Alaskans benefit from three different mechanisms built into state law that help ensure that state judges will be held to the highest standards of their profession and, ultimately, held accountable to Alaskans. First, the Alaska Judicial Council conducts a thorough investigation into the lives and professional conduct of state judicial applicants to ensure that the governor will appoint a judge from a small pool of top candidates.

Once on the bench, state judges must “stand for retention” periodically, giving voters an opportunity to hold the judge accountable at the ballot. For every judge who stands for retention, the Council conducts another very deep dive into the judge’s judicial conduct, requesting input from all those who have interacted with or appeared before the judge, grading the judge’s performance, and making recommendation to the public whether the judge should be retained. Voters have the ultimate word, casting their ballots during the election

In addition to these protections, Alaskans amended the State Constitution in 1968 to establish the Alaska Commission on Judicial Conduct (ACJC). The Commission “oversees the conduct of justices of the Alaska Supreme Court, judges of the state court of appeals, state superior court judges, and state district court judges [and]may not handle complaints against magistrates, masters, attorneys, or federal judicial officers.” Here.

The ACJC is composed of three state court judges, three attorneys who have practiced law in the state for at least ten years, and three members of the public. The Commission hears several types of complaints against judges:

• Improper Courtroom Behavior
• Improper or Illegal Influence
• Impropriety off the Bench
• Physical or Mental Disability

The Commission has no authority to hear complaints involving questions about how a judge applied the law.

The ACJC may initiate its own investigation into a judge’s conduct, or anyone can file a complaint with the Commission. When someone files a complaint against a judge, the ACJC conducts a preliminary investigation, and if it concludes that there is probable cause to believe that there has been serious misconduct, the commission conducts a hearing and makes recommendations to the Alaska Supreme Court for action. The Supreme Court may sanction the judge with a reprimand, admonishment, suspension, removal, retirement, or public or private censure.

The Alaska Commission on Judicial Conduct plays a critically important role for Alaskans. While the Alaska Judicial Council recommends appointment of those judicial applicants who have demonstrated an ability to meet rigorous judicial standards, and voters play a role in holding judges accountable in periodic retention elections, the ACJC is responsible for ensuring that Alaska’s state judges maintain the highest standards of the profession while they are seated on the bench. The ACJC has the authority – and responsibility – to hold judges accountable for ethical and other lapses that undermine public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the courts.

Recent action taken by the ACJC underscores the importance of its responsibilities. Commission staff presented uncontested evidence to the ACJC commissioners at a public formal hearing regarding the behavior of Judge Romano DiBenedetto, who has been on the bench in Nome since 2017. ACJC commissioners accepted the “Findings of Fact and Uncontested Public Reprimand” recommended by ACJC staff, which Judge DiBenedetto did not contest. The Commission then referred the matter to the Alaska Supreme Court, where the matter is pending.

-Alaskans for Fair Courts

For an additional perspective on this matter, read this piece, written by Dermot Cole.