ballotpedia.org

Alaska Judicial Council

From Ballotpedia

Judicial nominating commissions

Judicialselectionlogo.png

Individual nominating committees
Select a committee in the dropdown below and click "Submit" to view information about that committee.
Methods of judicial selection
Partisan elections
Nonpartisan elections
Michigan method
Retention elections
Assisted appointment
Bar-controlled commission
Governor-controlled commission
Hybrid commission
Legislative elections
Gubernatorial appointment

The Alaska Judicial Council, also known as the AJC, is an independent state commission in Alaska established by the Alaska Constitution that plays a role in the state's judicial selection process.[1] The AJC has seven members, selected by both the governor and the Alaska Bar Association, and its chair is the chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court.

Alaska uses the assisted appointment method of judicial selection for its state courts. Using this method, the governor appoints state judges from a list of names submitted by the AJC. This selection method is used for all of the trial and appellate courts in the state.

The AJC is a hybrid commission, which means that there is no majority of members chosen by either the governor or the state Bar association. As of February 12, 2025, 11 states used this type of commission. To learn more about controlling majorities in judicial selection commissions, click here.

In addition to its role in judicial selection, the AJC evaluates judge performance and makes that information available to voters. The AJC also researches the administration of justice in Alaska and publishes that information in reports.[1]

Members

Last updated: May 2024.

The AJC has seven members. Three members are lawyers appointed by the board of governors of the Alaska Bar Association. Three members are non-lawyer citizens appointed by the governor and confirmed by a majority vote of the Alaska State Legislature. The final member is the chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court, who serves as the ex officio chair of the council.[1]

The Alaska Constitution requires that appointments to the AJC must be made "with due consideration to area representation and without regard to political affiliation." The appointments must also be geographically diverse. Members of the AJC serve staggered six-year terms, except for the chief justice who serves for three years.[1]

Members of the Alaska Judicial Council, May 2024
Name Appointed by Term-end date
Chair - Peter J. Maassen[2] Gov. Sean Parnell (R) February 7, 2026
Steven Hansen Alaska Bar Association February 2, 2030
Dave Parker Gov. Sean Parnell (R)[3] March 1, 2025
Jonathon Katcher Alaska Bar Association February 23, 2026
Kristie Babcock Gov. Mike Dunleavy (R) March 1, 2027
Patricia Collins Alaska Bar Association February 23, 2028
Dennis DeWitt Gov. Mike Dunleavy (R) March 1, 2029

Process

On its website, the AJC lays out the following seven steps for filling a judicial vacancy:[4]

  1. Applications - Officials announce the vacancy and interested parties may submit application forms.
  2. Initial review - This includes a background investigation of each applicant and an evaluation of submitted writing samples.
  3. Bar survey and public comment - The AJC surveys all active in-state members of the Alaska Bar Association, along with all inactive in-state members, in-state retired members, and active out-of-state members if those members have made their email addresses available. The AJC solicits public comments on the list of applicants.
  4. Distribution of materials - AJC members receive packets of information on each applicant (including survey results and public comments) to review prior to the ACJ meeting.
  5. Interviews - The AJC interviews applicants for the position.
  6. Evaluations - Combining the packets of information and the interviews, AJC members determine who they will select as the most qualified to be nominated.
  7. Nominations made - The AJC submits a list of candidates selected as most qualified to the governor for consideration. The AJC must provide at least two nominees to the governor.

