Quantcast
Home / courts / Education advocates push for removal of 2 Supreme Court justices

Education advocates push for removal of 2 Supreme Court justices

(Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

Teachers, students and Red for Ed supporters gathered at Chase Field on April 26 before marching to the Arizona Capitol. Teachers and other education advocates now are trying to remove Supreme Court justices for their decision to strike a tax hike for education off the ballot. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

Upset with a ruling that knocked a tax hike for education off the ballot, some education advocates are trying to get voters to turn one or two Supreme Court justices out of office in November.

Teresa Ratti said the conclusion by the justices that the wording of the Invest in Ed initiative was misleading was “the exact same statement” that came from the Republican-controlled Legislative Council which was tasked with writing an explanation of the proposal.

“Do we really have a separate judiciary branch or is our judicial branch being controlled or influenced by the executive and the Legislature,” she asked.

So Ratti, a high school government teacher, is using a constitutional provision on how judges are chosen in Arizona to urge people to oust Clint Bolick and John Pelander. They are the two of the seven justices whose terms are up this year.

Jennifer Hilsbos, who has been involved in this year’s spate of education advocacy at the Capitol, is focusing solely on Bolick.

Ideally, Hilsbos said, she would like to get rid of the two newest justices who Gov. Doug Ducey got to name after the Republican-controlled Legislature agreed to expand the court from five to seven members. She said Ducey effectively was packing the court with his choices.

But neither John Lopez nor Andrew Gould are up for election this year. So that leaves her to take out her wrath on Bolick, who Ducey named to the high court in 2016.

Anyway, she notes, Pelander was tapped for the court by Jan Brewer, Ducey’s predecessor. But if Pelander is removed and Ducey gets reelected, that gives the current governor a chance to name yet another member of the court.

The system, approved by voters in 1974, sets up a process where the judges of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and superior courts of Pima, Pinal and Maricopa counties are named through what is known as a “merit selection” process.

A special panel reviews applicants and forwards the names of nominees to the governor who must choose from that list. Then, as terms expire, the judges stand for reelection on a retain-or-reject basis. If they are turned out, the process starts all over.

In the entire history of the system, only three judges have been removed, one from the Court of Appeals and two from the Maricopa bench. No Supreme Court justice has ever lost an election, though a group that did not like one of his rulings did try to deny Pelander another six-year term in 2012.

The initiative at issue would have increased state income taxes on individual earnings above $250,000. The idea was to create a dedicated revenue stream of about $690 million a year for education.

Backers got more than enough signatures to put the issue on the November ballot.

But in a brief order late last month, Chief Justice Scott Bales said the description provided to petition signers did not inform them of all the implications of the measure, saying “that creates a significant danger of confusion or unfairness.”

It’s not just that conclusion that angered education supporters. There was also the fact that Daniel Scarpinato, a campaign aide to Ducey, confirmed that he had told some reporters that the decision was a 5-2 split in a bid to show that the governor’s two new appointments didn’t make a difference, even though that information is not public.

From the perspective of those seeking to oust the justices, that just confirms their belief there is a pipeline between the high court and the governor’s office, one they contend suggests that information also flows the other way.

That “leak” — no one from the court will confirm the vote until a formal ruling comes out — has caused some concern.

Jerry Landau, an aide to the court, said there already is an inquiry into how any information got out.

“I am completely confident that none of the justices communicated that information,” Bolick told Capitol Media Services. “The notion that any of us would ever divulge a vote breakdown before it was official is flabbergasting.”

Pelander said he knows nothing about it and does not believe it came from any of the justices.

“But if there was any kind of leak it’s extremely disappointing and disconcerting to me,” he said.

The larger question goes to the beliefs of those who want to oust one or two of the justices that the decision to bar a vote on the Invest in Ed measure was political.

Bolick said this isn’t like the U.S. Supreme Court where the split on many decisions can be predicted based on the political leanings of the justices. In fact, he said, in those ruling where the Arizona court has been split, the justices do not line up along predictable lines.

For example, a decision last month to allow a developer to use groundwater in Cochise County drew two separate dissents, one from Bolick and one from Bales who was appointed to the high court by Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano.

Bolick also pointed out that he voted two years ago to overturn a trial court judge and allow a vote on a plan to raise the state minimum wage to $12 an hour by 2020, something that probably did not fit his pre-appointment political philosophy at the Goldwater Institute.

Pelander, on the high court for nine years and an appellate judge for 14 before that, said none of the discussions he has had with colleagues about a pending case has ever been based on politics. And he took particular offense at the idea that he would be opposed to funding public education, pointing out his own background going through public schools, his mother as a teacher and his father serving on a local school board.

The effort to deny Pelander a new six-year term in 2012 was pushed by those who did not like the fact he agreed to allow a public vote creating an open primary system where all candidates run against each other regardless of party affiliation, with the top two advancing to the general election. Two of the other five judges also agreed with that conclusion but Pelander was the only one on the ballot that year.

Despite the campaign against him he still got nearly 1.1 million votes with fewer than 378,000 against him.

Since the retain-or-reject system was adopted, only three judges have been turned out of office.

In 1978, Gary Nelson lost his post on the Court of Appeals. That same year, Maricopa County voters removed Superior Court Judge Fred Hyder and in 2014 voters ousted Benjamin Norris from the bench Maricopa County.

6 comments

  1. Red for Ed is a joke. This is all about more money for these lazy-butt teachers. “It’s all about the kids”. Right! Money spent for education has no effect on the quality. My sons were educated in parochial schools for half the cost of public schools and their high school had higher average SAT and ACT scores than public schools in the county, state and U.S. They are both now CPA’s and very successful..

  2. God forbid that the executive branch and judicial would have conversations. In Thomas Jefferson’s original design of the White House, it was only a few feet from the Supreme Court and the president and justices would have run into each other every day.

  3. Cathy Benjamin Jacobs

    Great comment, Roger. Liberal teachers today don’t teach, they indoctrinate. They get paid well for not even having to work 50 weeks a year like the majority of people do. No matter how much money we give them, it’s never enough.

    Come to think of it, they’re exactly like the liberal politicians, whether we’re talking at the local, state or federal level. They keep wanting to raise our taxes, yet every time a Republican President/Congress lowers our taxes, we hear the same liberal mantra over and over again: Tax cuts “only” help the rich and “never” help the poor and middle class.

    It’s time we kick these liberals to the curb for good, so we can make this country great again.

  4. Liberal teachers…lazy butt teachers…Ha! Before retiring as a public school teacher I worked with many Republican teachers (as I was) and very, very few lazy butts. What I sense here is fear that these professionals may just be able to spark a change in the so-called choices available in Arizona nowadays. Choice that is certainly not available to most Arizona children.

  5. Having worked as a part time (unpaid) classroom teacher’s aide, I can definitively state that teachers do not sit on their asses and indoctrinate.
    The teachers at my school were taking money out of their own pockets for classroom supplies and using their own funds for enrichment such as an aquarium with turtles and interesting fish.
    They rarely left school when class was out and they spent evenings grading papers and working on lesson plans.
    They also spent their summers going to school or working. In rare instances a teacher might have a spouse with a good paying career and they could actually rest a little.

  6. Do you know who really controls, owns, and manipulates the Republican Political Agenda? The Billionaire Koch Brothers who gave contributions to Ducey and other Republican Legislators and donated $961K to the U of A. We Arizonans are not free but imprisoned by Plutocrats.

    The Republican Legislators continues to give fat Corporations tax deductions while giving pittance to AZ education, health care, and our crumbling infrastructure until/unless we know who is behind the powerful influences…The Koch Brothers! They are the ones who crush Propositions, initiatives, and innovations.

    Read the New York Times report on AZ Schools and Dark Money by Jane Mayer for the facts. The Koch Brothers wealth from 1982 increased 7,552% to $107 Billion in 2018.

Leave a Reply

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

*

 

x

Check Also

The Arizona Supreme Court heard oral arguments Feb. 28, 2017, in a case in which Tucson's ordinance requiring the city's police department to destroy seized guns has come under attack by the Arizona Attorney General. From left to right are justices Andrew Gould, Ann Scott Timmer, John Pelander, Scott Bales, Robert Brutinel, Clint Bolick and John Lopez.

Supreme Court upholds lower-court ruling on ‘strict compliance’

A new law making it harder for voters to put their own measures on the ballot will remain on the books, at least for now.