Alaska’s decades-long process for evaluating the performance of judges standing for retention is widely recognized as the best in the country. Unfortunately, the public members of the Alaska Judicial Council have made clear their desire to fix Alaska’s long-standing judicial evaluation process. But the system is not broken. To the contrary, Alaska’s nonpartisan retention evaluation process is widely regarded and respected as one of the most transparent and comprehensive judicial retention evaluation systems in the nation.

We are deeply troubled by a letter the Council instructed its Executive Director Susanne DiPietro to send to all judges who may stand for retention this year. The letter, linked here, informs judges that one or more public members:

• Might “vote yes, no, or abstain on a recommendation” regarding any judge who is standing for retention this year, and might do so “without first inviting the judge being considered to an interview.”
• Indicated “they may not have enough information to make a recommendation, so they might abstain or vote ‘no’ on some or all judges, with or without inviting the judges to an interview.”
• Registered discomfort in making any recommendation as to whether a judge should be retained
• Stated “dissatisfaction with performance information required to be considered when the Council evaluates judges for retention.”

The public members’ approach is not justified by the facts and certainly not supported by the law. When a judge must stand for retention, the Council engages in a rigorous examination of the judge’s performance beginning with a thorough review of the caseload, separate surveys from law enforcement, social workers, jurors, court employees, members of the Bar and lawyers who have appeared before the judge. This is followed by a public hearing where members of the public may comment. Once the Council has completed its exhaustive review of this information, the question the Council must answer is whether the judge’s job performance meets the high professional standard established by the Council’s bylaws? If it answers in the affirmative, the Council recommends the judge be retained.

Alaskans have relied upon these recommendations for decades because they know that the evaluation process is fair, nonpartisan, transparent, reliable and most important – the recommendations are easy to understand.  

The public members have not articulated any compelling reason to abandon their duty to faithfully evaluate the performance of judges up for retention. If this is a task they are unwilling to undertake, they should resign. Persisting on the course they currently set in motion will inflict incalculable damage to the people of Alaska and to the credibility of the Council and the merit system upon which it is based.

Regarding John Wood, who has not yet been confirmed as required by the Constitution, the Legislature can resolve this issue by declining to confirm his appointment to the Council.

One thing is certain – if John Wood had his way, Alaskans stand to lose a valuable and important tool that has helped them make a confident and informed vote on judicial retention for decades.

As always, we appreciate your support
– Alaskans For Fair Courts