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.
In accord with the Alaska Constitution, this seven-member body consists of three members from the left-leaning Alaska Bar Association, three members appointed by the governor and a deciding vote by the sitting Alaska Supreme Court’s chief justice. Since the chief justice is also a member of the Alaska Bar Association, this private professional group always enjoys a majority when it comes to recommending whether judges should be retained or removed.
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.”
ALASKA WATCHMAN DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX
Given the well-documented leftist leanings of the Judicial Council, it is difficult to discern whether its opinions about the judges are rooted in ideological motive or strictly neutral assessment.
The Judicial Council is currently facing a lawsuit for failing to comply with a public records request from a national legal group investigating suspected unlawful discrimination based on race and sex in regard to how the council vets potential judge appointees when a vacancy arises on the bench.
In addition to instructing voters on how they should vote, the Judicial Council also has a constitutionally protected right to limit who the governor can appoint to fill judicial vacancies. According to the Alaska Constitution, the governor must fill vacancies by appointing one person from a list of two or more nominees provided by the Judicial Council. The council, however, can exclude any conservative, pro-life or constitutionalist judge from the final list from which the governor has to choose. In doing so, the council need not provide a rationale for why it excludes certain applicants who otherwise appear to fulfill the requirements for a judgeship.
The current lawsuit aims to pull back the curtain on how the Judicial Council makes its determinations.
On Sept. 4, the Judicial Council posted its recommendations to voters for the 21 judges who are up for retention on Nov. 3. 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. This system allows judges to generally sail through elections without voters ever knowing what kind of judges they are voting on. In practice, this often leads to voters simply rubber-stamping the Judicial Council’s recommendations.
The Alaska Watchman has done some digging, and while information is hard to come by, we have discovered bits of information 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 our recommendations on how to vote. Of the remaining 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.
