For all our frontier independence, Alaska’s system for appointing judges looks less like a republic and more like a professional monopoly. Under Article IV of Alaska’s Constitution, three of the seven seats on the Judicial Council – the body that decides which judicial candidates the governor is allowed to choose from – are selected not by voters or elected officials, but by the Alaska Bar Association. A private organization with an openly ideological mission statement effectively controls the pipeline of Alaska’s judges.
The Bar isn’t coy about its worldview. Its official DEI statement reads: “The Alaska Bar Association is committed to promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion within the legal profession.” Its CLE programming echoes the same ideology, such as its 2021 announcement that “implicit bias in decision-making remains a critical concern for Alaska courts and the legal community” – a framework imported straight from progressive academia. Even the Judicial Council’s performance standards adopt this language, stating: “Judges should demonstrate sensitivity to diverse cultural backgrounds” (Alaska Judicial Council Evaluation Criteria, 2023). None of this comes from the Alaska Constitution. It comes from the ideological priorities of the legal profession.
Alaska’s founders never intended for a private legal guild to control the judiciary.
Meanwhile, the governor – elected by the people – must select from the list approved by this ideologically uniform body. If the Judicial Council doesn’t like a candidate’s judicial philosophy, the governor never even gets the option. In practical terms, this means the Bar holds veto power over the ideological direction of Alaska’s judiciary.
Compare that to the rest of the country. Thirty-nine states allow the public to elect at least some of their judges – partisan, nonpartisan, or retention. Elections give voters something Alaska’s system denies them: the ability to reject judges who behave like activists or who consistently rule outside the mainstream of their state’s values (Brennan Center, 2021). Judicial elections aren’t a radical experiment; they’re the dominant model across the United States.
And the states that don’t allow any judicial elections? Just eight: Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont. These are among the most liberal states in the nation. That’s not a coincidence. Where public elections don’t exist, judicial accountability is minimal, and the ideological composition of the bench trends predictably leftward. The more insulated the selection process, the narrower the worldview represented on the courts.
ALASKA WATCHMAN DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX
Alaska currently resembles those states far more than the 39 that trust their citizens to help shape the judiciary. We hold retention elections – but a retention election is not the same as a real choice among competing judicial philosophies. It’s the illusion of accountability draped over a system designed to prevent meaningful public influence.
If we want a judiciary that reflects Alaska rather than Berkeley, we need a constitutional amendment. Whether that means giving the governor broader appointment authority, requiring legislative confirmation, restructuring the Judicial Council, or implementing competitive judicial elections, the goal is the same: restoring democratic accountability.
Alaska’s founders never intended for a private legal guild to control the judiciary. A constitutional amendment is not a power grab – it is a course correction, long overdue.
The views expressed here are those of the author.
4 Comments
This article is just leaving me shaking my head. It makes much sense to have several seats for the bar. They have a great sense of what is appropriate to administer the law. The bar has no stranglehold.
David, read the third paragraph of the article again. Yes, the Bar does, in fact, have a “stranglehold” over selection of judges. More importantly, the Alaska Bar Association has proven itself over and over to be a hard left organization. They actually seem to be quite proud of that fact. So, what we have is an extremely partisan organization in absolute control of judicial selection. Voters should select judges, period, NOT lawyers.
The mission of internet trolls is to always provide a different voice, also known as “socialist”, to conservative articles. They are ready to pounce on them with their morning coffee. Some are in the Eastern time zones, so they don’t even have to get up early to scan the various websites for new columns. This is why they are often the very first to drop a comment. Many are paid, perhaps by the number of comments, or perhaps their length or quality. One was even an NPR employee from WVa. He disappeared when he was Found Out. They use different ID’s, of course, but not different ideals. They need to use pejorative terms for common sense ideas, like “conspiracy theorist” or “nut jobs” or “makes my head shake”. Their benefactors likely lie in international donors. Readers need to be forewarned.
Thank you, Daniel for a much needed article. I and many others have commented on this situation for years, both here and elsewhere. Judges are not selected by voters. If voters are given any choice at all, it is between two leftist judicial candidates. What exactly is the process for passing an amendment to Alaska’s constitution?