Let's call this meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee to order.
It is 1.30 p.m. on Wednesday, January 28, 2026.
Before we begin, I want to thank Julianna Singh.
The Senate Judicial Secretary, you make sure we have a transcript of our meetings
and Renzo Moises from the Geno LIO.
Make sure you have sounded.
I get your name, right?
Yeah.
OK.
All right, this time I wanted to remind committee members in those in the room
We have Senator Tilton, Senator Tobin, my vice chair,
Senator Keel, and myself,
Senator Clayman, we have a quorum to conduct business.
Our first and only item.
On our agenda today is Senate Bill 12, number of Superior Court judges sponsored by the Senate Rules Committee by request.
This is the first thing in the bill in Senate Judiciary Committee here to present the bills in Nancy Meade General Counsel of the Alaska Court System.
And it's me, if you would please come forward, put yourself on the record and you may begin your presentation.
And just as an inquiry, are you comfortable with people
to interrupt as you present with questions,
or do you want to get your presentation finished?
To the chair, I am very comfortable
with question so that I can address the issues
that are of concern to members.
For the record, Nancy Me, general counsel
for the Alaska court system.
Thank you very much for hearing this bill today.
This bill would add an additional superior court judge
in the third judicial district,
which is the courthouse that serves generally the entire Matsu Valley.
For procedural context, Senate Bill 212 was introduced by the Rules Committee at request and
the request comes from the Supreme Court.
This is not common that the court system requests a change to a statute because that
most statutes are pure policy and that is left to your branch of government, of course.
The number of judges are set in different statutes in Title 22.
So we cannot simply through the budget process at a position,
that's a judge position.
The legislature has to authorize the number
of judge's and that is what I'm here to ask you to do.
So specifically, this bill would amend AS 22-
10, 120, the number of judges for the Superior Court, and as you can see on line 5, we currently
have 45 judges. The bill would change that to 46 and those are broken down in the statute. Line
7 says currently 28 in The Third District and we would seek to have that changed to 29 in
So, that's what I'm here to request from you and the Supreme Court has made the decision
that we should indeed go in front of the legislature and make this request after really years
of reviewing the situation in Palmer and on a regular basis, of course, they review what's
and we've tried a number of alternative ways to address the problem which I'll get into
and I'm happy to answer questions about but just for background and i'm sure members of
this committee already know the superior court is the court of general jurisdiction
for trials we have a district court as well but the Superior Court is
the higher court what it handles and so what we're
are felonies, misdemeanors are in district court,
China cases, civil cases that are over $100,000
in controversy, all domestic relations,
divorce, child custody, paternity, et cetera,
probate, including mental commitments, wills,
and protective proceedings like guardianships.
So minor offenses, small claims, evictions, etc.
Those would be in the district courtroom.
That would not necessarily be directly impact.
impacted by the changes we're seeking right now.
And then also for context and an order of magnitude.
Course case filings naturally fluctuated depends on what people
want to bring to court in any given year. But in the last, you know,
ten years or so, in Palmer Superior Court, the filings
have fluctuating between about
2650 and 2950.
So in my mind, I'm thinking about 2,800 cases a year.
As I say, they certainly go up and down,
depending on, of course, a whole host of factors going on.
Palmer specifically, for their filings in Superior Court,
they have about 30% of their case load is probate filings.
They have a lot of those there.
recently, i.e. the last several years, opened up a facility that
that handles certain kinds of mental health disorders,
and that has resulted in more mental commitment proceedings
and hospitalization requests.
So 30% of their caseload is probate.
That's more than the state average for probates.
They have about 25% felonies,
little less than a state-average superior courts
usually are about 29% Felonies.
And they have 20% domestic relations.
Again, that's your divorce and child custody.
and civil and other cases.
So these are the important cases we're talking about
and they certainly affect a lot of Alaskans.
So the most basic way to establish that we have this need
is through the case numbers per judge.
And statewide, the average cases per superior court judge
Hover is around the 450 to 475 number.
That's average cases per judge.
The Palmer Superior Court last year had 683 compared to a state
right average of 458.
There they have about a third again as many.
as the average. The next highest court, so Palmer 683 Anchorage is the next busiest 544.
So quite a bit more. There are the four superior court judges there now, by the way,
and this would add a fifth. So if you take the number of filings and divide it by four, you get
And by the way, if this bill passes and you take the number of filings and divide it by five,
it's still the busiest right about where Anchorage is.
But at this point, the one judge's the Supreme Court felt what we should seek.
I guess I'm previewing that in future years.
or elsewhere in the system.
But at this point, this is what we're seeking.
I have the five year average of case filings per judge.
So last year was not an aberration.
Palmer has been the highest for at least
the last five fiscal years.
So the average over the past five years
that they've carried was 707.
per judge compared to the statewide average of 475.
So again, way higher than the average and much higher
than number two Anchorage court.
So I'm hoping that those numbers sort of establish
what the problem is that the court is seeking
to address with this bill.
The problem with having high case loads and really excessive case
loads might be obvious.
But we want to be able to give every Alaskan the same justice.
And we wanna be
able give hearings when they're needed.
sometimes there's emergencies and we don't want people calling in and saying I need to
get in this week for whatever reason and the Superior Court just judge says you know the
next opening on my calendar is in nine months but but that can happen and that is not acceptable
to the court system and I want to say that we've been able to address those problems
band-aid to address those problems, and I think makes the whole system less efficient.
And just to kind of say again about the need, the last time we got superior court judges
in Palmer was in 2007.
And so in those intervening 19, 20 years since we've got the judges,
It was $77,000 in 2007, now the estimate is about $122,00.
So it's increased by about 58%, not surprisingly, and
what exactly stands to reason is the number of case filings.
between 2007 and 2025 has increased by about 56%.
So pretty direct correlation there.
And as this committee is aware,
has heard from other people in other contexts,
it's the fastest growing area of the state.
It continues to grow.
It's estimated to go.
Well, the Department of Labor's estimate was 20%
in the next 20 years.
other sources I reviewed were much higher than that but let's go with the
Department of Labor. So this is an area that needs government services and this
being among one of them. And the number is that the Matenuska-Susit-Naburo
population or some different amount, a different number that it's based on? To
the chair those numbers that I saw in the Department
Thank you.
Yes.
And again, we call it Palmer Courthouse, kind of for short,
but it really does serve a much broader region.
No, Senator Stevens, join us at 140.
Please proceed.
And I just wanted to quickly say, but I'd
be happy to expand on any of this,
that it isn't just case numbers that keep judges busy.
There have been changes since 2007 in the way that cases are handled and the
way the cases proceed. And yes, we've had technology that helps, but we also
that takes more time for courts in certain cases.
And for example, DNA is a bigger deal now.
So you have experts in DNA or experts
in other scientific areas that were not as prominent 20 years ago.
And when you've more experts, you
have more hearings about challenging, perhaps,
the qualifications of the expert.
You have technology like.
phone dumps, computer issues, the scientific nature
of a substance that might or might not qualify
as a drug under certain circumstances.
A lot more science and a lot
more technology, which is wonderful for justice overall,
but it can be more time consuming for everybody
in that courtroom to parse.
And so technology has added time to certain things.
Victims rights have expanded tremendously in the last 20 years. That's very fortunate. It is it can take more time if
Because it's another thing the court must consider. Its another
person or persons in the courtroom with the right to speak, it's more documentation being filed,
and sometimes even hearings have to be put off because if the judge says, you know, what's the
victim's position, but there was difficulty getting in touch with a victim, that can cause
the court to say, well, we need to reschedule because we can't proceed without some input.
take more time. China cases have changed. We have the one family, one judge rule statute
now that that means if you have an ongoing China case and you come up with a DV protective
order or a delinquency issue or anything else having to do with that family all of it has
to go to the same judge which is wonderful for the families because that judge is familiar
Pieces can't go to a magistrate or something like that,
which could happen previously,
because we don't want families being bumped around.
We want some consistency, and as I say, it's required.
There's more VCORs, which are
charges brought when somebody violates their condition of release on bail.
Since we now have a state entity, the pretrial enforcement division within DOC supervising many of those who are released on
bail, one upshot is they catch people more often than they used to be caught.
And they file these motions with the court saying he violated his conditions.
Better for the communities to have that supervised, but it does result in more charges. It's not reflected in case filings because it's just
Another charge and therefore another hearing and something more to deal with but all in the same case number
One of the big big changes is self-represented litigants. This is not limited to Palmer
It's really not
limited
To the state of Alaska, but there's been an incredible rise in the number of self represented litagants and family law cases for example
over 70% of The parties have
And over 70% of the cases, at least one party,
often both are representing themselves.
This is, I can't guess why,
but there is a shortage of attorneys.
Attorneys are expensive.
There are forms that the court makes available
to self-represented parties to help them hone
their presentations, but self represented parties
do take more
Court time, specifically superior court time and domestic relations cases.
Sometimes, without a lawyer, there could be more frequent motions filed.
Arguments might be brought up that are just unrelated to the relevant legal issues.
the required information because they don't understand exactly how it should go for calculating
child support or dividing assets. They might not be able to fully articulate the legal basis for
their arguments. These cases take longer for the judge and specifically in domestic relations
cases. It happens in all sorts of cases, less so in criminal, and less in large civil cases but
evictions, small claims, etc. But for purposes of the Superior Court, the
Domestic Relations is where we see most of it. I'm going to talk about what
alternatives we've tried. We're just going back briefly to the discussion about
domestic relations courts.
I've heard a speaker talk
about how we have an adversary system in our in American
American courts that depends on cooperation despite that adversarial nature
And I think that's oftentimes spoken to the lawyers and not necessarily the non lawyers is that is the
ability to cooperate a factor or the sometimes the inability to
cooperate to factor in terms of the folks that don't have counsel
To the chair, I think that's exactly right with self-represented parties.
Not all, sometimes they're going through a custody dispute but can communicate effectively.
I would say that would be less common than those going
through court proceeding about child custody or division of assets and without a lawyer.
They are unable to agree on some basic matters
or they don't want to stipulate
or there's other things coming into play emotionally
or in terms of their history
that cause them not to be terribly cooperative.
And then you have hearings on things
that you shouldn't have to have the judge resolve.
And by the way, this happens with attorneys as well.
Both in family law, you see it a lot in criminal law.
And in China in particular, where attorneys are not terribly
cooperative with each other.
That's a change some people would say.
It used to be more collegial within the bar.
In certain areas of the state, it is less so.
And so you don't get agreement on things
that you could have agreed on a while ago.
So that's why you might have more hearings on something
10, 15 years ago would have just worked out without the court being involved.
And we do see that to an extent, for certain, in the Palmer Courthouse.
Senator Stevens.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank You, it was me, I understand, and it's clear that the other judges need to.
But what does that do to the facilities in Palmer?
What's the impact on the facility there?
Thank you through the chair to Senator Stevens.
Members might be aware that over the past couple of years the court has sought capital funding in order to build out, expand on, the Palmer Courthouse.
Our plan originally was to bill three new courtrooms so that there would be room for growth as well as.
I guess, what I'll call a shell on a second floor
to help accommodate what we thought
would be needed in the future.
We were not successful last year
in getting that capital funding,
but we did at one point two years ago
receive a portion of what
we were seeking for a phase one of that project.
That money has not all been expended.
The plan for the court system
is to use some of that funding to remodel a basement area that is currently.
underused could be used in a different manner so the facilities department would change that
into a grand jury courtroom and move some file rooms and some other areas down there
and then go back up to the main courthouse and be able to move the grand gerry room down
anyhow make the space for the additional judges courtroom
and the offices that accompany those so with this ask we don't do not need any more
of capital funding, it would be money that we have.
I think we all recognize that
we do need better facilities and expanded facilities,
but looking at our budgets right now,
it may be well, so, but you can make use of what you have
to provide space for five judges.
Through the chair to Senator Stevens, yes,
we will be able to build out for an additional judge
with the current funds that they have
Thank you.
Please proceed.
I'd like to let you know what we've done short of coming and asking for a new judge,
recognizing that the fiscal picture is tight.
But we have, and actually we been very successful at not having times to.
dispose of a case in Palmer that are terribly different from the rest of the
state and that's because we've sent judicial resources there to deal with
the types of cases that have definite deadlines. For example, here's what we
've tried over the past five years since their caseload has been high. We've
tried temporary reassignments of Anchorage judges to help out in
Palmer. That is authorized by statute and fleshed out and the courts
So I think about it, every judge conference in Anchorage,
the presiding judge says, can anybody go up to Palmer for a while?
Did you have a cancellation?
Can you give me two weeks?
Can give a month?
And that has been something that
has worked periodically.
And when those judges go
they mostly deal with the most critical cases,
which are largely the criminal
and child in need of eight cases.
As a result, our domestic relations cases
do have a much longer time to dispose,
to get to the end than the statewide.
norm, and anecdotally, people from the Matzoo Valley
are driving to Anchorage to file their divorces and child
custody's, so because they can get faster service.
So when those Anchorage judges go up to Palmer
to handle something, sometimes it's just for this one trial
or this, one case.
I know our presiding judge himself
went up there for two different very large civil cases.
And so that is a way that we've been able to keep abreast of the work in those two criminal
and China areas.
And the Valdez judge, Superior Court Judge, has handled some cases out of Palmer.
There are travel logistics there, and you don't want to waste a day on either end,
and that judge of course has Glenn Allen and Cordova,
and I think just spent four weeks at a homicide trial in Glenn Allan.
that travel can discourage the sitting judges
from wanting to take that.
And I mean, the bottom line with that is
we're taking judges from the second busiest court,
sending them away for a little bit,
and their cases keep on coming.
And so what we are doing is causing a ripple effect.
It's been a band-aid, it has worked to some extent,
but it is not something that's sustainable
or is really good for the community.
The same with retired judges.
We can take pro tem retired senior judges who volunteer to be on a list and ask them to fill in in Palmer and that again is a help and they do it.
There aren't very many who want to sit there for a extended period of time and do the nitty gritty.
Often they'll go just for, okay, we have a four-week sexual assault trial, can you do that?
That is usually more palatable to the retired judges, it's finite, and they can do kind of what they want,
because they're retired, they have to live in the state, so that can be done and it is somewhat limited.
I know that those judges and the Anchorage judges can ask the parties if they would like to move venue to Anchorage to prevent the traveling,
if it's a jury trial, and they very often don't consent,
and really should they have to, they
have that right to have the case at the venue
where the incident occurred, I'll say.
And then so you can see that it is a domino effect
when we do this.
The third prong is the court has tried taking a district court
judge in Palmer.
signing them pro tem, that means temporarily, of course, to sit as a superior court judge.
This too is authorized by administrative rule 23.
And that can work for a little while, but the same problems ensue.
The district court judges have their own case load and it is just not a sustainable solution.
And then the more we use pro temp judges, for example,
in Palmer, the less is available to cover the case
that we need somebody in Bethel or in Anchorage for.
So these are all things that
we've attempted with
Decent success in terms of, as I say, the times to disposition and polymer are now not much worse than in the rest of the state in criminal and China cases, but for the other things they're
they're falling quite a bit behind.
