By james art 
By Susan Edwards | Co-Founder, Arizona Neighborhood Alliance
As a non-lawyer volunteer who has put thousands of hours into one of the best state court systems in America, I realize that our judicial retention system (the “O’Connor Judicial Selection Plan”) is not perfect. It’s a national model, but it’s run by people.
Proposition 137 fragments our model system with insidious consequences.
I first volunteered in 1988-89 with the Arizona Commission on the Courts chaired by Eddie Basha. The commission was the brainchild of Chief Justice Frank Gordon, who foresaw tremendous growth and change for Arizona. He received a grant and hired 150 people from across Arizona to look at our justice system and recommend ways it could be improved. Part of his genius was involving members of the public with lawyers, people connected to the court, legislators, etc.
I have repeatedly raised the need to:
- A better system than the existing attorney survey to give voters unbiased information about the judges we voted to retain; and
- A program to improve the quality of judges — which can work in a system with independent judges. None existed.
By 1992, Chief Justice Gordon had put most of our recommendations into action. And Arizona voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 109, creating the Judicial Performance Review Commission—the only constitutionally authorized JPR in the country.
A critical part of JPR’s responsibility is quality improvement, where teams of volunteers meet with each judge and justice. I served on conference teams and JPR. Since 1992, our justice system has made it a point to actively involve community volunteers. They understand that the best way to serve the public is to engage the public. And listen to us.
Community involvement is a key reason why Arizona is a national model. Rule 137 could kill that. Who will want to serve in JPR if it passes?
We have more public members on our JPR Commission than any other state, but we require a lot of time and effort from these unpaid volunteers. I’m pragmatic and tough, but I’ve never voted “No Answer” lightly because it’s taken a toll on life. I did it because it was right.
Proposition 137 states that very few judges are not retained, so voters should be happy. Then, to paraphrase, “Why bother voting?” They apparently didn’t know that almost every cycle one or two judges resign/retire rather than appear on the ballot with a negative JPR vote or very bad numbers .
137 may put excruciating pressure on some JPR members. Since only the names go on the ballot of judges determined by JPR to be substandard, some members will give in and vote “Responsible” when they shouldn’t. Voters won’t even see those with bad numbers. Arizona’s legal system will pay the price.
Additionally, 137 would allow any legislator — from anywhere in the state — to compel the JPR to investigate any detention judge for a “pattern of abuse,” which is undefined. So a judge in Phoenix could rule against Page’s lawmaker friend/relative. Even if unfounded, this lawmaker could force JPR to investigate the judge.
JPR already has a full plate and it’s none of their business! That’s what the Judicial Conduct Commission is for. It shows how little the legislature knows about what they are proposing.
Both are under construction, but you hire an electrician, not a plumber, to do the wiring.
Why will judges take the quality improvement program seriously if Proposition 137 passes?
Midway through all judges’ and justices’ terms, each meets with a volunteer “conference team” of three people—a lawyer, a judge, and a public member. This is to discuss their survey results, any areas that need improvement, and their ideas for self-improvement.
In my experience, the best judges had a healthy list of ideas, while the weaker judges’ lists were short. One judge was later voted Not Responding. You didn’t see them on your ballot because they resigned.
If 137 was in effect I know they would still be on the bench potentially making decisions about your life.
Why would good lawyers sacrifice a lucrative practice to be judges when they might end up having to defend themselves against false accusations from some distant legislator?
Proposition 137 is a bad idea.
Editor’s note: Susan Edwards, a retired CFP in Phoenix, is president/co-founder of Arizona Alliance of Neighbors. She has served on the Arizona Supreme Court Judiciary Commission, the Phoenix Public Defender Contract Review Committee, the Arizona Judicial Council, the Judicial Performance Commission, the JPR Conference Teams, the District Court Magistrate Selection Committee of the United States and is the recipient of the Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice’s Outstanding Contribution to the Courts Award. Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcome [email protected].