(C) Arizona Mirror
This story was originally published by Arizona Mirror and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



Progressive group asks AZ Supreme Court to block ballot measure giving judges lifetime appointments • Arizona Mirror [1]

['Caitlin Sievers', 'Jennifer Shutt', 'Kelcie Moseley-Morris', 'Sofia Resnick', 'Shauneen Miranda', 'More From Author', '- August', '.Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus-Coauthors.Is-Layout-Flow', 'Class', 'Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus']

Date: 2024-08

Progress Arizona is asking the state Supreme Court to keep voters from considering a ballot measure that would essentially give lifetime appointments to state judges.

The progressive advocacy group appealed to the high court to reverse a ruling from the trial court that gave the proposed constitutional amendment, sent to the ballot by Republican state lawmakers, the go-ahead to be placed on the November ballot.

If voters approve Proposition 137, known formally as “The Judicial Accountability Act of 2024,” it would make judicial terms indefinite and dependent on “good behavior” as opposed to voters deciding regularly if judges will continue to serve.

Instead, the decision of whether to allow a judge to remain on the bench would be placed in the hands of the Judicial Performance Review Commission, which would be expanded with members appointed by the state House and Senate. It would also allow any lawmaker to prompt an investigation into a judge by filing a written complaint with the commission.

Under Prop. 137, judges would only face a retention election if that Judicial Performance Review Commission finds a judge committed “a pattern of malfeasance” in office or if the judge: is convicted of a felony; is convicted of a crime involving fraud or dishonesty; files for personal bankruptcy; or has a mortgage that is foreclosed upon.

Progress Arizona argues that the ballot measure defies a requirement outlined in the Arizona Constitution that says voters should be given the chance to decide on unrelated constitutional amendments separately.

But last week a Yavapai County Superior Court judge ruled against the progressive group, saying that the proposed changes in the ballot measure were related to a single subject. Judge John Napper also shot down the group’s argument that the title of the measure was misleading.

“They will either reject SCR 1044 or adopt it fully aware of the modification to the right to vote for judges and of the intrusion into the independence of the judiciary,” Napper wrote. “A difficult decision, certainly, but not one they have been log-rolled into making.”

While one portion of the ballot measure amends the law surrounding judicial appointment, another section gives more power to the legislature to monitor judicial performance, an attorney for Progress Arizona, Jim Barton wrote in the appeal.

Progress Arizona claimed that, because some voters would agree with one portion of the ballot measure and disagree with another section, and with the two sections arguably in opposition to one another, they should be put to voters separately.

“On the one hand, it enhances judicial independence, or as opponents would put it, it reduces judicial accountability,” Barton wrote. “On the other hand, it enhances legislative oversight, or as opponents would put it, enables legislative interference.”

The single amendment rule differs from the single subject rule for ballot measures, which only requires that issues put to voters be limited to one subject, Barton pointed out. Both rules are meant to prevent log-rolling, or pairing “separate and distinct propositions into one proposed amendment so that voters favoring one proposition must vote for all.”

Citing previous case law, Barton wrote that, if the court “cannot conclude that the provisions should stand or fall together or that a voter supporting one would reasonably be expected to support the principle of the other, we are obliged to find that [the proposition] violates the separate amendment rule.”

Republican lawmakers previously defended the ballot measure saying that it is a way to better inform voters by paring down the number of judges they need to research before voting. The measure was one of several other resolutions that were created to avoid Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs’ veto pen.

Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King have both recused themselves from hearing the appeal. Both are up for retention election in November, and if the ballot measure is approved, those elections would be nullified.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://azmirror.com/briefs/prop-137-az-supreme-court-to-block-ballot-measure-giving-judges-lifetime-appointments/

Published and (C) by Arizona Mirror
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/azmirror/

You are viewing proxied material from magical.fish. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.