A complaint submitted to the state’s judicial conduct commission alleges Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick violated judicial ethics for vowing to continue “fighting for conservative principles”  at a Republican club meeting. 

In a formal complaint to the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct, Save Our Schools Arizona, a public education advocacy group, cited an article from Politico in which Bolick is quoted as saying he and Justice Kathryn King “check our politics at the door” but said he would continue “fighting for conservative principles.” 

The group claimed the statements violated “several provisions” of the judicial ethics canon.

“The judicial codes of conduct clearly state that judges should aspire at all times to conduct that ensures the greatest possible public confidence in their independence and impartiality,” Beth Lewis, director of Save Our Schools, said. “I think that both independence and impartiality are in question.” 

A committee working to retain Bolick and King dismissed the complaint as merely last-ditch campaign fodder. 

Daniel Scarpinato, spokesperson for Judicial Independence PAC, said it was a “frivolous complaint to try to create more political acrimony in advance of the election.” 

Per the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct, the general campaign and political rules prohibit judges from engaging in political or campaign activity inconsistent with the “independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”  

Judges are not prohibited from making their personal views on legal or political issues known, so long as they differentiate them from a promise, pledge or commitment to rule a certain way and acknowledge “the overarching judicial obligation to apply and uphold the law, without regard to his or her personal view.” 

“The making of a pledge, promise, or commitment is not dependent upon, or limited to, the use of any specific words or phrases; instead, the totality of the statement must be examined to determine if a reasonable person would believe that the candidate for judicial office has specifically undertaken to reach a particular result,” the rules hold. 

An Oct. 12 Politico article detailing the intersection of judicial races and abortion noted Bolick’s appearance at a Sun City West Republicans Club meeting on Oct. 5. Per the club’s meeting minutes, King was also in attendance. 

“Standing between a fully decorated Christmas tree and a cardboard cutout of Trump giving a double thumbs up, Bolick said he and King know how to “check our politics at the door of the court.’”  

Per the article, Bolick said the abortion ruling was “a convenient excuse to try to get people on the left riled up and replace us with judges who will rubber stamp their ideological agenda.” 

He further stressed his own fairness and independence but “assured the assembled Republicans that he would continue ‘fighting for conservative principles.’” 

According to Politico and meeting minutes from the Republican club, Bolick further noted his advocacy for constitutional principles, making mention of his time clerking for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and working for the Goldwater Institute. But he generally stressed judges cannot be political. 

Complaints submitted to the Commission on Judicial Conduct remain confidential, but Save Our Schools alleged Bolick’s appearance and comments violated “several” provisions of judicial conduct. 

As part of the investigation of judicial conduct complaints, the commission may review relevant materials, interview witnesses and seek a response from the judge, with a standard allowance of about three to four weeks to respond to the complaint. 

Alberto Rodriguez, spokesperson for the court, noted the commission currently has approximately 160 open complaints, and given the standard timeline for a complaint, any resolution would not come before the election.

The complaint falls into the larger fight around judicial retention this cycle, with Bolick and King at the nucleus, and with both pro- and anti-retention groups claiming the other is aiding and abetting the politicization of the courts. 

Lewis acknowledged as much but said the goal was to bring the issue to the attention of voters. 

Save Our Schools Arizona is advocating against the retention of Bolick and King, with Lewis noting the justices’ past rulings striking down two education funding proposals. 

“It’s personal for us,” Lewis said. 

Save Our Schools Arizona called out Judicial Independence Defense PAC, a committee aimed at keeping Bolick and King on the bench. Lewis said the committee’s vow to “protect our independent judiciary” and “keep politics out of the court,” was undercut by Bolick. 

“The court should not be politicized,” Lewis said. “But I do think that Bolick and King have politicized the court.” 

Lewis further noted funding from conservative donors like Jeffrey Yass and Randy Kendrick.

Scrpinato said he thought Save Our Schools “did not have much credibility to be talking about anything related to independence, or taking the temperature down, or keeping politics out of anything. They’ve been obsessed with injecting politics into everything.” 

As for the aim of Judicial Independence Defense PAC, Scarpinato said the goal was to retain all justices and judges in the upcoming election. 

“There is no credible reason to remove them. There are no substantive, ethical complaints. The legal community is not suggesting they be removed,” Scarpinato said. “The reasons for removing them are all partisan and political.”