by Daniel Stefanski | Nov 7, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Two Arizona State Supreme Court justices survived competitive challenges to their retention to the judicial bench.
On Tuesday, state Supreme Court Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King won their retention elections. Both individuals had faced heightened challenges to their future service on the court.
Justice Bolick received 58.36% of the vote to retain, while Justice King obtained 59.43% to retain.
Bolick issued a statement after the outcome of his race was known, saying, “I am honored to have the opportunity to serve on the USA’s best state supreme court for another three years. I am beyond grateful for your votes, your support, and your prayers. This was so important to win to preserve an independent judiciary in AZ, and it appears we did so decisively. I couldn’t have better friends and colleagues!!”
The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry posted a statement of support for the results of these two elections. Its account wrote, “Congratulations to Arizona Supreme Court Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King on overwhelmingly being retained by Arizona voters despite partisan attempts to remove them from the bench. The Chamber was pleased to support these fair-minded and independent jurists.”
Bolick and King were appointed by former Arizona Governor Doug Ducey. Bolick received his appointment to the Arizona Supreme Court in 2016, while King obtained hers in 2021. Both justices served in the private sector as attorneys prior to making their journey to the state court.
According to the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review (JPR), both Bolick and King received extremely high marks to meet the standards on the merits of their decisions. The Commission “exists to provide meaningful and accurate information to the public for its use in voting on the justices and judges appointed to the bench through merit selection.” In his average of all evaluation categories, Bolick acquired 97% or greater. King had 90% and over for her categories. The JPR is used for voter recommendations for each cycle’s judicial retention elections.
For most voters in Arizona, judicial retention contests are often met with more apathy than any other selection(s) on their ballots. In recent elections, however, outside groups have put more of a target on judges for increased voter scrutiny, leading to the addition of Bolick and King with this year’s ballot choices. This was Bolick’s second retention election and King’s first.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Oct 28, 2024 | News
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 senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Daniel Stefanski | Sep 27, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Two of Arizona’s Supreme Court justices are facing a fight for their future tenure on the bench.
This November, Arizona voters will have the opportunity to retain two key votes on the state’s high court, Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King. Both justices have demonstrated a consistent standard for standing on the principle of the law, not politics, though their stances have often angered outside interests – including the groups now attempting to remove them from the court.
Bolick and King were appointed by former Arizona Governor Doug Ducey. Bolick received his appointment to the Arizona Supreme Court in 2016, while King obtained hers in 2021. Both justices served in the private sector as attorneys prior to making their journey to the state court.
According to the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review (JPR), both Bolick and King received extremely high marks to meet the standards on the merits of their decisions. The Commission “exists to provide meaningful and accurate information to the public for its use in voting on the justices and judges appointed to the bench through merit selection.” In his average of all evaluation categories, Bolick acquired 97% or greater. King had 90% and over for her categories. The JPR is used for voter recommendations for each cycle’s judicial retention elections.
For most voters in Arizona, judicial retention contests are often met with more apathy than any other selection(s) on their ballots. In recent elections, however, outside groups have put more of a target on judges for increased voter scrutiny, leading to the addition of Bolick and King with this year’s ballot choices. This is Bolick’s second retention election and King’s first.
Earlier this year, Bolick and King drew the ire of progressive groups after their votes in a controversial abortion case. The group helping to lead the efforts to oust the two justices, Protect Abortion Rights Arizona, posted on its website, “Arizonans need a fair judiciary that will protect our rights. This year, Arizona voters will decide whether to vote out two of the Supreme Court justices who voted to uphold the total, 160-year old abortion ban.”
In an op-ed published in The Arizona Republic this past May, Bolick explained his vote on the abortion case. He wrote, “Serious commentators, liberal and conservative, who actually read the decision (which I encourage voters to do), agree it is solidly grounded in law. We had before us not a question of policy, or even of constitutionality, but simply whether the Legislature in 2022, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, restored an earlier abortion restriction. After careful analysis, we concluded it did.”
The high-profile justice continued: “I cannot count the number of cases in which I have voted against my policy preferences. One example is when Gov. Doug Ducey vetoed nearly two dozen conservative bills over a budget dispute with the Legislature. They were passed again, then challenged by the Arizona School Boards Association. We struck them all down because they were passed unconstitutionally as part of the budget rather than as standalone bills.”
The case that Bolick was referring to in his piece was Arizona School Boards Association v. Arizona. The plaintiffs had challenged four budget reconciliation bills – HB 2898, SB 1824, SB 1825, and SB 1819. The court unanimously decided that the bills were void in part because of they violated the title requirement, and that SB 1819 was entirely void because it violated the single subject rule. Justice Bolick factored into the decision of the court, yet King recused herself. According to the court, the Arizona constitution “requires that appropriations beyond the scope of the general appropriations bill ‘shall be made by separate bills, each embracing but one subject.’”
As the court wrote in its conclusion, “We respect the role of the legislature in the discharge of its constitutional duties, including in its budgetary processes, and we heed our constitution’s fundamental premise that the division of powers necessarily impels judicial restraint, particularly in the realm of lawmaking. But this Court’s constitutional duty to interpret and apply the constitution requires us to invalidate a law if it infringes the constitution. Thus, today we do not intrude upon the legislature’s unique constitutional authority; instead, we merely exercise our own such authority to interpret, apply, and enforce the Arizona Constitution’s command that the legislature’s acts comply with the title requirement and the single subject rule.”
Judicial Independence Defense PAC has taken the side of Bolick and King, working to convince enough voters to retain these two justices in the upcoming fall election. The group warns that these retentions have been grossly politicized, and that Arizonans will pay the price if Bolick and King are removed from the bench. The PAC states, “From the federal level on down, we’ve seen politics creep its way into the judicial branch. But our courts should be independent, and in Arizona they have been. According to published media reports, out-of-state liberal groups like the National Democratic Redistricting Committee and Planned Parenthood Votes have budgeted $5 million to take over Arizona’s Court and defeat Justices Clint Bolick and Kate King. If they succeed, liberal Governor Katie Hobbs will get to choose their replacements, giving liberals a majority on the Arizona Supreme Court for the first time.”
These cautionary words from the Judicial Independence PAC echoes what Bolick also penned in his aforementioned op-ed. Bolick said, “The groups opposing us need a serious civics lesson about the role of the courts. Nowhere in their materials will you read about the importance of an independent judiciary in protecting our free society. Instead, they think we should decide cases based on the ‘will of the people.’ How do we determine that? Commission a poll? Convene a focus group? Simply assume the Legislature always reflects the will of the people?”
Bolick answered his questions with a quote from the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, saying, “As Justice O’Connor put it following her retirement, ‘the judiciary should not respond to public opinion in its individual decisions,’ but instead should be ‘accountable to the public for its constitutional role of applying the law fairly and impartially.’ That is what the iconic image of the scales of justice is all about.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
