Our view: Judicial activism

The lawsuit asks the federal courts to engage in the kind of judicial activism that conservatives routinely oppose.

Alaska's Constitution has contained the challenged provision since day one, when the territory became a state. The plaintiffs seek to overturn the considered judgment of Alaska's constitutional founders and the huge majority of Alaskans who approved the constitution in a statewide vote.

Those pushing the lawsuit apparently would rather avoid trying to change the state constitution through the regular process. A constitutional amendment would have to pass by a two-thirds vote in each house of the Legislature, before Alaskans would vote it up or down in a statewide vote.

Maybe they haven't pursued an amendment because it would be a tough sell. Alaska's process of selecting judges, which is based on merit, works far better than electing judges, a process common in many other states. Elected judges have to grub for campaign money from the same lawyers and well-funded special interests that regularly have cases before the court. As a result, Alaska has been spared the sort of judicial scandals that regularly occur elsewhere.

The people challenging Alaska's judicial selection process should drop their ill-considered lawsuit. If there is a problem with Alaska's judicial selection process, the way to fix it is through the political process, not through the courts.

BOTTOM LINE: Federal court isn't the place to change Alaska's judicial selection process.