Rising Political Influence in Arizona’s Judicial Retention Elections
As Arizona’s gubernatorial race heats up, campaigns targeting the removal of sitting judges have sparked widespread interest. Voter guides from across the political spectrum are circulating with detailed lists of judges deemed unsuitable to remain on the bench. Although judicial retention elections are designed to be nonpartisan, political groups have increasingly scrutinized judges’ appointments and past rulings through a partisan lens.
The potential consequences of voter decisions are significant. If a judge is removed, the next governor—either incumbent Democrat Katie Hobbs or Republican challenger Andy Biggs—will appoint replacements. Hobbs emphasizes her nonpartisan approach to judicial appointments, stating through her spokesperson Christian Slater that she selects judges based on their qualifications and commitment to public service rather than political affiliation.
Meanwhile, Biggs’ campaign, represented by Drew Sexton, has not explicitly stated his stance on current judges but highlights a focus on constitutional adherence in potential judicial appointments. “Andy Biggs will prioritize selecting judges who adhere to and uphold the Constitution as it’s written,” Sexton explained.
Interest in these retention elections has surged in recent cycles. In 2022, voters unseated three Maricopa County Superior Court judges, marking the first such removals since 2014. The political clamor has only intensified since the Arizona Supreme Court upheld a pre-statehood abortion ban, drawing attention to the retention races of Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King, although efforts to remove them were unsuccessful.
Political action committees (PACs), grassroots organizations, and political parties have all released lists of judges they believe should be ousted. Notably, the Freedom Club PAC, associated with the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, opposed the retention of several judges appointed by past Republican governors. Meanwhile, the Maricopa County Republican Committee targeted even more judges, without detailing their rationale.
On the other hand, Democratic and progressive-leaning groups provided detailed reasons for their opposition to specific judges. Gavel Watch advised against retaining several judges, while Arizona Judge Watch and State + Local Election Alliance critiqued judges based on case histories and perceived political biases.
Arizona Supreme Court Justice Ann Timmer emphasized that voters have the constitutional right to campaign for or against judges, but she also highlighted the importance of considering the comprehensive performance reviews conducted by the Commission on Judicial Performance Review. Former Justice Scott Bales echoed this sentiment, urging voters to rely on these reviews rather than partisan guides.
Paul Weich, an attorney and author of Arizona’s Law, is creating resources to provide voters with more nuanced information about judges beyond what partisan perspectives offer. He has begun collecting insights from judges themselves, although participation has been limited due to concerns about perceived fear among judges.
Weich stresses that the merit selection system in Arizona prevents purely partisan judicial appointments, as governors must choose from a shortlist of vetted candidates. As the election approaches, Arizonans are encouraged to engage with the full ballot to ensure the judiciary is composed of qualified and fair-minded individuals, continuing the state’s tradition of judicial meritocracy.
—
Read More Arizona News
