Alaska
Incoming Alaska Supreme Court chief justice applauds first female majority
Alaska’s highest court will have a new chief justice in January, and for the first time in its history, the court will be majority female.
Justice Susan Carney has served on the Alaska Supreme Court since 2016, and fellow justices recently selected her to be chief justice when current Chief Justice Peter Maassen retires in mid-January. Gov. Mike Dunleavy also announced this week the appointment of Aimee Anderson Oravec to fill Maassen’s seat, meaning the state’s high court will be comprised of three women and two men.
Carney, a longtime Fairbanks resident and former public defender, describes the female majority as a historic and remarkable occasion.
Listen:
[Sign up for Alaska Public Media’s daily newsletter to get our top stories delivered to your inbox.]
This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Susan Carney: I mean, personally, I think that’s great. I think it’s important for any court and any court system to reflect the community that it serves. Male judges have dominated the court system since it was created, and it’s about time that, at least for a bit, there’s a majority of women on the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals previously was all women, until a fourth judge was added. As a woman, I’m pretty happy about it. I’m also happy to have another Fairbanks justice. This is also the first time that the court will have a majority of justices not in Anchorage.
Casey Grove: Yeah, that is interesting. So in this role as Chief Justice, you’re the head administrator for the judicial branch of the state. Justice Maassen had delivered the State of the Judiciary (speech) last year, and Chief Justice Winfree before that. And I think both of them mentioned some challenges. One of those challenges was just access to the judicial system, and I think that means both buildings and in other ways. Where are we at with that?
SC: You know, somewhat strangely, some of the things that we learned during the pandemic have really helped that. I practiced in Fairbanks my whole career as a public defender. I had lots and lots of cases in remote villages. And number one, there aren’t courthouses in really small villages. We try to have at least a part-time magistrate judge in the bigger hub communities. But for people that live in real small, remote villages, getting physically to a court is difficult at best and often impossible. So we’ve learned so much about using technology that makes it much easier for people to appear in court by video, which is dramatically better than calling in by phone, so that right there makes a big difference in people’s access.
CG: And I guess another challenge that has come up just since the pandemic is this backlog of cases. And I think that’s been mentioned every year since the pandemic started, basically. But where are we at with that? And I guess in your role, I mean, how do you look at that?
SC: You know, the whole court system is really devoted to trying to cut this backlog, and we’ve made real strides at every level. Our Judicial Conference at the end of October had an entire day devoted to, you know, “Here are concrete things that all of us, judges at every level, can do to try and move these things along.” And we really have made a significant step toward cutting down the backlog, which is not to say it isn’t still there, but we really are working toward it.
CG: Yeah. You know, I saw in the bio that the court system sent out about your selection to be the chief justice that you have a strong history in sports, in softball and basketball and soccer. And I wonder, through your career, have you learned lessons from participating in team sports that have, you know, maybe helped you with your work?
SC: Absolutely, and I think most surprisingly and most relevant to this job, when I interviewed with the governor for this job, I was asked, why could I possibly think I could do this? Because I’ve been a public defender forever, doing almost exclusively criminal matters, and the Supreme Court doesn’t. The Court of Appeals gets all the criminal matters. And what I said was there are five people on this court, which is like a basketball team, and different justices bring different experience the same way different roles on a basketball team are filled by tall people or short people, or the one that can pass the best. And pretty much from that moment on, the conversation and interview revolved around basketball.
CG: He probably gets asked a lot if he plays or played basketball, I imagine.
SC: And Gov. (Bill) Walker, at one point, was asking me, “Well, I’ve played it, I grew up and I played in these villages. Did you play in those villages?” No, but, you know, I’ve played in Anaktuvuk for a number of years.
CG: Yeah. I wanted to ask you about something related to the governor’s office, and, I mean, the current administration. There was a dispute, if you want to call it that — or maybe dissatisfaction, I think is the way some people described it — a few years ago about the selection process for judges, and I think including Supreme Court justices, in that the governor and some others had expressed dissatisfaction about that process, that there’s only the three names that get recommended by the Alaska Judicial Council. Side note, the Chief Justice is a deciding vote on that council. Do you see that issue as being settled? Is that going to come back? I mean, do you think that’s something you’ll have to deal with eventually?
SC: It may come back. I don’t really have a crystal ball. I know that there are people that feel strongly that having a different process for selecting judges would be better. My understanding of how we got to where we are, boiled down to its most basic, is because we came into the United States so late, we had the ability — we, meaning the constitutional delegates — to look at what every other state had done, except for Hawaii, and figure out what they thought was the best way to pick it. And they put a lot of time and effort into it.
