Governor Dunleavy introduced SJR 13 in the Legislature earlier this year, seeking to amend Alaska’s state Constitution to eliminate the Alaska Judicial Council’s vital role in vetting and forwarding to the Governor the names of the top judicial applicants for Superior and Supreme Courts. Instead of the current system, which has served Alaskans well for 66 years, the proposal requires the Judicial Council to forward names of all judicial applicants to the governor who meet only the Constitution’s minimum requirements – i.e., they need only be citizens of the United States and of the State of Alaska who are licensed to practice law. Here. We cannot stress enough that Alaskans would not benefit from this change.

Retired Attorney General Bruce Botelho, a lifelong Alaskan appointed by Governor Wally Hickel and retained by Governor Tony Knowles, offers his perspective:

Alaska’s current system, variously known as merit selection or the Missouri Plan, directs the governor to make appointments from a list of names of the most qualified candidates submitted by the Alaska Judicial Council. Some variant of this system is employed by 21 states.

Alaska’s constitutional framers crafted the Judiciary Article in the Alaska Constitution with diligence and incredible foresight. They had the benefit of researching the experiences of other states and inquired extensively about their experiences with varying systems for judicial appointments. After hearing about the pitfalls of purely political judicial appointments and thoughtful consideration, the framers concluded that there had to be another way to effect judicial appointments that would better serve Alaskans.

The constitutional convention’s committee on the judiciary was particularly impressed with Missouri’s reform that, in turn, was based on its years of experience of corruption with both elected judges and with straight gubernatorial appointments. The opportunity for incompetent, corrupt, or subservient judges that led Missouri to go to merit selection and for our constitutional founders to follow suit are as pervasive today as at any time in our nation’s history.

Convention Chair William Egan requested the American Institute of Judicial Administration to comment on the committee’s formulation. Its vice president, Sheldon Elliott responded:

After a careful review of the proposal in its present form, I am convinced that it represents a model of which Alaska or any other American state could well be proud. If adopted as it now stands it will assure that Alaska is in the forefront of states complying with the requirements of a modern and efficient judicial system. There are not suggested changes or additions which I could offer to improve it, and I am most hopeful that it will be approved in its present form.

Seventy years later, I offer that Mr. Elliott’s analysis continues to stand the test of time. Do not advance SJR 13.