Just what we don't need, more politics in the selection of judges

Sen. Mike Shower failed to tell other legislators and Alaskans that much of the testimony he gave Monday complaining about the Alaska process for selecting judges was lifted from a Ballotpedia article.

“I would like to read a couple quotes from some professors around the country,” said Shower.

He went on to read sections of the Ballotpedia article quoting opponents of judicial appointment systems that involve lawyers, never saying it was all from the same source.

This is one way of puffing up your research to make it seem substantial.

Sen. Lora Reinbold praised his presentation as excellent and asked for the documents that he read from. Sen. Jesse Kiehl also asked for the documents.

Shower did not name the “professors around the country.”

“I’ll be happy to give you the source information, because it’s here,” putting his palms on papers in front of him, leaving the impression that the material was voluminous.

Shower did not read to the committee from the portion of the article that explained the arguments in favor of the so-called Missouri Plan, a merit-based approach to judicial selection that has helped the Alaska judiciary limit political interference.

Shower’s selectivity also extended to the portion of the Ballotpedia article that mentioned the so-called “Shepherd study.” He misquoted two portions of the 2013 study and portrayed them as backing up his point of view.

The original text reads: “The empirical relationship between business contributions and justices’ voting for business interests exists only in partisan and nonpartisan systems; there is no statistically significant relationship between money and voting in retention election systems.”

When Shower read that sentence to the committee he omitted the word “business” in both places, changing the meaning.

This is significant because the study was about the contributions of business groups in judicial elections.

He said, “The empirical relationship between contributions and justices’ voting interests exists only in partisan and nonpartisan systems; there is no statistically significant relationship between money and voting in retention election systems.”

He also omitted the word “business” from this sentence: “There is a stronger relationship between business contributions and justices’ voting among justices affiliated with the Democratic Party than among justices affiliated with the Republican Party.”

He said, “There is a stronger relationship between contributions and justices’ voting among justices affiliated with the Democratic Party than among justices affiliated with the Republican Party.”

Shower repeated his claim that, “when you look at the Alaska Bar Association, there’s about two-thirds of those that are affiliated with a political party that are Democrat, one-third Republican.”

He was trying to make the claim that Alaska lawyers and judges are partisan politicians.

The connection that Shower claimed in this study does not exist. The study referred to business contributions and the political affiliation of judges—something that usually requires guesswork—not the political affiliation of bar association members.

In any case, what Shower did not say was that a majority of the Alaska lawyers are undeclared or nonpartisan. The percentages are similar to the overall voting public in Alaska. The right-wing Alaska Family Council even admits that, though it buries the detail.

(The survey claims are suspect, however, as the bar association says there are 2,288 active members in Alaska, while the survey claims it could only find 1,918 members with a political affiliation. The nearly 400 lawyers not included in the tally would push the party affiliation numbers way down.)

In addition, had Shower consulted the 2013 Shepherd study cited by the Ballotpedia article, he would have found even less ammunition for his claims.

The full paragraph about party affiliation says, “The data also show that there is a stronger relationship between business contributions and justices’ voting among justices affiliated with the Democratic Party than among justices affiliated with the Republican Party. Because Republican justices tend to be more ideologically predisposed to favor business interests, additional business contributions may not have as large of an influence on them as the do on Democratic justices.”

This is shallow and slipshod work by Shower and his staff member, former legislator Scott Ogan, who has been given the imaginary job title of “senior policy advisor.”

The prolonged discussion in the committee Monday debating the use of word “may” or “shall” and whether the proposed bill would have meant considering four nominations for an opening or six nominations, was another sign that this whole thing is a train wreck.

The Alaska judicial system developed over time with careful planning. The right-wing dream of making it more political is an article of bad faith, especially because the arguments mustered for the overhaul are pitiful.

Shower and other right-wing extremists want judges who look and sound like right-wing extremists.

They think that happy day will arrive if they change the judicial selection process to make it more political.

It would take a constitutional amendment to do this for Superior and Supreme Court nominations, which is not going to happen this year.

But the judge selection process for the state appeals court and district courts can be changed by state law, which Shower and others see as a first step toward a constitutional amendment.

In essence, they want to give the governor the power to appoint whoever he wants to be a district or appeals judge, subject to legislative confirmation.

Shower and all of those clamoring for this change should remember that with a different governor and Legislature, making the judiciary subject to the political whims of elected officials would suddenly lose all of its appeal.