In the upcoming election you will find 15 judges who are up for retention. Lots of people have questions about how to vote regarding these judges. Some people have no questions at all and just take the Alaska Judicial Council recommendations. 98% of the time the judicial council will recommend keeping all judges.
This article gives you easy to understand information on how the council makes these recommendations. It also gives you valid reasons not to keep any of the judges currently sitting on any bench. Before simply voting to keep these judges on the bench, take a little time to understand the system. The impact of keeping judges like Margeret Murphy, Joshua Kindred and Judge Thomas Matthews will be allowing corruption to continue.
Currently 19 states use retention elections for at least one type of court. Since voter turnout is at an all-time low these elections are not a good sampling of how efficient or ethical our system is. Alaska has a huge bottle neck for investigating judicial complaints. What is absolutely apparent is that our court system is not adequately protected from ethical violations of those who sit on the bench.
The Alaska Supreme Court is currently deciding on a case of whether they illegally colluded with the department of law. Each voter when looking at these retention votes should take some time to review how our judicial system itself is policed. In light of the Josh Kindred resignation and the impact of his actions on so many cases questions must be asked.
The courts need to be refreshed. Clean the benches and demand some accountability. It is the people of Alaska that are financially, legally and judicially impacted by ethical gaps. No court or judge should be sitting in judgement of themselves.
Some states have independent agencies that investigate allegations of judicial misconduct. Alaska is ripe for corruption due to the gap in external oversight. Our government should protect the ethical integrity of judicial oversight. The government should set a term limit for each oversight seat, replace Marla Greenstein and set up an independent commission to review the over 8000 complaints she has investigated.
Alaska currently has had one judicial investigator for 35 years. It is important to note that Marla Greenstein also sits as the Executive Director of the Alaska Commission on Judicial Conduct. This seat needs to be filled with a new investigator with a term limit, possibly 3. There should not be just one.
Links go to each Judges performance summary by Alaska Judicial Council. Taken from the Alaska Judicial Council page, about six months before the retention election, the Council meets to discuss the information gathered for these judicial evaluations, and to decide whether each judge met performance standards during his or her most recent term in office. These performance standards, which are defined in the Council’s Bylaws, are:
- Legal Ability. The judge demonstrates knowledge of substantive law, evidence, and procedure, and clarity and precision in their work.
- Impartiality/Fairness. The judge demonstrates a sense of fairness and justice and treats all parties equally.
- Integrity. The judge’s conduct is free from impropriety or the appearance of impropriety, and the judge makes decisions without regard to possible public criticism.
- Judicial Temperament. The judge is courteous and free from arrogance, and the judge manifests human understanding and compassion.
- Diligence and Administrative Skills. The judge is prepared for court proceedings, works diligently, and is reasonably prompt in making decisions.
Judge Rachel Ahrens – Valdez Superior Court Link / Judicial Questionnaire The court held that the Office of Children’s rights failed to make active efforts at reunification for two years and Judge Ahrens erred when she found the agency had made active efforts.
Marjorie K Allard – Alaska Court of Appeals Link / Judicial Questionnaire
Dario Boughesan – Alaska Supreme Court Justice Link /Judicial Questionnaire
Leslie Dickson – Anchorage District Court Link / Judicial Questionnaire Judge Dickson had four cases appealed and decided. Four were affirmed at 100%. The other was affirmed at 50%.
YOU will NOTE that this information copied from the Judicial Council page relating to Dickson in itself has an error. How can four be appealed and affirmed but one affirmed at 50%? The judicial council itself is ripe for overhaul.
Michael Franciosi – Anchorage District Court Link Judge Franciosi had two cases appealed and decided. One was affirmed at 100% and the other was reversed in its entirety (0%).
Patrick Hanley – Anchorage District Court Link Judge Hanley had five cases appealed and decided. Four were affirmed at 100% and the other was reversed in its entirety (0%).
Jennifer S. Henderson – Alaska Supreme Court Justice Link / Judicial Questionnaire
Michael B. Logue – Anchorage District Court Link / Judicial Questionnaire very low on termperment
Kari L. McCrea Anchorage District Court Link / Judicial Questionnaire
Bride Seifert – Homer Superior Court Link / Judicial Questionnaire Had 3 cases appealed
Timothy W. Terrell – Alaska Court of Appeals Link / Judicial Questionnaire
Herman G. Walker, Jr. Anchorage Superior Court Link / Judicial Questionnaire
Pamela S. Washington – Anchorage District Court Link / Judicial Questionnaire Judge Washington had two cases appealed and decided. One was reversed (0%) and the other was affirmed at 50%.
Adolf V. Zeman – Anchorage Superior Court Link / Judicial Questionnaire Had 9 cases appealed. This judge has made some serious errors in several cases. This is on top of the ruling he made against home schooling.
