By Howard Fischer
Mail | X: @azcapmedia

PHOENIX — A new report detailing the ratings on all judges who say they want another term in office concludes they all meet the standards and should be given another term.

The scores come ahead of the Nov. 5 election where voters will get the last word on two Supreme Court justices on the ballot, four judges from the Court of Appeals, 42 judges of Maricopa County Superior Court, 16 up this year from Pima County, four from Pinal County and one from Coconino County.

This also could be the last time voters actually have a say on most judges.

That’s because of Proposition 137, also on the ballot. It would eliminate the requirement for judges who are found to have met commission standards to earn voter approval for another term. Proponents argue there’s no reason to clutter up the ballot for those who meet standards and are likely to be returned to office anyway.

But Proposition 137, if approved, also make this year’s report the last time voters could get a chance to decide, regardless of the findings, whether someone should remain on the bench. Only those who would be found to not meet qualifications — a rare but not unheard-of occurrence based on the survey questions — would have to convince voters they deserve another term.

In fact, voters may not even have a full say this time.

Proposition 137 is crafted to make it retroactive to before the Nov. 5 election. If approved, it would not only change the rules in the future but would override any votes cast this year to oust any of the 69 judges on the ballot.

Until 1974, all judges were elected the same as other politicians: facing off against challengers. A change in the Arizona Constitution resulted in a new appointive process for judges on the state Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and the superior courts of the largest counties.

Under that system, the governor fills vacancies from a list furnished by screening panels. Then, every four years — six for those on the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals — judges stand for retention on a retain-or-reject basis. If voters reject a judge, the vacancy is filled through another gubernatorial appointment.

Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer, whose is not up for retention, told Capitol Media Services she is not surprised most judges score high.

“They had to be highly qualified in the first place to get an interview with the Judicial Nominating Commission,” she said, the panel that screens applicants. Then they need to do well enough to get the votes to send their names to the governor.

And, finally, the governor needs to pick them.

“It naturally follows that most judges would perform at a high caliber just as they did as attorneys,” Timmer said.

“Second, I suspect that for many of these judges, it’s not their first time on the ballot,” the chief justice said. “Thus, in addition to already being highly qualified, these judges have increased their skills through years on the bench.”

There also are signs the Judicial Performance Review process does work.
Among those whose terms were up this year was Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jo Lynn Gentry, who was first named to the court in 2005.

Preliminary findings of the surveys reviewed earlier this year found Gentry did not meet standards. She chose to not seek a new four-year term.

Still, there isn’t necessarily a direct connection between the reviews and what happens at the ballot box: Of the three judges voters turned out of office two years ago, only one had been found to not meet expectations.

All that leads to the debate over Proposition 137. Among those on the ballot this year are Supreme Court Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King.

Both were determined to have met the standards of the Commission on Judicial Performance Review. But both are the targets of efforts by Progress Arizona to convince voters to turn both of them out of office as well as to defeat Proposition 137.

If Proposition 137 is approved, however, that retroactivity clause would void any majority decision to deny them new six-year terms.

Bolick and King, both appointed by Republican Doug Ducey when he was governor, provided two of the four votes on the court earlier this year that ruled an 1864 law outlawing abortion except to save the life of the mother trumped a 2022 law allowing the procedure until the 15th week.
State lawmakers have since voted to repeal the old law. And no changes on the court now would overturn the decision.

But if the pair were turned out of office, that would give Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs, an abortion rights advocate, a chance to replace them with her own choices.

Progress Arizona is not alone in seeking to affect this year’s judicial elections.

The National Democratic Redistricting Commission and Planned Parenthood Votes announced in May they intend to spend at least $5 million on supreme court races across the country, with a focus on six states, including Arizona. The reason, they said, is that those courts are crucial to determining whether abortion rights stay in place after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.