And the enthusiasm to take these cases is waning,
because the Anchorage judges are a little bit discouraged
about the travel and, of course, what it does
to their own caseload when they are absent.
So I want to say, as I've mentioned before,
that this court is a bustling court serving the entire Matt
Sioux.
It, a course serves West Silla, Big Lake, Talkeetna,
all sorts of places, but this is not a regional issue.
This is an issue that is rippling through to other areas of the third district.
It would help Anchorage to have this as a permanent judgeship because there wouldn't
be the constant shuffling.
It will prevent the administrative burden of, okay, you're going up there from Valdez.
per diem to pay you, we have hotels, if you're a pro tem,
we pay pro-tem judges.
We aren't funded to that many pro temp judges
on a permanent basis.
So those are the reasons that we
have the need, how we've addressed it,
but why the Supreme Court decided
that that should not continue.
It's not good for a community to have
lack of consistency, and the attorney's getting used to a new person.
We think this will streamline things, because when you bring in a
new judge, sometimes, unfortunately, there's some repetition.
And so maybe there will be fewer hearings.
I don't know.
I'm not going to promise that it will make things faster, but it
will
make thing smoother and lend consistency.
And I'd also note, available for questions is Terence Haas, the public defender, Senator Tobin.
Thank you, thank you Mr. Chairman and I have two questions but I'm sorry with the most pragmatic one and it might actually be for you and Mr Haas as well as I am looking at your fiscal notes.
And, I noticed that the amount is.
The same for every year going out to 2032, and I'm just curious as I know we have had some discussions legislature and we've passed some legislation about
inflation adjustments and ensuring that we're retaining folks through salary compensation.
And I don't necessarily see that reflected in the fiscal now, so I just wanted to ask on the record about that dynamic.
As you can see from our note, our FY27 request is higher because it includes commodities.
The note reflects four positions.
A judge would need a law clerk, a judicial assistant, and
another in court clerk to manage the courtroom.
The out-years are less, the 680,000.
It is my understanding from information I've received is that inflation
adjustments should not be included in fiscal notes.
And so I think those might happen naturally, but that is not something that we are
instructed to include in physical notes for out years.
Senator Topp.
Thank you. Thank You, Mr. Chairman. And I'm glad that you said on the record because I just want folks to know that these are aspects that we have considered for the legislature to ensure that
we do retain these very talented and high quality folks that
we put in positions for public safety. If so, may I ask a follow-up question?
Yes, absolutely.
ThankYou, mr. chairman.
You didn't ask for permission on my comment, but you can make comment and ask your question.
I was doing some reading from one of the pieces in ProPublica written by a local journalist.
And was discussing how there's been court granted delays and how this might affect folks' access to a speedy trial.
Or this may affect victims' receiving closure.
And I just would like you to speak a little bit more about that component, kind of the six amendment dynamic.
And if there is any kind long lasting consequences, we as the legislative body should be considering if we do not grant this request.
Through the chair to Senator Tobin, the times it takes felony cases,
which I assume is the crux of your question, to get completed is longer than anybody likes in the system.
Statewide, it's longer, than it used to be.
There are a whole host of reasons for that, which would, I could speak to for an hour, maybe have.
Nobody likes that.
The attorneys don't like it, the victims don t like
it.
The judges don' t
like.
It everybody wants to clear their cases.
But there are things that prevent that from happening.
Cases do not get delayed because a judge delays a case.
Cases get
delayed
because the party comes in and asks for additional time
to do something.
And the judge, yes, grants it in many circumstances,
which causes delay.
But, there
are reasons that a
judge must grant.
a request for continuance and it's a very system-wide problem. For example, if an agency is not funded
high enough to retain their attorneys or it doesn't have enough attorneys and people are
overworked or resigned, they aren't ready for a trial. People cannot be
brought to trial with ineffective counsel. That violates the Constitution. And if a judge were to
go to trial anyway, even though you're telling me you are not ready one side or the other,
you end up with an appeal point and that delays the case yet more.
So the prosecutor recognizes this and will often stipulate to a continuance that the public
It's not a simple problem if, I mean,
I read an article recently where the public defender
should have 59 cases.
I don't know if that's true or not.
And yet I know some public defenders
who have at least doubled that.
But that isn't my total area to speak to,
but there are good reasons people are
asking for continuances that are beyond the court's control.
The court, as you know, is granting many,
worked on not doing so in creating a culture
where people shouldn't ask as much
because they're going to be examined
as to the validity of their request.
And that's been effective.
There have been fewer granted.
It's very hard to see data, a number of continuances
because of the way we don't keep records
or do keep record.
So this judge, I do wanna say the Palmer Court
because these
Stable together adjustments we've made with other judges is not doing badly or it's not
Doing worse than anywhere else in the state really with criminal case times
Because that's been the focus, but everything else has well most other things have really suffered because of it
so I cannot promise it will
hasten the times but it
I can say to more efficiencies and more consistency
for the community.
Senator Keel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks, Ms. Mead.
Appreciate the presentation.
Couple, maybe, of questions about this.
I appreciated the numbers on superior court cases and judges.
You talked about.
some of the work around options, some
of things you're doing temporarily,
can you give us a sense of
the district court numbers,
how many judges, how do their case loads compare?
