Gov. Mike Dunleavy and his support group, handicapped by a weak legal argument against the recall, have fabricated a claim that the chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court is unfair.

The vice chair of the Republican Party, Ann Brown, has picked up the refrain, claiming that Chief Justice Joel Bolger is in a “compromised position.”

Let’s look at the facts.

One of the grounds for recalling the governor is that he “violated Alaska law by refusing to appoint a judge to the Palmer Superior Court within 45 days of receiving nominations.”

The Dunleavy defenders claim he was actually “negotiating” when he announced in a letter March 20 that he would refuse to follow the Alaska Constitution. He was “negotiating” the way bank robbers negotiate for cash withdrawals during a stickup.

Article IV, section 5 of the Constitution requires that “The governor shall fill any vacancy in an office of . . . superior court judge by appointing one of two or more persons nominated by the judicial council.”

The governor had announced he would not use the list and wanted more names from the judicial council.

Bolger, chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court, spoke to the rest of the Alaska Judicial Council March 22 in response to Dunleavy’s letter and another from Chief of Staff Tuckerman Babcock asking for the release of confidential information.

Bolger said that based on the letters, “I believe the governor’s office does not understand the constitutional requirements for these nominations.”

Bolger went on to give the council a detailed accounting of the constitutional requirements and the council’s bylaws.

His remarks do not qualify, as Brown claims, as one of multiple “expressions of displeasure with the governor’s public policy decisions.” Bolger, appointed by former Gov. Sean Parnell, did not do what Dunleavy and his supporters claim.

Brown also complains that Bolger spoke to the Alaska Federation of Natives last fall and expressed displeasure with Dunleavy. That is not what happened.

He gave brief remarks about tribal partnerships, delays in court proceedings and the need for fair and impartial courts. He said it is essential that judges do not make decisions based on personal or political considerations. He did not attack the governor.

Anyone who has followed Alaska politics over the years knows that attempts to put political pressure on the courts come from many quarters.

Bolger said, “we are facing a great deal of political pressure. Some people want to make the judicial selection system more political. Others would like to impose political consequences for the content of judicial decisions. I respectfully ask this convention to join me in resisting political influence on our courts.”

What we have here from Dunleavy, his support group and the Republican Party is an attempt to use political influence on the courts to help Dunleavy. This should be resisted.

Even Attorney General Kevin Clarkson knows the complaints are bogus, as he has announced he won’t attempt to get Bolger removed from the case. There is no justification.

What the Supreme Court faces in the recall case is not deciding whether the allegations against Dunleavy are true. By law, the allegations are assumed to be true and the voters are given the responsibility of deciding the merits of the allegations.

The court is also not to do or say anything about whether Dunleavy should be recalled or if he did anything wrong.

The only task is whether the statement of less than 200 words submitted by the recall committee satisfies the requirements of the law, which would mean the recall proponents can see if they have enough support to get the question on the ballot. It won’t happen unless more than 71,000 Alaska voters sign petitions asking for an election.

Your contributions help support independent analysis and political commentary by Alaska reporter and author Dermot Cole. Thank you for reading and for your support. Either click here to use PayPal or send checks to: Dermot Cole, Box 10673, Fairbanks, AK 99710-0673.

Comments? Write dermotmcole@gmail.com

.