Sullivan's secret judge recruitment committee has no intention of asking for public comment
Sen. Dan Sullivan’s committee to pick right-wing judicial nominees, led by former Gov. Sean Parnell, has already met twice, with no public notice, and plans to continue operating in secret, according to Sullivan’s office.
The secret Sullivan selection committee is less open and transparent than the College of Cardinals getting together to pick a new pope. There won’t even be smoke signals to announce when they’ve chosen potential judges.
The selection committee members have been told not to talk to the press and to refer all questions to Amanda Coyne, the former journalist who is communications director for Sullivan in Washington, D.C.
The nine members, all chosen by Sullivan, are friendly to Sullivan. The group will give him names that he likes. If they don’t, Sullivan is free to ignore what they say. And pick whoever he wants, hoping to get Sen. Lisa Murkowski to bow to his wishes.
I sent the questions listed below to Coyne. Among those she didn’t answer, the most important Is No. 10: “Since Sen. Murkowski has publicly rejected this group as an unnecessary delay in the effort to fill the vacancy, what's the point? Delaying the selection of a judge until after the 2024 election when a Republican might be president?”
I’ll answer it then. This entire exercise is a stalling tactic. The federal judgeship has been vacant for almost two years and Sullivan is shooting for three or four.
The federal tradition of relying on home-state senators to agree on names for federal judges out of courtesy—which should be abandoned—means the vacancy will continue because of a split between Sullivan and Sen. Lisa Murkowski.
Murkowski has settled on candidates to fill the seat, while Sullivan didn’t take part in the traditional process that worked well long before he lived in Alaska. He is on a course to wait until there is a Republican president.
I suspect Sullivan is still smarting from the 2018 experience in which his pick for a judge, Jon Katchen, now one of the nine members of Sullivan’s judge-picking committee, withdrew as a nominee because of significant political opposition in Alaska.
Amanda:
Matt Findley (a member of Sullivan’s council) said that all questions about Sen. Sullivan's federal judicial council have to be directed to you. As I'm sure you understand, there are lots of questions that should be answered.
I hope you can help me with these:
1. Are you the staff member assigned to work with the council?
2. How is this being paid for? What is the budget?
3. Who decided that the council members should refer all questions to you?
4. Has the council met? How often? Will applicants appear in person?
5. Will any meetings be open to the public?
6. Are the questionnaires the applicants are asked to fill out public information?
7. Will the public have a chance to comment on any of the applicants before the council submits its list to Sen. Sullivan? When has the senator asked for the council to finish its work?
8. What written and oral directions were given to members of the council?
9. Why did Sen. Sullivan pick all the members of the council without asking for suggestions from the public?
10. Since Sen. Murkowski has publicly rejected this group as an unnecessary delay in the effort to fill the vacancy, what's the point? Delaying the selection of a judge until after the 2024 election when a Republican might be president?
Here is Coyne’s reply:
I’m Senator Sullivan’s Communication’s Director so I’m a natural fit to field press questions. As to your other questions, I’ve consolidated those, along with the questions you emailed to Ben: (Ben Dietderich, another Sullivan spokesman.)
Senators have complete discretion to choose the process by which names of potential federal judges are recommended to the White House—and the president makes the final decision on who is nominated. Some, like Senator Murkowski, choose to use a state’s bar poll to initially vet candidates. Senator Sullivan’s new Alaska Federal Judiciary Council is modeled on the process that at least 25 states—including Hawaii, Texas, and Illinois—use. It’s also modeled after Senator Sullivan’s Academy Selection Board that reviews and interviews applications for Military Service Academies.
The council is all volunteer. Senator Sullivan and his staff collaborated with the council members to develop the questionnaire using questionnaires used by the Alaska Judicial Council, other state councils, and the Senate Judiciary Committee as inspiration. When an applicant advances, the questions and background checks from the Senate Judiciary Committee and the White House will be much more extensive. (The questionnaire is here.)
The council has met twice. The Senator has sought to choose a diverse cross section of Alaskans to help him vet nominees.
There are no public meetings scheduled—we aren’t aware of any senators holding public meetings at the recommendation stage for open federal judiciary seats. Once officially nominated by the President, the process becomes completely public, including a nominee’s hearing and questionnaires.
The council has broad discretion to recommend applicants to the Senator as well as the process by which those candidates are vetted.
Senator Sullivan outlined the purpose of the council when it was first announced:
“Pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, federal judges receive lifetime appointments to the bench and render decisions with far-reaching implications for our economy, land and resources, and public safety. The gravity of a federal judge’s responsibilities warrants a thorough search for candidates, a serious examination of their records, and the input of those who will be most impacted by their rulings—Alaskans. With this inclusive and diverse council, we’ve convened not only some of Alaska’s sharpest legal minds, but also those with detailed knowledge of many critical facets of Alaska, including crime victims, law enforcement, resource development, and Alaska Native communities. Through this process, we intend to identify federal judiciary candidates of character, experience, and an unflinching commitment to the rule of law. That commitment will also demand a deep understanding of the numerous federal laws that uniquely impact Alaska, like the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), and the Alaska Statehood Act, and the Supreme Court case law related to such critically-important statutes. I want to thank each of our council members for dedicating their time and expertise to facilitating a process that will serve Alaskans well.”
As to the timeline: The deadline for applications submitting is November 20. The Senator and the council will move expeditiously and he intends to improve upon the lengthy timeline—more than four years—that occurred last time there was a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for Alaska.
In a future post here, I will compare the secret Sullivan committee to the process used by the Alaska Judicial Council for selecting the names of state judges. A Sullivan press release said he based his group on the “model” of the state council.
Perhaps he was given some bad information. The two are not alike. The Alaska Judicial Council has a thorough process, one that includes public participation, which is absent from the Sullivan 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