Alaska Judicial Council recommends voters remove two Kenai judges in November retention election

By SUZANNE DOWNING

Sept. 3, 2026 – The Alaska Judicial Council is recommending that voters remove two Kenai judges from office in November, while supporting the retention of 18 other judges and declining to make a recommendation on a Juneau Superior Court judge.

The council recommends a “no” vote on Kenai District Court Judge Martin Fallon and Kenai Superior Court Judge Kelly Lawson. It made no recommendation on Juneau Superior Court Judge Marianna Carpeneti after council members divided over whether she should remain on the bench.

The remaining judges received recommendations for retention.

Unlike candidates for the Legislature, governor or Congress, Alaska judges do not run against opponents or campaign under political-party labels. Alaska uses a merit-selection system created by the state Constitution.

When a judicial vacancy occurs, attorneys apply to the Alaska Judicial Council, which investigates the applicants and nominates at least two candidates it considers most qualified. The governor must select the new judge from that list and cannot appoint someone the council did not nominate.

The seven-member council consists of three non-lawyers appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature, three lawyers selected by the Alaska Bar Association’s Board of Governors, and the chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court, who serves as chair and votes when necessary.

After appointment, judges must periodically face the voters in a nonpartisan retention election. Voters are not choosing between two candidates. They are answering a yes-or-no question about whether the sitting judge should remain in office.

District Court judges first appear on the ballot at the first general election held more than two years after appointment and, if retained, every four years thereafter. Superior Court judges and appellate judges first face voters at the first general election more than three years after appointment. Superior Court terms are six years, Court of Appeals terms are eight years, and Supreme Court terms are 10 years.

A judge rejected by a majority of those voting on the retention question leaves office at the end of the term. The council’s recommendation is advisory; voters make the final decision.

Fallon, appointed to the Kenai District Court in December 2019, received five “do not retain” votes from council members, with one abstention.

The council concluded that Fallon failed to meet performance standards for integrity, diligence and administrative skills. Its decision centered on delayed rulings, inaccurate pay affidavits and a public reprimand issued by the Alaska Supreme Court.

In one case, parties waited more than seven months for a decision. Another judge placed a note on the file warning Fallon that the matter was overdue, but Fallon did not issue a decision until six weeks later. During that period, Fallon signed three affidavits stating that, to the best of his knowledge, he had no matter pending for more than six months.

Judges may not receive their salaries when a decision has remained unfinished for more than six months.

In a second case, Fallon requested additional information exactly six months after the matter became ready for decision, effectively extending the deadline. He then waited another four months after receiving the information before issuing a ruling.

The Supreme Court found that Fallon acted negligently and violated judicial ethical standards. Although the court noted that he cooperated with the disciplinary proceedings and had no dishonest or selfish motive, it issued a public reprimand.

The council said Fallon later reported another matter pending longer than six months in January 2025, after the reprimand. His paycheck was withheld until the ruling was completed.

Fallon otherwise received strong reviews from those surveyed. Attorneys rated his diligence and integrity as excellent, while court employees and peace officers generally rated his performance as good. The council nevertheless determined that the documented delays and pay affidavits outweighed those positive reviews. The full Fallon evaluation is available here.

Lawson, appointed to the Kenai Superior Court in March 2023, received a unanimous 6-0 recommendation against retention.

The council said Lawson performed acceptably on the bench but failed to meet standards related to judicial temperament and integrity because of her conduct toward court employees.

According to the evaluation, Lawson “lacked patience, dignity, and courtesy” in communications with employees, creating friction with court staff and other judges serious enough to interfere with the efficient administration of justice. Court administrators had attempted to work with Lawson, but those efforts had been largely unsuccessful when the council completed its evaluation.

The finding was based on information from court employees, Alaska Court System records and the council’s interview with Lawson.

At the same time, attorneys rated Lawson’s legal ability as good, and jurors rated her attentiveness, skill, fairness and courtroom courtesy as excellent. She had one appellate decision during the evaluation period, and that ruling was affirmed. Parties also seldom used their right to remove her from a case.

The council’s objection was therefore focused principally on Lawson’s working relationships and off-bench communications, rather than her legal decisions or treatment of jurors and litigants inside the courtroom. The full Lawson evaluation is available here.

The council reached no recommendation on Carpeneti, who was appointed to the Juneau Superior Court in December 2021. Three members voted against retention, two voted for retention and two abstained, leaving neither side with the four votes needed for a council decision.

Carpeneti received excellent ratings from attorneys and court employees for impartiality and integrity, and jurors rated her highly for fairness, attentiveness and respectful conduct. Seven appealed cases produced a 97% affirmance rate, which the council classified as excellent.

Peace and probation officers, however, rated her poorly in impartiality, integrity, temperament, diligence and administrative skills. Her salary was also withheld for one pay period in 2024 because she had an undecided matter pending longer than six months.

Because the council did not reach a majority, it issued neither findings for nor against Carpeneti’s retention, leaving voters to assess the conflicting information themselves. The full Carpeneti evaluation is available here.

The council recommends a “yes” vote for Anchorage District Court Judge Chris Darnall; Superior Court judges Daniel Doty, Laura Hartz, Yvonne Lamoureux, Katherine Lybrand, Jack McKenna, David Nesbett, Nathaniel Peters, Christina Rankin, Christina “Tina” Reigh, David Roghair, Kirk Schwalm, Amy Welch, Ian Wheeles and Jonathan Woodman; district judges Benjamin Seekins and Shawn Traini; and Alaska Supreme Court Justice Jude Pate.

Pate will appear on ballots statewide. Trial-court judges appear only on ballots within the applicable judicial district, so Alaskans will not necessarily see every judge listed by the council.

The council evaluates judges using surveys of attorneys, jurors, court employees, police and probation officers, social-service professionals and others familiar with their work. It also examines appellate records, financial disclosures, disqualifications, disciplinary history, delayed decisions, compliance with continuing-education requirements and public comments.

The five principal performance categories are legal ability, impartiality and fairness, integrity, judicial temperament, and diligence and administrative skill.

The complete list of 2026 judicial evaluations, recommendations and supporting records is available on the Alaska Judicial Council’s retention-election website.