Ballot measure would eliminate most judicial retention elections

Judges would no longer have to face the voters except in limited circumstances, and anyone the voters decide to boot from office this year would get to keep their job under a measure on the November ballot.

The big picture: Under the current system, Arizona Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges must go before the voters every six years for an up-or-down vote on whether they remain on the bench, and superior court judges in Coconino, Maricopa, Pima and Pinal counties must do so every four years.

• Proposition 137, which GOP lawmakers referred to the ballot, would end most retention elections.

Zoom in: Judges would only have to go up for retention if they're convicted of felonies or crimes involving fraud or dishonesty, if they file bankruptcy, have a mortgage foreclosed on, or if the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review finds they don't meet performance standards.

• The commission would be required to investigate malfeasance allegations against a judge at the request of any state legislator.
• The measure would be retroactive, so if it passes it'll invalidate any losing retention elections for judges this year.

Why it matters: Retention elections are most voters' only say over who sits on the bench.

• The 1974 voter-approved "merit selection" system created them, which ended most judges' direct elections except in less populous counties.
• In Maricopa County, retention elections can take up an entire page of the ballot.

The intrigue: Democrats are running a campaign to oust Supreme Court Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King over their votes to reinstate Arizona's pre-Roe abortion ban .

• Liberal advocacy group Progress Arizona announced its plans in April, and the Protect Abortion Rights committee was formed last month.
• The National Democratic Redistricting Committee and Planned Parenthood Votes are also targeting Bolick and King as part of a national campaign over Supreme Court seats.
• Republicans are pushing back with a campaign group called Arizonans Protecting Freedom.

What they're saying: "Arizona's judges must be accountable to those they serve" and Prop 137 eliminates that accountability, several retired Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges wrote .

• People wrote in arguments for the secretary of state's election publicity pamphlet that the measure would effectively create lifetime appointments.

The other side: Supporters argued in the pamphlet that voters have no idea who most of the judges are and noted few have ever lost retention elections.

• Prop 137 would shorten the excessively long ballots while leaving problematic judges accountable to the voters, they said.

Catch up quick: Since the advent of merit selection, voters have only rejected six judges — three in 2022 .

• One of the three was found to not meet judicial performance standards, which would trigger a retention election under Prop 137, while the other two received poor reviews but still passed.
• Two judges lost their retention elections in 1978, and one in 2014.

Between the lines: If you're looking for information on this year's retention elections — presuming the results end up mattering — the Commission on Judicial Performance Review has you covered.

• All judges on the ballot this year met the commission's standards.