Many people are unaware of the impact of retention elections. Currently Alaska and 18 other states use these types of elections to retain judges. Few voters are aware of the real issues with those on the bench. The number of complaints is not even counted against each judge.
When you clean the house all the dust bunnies get taken out. If you never move your couch or it takes you say 35 years to do so, you will find a mass of unwanted items. This is the same effect as not cleaning our court benches. As you go forward this year and vote to retain judges you should ask yourself these questions.
THE QUESTIONS TO ASK
- How long has the judge been on the bench?
- Have you read the recommendations of not just other judges or councils but from people impacted by rulings?
- How often does the Alaska Judicial Council change the members sitting on their seats? If it is less than every 10 years what relationships were developed? How dependent on these judges are the members of the AJC? Who appoints the members and advises on retention of those making the recommendations?
- Are the recommendations fair and impartial?
- Did the public members of the judicial council vote? WHY NOT? You may be shocked to know the public members frequently abstain. Frequent in this case means more than 95% of the time. This alone should make you question any AJC recommendations. If you invite a neighbor to help you move your couch and they see the unwanted items and tell you just to put it back no one will know, do you? Or do you clean the house the right way?
- How much time is spent looking at errors in applying the law for sitting judges?
- How many investigations have been done by Marla Greenstein and how many resulted in removal? She has been our only judicial investigator for 35 years so this number should be substantial. Common sense really needs to kick in here.
- If my case was being heard by one of these long-seated judges, would I be guaranteed a fair outcome? Are you sure?
WHO AND WHAT CAN BE UNETHICAL
There are 34 states who have external reviews of judges. Alaska only has the Alaska Judicial Council. Made up of 3 judges, 3 attorneys and 3 public members. They are also the ones who review judicial recommendations for new judges to submit to the Governor. There are similar codes of conduct for all 50 states but there are differences in the unbiased oversite systems. Some are better than others. Alaska is lacking in the impartiality of our judicial oversite council.
Judges serve an initial term of 2-3 years, depending on the court, before they stand for retention. After the initial retention election, the terms of office are District Court – 4 years, Superior Court – 6 years, Court of Appeals – 8 years, Supreme Court – 10 years. Retaining a judge when there are complaints only heard by this judicial council may allow for gaps in ethics.
What types of violations are there potential for? Violations of criminal law, sexual misconduct with staff/attorneys/parties, joining discriminatory organizations and using the judicial position to enhance a private interest. Judicial corruption consists of all forms of negative or unethical influence that may damage the unbiased application of the laws. Any person in the justice system, including, but not limited to, judges, lawyers, administrative court support staff, process servers, parties and public servants can be responsible for misconduct.
The perils of judges judging judges
“The first is that judges may seek to protect their own, or at least lack the courage to make hard choices involving colleagues.” This quote from a Judicial Ethics forum (Judicial Ethic and Discipline in the States, Dec 2023) is direct and accurate. “The second peril of judges judging judges is that they may use the code and disciplinary process to thwart rivals and punish enemies (also from the same article and just as important).” Not only can judges weaponize the system against each other or members of the Alaska Judicial Council but it can be used against the citizens.
Knowing that the system can be worked and weaponized against you justifies cleaning all benches regularly. Investigation of the judicial system was always considered something we should protect. This is why the State of Alaska has it written into the Constitution under Article I Section 8. The founders knew there would come a day when corruption came knocking. This seems to be apparent in the dismissal on technicalities of the perjury case against Judge Margaret Murphy and the telling case against Judge Josh Kindred.
PROTECT YOUR JUDICAL ETHICS
There really is only one answer. We must clean the benches and that should include the benches of the Alaska Judicial Council. We must protect ethical justice and access to impartial application of laws for all citizens.
