The 2024 judicial retention elections, and all retention elections thereafter, will stay intact given the sweeping failure of a measure poised to void retention results rendered this cycle and limit when judges are made to stand for retention.

Initial election results showed only 21.28% of voters supported Proposition 137, with 78.72% of voters rejecting the measure. 

Proposition 137, as referred by the legislature, would have nullified the results of the 2024 retention election and effectively do away with judicial term limits.

Under the measure, judges are only made to sit for a retention election given a negative finding from the Commission on Judicial Performance Review, or if the judge is facing a conviction of a felony offense, any crime involving fraud or dishonesty, or personal bankruptcy or foreclosure. 

The measure also input legislative say into the Judicial Performance Review Commission by way of an appointee. 

Proponents of the measure made the case by noting the typically lengthy judicial retention ballot means a low-information election and further expressed a fear of a politicized judiciary, given ramped-up efforts to keep or oust judges. 

In 2022, voters did not retain three Maricopa County Superior Court judges, an anomaly in the history of judicial retention elections, and narrowly kept Supreme Court Justice William Montgomery on the bench.

In the aftermath, those adjacent to the judiciary started warning judges and justices to gear up to run campaigns. And slowly but surely, competing efforts to oust or retain judges started springing up. 

The main focus has stayed on Supreme Court Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King. 

Political action committees formed for the sole purposes of either booting or protecting Bolick and King, with an influx of out-of-state spending in tow. 

PACs looking to oust Bolick and King emphasized their ruling to uphold the 1864 abortion ban, while those hoping to see the two retained magnified the potential for Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, to appoint two more justices to the bench.

Political fervor drifted down ballot, too, with select appellate and Superior Court judges placed on voting guides with a “no” next to their names.  

Proposition 137 did not draw any dedicated for or against campaigns but was instead woven into messaging, primarily from Democrats. Those against the measure highlighted the need to keep voter input on judicial retention elections and to ensure the results of the 2024 election stand, while a Republican judicial PAC opted not to take a position. 

Election night returns showed both justices Bolick and King on track to stay on the bench, as well as all four Court of Appeals judges and all 42 Maricopa County Superior Court judges up for retention.