Bar survey

The AJC polls members of the Alaska Bar Association for feedback on judicial applicants. The AJC surveys all active in-state members of the association, while all inactive in-state members, in-state retired members, and active out-of-state members may participate if they have an email address on file.[4] The association members rate applicants on a numerical scale across six categories and may also leave written comments about the applicant. The survey also collects demographic data about the respondents, such as type of practice, years in practice, and gender. To see a sample of a survey provided by the AJC, click here. The following questions appear in the rating portion of the survey:[5]

“

Professional competence

  1. Poor. Lacking in knowledge and/or effectiveness
  2. Deficient. Below-average performance occasionally
  3. Acceptable. Possesses sufficient knowledge and required skills
  4. Good. Usually knowledgeable and effective
  5. Excellent. Meets the highest standards for knowledge and effectiveness

Integrity

  1. Poor. Unconcerned with propriety and/or appearance, or acts in violation of codes of professional conduct
  2. Deficient. Appears lacking in knowledge of codes of professional conduct and/or unconcerned with propriety or appearance at times
  3. Acceptable. Follows codes of professional conduct, respects propriety and appearance of propriety at all times
  4. Good. Above-average awareness of ethics, holds self to higher standard than most
  5. Excellent. Outstanding integrity and highest standards of conduct

Judicial Temperament

  1. Poor. Often lacks compassion, humility, or courtesy
  2. Deficient. Sometimes lacks compassion, humility, or courtesy
  3. Acceptable. Possesses appropriate compassion, humility, and courtesy
  4. Good. Above-average compassion, humility, and courtesy
  5. Excellent. Outstanding compassion, humility, and courtesy

Fairness

  1. Poor. Often shows strong bias for or against some person or groups
  2. Deficient. Displays, verbally or otherwise, some bias for or against groups or persons
  3. Acceptable. Free of substantial bias or prejudice towards groups or persons
  4. Good. Above-average ability to treat all persons and groups impartially
  5. Excellent. Unusually fair and impartial to all groups

Suitability of Experience

  1. Poor. Has little or no suitable experience
  2. Deficient. Has less than suitable experience
  3. Acceptable. Has suitable experience
  4. Good. Has highly suitable experience
  5. Excellent. Has the most suitable experience possible for this position

Overall Professional Qualifications

  1. Poor. Has few qualifications for this position
  2. Deficient. Has insufficient qualifications for this position
  3. Acceptable. Has suitable qualifications for this position
  4. Good. Has highly suitable qualifications for this position
  5. Excellent. Has exceptionally high qualifications for this position[6]
 ”

Evaluation criteria

The AJC must consider the following criteria for each applicant. This criteria is laid out in the AJC bylaws:[4]

“
  • Professional Competence, Including Written and Oral Communication Skills. When addressing professional competence, Council members consider intellectual capacity, legal judgment, and substantive and procedural knowledge of the law, and the ability to work well with a variety of types of people. Because communications play a vital role in any judge's work, Council members assess an applicant's ability to communicate in writing and speaking. Members consider the applicant's ability to discuss factual and legal issues in clear, logical, and accurate legal writing. They also consider the applicant's effectiveness in communicating orally in a way that will readily be understood and respected by people from all walks of life.
  • Diligence and Administrative Skills. Council members consider the applicant’s diligence and organizational and administrative skills.
  • Integrity. In evaluating integrity, Council members consider whether the applicant has demonstrated a consistent history of honesty and high moral character in the applicant’s professional and personal life. Members also consider the applicant's respect for professional duties arising under the codes of professional and judicial conduct, as well as the applicant's understanding of the need to maintain propriety and the appearance of propriety.
  • Fairness. To assess an applicant's fairness, Council members examine whether the applicant has demonstrated the ability to be impartial to all persons and groups of people. Members look for applicants who have shown themselves to be open-minded and capable of deciding issues according to the law, even when the law conflicts with their personal views.
  • Temperament. In assessing an applicant's temperament, Council members consider whether the applicant possesses compassion and humility; whether the applicant has a history of courtesy and civility in dealing with others; whether the applicant has shown an ability to maintain composure under stress; and whether the applicant is able to control anger and maintain calmness and order.
  • Judgment, Including Common Sense. To determine an applicant's judgment and common sense, Council members look for a sound balance between abstract knowledge and practical reality: members consider whether, in making decisions in the legal arena or in other spheres of life, the applicant has demonstrated the ability to make prompt decisions that resolve difficult problems in a way that makes practical sense within the constraints of any applicable rules or governing principles.
  • Legal and Life Experience. Council members consider both legal and life experience. They evaluate the amount and breadth of an applicant’s legal experience and the suitability of that experience for the position sought, including trial and other courtroom experience and administrative skills. At the same time, Council members look for broader qualities reflected in the applicant’s life experiences, such as the diversity of the applicant's personal and educational history, exposure to persons of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and demonstrated interests in areas outside the legal field.
  • Demonstrated Commitment to Public and Community Service. In assessing an applicant's commitment to public and community service, Council members consider the extent to which an applicant has demonstrated a commitment to the community generally and to improving access to the justice system in particular.
  • Demonstrated Commitment to Equal Justice and the Legal Needs of the Diverse Communities of Alaska. Council members consider each applicant’s demonstrated commitment to equal justice and the legal needs of the diverse communities of Alaska.[6]
 ”

