There are 69 judges and justices eligible for retention in the Nov. 5 election. Two state supreme court justices, along with 67 appeals court and superior court judges, were all found to have met the performance standards for being on the bench, according to a majority vote of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review.In Arizona, trial court judges in Maricopa, Pima, Pinal and Coconino counties, appeals court judges and Supreme Court justices are appointed by the governor. All appointed judges sit for retention elections after two years on the bench. After that, appeals court judges, including Supreme Court justices, face a retention election every six years and trial court judges face a retention vote every four years.The Supreme Court justices up for retention will be on all Arizona voters’ ballots. Appeals court and superior court judges are dependent upon county of residence.Where to find information about Arizona judges and justices on the ballotThe Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review evaluates appointed judges by surveying witnesses, jurors, court staff and other people who have observed the judges’ work.The commission’s reports are available to read on its website. Voters can learn when judges were appointed, read their judicial performance reports and, for some judges, review short biographies.The commission website also provides links to decisions authored by the appeals court judges and Supreme Court justices up for retention.The Civic Engagement Beyond Voting group, formed after the 2016 election, is trying to provide voters with information about judges on the ballot beyond what the commission makes available.The group’s founder, Cathy Sigmon, said she formed the organization to provide information about legislative races. In 2020, it added a “Gavel Watch” ballot guide for judicial retention elections.Sigmon said she appreciated the information about judges provided by the commission but found it lacking.”We have found that people are really grateful for a source they can go to if they don’t want to bury themselves with spreadsheets from the JPR,” Sigmon said. “We provide explanations of judges’ opinions, and we focus on any bias that they may bring to the bench.”She said her group, which is affiliated with the national progressive nonprofit Indivisible, is nonpartisan but not neutral.”One of the things I found concerning about the Commission on Judicial Performance Review reports is that many of them rely on just a few survey responses for each judge,” Sigmon said. “I feel like that is deeply insufficient.”Sigmon said she and a team of volunteers supplement the commission’s reports with publicly available information and related news coverage.Political groups try to influence Supreme Court judicial retentio …
See the full article on Arizona’s economic indicators, or, read more Arizona real estate investing news. Take your pick!
