By SUZANNE DOWNING
Nov. 1, 2026 – The Alaska Judicial Council is scheduled to meet Monday, Nov. 2, with a public-records lawsuit pending and a basic accountability question unresolved: Who authorized its legal defense, and why wasn’t that decision brought before the council in a public meeting?
The Alaska Story previously reported that the council had not met as a body since America First Legal Foundation sued it Sept. 2.
The lawsuit concerns records about diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI) considerations in judicial selection. But the handling of the defense raises a separate issue: The council’s bylaws require four members to compel a special meeting. How many members wanted a meeting and how many wanted it secret and why isn’t that public information? Apparently, some wanted to move ahead and simply hire an attorney without deliberating as a body.
Alaska’s Constitution gives the organized Alaska State Bar Association the authority to appoint three attorney members to the Alaska Judicial Council. The governor appoints three non-attorney members, subject to legislative confirmation. The chief justice occupies the seventh seat and chairs the council. That person has been selected by the lawyer-dominated body.
The attorney appointments do not require legislative confirmation, but the public positions do. That gives the lawyers yet another upper hand on the council.
Jeffrey W. Robinson joined the council as an attorney member Feb. 24, 2026, for a term ending in February 2032.
Then, in his capacity as a lawyer, he represented Decoy Dan — Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. That’s the Petersburg candidate whose name resembles that of incumbent US Sen. Dan S. Sullivan. Robinson is one of Decoy Dan’s lawyers and appeared before the Alaska Supreme Court in the June 29 case that resulted in an order placing the second Sullivan on the ballot.
Carney, who chairs the Judicial Council on which Robinson serves, is also the Supreme Court’s chief justice.
The overlapping roles show a system that promises impartial judicial selection, but appear to be a closed circuit controlled by the bar association.
But wait, there’s more: The judicial council retained Reeves Amodio to defend the records lawsuit. Attorneys Thomas Amodio and Kevin Boots filed its motion to dismiss, according to reporting on the case.
The firm also represents prominent interests in Alaska’s election disputes.
Amodio sent cease-and-desist demands to radio stations in September on behalf of the campaign opposing repeal of ranked-choice voting. Amodio represents the Alaska Democratic Party and Mary Peltola.
Reeves Amodio lawyers appear alongside the notorious DC-based Elias Law Group as counsel for Alaskans for Mary and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in the Justice Department’s Alaska election lawsuit.
The Monday meeting of the council will be partly an executive session that the public cannot attend.
One thought on “Judicial Council heads into Nov. 2 meeting with questions over secrecy, Alaska Bar control”
Call it the “Alaska Prejudicial Council” instead, because it is ALWAYS prejudiced toward the radical left.
.
What a corrupt state we live in.