Home / courts / House Republican offers plan to deal with “rogue, non-elected” judges

House Republican offers plan to deal with “rogue, non-elected” judges


A far-reaching proposal by Rep. Warren Petersen, R-Chandler, would allow lawmakers, with a two-third vote, to remove any judge from the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or any Superior Court judge from Maricopa, Pima or Pinal counties. And HCR 2006 would not require that legislators have any reason at all.

“You worry about judges legislating from the bench,” Petersen said, expressing concern that it’s done without accountability to voters.

He pointed out that his measure, like HCR 2002, would apply only to judges who are screened by a selection panel, appointed by the governor and then stand for reelection on a yes-or-no basis. Petersen said he is less concerned about the judges in the Superior Courts in the 12 other counties who have to run for reelection every four years facing an actual candidate, giving voters a real choice versus an abstract one of should they stay or should they go.

“How do you deal with a rogue, non-elected judge?” Petersen asked.

That description annoyed Pete Dunn, a attorney and former chair of the House Judiciary Committee who now lobbies for the Arizona Judges Association.

“Judges are not ‘going rogue’ in this state,” he said, calling Petersen’s proposal “a solution in search of a problem.”

“Our system of government with three co-equal branches has worked for several hundred years, and it’s going to continue to work well,” Dunn said.

Petersen disagreed, saying there needs to be more oversight of the judiciary.

Another proposal by Rep. Phil Lovas, R-Peoria, would require judges who have to stand for retention to get approval of at least 60 percent of the people casting a vote. Current constitutional provisions allow them to be retained on a simple majority.

Had HCR 2002 already been in place, four judges who were just retained by less than that margin — three in Maricopa County and one in Pima County — would be out looking for work and the new governor would get a chance to pick replacements.

Petersen said Lovas’ bill helps but doesn’t go far enough.

There is already another option: The Arizona Constitution allows all state and judicial officers to be impeached for “high crimes, misdemeanors, or malfeasance in office.” But Petersen said the issue goes beyond those grounds.

“A lot of people feel like the judges are out of control on some of these rulings where they just start making stuff up, changing the meaning of words,” he said.

His prime exhibit, also cited by Gov. Doug Ducey in his State of the State speech, is the 2013 decision by the state Court of Appeals in the school funding case.

The judges acknowledged that the 2000 voter-approved measure requires the Legislature to “increase the base level or other components of the revenue control limit” that determines aid to schools. Lawmakers argued that permitted them to simply increase transportation aid — a small component of school funding — and ignore inflation adjustments to everything else.

But Judge Michael Brown, writing for the unanimous appellate court, said not only was the measure sold to voters as requiring full inflation adjustment but the Legislature itself directed the Secretary of State to describe it on the ballot as increasing all elements of state aid.

The state never appealed that issue to the Supreme Court. And that’s what resulted in the order to immediately boost state aid by more than $330 million with the potential to have to also shell out more than $1 billion in aid never paid.

But Petersen said the courts still got it wrong. And that’s why lawmakers, who make the laws and answer to voters, should be able to remove them without a full blown impeachment and trial.

“I want judges to have a textural interpretation of law,” he said. “I want them to do what it actually says in writing, not what they want to do.”

He said that doesn’t happen most of the time.

“But what’s a good way to deal with it?” Petersen asked.

Petersen would first need voter approval to amend the Arizona Constitution to allow for legislative removal by vote.

But he said voters should be secure in believing that lawmakers would not abuse that power to simply remove judges who might have been appointed by a prior governor of a different party, pointing to the requirement for a two-thirds vote. Petersen acknowledged, though, there have been years where Republicans did have that margin.

Lovas does not seek to go that far. Instead, he figures that requiring a judge to get the approval of 60 percent of the voters ensures that they remain accountable.

In Pima County, Judge Catherine Woods would have been out, having garnered just 59.2 percent of the vote.

Also falling below that 60 percent threshold were Maricopa County judges Bradley Astrowsky, Bill Brotherton and Gerald Porter who got just barely more than 50 percent.

“The system is working,” Dunn said. He pointed out that Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Benjamin Norris, who was not recommended for retention by the Commission on Judicial Performance Review, was ousted after getting the support of just 42 percent of the voters.



  1. If the goal is to remove experienced and competent judges, why not move the bar up to 85% or even 95%? At some level this entire discussion is ridiculous. Most voters don’t pay any attention to or care about the judges’ retention elections. My impression is that a significant number of voters vote “no” just because they don’t know any of the judges or, frankly, don’t care.

  2. Why not go back to electing Superior Court judges in the larger counties? Why do people in rural counties have the right to elect judges but the same right is denied to people in the largest counties? The present system is a clear denial of equal protection of the law.

  3. Judge Gerald Porter was on my Family court case I recently filed a complaint against him as I thought there was bias and a pay off going on behind the scenes as the Porter denied EVERY document I filed and I lost my children and job with no reason. I was buried. I filed a complaint against the judiary committee and the Porter suddenly resigned . An investigative reporter needs to investigate this story further and make this public. Porter is a danger to society and the trail he left behind destroyed lives and good people.If you are interested and or know someone that can help investigate this please respond to this thread and I will contact . This is a HUGE story

  4. cbl, we had the same experience. A quick google search shows that so many families did too. I too wish someone would look into this more deeply. There are many allegations/speculations on other sites. Something was not right. Good riddance to this incompetent, arrogant creep.

  5. becs
    I have researched this judge and there is a serious problem, there are innocent parents and childrens lives destroyed by this. I would like to connect with all these injured families and take legal aggressive action

  6. agree. Not to mention innocent children’s lives in danger. There is a larger problem here, including the “child advocates” appointed by this judge.

  7. Yesssss!!!! I am in! It took my 10 years to finally get my daughter…Porter was a biased and horrible horrible judge. I have been looking into a lawsuit. PLEASE contact me.

  8. Hello…can we all sit and have coffee or have a phone meeting?

  9. I along with another individual that I met online have both have very bad experiences with Judge Brotherton. For whatever reason he decides from the beginning what side he is going to take and just goes with that. He states that he uses logic but he does not. He awards attorney fees for everything and sends people to jail often. He abuses his power and is not consistent. My ex can basically break every order and nothing is done. But, if I break an order there are attorney fees and jail. He has ruined my kids’ life.

  10. @DiTina – Judges have immunity. You cannot file a lawsuit against them.

Leave a Reply

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




Check Also


House leader acquiesces to allow vote on texting-while-driving ban

Arizona is on the verge of no longer being just one of three states without a comprehensive ban on texting while driving.