Arizona

It is inspiring to watch as more and more states begin to address access to justice issues within their own courts. Arizona has been a leader in taking up the Call to Action from the Conference of Chief Justices and is in the process of implementing reforms. Arizona’s Civil Justice Reform Committee issued its report and recommendations, A Call to Reform: The Committee on Civil Justice Reform’s Report to the Arizona Judicial Council, in October 2016. The Supreme Court reviewed those recommendations and issued a series of rule changes that will take effect July 1, 2018.

No system of judicial selection and retention is perfect; however, merit selection systems attempt to balance judicial independence with voter accountability. Those are the comments of IAALS Executive Director Rebecca Love Kourlis who, along with IAALS Board Member Chief Justice (Ret.) Ruth McGregor of the Arizona Supreme Court, was interviewed by an investigative reporter for a  Goldwater Institute paper on the benefits of using a merit selection system for municipal judgeships.

Arizona’s Supreme Court has approved numerous civil justice reforms “aimed at reducing the time and expense it takes to resolve civil cases in Arizona’s superior courts.” The reforms are based on the recommendations of Arizona’s Civil Justice Reform Committee, which was established by the Arizona Supreme Court in December 2015 to “develop recommendations, including rule amendments or pilot projects, to reduce the cost and time required to resolve civil cases in Arizona’s superior courts.”

This month the Northern District of Illinois launched a three-year pilot project, known as the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project (MIDP). The pilot project requires robust mandatory initial discovery with the goal of reducing cost and delay in civil litigation. Through a General Order, the court has ordered that the MIDP program be implemented in all civil cases filed on or after June 1, 2017, except as to those categories of cases that are exempted under the MIDP Standing Order.

Arizona has long been a leader in civil justice reform, and last week Arizona led the way again with a set of recommendations from its Committee on Civil Justice Reform. The Committee was established by the Arizona Supreme Court in December 2015 to “develop recommendations, including rule amendments or pilot projects, to reduce the cost and time required to resolve civil cases in Arizona’s superior courts.”

Inspired in part by the work of the Conference of Chief Justice’s Civil Justice Improvements Committee, Chief Justice Scott Bales of the Arizona Supreme Court issued an Order at the end of last year establishing a new initiative for the Arizona Courts, creating a 24-member committee of judges, lawyers, and stakeholders to address ways in which civil litigation can be made more efficient and less expensive.

As is true in many jurisdictions, Arizona courts are finding that self-represented parties are heavily concentrated in family law matters, like divorce, child support, and custody. With little or no legal experience, litigants are navigating these complex processes by themselves—with many citing lawyer costs as prohibitive. .

Late last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down a handful of provisions in Arizona's code of judicial conduct as they apply to the campaign behavior of judicial candidates. According to the court, "[t]o the extent states wish to avoid a politicized judiciary, they can choose to do so by not electing judges."

In a 5-0 ruling, the Arizona Supreme Court struck down a law that required the state’s judicial nominating commission to send the names of five candidates to the governor for possible appointment. According to the court’s opinion, “the Legislature has no authority to statutorily mandate procedures inconsistent with Arizona's Constitution,” which allows commissions to give the governor as few as three names.

In April, the Arizona legislature passed and the governor signed a bill directing the state's judicial nominating commissions to submit the names of at least five finalists for each judicial vacancy. Last week, four members of the appellate judicial nominating commission filed a petition with the state supreme court to declare the new law unconstitutional. The law is in apparent conflict with a constitutional provision calling for the commission to submit at least three names.