On Sunday, August 18, 2024, Tucson.com reported that Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer said she does not see a reason to recuse herself from an upcoming case that will determine whether Proposition 137 appears on the November ballot.
Proposition 137 aims to change the process for retaining state judges in Arizona. If passed, it would eliminate regular votes to retain judges every four to six years and instead only subject judges to retention votes if they face allegations of misconduct. The measure could potentially allow Timmer and her Supreme Court colleagues to serve lifetime terms without facing voters again.
While two other justices, Clint Bolick and Kathryn King, have recused themselves because Proposition 137 would directly affect their terms in office, Timmer believes any impact on her would be “rather attenuated and speculative.” She argued that whether the measure passes, and she later decides to seek retention is uncertain. Timmer also noted she has enough years of service to qualify for her pension regardless of the outcome.
The Supreme Court case will decide whether Proposition 137’s questions around changing judicial retention can appear jointly on the November ballot, or if they constitute separate constitutional issues that cannot be combined. Timmer said determining the measure’s legal challenges is different from weighing its policy implications.
In explaining her decision not to recuse, Timmer pointed to a past example where she did step aside. Years ago, she recused from a pension benefits case because a ruling could have personally saved her thousands of dollars. However, she believes the potential impacts of Proposition 137 on her future retention votes are less direct.
While some disagree on when recusal is necessary, Timmer maintained that a reasonable person would not conclude she could not be impartial in this instance. The Chief Justice acknowledged there is a gray area in making recusal determinations but said she does not see an appearance of impropriety in her participation in the Proposition 137 case.
Source: Tucson.com
