Former Arizona Supreme Court chief justice part of new group advocating for fair, impartial courts

A group of former state supreme court justices from around the country has formed a new organization aimed at educating the public about the importance of having fair and impartial courts.

The Alliance of Former Chief Justices launched Monday, which was also Bill of Rights Day. Scott Bales, a former chief justice of the Arizona Supreme Court, said that’s not a coincidence.

Bales said an impartial court system is important to upholding basic constitutional liberties. He also said the new alliance is a diverse one — made up of former chief justices picked from a variety of selection processes with different political beliefs.

Bales spoke on The Show about the timing of the announcement of the new group — with criticism of judges over their rulings on the rise, along with threats against them.

Full conversation

SCOTT BALES: The alliance was formed in part because of concerns that I and ... other former chief justices around the country share. The courts are coming under increasing attacks, and that itself threatens their ability to continue to serve their constitutional function of upholding the law fairly without regard to fear or favor of any party.

MARK RODIE: Do you find the backlash — I guess for lack of a better word — for some rulings and some judges actions, do you see it worse now than when you were on the bench?

BALES: I think it has increased, certainly at the national level. It sadly, over the last year or so, has become more common both at the federal and the state level for commentators to respond to rulings they dislike by saying the judges ought to be removed from office or somehow otherwise subject to reprisals.

BRODIE: And did that not happen quite so much when you were there?

BALES: It didn’t happen so much. I was on the court from 2000 to 2019, and I was chief the last five years. Sometimes people would express disagreement with our rulings, and that was appropriate. I mean, it’s fair to criticize court rulings. What’s wrong is to suggest that if you disagree with the judge’s ruling, the remedy is to kick them out of office.

The remedy is to appeal if you have that option, or perhaps to work to change the law if you’re unhappy with the way it was interpreted.

Nick Sanchez/KJZZ

BRODIE: What’s the impact? You mentioned it’s not great for the system, but what are the impacts of what we’re seeing now in terms of responses to rulings and judges’ opinions? What practical impact does that have?

BALES: Well, I think for the most part it is not affecting the judges themselves. I think judges — it’s often a hard job, but I think you’ve committed to deciding cases the way you think they should come out under the law, even if that is going to subject you to criticisms. But I think what happens is it undermines the confidence of the public in the court system itself.

It causes people to think, “Yeah, judges aren’t any different than elected politicians.” Or the process that emerges from judicial decisions is just a reflection of partisanship. And I think that’s very troubling. I think ultimately having a system where you have courts that are committed to requiring the government itself to follow the law, for that to be successful, at the end of the day you need the confidence of the public that the court process is somehow different.

BRODIE: Do you find that public perception of courts is maybe not where it should be? We’ve heard, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court, people often have opinions about whether they think it’s on the right track, if it’s doing a good job, the justices are good, bad, or whatever. I’m wondering maybe even lower levels of courts, do you find that the perception of those is maybe not what you’d like it to be?

BALES: Well, you touch on two different things that are important. One is, obviously the Supreme Court’s very different than any other court in the country. I think public perceptions sometimes don’t distinguish between the United States Supreme Court, other courts, and they also don’t distinguish between federal courts and state courts. Another thing that I think, to go back to your question, yes, I think it’s important that courts preserve public confidence and trust. And I think there’s work to be done in that area.

And I think if you look at different surveys, it’s varied over time, but I think confidence has declined, somewhat reflecting that people are losing trust in institutions more broadly. But that fact itself, I think, makes it all the more important that people understand how courts really are distinct within our governmental system.

I mean, they’re a forum where you resolve issues based on evidence being presented, based on arguments being carefully considered, based on reasoned decision making. It’s sad that there aren’t more forums where things are decided that way, as opposed to what does seem to be an increasingly polarized and bitter — even a debate is not, I think, the right word to describe it.

It’s just recriminations on each side, I guess, would be the way of describing it.

BRODIE: Well, so given that, and sort of given just in general how polarized we are as a society, how do you try to achieve the goals that you’re trying to achieve, and maybe restore the public’s confidence in the judicial system?

BALES: Well, I think one of the things the alliance will try to do is explain how courts are deliberately designed not to decide things based on partisanship. When someone claims a judge is just a politician in robes, if that were an accurate description, it would mean the judge is not doing their job. And the alliance, I think, can speak with some credibility about this, because it itself is a very diverse group.

What unites us, though, is a belief that courts play a distinct role in our constitutional government. It’s important to recognize and to preserve that. And we’re going to try to work together and to work with other current or former government officials and the public more broadly to promote better understanding and support for our courts.

BRODIE: I think I know the answer to this based on the work that you’re doing. But I’m wondering if, do you think it is possible sort of to go back to where we were? To where people respected court opinions and respected judges and said, “Well  I don’t like the ruling. I think their reasoning was flawed, but I respect it. I will abide by it”? Or are we sort of past the point? Like, is the horse too far out of the barn at this point to go back to that?

BALES: Well, I don’t think you can return to the past, but I think we have to ask ourselves: What direction do we want to go in the future? And I think we can certainly improve public understanding and increase support for the work of our courts. And I don’t think if you really believe in our Constitution there’s an alternative.