Alaska Statutes

Alaska Stat. § 22.10.150 (2026)

Approval or rejection

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AK-LEGakleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 22.10.150. Approval or rejection.
Each superior court judge is subject to approval or rejection as provided in AS 15 (Alaska Election Code). The judicial council shall conduct an evaluation of each judge before the retention election and shall provide to the public information about the judge 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 information shall include the judge's consideration of victims when imposing sentence on persons convicted of felony offenses where the offenses involve victims. 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 of a judge, the rejected judge may not for a period of four years thereafter be appointed to fill any vacancy in the supreme court, court of appeals, superior court, or district courts of the state.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1983–2007 · leading case: State v. Jeffery, 170 P.3d 226 (Alaska 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Jeffery, 170 P.3d 226 (Alaska 2007). · cites it 10× “053 ("[e]ach judge of the court of appeals shall [periodically] be subject to approval or rejection"); AS 15.35.060 ("[e]ach superior court judge shall [periodically] be subject to approval or rejection"); AS 15.”
Div. of Elections of State v. Johnstone, 669 P.2d 537 (Alaska 1983). · cites it 12× “[9] Because of this delay, the judicial council was unable to conduct an evaluation of Judge Johnstone as required by AS 22.10.150. [10] *541 The parties proffer three potential remedies before this court.”
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.