Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Senate Finance committee hears testimony opposing bill to send long‑term Alaskan inmates out of state
Loading...
Summary
At a first hearing on SB 126, sponsor Senator Yundt described the bill as a cost‑saving option to relocate inmates with seven or more years remaining out of state and return them with two years left; the ACLU and formerly incarcerated witnesses warned it risks constitutional access, family ties and would likely worsen gang problems and recidivism. The committee set the bill aside for further work.
A Senate Finance Committee hearing on April 15 opened debate on Senate Bill 126, which would allow the Department of Corrections to relocate Alaskan inmates with seven or more years remaining to out‑of‑state facilities and require their return when two years or fewer remain on the sentence. Sponsor Senator Yundt said the measure is “an opportunity to take a look at a minor restructuring of Department of Corrections, and possibly, relocating some of our inmates to an out of state facility where we could save a lot of money.”
Civil liberties advocates and people who served time after prior out‑of‑state placements urged the committee to reject or substantially rewrite the proposal. Michael Garvey, policy director for the ACLU of Alaska, told the committee he and his organization oppose “the idea of sending Alaska prisoners out of state again because it jeopardizes their constitutional rights, prevents public safety oversight, and raises concerns about implementation and costs related to transportation.” He said out‑of‑state placements would make it harder for prisoners to access Alaska courts, counsel and oversight.
Formerly incarcerated witnesses recounted effects they attributed to past mass transfers. Chet Atkins said transfers exposed Alaskan prisoners to other inmate populations and gang cultures, describing housing with prisoners from several jurisdictions and the emergence of gang influence after return. Adam Barger, who served many years in private facilities and later earned criminal‑justice degrees, testified that the state’s prior experience produced more violence, new gang affiliations and higher recidivism among returnees. Barger said sending prisoners out of state “will not set them up well to return to their communities,” and warned an out‑of‑state contract would shift roughly $109,000,000 out of Alaska’s economy in certain line items.
Committee members pressed the sponsor on details. Senator Kiel sought clarification on whether the bill would apply to everyone with seven or more years remaining; the sponsor confirmed the seven‑year threshold as written and said inmates would be returned before two years remained. The sponsor acknowledged the Department of Corrections already has some authority to place inmates out of state but said legislative direction would influence practice.
The hearing also surfaced criminal‑justice equity concerns. Committee members referenced an internal study showing Alaska Native people comprise about 20% of the state population but roughly 40% of the incarcerated population; members said that disparity requires careful review before changing placement policies.
The bill’s fiscal note from the Department of Corrections was recorded as $0. Committee members asked for updated per‑day cost estimates; the sponsor said in‑state housing runs about $203 per day and that out‑of‑state contracts are typically one‑third to one‑quarter of that figure, numbers he said would need updating.
With no amendments resolved, the committee closed public testimony and set SB 126 aside for further consideration, asking staff to gather amendment recommendations and updated cost data. No vote was taken.
The committee’s next meeting was scheduled for April 16, when the panel will continue other scheduled business.
