Alaska Judicial Council

Judicial nominating commissions
Individual nominating committees
Select a committee in the dropdown below and click "Submit" to view information about that committee. Alaska Judicial CouncilArizona Commission on Appellate Court AppointmentsArizona Commission on Judicial Performance ReviewArizona Judicial Nominating CommissionsCalifornia Commission on Judicial AppointmentsColorado Supreme Court Nominating CommissionConnecticut Judicial Selection CommissionDelaware Judicial Nominating CommissionDistrict of Columbia Judicial Nomination CommissionFlorida Supreme Court Judicial Nominating CommissionGeorgia Judicial Nominating CommissionHawaii Judicial Selection CommissionIndiana Judicial Nominating CommissionIowa Judicial Nominating CommissionKansas Supreme Court Nominating CommissionKentucky Judicial Nominating CommissionMaryland Appellate Courts Judicial Nominating CommissionMinnesota Commission on Judicial SelectionMissouri Appellate Judicial CommissionMontana Judicial Nominating CommissionNebraska Judicial Nominating CommissionsNevada Commission on Judicial SelectionNew Hampshire Judicial Selection CommissionState of New York Commission on Judicial NominationNorth Dakota Judicial Nominating CommitteeOklahoma Judicial Nominating CommissionRhode Island Judicial Nominating CommissionSouth Carolina Judicial Merit Selection CommissionSouth Dakota Judicial Qualifications CommissionTennessee Governor's Council for Judicial AppointmentsUtah Judicial Performance Evaluation CommissionUtah Appellate Judicial Nominating CommissionVermont Judicial Nominating BoardWest Virginia Judicial Vacancy Advisory CommissionWyoming Judicial Nominating CommissionSubmit
Methods of judicial selection
Partisan elections
Nonpartisan elections
Michigan method
Retention elections
Assisted appointment
Bar-controlled commission
Governor-controlled commission
Hybrid commission
Legislative elections
Gubernatorial appointment

The Alaska Judicial Council, also known as the AJC, is an independent state commission in Alaska, established by the Alaska Constitution, that is responsible for screening applicants for judicial vacancies. The AJC provides a list from the applicants to the governor for his or her consideration. The AJC also evaluates judge performance and makes that information available to voters. Finally, the AJC is responsible for researching the administration of justice in Alaska. It then publishes its results in reports to inform state citizens.

Members

The AJC has seven members. Three members must be lawyers, three are nonlawyers and the final member is chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court. The chief justice serves as the ex officio chair of the council. The lawyers members are selected by the governor and must be confirmed by the Alaska Legislature on a majority vote. The nonlawyer members are appointed by the board of governors of the Alaska Bar Association.

The Alaska Constitution requires that appointments to the AJC must be made "with due consideration to area representation and without regard to political affiliation." The appointments must also be geographically diverse. Members of the AJC serve staggered six-year terms, except for the chief justice who serves for three years.

Alaska Bar Poll

As part of selecting judges in Alaska, anyone who applies to be a judge in Alaska is polled with the members of the Alaska Bar Association. To be eligible for participate in the poll, you must be an active member living in the state or an active out-of-state or inactive member still living in the state who has an email address. In addition to the demographic information collected about the respondent such as type of practice, years in practice and gender, the Bar Poll also sends out a numerical survey and gives those being polled a chance to make written comments. The poll is distributed one week after the application deadline, and respondents have a window of three to four weeks to respond.

Numerical Survey

The council uses a poll in their evaluation of the candidates. The poll, also known as the bar poll, asks attorneys to rate each judicial candidate on a five point scale—1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent)—in six areas.

