Alaska’s judicial branch, long hidden behind merit‑selection appointments, is now the focus of a growing conservative movement that says the courts have overstepped their constitutional authority. Leaders such as Rep. Ben Carpenter, Sen. Mike Shower, and activist David Haeg contend that the Alaska Judicial Council and the state’s grand‑jury system have been manipulated to silence citizen oversight.
How the merit‑selection system works
Under Article IV of the Alaska Constitution, the Alaska Judicial Council screens applicants for the Supreme Court and Superior Court and forwards at least two nominees to the governor, who must choose from that list. The council includes three attorneys appointed by the Alaska Bar Association, three non‑attorney public members appointed by the governor and confirmed by the legislature, and the chief justice as an ex‑officio chair. Judges face a retention vote three years after appointment and then every ten years (Supreme Court) or six years (Superior Court).
Conservatives say the system has become a shield for judges
Critics argue that the merit‑selection model has been used to insulate judges from public accountability. “They have stolen our constitution. It does not belong to the courts, the executive, the Legislature. It is OURS,” radio host Bob Bird said on his program The Talk of the Kenai. The claim reflects a broader concern that the judiciary is exercising powers not granted by the people.
Grand‑jury rights at the center of the dispute
Alaska’s Grand Jury Handbook, once a transparent tool for citizen oversight, is described by David Haeg, founder of the Alaska Grand Jurors Association, as “unrecognizable from that which Alaska’s founding fathers intended.” Haeg cites a 1999‑2000 Creighton Law Review article that documented how grand‑jury handbooks have been altered to hide the true investigative power of juries. He adds that the current handbook limits ordinary Alaskans from accessing the grand jury to request investigations of public officials.
Former State Representative Ben Carpenter echoed these concerns, noting that court‑employed officers have allowed the judiciary to control the grand jury, effectively suspending its authority to investigate matters of public welfare and safety for nearly three decades.
Legal opinions support the criticism
Former Attorney General Treg Taylor told Governor Dunleavy that Article II, section 3 of the Judicial Council’s bylaws is unconstitutional because it exceeds the authority granted to the council and infringes on powers reserved for the governor and legislature. Despite Taylor’s opinion, the bylaw remains on the books.
Calls for legislative action
Conservative legislators have introduced bills aimed at restoring grand‑jury powers, but none have cleared the legislature. SJR 3, introduced in the 31st Legislature in 2019, sought to address the issue but stalled before a vote.
Why this matters to Alaskan families
Judicial decisions affect everyday concerns such as public safety, education, and the state’s economy. When courts are perceived as unaccountable, citizens lose confidence in the rule of law—a cornerstone of the Constitution and of strong, faith‑based families.
What’s next?
Conservatives are urging Governor Dunleavy to intervene, restore the original grand‑jury handbook, and repeal the controversial Judicial Council bylaw. They argue that doing so will reaffirm the Constitution’s intent, protect parental rights, and ensure that Alaskans retain the ability to hold officials accountable.
As the debate continues, the message from the grassroots is clear: Alaska’s courts must serve the people, not the other way around.
Original reporting: Must Read Alaska (Anchorage) — read the source article.
