Alaska Statutes

Alaska Stat. § 22.05.100 (2026)

Approval or rejection

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AK-LEGakleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 22.05.100. Approval or rejection.
Each supreme court justice is subject to approval or rejection as provided in AS 15 (Alaska Election Code). The judicial council shall conduct an evaluation of each justice before the retention election and shall provide to the public information about that justice and may provide a recommendation regarding retention or rejection. The information and any recommendation shall be made public at least 60 days before the retention election. The judicial council shall also provide the information and any recommendation to the office of the lieutenant governor in time for publication in the election pamphlet under AS 15.58.050. If a majority of those voting on the question rejects the candidacy, the rejected justice may not be appointed to fill any vacancy in the supreme court, court of appeals, superior court, or district courts of the state for a period of four years thereafter.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2007–2015 · leading case: State v. Jeffery, 170 P.3d 226 (Alaska 2007).
State v. Jeffery, 170 P.3d 226 (Alaska 2007). · cites it 2× “030; AS 22.05.100. [4] AS 15.35.053; AS 22.07.”
Clark v. Mitchell, 2016-NMSC-005, 9 N.M. 141. “IV, § 6 (providing for retention elections forjudges and justices); Alaska Stat. § 22.05.100 (J) (1980) (“[T]he rejected justice may not be appointed to fill any vacancy in the supreme court, court of appeals, superior court, or district courts of the state for a period of four…”
Clark v. Mitchell, 2016-NMSC-005. “IV, § 6 (providing for retention elections for judges and justices); Alaska Stat. § 22.05.100 (J) (1980) (“[T]he rejected justice may not be appointed to fill any vacancy in the supreme court, court of appeals, superior court, or district courts of the state for a period of four…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.