2004 Ballot Propositions

Arizona Secretary of State

Table of Contents - PDF

Election Services

Ballot Proposition Voter's Guide - PDF

Election Information

Judicial Performance Review Voter's Guide - PDF

Contact Us

 

 

2004 VOTER INFORMATION GUIDE

REPORT OF THE ARIZONA COMMISSION

ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW

 

1501 West Washington

Suite 227

Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3231

 

E-mail: jpr@supreme.sp.state.az.us

Internet: http://www.supreme.state.az.us/jpr

Telephone: (602) 364-0098

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

IMPORTANT

A JUDGE CHECKLIST has been provided on the back inside cover of this

pamphlet.

The JUDGE CHECKLIST will assist you when voting.

 

 

Page

Report of the Commission

63

Commission Members

65

 

JUDGE/JUSTICE REPORTS

 

 

 

 

Arizona Supreme Court Justices

 

Berch, Rebecca White

66

 

Jones, Charles E.

66

 

Ryan, Michael D.

66

Court of Appeals Division I Judges

 

Barker, Daniel A.

67

 

Ehrlich, Susan A.

67

 

Gemmill, John C.

67

 

Hall, Philip L.

68

 

Irvine, Patrick

68

 

Lankford, Jefferson L.

68

 

Snow, G. Murray

69

 

Sult, James B.

69

 

Thompson, Jon W.

70

 

Winthrop, Lawrence F.

69

Court of Appeals Division II Judges

 

Florez, M. Jan

70

 

Pelander, John

70

Superior Court in Pima County

 

Civil Judges

 

 

Bernini, Deborah

71

 

Cornelio, Carmine

71

 

Eikleberry, Jane L.

71

 

Fields, Richard S.

72

 

Miller, Leslie B.

72

 

Sabalos, Charles S.

72

 

Criminal Judges

 

 

Kearney, Jan E.

73

 

Kelly, Virginia C.

73

 

Lee, Kenneth

73

 

Tang, Paul E.

74

 

Family Judges

 

 

Acuna, Edgar B.

74

 

Warner, Nanette

74

 

Juvenile Judges

 

 

Hantman, Howard

75

 

Miller, Michael O.

75

 

Villarreal, Stephen C.

75

 

Special Assignment Judges

 

 

Escher, Patricia

76

 

Leonardo, John S.

76

 

Munger, Clark W.

76

Superior Court in Maricopa County

 

Civil Judges

 

 

Albrecht, Rebecca A.

77

 

Baca, Anna M.

77

 

Dunevant, Thomas, III

77

 

Fields, Kenneth L.

78

 

Galati, Frank T.

78

 

Hilliard, Ruth H.

78

 

Jarrett, Barbara M.

79

 

Katz, Paul A.

79

 

McNally, Colleen A.

79

 

O'Melia, Michael J.

80

 

Maricopa Criminal Judges

 

 

Araneta, Louis A.

80

 

Ballinger, Eddward P., Jr.

80

 

Buttrick, John A.

81

 

Foreman, John

81

 

McClennen, Crane

81

 

Schneider, Barry C.

82

 

Trujillo, Richard J.

82

 

Maricopa Family Judges

 

 

Akers, Linda A.

82

 

Blakey, A. Craig, II

83

 

Contes, Connie

83

 

Ditsworth, John R.

83

 

Harrison, Cari A.

84

 

Mahoney, Margaret R.

84

 

Oberbillig, Robert H.

84

 

Sheldon, Steven D.

85

 

Steinle, Roland J., III

85

 

Udall, David K.

85

 

 

 

 

Maricopa Juvenile Judges

 

 

Arellano, Silvia R.

86

 

Cole, David R.

86

 

Franks, Pamela J.

86

 

Klein, Andrew G.

87

 

McVey, Michael R.

87

 

Miles, Linda H.

87

 

Sanders, Teresa A.

88

 

Sargeant, William P., III

88

 

Stephens, Sherry K.

88

 

Maricopa Special Assignment Judges

 

 

Campbell, Colin F.

89

 

Martin, Gregory H.

89

 

Reinstein, Ronald S.

89

 

Santana, Mark R.

