Campaigns Clash for 2 Az Supreme Court Justices Behind 1864 Abortion Ban Reboot

This year, Arizona’s judicial retention elections have taken center stage, featuring campaigns advocating for and against the retention of two state Supreme Court justices. Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King, both appointed by former Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, are facing a routine retention vote after their six-year term. Complicating matters is Proposition 137, a proposed constitutional amendment that aims to grant judges lifetime appointments, potentially making this their last retention election.

Historically, Arizona voters have never ousted a Supreme Court justice during retention elections, which have been in place for over 50 years. However, this time, the stakes seem higher. Both Bolick and King voted in April to uphold an 1864 abortion ban, a decision that has sparked significant backlash, particularly from progressive groups. Progress Arizona, in collaboration with Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona, has formed a political action committee named “Protect Abortion Rights, No Retention Bolick and King.” The committee aims to educate voters about the justices’ ruling and encourage a no vote on their retention.

During a recent press conference, PAC spokesperson Morgan Finkelstein criticized the justices, stating, “This horrific decision followed decades of planning by abortion activists who advocated for the appointment of far-right judges.” She referenced the reinstatement of the old abortion ban following the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade, a ruling that has shifted the legal landscape post-2022.

The justices’ reinstatement of the highly controversial Civil War-era abortion law, which lacks exceptions for rape or incest, has been met with widespread disapproval, according to Finkelstein. She also highlighted Proposition 137’s implications, remarking that if it passes, it could protect Bolick and King from being removed, even if voters choose to reject them.

Critics of the proposition argue it undermines voter choice and judicial accountability. Erika Mach, another spokesperson from Planned Parenthood, emphasized the importance of voters having the ability to reject judges who are deemed out of touch with public sentiment.

In response to the anti-retention campaign, a counter-effort named the “Judicial Independence Defense PAC” has emerged. This committee seeks to inform voters about the merit selection process, underscoring the integrity and impartiality that Bolick and King have purportedly exemplified. Daniel Scarpinato, a spokesperson for this effort, insisted that the justices have acted within the law and denounced the campaign against them as politically motivated.

Bolick himself weighed in on the ongoing discourse. In an op-ed, he defended his vote as adhering to established law rather than reflecting personal beliefs, referencing a bipartisan effort to repeal the ban that included his wife, state Sen. Shawnna Bolick. He cautioned that the movement to remove the justices is fueled by partisan agendas seeking to install judges who align with specific political views.

Critics assert that the funding for the PAC opposing Bolick and King is heavily influenced by out-of-state interests and billionaires. Finkelstein asserted that contributions to the “No Retention” PAC emphasize a local grassroots effort to challenge judges deemed extreme in their judicial rulings.

As the election approaches, the contrasting narratives surrounding these retention votes will undoubtedly shape the conversation in Arizona. With substantial funds and fervent campaigns on both sides, voters are poised to engage in a pivotal decision that transcends traditional judicial elections.