Photo by Peter Dazeley | Getty Images
Progressive activists are challenging a ballot initiative that if approved by voters, would give lifetime appointments to state judges, claiming that the name of the measure is “deceptive.”
Prior to passing the budget last week, GOP lawmakers pushed through a number of ballot referrals including Senate Concurrent Resolution 1044 which would eliminate term limits for judges across the state. Superior Court judges usually serve for four years before facing reelection and appellate judges, along with Arizona Supreme Court justices, hold office for six years.
If passed, SCR1044 would make judicial terms indefinite and dependent on “good behavior” as opposed to voters deciding if judges will be retained. That decision would move to the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct which would see its size increased and any lawmaker could prompt an investigation into a judge by reaching out to the commission.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
On Friday, Progress Arizona filed a lawsuit stating that the name chosen by lawmakers for the ballot referral, “The Judicial Accountability Act of 2024,” is deceptive to Arizona voters.
“We believe the courts should rule that the title of this rule is fundamentally deceptive,” Abigail Jackson, digital director for Progress Arizona said in a call with members of the press Friday adding that the title is “intentionally dishonest.”
Jackson, as well as Democratic Pima County Attorney Laura Conover said the act would override the will of voters, especially given that one provision of the measure would make the term limit elimination retroactive.
That means that Arizona Supreme Court Judges Clint Bolick and Kathryn King would remain in office regardless of the outcome of the November election. The two justices have been facing criticism and a campaign to vote them out following their votes earlier this year that revived a near-total abortion ban from 1864.
Justice Bolick is married to Sen. Shawnna Bolick, R-Phoenix, who voted yes to pass the referral in the Senate despite calls from her colleagues that she had a conflict of interest.
“The people have always enjoyed a right in having a voice in whether their judges are retained,” Conover said, adding that Arizona fought to include provisions in its state constitution on judicial retention when it became a state in 1912. “We should be very concerned that this SCR1044 is very clearly the loss of a right. The loss of a democratic right for the people of Arizona.”
Jim Barton, the attorney who filed the lawsuit on behalf of Progress Arizona, echoed the sentiments of Conover and Jackson. Barton also added that he believes SCR1044 violates the state’s constitution.
In Arizona’s constitution, if a referral aims to change more than one amendment of the Arizona constitution, then it has to be made into a second proposal for voters to decide on. Barton said SCR1044 proposes changes to multiple amendments of the state constitution.
Republican lawmakers previously defended the measure saying that it is a way to better inform voters by paring down the number of judges they need to research before voting. The measure passed along party lines and was one of several other resolutions that were created to avoid Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs’ veto pen.
“It is blatantly and fundamentally deceptive,” Jackson said. “It is yet another attempt by lawmakers to throw out Arizonans’ votes.”
If Progress Arizona is successful the initiative would be removed from the November ballot.
SUPPORT NEWS YOU TRUST.
The post Progress Arizona challenges GOP ballot measure that would give judges lifetime appointments appeared first on Arizona Mirror.