And I ask because you mentioned
sometimes pro-taming a district
court judge up to handle superior court case
loads for a while.
So if we could get maybe some sense
of what the resource and
the demand are at the Matsu court house.
Through the chair to Senator Keel, there are three district court judges there.
They carry approximately about exactly the average case load for courts that have superior court
judges, so they're even with the rest of the state.
far more because we're only talking three individuals so I think their
average is about 1600 non-minor offense cases we don't count minor offenses
because there can be thousands of those and the time taken to process them
really varies and magistrates help with those so we non minor offense
meaning tickets speeding tickets fishing game tickets etc so so without
counting those which is standard for us
Those three district court judges have about average, say 16,
I think it's 1687 cases per judge if you do the math.
But if take one away, that means the other two are left
with about 2,200.
I think that's the math, and that would be far in excess of what's normal for a district court judge.
When the court did move a sitting palmer district
court Judge and temporarily assigned them to superior court cases,
and when you do that, it can't be all cases.
It's more appropriate to say to handle B and C felonies or some subset.
It's not the same skill set for a superior court judge and a district court
judge necessarily, the person has to be willing to do it, et cetera.
When we did that, we pulled the district Court Judge from Anchorage.
And I think she spent three months in Palmer, I'm not certain.
And because you need that backfill when you do, it's so you can see the dominoes that fall.
And as Senator Keel is probably.
Aware in the past we've tried to address problems with superior court case loads by by seeking to have a sitting district court
Judge ship changed to a superior Court judgeship that can be less expensive because we don't then need to
Have a courtroom. We don they already have that
This was not considered to be an appropriate
solution here because they're busy enough and palmer with their own caseloads.
So there is not a bunch of extra capacity that that could be filled.
Senator Keue.
Thank you.
That's that's useful as you were talking about some of the other alternatives.
The one that I wasn't sure I got a clear cost comparison on was as part of
the backfill or part the temporary solutions.
Proteming in otherwise retired judges. Did you discuss that? And if so, what was the cost comparison?
Through the chair to senator keel. Yes, we use pro tem judges when we can pro Tem judges are those who have retired
But have agreed to come back
to serve in a capacity
they apply to be on the list and then they
can say no at any point when something is offered to them.
They get paid $650 a day.
I think it's 400 for a half day, they
by and large are less willing to do longer time periods.
They're retired for reason.
They might just not be available.
senior judge acts would you like to sit in Palmer for three months and that
judge can say no but I'll take two of those trials and I will handle just those
two cases and we're grateful for any service we can get from these experienced
individuals but we I mean that that money we have some pro tem funds but
And we can't expend it all on Palmer.
It happens in other courts as well, that we need coverage.
Maybe because a judge gets prematurely challenged, or just because in Anchorage, as the members
are aware and statewide, we're really trying to move the old criminal cases.
faster and get through them. And so judges are the pro tem judges
are being called on a very regular basis to take trials.
And So we just don't have the depth on that list and the willingness to
to step in in Palmer virtually full time, which is what's needed.
But last call upon that.
You can maybe have one more if you want it.
Oh, tempting.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Ms. Mead, I recognize that there's
only one member of this committee who's not
in the third judicial district.
So I understand what's going on here.
Senator President made his committee appointments wisely.
He looks ahead.
But in terms of the fiscal situation,
that's where I'm looking for.
opportunities to step in the right direction if we're not able to, in case we are not
able come up with the long-term solution in year one.
So then in terms of those senior judges and their capacity, rather the court system's
What kind of caseload are you able to take on and fill with that mishmash?
And I understand there's administrative burden as well, but that misshmache of otherwise retirees.
Through the chair to Senator Keel, if I understanding your question,
you're asking what types of cases or how consistent those pro tems will serve?
Just to clarify.
You've got 683 cases, a Superior Court judge right now.
If you're stringing it together on pro tems, can they take 300 a year?
Can they handle 400 a
year, I mean.
Through the chair to Senator Keel, not at all, they might pull in a pro
tem. The typical way it's done is because cases can take two years.
They'll say.
We have a case that a sitting judge has been handling for the last 18 months.
It's ready for trial.
Next February 15th, and that judge is swamped and there are four cases ready.
So will you come in February, 15, but it's a month long trial?
And that's typically how pro tems serve.
take over a part of the caseload is not the norm.
They typically don't want to
and it doesn't really work to say.
Just here, we're going to start assigning every fifth case
to you or something like that.
That doesn't happen.
One of the reasons, by the way, is the lack of facilities
in Palmer.
So when a judge from Anchorage or a pro tem goes,
there's no office.
They kind of huddle in the library with their computer.
They don't have protems.
Don't get a law clerk.
That's a limiting factor.
They have to kind of cobble together an in court from the existing resources that are in Palmer
And there aren't even enough courtrooms to have have that many trials in Palmer
So we do it where we can but it's an intermittent fix
Senator Tilton
Thank You mr. Chairman
I know that we're not the finance committee, but there was a second fiscal note that came
forward talking about needing an additional lawyer for the increase workload.
Is that something that the courts feel like is due to the
increase of folks representing themselves or looking out forward to
We're in here, I think we were talking more about just taking care of what we already
have going on to comment on that.
Through the Chair to Senator Tilt, and I would refrain from commenting directly on
the fiscal note.
Our plan is to better do what
we've been doing with the cobbled together approach.
their resources I could not address but we hope to streamline things and make them a little better.
As I say, I can't promise faster because we've been dealing with these cases but not in a
satisfactory manner. Senator Hill on the bright side, the public defender is on
the line and it's his fiscal note. Oh, well, maybe we can uh.
To the chair, yes, this is Terram Foss for the record.
I am the division director for
the public defender agency and I'm here
and ready to answer questions.
Did you hear Senator Tilton's question?
I did, thank you.
I've wanted you to hear.
I won't make her ask it again.
Please respond.
Okay, here I go.
So, the question about why the additional resources, first of all, it's clear that an
additional judge doesn't, in and of itself, increase the number of cases we handle.
And my apologies to the committee for the late fiscal note.
One of the things we were waiting for in order to estimate whether we needed another
attorney was which location this might happen at.
But also, as a fully staffed office,
we've managed to fill every position in Palmer.
Even then, it's one of the locations with higher case
loans.
And we cover not just Palmer out of that location,
but also about these gone out in Cordova.
So that puts us at about 13 judicial officers
that my lawyers there have to appear in front of.
There are 14 lawyers stationed in that office.
One of whom is a statewide therapeutic court lawyer.
and two of whom are China-only lawyers.
The overlap for us, we aren't involved in clients
that appear representing themselves.
Our overlap here would be for criminal, for China cases,
and for a small portion of probate cases through Title 47.
But as it stands, our lawyers are pretty well stretched
the number of permanently placed judicial officers in courtrooms at that location.
And of course, this is from, for our part,
this was one attorney. The attorney doesn't come with a,
with any kind of additional administrative cost for us.
But it's our estimation that it is going to be needed to cover the extra capacity,
which will be positive perhaps in the sense of moving cases forward.
But in order to do that, I have to have lawyers covering all of the stacked.
case management hearings that come with that, all of the contested China hearings
that comes with all the motion hearings, the come of that so on and so forth.
So the short answer is the reason for our estimation that we would need one additional
attorney is that that increased court capacity to open a courtroom to manage the cases and presumably
the purpose is to move those cases through mitigation is going to make even the existing case load
And I think as some of us, Senator Tillman's questions suggested, that's an issue for us
as we work towards retention and the timely management of these cases.
I would note as well that just in general for
us as is reflected in the Court's General Council's information provided in
the sponsor letter, Paul was one of our locations that first thing at the seams.
Even our physical space is difficult for
us at this point.
You know, there are probably other locations where the number of courtrooms are different
and the outlay of lawyers to manage them are
different.
But Palmer really is a very busy location and I think that's been reflected in what
the court has had to do to keep cases moving forward.
But we will face the same conundrum.
How do I take X number
of lawyer's and cover X
number permanently operating court rooms?
So that might be all.
Thank you, Senator.
And I stand by for further questions.
Thank you, I appreciate that I don't have any further questions in that line, but I do have a comment if I can make that
please thank you
not regarding the fiscal notes,
but just regarding
the capacity and what's happening out in the matt zoo
I'm obviously from the Matt Sioux and have several constituents who have working through the system and had to
Have been delayed and I you know we think about
I think a lot of times, we think about the criminal cases and the big cases, but one case that really hit me this year was from a constituent whose son had died in the Matt Nusker River this past summer on a job opportunity and they were just trying to get through the probate situation and she, the mother, lives in another state.
and is taking care of her own
bills of her own home and paying for that, and then found herself in a position where she is paying also now for her lost son's bills and
trying to keep it afloat so that the house doesn't go back to the bank and doesn' get foreclosed upon.
And she came to me and she didn't know how long she was going to be able to do that.
How long would she be to able be paid two mortgages and to
keep things and, you know, to, um, keep her, her sons,
things going until it was probated.
And I don't think that that's a situation
that we think about a lot,
but those are how it gets down to how
it affects our everyday.
constituents and you know we start to think about the cost of what it would cost to add another
judge and to the court but we also I think sometimes you
know I'm a fiscal conservative but I also am thinking about
the costs to each individual when these things are happening and
they're delayed because we don't have enough resources
so thank you for allowing me that.
Mr.. How's I I appreciate the your description of the caseload that the public defenders have I
guess the skepticism I have is that if you increase I
Frankly think of it like a garden hose that
if You if
You have a slightly larger garden house you have another judge on the court so they can move cases more quickly that in theory should mean
The public defender should get
through their cases more quickly and because you haven't actually increased the number of cases,
the ability to not have as many cases on the docket for the public defender seems like it would
be a benefit from having the additional judge and it makes me skeptical that just adding the judge
increases the cost for your agency. If you were in here saying I need another lawyer because I'm
That would be more compelling to me than the suggestion that now because there's another judge in the case
They're actually gonna move faster that suddenly you need another lawyer
I guess I have some skepticism with your analysis, and I'd like you to
Tell me what I'm missing
Yes to the chair thank you for the question and it's not that I don't appreciate the skepticism
But I I not sure so from a policy perspective. I hope
that you're correct and that an additional judge would mitigate case loads over time.