“	Professional competence 1 – Poor. Lacking in knowledge and/or effectiveness 2 – Deficient. Below-average performance occasionally 3 – Acceptable. Possesses sufficient knowledge and required skills 4 – Good. Usually knowledgeable and effective 5 – Excellent. Meets the highest standards for knowledge and effectiveness Integrity 1 – Poor. Unconcerned with propriety and/or appearance, or acts in violation of codes of professional conduct 2 – Deficient. Appears lacking in knowledge of codes of professional conduct and/or unconcerned with propriety or appearance at times 3 – Acceptable. Follows codes of professional conduct, respects propriety and appearance of propriety at all times 4 – Good. Above-average awareness of ethics, holds self to higher standard than most 5 – Excellent. Outstanding integrity and highest standards of conduct Judicial Temperament 1 – Poor. Often lacks compassion, humility, or courtesy 2 – Deficient. Sometimes lacks compassion, humility, or courtesy 3 – Acceptable. Possesses appropriate compassion, humility, and courtesy 4 – Good. Above-average compassion, humility, and courtesy 5 – Excellent. Outstanding compassion, humility, and courtesy Fairness 1 – Poor. Often shows strong bias for or against some person or groups 2 – Deficient. Displays, verbally or otherwise, some bias for or against groups or persons 3 – Acceptable. Free of substantial bias or prejudice towards groups or persons 4 – Good. Above-average ability to treat all persons and groups impartially 5 – Excellent. Unusually fair and impartial to all groups Suitability of Experience 1 – Poor. Has little or no suitable experience 2 – Deficient. Has less than suitable experience 3 – Acceptable. Has suitable experience 4 – Good. Has highly suitable experience 5 – Excellent. Has the most suitable experience possible for this position Overall Professional Qualifications 1 – Poor. Has few qualifications for this position 2 – Deficient. Has insufficient qualifications for this position 3 – Acceptable. Has suitable qualifications for this position 4 – Good. Has highly suitable qualifications for this position 5 – Excellent. Has exceptionally high qualifications for this position	”
—Alaska Judicial Council

Any written comments must be of value to the council's evaluation of a candidate; if the comments are not, they are not accepted.

Anonymity

All results of the numerical survey are anonymous. Respondents can, but are not required to provide their names with their comments. Whether or not a comment is anonymous, it is provided to the members of the council. The application also says that “providing your name does tend to give comments more credibility with the council.” Bar poll comments about applicants are not released to the public.

An applicant can request a transcript of all comments submitted about their application, but the transcript is redacted by the council staff to hide the identities of those making the comments. The transcript and any copies made must be returned to the council after the applicant interview. The staff of the council is permitted to investigate any comments submitted, anonymous or not.

Council rules of consideration

There are rules about what the council is permitted to consider when choosing an applicant, but what remains unclear is how the council enforces those rules. For instance, the council's letter accompanying the bar poll says it “does not consider unsigned comments unless they are corroborated, independently substantiated, or acknowledged by the applicant,” but all comments, anonymous or not, are distributed to the members of the Council.

Council members are prohibited from basing their decisions upon, besides anonymous comments in the bar survey, are: 1) discrimination prohibited by any federal or state law, 2) religious and political beliefs and 3) the likelihood of the governor to appoint an applicant. While the council is prohibited from consideration on the basis of religious or political beliefs, consideration based on the possibility that the applicant’s religion or political belief may yield a biased ruling is not prohibited.

Challenge to council's constitutionality

Main article: Hinger v. Carpeneti

A federal lawsuit, Hinger v. Carpeneti, was filed against the state of Alaska in federal court on June 3, 2009, alleging that the system of selecting judges gives lawyers a greater voice in selecting judges than ordinary citizens.

2009 judicial nominees

Warren Matthews announced his retirement effective April 5, 2009. The AJC accepted applications for Matthews' position and narrowed the field of six down to two in early February 2009. Those two were Morgan Christen and Eric Smith. Republican Governor Sarah Palin had until March 20, 2009, to make an appointment from the nominees, and she selected Morgan Christen.

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Alaska Judicial Council. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Alaska Judicial Council - Google News

See also

• News: Former policeman appointed to Judicial Council, August 04, 2011

External links

• Alaska Judicial Council
• Alaska Judicial Council Membership
• Current members of the AJC
• AJC, "Minutes of the Alaskan Constitutional Convention on judicial selection"
• Alaska Justice Forum, "A Look at Judicial Selection in Alaska," Fall 2004

Footnotes

Alaska courts

---

Federal courts:

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals • U.S. District Court: District of Alaska • U.S. Bankruptcy Court: District of Alaska

State courts:

Alaska Supreme Court • Alaska Court of Appeals • Alaska Superior Court • Alaska District Court

State resources:

Courts in Alaska • Alaska judicial elections • Judicial selection in Alaska