Duties

According to its website, members of the AJC have the following duties:[7]

“
  • Judicial Selection Duties
    • Review materials distributed by staff
    • Attend selection meetings and public hearings
    • Vote on candidates to be sent to the Governor
    • Review judicial selection procedures
  • Judicial Retention Evaluation Duties
    • Review materials distributed by staff
    • Attend retention meetings and public hearings
    • Vote on judges to be retained
    • Review retention evaluation procedures
  • Research Projects
    • Approve research projects
    • Oversee (and sometimes participate in) projects
    • Approve research reports
  • Administrative Oversight
    • Supervise executive director
    • Budgetary oversight
    • General administrative oversight
    • Engage in public outreach
    • Complete required APOC filings

[6]

”

Control of judicial selection commissions

Assisted appointment is a method of judicial selection in which a nominating commission reviews the qualifications of judicial candidates and submits a list of names to the governor, who appoints a judge from the list.[8]

At the state supreme court level, this method is further divided into the following three types, based on the makeup of the judicial nominating commissions. Those types are:

  • Governor-controlled commission - The governor is either responsible for appointing a majority of the members of the nominating commission or may decline to appoint a candidate from a list provided by the nominating commission.
  • Bar-controlled commission - The state Bar Association is responsible for appointing a majority of the members of the nominating commission.
  • Hybrid - There is no majority of members chosen by either the governor or the state Bar Association. The membership of these commissions is determined by different rules in each state.

Twenty-two courts in 22 states used assisted appointment to select state supreme court justices as of June 2021.[9][10] Alaska used a hybrid commission. The table below shows the number of courts using each variation of assisted appointment at the state supreme court level.

Assisted appointment methods in state supreme courts
Method Courts (of 23)
Governor-controlled majority 10
Bar-controlled majority 1
Hybrid 12

The map below highlights the states that use each of the three types of assisted appointment.

Noteworthy events

Lawsuit challenging AJC constitutionality dismissed (September 2009)

On September 12, 2009, Judge John Sedwick of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska dismissed the case of Kirk v. Carpeneti.[11] The lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of the judicial selection process in Alaska, alleging that the system gave disproportionate influence to attorneys and, in so doing, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.[12] The lawsuit was filed on July 2, 2009, by three plaintiffs against the seven members of the AJC, including the then-AJC chair and Alaska Supreme Court Chief Justice Walter Carpeneti.

The lawsuit sought an injunction to stop the AJC from submitting a list of potential nominees for an upcoming vacancy on the Alaska Supreme Court. In April 2009, Justice Robert Eastaugh announced his retirement effective November 2.[13] The AJC accepted applications for the vacancy through May 28.[11]

In the dismissal, Sedwick wrote:[14]

“ Alaska’s founders, when considering the selection of the members of the Judicial Council at the Constitutional Convention, discussed these tensions and resolved the debate in favor of the expertise that attorneys could bring to the process. The Equal Protection Clause, as long interpreted by the federal courts, does not preclude Alaska from making that choice.[6] ”

