Of the 19 judges who are up for retention election this year, none have generated the heated controversy and opposition that surrounds Anchorage Superior Court Judge Adolf Zeman – the man who issued a ruling this past April which threatened to undermine the state’s popular homeschool allotment program.
While Zeman’s ruling was eventually rejected and overturned by the Alaska Supreme Court, it created massive confusion and instability for roughly 24,000 students and their families just months before the start of the current school year.
In correcting Zeman’s flawed decision, the Supreme Court rejected his claim that the state’s entire homeschool allotment program should be discarded because some families use the funding to provide their children with educational opportunities at private or religious schools.
Zeman claimed it was unconstitutional to spend public funds at private or religious educational intuitions or organizations, because the Alaska Constitution forbids the use of public funds for the “direct benefit” of such entities.
Defenders of the homeschool program argued that the allotments only “indirectly” benefit private and religious schools, since the money is given to the parents, who could have spent the funds in myriad ways. They compaired it to families who may decide to spend part of their annual Permanent Fund Dividend money on such schools.
ALASKA WATCHMAN DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX
While the Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of using the allotments in this manner, it did declare that Zeman was wrong to strike down the allotment program in its entirety based on the belief that some expenditures might be unconstitutional. In essence, the Supreme Court affirmed that a law cannot be deemed “facially unconstitutional” if it has constitutional applications, which the homeschool allotment program clearly does.
Zeman has faced widespread criticism for his decision, despite the fact that the Alaska Judicial Council has publicly recommended voters keep him on the bench.
As with past elections, however, the Judicial Council’s endorsement of Zeman never mentioned his controversial ruling, or any opinions he has ever issued. Instead, the Judicial Council focused on “temperament, diligence, and administrative skills,” none of which lets voters know anything about whether Zeman views his role through a traditional constitutionalist or radical judicial activist lens.
Similar to past years, the Judicial Council has formally recommended that Alaska voters keep all judges who are up for retention votes.
The seven-member Alaska Judicial Council is comprised of four attorneys from the left-leaning Alaska Bar Association. This lawyers’ union effectively controls who gets to be a judge. According to Alaska’s Constitution, whenever a judicial vacancy appears, the Judicial Council must pick and send at least two candidates to the governor for him to select a replacement. No one else has any say over who these two candidates are, and the governor must pick one, even if he disagrees with their judicial approach.
Not only that, but the Judicial Council also gets to publish its own voter guide, which lavishes praise on every judge who is on the ballot, while offering no information on how they ruled in specific cases.
In practical terms, this has led to nearly every judge being easily approved by voters whenever they are up for retention.
Zeman’s reelection bid is decidedly different this year, and a number of left-leaning organizations have come to his defense. Groups like Alaskans for Fair Courts assert that organized efforts to oppose judges such as Zeman are nothing more than special interest groups attempting to sway Alaskans to “replace judges who will not support their groups’ beliefs or politics over the rule of law.”
In Zeman’s case, however, the state’s high court found that his homeschool allotment ruling overstepped the rule of law.
While the Alaska Judicial Council ultimately recommended voters retain Zeman, there was some disagreement on the matter. In fact, two members of the Judicial Council voted against Zeman’s retention recommendation, while four voted in favor.
Overall, not a single judge was unanimously recommended for retention, and one required a tie breaking vote from Alaska’s Chief Justice. Click here for details.
Despite the fact that most judges have historically won their retention votes with 60 to 70 percent of the popular vote, Zeman’s campaign may face a tougher time, especially since many Alaskans can now point to a concrete and deeply unsettling ruling – one that had to be corrected by the Supreme Court in order to avoid mass confusion for roughly 20% of the Alaska’s school-age children.
16 Comments
The biggest problem with politics in Alaska is the permanent stranglehold that the Democrats have on the State Supreme Court. They don’t represent the will of the people or the state constitution.
Reciprocity wins every time. Next?
How do we go about changing the method in which judges are recommended to the Governor. How do we rid ourselves of the Judicial Counsel?
It starts by having the courage to vote Yes on a Constitutional Convention. We were drowned in out of state money last time, over $4 Million (literally) straight from the front groups for George Soros (Arabella Advisors and States’ Newsroom) vs the $40,000 we raised here in Alaska. Until Alaskans have the courage to do the very thing the framers of our State Constitution said would easily remedy some of the experiments we tried upon statehood in our local constitution, NOTHING will ever change.
Jake, keep going with the articles. You guys are gaining a good following locally. Out of state money continues to crush our local elections. I encourage everybody in my sphere of influence to pay attention. I like to think it is working. Conversations are easier to start than many think once you begin educating yourself. Have conversations openly folks. Constantly. Do not have negative conversations that petal the idea that there is nothing that can be done. As the window of awareness expands so does the strength of the people. HAVE CINVERSATIONS ABOUT IT with all your friends. YES to a constitutional convention.
the answer is to get a governor with his manhood still attached!
The governor has his hands tied when it comes to the judiciary. He can only choose from the leftist choices sent to him. Hence a Constitutional Convention is necessary.
You’d think by now Christians would understand the concept of the separation of church and state.
What is most telling is how the Alaska Judicial Council, Alaskans for “Fair” Courts and their ilk will get all snarky and condescendingly tell us we’re getting “political” when we vote on judges based on, you know, the thing they get paid to do – make decisions from the bench. But ask those same people if they support liberal U.S. Senators who oppose originalist-minded Justices and they will say you bet. Not on qualifications but on judicial philosophy. The hypocrisy is rich but at least the logic is impoverished. Visit our No on Adolf Zeman site link below and spread the word. Who knows…maybe we’ll eventually take one out.
https://www.akfamily.org/vote-no-on-judge-adolf-zeman/
Great article. keep shining a light on these matters. Your reach as a megaphone in this state is expanding and it is working. Keep going.
Thanks for sharing this information. Hopefully, many more people will vote based on policies and knowledge, not on ignorance. Articles like this one, providing fact will help!
You’d think people would wake up and realize that without Christ in their lives, they have no morals, no hope, and no barometer for right and wrong. Instead we now have idiots espousing a false narrative of “separation of church and state” which was never the intent of the founders, but only an ideal stated by one man in an effort to prevent government from establishing a state religion and persecuting those who didnt follow it, such as in England. And now we are left with an entire generation of kids that believe they can swap genders and shoot people who make them mad. Thanks, liberals. This is ENTIRELY on you.
This is true. The only “separation of church and state” (Jefferson’s model) is that the government is to keeps its paws off of people’s religious beliefs and create no state church.
Thank you for pointing this out!!!!
“Not only that, but the Judicial Council also gets to publish its own voter guide, which lavishes praise on every judge who is on the ballot, while offering no information on how they ruled in specific cases.“
30 years ago when I had to vote re: the judges I tried to find info on how they ruled on cases and there was no record and I called Anchorage to see if I could get some kind of record to no avail. I said to my older brother, “How am I supposed to vote on the judges when I can’t even find out how they rule on cases?” He said he cuts out articles from the newspaper when an it discusses a particular topic and how a judge ruled on it so that way he can remember their name when it comes time for election. So that’s what I’ve done all these years because I disregard the voter guide that the Judicial Council puts out.
I’ve spent several hours trying to find out about the judges on the ballot. Conservative/liberal, religious faith or not, what way they lean in the hot topics of our day, etc. I can’t find anything!!! Bottom line. Is anyone up for retention worth being retained?
No. Vote “NO” on all of them.