I promised myself this would not be a political post, but I am breaking my rule for Judge Richard Postma, up for judicial retention in the Third Judicial District, State of Alaska.
I consider an individual’s decision on how to vote his or her personal business. But in light of the attack against Judge Richard Postma by the Alaska Judicial Council (which ignored the high scores he received from attorneys, law enforcement, jurors, and court staff) and the minimal press coverage advancing the fact that the critics of Judge Postma were often against his efforts to improve court administration, I really believe it is important that I post this note.
I have known Judge Postma in three capacities over the last six years: (1) as a work colleague at the Attorney General’s Office; (2) as an assistant district attorney appearing before him in numerous court hearings, including trial (by the way, he disclosed we were former work colleagues in court appearances); and (3) now as a friend since I have joined his retention efforts. As a former colleague, I can tell you he was held in universal high esteem at the Attorney General’s Office. As a judge, he is one of the best judges I have appeared before. Judge Postma is smart, ethical, courteous, fully knowledgeable of governing case law and rules, and keeps the halls of equal justice open to all, irrespective of race, poverty, or any other inappropriate factor. As someone I am privileged to call friend, I can tell you he is not at all full of himself, is a wonderful family man, has a quick sense of humor, and is there for other people.
The press has paid minimal attention to what I believe is a truly critical issue in this election, which is the deprivation of due process of law for Judge Postma by scheduling his hearing before the Judicial Conduct Commission for after the election and not giving him the opportunity to clear his name from unfair critics. The Judicial Council in turn held a hearing with a minimal notice on a Sunday, presented Judge Postma with criticisms he couldn’t verify or fully critique (because the Council has no obligation to disclose evidence), and voted against his retention, ignoring, as I said, the high judicial scores that certainly speak in favor of retention. As I noted before, Judge Postma has consistently stood for improving standards at the district court level by not pre-signing court orders (a common practice in the court), questioning the calendaring system (in which some clerks believe the judges work for them and not the people), and minimizing efforts for inappropriate judge picking by both attorneys and the calendaring office. I have appeared as a judicial candidate in front of the Judicial Council myself. While I have no personal problem with any member, I can tell you that I believe the process gets skewed. Well-qualified candidates (myself excluded) are not advanced and block voting often occurs. And as I said, the process of Judge Postma’s retention recommendation hearing before the Council was suspect. Something is fishy when the Judicial Council schedules a hearing for a Sunday, forgets to publish it as a public hearing (which Judge Postma requested), and then attempts to exclude for a period of time the few people who knew about it.
As a last topic, to my Democratic friends. Please don’t be swayed by the fact that Judge Postma is a Palin appointee or represented by Mr. Van Flein. I have never heard Judge Postma utter a political word. He is truly, in my eyes, nonpartisan. And to my Republican friends (yes I have some), please don’t consider it a factor that I consistently vote blue. This election has nothing to do with party affiliation. It solely is about retaining a great judge.
In conclusion, I believe your vote for Judge Postma will make a critical difference for his retention and the preservation of due process of law. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me. You can also review www.judgepostma.com for more facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment