Goldwater Challenges Judicial Retention Case Before Supreme Court

The Goldwater Institute, an organization advocating for reduced government regulation, is urging the Arizona Supreme Court to enhance voter influence in selecting judges for the state Court of Appeals, specifically focusing on Maricopa County voters.

Lawyers for the institute argue that the current retentions system unfairly limits voting power, as it is based on where voters reside, leaving some judicial candidates unaccountable to constituents in various parts of the state.

In recent court filings, the Goldwater Institute highlighted that appellate court decisions set statewide precedents affecting nearly all Arizonans. They contend these rulings become law in around 99% of cases since few are reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Currently, Maricopa County residents can vote for appellate judges residing in their county only every six years. This system means specific cases could be decided by judges whom parties never had the opportunity to vote for.

Earlier this year, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Frank Moskowitz dismissed the Goldwater Institute’s claims, stating there is no constitutional violation as all residents retain equal voting rights, regardless of their ability to vote on specific appellate judges.

The complexities of the current judicial voting system further complicate the issue. Two divisions of the appellate court serve different counties, with Division 1 featuring judges from both Maricopa and several rural counties, each subject to unique voting regulations.

Voters in Division 1 only choose judges from their own counties, while those in Division 2 have a similar arrangement focused on Pima County. However, this creates disparities among voters, as some may find judges assigned to cases from different counties without having had a say in their retention.

The Goldwater attorneys assert that the current law contravenes the state constitution, which aims for equal voting rights. Their filings indicate that the unequal voting conditions among Arizona’s counties yield significant disparities in judicial accountability.

With approximately 2.4 million voters in Maricopa County participating in the retention of local judges, other counties face severe limitations—around 640,000 voters in Division 1 and 1 million in Division 2 lack the same power.

If the Goldwater Institute prevails, it could grant all Arizonans a voice in retaining appellate judges, but it may simultaneously consolidate power among Maricopa County voters, potentially skewing representation.

Governor Katie Hobbs previously vetoed a measure aimed at transitioning to a statewide voting system for appellate judges. Hobbs argued this system would dilute the votes of those most directly affected by judicial decisions.

Judge Moskowitz’s dismissal of the case noted that Goldwater’s arguments lacked factual support and were based on broad claims about constitutional equity rather than specific legal violations.

He further illustrated the nuances of the Arizona judicial system, emphasizing that changes could still allow for judges to be assigned from different counties, emphasizing that all voters maintain equal treatment under the current system.

Should the Goldwater Institute succeed in court, it will only partially alter the current voting framework for appellate judges, as the broader allocation system remains unaffected.