The Boney Courthouse building in Anchorage holds the Alaska Supreme Court chambers. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)
Alaska’s six-person judge-nominating board has picked a state prosecutor and a Fairbanks Superior Court judge for possible appointment to the Alaska Court of Appeals.
Following Wednesday’s vote by the Alaska Judicial Council, Gov. Mike Dunleavy will have 45 days to make the final choice between prosecutor RuthAnne Beach and Judge Patricia Haines.
The council’s members declined to nominate Juneau private-practice attorney Chris Peloso and assistant public defender Lacey Jane Brewster, who had also applied for an upcoming vacancy caused by the departure of Appeals Court Judge Bethany Harbison.
In a survey of practicing attorneys, Haines was rated as the most qualified candidate, having received a score of 4.6 out of a possible 5. Beach received a rating of 4.2, Brewster a rating of 2.9, and Peloso, a rating of 2.6.
Haines received the council’s unanimous support; Beach received the support of five members. Neither Brewster nor Peloso received any “yes” votes.
The council’s deliberations took place in closed session, and it interviewed all but Peloso in closed session as well. No members of the public testified for or against particular candidates during a Wednesday public comment period.
The judicial council consists of three attorney members appointed by the Alaska Bar Association and three public members appointed by the governor.
The chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court chairs meetings and votes only to break a tie.
It’s unusual for members of the council to explain their decisions, but John Wood, a public member whose appointment by Dunleavy was challenged in court, offered explanations for his votes on each candidate and suggested that the council change its policy.
He suggested each candidate be ranked by each council member on a 1-5 scale, and that the council nominate anyone receiving an average of at least 3.5 points.
During his discussion, he said he rated Beach as a 4.25, Haines a 5, Brewster a 2.5 and Peloso a 1.
During Peloso’s public interview, attorney board member Savannah Fletcher asked him about written comments submitted to the board, suggesting that he has attempted to intimidate women in the past. “People have given examples of apparently intimidating behavior to have them not speak about you or about certain topics,” she said.
“Wow,” Peloso responded. “I honestly, absolutely — no idea where that would be coming from. … I don’t think I’ve ever threatened anybody with any kind of legal process in a professional capacity. I think that would not be professional to do that.”
Board members also questioned Peloso about his decision to leave the Alaska Department of Law for private practice. Peloso said it was due to political differences and his personnel file said it was because of performance issues.
Responding to that claim, Peloso said he was punished for successfully fighting a fishing company that had ties to the governor, then talking to the press about the case.
“It turns out that the people running this fishing company that were now responsible for $18 million in taxes they didn’t want to pay, had connections with the governor, and I was called by the Attorney General himself, who said, ‘You weren’t supposed to be talking to the press, and you’re terminated immediately.’”
During the voting process, Wood said he found Peloso to be “very evasive” and that he was “a “strong no.”
“I scored him a one only because I couldn’t go any lower,” Wood said.
One board member, Denny DeWitt, recused himself from voting on Peloso.
The other three candidates’ interviews were not accessible by the public; most candidates for judicial openings conduct their interviews behind closed doors.
When voting on Brewster, an assistant public defender, Wood said he had reservations about whether she could rule impartially as a judge after being an advocate. “I don’t know that she could leave that behind,” he said.
With Beach, he said, “She may not be the absolute top of the pinnacle, but she certainly showed enough talent and ambition and attitude and training to be more than an acceptable judge on the Court of Appeals.”
Discussing Haines, he noted that she applied for the appeals court in 2020 and was nominated by the council but not appointed. Since then, Wood said, she’s become an even stronger candidate because of her experience on the superior court, having been appointed by Dunleavy in 2021.
