Alaska has a system of judicial performance evaluation that is used as a model throughout the United States and in many other countries. The Judicial Council has created a system in which about 10,000 Alaskans in 2000 had an opportunity to critique judicial performance. Citizens commenting included jurors, citizens at public hearings, police, probation officers, social workers, court employees, attorneys and independent court watchers. Their input was summarized and considered by the Judicial Council along with detailed information about appellate affirmances and reversals, peremptory challenges, promptness, conflicts of interest and other aspects of performance. The information was available throughout the state in news articles, on the Internet, in the Alaska Voters' Pamphlet and through other media.
Shorter terms discourage qualified attorneys from applying.
Shorter retention terms, with the lesser job security they entail, will discourage highly qualified judicial applicants. This will be especially true for experienced and successful private practitioners. The result of SJR 22 and SB159 may be a lesser qualified judiciary with less experience representing private citizens and businesses. Increased numbers of judges on the ballot decrease voters' scrutiny of individual judges. Voters already have limited time to study information on judges standing for retention.