It’s as predictable as maroon and golden leaves fluttering to the ground in late autumn. People asking for information on how to vote for judges who are up for retention. It’s a bit of a sore subject for me.

Did you know that 19 judges are up for a retention vote by the people of Alaska this year? Predictably, most people don’t know anything about them – even the politically savvy are scrambling to get intel.

Association. It has the responsibility to rate judges based on performance standards such as legal knowledge, interpersonal skills, writing ability and other basic talents related to being a judge. They tell Alaskans whether a judge shows up to work on time, how long it takes to resolve cases, whether their peers and colleagues like them, whether they are courteous, and whether they ever volunteer at the puppy shelter. Ok … maybe not that last one, but the Alaska Judicial Council’s (AJC) assessment is very limited in scope.

The AJC is like a background checker. While there may be no apparent “red flags,” the person hiring (we the voters in this case) should do our homework.

The AJC assessment has nothing to say in terms of how judges ultimately rule or their legal opinions that affect citizens.

But judges are not immune from holding very different views on how to rule. Do they have an evolving view of our Constitution that changes over time, or do they have a more conservative view that attempts to determine the exact original intent of those who wrote a particular statute or our constitutional provision?

Although former U.S. Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia had an admirable and sincere relationship and were good friends, they differed markedly in how they viewed the Constitution, and thus how they typically ruled on specific cases.

Were they both qualified? Certainly, but that doesn’t negate the reality they had drastically different views on jurisprudence. To put it in political terms, Ginsburg was a liberal and Scalia was a conservative. Democrats acknowledge this when they do everything in their power to keep conservative judges off the bench, as do Republicans when a Democratic president nominates a radically activist justice.

I’d argue that the Left gets far more vitriolic when fighting a conservative candidate. Think of every U.S. Supreme Court candidate President Trump nominated and how much venom was employed. Why? Because the Left opposes the way in which they ruled on certain cases, and how they might rule in the future.

Despite the political theatre and manufactured allegations, the intense opposition to these appointees had very little to do with anything other than how they formed certain legal opinions.

The Alaska Judicial Council would have you believe that because they’ve rated judges based strictly on performance experiences, Alaskans should care less about the actual decisions that were made and how those rulings impact our lives. In the AJC’s view, the rulings are not something us “commoners” should dwell on. Nothing to see here. Move along. We’ve taken care of the vetting … just do as you’re told.

That is misguided and fraudulent.

Sometimes, however, judges issue decisions that give us a very clear picture of their mindset when it comes to the law.

The people of Alaska, as we do with the other two branches of government – executive and legislative arms – decide who to vote for based on how the governor and legislators cast their votes. Do we care about whether they’re qualified? Depends on your definition of “qualified.” I know my share of public office holders who might have rated as “highly qualified,” but who were absolutely out of their element in Juneau. I know others who might have seemed incompetent on many levels to run for office but who turned out to be brilliant tacticians as lawmakers.

We should do the same for judges. The Alaska Constitution gives us that right but it’s more difficult because most of the time judges make decisions that are not at all controversial or political. That makes it hard to know where they stand when it comes to their guiding legal philosophy.

Sometimes, however, judges issue decisions that give us a very clear picture of their mindset when it comes to the law. This is the case with Anchorage Superior Court Judge Adolf Zeman, who is seeking retention on Tuesday, November 5.

Earlier this year, Zeman created a firestorm by ruling that the distribution of public funds used by local school districts to reimburse parents for correspondence course payments was unconstitutional based on his faulty interpretation of what our state founders thought and wrote on this matter.

From an article out of Must Read Alaska, Suzanne Downing wrote, “Last week, a judge in Anchorage decided that the State of Alaska cannot pay for classes taken by students in Alaska, unless those classes are provided by public institutions – government schools. No more can the State pay for correspondence courses or private schools. Judge Adolf Zeman ruled that paying for private education is an unconstitutional use of state funds, thus effectively stripping that funding from some 24,000 students in Alaska who use correspondence programs. The National Education Association won a sweeping ruling for government control of education, dashing the freedom of choice that Alaska families now have.”

In another exceptional article in the Alaska Watchman, David Ignell detailed how Jack Coghill, one of the original members of the Alaska State Constitutional Convention, attempted to add language preventing any public funds from “indirectly benefitting” private schools but the delegates soundly rejected that idea based on their beliefs that families and students in Alaska had to have access to educational options other than government-run schools. The third sentence of Article VII, Section 1 of the Alaska Constitution prohibiting state funds going to the “direct benefit” of any religious or other private educational institution had to do with “the direct appropriation for building or maintenance of private institutions,” and nothing to do with providing alternative educational opportunities to students.

Anchorage Superior Court Judge Adolf Zeman, in his horrible ruling that attempted to strip tens of thousands of Alaskans from the right to an education based on what best suits the needs of their children, showed his true colors as one who thinks our Constitution can be molded and twisted to accommodate the whims of a political agenda.

Alaskans now have the opportunity, despite what the Alaska Judicial Council may say about his bedside manners, to vote no on Judge Zeman’s retention campaign. We should exercise that right and demonstrate that decisions have consequences.

If you are an Alaskan who believes in school choice, has experienced the freedom of educational alternatives for your family, or perhaps you are simply tired of activist judges imposing their personal views in the courtroom – now is the time to show Judge Adolf Zeman the door. Maybe, just maybe, that might slow down the trend of black robed lawyers interfering with our lives.

In any event, don’t let anyone ever claim that you should not concern yourself with how judges rule. It’s the reason we’re voting on them next month.

The views expressed here are those of the author.

Click here to support the Alaska Watchman.