|
If so, I am hopeful that help is on the way! For years at CAP, we've been seeking ways to enhance our voter education efforts by providing more information about judges on the retention ballot. This year, we're supporting two proposals to bring transparency and accountability to judicial retention.
In Arizona, judges appointed to the Arizona Supreme Court,Arizona Appellate Courts, and Superior Court in Maricopa and Pima County through the so-called merit selection system must be retained by the voters in an uncontested election.
Most voters and political observers see these retention elections as meaningless. Voters are provided with virtually no useful information on who the judges are, how they've ruled, or their judicial philosophy.
As one Arizona attorney noted last week, judges on the retention ballot have "a higher probability of winning the lottery than of losing their seat in retention."
Every time judicial retention is on the ballot, CAP is flooded with calls and emails from people asking for information about the judges up for retention. For the last three election cycles, we've sent surveys with five questions on judicial philosophy to judges on the retention ballot only to have most judges refuse to respond.
This week, I testified on two CAP-supported bills to provide voters with more information on judges. SB 1482 would require the Commission on Judicial Performance Review to publish online a listing of appellate judges' decisions and an electronic copy of the decisions. Posting this information in one easily accessible place for voters would shine light on what is currently a clouded and useless process for Arizonans.
SB 1472 would require the same Commission to publish information in the ballot publicity pamphlet listing the cases in which a judge's ruling was declared unconstitutional and a brief statement of the reason why.
Additionally, the bill establishes an "open public forum" whereby individual citizens or organizations could file a ballot pamphlet statement with the Secretary of State advocating for or against the retention of a judge. The state would publish these statements in the publicity pamphlet similarly to the process for ballot measure arguments. The judge up for retention would also have the opportunity to file a statement for the publicity pamphlet.
I also testified in favor of changing our method of selecting judges from merit selection to a modified federal model where the Governor appoints and the Senate confirms judges. Court decisions by activist judges have impacted each issue addressed by CAP. More often than not, the courts have imposed themselves as the policymakers rather than leave those decisions to the legislative body. That's one key reason why our CAP team will continue to promote measures to provide a check and balance on the power of Arizona's judiciary.
| 
