The Kenai Peninsula Judicial Shakeup
Alaska voters have delivered a rare and decisive rebuke to the state judiciary, with preliminary results from Tuesday’s general election indicating that two Kenai-based judges are set to be removed from the bench. Superior Court Judge Kelly Lawson and District Court Judge Martin Fallon are trailing significantly in their retention votes. If these results hold as ballots continue to be processed through November 18, it would mark the first time since 1982 that Alaskans have voted out two judges in a single election cycle.
The rejection follows an unusual recommendation from the Alaska Judicial Council, which oversees judicial performance evaluations. In September, the council issued a rare advisory urging voters to reject both candidates, a move that Susanne DiPietro, the council’s executive director, noted was based on a rigorous, multi-faceted review process. While 20 other judges across the state and one Supreme Court justice appeared on the ballot, Lawson and Fallon were the only ones to face such a pointed institutional challenge.
Council Cites Judicial Temperament Failures for Lawson
The justifications for the council’s recommendations centered on core judicial responsibilities, though the specific failures attributed to each judge differed. For Judge Kelly Lawson, who was appointed in 2023 and appeared on the ballot for the first time, the council’s unanimous vote against her retention stemmed from concerns regarding judicial temperament. The evaluation noted that she failed to meet standards for dignity and courtesy, specifically in her interactions with court staff. Efforts by court administrators to assist in her professional improvement were described as largely unsuccessful.
Judge Martin Fallon’s challenges were rooted in administrative diligence. The council’s review cited significant delays in case dispositions, including one instance where a file remained undecided for eight months until another judge flagged it with a sticky note. Fallon was previously reprimanded by the state Supreme Court for failing to resolve cases in a prompt manner and for signing pay affidavits that the court found to be inaccurate. Under state law, judges are prohibited from receiving pay if a decision has been pending for more than six months, a threshold Fallon crossed while certifying that he was in compliance.
Voters Trail Lawson and Fallon by Wide Margins
The scale of the rejection is notable when compared to the broader election data. Early results show Lawson trailing by approximately 16% and Fallon by 18%. While the Alaska Division of Elections continues to count an estimated 75,000 outstanding ballots statewide, the current margins suggest a clear trend. For context, in the 2018 election, Anchorage Superior Court Judge Michael Corey was rejected by voters, becoming one of only six judges to be removed since Alaska achieved statehood.
The contrast between these two judges and their peers is stark. Justice Jude Pate, for example, is on track for retention with 58.5% of the vote. Similarly, Juneau Superior Court Judge Marianna Carpeneti, despite a split vote from the judicial council that resulted in no formal recommendation, is currently seeing 66.6% support from voters in her district.
Initial results from Tuesday’s election indicate that two Kenai judges will not keep their seats on the bench after the Alaska Judicial Council, in a rare move, recommended voters reject both. https://t.co/D4w2cKbN4x
Court Prepares Retired Judges for Kenai Vacancies
With both judges trailing as the November 25 certification date approaches, the court system is already preparing for the fallout. Losing two active judges creates an immediate staffing burden for the Kenai courthouse. Rebecca Koford, a spokesperson for the Alaska Court System, confirmed that the state utilizes retired judges to serve as pro tempore replacements to ensure that the docket remains functional during transitions.
The process for replacing these seats is well-defined. Once the vacancies are finalized, the Alaska Judicial Council will advertise the positions, review new applicants, and nominate candidates for the governor’s appointment. This process is expected to begin in early May. For the public, the current outcome serves as a direct indicator of the impact of the judicial council’s performance evaluations. As DiPietro observed, voters appear to have engaged heavily with these specific recommendations, signaling a high level of public scrutiny regarding the administrative and behavioral standards of those presiding over the law.
