an opportunity to voice things anonymously if, if an employee chooses that. But I also think that, uh, the leadership team has an open door. Um, and, and it's important to have that as part of the culture, um, to listen to issues, uh, to concerns, uh, so that we can resolve them and get better. And I think that we try to do that every day.

Senator Wilkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for the record, my staff just texted me. I haven't verified this, but they just texted me that the Department of Law just changed their website to put the amicus briefs back online. They weren't there 2 hours ago.

So amazing resources somehow found in the Department of Law. Department of Law. I'm glad to hear that. Through the chair, Senator, this is something that came up a couple of days ago. I'm glad to hear that that has happened.

And, uh, and so, but it, but it didn't happen just because I said it right now. Of course not. How much experience, uh, have you had litigating under ANCSA or NILCA? As those are important Alaska federal issues? Through the chair, Senator, I've not been an Alaska litigator.

I'm not a trial lawyer or an appellate litigator. That's not been my career. Follow-up?

Do you have a follow-up? I don't have anything else. Okay, thank you. I had a question. I don't know how to address it.

It had to do with a Facebook post, and I tell candidates for office to never, never get on Facebook, but it had to do with a sticker that was placed on the backs of the Hillsdale College constitutions, copies of the constitutions. And the sticker says something to the effect that it's, we don't condone or support or whatever. I'm sure you're familiar with it. Can you explain why you got involved in that discussion at all? Again, it's, I tell my friends, friends not to post on Facebook if you ever want to run for office, because you will get engaged with folks that you don't want to engage with.

[Speaker:MR. BATTLES] Chair, I am familiar with the incident. And what was happening there is there was a— there were a few articles that were going around on social media. I think it was on Twitter. That talked about a pocket Constitution with a disclaimer that was seen at a school district facility or something like that. There might have been some concerns by families.

This has gone viral, as they say. I did tweet about it or retweet about it and And I said that we would look into this. And I had— before that, I had checked in with the governor to see if the Commissioner of Education and I could look into this. What I would say is that I appreciate that it's a— it could be a good rule of thumb to to stay off Twitter.

But what I can tell you is that within 24 hours, the school district said that it was, it was a misunderstanding. It was a mistake. It was an error. They, they, they were going to review the policies that, that led to this, make sure that never happened again. And, uh, and so I, I recognize that, uh, perhaps a tweet, uh, was not, uh, the, uh, the way that you, for example, would have handled, uh, that.

Um, and, uh, we can all, uh, sometimes learn from, uh, those experiences. Um, I will say that, uh, you did post on Facebook something that I was very excited about. And it was a grocery pricing initiative that we were trying to pursue with the Consumer Protection Group. But, but yeah, that's, that's the short of that. Thank you, Attorney General designee.

Are there any further questions for Mr. Cox at this time? Senator Bjorkman. I just have a comment. Thank you again for being here. And thank you for your family for being here, and thank you for your kids for being here.

You guys are doing a great job. Um, I have kids about the same age as you all, and we asked your dad a lot of tough questions today because that's kind of our job. And your dad has boss that he works for, and that's, that's his employer, and and he has to do the things that his boss tells him to do, or he has to make judgment calls that are in alignment with the governor. That's kind of the system that we have. And as we look at the system and we question, many times I feel rightfully so, the rationale behind the decisions that you make, We are, and many people who oppose your confirmation support the system that you currently have been appointed under, and ardently so.

Emphatically, they support us as a state having an appointed attorney general who essentially is an employee of the governor. Under this current system, I think it's worthwhile noting that And here we find ourselves because of the system that has provided us this situation, which many, many people ardently defend. I have been impressed, Mr. Cox, in our interactions that you have been amazingly consistent and measured. You've been responsive, impressively so at times, in taking a look at things and trying to understand Alaska. The culture here and why people feel the way that they do, that doesn't go unnoticed.

And while I may disagree with many of the decisions that you have made, that's okay, because we can do that. And so based on our interactions, kids, I know, and I have a very good feeling that you have a pretty cool dad who does a, who does a good job at home because of his measured response and the things that he does. So although we might not agree with everything that you've done, I can understand it and I can follow it. The concerns I have are quite a few about decisions you made. I'm more concerned if there is a question about the culture within the Department of Law and, and a problem there based on management decisions that you've made.

Um, but when it comes down to it, you're an employee of the governor because of the system that we have and the system that people who feel differently than me about that system fight ardently to defend. And so here we are. So kids, thank you for being here today. You've done an amazing job. I love the cable knit sweater, buddy.

That's really cool. Good work. Okay. Thank you, Senator Bjorkman. Any other final questions or comments?

Okay. Hearing and seeing none, Senator Bjorkman, can I have a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move the appointment of the Attorney General designee, Stephen Cox, be forwarded to the to joint session for consideration. This motion and signatures on the report do not reflect the intent of any of the members to vote for or against the confirmation of Mr. Cox during any further session.

[Speaker:CHAIRMAN BRYANT] Thank you. Are there any objections? Hearing and seeing none, the Stephen Cox Attorney General designee will be forwarded to joint session for consideration. Please stay afterwards to sign the paperwork. Thank you for being here.

Thank you. We will— we're going to adjourn the meeting today. We did have one other item, but it is being heard on Saturday, and everybody will be here bright and early at 10:00 a.m. Saturday's meeting, May 2nd. We will have the following: House Bill 176, University of Alaska Fee Transparency, sponsored by Senator— sorry, Representative Ashley Carrick.

House Bill 13, Municipal Property Tax Exemptions, by Representative Andrew Gray. Senate Bill 169, Welcoming Alaska Office, by Senator Tobin. And Senate Bill 204, Sub-Teaching School Board Eligibility, by Senator Cronk. And bills previously heard or scheduled. If there's nothing else before the committee, meeting is adjourned.

Let the record reflect it's 5:00 PM.