Welcome! Voting for judges can seem like a strange process.  We’re here to help.

The Arizona Constitution provides for retention elections (in Article 6 section 38), as well as for judicial performance review (in Article 6 section 42). Arizona voters deserve a properly informed voice in whether judges should be retained. Accordingly, Arizona participants in the state court system frequently are surveyed as to their experiences and, in particular, their perceptions of the judge (or justice) who handled their case. The Commission considers these survey responses, together with other information, and — every election cycle — considers and reports on whether each judge up for retention that year “meets” or “does not meet” the standards established by rule for retention. 

Yet, by its nature, the process of judging leaves at least one participant disappointed in the outcome, every time. As a result, every Arizona judge bears the inherent risk that factors other than judicial performance will generate some number of negative survey responses. When negative survey responses are politicized against a judge up for retention, notwithstanding that the Commission has held that the judge “meets” standards, the result is to create an impression contrary to the determination of the body constitutionally empowered by Arizona’s electorate back in 1992 to evaluate the judge’s performance on behalf of the voters.

Arizonans for an Independent Judiciary is devoted to informing Arizona voters of the importance of casting informed “yes” votes on judicial retention candidates meeting those standards. The PAC’s steering committee, co-chaired by Paul Eckstein of Perkins Coie and Timothy Berg of Fennemore, consists of a bipartisan group who already have raised and are in the process of raising additional funds to support the PAC and the information campaign.

A judge’s performance is not evaluated according to the decision the judge may reach in a particular case.  This is because, as the saying goes, “justice is blind” — the judge is to perform his or her duty to apply and follow the law whether or not the result is popular.  As a community, we benefit from the principle that the rule of law, not popularity, decides cases.  For example, the Brown vs. Board of Education decision, which desegregated public schools, was notably unpopular in large segments of the United States when it was decided in 1954.  Fortunately, the Supreme Court did not decide Brown according to what was popular, but by what was required by law.

Accordingly, good judges do not think about the politics of a decision; that is a job for the Legislature and the Governor.  Good judges call “balls” and “strikes” in interpreting and applying regardless of politics, understanding that it is up to the Legislature, the Governor, and the people — through ballot measures — to change that law if they want.  That is how lawmaking works in our state democratic system. 

And it is how we citizens need our judges — and the system — to work in order to do justice.  Imagine, for example, you are accused of a crime even though you are innocent.  You not only want the judge to fairly and impartially apply the law, even if everyone thinks you are guilty; you need the judge to do so, in order to see justice served. 

The people of Arizona win when we retain qualified judges.  First, retaining our good judges—and that’s most of them—encourages good candidates to apply in the future.  Second, avoiding partisanship is key to an independent judiciary.

That’s why the members of this organization, despite political differences, will all vote to retain judges who meet the criteria. Here are the core tenets of our message: