We have received many requests on who to vote for on the many judges seeking retention. The typical rule of thumb is to vote AGAINST all judges. For those of you who would prefer to reward good judges, one of our friends researched and scanned the following image. You should be able to click on this and print it out.
Please feel free to comment on any information you may have about these judges.
Please share this with others by posting on Facebook or Tweeting.
It is nearly impossible for any voter to keep up with shake & bake candidates for legislative offices, let alone obscure judges whose name you wouldn’t know until election time. There are “judicial reviews” in the Clean Elections booklets sent to every registered voter. Using this guide, I voted “NO” on two judges. Voting “NO” across the board is idiotic and simply results in throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Tut-tut my friend. The Arizona Judiciary, in my view, is a disgrace. I voted no on more that half of the sitting judges because there needs to be shake-up in the ranks. Unfortunately, if a few good ones [or not as bad as other ones] gets booted, too bad.
In short, I don’t think that there are many babies in this bath water.
I agree with “Zoo” that voting “NO” across the board is “idiotic” and in fact, is an abidcation of one’s responsibility as an informed citizen. Moreover, I find it perplexing why Flapjaw says that the Arizona judiciary is a “disgrace” without providing any reasons whatsoever for his or her view. In point of fact, national, non-partisan organizations that have no ax to grind have described the Arizona judiciary as one of the best in the nation and as “a model”. If Flapjaw has any evidence or cogent reasons to back up his or her negative impression, I would be truly interested to learn of them. I am not holding my breath, however, because it has been my experience that generalized characterizations of that kind are rarely supported by solid, verifiable facts. The Arizona judiciary is comprised of hundreds of judges. As “Zoo” wisely observerd, one has to carefully review the Voter’s guide to acquire any factual basis for deciding whether or not to retain a judge. The Voter’s Guide, which reflects the first-hand experience of witnesses, litigants and lawyers, basically concludes that while some are better than others and get higher ratings, all are conscientious, honest and trying to decide cases fairly and impartially. And, therefore, should be retained. If Flapjaw has information to the contrary, I look forward to learning of it.
I have looked at each judge individually. I came to my decisions based on their ratings and comments from the voters guide and other sources. Since you quote “Non Partisan” un-named organizations to conclude that all of the judges are conscientious, honest, fair and impartial [generaized characterization maybe?] I prefer to do it my way.
I may suggest to you that you pay a bit more attention to current events occuring in the corrupt Maricopa County board of Supervisors, the lynchmob of Andrew Thomas [by judges and lawyers of the Bar] to name a hint for you. My criteria also included who appointed these judges. Ideology is considered in appointments and it should be a factor in retaining them.
Sarge, your vetting list would have come in handy a few ink strokes ago. I’m afraid too many of us utilized the CE guide in a attempt to make some effort in correct choices. That said, my guess is the overwhelming majority of voters vote for all, vote all out, or leave that ballot section blank. So unless a judge commits murder in front of live TV cameras, getting them off the bench is like trying to remove Dingus McCain from his Senate saddle.
Getting info on judges is somewhat difficult but possible. Although Prop 115 has provisions that I don’t care for, I like the fact that it requires that performance reviews must be sent to the legislature on judges who are up for retention and allowing for the legislature to hold hearings on those reports. Also the Supreme, Appelate, and Superior Justices must publish decisions online. That is why I voted for 115.
I do not wish for any judges to be too secure.
Gonna have to disagree with you on Judge Cohen, he’s actually a pretty nice guy.
Here are some suggested considerations:
AZ SUPREMES – Remember the unsavory tunes favored by our AZ Supremes. Remember, this is the same rap combo that illegally surrounded a fraudulently-appointed Chairthing on our recent “Independent” Redistricting Commission after it had been fired for its fraudulent application and for violating AZ purchasing laws in hiring the Obamao campaign to draw our maps. (By the way, Mr. AG, what ever happened to that criminal investigation?)
This is the same group of arrogant thugs who reprieve murderers because they don’t find the acts of torturing and murdering a teenage brother and sister – just for practice – while the murderer was waiting for their mother to return so he could torture and murder her also, as being heinous enough to warrant a death penalty. [example 1 of many]
MARICOPA “SUPER” JUDGES – Several of this peer group have been indicted or implicated in vast swaths of corruption. The others did nothing to ferret out the truth or to protect the brave public servants who were trying to clean out that cesspool.
Also, just using the Guide and checking their appointment dates, it seems most were appointed by past guv JaNo, who has gone on to destroy all of the other 49 states at one time. That should also be a strong clue.
As someone has astutely observed, “there aren’t too many babies in this bath water.”
God bless America.
As far as I know, there has not ever been an Arizona judge removed from office by losing a retention vote.
In contrast with the more “responsible” posters who are not “idiotic,” I think that the judges should be humbled by realizing that some people would like to see them removed from office. This is the only realistic check on judges’ power if they are not actually committing felonies and getting convicted of them. I think it’s bad public policy for judges to feel too safe in their positions.
As long as most people consistently vote to retain judges, I think it is helpful to take an “If in doubt, throw them out!” approach to retention votes.
If we had a better retention system, this would not be the case. For example, if all of the judges were listed for retention and each voter could only vote to retain 80% of the judges with only the top 80% of vote getters getting retained, then there would be more motivation to vote on retention more seriously.
