During recent retention elections, special interest groups have increasingly flooded radio, mail, email, and online channels with messages aimed at swaying Alaskans to replace judges who will not support their groups’ beliefs or politics over the rule of law.
The most important expectation Alaskans have of our courts is that judges will treat everyone fairly, protect due process, and guarantee equal justice for all – by following the law. Alaskans need to protect the integrity, impartiality and independence of judges so that they are able to make decisions based only on the law and the evidence, and disregard pressure from political or other special interests attempting to control their judicial decision-making.
When judicial decisions are based on popular opinion instead of the law, what is “fair” will no longer be determined by application of the law and will instead be decided by who can wield the most influence – who has the loudest voice, the most political clout, or the most money.
Judicial independence requires that judges are free to decide cases based only on the law and facts presented to them, without fear of retaliation from politicians, religious leaders, or other special interest groups seeking to remove them from office because they did not like the result in a single case.
Judges who are not shielded from outside pressures are more susceptible to corrupting forces. Under Alaska’s merit retention system, the required ongoing, comprehensive evaluations of judges serves Alaskans by ensuring that the judge who is selected on merit continues to exercise the highest standards of professional and ethical performance.
The Rule of Law is a durable system of law, institutions and community commitments that delivers four universal principles:
Source: World Justice Project
Government and private actors are accountable under the law.
Laws are clear, publicized, stable, are applied evenly, and protect fundamental rights.
The processes by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced are accessible, fair, efficient (and transparent).
Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical and independent representatives who are accessible, have adequate resources, and reflect the communities that they serve.
Prior to statehood, delegates to Alaska’s Constitutional Convention debated what would be the best way to choose Alaska’s future judges. They wanted Alaskans to be served by high-quality judges who would be independent of political and public pressures and decide cases solely on the rule of law.
The delegates explored two methods used for choosing judges: requiring judges to run for judicial office in a competitive election; or appointing judges based on their professional merit. Elections would require judicial candidates to raise campaign funds like any other political candidate, whereas merit-based appointments would eliminate campaigning – and the need for campaign fundraising – altogether.
Anticipating that judges who had to raise funds for their election campaign – and then re-election campaign – would be “peering over their shoulders to see if [their] decisions were popular,”* delegates feared that elected judges:
Source: Statement of Constitutional Convention Delegate Delegate L. Barr
Negative experiences with politically-appointed Territorial judges stoked the delegates’ fears. They wanted Alaska’s judges to be independent of political or other special interest pressures, and understood that the method chosen to select those judges would play a pivotal role in assuring this objective:
Without qualification… all of us here want an independent judiciary, a judiciary that will not be swayed by the public will at any particular moment, a judiciary that will not be subject to pressure from the executive branch of government.
After hearing from experts in other states regarding election of judges versus appointment of judges, the delegates concluded that they had no confidence that elections would produce high-quality judges. They created a merit-based appointment process that is modeled after what is known as the Missouri Plan and is now embedded in Article IV of the Alaska Constitution. The governor appoints one of the top two or more applicants nominated by the Alaska Judicial Council after the Council completes exhaustive evaluations of each applicant.
Delegates concluded that elections cannot be separated from traditional partisan politics, with its influence of money, deal-making, favoritism, and political patronage – and that electing judges, rather than nominating them based on merit, would pose a serious threat to maintaining a judiciary composed of fair and impartial judges dedicated to the law.
Select your community on our Find My Judges page to see which judges are on your ballot. We encourage you to follow the Alaska Judicial Council’s recommendations when deciding whether to retain each judge.