Legislative Republicans voted Wednesday to ask Arizona voters to alter the method used to decide whether judges keep their jobs, but in a way that Democrats say is designed to protect two on the Supreme Court who ruled that the state can enforce its territorial-era near-total abortion ban.
Current constitutional provisions require judges who are appointed by the governor to stand for reelection on a retain-reject basis every four years, or six years for the Supreme Court. SCR 1044 would instead provide lifetime appointments unless a judge's performance was found wanting by a special commission.
But what is galling foes is that it is worded in a way that it would affect the already scheduled retention elections of Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King. It says they would get to keep their jobs even if voters, looking at their names individually, decide they do not deserve a new six-year term.
Lawmakers also agreed Wednesday to send other measures to the November ballot, including:
- Allowing restaurants to pay their tipped workers 25% less than the minimum wage versus the flat $3 flat "tip allowance.'' At current rates, that would save restaurants an additional 57 cents an hour.
- Allowing foes of proposed initiatives to file lawsuits challenging their constitutionality even before voters get a chance to make a final decision.
- Giving state lawmakers more authority to review and override rules proposed by state agencies.
They quashed another proposal to mandate that local governments all hold their elections only every other November at the same time as other elections. That would have overridden local laws in places like Tucson where voters have decided they want separate elections.
But it is the proposal on judicial elections that could have the biggest -- and longest-lasting -- impacts.
The current process, approved by voters in 1974, has the governor choose the judges for the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and trial courts in the largest counties. There is no Senate confirmation. But the governor must choose from a list of nominees from a screening panel.
Then, on a regular basis, those judges stand for "reelection.'' If rejected, they are turned out of office and the governor picks a replacement.
Rep. Alexander Kolodin (R-Scottsdale) said the problem is that having all those names up makes ballots longer, with perhaps 30% of voters simply ignoring those races. This system would say only those whose performance has been rated less than satisfactory by a judicial review panel would have to stand for reelection.
Anyone else would effectively have a lifetime appointment and could continue to serve until mandatory retirement age of 70.
"So that way, there will be a smaller, more focused list of judges that voters actually have time to research and examine,'' Kolodin said. "And perhaps more voters will actually be willing to fill out their ballots and weigh in on it.''
But the measure is worded so it effectively is retroactive.
What makes that significant is that Bolick and King, two of the four justices who concluded the 1864 law that bans abortion except to save the life of the mother is still enforceable, are up for retention. And there is an active campaign to deny them a new term based in great part on that vote to reinstate Arizona's territorial-era abortion ban.
If the policy change proposed by SCR 1044 is adopted, it would override any decision by voters to oust the pair from the court.
Rep. Analise Ortiz (D-Phoenix) said that abortion decision was a wake-up call for voters who until now may have ignored judicial elections.
"Now as much as ever the people are aware of the tremendous power and the way it can be abused,'' she said.
"SCR 1044 would take away my right and the right of my constituents who want to vote to not retain those justices who approved the 1864 abortion ban,'' Ortiz said, by overriding any vote to oust them. "This is what authoritarianism looks like folks. It's terrifying.''
