SIGN THE PETITION
On Tuesday, November 5th, 2024, in the General Election, Alaskans will be asked to vote on a number of different judges who are up for retention. School choice advocates are asking Alaskans to –
- Sign our petition and,
- Vote NO on Anchorage Superior Judge Adolf Zeman
Anchorage Superior Court Judge Adolf Zeman ruled earlier this year that –
- the State of Alaska cannot pay for classes taken by students in Alaska, unless those classes are provided by public institutions – government schools.
- no more can the State pay for correspondence courses or private schools.
- paying for private education is an unconstitutional use of state funds, thus effectively stripping that funding from some 24,000 students in Alaska who use correspondence programs.
In doing so, Judge Zeman provided the National Education Association with a sweeping ruling for government control of education, dashing the freedom of choice that tens of thousands of Alaska families once had.
SIGN THE PETITION
HELPFUL ARTICLES
It’s Time For Alaska Voters To Remove Judge Zeman From The Bench By Jim Minnery – October 14th, 2024 Alaska Watchman
An Alaska judge just destroyed correspondence education in Alaska. What else did Judge Adolf Zeman destroy? By Suzanne Downing – April 17th, 2024 MustRead Alaska
Alaska Supreme Court Must Overturn Judge Zeman’s Erroneous Decision To Upend Homeschool Programs By David Ignell – June 11th, 2024 Alaska Watchman
Alaska State Senator Blasts Judge For Wreaking Havoc On Homeschoolers and Lawmakers Alike By Joel Davidson – June 11th, 2024 Alaska Watchman
Alaska Judge Strikes Down State’s Cash Payments to Families Using Correspondence School Programs By James Brooks & Claire Stremple – Apr 12th, 2024 Alaska Beacon
Trial Judge Strikes Down Unique Program That Offers Education Choice To Alaska Families By Lisa Buie – April 15th, 2024 Next Steps
Group of Parents to Defend Alaska Educational Choice Program from Lawsuit By Dan King – January 26th, 2023 Institute for Justice
Do Alaskans Have the “right” to vote on judges based on how they rule?
Just like we have the explicit authority to vote Yes or No on a Governor or Legislator based on the decisions they make while in public office, Alaskans have every right, and indeed a responsibility, to vote on judges based on the decisions they make from the bench.
Many, if not most, of the decisions judges make are not “political” in that they cannot be classified as falling in line with a judicial philosophy. But sometimes, and this is the case with the ruling by Judge Adolf Zeman on homeschool and correspondence programs, a decision is made that gives the public a clear understanding of their mindset. When that happens, Alaskans have the opportunity to vote on their agreement or disagreement with the opinion.
Andrea Moceri and her son who attends Holy Rosary Academy in Anchorage who benefits from Alaska’s allotment program. Moceri is one of the families defending the state program, which a trial judge struck down. Photo courtesy of Institute for Justice
ARE THEY QUALIFIED?
The Alaska Judicial Council, a quasi-Government body of unelected citizens, makes recommendations on judges based on whether or not they are qualified for the job. They have nothing to say about how a judge rules or what kind of judicial philosophy they may or may not ascribe to.
HAVE THEY DONE ANYTHING ILLEGAL OR UNETHICAL?
The Alaska Commission on Judicial Conduct was created by amendment to the state constitution in 1968. This group addresses complaints alleging judicial misconduct that can be filed by any member of the public.
WHAT JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY DO THEY HAVE?
In Alaska, it is very difficult to find any information on what judicial philosophy a judge may have other than a ruling that sparks controversy and gets attention. But in no uncertain terms, judges have philosophies and beliefs just like every other citizen. As responsible voters, we should do our part to understand where a judge stands and why.
From SparkNotes, “The main types of contrasting judicial philosophies include judicial activism versus judicial restraint, loose constructionism versus strict constructionism, and living document versus original intent.
CLICK HERE for a good summary of the differing views on judicial inclinations and why it matters.
Coalition Partners
THIS COMMUNICATION WAS PAID FOR BY ALASKA FAMILY ACTION, INC., ANCHORAGE, ALASKA. I AM JIM MINNERY, PRESIDENT OF ALASKA FAMILY ACTION, INC., AND I APPROVE THIS MESSAGE. THIS NOTICE TO VOTERS IS REQUIRED BY ALASKA LAW. WE CERTIFY THAT THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT AUTHORIZED, PAID FOR, OR APPROVED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR BALLOT MEASURE BEING ENDORSED. WWW.AKVOTER.COM – 907-279-2825 – TOP 3 CONTRIBUTORS TO ALASKA FAMILY ACTION, INC ARE JOHN FLEMING, ANCHORAGE, AK, BOB FLINT, ANCHORAGE, AK AND JIM & KIM MINNERY, ANCHORAGE, AK.
