Once again, Alaskans are being asked to vote on whether certain judges should be retained or removed from the bench. Yet voters will go to the polls with little to no information about the judicial philosophies or political leanings of these candidates.
That’s because Alaska judges don’t “run” for election in the traditional sense. Instead, a seven-member group of unelected appointees on the Alaska Judicial Council publishes their personal opinions on the judges, while carefully concealing any ideological leanings that the judges may hold.
On Nov. 3, Alaskans will decide the fate of 21 judges. While the Alaska Judicial Council has published its recommendations to voters, this advice is based on vaguely defined “performance standards,” such as “legal ability, impartiality and fairness, integrity, temperament, diligence, administrative skills, compliance with educational requirements, and ethical conduct.”
The council recommended voters keep 18 of the judges, remove two, and made no recommendation on one.
As in past years, however, these recommendations are devoid of any substantial information about the candidates. In practice, this often leads to voters simply rubber-stamping the Judicial Council’s recommendations without ever knowing what kind of judges they are voting for.
The Alaska Watchman has done some digging, and while useful information on judges is hard to come by, we have discovered some facts that voters might find pertinent when casting their ballots.
Below are our findings with regard to seven of the 21 judges who are up for retention, along with recommendations on how to vote. Of the remaining 14 judges, we could find nothing to help guide voters’ decisions.
JUDE PATE – ALASKA SUPREME COURT (VOTE NO)
Justice Pate is heavily invested in diversity and equity work as a long-time staffer for the Supreme Court’s “Color of Justice” initiative, a program originally founded by the hard-left National Association of Women Judges, which pushes DEI, LGBTQ and critical race theory agendas.
Additionally, Pate serves on the Supreme Court’s Fairness, Diversity, and Equality Committee.
He was also part of the recent Aug. 27 court order that mandated a last-minute revision of the wording on Ballot Measure 2 – a proposition that aims to end ranked-choice voting in Alaska.
This decision was heavily criticized by opponents of ranked-choice voting who unsuccessfully petitioned the court to throw out the state’s official ballot title and summary for Ballot Measure 2 and replace them with wording which the campaign believes is more accurate and understandable to voters. They made this request after ranked-choice defenders filed a lawsuit in January and the Division of Elections revised the ballot language. Repeal Now filed its own countersuit in mid-February, claiming the revised text was not “true and impartial,” and noting that ranked-choice activists had gotten their preferred wording in attempting to dissuade voters from repealing the controversial voting system.
YVONNE LAMOUREUX – ANCHORAGE SUPERIOR COURT (VOTE NO)
Judge Lamoureux is perhaps best known for ruling against the Dunleavy Administration’s rejection of the 2020 ballot measure that brought ranked-choice voting to Alaska. While the initiative appeared to violate the single-subject rule for initiatives, Lamoureux ruled that it was fine to proceed with a complex ballot measure that would destroy the one-Alaskan, one-vote system that had governed Alaska since statehood.
Lamoureux also clerked for 9th Circuit Judge Morgan Christen, an Obama appointee who was formerly on the Alaska Supreme Court and was local counsel for Planned Parenthood. Lamoureux had an internship at Feldman & Orlansky. Jeff Feldman & Susan Orlansky have long represented Planned Parenthood in various lawsuits against the state of Alaska.
She is a member of the National Association of Women Judges (NAWJ). Founded in 1979, NAWJ now emphasizes DEI and LGBTQ initiatives, and includes standing committees on Diversity and Inclusion, LGBTQ+, and Ensuring Racial Equity in the Justice System. Programming and materials from the organization include information on so-called “implicit bias,” systemic inequities and transgender “rights.”
JACK MCKENNA – ANCHORAGE SUPERIOR COURT (VOTE NO)
McKenna famously denied a request by former Alaska State Rep. David Eastman (R-Wasilla) to dismiss a lawsuit aimed at disqualifying him from holding public office due to his affiliation with the national Oath Keepers organization.
McKenna rejected Eastman’s arguments that he should toss the case because the court did not have jurisdiction to hear it, the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the suit, and the State Legislature, which was not a party to the suit, was actually indispensable to the case.
McKenna’s denial of Eastman’s arguments resulted in a nationally covered trial in which Eastman was forced to defend his association with Oath Keepers before McKenna would let the Division of Elections certify his 2022 election win.
While Eastman ultimately prevailed, the case opened the question about whether a candidate could be barred from public office for simply being loosely associated with an organization that some found offensive.
JONATHAN WOODMAN – PALMER SUPERIOR COURT (VOTE YES)
In 2015, Woodman served as a senior assistant attorney general. At that time, he argued on behalf of the State of Alaska, which appealed a judge’s decision that struck down limitations on medically necessary abortion for purposes of Medicaid funding. Planned Parenthood sued the state over the law and ultimately prevailed. While Woodman’s role in attempting to defend the state’s right to withhold abortion funding does not clearly demonstrate his personal views on the matter, he did argue on the side of those who sought to restrict state funding for abortion.
LAURA HARTZ – ANCHORAGE SUPERIOR COURT (VOTE NO)
In 2025, Hartz denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit that sought to ban the spending of state homeschool correspondence allotments at private and religious providers. The case is ongoing, with those challenging the homeschool allotment program claiming that homeschoolers should not be able to use state funds to access educational goods and services provided by private and religious entities.
