Missouri judicial plan
under the microscope

EVER SINCE STATEHOOD, Alaska has followed Missouri in the way it selects its judges. There are no elections here to fill vacancies on the bench. Rather, judges are appointed from a short list of nominees submitted by the Alaska Judicial Council. That was made a part of our Constitution even before we were admitted into the Union on Jan. 3, 1959.

In the past, we have raised the hackles of the lawyer establishment by criticizing this procedure for making it too much of a closed-shop operation. The lawyers, not the public nor the governor, in essence picks the judges.

There are three lay members of the Judicial Council, but they are a minority alongside three members of the Alaska Bar Association and the chief justice, who serves as chairman. Their mission, as spelled out on their Web site, is a noble one: "The Judicial Council is required to screen judicial applicants based on their ability to be fair and competent judges, rather than their political contributions, party connections or how well they look on TV."

Give credit to those who have served on the council over the years. For the most part, they have done a good job. Our state has been served and is being served by some excellent judges on the Supreme Court, the Superior Courts and the District Courts.
    
But there also is always the suspicion that bias goes into the selection process, which includes evaluating potential appointees on a number of characteristics, including such things as "judicial temperament."

And despite protestations to the contrary, liberal leaning lawyers always seem to have the upper hand when it comes to rating applicants. Some conservative applicants seldom . . .

(cont'd from front page), if ever, emerge as top contenders.
    
IN MISSOURI, as the Wall Street Journal has pointed out in two recent editorials, the state's Appellate Judicial Commission "increasingly brings its own agenda to the table." Discussing the recent selection of nominees to fill a Missouri state Supreme Court vacancy, the Journal said:
    
"Despite a range of impressive applicants, the three finalists picked by the commission seemed chosen less for merit than for their sympathies with the interests of the state bar association that dominates the commission."  The governor was upset and threatened to reject all three nominees, but finally went along and picked one for the high court.
    
That's the problem with the Missouri plan. "Conservatives are howling that the governor has merely continued to validate a system whose leftward tilt has had a noticeable impact on state jurisprudence."

We have not heard any conservatives howling in Alaska. But that doesn't mitigate the fact that the Alaska Bar Association at least had a huge, and perhaps a controlling, say in the filling of judicial vacancies here.

And the last we heard, the Alaska courts as a whole are considered to be the most liberal in the country.