Contributed by William R. Satterberg, Jr.
I have been practicing both civil and criminal law since 1976. For several years, I have been asked why I did not become a judge. There are numerous reasons. One primary reason is because I have a serious skepticism over the current selection process used for judges in Alaska. While proponents claim it is solely a merit-based system, I dissent.
Selecting judges in Alaska involves a rather unique method. Interested candidates must first submit their names to the Alaska Judicial Council. The Council is made up of six members drawn three each from the public and the legal profession with a tie breaking seventh member being the Chief Justice of the Alaska Supreme Court.
As designed, the Judicial Council was intended to be an organization which would vet candidates who had applied for judgeship. After engaging in this vetting process, the Council would then forward names which the Council voted as acceptable potential judges to the Governor, who would then appoint a judge only from that list of approved Judicial Council candidates. Regretfully, the system does not work as intended.
In 1990, I was a campaign coordinator for then-to-be Governor Walter J. Hickel, who ran on Joe Vogler’s Independence Party ticket. After the Governor had been elected, I was encouraged to apply for a judgeship. I answered that the likelihood of me ever getting an appointment was dismal. After all, I did not have the experience at the time, having only been practicing for fourteen years. In addition, my self-esteem had always suffered. A timid person by nature, I did not want to see the results of the required Bar Polls.
One staffer suggested that I should still submit my name. If my name did not get referred from the Judicial Council, he said the administration could simply keep rejecting names until mine eventually showed up. Although that is not how the selection process actually works, I still was flattered. However, I did not believe in participating in such a charade. I declined. Which brings me to my personal opinions to follow.
Alaska’s Judicial Council has become a politicized organization in many respects. Presumably, the Council objectively analyzes the qualifications of various candidates, investigates backgrounds, conducts impartial interviews, and then forwards “the most qualified” candidates to the Governor. The Governor’s obligation is to then pick a candidate only from that list. No latitude is allowed. But, the process does not start there.
Rather, even before prospective candidates are reviewed by the Judicial Council, they must first submit to the “Bar Poll.” The Bar Poll is supposed to be candid evaluations of the candidates by fellow legal practitioners, who must sign a statement that they intend to be truthful in their evaluations. In practice however, the Bar Poll is often an opportunity for answering attorneys to take shots at any applicant that they may dislike. For years, the Bar Poll has been slightly more than a sophisticated blog, long before blogs became commonplace. And, to make the insults even worse, respondents can submit their comments anonymously. Because disclosing one’s name is optional, the Bar Poll has very little practical credibility.
The considerations which go into evaluating attorneys for potential judgeship as expressed in the Bar Poll often have nothing to do with the qualifications of the candidate. To the contrary, Bar Poll responses are often calculated to take advantage of geographical location, gender, and other political considerations. Traditionally, the perception is that Anchorage votes against Fairbanks candidates, and Fairbanks votes against Anchorage candidates. No one knows what Southeast Alaska does. And it goes on – Prosecutors vote for Prosecutors. Defenders vote for Defenders, etc.
ARTICLE CONTINUES ON OUR WEBSITE: www.thepeoplespaper.news/williamsatterberg