From Lisa Demer in Anchorage --

After Gov. Sarah Palin's selection of a new justice for the Alaska Supreme Court last month proved controversial, the governor agreed to a live interview about the process of picking judges. We sent the governor a few general questions in advance. Then she decided to answer in writing. Here's what she wrote:

ADN: Are you frustrated by the current process?

Palin: No system for selecting judges is perfect. [Electing / Governor appoints and Senate Confirms / Nominations by a Judicial Council and Governor appoints] The system we have is the one set up by our Constitution. We have to work within that framework and it has produced some very good judges. But there may be reasonable steps that could be taken to improve it.

Some candidates have expressed the opinion that the process and use of the bar poll is unfair. This bar poll allows anonymous comments, just like anonymous blog comments, to judge candidates. It’s hard, if not impossible, for candidates to respond to or research anonymous accusations being leveled against them. This is unfair to the candidate and ultimately to Alaskans if qualified candidates end up not being nominated because of inaccurate anonymous comments.

Another concern was that attorneys filling out a bar poll can state that their comments are based on actual experiences with the candidate, which could mean their comments carry more weight with the judicial council. Recent candidates have commented there was no way they had interacted with the number of attorneys that made this claim in their bar poll. But because it is anonymous, they cannot correct the results.

Finally, it’s been reported that the judicial council uses the bar poll as a litmus test. That candidates are told their bar poll score was low and so they stand very little chance of being nominated by the judicial council. Again, if the bar poll process has flaws, it could be preventing some qualified candidates from being nominated.

ADN: Did you consider rejecting both of the latest candidates for the Supreme Court?

Palin: My job is to follow the Constitution. I try to appoint the nominee that is able to approach every case with an open mind and the best knowledge, skills, and ability to analyze the legal issues and apply the law to the facts of the case. It is often a difficult decision to make. In the instance of the most recent Supreme Court seat, both candidates had a wealth of legal experience to offer the state.

ADN: I’d like to know if you intend to look into changing the process, and what that might look like.

Palin: Staff will review the process and if there is a reasonable way to reduce or eliminate the use of anonymous comments, I would suggest that be discussed with the Judicial Council.

ADN: Did you anticipate your selection of Morgan Christen being controversial?

Palin: Virtually every leadership decision I make is viewed as controversial by somebody. It is no different when selecting a nominee to appoint to a judicial position.

Some in a group called the Alaska Family Council were off-base with a knee jerk reaction to my decision; I believe they learned some things through this process. We had a lot of positive comments submitted for both candidates; individual personal experiences with these candidates were shared (and those who commented signed their names, I’ll add). I respect Alaskans’ voices on these appointments, and I welcome their input. Ultimately, while my views may not run parallel with any judge I’ve selected, I am confident that I selected a justice who will be an asset to the bench and to Alaskans.

ADN: What were your main considerations in making the appointment?

Palin: As mentioned above, I look for the nominee that is able to approach every case with an open mind and the best knowledge, skills, and ability to analyze the legal issues and apply the law to the facts of the case. It was my opinion that Judge Christen was the most qualified nominee. At the same time, I respect Judge Smith.

ADN: Did you ask about Planned Parenthood or abortion?

Palin: I do not have litmus tests or litmus questions for judicial appointments. Of her own volition, Judge Christen was open about her time on the Planned Parenthood board and offered her perspective. Judge Christen has always been a strong advocate for adoption, and she joined the organization to promote the issue statewide. During her time on the Planned Parenthood Board, it was the only one in the nation that did not perform abortions. Additionally, while she was on the board, she successfully championed the inclusion of the Crisis Pregnancy Center under the United Way donation umbrella. Letters we received supported this. The reaction of the Alaska Family Council was a bit of a surprise to me, but they must not have had the benefit of all the information about Judge Christen as I did.