I think it works well. I think that it’s important for judges to not be political. Our ethical standards require us not to. We cannot be swayed by political concerns or favoritism for a litigant or our emotions. And this process, by and large, takes out the political nature of who gets to be a judge. You know, the governor ultimately gets to pick, and the governor, of course, is a politician.
CG: One thing I really wanted to ask you, as we’ve been watching oral arguments here recently, like with the United States Supreme Court, we kind of get an idea of what the justices are thinking based on the questions that they ask the folks giving oral arguments. But then, when you make a decision, or before you make a decision on a case, there’s conference between the justices, and that’s not something that we get to see. I just wonder, what is that like? I mean, are those arguments? Are they heated? What is it like?
SC: Rarely. It’s very cordial, really, somewhat formal, particularly for me, having come from a public defender agency where things are not formal. It is at times somewhat emotional, where people vehemently believe in a position, but it is always, always polite. It is rarely heated. I can’t remember more than a handful of times in the time I’ve been on the court where anyone’s voice was actually raised at another justice.
CG: Maybe cordial, but does it get contentious?
SC: I mean, it can, and if there really are just fundamental disagreements that will lead to there being an opinion in the case and a dissent. That really doesn’t happen very much here, you know, certainly not in comparison to the United States Supreme Court, where there are certain cases that people can look at and pretty accurately predict that there will be a majority and there will be a dissent, and who will be in which. We work hard to not dissent, unless it’s really critical. People are asking us to answer a particular question, and they want the right answer for it. And if there is a right answer, there shouldn’t be a couple of them or three of them. If there really is a correct answer, we should be able to get together and figure out what it is, and then make that clear to people.
CG: That’s interesting. It does, you know, from the outside, seem very different than the U.S. Supreme Court.
You know, I know the Supreme Court deals with actual legal marital disputes, but, you know, I wonder, do people hear what you do for a living, do they bring their trivial disputes to you? You know, like, should the toilet paper be put on this way or that way?
SC: No, I don’t think people ask me about legal things much. Nowhere near as much as they did when I was a public defender. And then there would be a steady stream of friends that would say, “I don’t know any ‘real’ lawyers, so let me ask you this.”
CG: Oh, come on! But you are a real lawyer!
Casey Grove is host of Alaska News Nightly, a general assignment reporter and an editor at Alaska Public Media. Reach him atcgrove@alaskapublic.org. Read more about Caseyhere.
Alaska
Man with same name as Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan can appear on GOP primary ballot, state’s Supreme Court rules
The battle of the Dan Sullivans is on.
The Alaska Supreme Court ruled Monday that a man with the same name as Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan can challenge the sitting lawmaker in the state’s GOP Senate primary in August. The high court upheld a ruling from a lower court judge that cleared the way for Daniel J. Sullivan to appear on the primary ballot, reversing a decision by state officials earlier this month that he was ineligible because he was allegedly trying to confuse voters.
The state Supreme Court directed Alaska’s Division of Elections to decide how Daniel J. Sullivan should be listed on the ballot “within the confines of existing Alaska ballot design law.”
The conflict is taking place in one of the country’s most closely watched Senate elections. The sitting Sen. Sullivan is running for a third term, but former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola is vying to challenge him, setting up what could be an unusually competitive race in a deep-red state that hasn’t elected a Democrat to the Senate in almost 20 years.
The senator has called his same-name competitor a “sham candidate” and accused him of trying to trick voters and help Democrats flip the seat. Daniel J. Sullivan — a retired teacher and former U.S. Forest Service employee from Petersburg, Alaska — has denied those allegations and insisted he is both qualified and genuinely interested in running for Senate.
About two weeks ago, the Alaska Division of Elections determined that the challenger Sullivan could not appear on the ballot, arguing his paperwork “was not filed in order to declare an actual good-faith candidacy, but was instead filed with a purpose to confuse or mislead.”
In a letter to the candidate, Director Carol Beecher pointed to the fact that Daniel J. Sullivan had initially requested to appear on the ballot as “Dan Sullivan,” the same name format as the senator. She also wrote that he hadn’t previously been affiliated with the state Republican Party, had a website design that “appears to be deliberate[ly]” similar to the senator’s campaign site and had worked with a political consultant with links to Democratic candidates.
