Judges Under Fire: Heightened Scrutiny in the Upcoming Election

The spotlight on judicial retention elections this cycle is predominantly on two state Supreme Court justices, although recent voter guides have also highlighted Superior and Court of Appeals judges. As the November election approaches, both Republican and Democratic parties have incorporated judicial elections into their voting guides, raising questions about the fate of down-ballot judges.

Citizen advocacy groups have a history of issuing voter guides focused on judges, but the involvement of party organizations in judicial elections marks a notable shift for the 2024 cycle. This heightened engagement follows the contentious 2022 elections, where voter turnout and awareness regarding judges were significantly lackluster.

Interest in judicial retention surged after three Superior Court judges were not retained in 2022, demonstrating the potential impact of advocacy efforts. Observers of the judiciary predicted such outcomes would galvanize new campaigns aimed at influencing voter decisions in future elections.

Political action committees have mobilized to both promote and oppose the retention of state Supreme Court justices, while grassroots organizations have made informed recommendations regarding Superior and Court of Appeals judges. Timothy Berg, co-chair of Arizonans for an Independent Judiciary, underscored the increasing profile of judicial retention selections, driven largely by the events of 2022.

In 2022, the Gavel Watch initiative by Civic Engagement Beyond Voting highlighted several judges, recommending non-retention for Justice Bill Montgomery and several other judges. Ultimately, voters did not retain judges Rusty Crandell, Stephen Hopkins, and Howard Sukenic, while Justice Montgomery narrowly retained his seat.

For 2024, Gavel Watch has re-emerged with a new guide, asserting a nonpartisan yet progressive perspective on judicial standards and voting. The guide utilizes comprehensive sources, including performance reports, to inform its recommendations on whether to retain judges.

This year’s guide advises against retaining Supreme Court Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King, as well as several Superior and Court of Appeals judges, citing specific concerns such as controversial rulings and public ratings. For instance, Judge Christopher Coury faced criticism for his ruling against the Invest in Ed initiative, while Judge Kellie Johnson’s recommendation against retention stems from her controversial ruling on the abortion ban.

Concerns regarding Judge Angela Paton relate to perceived conflicts of interest, given her husband’s previous involvement in her nomination process. Despite his claims of recusal, critics argue that the appearance of impropriety remains.

In addition to Gavel Watch, Democrat-led voter guides have similarly advised against retaining Judges Paton, Christopher Staring, and Brian Furuya, without providing detailed reasoning. Meanwhile, Republican strategies regarding down-ballot judges appear less unified, with varying recommendations across districts.

Some districts have cautioned against retaining numerous Superior Court judges, while others urged full retention in order to limit opportunities for Democratic appointments. Berg emphasized the importance of informed decision-making based on Judicial Performance Reviews, advocating for all judges’ retention as they meet established standards.

“Our position is ‘the system works,’” Berg stated. “The judicial performance review process is in place for a reason, and it offers a reliable foundation for voters.”