Arizona

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.

In a recent article by Judge Kevin Burke, a member of the IAALS Board of Advisors, and Babak Armajani, they discuss several key areas in which courts are failing to meet the needs of the public, and a few states that are taking steps in the right direction. In states where careful consideration of problems and measurement of remedies is taking place, positive and dramatic changes can begin to take hold in the culture and operations of our courts.

Arizona governor Jan Brewer signed a bill calling for the state’s judicial nominating commissions to submit at least five names for each judicial vacancy. As IAALS Online reported last month, some question the constitutionality of the bill, since the state constitution allows commissions to send a minimum of three names to the governor.

Arizona’s house of representatives passed a bill that would increase from three to five the minimum number of candidates a nominating commission sends to the governor for each judicial vacancy. The constitution calls for the commission to submit at least three nominees to the governor.

This week, the Arizona Supreme Court will consider a proposal, backed by all three Arizona law schools, to let third year law students take the February bar exam prior to graduation. This proposal was created directly in response to the current legal market and the increasing cost of legal education. The Arizona schools believe this allowance would not only lessen law school debt, but would also help move students into the legal market sooner.

According to a 1974 amendment to Arizona’s constitution, counties with a population of at least 250,000 must select their superior court judges via commission-based gubernatorial appointment—a.k.a. merit selection—rather than in contested elections. Pinal County exceeded that population threshold in the 2010 census, but the transition to merit selection has not been a smooth one.

On November 6th, Arizona citizens will be voting on Proposition 115, which aims to modify Arizona's merit selection system by giving the governor more power over the judicial nomination process. Justice Ruth V. McGregor and Judge James A. Soto warn against this ballot proposition, stating that it will "undermine the present merit-selection system for selecting judges and let politicians control the judicial selection process."

Justice John Pelander has taken the unusual step of forming a campaign committee to support his retention, in the face of opposition from conservative groups based on a recent decision.

Conservative groups have mounted a loosely organized effort to oppose the retention of Justice John Pelander because of his vote in a 3-2 ruling that allows Proposition 121 to appear on the November ballot.

For her third appointment to the five-member supreme court, Governor Brewer selected court of appeals judge Ann Scott Timmer, a Republican. Prior to this appointment, thirty-five of the 38 judges she had appointed since taking office in 2009 were Republicans.