Efforts by conservatives to give state lawmakers the ability to veto some gubernatorial judicial appointments picked up steam with a new compromise endorsed by groups representing judges.

A proposed state constitutional amendment would give the Senate the power to reject a governor’s appointments to statewide appellate courts and trial courts in Maricopa and Pima counties.

Under the compromise, a governor’s judicial appointee would take office unless the Senate rejects the appointment. That’s different from the usual confirmation process, where an appointee either cannot take office or must step down unless the Senate confirms the appointment.

Disturbed by court rulings on abortion, school finance and the eligibility of ballot measures, conservatives have called for the public and its elected representatives to have more say in who serves on Arizona court benches.

The judiciary and its supporters have fought those efforts, saying they would undercut a decades-old system that has served Arizona well by keeping the state’s judiciary largely free of politics.

However, court representatives said March 15 they agreed to the compromise as a means to preserve the so-called “merit selection” system approved by Arizona voters in 1974.

How It Works

Under merit selection, three appointed commissions give the governor a list of nominees to fill each vacancy on the Arizona Supreme Court, the state Court of Appeals and Superior Court benches in Maricopa County.

The governor then appoints one of the nominees to fill a vacancy, and voters periodically decide whether to retain the judges in office.

Only two judges have lost retention elections, both in 1978, and critics call those elections virtually meaningless.

With the compromise, “we’ll still have the retention process but at least at the front end the people that are elected by the citizens of this state will have a say,” said Sen. Jay Tibshraeny, R-21, the Senate majority whip who sponsored the resolution (SCR 1038) to put the proposed amendment on the 2006 ballot.

Before merit selection, all state judges were elected. Superior Court judges in the 13 rural counties still are, though governors make appointments to fill midterm vacancies.

Originally, the proposed legislation would have required Senate approval for a governor’s judicial appointments to take effect. Also, it would have kept the nominating commissions but would have let the governor appoint a qualified person not nominated by a commission.

New Version

A proposed new version endorsed by groups representing judges and attorneys as well as the Center for Arizona Policy, a lobbying group for social conservatives, still would require governors to pick from the commissions’ nominees.

Former opponents of the original legislation that are now endorsing the compromise include the state Judicial Council and the Arizona Judges Association. The State Bar of Arizona also opposed the original bill, but spokesman Matt Silverman said March 15 that key provisions of the compromise apparently “addressed our biggest concerns.”

The original legislation would have obliterated merit selection but the compromise does not, said Robert Budoff, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge who is president of the Arizona Judges Association. “It adds an additional component to merit selection.”

Other provisions of the compromise include longer terms for judges between judicial elections and giving governors more say over appointments to the three nominating commissions.

Mr. Tibshraeny said the compromise will be offered as an amendment to his resolution, which the Senate was due to consider March 17, but its fate remains unclear.

The House already has endorsed similar legislation but many senators — including Democrats and some majority Republicans — voice concerns, with some citing the U.S. Senate’s gridlock over confirmation of federal judges.

“It’s not needed,” said Sen. Bill Brotherton, D-14. “The process for selecting judges is not a political one and this would just make it a political one.”

Supporters said the Arizona Senate’s rules and traditions don’t lend themselves to fostering gridlock on confirmations.

“It’s only rarely that we ever turn down a nominee,” said Senate Judiciary Chairman John Huppenthal, R-20. “It’s a whole different culture here.”—