Federal Judge John W. Sedwick has issued a written ruling explaining why he summarily rejected conservative activists’ lawsuit challenging the way Alaska selects judges. The lawsuit claimed that unelected lawyers have too much influence over Alaska’s judicial selection process.

From Judge Sedwick’s ruling, issued Sept. 15:

The “one person, one vote” principle does not apply where non-legislative officers are chosen by appointment, rather than by election.”

“Moreover, the delegates to the Alaska Constitutional Convention endorsed and the people of the State of Alaska ratified the proposition that Alaska state judges are to be appointed, rather than elected. Plaintiffs have not cited, nor has this court’s research found, any authority in support of the proposition that a state may not appoint, rather than elect, its judiciary.”

[Alaska’s judicial selection process] “reflects the entirely rational proposition that lawyers have the experience and expertise needed to select [judicial] Council members from among the ranks of Alaska’s lawyers."

"The selection of the Council’s attorney members by the Board [of the Alaska Bar Association] is rationally related to a legitimate state interest in selecting well-qualified jurists."

"Moreover, the Alaska Constitution has included checks on the exercise of the [judicial council’s] appointment powers in the Plan, which save it from defeat under rational basis review."

"To begin with, some members of the Board [of the Alaska Bar Association] are themselves appointed by the Governor."

"Second, the [bar association] Board appoints only three of the seven members of the [judicial] Council. Any candidate for judicial office must therefore secure the vote of at least one other member of the Council in order to be recommended for appointment."

"Third, the Council’s nominations are subject to a final selection by the Governor."

"Fourth, every [judicial candidate] nominated by the Council and selected by the governor must stand for periodic retention elections in which all registered voters participate."

"These extensive limitations winnow and ultimately defeat the notion central to Plaintiffs’ case that it is a select group of citizens – that is, Alaska lawyers – who actually select the Alaska judiciary and in doing so deprive other citizens of equal rights under the law."

The ruling is attached to this post.