Daniel J. Sullivan asked a state court to reverse the decision. On Friday, Judge Thomas Matthews ruled in his favor, finding the non-senator Sullivan met the requirements to run for U.S. Senate and the state didn’t have the authority to exclude him based on “good faith.”
“The court does not minimize the Division’s concern that voters should not be misled,” the judge wrote. But he added that “Alaska election law gives the Division tools to address that concern,” including regulating how candidates appear on the ballot.
With ballots set to be printed this week, the issue was appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court on an expedited basis, with both sides filing court papers over the weekend.
The state Division of Elections asked the high court to overturn Matthews’ ruling, arguing it would “leave Alaska constitutionally required to permit bad-faith ballot access.” The agency said it reached its conclusion about Daniel J. Sullivan after it received a complaint from the National Republican Senatorial Committee “credibly alleging” he was seeking to “cause voter confusion” and made a “bewildering” request to appear on the ballot with the senator’s middle initial.
If Daniel J. Sullivan is permitted to remain on the ballot, the state asked the Alaska Supreme Court to allow it to print his full name and list his party affiliation as “nonpartisan” to “ensure voters are not forced to guess between two nearly identical names.”
The Alaska Republican Party and several GOP-led states filed amicus briefs siding with Alaska.
Daniel J. Sullivan’s lawyers, meanwhile, argued the state “lacked any basis in Alaska law to exclude Mr. Sullivan from the ballot” and didn’t have the power to look into his “private motivations.” They wrote that state law doesn’t give officials the power to keep qualified candidates off the ballot due to potential confusion.
“[All] that Mr. Sullivan asks here is to be listed on the ballot, and the Division is obviously empowered to do so in a non-confusing manner,” his lawyers wrote.
Following oral arguments, the high court sided with Daniel J. Sullivan in a two-page order late Monday, and said it would issue a fuller opinion at a later date.
Jeffrey Robinson, an attorney for Daniel J. Sullivan, told CBS News his legal team is “grateful” for the Alaska Supreme Court’s decision to “affirm Judge Matthews’ well-reasoned, thorough order vacating the Division’s unlawful decision to exclude Mr. Sullivan as a candidate.”
“We expect that the Division will act in full compliance with existing Alaska ballot design law in its preparation of the ballots,” Robinson said in an email.
The senator’s campaign spokesperson, Nate Adams, said: “We’re disappointed in the court’s decision because as the sham candidate Dan J. Sullivan’s lawyers made clear in their legal arguments, the only reason he is running is to deceive voters and manipulate Alaska’s election system.”
“However, we are encouraged by the fact that the Director of the Division of Elections will be able to use her expertise to differentiate between the Petersburg fraud and the incumbent — Senator Dan Sullivan — to the benefit of Alaska voters,” Adams said.
The first Jesuit missionaries in Alaska sailed up the Yukon River in 1887. By the turn of the 20th century, the religious order of the Catholic Church had as many as 50 Jesuits in the state.
Now, only two remain. And by the end of June, there will be none.
The Jesuits’ nearly 140 years in the state was honored at an event at Bethel’s Immaculate Conception Church on June 16. A procession of priests wearing long white gowns with red hems walked down the aisle to open the event. The Bishop of the Diocese of Fairbanks, Stephen Maekawa, thumped the ground with a shimmering silver staff known as a clozier as he approached the altar.
“My brothers and sisters, we gather together to celebrate this wonderful and blessed occasion to acknowledge the love of God and the work of God through the 139 year mission of the Society of Jesus of the Jesuit fathers,” Maekawa said to open the event.
A traditional Catholic mass followed, with readings in both English and Yup’ik. During the sermon, Maekawa acknowledged the vastness of the Fairbanks diocese, and the tremendous amount of work done by the Jesuits to establish it.
“All of the 46 churches of the Diocese of Fairbanks that we currently have were established by either the Jesuit fathers or by direction of a Jesuit bishop,” Maekawa said. “We have a long history of the Society of Jesus’ presence and ministry here in all of Alaska.”
The Jesuits are an order within the Catholic Church, akin to the Dominicans or Franciscans. They have a reputation for taking on some of the Catholic Church’s most remote assignments.
That missionary spirit brought the Jesuits to the Yukon River in 1887, where they built churches, schools, and ministries. Without their work, Catholicism may not have taken root in huge swaths of Alaska, particularly among Alaska Native communities.
But the Jesuits leave a complicated legacy. Their methods of converting Native people to the religion, particularly in the first half of the 20th century, created generational traumas still felt to this day.
