In an interview with KJZZ’s The Show, Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services discussed the Arizona Supreme Court’s consideration of whether voters should decide on a ballot measure dealing with judicial appointments and retention.

The ballot measure in question concerns putting an end to the merit selection process for judges and instead implementing a system of lifetime appointments. Currently, in Arizona, judges undergo a merit selection process and must later go through retention votes to remain on the bench. If passed, the new ballot measure would make any current judges’ positions a lifetime appointment, regardless of any future retention votes.

Two of the justices, Clint Bolick and Kathryn King, recused themselves from hearing the case about allowing the measure on the ballot as they would be directly impacted. If voters decided not to retain them in November, the new proposal would retroactively return them to the bench with no end date.

However, the other five justices chose not to recuse themselves. As Fischer reported, there is no codified rule dictating when a justice must recuse themselves. The decision is left entirely to the individual justice to make. Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer told Fischer her rationale for not recusing was that any impact was speculative and attenuated. She explained she may not seek another term past 2028 and her retirement is already set regardless of the outcome.

Fischer noted it would have created a difficult scenario if all the justices recused as replacements would have needed to be former justices no longer on the bench. Timmer contrasted this case with a past pension rules case where Timmer and the other justices all recused because the decision would have had an immediate financial impact on their retirement funds.

Each justice ultimately relies on their own judgment for recusal decisions based on whether they feel their ruling could reasonably be influenced, rather than just the appearance of a potential conflict. The justices will rule on the narrow question of ballot access rather than on the merits of the proposal itself.

 

 

Source: KJZZ