Merit Selection of Judges
|
|
In 1974, the voters of Arizona decided that superior court judges in counties with populations over 250,000 (currently Maricopa and Pima) and all appellate judges on Arizona's Supreme Court and Court of Appeals should first be appointed by the Governor from a list of qualified candidates recommended by a Commission consisting primarily of public members. Thereafter, during periodic elections, Arizona voters would decide whether to retain those judges. As a voter, you determine if the judges should remain in office.
One intent of merit selection is to remove politics from the judicial selection process. Another is to avoid the appearance or possibility of compromising judicial impartiality and integrity if judges are forced to solicit campaign contributions from, among others, attorneys who may practice before them, or people who may someday appear before them in court.
|
High Standards are Set for Arizona's Judiciary
|
|
Arizona judges are expected to meet high standards of performance.
-
A judge should administer justice fairly, ethically, uniformly, promptly and efficiently.
-
Judges should be free from personal bias when making decisions and decide cases based on the proper application of law.
-
Judges should issue prompt rulings that can be understood and make decisions that demonstrate competent legal analysis.
-
Judges should act with dignity, courtesy and patience. They should effectively manage their courtroom and the administrative responsibilities of their office.
|
Arizona's Commission on Judicial Performance Review
|
|
Established in 1992 by an amendment to the Arizona Constitution, the 30-member Commission is made up of a majority of people like yourself, drawn from the public-at-large. Attorneys and judges make up the rest of the Commission. The Commission establishes performance standards for judges, decides whether or not a judge meets those standards, and communicates its findings to you, the voters.
The Commission collects information on judges' performance by distributing written surveys and conducting public hearings for persons who have first-hand knowledge of the job performance of judges appearing on the 2000 general election ballot. The Commission also accepts written comments regarding the performance of judges.
The responses to the surveys are compiled by an independent data center and the results forwarded to the Commission. Its members review all the information on each judge and vote whether the judge met - or did not meet -judicial performance standards. When the Commission votes, the judges' names are encoded so that members do not know which judge they were voting on until all the votes are counted.
|
|
|
Evaluating Judges' Job Performance
|
|
|
Once judges take the bench, the public expects them to be good judges; however, most citizens have very little information to use when evaluating a judge's performance. The Commission on Judicial Performance Review has the duty to provide meaningful and accurate information to the public for its use in making informed decisions regarding retention of merit-selected judges.
Every two years, the job performance of superior court judges in Maricopa and Pima Counties is evaluated. Court staff, jurors, litigants, witnesses, persons representing themselves and attorneys are asked to participate by completing survey forms. This past year, surveys were distributed during a six-month period ending on March 31, 2000.
The job performance of justices of the Arizona Supreme Court and Court of Appeal's judges were also evaluated using similar methods on a continuous basis.
The collection of reliable data was key to the success of this evaluation process and the Commission has confidence in the accuracy of the data it has received. The distribution of survey instruments to certain respondent groups, however, was accomplished in a cost-effective process which may not have been, in all respects, in accordance with scientific procedures.
The following pages contain evaluations of the job performance of judges who are subject to retention by voters in this election. These evaluations were based on survey results gathered from court staff, jurors, litigants, witnesses, persons representing themselves and attorneys. Information obtained at public hearings and signed, written public comments were also considered.
Depending on the Superior Court judge's assignment, the judge may not have responses in certain categories (indicated by N/A).
Members of the Arizona Supreme Court and Court of Appeals were evaluated by the lawyers who appeared before them. Because appellate courts do not hold trials, there were no litigant, witness or juror responses to consider.
Commission members reviewed, considered, and weighed carefully, the evaluation data from the survey process, public hearings, and written public comments before deciding whether a judge met - or did not meet - judicial performance standards.
|
Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
|
Public Members
|
|
|
|
David Armstead, Phoenix
|
Ed Beasley, Glendale
|
Jessie Lou Blakeslee, Tempe
|
|
Espinola O. Brunson, Phoenix
|
Rod D. Covey, Phoenix
|
Daniel J. Durrenberger, Tempe
|
|
David A. Garber, Tucson
|
Lola L. Grabb, Tucson
|
Mary Guerra-Willekens, Phoenix
|
|
Winifred Hershberger, Tucson
|
David L. Hetrick, Tucson
|
Andrea Ibáñez, Chair, Tucson
|
|
Dr. Margaret Kenski, Tucson
|
Karen E. Osborne, Phoenix
|
Claire E. Scheuren, Tucson
|
|
Dolores L. Sirkis, Tempe
|
Jacque Steiner, Phoenix
|
Charles P. Thompson, Phoenix
|
Attorney Members
|
|
|
|
Andrew M. Federhar, Tucson
|
Jean K. Gage, Vice Chair, Tucson
|
Robert Houser, Phoenix
|
|
Fredrick M. Jones, Phoenix
|
Rosemary Marquez, Tucson
|
Christopher M. Skelly, Phoenix
|
Judge Members
|
Superior Court
|
Appellate Courts
|
|
|
Rebecca A. Albrecht, Maricopa County
|
Cecil B. Patterson, Division I
|
|
|
Mark W. Armstrong, Maricopa County
|
John Pelander, Division II
|
|
|
Deborah Bernini, Pima County
|
|
|
|
Clark Munger, Pima County
|
|
