Judges’ Tenure Secured: Prop 137 Passage Means No Changes

PHOENIX — A recent report assessing the performance of judges seeking re-election indicates they all meet the required standards for another term. This evaluation arrives just in time for the November 5 election, where voters will have the chance to weigh in on two Supreme Court justices, four judges from the Court of Appeals, and 59 judges across various counties, including Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, and Coconino.

This election may mark a significant shift in how judges are retained. Proposition 137, also on the ballot, proposes to eliminate the requirement for judges meeting commission standards to receive voter approval for their next term. Supporters argue this change would streamline ballots and reduce unnecessary clutter for candidates who are likely to be re-elected.

If implemented, Prop 137 would render this year’s performance report the last opportunity for voters to actively decide on judges’ continued service, regardless of their evaluations. Future reviews would only apply to judges deemed unqualified, who would then need to prove their merit to voters.

Crucially, the proposition is designed to be retroactive, meaning it could override any votes made this year about the 69 judges on the ballot. Voters may find themselves without full agency during this election cycle. Until 1974, judges were elected in the same manner as other political officeholders. A constitutional amendment altered this, allowing for an appointive process for judges on the state Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and superior courts in major counties.

Under the current system, the governor appoints judges from a list provided by screening panels. After serving four years, or six in the case of Supreme Court and Court of Appeals judges, they face a retention vote. If a judge is rejected, the governor appoints someone to fill the vacancy.

Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer, who is not on the ballot this year, expressed little surprise at the high scores most judges received. “They had to be highly qualified in the first place to receive an interview with the Judicial Nominating Commission,” she stated, emphasizing the thorough vetting process judges undergo before reaching the ballot.

She added that many judges have served multiple terms, further refining their skills over years on the bench. The effectiveness of the Judicial Performance Review process has been demonstrated, as seen in the case of Judge Jo Lynn Gentry from Maricopa County, who chose not to seek re-election after preliminary findings indicated she did not meet the standards.

Nevertheless, there’s no simple correlation between review results and actual electoral outcomes. Of the judges voted out two years ago, only one had failed to meet expectations in the review.

The debate surrounding Prop 137 intensifies with significant figures on this year’s ballot. Supreme Court Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King, both meeting the commission standards, face opposition from advocacy groups like Progress Arizona, which seeks their removal and the defeat of Prop 137.

Should voters oust Bolick and King, Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs would have the opportunity to replace them with judges aligned with her pro-abortion rights stance. In a politically charged atmosphere, organizations like the National Democratic Redistricting Commission and Planned Parenthood Votes have committed at least $5 million to influence supreme court races nationwide, including Arizona, in light of shifts in abortion rights following the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling.