The Left’s relentless campaign of woke lawfare has been on my mind recently. As I wrote this fall in these very pages, “we are in the midst of a wave of lawfare against anything that resists the Left: the Trump Administration, industries that have refused to bend the knee to progressive policy preferences, and individuals who dare disagree or speak up against the Left’s worldview.”
This campaign of lawfare has been pushed by left-wing activists in conjunction with woke trial lawyers. Never forget how the trial lawyers at Cohen Milstein forced a settlement commitment from Google that put $300 million into a massive corporate DEI program, or how that same firm tried to bankrupt President Trump over January 6, or how the woke trial lawyers at Hagens Berman just launched yet another climate lawfare case to help impose what amounts to the Bernie Sanders Green New Deal through the courtroom.
It is important to see these woke trial lawyers for what they are and to combat them at every turn and foil their lawsuit campaign. But another fulcrum in the woke lawfare effort is judicial selection committees that have been imposed by liberals to prevent conservative elected officials from exercising the ability to appoint state judges that reflect the will of the voters, and without consideration of woke garbage, quotas, DEI, and liberal litmus tests.
The use of these judicial selection committees traffics under the name “the Missouri Plan.” And there has long been structural criti
But there has not been enough attention historically on how radical, blatantly inappro
Take Alaska, where there is notable litigation around who gets to be on the Alaska Judicial Council, putting it on the map in a way most of these commissions never are.
The Alaska Judicial Council “screens applicants for judicial vacancies and nominates the most qualified applicants for appointment by the governor.”
But the criteria used by the Alaska Judicial Council to determine who is “most qualified” would seem quite foreign to most Alaskans, and certainly most conservatives. For example, the Alaska Judicial Council is supposed to sort applicants by “legal and life experience; and demonstrated commitment to public and community service,” but then defines those terms such that “life experience” includes “exposure to persons of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds,” and “public and community service” includes a “demonstrated commitment to equal justice, and to the legal needs of the diverse communities of Alaska.”
And it’s not just in one place that the Alaska Judicial Council takes a woke stand in favor of DEI. The Council’s formal Selection Procedures document couldn’t be clearer about how the Council prioritizes “the diversity of the applicant’s personal and educational history,” “exposure to persons of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds,” and their “commitment to equal justice and the diverse communities of Alaska.” And the same document opens the door to potential discrimination against people of faith by calling upon the horrible liberal belief that those of deep faith are simply bigoted: “the Council does not consider an applicant’s political or religious beliefs, but will consider whether the applicant’s personal beliefs indicate a substantial bias.” In other words, the dogma shouldn’t live loudly within you, or you will be deemed biased and unworthy because your faith doesn’t match the progressive standard.
When the Alaska Judicial Council, or any other Missouri Plan judicial commission, sets out targets and standards like this, it is a reminder of how out of step these commissions are. It also raises some real questions about whether the state judge pickers are actually violating the law.
The Chief Justice of the United States has famously reminded everyone that “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” And federal law is clear, prohibiting the use of race, sex, religion, or national origin in conferring public opportunities.
When a judicial commission—in Alaska or anywhere else—embeds diversity, equity, and inclusion mandates directly into its hiring criteria, cites ethnic and cultural diversity requirements, and calls out religion as a basis for deeming someone biased, it calls for serious scrutiny from President Trump’s Civil Rights Division and any other officials who have the ability to investigate violations of anti-discrimination and Civil Rights laws.
The Left is engaging in woke lawfare and using its favorite litmus tests to try to capture our state judiciaries. The least we can do is notice what they are doing with these Missouri Plan judicial councils and subject them to basic scrutiny for their discriminatory ways.
Ken Blackwell served as mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio State Treasurer, and Ohio Secretary of State. He is the President of the Council for National Policy.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Townhall’s conservative reporting and opinion? Support our work by joining Townhall VIP! Use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member