In refusing to toss the case, Hartz ruled that the court needs to examine how the state correspondence allotments are spent, and whether they are legal.
Homeschool families, who asked the court to throw out the case, claim the state program is perfectly within legal bounds even though the Alaska Constitution forbids the use of public funds to “directly benefit” religious or private schools.
Homeschool advocates argue that the allotments only “indirectly” benefited private and religious schools, since the money is given to parents, who can spend the funds in myriad ways. The fact that some money is used on private schools only provides an indirect benefit to these institutions, similar to how someone might spend their state-issued Permanent Fund Dividend to pay for services at a private or religious school.
CHRISTINA RANKIN – ANCHORAGE SUPERIOR COURT (VOTE YES)
Rankin rejected claims that Alaska’s Division of Elections violated statutes and regulations in certifying a 2024 ballot measure that sought to repeal the state’s controversial ranked-choice voting system.
Rankin denied plaintiffs’ requests that she block the ballot measure. Instead, Rankin rejected arguments that state election officials acted improperly by allowing ballot measure sponsors to correct minor mistakes to several dozen signature petition booklets after they had already submitted the signatures for certification.
Rankin’s order affirmed that election officials followed applicable laws, regulations and court precedent in allowing for the mistakes to be rectified and in ultimately certifying the ballot measure to go before voters.
KIRK SCHWALM – FAIRBANKS SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE (VOTE YES)
Prior to becoming a judge, Schwalm owned Down Under Guns in Fairbanks, an independent local shop that sold guns, ammo, firearm accessories and reloading supplies. In the early 2000s, it was considered one of the larger privately owned gun shops in Fairbanks. He also served as a member of the Fairbanks Fish and Game Advisory Committee.



10 Comments
Vote NO on everyone so JKT can pick some real activist judges!!! Because lame duck Dunleavy isn’t going to have time before he’s out and neither Wilson or Bronson have a chance in hell!
This is excellent work, Joel. My wife and I will take your list with us when we vote. Thanks!
In the case of Judge McKenna, he infamously declared that the case against me, which was brought by my previous opponent for the legislature and sought to remove me from the legislature, and sought to remove my name from the ballot was, in McKenna’s official pronouncement, “not political”. In saying this, he created a never before avenue by which anyone can sue a sitting legislator, not for breaking the law, but simply for sitting in the legislature and doing their job as an elected representative. The legislator would then have to bear the full legal cost of their own defense out of pocket, whether they won or lost. McKenna also denied my right to a jury trial and ordered me to spend most of my time, instead of campaigning, sifting through over 300,000 pages of records from more than a decade ago, and then ordered me to give more than 30,000 pages of personal and political records to my previous political opponent and his Marxist attorneys. He then declared me innocent and left me with a second mortgage on our 3-bedroom house, and a $250,000 legal bill. Such is the cost of being found innocent as a conservative legislator in this state. We keep fighting because to abandon the field is to hasten the same thing happening to other innocent Alaskans, but Alaska has not been well served by McKenna’s performance thus far.
Thank you for sharing this Rep. Eastman. People need to understand that this current system is not supporting the actual, honest, hard-working People of Alaska. It is rigged to protect those that are in the pockets of the lobbyists, NGOs and crooked politicians. I will be voting NO on McKenna.
I REALLY appreciate this. I usually vote to remove all of them, but I can take this with me and vote accordingly. Thank you Joel and team for all your hard word for conservatives!!
Thank you for your efforts. A Court is NO place for politics. Check your politics at the door. Pay attention to our State constitution and the Law.
legal ability – Do they understand the State Constitution and the specific Law. They do NOT have to be an attorney.
impartiality – A Judge administers the Court and needs to treat all as equals under the law and procedures.
fairness – There is no such thing. this is an emotional statement. If they are impartial, then all parties will be treated equally under the law.
integrity – If only this were considered more highly. Remember when the Supreme court allowed Murkowski to have her name posted in polling places?
temperament – A Judge is not supposed to be an ass, but the judge has every right to be stern and run their court efficiently.
diligence – What? Do they mean they pay attention to the Constitution, the Law and the evidence?
administrative skills – A good requirement as they run the Court
compliance with educational requirements – What educational requirements are necessary? If You and I can Vote, then the law should be understood by you and me. Can they read? do they have critical thinking skills?
ethical conduct – Corruption should never be excused from ANY public employee. If they are not acting ethically, then they should get a new job.
Thanks, Joel! Really good information on judges. I am guessing that if information is not forthcoming on the balance of the judges, they should be voted “NO”.
I concur with Sally Duncan… would you buy a used car without getting some kind of information on its condition?
The system as it is set up is that a judge is appointed, not elected. What everyone votes on is the performance of the judge and ,ost of the population doesn’t know what the daily performance or case performance is about. I always vote a big NO for every judge. No one knows the performance conversations with their rating superior or supervisor and never will. The election of judges should be the hiring mechanism. They are all appointed whether you and I like them or not or whether you and I vote yes or no on performance. The appointment of judges should be removed from then governor and put out to elections by law of the state.
Thank you Joel. We too will be using your guide as a reference when we go in to place our vote.