By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick responded to a formal complaint against him to the Commission on Judicial Conduct from Save Our Schools Arizona (SOSAZ) regarding comments he’s made while campaigning for retention in the 2024 Election. Justice Bolick summarized his response in three words before addressing it more fully: “Bring it on.”
In a press release, SOSAZ claimed that Justice Bolick’s comments at a campaign event covered by Politico violate “several provisions of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct.” The group suggested that his speech at a Pentecostal Church in Sun City stating he would continue “fighting for conservative principles,” while standing near a cardboard cutout of President Donald Trump, breached public confidence in his “independence, impartiality, integrity, and competence.”
The activist group wrote, “SOSAZ’s written complaint asserts that Justice Bolick’s active campaigning at a Republican Party event violates several provisions of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct, which states that judges ‘should aspire at all times to conduct that ensures the greatest possible public confidence in their independence, impartiality, integrity, and competence.’ Justice Bolick’s appearance and comments at this Republican Party meeting certainly do not meet this standard, and we should expect better of our judges, especially those sitting on the state’s highest court.”
Speaking with KJZZ, SOSAZ Executive Director Beth Lewis told the outlet, “It’s not impartial and judges really do need to act with impartiality at all times.”
“Bolick has politicized the courts. It’s also been shown in his decisions, which are directly related to our work at Save Our Schools Arizona,” Lewis claimed. “His ideologically-based decisions have directly impacted our ability to fund our schools for many years.”
SOSAZ is running an extensive “do not retain” campaign against retaining Justice Bolick and fellow Justice Kathryn King. Bolick and King are the only two Supreme Court Justices facing retention votes this year. According to the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review, both Bolick and King received extremely high marks to meet the standards on the merits of their decisions.
In an email statement obtained by AZ Free News, Bolick responded to SOSAZ’s complaint:
“A political organization that is opposed to my retention as an Arizona Supreme Court justice has reportedly filed a judicial ethics complaint against me. My response: Bring it on.
I have spent much of my career as a lawyer and judge defending and protecting free-speech rights. I am glad to have the chance to stand up for my own and other judges’ free-speech rights.
Judges necessarily enjoy fewer free-speech rights than others. But we have the right to forcefully defend ourselves against an unprecedented campaign to replace judges solely for political reasons.
In doing so, I adhere meticulously to judicial ethics rules. Judges cannot endorse candidates for office, and I do not (not even my wife). Judges cannot ask for money to support their campaigns, and I do not. Judges may not talk about pending cases or issues that may come before the Court, and I do not. In short, we are forced to ‘campaign’ with one arm tied behind our backs. Our opponents have no such restraints.
The rules do allow us to speak at partisan events, although we cannot serve as party officers and cannot endorse candidates. That is no problem for me, as I have been a registered independent for more than two decades and am the only independent to ever serve on the Court. Since the campaign to remove Justice Kathryn King and me from the Court, I have spoken at both partisan and nonpartisan events.
During the retention campaign, I feel like I spend half my time defending against liberal critics over judicial opinions they do not like, and the other half against conservative critics of opinions they do not like. My colleagues and I were ‘censured’ by the Maricopa County Republican Party executive committee for voting against their wishes in election cases. As a judge committed to the rule of law, I see criticisms from both sides as a badge of honor.
The group’s news release makes clear this is about politics, not judicial ethics. Its executive director, Beth Lewis, tweeted that her vote against me was ‘personal,’ ‘gleeful anger,’ and ‘revenge.’ Filing a judicial ethics complaint for ‘revenge’ is an abuse of process.
But I hope they will pursue it even after the election because we need a clear precedent protecting the free-speech rights of judges to defend themselves, and I will be proud to have my name in the caption.
-Clint Bolick
One minor factual correction in the complaint: I was the last justice appointed to a five-member Court, which later was expanded to seven.”
Matthew Holloway is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.