In appointing Kenai insurance saleswoman Kristie Babcock to the Alaska Judicial Council, Gov. Mike Dunleavy is aiming to get two-for-one for a six-year-term.

He hopes to get Kristie and her husband, Republican operative Tuckerman Babcock, the mastermind of the disastrous start of the Dunleavy administration.

It was just two years ago that Tuckerman ignored a constitutional mandate and tried to interfere with the council’s operations. He wrongly insisted that the council reveal confidential information to him about applicants for judgeships, falsely claiming the bylaws that prohibited that action were improper.

Dunleavy named Kristie to the council six months in advance of the seat opening in March, a decision that may have been an election signal about his desires for the judiciary and an early warning that no one else need apply.

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

If Babcock’s nomination is not withdrawn, the Legislature should reject it for two reasons.

First, Dunleavy has ignored the constitutional mandate to select members of the council “with due consideration as to area representation.” With Babcock on the council, all three of its non-attorney members would be from the Third Judicial District, leaving it with no members from the First, Second and Fourth districts.

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.

The Alaska Federation of Natives said the lack of geographic representation is reason enough to oppose Babcock’s appointment and has asked that the governor withdraw her name.

“The judiciary, as a co-equal branch of government, has functioned as intended because all four judicial districts have always been represented on the Alaska Judicial Council since Alaska became a state,” the Alaska Federation of Natives said in a statement to legislators. “Regrettably, this will no longer be the case after March 1.”

The second reason to not have Kristie on the council that reviews nominees for judges is Tuckerman’s inappropriate pressure campaign in 2019 when he was chief of staff for Dunleavy.

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 overstepping 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.

Tuckerman, a champion of small government who had held various state jobs in his life, was feeling his big government oats when he insisted that the Alaska Judicial Council reveal secret information to him—part of the pressure campaign to override the council’s actions and force the submission of more nominees.

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.

I worry about what use a political operative like Tuckerman would make of confidential material. The council’s denial was appropriate.

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.

He doesn’t belong anywhere near the Alaska Judicial Council.

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.