Arizona judges have been accountable to those they serve since statehood. Ballot Proposition 137 would virtually abolish this accountability. That is why we are voting “no” on Proposition 137, and we urge voters to do the same.  

During Arizona’s first 62 years, judges were selected based on their political affiliation, either by voters in partisan elections or by the Governor who appointed judges to fill midterm vacancies.  In 1974, Arizona voters recognized judges should spend their time ruling on the issues based on the facts and law, and not on partisan considerations. Accordingly, that year, Arizonans amended  the constitution and enacted a merit selection system for state appellate judges (Supreme Court and Court of Appeals) and superior court judges from the state’s most populous counties. But at the same time, Arizonans preserved their right to hold these judges accountable through what became known as “retention elections.”   

Under the merit selection/retention election system, the Governor fills vacancies on these courts from a list of candidates nominated by independent commissions which investigate, evaluate, and nominate the candidates based on merit – their professional experiences and qualifications.  The appointed judges serve fixed terms. Arizonans then decide whether to retain the appointed judges at regularly scheduled retention elections – held every six years for appellate judges and every four years for superior court judges.   

This merit selection/retention election system has served Arizona well. It has balanced judicial independence with accountability, allowing the judges to spend their time deciding cases, without being pressured by partisan politics.  

Proposition 137 would gut this system. It would eliminate fixed terms for all merit-selected judges, virtually abolish all retention elections, and replace the voice of the people with legislative influence and oversight.   

Under Proposition 137, merit selected judges would no longer have fixed terms, nor stand in regularly scheduled retention elections. Instead, they would hold office “during good behavior,” essentially giving them a lifetime appointment. A judge would only stand in a retention election  if a majority of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review (JPR Commission), created to evaluate judicial performance of merit selected judges and publicize its findings to the voters found the judge had failed to meet judicial performance standards (such as legal ability, impartiality, and integrity), or the judge had been convicted of certain felony crimes, filed bankruptcy, or had a mortgage foreclosed. If Proposition 137 had been in effect over the last ten years, Arizonans would only have had a say on whether four judges should remain in office.  

Proposition 137 also cancels any “do not retain” decision the voters may make in the upcoming November 2024 retention elections. Even if a majority of the voters in November decide not to retain a judge, Proposition 137 is retroactive, and the judge will not be removed from office.   

Instead of being accountable to the people, Proposition 137 would make merit-selected judges accountable to the legislature by making them subject to legislative pressure and intimidation.  Any one legislator could force the JPR Commission to investigate a merit-selected judge by merely alleging the judge “engaged in a pattern of malfeasance.” Proposition 137 gives the JPR Commission no discretion to ignore any allegation, even if groundless or made for partisan reasons.

Judges should spend their time fairly and impartially deciding legal disputes, not responding to groundless or partisan allegations. 

All of us who have signed this statement were appointed through merit selection and stood in retention elections. The current system works; it strikes the right balance between judicial independence and accountability. 

We are not alone in opposing Proposition 137. Members of the Arizona Judges Association, a voluntary association of judicial officers that promotes fair and impartial courts, have voted to oppose Proposition 137. We urge all voters to join these judges and us in voting no on Proposition 137. 

Retired Judges Against Prop 137 

Hon. Patricia K. Norris (Ret.) 

Hon. Edward W. Bassett (Ret.) 

Hon. William Brotherton (Ret.) 

Hon. Theodore Campagnolo (Ret.)  

Hon. Connie Coin Contes (Ret.) 

Hon. Philip Espinosa (Ret.)  

Hon. Ken Fields (Ret.) 

Hon. Warren J. Granville (Ret.) 

Hon. Carey Snyder Hyatt (Ret.) 

Hon. Patrick Irvine (Ret.)  

Hon. Andrew Klein (Ret.) 

Hon. John Leonardo (Ret.)  

Hon. Michael Miller (Ret.) 

Hon. Patricia A. Orozco (Ret.)  

Hon. Cecil Patterson (Ret.) 

Hon. Maurice Portley (Ret.) 

Hon. Peter Reinstein (Ret.) 

Hon. Ron Reinstein (Ret.)

Hon. Barry C. Schneider (Ret.)

Hon. Timothy J. Thomason (Ret.)