Arizona voters to decide on amendment that would end term limits and retention elections for state supreme court and superior court judges

Voters in Arizona will decide on a constitutional amendment that will end term limits and retention elections for state supreme court justices and superior court judges on Nov. 5, 2024. The constitutional amendment, titled Senate Concurrent Resolution 1044 (SCR 1044), would be retroactive to Oct. 31, 2024, nullifying the results of the retention elections scheduled for Nov. 5.

SCR 1044 was introduced on Feb. 5, 2024. It passed the Senate on March 6, 2024, by a 16-14 vote. The House amended the measure, and passed it by 31-29 on June 12, 2024, with all Republicans voting for it and all Democrats voting against it. The Senate passed the measure again on the same day by 16-10, with 16 Republicans voting for it and 10 Democrats voting against it (four Democrats did not vote).

The amendment would end term limits for state supreme court justices and superior court judges, replacing them with terms of good behavior unless decided otherwise by a judicial review commission. It would also end retention elections at the end of judicial terms, providing these elections under certain circumstances, such as the judge or justice being convicted of a felony or a crime involving fraud and dishonesty, or a declaration of bankruptcy or foreclosure. Retention elections could also occur by a determination of the Commission on Judicial Performance Review.

Currently, in Arizona, state supreme court justices have terms of six years, while superior court judges have four year terms.

State Rep. Alexander Kolodin (R-3), who supports the measure, said, “[The amendment] cuts down on the number of judicial retention elections to only those that the judicial performance review commission say are necessary because a judge has not met the standards of judicial conduct. That way it’ll be a smaller, more focused list of judges that voters will actually have time to research and examine and perhaps more voters would actually be willing to fill out their ballots and weigh in on that.”

State Rep. Judy Schwiebert (D-2), who opposes the amendment, said, “While proponents claim that this bill would prevent further politicization, the truth is that we absolutely need an important check on the court. Not only did the current justices rule against the people of Arizona by upholding a Civil War-era, territorial law criminalizing abortion but we see the Arizona Supreme Court make other decisions that are solely political, rather than upholding the will of Arizona voters.”

The terms of two Arizona Supreme Court justices—Clint Bolick and Kathryn Hackett King—will expire on Jan. 6, 2025. The two seats are up for retention election on Nov. 5, 2024. If retained, they will serve additional six-year terms.

Arizona voters will be deciding on 11 ballot measures in 2024. All were referred to the ballot by the Arizona state legislature. They are:

• Legal Challenge to Initiative Amendment: Would provide for challenges to an initiative measure or constitutional amendment after the filing of the measure with the secretary of state
• Criminal Conviction Fee for First Responder Death Financial Benefit Measure: Would establish a $20 fee on every conviction for a criminal offense, which would go to pay a benefit of $250,000 to the family of a first responder who is killed in the line of duty
• Emergency Declarations Amendment: Would provide for the legislature to terminate a state of emergency or alter the emergency powers of the governor during the state of emergency
• End Term Limits and Retention Elections for Supreme Court Justices and Superior Court Judges Amendment: Would end term limits for state supreme court justices and superior court judges, replacing them with terms of good behavior, unless decided otherwise by a judicial review commission, and would end retention elections at the end of the judicial term
• Immigration and Border Law Enforcement Measure: Would allow for state and local police to arrest noncitizens who cross the border unlawfully, allow for state judges to order deportations, require the use of the e-verify program for some public governmental programs and employment eligibility purposes, and make the sale of fentanyl a Class 2 felony if a person knowingly sells fentanyl resulting in the death of another person
• Legislative Ratification of Rules that Increase Regulatory Costs Measure: Would prohibit a proposed rule from becoming effective if that rule is estimated to increase regulatory costs by more than $500,000 within five years after implementation, until the legislature enacts legislation ratifying the proposed rule
• Life Imprisonment for Sex Trafficking of a Child Measure: Would provide for life imprisonment for an individual who is convicted of sex trafficking of a child
• Property Tax Refund for Non-Enforcement of Public Nuisance Laws Measure: Would allow for property owners to apply for a property tax refund in certain circumstances, including in instances if the city or locality in which the property is located does not enforce laws regarding illegal camping, loitering, obstructing public thoroughfares, panhandling, public urination or defecation, public consumption of alcoholic beverages, and possession or use of illegal substances
• Require Partisan Primaries and Prohibit Primaries Where Candidates Compete Regardless of Party Affiliation Amendment: Would require partisan primaries for partisan offices, meaning that members of political parties nominate their own candidates at primaries for general elections
• Signature Distribution Requirement for Initiatives Amendment: Would create a signature distribution requirement for citizen-initiated ballot measures based on state legislative districts
• Wages for Tipped Workers Amendment: Would allow for tipped workers to be paid 25% less per hour than the minimum wage if any tips received by the employee were not less than the minimum wage plus $2 for all hours worked