Opinions

Alaska Judicial Council does its job well despite special-interest attacks

The nonpartisan Alaska Judicial Council was created at statehood to evaluate candidates for judgeships, and has served for more than 50 years to bring Alaskans one of the finest judiciaries in the world. For decades, the council has laboriously investigated judges' records before judicial retention elections and made recommendations based on a wide range of input from jurors, peace officers, social workers, attorneys, and members of the public. The high level of scrutiny helps ensure judicial accountability and integrity. But in recent years the council has found itself in the cross-hairs of special interests for reasons that have little to do with the quality and earnestness of its work, and everything to do with partisan politics. John Harmon's Sept. 28 commentary, "Legislature should rein in the partisan Alaska Judicial Council," is the latest assault on the council for doing its job, and doing it well.

Contrary to Harmon's claims, it is the council's opponents who engage in partisanship. In recent years, members of Alaska's judiciary have come under attack by political groups with agendas. Judges who do their job and honor the rule of law, not political or popular pressure, have been targeted in well-funded anti-retention campaigns. In one instance, a group spent tens of thousands of Outside dollars against a judge in a campaign launched barely three weeks before the election, using mud-slinging and misinformation to inflame voters and overshadow the judge's outstanding record of public service. Fortunately for Alaskans, the smear campaigns failed, no doubt in part because of favorable recommendations by the Alaska Judicial Council. Now the same special interest groups seek to reshape our justice system by targeting the council itself.

Harmon laments that the council defended its recommendations to retain two of our state's most highly respected judges who faced last-minute attacks. And he criticizes the council for defending its recommendation against a judge who was found unfit to perform his judicial duties. Yet the council's conduct in each instance fulfilled its long-standing responsibility to ensure that Alaskans have reliable, unbiased information about the judges who serve us. Only informed citizens can meaningfully exercise the right to vote on whether a judge should be retained.

Judicial merit -- not partisan politics -- determines the council's recommendations for or against a judge's retention. And judicial merit -- not partisan politics -- drives the council's dissemination of its recommendations. Unlike politicians or political groups, judges cannot ethically campaign for retention unless opposition is mounted. When opponents wait until the last minute, they gain a strategic advantage that judges can rarely meet on their own. Hence, in a contested retention, the council's distribution of balanced information and recommendations becomes even more critical to the ability of voters to make informed decisions.

At the apparent heart of current attacks on the council is the desire to undermine fair and impartial courts -- a cornerstone of our democracy -- in favor of courts that tilt the balance. Opponents of the council know that judges retained based on merit may not give them the decisions they want: decisions that conform to their own world view, not the rule of law. And opponents know that a judicial council that recommends retention based on merit -- not on bias toward their side -- stands in the way of their narrow view of justice.

But most of all, opponents recognize that Alaskans who are well informed about a judge's high qualifications and dedicated service are less likely to be persuaded by smear campaigns. And they understand that it's harder to bring down a good judge with inflammatory rhetoric when the judge has earned a "YES" recommendation from the Alaska Judicial Council.

Alaskans should not be fooled by Harmon's irresponsible derision of the council, or his dismissal of the talents and hard work of the many judges currently on the ballot. If you care about preserving fair and impartial courts, visit www.ajc.state.ak.us to learn a more balanced view. Then go to the polls on Nov. 4 and vote for merit, not politics.

ADVERTISEMENT

Barbara Hood is a retired attorney and founding board member of Justice Not Politics Alaska, a new nonprofit that works to protect Alaska's judicial selection and retention system from increased political influence.

The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.

ADVERTISEMENT