Group opposes judicial council changes

WASILLA — Are proposed changes to the makeup of the Alaska Judicial Council an attempt to stack the deck politically, or are they an attempt to add diversity of opinion?

The Alaska Judicial Council does a couple things in the state:

• Reviews applicants for judgeships, narrowing the applicant pool down to a handful of names sent on to the governor for appointment.

• Reviews judges in the run-up to retention elections.

Half of the council’s members are attorneys and half are not. The chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court presides over meetings and decides tie votes.

Sen. Pete Kelly, R-Fairbanks, has introduced legislation paving the way for a vote of the people on a constitutional amendment that would do two things:

• Increase the number of non-attorney members from three to six

• Require the attorney members — currently appointed by the Alaska Bar Association — be confirmed by the Legislature.

Speakers at the Greater Wasilla Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday explained how the council works and then advocated that it not be changed.

Don McClintock, who serves on the board of Justice Not Politics Alaska, said that as a corporate attorney he’s represented businesses in all kinds of matters.

“I’ve been fortunate never to have to worry about whether opposing counsel had a special relationship with the governor,” McClintock said.

In a system where the governor appoints six of nine members on the council, he said, a special relationship with the governor could give an attorney influence over a judge whose job depends on that governor-appointed council.

He said that the current system ensures a “judiciary that’s accountable and also free from partisan politics.”

Justice Not Politics Alaska’s website contains further arguments, including one that claims changing the makeup of the council would erode the separation of powers in Alaska.

“Allowing the Governor to appoint a majority of council members and the Legislature to approve all members gives the executive and legislative branches undue influence over the judicial branch, undermines the checks and balances that form the foundation of our democracy, and ignores the vital importance of judicial independence to a free society,” reads the website.

On the other side, Sen. Kelly penned a relatively long sponsor’s statement accompanying his proposed legislation.

On the subject of the confirmation by the Legislature, Kelly says, “the lack of legislative confirmation is a stark glaring oversight when all members of every other Alaskan regulatory or quasi-judicial agency are subject to confirmation.”

Justice Not Politics actually answers this point, saying that the council is not a quasi-judicial or regulatory agency but an integral part of the judicial branch.

Kelly also argues that a nine-member board would allow for more diversity.

“Historically, the three attorney members have come from four cities: Fairbanks, Anchorage, Juneau, and Ketchikan. While the three public members hail from more diverse locations, overall the majority are still from the same four cities,” Kelly writes.

He says that a nine-member board would not require a tie-breaking vote from the chief justice and would therefore remove what could be seen as a conflict of interest in which the chief justice is able to vote on the “inclusion or exclusion of an applicant as a means of influencing who will be among his or her peers on the bench.”

This is the second legislative session in which Kelly has introduced his resolution. The legislation will be considered next in the Senate State Affairs Committee.

Contact Andrew Wellner at 352-2270 or andrew.wellner@frontiersman.com.