That has been a winning formula for her in past races, and Ms. Murkowski’s allies argue that it is her likeliest path to re-election.
“There’s no right to shore up,” said Jim Lottsfeldt, a lobbyist and political consultant based in Alaska who is close with Ms. Murkowski. “The people who love Trump will not forgive her for the impeachment vote; it’s a waste of time to chase them.”
There is no public polling yet in the race, and neither candidate is running television ads. Ms. Murkowski’s advisers insist that politics rarely, if ever, play into her votes on judicial nominees. They note that her 2018 vote against Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, Mr. Trump’s nominee, demonstrated that she is willing to pay a political price to vote her conscience. (Mr. Trump said at the time that she would “never recover” from the vote.)
She tends to keep her own counsel, and her staff often does not know how she plans to vote. Two years after her will-she-or-won’t-she vote on Justice Kavanaugh, Ms. Murkowski voted to confirm Justice Amy Coney Barrett, another of Mr. Trump’s Supreme Court nominees, despite vocally objecting to her party’s rushed process to push through the nomination on the eve of the 2020 election.
“She looks at the record, she looks at the person, she looks at the qualification and talks to them with an open mind,” said Scott Kendall, who previously served as her campaign counselor.
But her precarious political situation has only increased the pressure on Ms. Murkowski when it comes to Supreme Court battles past.
As she looked toward a difficult re-election race in 2010, Ms. Murkowski voted to oppose the confirmation of two of President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominees. She registered a surprise “no” on Justice Sonia Sotomayor in 2009, citing the nominee’s decisions in past cases involving the Second Amendment and property rights. A year later, she opposed Justice Elena Kagan, whom she called “evasive.”