Governor Dunleavy finally filled the third non-attorney position on the Alaska Judicial Council that has been vacant since Dave Parker’s term expired on March 1, 2025. Mr. Parker was one of three non-attorney “public members” on the Judicial Council. The governor filled the vacant non-attorney position with attorney John W. Wood, who has been licensed to practice law in Alaska since 1972, but has been suspended from practicing law for failure to pay his Bar dues since 2000. He was previously censured for being convicted of a federal misdemeanor for refusing to file his federal tax return.

(Please note that there is another attorney by the name of John P. Wood who was admitted in 2002 and who is a well-regarded, active member of the Bar.)

The appointment of John W. Wood to the Judicial Council raises several concerns. First, Article IV, Section 8 of the Alaska Constitution requires the governor to appoint “three non-attorney members, subject to confirmation by a majority of the members of the legislature in joint session.” Despite the Constitution’s clear language directing the governor to appoint a non-attorney to this post, John Wood is an attorney listed in the Alaska Bar directory. The governor appears to be either ignoring the Constitution or playing games with the framers’ clear language.

In addition to appointing an attorney to fill a non-attorney position, Governor Dunleavy appointed John Wood after the Legislative session ended on May 20, 2025. This precludes the Legislature from fulfilling its Constitutional duty to vote on this appointment until the next legislative session in January 2026. If installed on the Judicial Council, Mr. Wood will participate in several meetings of the Council before the members of the Legislature have an opportunity to vote yay or nay on his appointment. It is noteworthy that even IF the Legislature wanted to go back into session to address this confirmation, they cannot – because the governor vetoed the funding that would enable them to do so.

Art. IV Sec. 8 of the Alaska Constitution states unequivocally that no Council member may “hold any other office or position for profit under the United States or the State of Alaska.” The Alaska checkbook website indicates that Mr. Wood was paid more than $150,000 in the last fiscal year for work described as “hearing and mediation.” This appears to be a “position for profit” in violation of the Constitution.

Finally, and importantly, Governor Dunleavy’s appointment of John W. Wood fails to give deference to area representation on the Council. Mr. Wood lives in Willow, which is located within the Third Judicial District – the largest of the state’s four judicial districts. This is the second time the governor has made an appointment that fails to take into account the importance of area representation. When Loretta Bullard’s term on the Judicial Council expired, the governor appointed Kristi Babcock, who lives in Soldotna, which is located within the Third Judicial District. Ms. Bullard was one of three non-attorney members on the Council, and was – and is – from Nome, which is located within the Second Judicial District. Since Bullard’s term expired, there has been no representation on the Judicial Council from any of the communities that comprise the 2nd Judicial District. By contrast, each of the remaining three Judicial Districts have representation on the Council – in fact, there are two individuals on the Council from the First Judicial District and two others from the Third Judicial Districts. Governor Dunleavy had three opportunities to rectify the lack of representation from the Second Judicial District – and chose not to do so.

At Alaska’s constitutional convention, the Committee on the Judiciary opted not to use language requiring selection from specific districts. Nevertheless, delegate George McLaughlin, chair of the committee on the judiciary, first noted, with respect to the attorney members, “It was intended to have the representation from all areas of the Territory.” Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, p. 685. George McLaughlin later noted that the principles regarding geographical representation among the judicial districts applied equally to attorney and non-attorney members of the Council and reiterated: “It is the desire of the committee to have a general geographical representation on the judicial council and that includes all areas.” Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, p. 689. (It is worth noting that Doug Baily, an attorney representative from Southeast Alaska, relinquished his seat on the Council in 2007 because he had relocated to Homer and felt it necessary to fill that seat with a representative from Southeast.)

The Constitutional founders’ intent is clear and the underlying policy regarding area representation is sound. Having a non-attorney member from each major geographic region of the state helps ensure that the Judicial Council has a “pulse” on local sentiment in each region. Unlike judicial retention evaluations (which include polling of jurors and police for example), the Council does not have a wide array of tools available to learn of a judicial candidate’s character or reputation among the citizenry. A council member from the region will often have personal familiarity with candidates and will invariably know others who do. With area representation, a council member from a remote region will have better access to the public’s attitudes toward a potential judicial candidate from that region.

-Alaskans for Fair Courts

P.S. – We encourage you to check out this piece on the matter, written by Dermot Cole.