Senate State Affairs hears SB 270 to codify investigative grand juries as Alaskans urge repeal of court rule 6.1

Juneau — The Alaska Senate State Affairs Committee on March 17 held a first hearing on Senate Bill 270, a measure sponsored by Sen. Jesse Bjorkman that would codify procedures for investigative grand juries and clarify their authority to investigate matters of public welfare and safety.

The bill, as presented by staffer Matt Churchill, would amend multiple Alaska statutes and criminal rules to specify panel composition (including alternate jurors), require written court instructions on relevant statutes, authorize grand juries to initiate investigations and make recommendations regarding public welfare or safety, allow presentation of hearsay or otherwise inadmissible material to an investigative grand jury, strengthen subpoena and report rules, and create penalties for violating grand-jury secrecy. SB 270 also establishes applicability provisions and sets an effective date of July 1, 2026, and makes some changes contingent on a two-thirds legislative approval of certain court-rule amendments.

Supporters told the committee the legislation is needed because recent court-rule changes (notably criminal rule 6.1) and administrative practices have, in their view, eroded the constitutional role of investigative grand juries. "Alaska citizens are an imminent danger of being enslaved to a corrupt judicial system," said David Hague, an invited witness, arguing the Alaska Supreme Court and other institutions had restricted grand-jury authority. "The grand jury can be appealed to directly, which is an invaluable right to the citizen," Hague added, citing historical constitutional framers.

Todd Lindley, president of the Alaska Grand Jurors Association, asked why the Alaska Supreme Court had proposed rule changes during an ongoing grand-jury investigation and urged legislative action and an inquiry into a sealed Kenai grand-jury report. "Investigations into public safety and welfare are foundational to a grand jury's power," Lindley said.

Forensic journalist David Ignell said he generally supported SB 270 with amendments and cited historical and case-law arguments showing grand juries traditionally operated with broad investigative discretion. Dozens of remote and in-person public commenters — including union leaders, victims, longtime residents and former legislators — urged passage, offered drafting suggestions (several urged replacing permissive language such as "may" with "shall" in specific lines), and described local cases they said illustrated failures in current procedures.

Several speakers recounted allegations about the handling of past grand-jury matters and the Department of Law's role in presentation and gatekeeping. Sharon Walls described a case she said had been presented to a grand jury three times and dismissed because of alleged false or misleading testimony; she said the involved peace officer remained employed and was later promoted. Former legislator Ben Carpenter reviewed statutory duties for prosecuting attorneys and said some prosecutors had avoided a statutory duty to prepare indictments when required by grand juries.

Sen. Bjorkman told the committee the bill is intended to provide a legislative prescription that parallels the protections in Article I, Section 8 of the Alaska Constitution and to clarify questions raised by proposed court-rule changes. He urged citizens to review the court rule change currently open for comment and acknowledged there are outstanding questions about why some past situations occurred as they did.

The committee did not take action on SB 270 at the hearing. Chair Kawasaki announced the committee would hear a Department of Corrections presentation on pretrial matters and other court-system witnesses at a future meeting (scheduled for March 19) and that the court-system update (including Nancy Mead of court counsel) would be deferred to the beginning of that session. The public was invited to submit written comments to senatestateaffairs@akleg.gov for inclusion in the public record.

Next steps: SB 270 will be considered for further committee work; the record reflects no vote taken at this session and additional testimony and a presentation from court-system officials were scheduled for the committee's next meeting.