Fr. Sean Carroll is the provincial of the Jesuits West Province, which oversees Alaska and nine other states.
“Thank you for all that you have taught us about who Jesus is and how to love and serve Him wholeheartedly,” Carroll said. “I also thank you for your patience with us. For there have been times when we have sinned and when we have hurt you.”
Missionaries, including the Jesuits, forcefully converted and assimilated Alaska Native people into Western culture and religion. Students at Jesuit-run boarding schools were forced to abandon their Native languages and physically punished when caught speaking languages other than English. Native dancing and drumming were also banned.
The Jesuits West Province maintains a list of 150 Jesuits with credible claims of sexual abuse against minors or vulnerable adults. A quarter of the accused Jesuits served in Alaska at some point in time.
“I ask for your forgiveness for all that we have done that was not rooted in Christ and love for Him, and for when we did not value your culture nor recognize the presence of God in you,” Carroll said.
Carroll gave the order to withdraw from the state last spring. A big issue was the recruitment of Jesuits willing to travel and serve in remote villages. He told the congregation that the Jesuits’ work would continue, just without a permanent presence.
Fr. Rich Magner is one of the two remaining Jesuit priests in Alaska. His last day serving Chevak, Hooper Bay, and Scammon Bay is June 30.
“We all always knew coming in, or should have known, that we’re not going to be here forever. It’s going to be mission accomplished at some point,” Magner said. “And then we hand it off to the diocese that we’ve helped create, and so that’s a good feeling.”
Magner’s next stop is a Clinical Pastoral Education residency in Tacoma, Washington.
The other remaining priest, Fr. Tom Provinsal, first came to Alaska in 1968 to teach. A fond memory, he said, was meeting Elders that practiced traditional subsistence lifestyles.
“Some of the grandmothers, their fingers were just all bent with arthritis and stuff like that, you know, their whole lives they’ve been working out in the cold and the wet, doing food, sewing, all that kind of stuff,” Provinsal said. “I’d say I just feel very privileged to have come when I did come and to see that.”
Provinsal returned in 1975 as a priest and has served in the region ever since. After moving away, he plans to take a five month sabbatical. What happens next, he said, is in God’s hands.
Two lines formed in the aisle for communion at the end of the mass. After taking communion, Bethel’s Parish Administrator Susan Murphy gave a final thank you.
“It’s difficult to say goodbye to people who have been a part of our lives for so long,” Murphy said. “We know that you have done what was yours to do, and have taught us to do what is ours to do. We are grateful.”
Dominic Hunt, a Yup’ik deacon that flew in from Emmonak for the event, led the congregation through a final prayer.
“Bless them with your wisdom, that they may be a word of hope, a world in need. We ask this through Christ, our Lord. Amen,” Hunt said.
About 70 people posed for a photo on the altar – priests, deacons, parishioners, Elders and children — many of them smiling, some standing quietly.
The photo doesn’t tell the whole story. But it’s a moment when gratitude, grief, and memory all shared the same room.
JUNEAU, Alaska (KTUU) – The Supreme Court of Alaska will be taking up the case of the State of Alaska, Division of Elections v. Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr.
The oral arguments will be held Monday at 10 a.m. via Zoom, according to an order and opening notice.
The document also specifies that a decision is expected to be made before noon on Tuesday.
According to documents from the Division of Elections, the state must start printing ballots at noon on the same day.
This comes after an Anchorage Superior Court Judge ordered Dan J. Sullivan on to the ballot Friday.
See a spelling or grammar error? Report it to web@ktuu.com
Copyright 2026 KTUU. All rights reserved.
-
Business6 minutes agoComcast is spinning off NBCUniversal media and entertainment assets
-
Entertainment11 minutes agoAlannah Keyser is latest fired ‘Love Island USA’ contestant to apologize for using a racist slur
-
Lifestyle18 minutes agoChanel’s Bruno Pavlovsky on Reengineering an Iconic Brand
-
Politics21 minutes agoSupreme Court limits police use of cellphone data to find crime suspects
-
Sports33 minutes agoTeoscar Hernández returns, and Dodgers unleash 17-hit barrage in win over Athletics
-
World41 minutes agoDR Congo says 1,307 Ebola cases confirmed, including 377 deaths
-
News1 hour agoMichigan governor threatens to pull troops from D.C. if used for Trump task force
-
New York2 hours agoMetropolitan Diary Challenge Day 2: How to Write Your N.Y. Story
