Justices Defend Their Roles as Voters Retain Control Over the Bench

In a decisive election outcome, Arizona voters have reaffirmed their faith in the judicial system by retaining two state Supreme Court justices and overwhelmingly rejecting Proposition 137, a measure aimed at altering the judicial retention process.

Preliminary results reveal that 79% of voters dismissed Proposition 137, which sought to negate outcomes from the 2024 retention election and curtail the frequency of judicial reviews by voters. This strong rejection suggests a collective trust in the current system of judicial accountability.

Supreme Court Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King are also expected to remain in their positions, garnering retention votes from 58.42% and 59.47% of voters, respectively. The support for these justices reflects the electorate’s willingness to evaluate judicial performance on merit.

All Arizona Court of Appeals judges and 42 Maricopa County Superior Court judges appear to be safe, with votes showing favorable margins across the board. The retention elections this year marked a significant increase in public engagement compared to previous cycles, propelled by high-profile campaigns surrounding the justices.

Campaigns for and against Justices Bolick and King centered on controversial decisions, particularly regarding the abortion ban and school funding. Opponents attempted to link their judicial records to calls for their removal, while supporters emphasized the dangers of politicizing the judiciary.

The Judicial Independence Defense PAC played a pivotal role in advocating for the retention of Bolick and King, raising significant funds from high-profile donors, including $125,000 from Randy Kendrick and $200,000 from billionaire investor Jeff Yass. This financial backing underscored a concern about potential shifts in the court’s balance of power.

Conversely, the campaign against the justices reported minimal funding, suggesting a disparity in resources between the opposing sides. Despite this, advocates for retention hailed the results as a reaffirmation of the justices’ reputations.

Looking forward, the defeat of Proposition 137 has ensured that judicial retention elections will continue as they currently exist. Advocates of the proposition argued that the lengthy ballot creates confusion, but voters demonstrated an overwhelming preference to maintain their rights to judge judicial performance.

Cathy Sigmon, co-founder of Civic Engagement Beyond Voting, remarked that the election results signal a firm rejection of efforts to limit voter engagement in the judicial process. She noted, “The people in Arizona don’t like to have their powers curtailed or taken away.”

Overall, while individual judges faced scrutiny, the election results indicate a robust public commitment to maintaining a vigilant judicial review process. Bolick and King’s relatively lower retention margins may suggest heightened voter awareness and interest in the judicial selection process, paving the way for an engaged electorate in future elections.