However, my experience on both sides of that process is that
an Additional Judge may help in the in-the-long run to lower case
loads, but in this short run it will increase the number of hearings,
it'll increase number courtrooms in essence that my attorneys have to cover.
Even if there's a whole lot of water in the tank,
someone has to deal with the additional hose
or the initial output that that's going to create.
In the very long run, maybe that'll be mitigated
and the future there could be a conversation
about whether those resources could
be redirected.
I do think that additional attorneys across the state
to get case loads in line with what the national standards are
is a totally worthwhile discussion to have.
And I'm not trying to have that discussion
through this particular decision.
I am really just looking at the number of judges
I have to staff and the numbers of lawyers.
I currently have them Palmer and how busy they are
on average.
And so I think like for instance,
the China litigation in Palmer could be quite time consuming.
And if you add another courtroom
and a back courtroom takes on some percentage of China cases,
it may well increase, I would likely increase
the amount of litigation and hearings that have
and my vehicle, for instance, would be omnibus hearings is a good example.
Right now, in the current compound, there are many long possibilities.
Mr. Haas, hold on just a second.
Yes.
It doesn't make sense to me that because, you know, have two judges,
only one judge can hear one case. And to say, now suddenly, the lawyers got more cases.
The lawyer can only take up one case at a time.
And so I don't see how the more judges increase the hearings.
A case either needs a hearing or it doesn't need a
hearing.
And that's a question of whether the parties can work on an
agreement or whether they need
a judge to decide that matter.
But I do not see the additional judge
increases your hearing volume because the case number
hasn't changed.
It doesn't necessarily increase the volume of cases over the entirety of the life of
a case, but it increases the number.
If all of those judges are hearing cases at approximately the same time or at a certain
rate, it's going to increase a number of times that my attorney has to appear in court over
time.
And like I said, that might be mitigated if the case loads dropped, right now the average
in polymerase about 80 cases and right now those 80
cases appear frequently in front of what are I think 10 judges
there although not all of them here criminal cases so we'd have to
sort that out more but right. Now they appear in part of that many
judges on that. Many cases if you add another courtroom
they're not going to have an increased rate of having to go
manage that litigation. I understand the skepticism and there may be a
policy choice about you know that I'm not trying to invade
that's with how you want all this to work.
But in my experience, if we add a judge,
we will add to the workload for the existing number
of attorneys who carry 79 cases that appear
on a regular basis currently before set number of judges
and will now appear on regular bases
before an additional judge.
But I understand the skepticism and I'm not arguing
with the logic to chair, I just...
I'm just saying, but I think we'll be the end result of an additional judge on our lawyers.
I will say, it's always fair to question that shares logic.
That's nothing flawed with that approach.
But the only two things I would just make as an observation, and
I don't think it requires a response from Mr. Haas.
The first thing I'd say is that I am struck that we have a fiscal note from the public defender.
We do not have fiscal notes from a prosecutor.
We don t have the fiscal not from public advocate.
We don't have it, not just the prosecutor, but the Department of Law.
I mean, these are all departments that if that analysis presented by Mr.
Haas resonates, then I would expect maybe, maybe before the next time we hear this bill.
We'll start seeing more fiscal notes from those departments,
but to the extent they don t.
I think that reinforces the skepticism.
I also recognize at some level the question about fiscal notes is a question for the finance
committee, not a questions for this committee.
But I do think it's important on this Committee to raise those questions.
And so my skepticism is noted.
I don't think, it requires more response from Mr. Hosle.
I will also note that I'd think of part of what he's saying is we have an agency that
prosecutors and public defenders in the system,
and I think there's a good case to be made for that.
The other thing, I just want to more,
this is more of a question for Ms. Mead.
I, think one of the terms,
one are the challenges of
the pro tem judges, especially the retired pro temp,
I guess they're almost all retired,
but the Pro Tem judges is that under our system
the public generally is appearing for judges
who are subject to retention elections,
and so if there is some dissatisfaction
how that judge is performing, if we start relying more on pro tem judges to solve case
management issues, we're actually taking the public's connection to our judiciary away
if sort of overpopulate with pro tems.
I don't think that's been an issue, but I've been just curious to your thoughts on that.
The administrative rule on pro tem judges was actually amended not too long ago.
I can't remember exactly when to provide that they do get reviewed every two years.
Surveys go out, input is given to the administrative office and
the Supreme Court to decide whether somebody remains eligible to stay on that list.
It is not a retention election, it isn't every voter having a say,
can you to be appropriate for the position?
Thank you.
Senator Keel, I've got more questions going now.
Thank You, Mr. Chairman.
You certainly got the juices flowing.
And I hope I didn't suggest that pro-term judges
would be a long- term solution.
I agree with you, that's not a Long-Term fix.
I guess in your discussion with the public defender,
I sort of the hose analogy, we have this backlog.
And certainly, as the court system described,
it sounds like they remain dissatisfied
with the state of criminal case throughput.
We're still on the hose.
