Legal group drops deadline claim, asks judge to keep Judicial Council records suit alive

A Washington, D.C., legal group suing for records on how the Alaska Judicial Council screens judicial applicants asked an Anchorage judge Monday to keep its case alive, even as it gave up on the 10-day deadline its complaint relied on.

America First Legal Foundation wants scoring sheets, evaluations and demographic information on applicants since Jan. 1, 2020, along with the council's communications with the governor's office about nominee characteristics. The council screens applicants for judgeships and sends its nominees to the governor, who appoints from that list.

The foundation says the council amended its bylaws in 2021 to prioritize gender and ethnic diversity. The council's bylaws were last amended in December 2020, Alaska News reported Sept. 29, when the council asked the court to dismiss the case.

In that Sept. 24 motion, council attorneys argued that the council is an independent constitutional body, that it has not denied the request and that it is still gathering non-confidential records that need careful review. "Courts do not issue injunctions compelling an agency to do what it is already willingly doing," the motion says. They also said the 10-day deadline the foundation cited, set by a state regulation, applies only to executive branch agencies.

In Monday's response, the foundation agreed in a footnote. The council is a judicial branch agency, it said, and it cited the rule only as a guide to what counts as a reasonable time to respond. It now points to the Alaska Public Records Act's requirement for "reasonable rules," saying the council never adopted any on response timing, and to a court system administrative bulletin it says sets a 10-day deadline for judicial branch records. It also argues that state law lets it seek a court order without waiting for a final decision from the council, and it asked the court to deny the motion or let it amend its complaint.

The foundation sent its request June 5. Executive Director Susanne DiPietro replied the same day: "Receipt confirmed." The foundation sued Sept. 2.

"The Defendant was silent until this suit was filed 89 days later. That is well outside 'reasonable,' and constitutes obstruction," foundation attorney Alexandra N. Dunn wrote.

According to the foundation, a Sept. 24 letter from council counsel called the request "exceedingly broad" and estimated it would take 100 hours of work to produce what would likely be few documents that are not privileged. The foundation says no records have been produced yet.

Superior Court Judge Herman G. Walker Jr. has not ruled.