Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / Election 2012 / Election 2012 News / Ballot Measures / Proposition 115 would give governor more power in judicial selections

Proposition 115 would give governor more power in judicial selections

Proposition 115 asserts that more is better when it comes to selection and retention of state judges in Pima and Maricopa counties as well as appellate and Supreme Court judges.

If approved by voters, the measure would have more judicial nominees come before the governor for selection and give the governor more power over the makeup of commissions that nominate candidates.

Proposition 115 would require that orders and opinions by state judges and justices be published online. It would push back the mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 75 and extend the time before they face retention votes from four to eight years for Superior Court judges and six to eight years for appellate and Supreme Court justices.

At the heart of the proposition is a system called judicial merit selection that applies to Superior Courts in counties with 250,000 or more residents as well the state Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.

Merit selection uses nonpartisan commissions made up of five lawyers nominated by the State Bar of Arizona and appointed by the governor as well as 10 lay people appointed by the governor. The commissions recruit and review candidates and forward to the governor a slate of nominees – at least three and representing more than one political party.

In other counties, Superior Court judges are elected.

In Pima and Maricopa counties, Proposition 115 would increase the number of nominees from merit selection to at least eight and remove the requirement that more than one political party be represented. Rather than nominating lawyers for commissions, the State Bar would appoint one lawyer while the governor would appoint four lawyers without the State Bar’s input.

Under the measure, a joint legislative committee could hold hearings to gather testimony on the performance of judges and justices who are facing retention votes.

The Maricopa County Bar Association, Los Abogados Hispanic Bar Association, Arizona Association of Defense Counsel and Arizona Association for Justice/Arizona Trial Lawyers Association submitted arguments against Proposition 115 in the state’s publicity pamphlet on ballot measures. But the State Bar of Arizona, the Arizona Judges Association and the Arizona Judicial Council officially support the measure.

David Berman, senior research fellow at Arizona State University’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy, said that support stems from a compromise over legislation supported by Gov. Jan Brewer that originally sought to eliminate merit selection. He said the groups were basically outfoxed by Republicans.

“There have been a lot of people in the Legislature who feel the judges have been too liberal,” Berman said.

A group calling itself No on Prop. 115-Save Merit Selection of Judges had raised $56,000 through mid-August, almost all of it from lawyers and law firms. Meanwhile, the group Making Merit Selection Stronger, Yes on Prop. 115 had raised $300.

State Rep. Justin Pierce, R-Mesa, a practicing attorney, said Proposition 115 would preserve and strengthen merit selection.

“Everyone interested came together and recognized that there are things that we could improve in this system,” Pierce said.

Peter Gentala, counsel to the Republican majority in the Arizona House of Representatives, said that if the current focus is really on merit, then all qualified applicants should be passed on to the governor by the commission, not just the current minimum of three.

“More qualified names will be sent to the governor, and as a result more qualified applicants will apply,” he said.

Opponents of Proposition 115, including 19 past State Bar presidents and five retired Arizona Supreme Court justices, argue that the current system for judicial selection is considered one of the best in the country.

Former State Bar president Mark Harrison said the measure aims to politicize judicial selection by having the governor select all but one member of judicial selection commissions and allowing all nominees to be from one party.

He noted that in 1979 Democratic Gov. Bruce Babbitt selected Sandra Day O’Connor, a Republican, to the Arizona Court of Appeals. Two years later, she became the first woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Under Proposition 115, Sandra Day O’Connor would not have gotten to the Supreme Court of the United States,” Harrison said.

Gaetano Testini, president of the Los Abogados Hispanic Bar Association, Phoenix, said he’s worried about a loss of diversity in judicial selections if Proposition 115 passes.

“We’ve already seen a huge drop in the minority representation on the bench right now, and this will lead to a much bigger problem,” Testini said.


  1. Vote Yes on Proposition 115.
    The Proposition is not giving the Governor Sole authority but gives three authorities to review and hold accountable to the Arizona Laws. The Three are AZ Attorneys, AZ Legislature, and AZ Governors. This is as simple as requiring accountability of state judicial employees to our laws as it is a law based system not a privet club on tax payer dime.
    The Proposition notes that the current merit system does not work because the “rubber stamp” method rather then real review of performance. The merit system forces lower judges to go with the flow and not stand on their own when their higher judge directs them to carryout conduct associated to hate crimes, prejudice and discrimination.
    This Proposition will reestablish the true meaning of “honorable conduct”.
    This Proposition will stop attacks on fathers by the legal community.
    This Proposition will stop extortion schemes between attorneys and judges.
    This Proposition will return the legal community back to following and using the Arizona Laws. Presently the legal community manipulates the laws in the gray area for the purpose of financial gain.
    This Proposition will require a Judge to explain to the legislature on why he/she felt that in his/her discretion that the “mother” needed to be rewarded with excessive child support and alimony when the evidence show that “father” should have been awarded custody.
    This Proposition will stop gender profiling by Judges. (Public is clearly aware that fathers are openly attacked unlawfully by superior court and notes extremes in Pima County in greater numbers)
    This Proposition will stop Judicial appointing by a committee that continues to use its authority to usurp specific judicial persons to carryout democratic political agendas.
    The Proposition will stop judicial officers from imposing personal values over Arizona Laws on the Public.
    The Proposition will stop Democrats from imposing socialism and superseding Arizona Laws on Best Interest of Minor Child.
    The Proposition will hold judicial officers accountable to the Arizona Laws and it has a greater than 10 year record of privatizing the legal process for personal agenda and personal gain in a state funded government position.
    So Citizens Vote “Yes” for Proposition 115!

  2. Yes. I agree. I wll vote “Yes” on Prop 115.
    My judge on my case who is Dean Christoffel stated that its CPS’s fault for directing me(father) to motion the court for custody change after the mother was “substantiated” by CPS on neglect charges. Dean Christoffel stated “its not my fault that CPS did not do a dependancy”. Dean Christoffel also stated that the evaluator recomended 50/50. But the evaluation clearly stated in his evaluation report that “father be the legal decision maker and mother have visitation everyother weekend.” My daughter’s childhood is being destrsyed by judical officers. Further more, Dean Christoffel ordered that Father pay mother $400 additional to what the state child support required. None of what dean Christoffel goes along with Arizona’s “Best Interest of Minor Child Laws”.

    Facts about the Mother:
    moved 6 times to diferent adresses, did not pay child support as required in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. allowed access to a registered child sex offender for 8 months and was not notifed as required by law. fired from 4 jobs. one job was a foster care aganecy.

    Facts about the Father:
    One stabel address for the past 6 years which is less then 5 min from school.
    One consistent employment and still employed.
    Father pays for all cost for child.

    So you tell me is The Pima County Superior Court leadership following the ARS Laws? So which leaders is directing teh gender profiling aginst fathers? Leadership path is Jan Kearney, Sarah Simmons, Terry Chandler, Dean Christoffel and Margaret Maxwell.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *




Check Also

Cells at the Pinal County Adult Detention Center. Because the facility was built to house accused and convicted criminals, immigration detainees face stricter conditions there than at a federal facility just up the road. (Cronkite News Service Photo by Fara Illich)

Groups object to housing immigration detainees in Pinal County jail

The first stop for all Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainees is just down the road from here at the Florence Detention Center, which has a new soccer field, offers buffet-style dining and allows face-to-face visits with family, friends and lawyers.