By SUZANNE DOWNING
Aug. 14, 2026 – Acting Attorney General Cori Mills issued a major legal opinion Friday concluding that Alaska laws requiring the governor to select board and commission members from lists supplied by political parties, unions, and other private organizations are “very likely unconstitutional.”
The 19-page opinion, requested by Gov. Mike Dunleavy, could change appointment practices across state government and affect some of Alaska’s most influential regulatory bodies, including the Alaska Public Offices Commission and the Alaska Retirement Management Board.
At issue are statutes that allow private organizations to narrow the governor’s choices before an appointment is made. Mills concluded that those requirements violate the separation of powers by transferring part of the governor’s constitutional appointment authority to entities outside state government.
“Appointment discretion remains exclusively with the governor, unless the board or commission is purely advisory in nature,” the Department of Law said in announcing the opinion.
The governor may still consider candidates recommended by private groups and may select from their lists as a matter of courtesy, Mills wrote. But the Legislature cannot force the governor to choose only from those candidates.
Among the bodies identified in the opinion are:
- The Alaska Public Offices Commission, whose members currently include two representatives from each of the state’s two largest political parties. State law requires the governor to choose those members from lists submitted by the parties’ central committees.
- The Alaska Retirement Management Board, where unions representing teachers and public employees submit lists from which the governor must select four trustees.
- The Alaska Workforce Investment Board, where four organized-labor representatives are selected from lists submitted by state labor organizations.
- The Professional Teaching Practices Commission, where organizations representing teachers, principals, superintendents and higher-education institutions submit names for several seats.
- The Alaska Fire Standards Council, where firefighting organizations and the Alaska Fire Chiefs Association submit nomination lists.
- The Alaska Historical Commission, where two members are selected from nominees supplied by the Alaska Historical Society.
- The Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission, where the Alaska Native Justice Center and the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault designate members.
- The Statewide Suicide Prevention Council, which includes a member recommended by the Alaska Federation of Natives.
- The Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Council, where several public and private organizations submit nomination lists.
The opinion does not say that every appointment requirement is unconstitutional. The Legislature may establish reasonable qualifications related to a board’s purpose, such as requiring that members have particular licenses, occupations or experience.
The constitutional problem arises when a private organization is given the power to decide who may be considered. According to Mills, that turns the governor’s appointment into little more than a ratification of choices made by an outside group.
Boards that are purely advisory may be treated differently because their members do not exercise executive, regulatory or quasi-judicial authority. The Wood-Tikchik council, whose primary responsibility is helping develop a park management plan, was cited as an example of a largely advisory body.
Other commissions wield substantial governmental power. The Fire Standards Council adopts regulations governing the training and certification of fire-service personnel. The Professional Teaching Practices Commission can suspend or revoke teaching certificates. APOC administers and enforces Alaska’s campaign-finance, lobbying and financial-disclosure laws.
Mills based her conclusion heavily on Alaska’s constitutional history. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention deliberately created a strong executive branch after experiencing a territorial government in which authority was fragmented and accountability was difficult to establish.
Convention delegates rejected a proposal that would have required the governor to select the attorney general from candidates screened by the Alaska Judicial Council. Delegates argued that voters should be able to hold the governor responsible for the people appointed to administer state government.
“The governor should have the direct responsibility,” Delegate John McLaughlin said during the convention debate. “He should not be able to evade it by saying, ‘It was not my selection.’”
The opinion also relies on the Alaska Supreme Court’s 1976 ruling in Bradner v. Hammond, which held that appointing subordinate executive officers is an executive function.
That court found that the Legislature may participate in appointments only where the Alaska Constitution expressly gives it a role, such as confirming certain nominees.
The Department of Law has reached similar conclusions repeatedly since 1979. A 1980 attorney general opinion specifically concluded that the requirement limiting APOC appointments to candidates nominated by the two major political parties improperly interfered with the governor’s appointment power.
There is one conflicting Alaska court decision. In 2006, a Juneau Superior Court judge upheld the law requiring the governor to choose certain Retirement Management Board trustees from union-generated lists after then-Gov. Frank Murkowski appointed someone who had not been nominated by NEA-Alaska.
Mills noted that the incoming administration (Sarah Palin) did not appeal that ruling and that a Superior Court decision does not create binding statewide precedent. The opinion argues that the Alaska Supreme Court would likely reach a different conclusion based on its broader separation-of-powers decisions.
The Legislature could amend the affected laws, and a future appointment made outside a required nomination list could produce a court challenge that gives the Alaska Supreme Court an opportunity to settle the question.
For now, however, the Dunleavy administration has formally taken the position that private organizations may recommend candidates, but cannot control the governor’s choices by handing him lists that he must use in decision making.
“Such statutes violate the separation of powers by intruding on the governor’s appointment power,” Mills concluded, “which is an exclusively executive power cabined only by explicit limitations in the Alaska Constitution.”
