Crime
Civic
Sport
Politics
Business
Transport
Society
Leisure & Tourism
Health & Safety
Education
Arts & Culture
Weather & Environment
About Us Contact Us Privacy Policy Terms of Use Accuracy & Fairness
© Copyright 2024 The Maricopa Moderator.
themaricopamod-logo
themaricopamod-logo
THEMARICOPAMOD.COM / POLITICS

Why have two Supreme Court justices recused themselves from pivotal judicial case?

The primary goal of SCR 1044 was to modify the way judges are appointed and retained in Arizona.
PUBLISHED AUG 13, 2024
Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King
Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King

Phoenix, Arizona: Two Arizona State Supreme Court justices -- Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King -- up for retention this year have recused themselves from a lawsuit challenging a legislative ballot referral that would end most judicial retention elections in Arizona.

A report in the Arizona Republic, stated that Progress Arizona is suing to prevent Senate Concurrent Resolution 1044 from appearing on the ballot. The group alleged SCR 1044 was unconstitutional because it bore a deceptive title and contained more than a single amendment to the state constitution.

The court suggested that voluntary donation of vacation hours for release time could avoid constitutional violations.
SCR 1044 proposed changes to the composition of the judicial nominating commissions that vet candidates for judicial appointments.

What is SCR 1044?

The primary goal of SCR 1044 was to modify the way judges are appointed and retained in Arizona, particularly focusing on the state’s merit selection process. Arizona uses a merit-based system for appointing judges in its appellate courts and superior courts in counties with populations over 250,000.

Under the merit selection system, a nonpartisan commission screens judicial candidates and submits a list of nominees to the governor, who then appoints judges from this list. The system was designed to reduce political influence in judicial appointments and ensure that qualified, impartial judges are selected.

SCR 1044 proposed changes to the composition of the judicial nominating commissions that vet candidates for judicial appointments. Specifically, it aimed to adjust the balance between attorney and non-attorney members of the commission.

The resolution also included provisions related to the term limits for judges and the process by which they are retained. In Arizona, judges appointed through the merit selection process must periodically stand for retention elections, where voters decide whether they should remain in office.

What is the current status of SCR 1044? 

Last week, Yavapai County Superior Court Judge John Napper ruled against the plaintiffs, finding that the component parts of SCR 1044 related to a single topic and that the measure did not violate the separate amendment rule of the Arizona Constitution. Napper also found that the title — Judicial Accountability Act — was not misleading.

Napper was assigned to the case by Judge Joseph Welty, presiding judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court, because Yavapai county judges were elected and therefore not subject to the retention election process the ballot referral seeks to change.

Attorneys for Progress Now then appealed the ruling the Arizona State Supreme Court. On Monday, the court announced a briefing schedule for the appeal, noting that Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King would recuse from the appeal.

Popular on The Mod
More on The Mod