Political judges invite political pressure

The Alaska Supreme Court has received an unusual amount of criticism lately as it grapples with litigation challenging the effort to recall Gov. Mike Dunleavy. Chief Justice Joel Bolger, speaking at the 2019 Alaska Federation of Natives convention, said, “…we are facing a great deal of political pressure.”

Under different circumstances, I might empathize with his plight. However, the court’s troubles are mostly self-inflicted. When judges impartially interpret the law, the public tends to leave them alone. But when they instead impose their political ideology, disguised by a thin veneer of legal rhetoric, we respond differently. When judges behave like politicians, the public will naturally treat them like politicians.

Evidence of the court’s political activism stretches back decades. In 1970, in a case called Baker v. City of Fairbanks, the Supreme Court astonishingly claimed they possessed the “liberty to make constitutional progress” by writing their own interpretations of our Constitution into the law. “It is our duty,” the court declared, “to move forward in those areas of constitutional progress which we view as necessary to the development of a civilized way of life in Alaska.” “[W]e are free,” they told us, “and we are under a duty to develop additional constitutional rights and privileges...”

Let those words sink in. If a legislator wants to amend our constitution, it is an arduous process. A resolution must be introduced, committee hearings are held, and the proposed amendment must be approved by a two-thirds supermajority in both the House and the Senate. That by itself is an incredibly high hurdle. But then the amendment must be placed before Alaska’s voters, and the supporters must be prepared to wage an expensive statewide campaign. I know — I have been involved in four successful amendments as a legislator.

Yet the court declared that just three unelected judges can change the substance of the constitution, regardless of voter intent. The Baker decision is not some forgotten relic that is ignored by the court today. On the contrary, it is frequently quoted approvingly in modern-era decisions whenever the court tries to justify a ruling with no basis in either constitutional or statutory law.

For example, the court cited Baker in its 1997 Valley Hospital decision, in which it declared that abortion is a state constitutional right. Look hard to find the word “abortion” in the constitution — it’s not there. Nor did our constitutional convention in 1955-1956 mean to create a right to abortion. Abortion was illegal in the territory, and it remained so for more than 11 years after Alaska became a state.

The fraudulent “right” to abortion has been interpreted in bizarre ways. In 1997, as a member of the State Senate, I introduced a bill designed to ensure that a doctor could not perform an abortion on a minor girl without a parent’s consent. About 40 states have similar laws, and the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld them. Yet the Alaska Supreme Court struck down this law, simply because 3 of 5 justices said they preferred a law requiring only parental notification.

Though I strongly disagreed with the decision, one-parent notification is better than none at all, and I took the court at its word. In 2010, I was one of three citizen sponsors of a ballot initiative to enact a parental notice law. It was approved by 56% of Alaska voters.

Shockingly, the Supreme Court violated its earlier promise and declared the notice law “unconstitutional.” I consider its decision to be 64 pages of legal nonsense. Justice Craig Stowers, as the sole dissenter, wrote, “The court’s decision today… makes a mockery of its earlier proclamations of the proper and fundamental role parents have traditionally played in their children’s lives.” I agree.

The late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once criticized his liberal colleagues on the court, writing, “The court must be living in another world. Day by day, case by case, it is busy designing a constitution for a country I do not recognize.” Alaska’s judges are guilty of the same behavior. They have worked for decades to design a state constitution that is getting harder to recognize. Under these circumstances, pressure the court considers political is not likely to abate any time soon.

Loren Leman served as Alaska’s lieutenant governor under Gov. Frank Murkowski from 2002-2006. He also served in the Alaska Legislature from 1989-2002.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.