(The Center Square) – With 73% of Arizona precincts reporting, Prop. 137 will not be voted into law with only 21.61% of voters having voted in favor of it Tuesday.
Prop. 137 would have ended the current four and six-year term limits for trial and appellate court judges and replaced it with an unlimited term as long as they maintained “good behavior.”
“Proposition 137 would amend the Arizona Constitution to provide that judges and justices appointed through the merit selection process would no longer be subject to a set four-year or six-year term of office and an automatic retention vote,” reads the legislative analysis. “Rather, Proposition 137 provides that those judges and justices who have not reached the mandatory retirement age would hold office during good behavior.”
According to the proposed amendment, non-good behavior contributing to a retention vote include the final conviction of a felony offense, the final conviction of a crime involving fraud or dishonesty, the initiation of personal bankruptcy proceedings, the foreclosure of any mortgage or if the majority of the members on the Commission on Judicial Performance Review believes that the justice or judge doesn’t meet the judicial performance standards.
“The JPR Commission would evaluate each judge and justice at least once every four years,” reads the legislative analysis. “Membership on the JPR Commission would be expanded to include one member appointed by a majority of the Arizona House of Representatives and one member appointed by a majority of the Arizona State Senate.”
Additionally, the commission would be required to investigate a judge or justice at the request of a state legislator.
Those in favor of this measure have two main arguments: shorter election nights and ethical reviews of judges.
“In Maricopa County there are over fifty people running for retention,” reads a statement from Prescott resident Connie Martin, sponsored by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. “Who are these people? Does anyone really know? Of course not. None of us do. There are so many, in fact, that it is possible for many bad judges to be hiding among the good ones. That is probably why none of them ever lose. This proposition would ensure that the ballot would be much shorter. It would also ensure that the worst judges are singled out to be on the ballot. If passed, it will make elections cost less, a shorter ballot, fewer errors in tabulating ballots (which will make sure we get a quicker result on election day!) and singling out those judges who have been terrible at their jobs.”
However, those who are against Prop. 137 say that only putting judges who have been unethical on the ballot is taking power away from the voters, noting that additionally, Prop. 137 is retroactive meaning that if voted into law, it will nullify all votes on judges running in this election cycle.
“This measure allows Arizona judges to retain their positions until retirement at age 70, without the public oversight that Arizonans currently have,” said Phoenix resident Dean Martin in a statement. “As of now, every 6 years judges face retention elections. Judges making decisions that are contrary to the view of the majority of Arizonans can be held accountable by the will of the voters and not be retained. We have had this right for over 50 years and it plays an important part in our democracy, as it allows us to vote for judges who we know will work for justice in Arizona and not those who uphold a partisan political agenda.”
