Alaska lawmakers scrutinize Dunleavy’s attorney general appointee ahead of confirmation vote

JUNEAU — Alaska lawmakers pressed attorney general appointee Stephen Cox this week on his understanding of the state’s constitutional right to privacy and handling of voter data ahead of a vote on his confirmation. Gov. Mike Dunleavy appointed Cox to the position last August. A former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas, Cox moved to Alaska in 2021 to serve as chief legal officer for Bristol Bay Industrial, a subsidiary of Bristol Bay Native Corp. Cox came before state senators on the State Affairs Committee on Thursday, followed by the Judiciary Committee on Friday. The Thursday hearing focused heavily on the state’s controversial decision to share voter information with the U.S. Department of Justice, and the extent of Cox’s role in the decision. “We took the posture of cooperation,” Cox said, adding that Alaska has historically worked with the Department of Justice regardless of administration. Sen. Scott Kawasaki, a Fairbanks Democrat, asked why Cox did not adhere in his judgment to the right to privacy guaranteed in the Alaska Constitution. He called it “one of the bedrocks” of the state constitution. “We’re rugged, we’re Alaskans,” Kawasaki said. “We’re so far from the rest of the U.S. that when the rest of the U.S. does something, we tend to first take a pause and look and see if it’s something Alaskans want to do. Why was that not your first thought that Alaska has a constitutional right to privacy, let’s pause before we do anything more that the U.S. Department of Justice has requested?” “I will concede, I am learning about the right to privacy,” Cox said. Cox argued the Division of Elections is allowed to divulge voter information to government officials “for governmental purposes authorized under law,” under state statute. Kawasaki noted that while Alaska was among the states to comply with the request, several others chose to challenge it in court. The Department of Justice filed suit against some of the states that refused to comply. Voting and civil rights groups sued Alaska elections officials last month over their decision to supply the data, saying it violates the right to privacy under the state constitution. Sen. Bill Wielechowski, an Anchorage Democrat, outlined a timeline in which Alaska election officials first declined to release confidential voter information in mid-2025, providing only non-confidential data. Cox was appointed attorney general weeks later. By December, the state had reversed course and agreed to provide a full list of eligible voters. Wielechowski repeatedly asked whether Cox had changed the Department of Law’s legal advice. “I did not say we should change our position,” Cox said. “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.” Lawmakers also scrutinized Cox’s record of joining, on behalf of Alaska, multi-state amicus or “friend of the court” briefs. Wielechowski noted at the Thursday hearing that Cox had signed on to 110 amicus briefs in his eight-month tenure. Sen. Löki Tobin, an Anchorage Democrat, pointed out the following day that amounts to about 14 per month, more than twice the average for state attorneys general of the past seven years. Some topics Cox filed briefs on include limits on the participation of transgender girls in girls’ sports, the application of the Voting Rights Act, the limits of the Constitution’s protections for birthright citizenship and the responsibility — or lack thereof — of oil companies to clear up defunct infrastructure. Wielechowski asked Cox about several specific cases he had signed on to, arguing that he opted not to sign on to big cases that would have had a direct impact on Alaskans. He pointed to a multi-state lawsuit urging the federal government to release funding for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, a case Alaska did not join, and questioned why Cox instead signed onto briefs involving issues like rights of business owners to deny service based on sexual orientation. “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,” Wielechowski said. “It’s really that simple.” “I just disagree with the premise. I don’t think it’s that simple,” Cox said. “He said that he decides to join an amicus brief if Alaska has an interest and whether or not the legal argument aligns with the past legal positions of the state or the Dunleavy administration. Lawmakers also raised concerns about Cox’s decision to hire a state solicitor general from Outside, a position tasked with handling appellate litigation and shaping the state’s legal strategy in higher courts. Critics questioned both the need for the role and the decision to bring in someone without Alaska-specific legal experience, particularly given the state’s unique body of law around issues like natural resources and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Cox defended the hire, saying the position strengthens the state’s voice in national litigation and allows Alaska to more effectively weigh in on cases that could shape the law. The state solicitor general position, Cox said, allows Alaska to “amplify” its voice in amicus briefs and other litigation “to ultimately influence the law that will ultimately govern the state,” he said Thursday. Bruce Botelho, a former Alaska attorney general under Govs. Wally Hickel and Tony Knowles, said at the Friday hearing that though he believes Cox to have the “highest moral character,” he testified in opposition to Cox’s appointment because the “attorney general of Alaska must be the state’s chief legal officer, not its chief cultural warrior.” “Cox has talked about the number of briefs that have been filed as amicus briefs. In my review of the first seven months, Alaska was a participant in some 110 cases, all of which I would describe as ideological litigation,” Botelho said. Across the two days, several people called into the hearings to oppose Cox’s appointment. Some called in to express support, including some of Cox’s former colleagues and people he has worked with as attorney general. “One thing I’ve been really impressed with Mr. Cox about is he’s been willing to accept my calls,” said Alaska attorney Bill Satterberg. “He’s been willing to meet with me, and even though we disagree on a number of areas, he has still been receptive. He’s been transparent, and he’s been able to listen.” Lawmakers will vote on whether or not to confirm Cox, along with the rest of the governor’s appointees, on May 7. Correction: This story has been updated to reflect that additional states beyond Alaska and Texas have complied with the Justice Department’s request for states’ voter information; and to clarify attorney general appointee Stephen Cox said he decides to join amicus briefs based on the state’s position on the law.