So I guess I catch the public defender's argument
that if there's pressure in the tank and, you know,
for judges, judge can have an average
of X criminal hearings a week.
you go from 4X to 5X. I get the notion that while there's a backlog,
attorneys have to show up 25% more often to handle ice as a 20% bump to go
from four X to five X. The question then would be for how long do we anticipate
this backlog to exist before the pressure is down and
And we can handle cases at a more measured pace.
Is that in the realm of possibility?
Through the chair to Senator Keel, I personally don't even love the word backlog.
There are pending cases were down below the number of pending
cases we had in 2018.
So we have conquered the COVID caused.
backlog in many areas.
Nobody likes how long a case takes.
Nobody liked it in 2000.
And nobody liked in 1975.
Everybody wants a solution faster.
There are a certain number of levers we can push.
Everyone's pushing what they can.
The lack of resources in the agencies is a big one.
And that's not something that Mr. Haaz or I can really address.
Will there be such a catch-up that people can take a deep breath and relax?
I don't know about that.
Cases continue to take more time, they continue
to get more complex.
It's, you know, our number of cases depends on how many police officers are allocated
to a certain area, and we're talking criminal now.
You know we see more child in need of aid cases when the economy is not strong.
I can't say that there will be a relaxation.
What I do want to say, though, is that this judge will handle all case types.
You know, 25% are felonies, as I mentioned, 12% our child in need of aid.
But we have 20% domestic relations, 30% probate.
This judge is not going to be there.
dealing just with criminal cases, they in Palmer do the full gambit that this is not a criminal judge that you would be authorizing.
And I also want to say that these cases have been generally covered, the criminal case and the child in need of aid cases by the imperfect systems that I described.
I don't know.
I wouldn't say that this is going to speed things up.
This is to adjust things, especially in those non-criminal
and non China areas.
Of course, it will affect those to some extent,
but we aren't doing awfully with those.
I don't think I've been terribly responsive,
but I can't predict that there will be
a collective acknowledgement that we have beat the backlog
and can start relaxing a little bit.
Thank you, I
Don't see any other questions. I will
Follow up I would I'm not sure whether this is a
I guess I'll ask another question for mr. Haas
It seems to me that the testimony from Ms. Mead has been that
With the pro tem judges and case shuffling that criminal cases are keeping pace with the rest of the states
speed of criminal cases going through and the
lack of this judge is having delays on the things the public defender doesn't handle the probate matters the
Family the domestic relations matters custody matters all the thing that the Public Defender is not involved in
And if the and if if she's right that it's not going to speed up any cases
Doesn't that further undermine your argument
that you need this fiscal note?
I'm not suggesting, yeah,
doesn't it further undermining your arguments
that need additional position
because you're actually not gonna see cases
moving any faster based on Ms. Mead's testimony?
To the chair, I understand that it's only a portion
of what the new judge would handle.
The new Judge would presumably,
I think Palmer has always been,
they're not just
judges of general jurisdiction, I think they tend to handle, and I take that Ms. needs said this,
they tended to have all case types. And certainly there's a possible universe where it doesn't
increase the case load for the public defender. By their very nature of fiscal notes,
I have to make a decision about which possible university I'll end up in.
And I do think that the pro-town judges have added some work. In fact, it's probably at times
created a pace that would not long-term be sustainable
for Palmer, which is part of how you arrive
at this fiscal note.
But I'll say for myself, for instance,
I'm personally trying a case in Billingham next week
where there's a scramble to find a judge to do that.
So there is an example of a location
where the defense behavior is driving the need
for the number of judges.
I think in Palmer that's the place
where a number lawyers I have and the numbers of judge
tends to actually pull on the lawyers, by which I mean they have to work hard to make it to all
the places they already have be. And so I do think a new judge, while I understand what you're saying,
they won't increase it by exactly one criminal court judge or China. I try not to leave the
China out because that's a big job there too. It won' increase by, you know, exactly the percentage
It will create, I believe, another place,
another spot along the way where my lawyers have to come
and appear in answer to the court and file and argue
and administer cases.
And so that's where I'm coming from.
But I accept to The Chair,
I accepted the proposition that maybe that judge
will handle so much of the non-criminal,
non China litigation that it will be insignificant.
I tend to think it probably won't go that way,
but I understand and appreciate the observation.
Thank you.
All right, I don't see any other questions.
We're gonna go ahead and open public testimony
on Senate Bill 212.
Is there anyone in the room who would like to provide
public testament on a Senate bill 212?
Is there anyone online that would like to provide testimony?
I don't see anyone in the queue on the deal. So I'm going to close public testimony on Senate bill 212
Is made would you like, to make any final comments before we set this bill aside for the review?
I
Would just like. To thank the committee for listening to the court's concerns in this area. I appreciate it
Thank you very much.
We have nothing else, so we are going to set Senate Bill 212 aside for further review.
If you're considering an amendment to Senate bill 212, I expect somebody with amendment
to have three more judges added to the numbers in the bill or something like that.
But if you are gonna make any amendments, please let our office know.
Submit them electronically by Monday, February 2nd at noon.
We're going to adjourn for the day.
Our next meeting will be on Monday, February 2nd at 1.30 PM.
Our meeting on Friday, January 30th is canceled.
And with that, we stand adjourned.
The time is now 2.33 PM