I don’t disagree with you on elections. But the fact that a commission gives a governor 3, or 4, or whatever, candidates for a position, it’s still that governor’s responsibility to look at the facts and come up with a wise decision. And if the qualifications aren’t sound (or debatable on issues), then the governor shouldn’t be afraid to toss them all out and tell the commission to go back to the drawing board. There’s too much to lose, otherwise.
Selection of justices
Alaska’s supreme court justices are chosen using the Commission-selection, political appointment method of judicial selection. The Alaska Judicial Council forwards a list of its nominees to the governor, who must choose a name from the list within 45 days to fill any vacancy. Justices serve 10-year terms on the court. Appointed justices are then subject to a retention election at the state’s first general election that is more than 3 years after the appointment.
http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Alaska_Supreme_Court
“must choose a name from the last within 45 days”
I prefer elected judges and believe the accused should be entitled to a judge who is qualified AND has been publicly examined through the process of election, and that he or she be clean and sober for at least 6 months preceding the time of swearing in.
It's little enough to ask in a country where so many unelected judges prefer sex with animals and hard drugs for recreation.