Legislators should reject Babcock for Alaska Judicial Council

During her confirmation hearing to be a member of the Alaska Judicial Council, Kristie Babcock forgot to mention her husband, Tuckerman Babcock.

This is a serious oversight, given Tuckerman’s disgraceful interference two years ago with the operations of the Alaska Judicial Council when he was chief of staff for Gov. Mike Dunleavy.

The council is crucial to the performance of an independent judiciary, a point lost on culture warriors Tuckerman, the former head of the Republican Party in Alaska, and his wife.

In 2019, Tuckerman improperly demanded that the council reveal confidential information to him about applicants for judgeships. Tuckerman claimed that the council bylaws requiring secrecy were illegal.

Tuckerman’s pressure campaign is reason enough to keep him and his wife away from the Alaska Judicial Council. The full Legislature is set to hold a confirmation vote on Babcock and others Tuesday.

The council is one of five boards and commissions mentioned in the Alaska Constitution. The council, which has three attorney members and three non-attorney members, is responsible for deciding which applicants for judgeships should be forwarded to the governor as nominees. The governor selects judges from the nominees he receives, a system that has proven to be an effective way of keeping party politics out of judge selection.

On March 20, 2019, Dunleavy announced that he refused to appoint a judge from the names submitted by the Alaska Judicial Council. Dunleavy told the council he believed that there were other applicants for judgeships that should have been included in the list. He wanted more names and interfered with the operations of the council.

With his refusal, Dunleavy violated the Alaska Constitution and overstepped his authority as governor. This action by Dunleavy is one of the grounds cited by the recall campaign as an illegal act.

Article IV of the Alaska Constitution makes his role in selecting judges clear: “The governor shall fill any vacancy in an office of supreme court justice or superior court judge by appointing one of two or more persons nominated by the judicial council.”

Confronted with reality, Dunleavy backed down, but that doesn’t erase his unconstitutional behavior.

Joining him in that unconstitutional attack on the Alaska Judicial Council was Tuckerman Babcock, now in line for a family seat on the agency that Tuckerman tried to undermine.

In February, before Dunleavy refused to act, Tuckerman said he wanted all information on applicants for judgeships who were not nominated by the council.

The council released public information and comments, but refused to release confidential documents, following its bylaws for treatment of certain documents obtained during the investigatory process.

On March 18, two days before Dunleavy refused to follow the law, an irked Tuckerman wrote that the council was wrong to deny him access to documents that were not part of the public record. He wanted all solicited and unsolicited information about every applicant, including comments that sources had wanted kept secret by the council.

Tuckerman claimed the council’s bylaws that required confidential treatment were unconstitutional and he asked again that the agency “provide all the information it considered” in making its decision.

Babcock was looking for confidential political ammunition to bolster the unconstitutional position Dunleavy took, interfering with the process underlying an independent judiciary. There is no reason to believe he wouldn’t do it again once he has access to secret information.

During her confirmation hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Krisitie Babcock said she wanted to be judged on her merits. She should have mentioned that her merits include a long political association with Tuckerman.

In 1993, Tuckerman was in charge of helping Gov. Wally Hickel pick people for boards and commissions when Hickel appointed Tuckerman to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

“Talk about your harmonic convergence,” columnist Mike Doogan wrote about who helped Hickel find Babcock. “Turned out to be the guy in charge of helping Hickel decide who to put on the commission and others like it: Tuckerman Babcock.”

At the time, Tuckerman had six years experience in state government and was all of 32.

“Certainly, it wasn’t because of any insider dealing” that Babcock got the appointment, Doogan said. “Everyone involved agrees that Babcock, the director of boards and commissions, had nothing to do with Babcock, the citizen, to be Babcock, the oil and gas conservation commissioner.”

Babcock claimed at the time he handled this situation by “divorcing myself” from the review process.

He divorced himself by handing the process over to his assistant, Kristie,

“The governor thought Tuckerman would be a great public member,” said Kristie, who became the second Mrs. Babcock more than a decade later.

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.