90

Judge Checklist (Mark and Take to Polling Location)

92-94

 

REPORT OF THE ARIZONA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW

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:

 

 

Arizona's Commission on Judicial Performance Review

Established in 1992 by an amendment to the Arizona Constitution, the majority of the 34 member Commission is drawn from the public-at-large and the other members are attorneys, judges and legislators. 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' performances by distributing written surveys and conducting public hearings for persons who have first-hand knowledge of the job performance of judges appearing on the 2004 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 Performances

The Commission on Judicial Performance Review has the duty to review judges' performances and 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. 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. The score is the total of the evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory" or "very good" or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on the Superior Court judge's bench assignment, the judge may not have responses in certain categories (indicated by N/A). Verbal testimony given at public hearings, as well as signed, written public comments, are considered by the Commission when voting whether a judge "meets" or "does not meet," judicial performance standards.

The job performances of justices of the Arizona Supreme Court and Court of Appeals judges are evaluated using similar methods on a continuous basis. Surveys are distributed to lawyers and other judges who appear before them. Because appellate courts do not hold trials, there are no litigant, witness or juror responses to consider.

The collection of reliable data is 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.

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 "meets" or "does not meet," judicial performance standards.

 

 

 

 

ARIZONA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW

PUBLIC MEMBERS

Margaret C. Kenski, Chair, Tucson

Thomas G. Bowen, Tucson

Espinola O. Brunson, Phoenix

Robert C. Clements, Tucson

Richard Cosgrove, Tucson

Wil R. Counts, Phoenix

Barbara S. Glenn, Tempe

Winifred Hershberger, Tucson

David L. Hetrick, Tucson

William R. Martin, III, Phoenix

Margy A. McGonagill, Tucson

Karen E. Osborne, Phoenix

Raymond L. Sachs, Paradise Valley

Claire E. Scheuren, Tucson

Dolores L. Sirkis, Tempe

Charles P. Thompson, Phoenix

Henry W. Varga, Kingman

Ronald R. Watson, Tucson

ATTORNEY MEMBERS

Roberta L. Voss, Vice Chair, Phoenix

Jeanette M. Boulet, Tucson

Eugene N. Goldsmith, Tucson

Marc R. Lieberman, Phoenix

Mary Beth Phillips, Phoenix

Carl A. Piccarreta, Tucson

JUDGE MEMBERS

Daniel A. Barker

Arizona Court of Appeals Division I

John Pelander

Arizona Court of Appeals Division II

Pendleton Gaines

Maricopa County Superior Court

Maria Verdin

Maricopa County Superior Court

Ted B. Borek

Pima County Superior Court

Charles S. Sabalos

Pima County Superior Court

LEGISLATIVE MEMBERS

Senator Bill Brotherton

Representative Ben Miranda

Senator Jim Weiers

Representative Steve Tully

 

Arizona Supreme Court Justices

ALL ARIZONA VOTERS

BERCH, REBECCA WHITE

Appointed to the Arizona Supreme Court: 2002

100% of the Commission Voted Justice Berch

MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

 

Surveys Distributed: 608

Surveys Returned: 350

Superior Court Judge Responses

Surveys Distributed: 123

Surveys Returned: 99

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Score (See Footnote)

91%

95%

97%

97%

96%

Score (See Footnote)

98%

98%

N/A

N/A

97%

JONES, CHARLES E.
Chief Justice

Appointed to the Arizona Supreme Court: 1996

100% of the Commission Voted Justice Jones

MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 495

Surveys Returned: 269

Superior Court Judge Responses

Surveys Distributed: 52

Surveys Returned: 22

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Score (See Footnote)

97%

100%

98%

99%

99%

Score (See Footnote)

97%

100%

N/A

N/A

100%

RYAN, MICHAEL D.

Appointed to the Arizona Supreme Court: 2002

100% of the Commission Voted Justice Ryan

MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

 

Surveys Distributed: 614

Surveys Returned: 370

Superior Court Judge Responses

 

Surveys Distributed: 126

Surveys Returned: 108

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Score (See Footnote)

89%

97%

97%

97%

97%

Score (See Footnote)

95%

99%

N/A

N/A

99%

 

 

ARIZONA Court of Appeals Judges

MARICOPA COUNTY VOTERS ONLY

BARKER, DANIEL A.

Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2001

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Barker MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

27 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

NOTE: Judge Barker is a member of the JPR Commission and could not vote on his own retention.

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 665

Surveys Returned: 222

Superior Court Judge Responses

Surveys Distributed: 227

Surveys Returned: 55

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Score (See Footnote)

95%

98%

97%

98%

94%

Score (See Footnote)

100%

100%

N/A

N/A

100%

EHRLICH, SUSAN A.

Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 1989

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Ehrlich MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 707

Surveys Returned: 364

Superior Court Judge Responses

Surveys Distributed: 233

Surveys Returned: 118

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Score (See Footnote)

79%

93%

92%

92%

95%

Score (See Footnote)

86%

92%

N/A

N/A

85%

GEMMILL, JOHN C.

Vice Chief Judge

Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2001

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Gemmill MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 690

Surveys Returned: 212

Superior Court Judge Responses

Surveys Distributed: 225

Surveys Returned: 67

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Score (See Footnote)

89%

98%

100%

100%

82%

Score (See Footnote)

95%

100%

N/A

N/A

95%

 

 

 

HALL, PHILIP L.

Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2001

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Hall MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 742

Surveys Returned: 215

Superior Court Judge Responses

Surveys Distributed: 234

Surveys Returned: 71

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Score (See Footnote)

86%

96%

99%

98%

89%

Score (See Footnote)

96%

100%

N/A

N/A

98%

IRVINE, PATRICK

Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2002

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Irvine MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 387

Surveys Returned: 118

Superior Court Judge Responses

Surveys Distributed: 120

Surveys Returned: 28

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Score (See Footnote)

92%

99%

99%

99%

98%

Score (See Footnote)

96%

100%

N/A

N/A

93%

LANKFORD, JEFFERSON L.

Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 1990

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Lankford MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 729

Surveys Returned: 394

Superior Court Judge Responses

Surveys Distributed: 250

Surveys Returned: 141

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Score (See Footnote)

87%

95%

96%

96%

91%

Score (See Footnote)

92%

98%

N/A

N/A

95%

 

SNOW, G. MURRAY

Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2002

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Snow MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 408

Surveys Returned: 114

Superior Court Judge Responses

Surveys Distributed: 106

Surveys Returned: 22

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Score (See Footnote)

96%

99%

100%

100%

98%

Score (See Footnote)

95%

100%

N/A

N/A

93%

WINTHROP, LAWRENCE F.

Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2002

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Winthrop MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 315

Surveys Returned: 83

Superior Court Judge Responses

Surveys Distributed: 82

Surveys Returned: 21

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Score (See Footnote)

89%

99%

99%

99%

100%

Score (See Footnote)

100%

100%

N/A

N/A

100%

apache/coconino/la paz/mohave/navajo/yavapai/yuma voters only

SULT, JAMES B.

Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 1995

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Sult

MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 724

Surveys Returned: 369

Superior Court Judge Responses

Surveys Distributed: 264

Surveys Returned: 125

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Score (See Footnote)

86%

95%

97%

96%

96%

Score (See Footnote)

97%

100%

N/A

N/A

100%

 

 
THOMPSON, JON W.

Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 1995

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Thompson

MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 686

Surveys Returned: 335

Superior Court Judge Responses

Surveys Distributed: 240

Surveys Returned: 113

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Score (See Footnote)

81%

95%

93%

95%

90%

Score (See Footnote)

97%

98%

N/A

N/A

97%

 

pima county voters only

PELANDER, JOHN
Chief Judge

Appointed to Court of Appeals Division II: 1995

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Pelander

MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

27 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

NOTE: Judge Pelander is a member of the JPR Commission and could not vote on his own retention.

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 509

Surveys Returned: 326

Superior Court Judge Responses

Surveys Distributed: 219

Surveys Returned: 138

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Score (See Footnote)

90%

98%

96%

97%

95%

Score (See Footnote)

94%

99%

N/A

N/A

98%

cochise/gila/graham/greenlee/pinal/santa cruz county voters only

FLOREZ, M. JAN

Appointed to Court of Appeals Division II: 1996

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Florez

MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 450

Surveys Returned: 274

Superior Court Judge Responses

Surveys Distributed: 188

Surveys Returned: 114

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Score (See Footnote)

80%

96%

92%

94%

84%

Score (See Footnote)

96%

100%

N/A

N/A

92%

 

 

 

 

Superior Court FOR PIMa CountY

CIVIL Judges

BERNINI, DEBORAH

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1997

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Bernini MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 217

Surveys Returned: 94

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 67

Surveys Returned: 16

Juror Responses

 

Surveys Distributed: 33

Surveys Returned: 15

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

94%

99%

97%

97%

99%

96%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

97%

100%

95%

100%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

99%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

CORNELIO, CARMINE

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2002

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Cornelio MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 221

Surveys Returned: 123

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 57

Surveys Returned: 7

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 21

Surveys Returned: 12

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

95%

96%

95%

89%

99%

90%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

95%

83%

85%

84%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

EIKLEBERRY, JANE L.

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2001

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Eikleberry MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 134

Surveys Returned: 54

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 57

Surveys Returned: 13

Juror Responses

 

Surveys Distributed: 9

Surveys Returned: 9

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

94%

96%

95%

93%

98%

99%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

92%

100%

92%

94%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

 

 

FIELDS, RICHARD S.

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1997

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Fields MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 219

Surveys Returned: 91

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 58

Surveys Returned: 22

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 17

Surveys Returned: 14

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

98%

99%

98%

98%

100%

98%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

MILLER, LESLIE B.

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1985

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Miller MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 194

Surveys Returned: 90

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 36

Surveys Returned: 7

Juror Responses

 

Surveys Distributed: 16

Surveys Returned: 2

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

85%

97%

86%

89%

94%

85%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

95%

86%

93%

100%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

SABALOS, CHARLES S.

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil Presiding Judge

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1993

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Sabalos MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

27 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

NOTE: Judge Sabalos is a member of the JPR Commission and could not vote on his own retention.

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 285

Surveys Returned: 126

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 41

Surveys Returned: 19

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 42

Surveys Returned: 18

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

100%

98%

98%

97%

99%

95%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

98%

100%

94%

98%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

 

CRIMINAL Judges

KEARNEY, JAN E.

Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2001

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Kearney MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

27 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

NOTE: Judge Kearney is related to a member of the JPR Commission who could not vote on her retention.

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 177

Surveys Returned: 31

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 55

Surveys Returned: 6

Juror Responses

 

Surveys Distributed: 72

Surveys Returned: 39

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

86%

92%

83%

92%

95%

92%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

98%

99%

99%

N/A

KELLY, VIRGINIA C.

Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2002

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Kelly MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 154

Surveys Returned: 50

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 44

Surveys Returned: 18

Juror Responses

 

Surveys Distributed: 49

Surveys Returned: 9

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

88%

96%

88%

94%

95%

79%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

99%

98%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

LEE, KENNETH

Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1997

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Lee MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

 

Surveys Distributed: 147

Surveys Returned: 37

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 54

Surveys Returned: 4

Juror Responses

 

Surveys Distributed: 72

Surveys Returned: 28

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

83%

91%

88%

88%

98%

73%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

TANG, PAUL E.

Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2001

75% of the Commission Voted Judge Tang MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

21 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

7 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 143

Surveys Returned: 41

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 65

Surveys Returned: 20

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 107

Surveys Returned: 58

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

76%

91%

83%

79%

85%

83%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

98%

98%

98%

98%

N/A

FAMILY Judges

ACUNA, EDGAR B.

Assignment During Survey Period: Family

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1997

74% of the Commission Voted Judge Acuna MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

20 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

7 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

 

Surveys Distributed: 151

Surveys Returned: 45

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 139

Surveys Returned: 25

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

90%

91%

80%

78%

92%

93%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

96%

88%

86%

90%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

WARNER, NANETTE

Assignment During Survey Period: Family Presiding Judge

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1985

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Warner MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 74

Surveys Returned: 36

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 168

Surveys Returned: 36

Juror Responses

 

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

91%

94%

94%

85%

98%

96%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

93%

91%

90%

93%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

 

JUVENILE Judges

HANTMAN, HOWARD

Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1994

82% of the Commission Voted Judge Hantman

MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

23 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

5 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

 

Surveys Distributed: 111

Surveys Returned: 33

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 132

Surveys Returned: 42

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

99%

98%

94%

83%

99%

100%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

96%

98%

95%

97%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

MILLER, MICHAEL O.

Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2002

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Miller

MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

 

Surveys Distributed: 98

Surveys Returned: 24

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 86

Surveys Returned: 25

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

93%

99%

95%

100%

97%

88%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

99%

96%

98%

98%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

VILLARREAL, STEPHEN C.

Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1998

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Villarreal

MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

 

Surveys Distributed: 101

Surveys Returned: 33

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 161

Surveys Returned: 70

Juror Responses

 

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

94%

99%

98%

98%

90%

100%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

98%

99%

98%

98%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

 

 

SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT Judges

ESCHER, PATRICIA

Assignment During Survey Period: Associate Presiding Judge/Drug Court Presiding Judge/Criminal

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1997

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Escher

MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

 

Surveys Distributed: 136

Surveys Returned: 33

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 28

Surveys Returned: 15

Juror Responses

 

Surveys Distributed: 27

Surveys Returned: 15

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

93%

96%

98%

89%

96%

100%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

LEONARDO, JOHN S.

Assignment During Survey Period: Presiding Judge

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1993

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Leonardo

MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 10

Surveys Returned: 4

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 3

Surveys Returned: 1

Juror Responses

 

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

MUNGER, CLARK W.

Assignment During Survey Period: Probate Presiding Judge

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1997

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Munger

MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

 

Surveys Distributed: 204

Surveys Returned: 95

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 74

Surveys Returned: 8

Juror Responses

 

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

95%

96%

93%

89%

98%

86%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

87%

75%

74%

79%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Superior Court FOR Maricopa CountY
 

maricopa county voters only

CIVIL Judges

ALBRECHT, REBECCA A.

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1985

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Albrecht MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

 

Surveys Distributed: 293

Surveys Returned: 127

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 50

Surveys Returned: 10

Juror Responses

 

Surveys Distributed: 33

Surveys Returned: 14

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

97%

99%

96%

94%

98%

89%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

96%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

BACA, ANNA M.

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1984

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Baca MEETS Judicial Performance Standard

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 280

Surveys Returned: 95

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 62

Surveys Returned: 18

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 55

Surveys Returned: 25

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

94%

97%

94%

95%

97%

92%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

99%

100%

100%

96%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

99%

N/A

DUNEVANT, THOMAS, III

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1989

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Dunevant MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 233

Surveys Returned: 84

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 97

Surveys Returned: 12

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 57

Surveys Returned: 15

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

93%

97%

90%

96%

97%

83%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

99%

91%

88%

93%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

 

FIELDS, KENNETH L.

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1989

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Fields

MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 186

Surveys Returned: 80

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 22

Surveys Returned: 5

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 10

Surveys Returned: 2

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

91%

97%

92%

90%

95%

78%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

GALATI, FRANK T.

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1985

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Galati MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 344

Surveys Returned: 131

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 47

Surveys Returned: 10

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 47

Surveys Returned: 23

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

97%

99%

98%

96%

97%

96%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

99%

99%

97%

N/A

HILLIARD, RUTH H.

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1985

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Hilliard MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 330

Surveys Returned: 133

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 78

Surveys Returned: 16

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 53

Surveys Returned: 17

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

98%

98%

98%

91%

97%

92%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

99%

100%

97%

100%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

 

JARRETT, BARBARA M.

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1992

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Jarrett

MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

 

Surveys Distributed: 139

Surveys Returned: 51

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 110

Surveys Returned: 20

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 49

Surveys Returned: 23

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

95%

99%

99%

99%

100%

97%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

99%

100%

100%

98%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

KATZ, PAUL A.

Assignment During Survey Period: Tax Presiding Judge/Civil; Appointed to Maricopa County

Superior Court: 1989

96% of the Commission Voted Judge Katz

MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

27 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

1 Commissioner Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 217

Surveys Returned: 78

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 44

Surveys Returned: 8

Juror Responses

 

Surveys Distributed: 41

Surveys Returned: 31

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

97%

98%

89%

100%

98%

99%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

95%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

McNALLY, COLLEEN A.

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil/Probate/Family

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001

100% of the Commission Voted Judge McNally MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 86

Surveys Returned: 38

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 473

Surveys Returned: 61

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 36

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

95%

98%

94%

98%

99%

98%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

84%

82%

82%

83%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

No Responses

No Responses

No Responses

No Responses

N/A

 

O'MELIA, MICHAEL J.

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1984

96% of the Commission Voted Judge O'Melia MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

27 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

1 Commissioner Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 252

Surveys Returned: 107

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 76

Surveys Returned: 17

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 16

Surveys Returned: 7

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

95%

99%

93%

99%

96%

94%

Score (See Footnote)
N/A
98%
94%
97%
93%
N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

CRIMINAL Judges

ARANETA, LOUIS A.

Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1993

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Araneta

MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 157

Surveys Returned: 41

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 23

Surveys Returned: 1

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 50

Surveys Returned: 20

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

90%

98%

90%

96%

95%

96%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

89%

100%

75%

67%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

98%

N/A

BALLINGER, EDDWARD P., JR.

Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal Presiding Judge; Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1998

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Ballinger MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 110

Surveys Returned: 34

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 2

Surveys Returned: 2

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

94%

100%

92%

97%

96%

100%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

 

BUTTRICK, JOHN A.

Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Buttrick

MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 147

Surveys Returned: 34

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 41

Surveys Returned: 6

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 97

Surveys Returned: 26

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

98%

100%

100%

99%

98%

100%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

99%

100%

94%

N/A

FOREMAN, JOHN

Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal/Special Assignment; