Three Arizona judges poised for rare losses in retention elections

Key Points:

• Three Arizona judges appointed by Republican Gov. Doug Ducey appeared headed for defeat in their retention races

• All received favorable evaluations from the state’s judicial performance commission but came under sharp criticism from some political groups

• Only a handful of judges have lost retention elections in the last 35 years

Three Arizona judges appointed by Republican Gov. Doug Ducey appeared headed for defeat Tuesday in their retention races, a rare outcome that could remove them from the bench despite favorable evaluations from the state’s judicial performance commission. 

Arizona Court of Appeals Judge Anni Hill Foster was narrowly trailing by  50.2% to 49.8%, according to unofficial results. In Maricopa County, Superior Court Judge Julie Mata was behind 51.35% to 48.65%, and Superior Court Judge Michael Rassas was losing 50.6% to 49.4%. 

The results are notable because the three were among the dozens of judges up for retention votes this year. The rest will keep their seats. In fact, only a handful of judges have lost retention elections since the current judicial review process began in 1992.

All three judges met standards set by the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review, which evaluates each judge’s performance ahead of the election. But each also faced attacks from organizations critical of them for reasons ranging from their past legal work to concerns about judicial performance. 

The results have raised questions among some legal experts who say the results could deter attorneys from wanting to serve as judges. 

“At some point if it becomes the norm that three people every election cycle aren’t retained even though they passed the judicial performance review, who is going to want the job?” asked Commission Chair Will Auther. 

Who are the judges?

Rassas was appointed to the Superior Court in 2020 after three years as an assistant attorney general, as well as prior experience as an administrative law judge and deputy county attorney. He served first in family court before moving to juvenile court in 2023.

Rassas said he became a judge to help people through the hardest moments of their lives and that he has loved the work. 

“The voters have decided not to retain me, and I respect their decision, even though there was no ruling, controversy, or misstep behind it,” Rassas said in a statement. “I am grateful I received high judicial performance review ratings from those who appeared in my court, and I hope everyone left my courtroom feeling heard.” 

A strong court system requires experienced attorneys willing to leave their practices and serve the public, Rassas said. “Judges should be judged on their work,” he said. “When that is not certain, it is impossible to ask the best to serve.” 

David Rosenbaum, an attorney at Phoenix law firm Osborn Maledon and board member of Arizonans for an Independent Judiciary, said Rassas’ work in family and juvenile court isn’t inherently political. 

“I don’t know that the electorate appreciates the importance to the state of judicial independence and impartiality,” Rosenbaum said. “I don’t think they realize that judges are deciding cases based on the law and the facts before them. Particularly at levels below the Supreme Court … they don’t have political cases.” 

Foster served as in-house counsel with the Arizona Department of Public Safety and was general counsel to Ducey before being named to the Court of Appeals in 2022. 

Mata was appointed to the Superior Court in 2020 after previous work as an attorney, administrative law judge for the ADOT and as a Superior Court commissioner. 

She recently oversaw a high-profile paternity case involving former “Bachelor” star Clayton Echard in family court.

Foster and Mata did not respond to requests for comment. 

Why were they opposed?

Opposition to the three judges wasn’t confined to one political party.

The Maricopa County Democratic Party encouraged “no” votes for Foster and Mata in its 2026 voter guide but did not explain why. Rassas was not included. 

The Maricopa County Republican Committee encouraged “no” votes for all three. 

Neither the party nor the committee responded to requests for comment. 

Civic Engagement Beyond Voting, a group affiliated with the national progressive organization Indivisible, similarly encouraged voters to reject Foster and Mata. The group said it had “reservations” about Rassas in its 2026 voting recommendations. 

CEVB said Foster represented Ducey in an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case that overturned the federal right to an abortion in 2022. She also served as lead counsel in Ducey’s challenge to former President Joe Biden’s handling of COVID-19 relief funds, CEVB said. 

“The scope of her cases, in our opinion, covers so many objectionable perspectives that we feel her impartiality is compromised,” CEVB wrote in its election guide. 

CEVB cited Mata’s handling of cases involving a ballot question on diversity, equity and inclusion and a proposed question on school choice. The group also said her judicial performance review “showed numerous red flags” in areas such as integrity and communication. 

CEVB said there were “concerning” aspects of Rassas’ performance review, including 21% of participating attorneys rating his temperament as “poor” or “very poor.”

The vacancies will be filled by nominating commissions that will make recommendations for appointments to Gov. Katie Hobbs.