James Bopp, Jr. , the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, told Associated Press that the issue with the AJC was a financial one. "The trial lawyers' bread and butter depends on liberal rulings on personal injury cases. They have a direct financial interest in who is a judge. And if they are able to elect their fellow trial lawyers to the commission, they've got a really privileged position and ability to line their own pockets," he said. Assistant attorney general Margaret Paton-Walsh told AP that the AJC was an intentional design decision by the framers of the Alaska Constitution. She said, "Alaska's Constitution created a system of judicial selection designed to ensure that the most highly qualified candidates were appointed to the judiciary This system was carefully designed by the framers of the Alaska Constitution and has served the state well for the last 50 years."[15]

About judicial selection

Each state has a unique set of guidelines governing how they select judges at the state and local level. These methods of selection are:

Election

  • Partisan election: Judges are elected by the people, and candidates are listed on the ballot alongside a label designating political party affiliation.
  • Nonpartisan election: Judges are elected by the people, and candidates are listed on the ballot without a label designating party affiliation.
  • Michigan method: State supreme court justices are selected through nonpartisan elections preceded by either partisan primaries or conventions.
  • Retention election: A periodic process whereby voters are asked whether an incumbent judge should remain in office for another term. Judges are not selected for initial terms in office using this election method.

Assisted appointment

  • Assisted appointment, also known as merit selection or the Missouri Plan: A nominating commission reviews the qualifications of judicial candidates and submits a list of names to the governor, who appoints a judge from the list.[8] At the state supreme court level, this method is further divided into the following three types:
    • Bar-controlled commission: The state Bar Association is responsible for appointing a majority of the judicial nominating commission that sends the governor a list of nominees that they must choose from.
    • Governor-controlled commission: The governor is responsible for appointing a majority of the judicial nominating commission that sends the governor a list of nominees they must choose from.
    • Hybrid commission: The judicial nominating commission has no majority of members chosen by either the governor or the state bar association. These commissions determine membership in a variety of ways, but no institution or organization has a clear majority control.

Direct appointment

Click a state on the map below to explore judicial selection processes in that state.

http://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_selection_in_STATE

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Alaska Constitution, "Judiciary," accessed July 14, 2021
  2. ↑ The chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court serves as the chair of the commission. Maassen was appointed to the Alaska Supreme Court by Gov. Sean Parnell (R) in 2012.
  3. ↑ Parker was reappointed to a second term in 2019 by Gov. Mike Dunleavy (R).
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Alaska Judicial Council, "Judicial Selection Procedures," accessed July 17, 2021
  5. ↑ Alaska Judicial Council, "Sample Technical Report," accessed July 17, 2021
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  7. ↑ Alaska Judicial Council, "Summary of Council Member Duties," accessed July 17, 2021
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 American Bar Association, "Judicial Selection: The Process of Choosing Judges," June 2008 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "ambaroverview" defined multiple times with different content
  9. ↑ As of June 2021, Oklahoma had two state supreme courts: one for civil matters and one for criminal matters.
  10. ↑ North Dakota uses this method only for vacancies.
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 New York Times, "Alaska Suit on Judges Is Dismissed," September 12, 2009
  12. ↑ Ancorage Press, "Battle for the bench - Why do conservatives want to change the way Alaska picks its judges?" September 2, 2009
  13. ↑ Anchorage Daily News, "Palin to make 3rd Supreme Court pick," April 18, 2009
  14. ↑ Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, "Hinger v. Carpeneti," September 30, 2010
  15. ↑ Legal Newsline, "Lawsuit challenges how Alaska picks judges," August 29, 2009

v • e

Judicial selection in state courts

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • District of Columbia • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

2025 election • 2024 election • 2023 election • 2022 election • 2021 election • 2020 election • 2019 election • 2018 election • 2017 election • 2016 election • 2015 election • 2014 election • 2013 election • 2012 election • 2011 election • 2010 election • 2009 election • 2008 election

Commission selection, political appointment • Gubernatorial appointment • Legislative appointment • Partisan elections • Nonpartisan elections • Retention election