As civil rights groups focus their efforts on Arizona, the Republican Party has placed Proposition 137 on the November ballot. The proposed measure aims to eliminate retention elections for judges, effectively safeguarding conservative control over the state supreme court and removing voters’ ability to unseat justices.

Introduced in June amid backlash regarding the supreme court’s decision to uphold an 1864 abortion ban, Prop 137 is seen as a response to increasing progressive activism. Following this ruling, the advocacy group Progress Arizona initiated a campaign targeting justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King, who are up for retention this fall. The campaign reflects dissatisfaction with the court’s partisan composition and its decisions.

If passed, Proposition 137 would void the concurrent retention elections for Bolick and King on November 5. Critics, including Abigail Jackson, digital director of Progress Arizona, argue that the proposal is a blatant “power grab” aimed at silencing dissent. “It is designed to take away our voices,” she stated.

Jake Faleschini, a program director at the Alliance for Justice, emphasizes a trend of Republican-led initiatives nationwide to consolidate judicial power. In Arizona, a conservative majority was established when Republicans expanded the supreme court last decade. “At the end of the day, they want policy outcomes from the courts and are willing to change the rules to achieve that,” he explained.

Supporters of Prop 137 argue it is meant to shield judges from public backlash, enabling them to rule without the fear of losing their positions. Republican Senator David Gowan, one of the measure’s primary sponsors, expressed concern over external influence in state elections. “This proposition makes it difficult for nefarious outsiders to manipulate our judicial process,” he said, alluding to the influx of out-of-state funding to unseat judges.

The context surrounding Prop 137 reflects broader tensions in Arizona’s judicial landscape. While the current system requires judges to undergo performance reviews and retention elections, the proposed changes would significantly alter this process. Judges are currently appointed by the governor from a shortlist curated by a panel, which itself is appointed by the governor. However, Prop 137 suggests removing the public’s role entirely, allowing judges to face voters only for performance issues or serious misconduct.

Opponents of the measure, including Felicia Rotellini from the Keep Courts Accountable political action committee, stress the importance of public oversight in maintaining judicial integrity. “Without the vote of the people, the judges would have no accountability,” she warned, arguing that without checks, judges might lean toward personal or political biases.

The debate has polarized the legal community, with prominent figures such as retired Chief Justice Ruth McGregor speaking out against Prop 137 at a recent event. “We will lose part of our democracy,” Rotellini added, echoing concerns about undermining the public’s role in the judicial process.

If implemented, the measure would position Arizona apart from its western counterparts, where judicial elections are common. Currently, a bipartisan commission evaluates judges based on performance metrics, ensuring that their capabilities are transparent to the electorate. Under the proposed system, judges may only appear on ballots after significant infractions, effectively reducing public engagement in judicial accountability.

Proposition 137 represents a broader struggle over the influence of ideology in the judiciary, as highlighted by prior controversies surrounding Arizona’s judicial appointments. Recent years have seen increasing political scrutiny of judicial conduct, particularly concerning issues like abortion rights that have galvanized voter sentiment.

Bolick, a justice targeted for removal, argues that efforts to oust him reflect a politicization of the judiciary. He contends that these campaigns, driven by frustration over policy outcomes, aim to replace judges with those aligned with specific ideological objectives. As Arizona faces significant political shifts—particularly after a Democratic governor won office—Prop 137 embodies attempts by Republicans to solidify their influence within state courts.

As the election approaches, the implications of Prop 137 extend beyond the current justices. Voters will ultimately decide whether they wish to maintain a system that includes their input in judicial accountability, or whether to endorse a structure potentially less responsive to public sentiment.