Getting rid of the bottom 20% (or even bottom 10% would be better than nothing) would clean out the lower quality judges and ensure that judges knew they would have to have good records compared to 80% of fellow judges to be retained. If judges knew that they could be fired if they fall into the bottom 20% of vote getters, they would have an incentive to act more responsibly and communicate their records to voters in order to convince voters they deserve to be retained. Now, they just sit quietly and smugly in their chambers and know they don’t have to really convince the voters to keep them.
Given the current retention process, I think it is more idiotic to take the time to thoroughly study judicial records and take retention votes seriously than to just vote NO or simply not vote on retaining judges.
Alternatively, to keep things simpler, just vote for the judges to remove from office with the top 20% of vote getters losing their jobs.
Your “typical rule of thumb is to vote AGAINST all judges” shows laziness and total indifference to the system.
One only has to look at your first recommendation to see how out of pace you are with the judicial system and rulings from the bench.
Judge Pelander is one of the most conservative judges with have on the bench at any level.
Do your research and you will find out the same. I can only guess how you would suggest voting for school board members. Dart board?
For school board members, I look for teacher union endorsements and then vote for the other candidates. For incumbents, I look at how they voted on key issues. Of course, that’s only if there are more candidates running than there are open positions.
I am indifferent to the Judicial retention system. It’s not worth the effort to do the research compared to just voting NO on all of them. None has ever lost a retention vote anyway. If even 1 of the judges getting the lowest votes to be retained (compared to all of the other judges) were let go regardless of whether he got more retain than remove votes, then it would be worth doing some research. Under the current retention system, voting NO for all the judges is just an efficient use of time since being more “diligent” like some pretentious know-it-alls does not, so far, have any chance of changing any outcomes. If it makes you feel good to waste your time, though, keep thoroughly reviewing the performance of the judges.
At least with school board elections, your vote is more likely to have an impact since not all of the candidates can win the election.
Judge Pelander allowed Prop 121 to get on the ballot after Jennifer Wright did all the work on checking signatures and she wasn’t given enough time to present her case. Vote NO on Pelander….
The Judicial Performance Review is a non-partisan site that provides information about each judge’s performance, not political affiliations. Please use it to help make educated choices when voting based on the Judge’s body of work, instead of vague accusations.
http://www.azjudges.info
JPR is involved in internal legal community politics. Brandon you clearly do not know the truth that the JPR by no means has/have the manpower to review the thousands cases and multiple judges/commissioners. Yes, when you look at the JPR webpage you find that majority of the votes typically only 30-40 votes are all Attorneys and Judges look great for judge reviews. JPR is run and controlled by the internal workings of the legal community not any member of the public. The public has no control and therefore one person in the BAR controls the judicial system. The judicial system uses personalized law not our Arizona laws. Sarah Simmons supported and sponsored the fraudulent based evaluation report of the 2010 COBS that forced the use of “hidden alimony”(this removed accountability for the lazy parent) and Sarah Simmons forced socialism why because the one person in the BAR feels that hardworking parent should be raped through unlawful use of judicial offices in pima county(oh yah in the use of children as persuasion)! This is fact Brandon! Brandon, you need to do your research not just stand by something that just looks pretty on the outside. You need to look at the process, case loads, and the reality in how the 18 members could even remotely do a complete honest evaluation with regards to all the categories listed(oh yah and on their own dime and time! Did you know that part?). Fact is JPR reviews are not true and are fully swayed by the AZBAR. I have a copy of the report of case loads and multiple law violations, multiple discrimination, multiple child endangerments and … it just goes on and on…. There is even documented records that show the presiding judge ordering the modification of court room recording records in recent months… The discretional use is just getting out of hand and the judges/commissioners just flaunt it openly on case filings and rulings. CJC does not investigate corruption; JPR does not hold any judge accountable on “real performance”. The facts show “friends promoting friends”! Friends promoting friends, leads to a privet judicial system that is not run by our Arizona Laws. The judicial system is there to serve our laws not serve the one person’s wet dream on the public!
Thank you for this awesome list! Now all i have to do is vote the opposite and I am good to go..woot!
Need info on Boyd Johnson, Stephen McCarville, Joseph Georgini, Robert Olson, and Joseph Howard
from a conservative perspective. Thanks.
All the judges men, well how are we supposed to decide what judges to vote retention for or not. The information provided for voters is compiled by the same people we are voting to retain or not. It is interesting that the Commission on Judicial Conduct practicaly never imposes any sanctions etc. on Superior Court Judges or higher.
In the below Scribd link review a complaint filed on William J. O’Neil, the Arizona Supreme Court Presiding Disciplinary Judge and the misconduct he is involved in. Take the time to read the complaint and the enclosed 160 pages of evidence backing it up. What will the Commission on Judicial conduct do now, or better yet what creative way will the find to cover it up and explain it away. Mortgage shortsale improprities, creating false public records, the list is long.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/112852009/William-J-O-Neil-Arizona-Presiding-Disciplinary-Judge-judicial-complaint
Illegal activity, most likely, ethical wrong doing according to the Rules of Judicial Conduct, absolutaly.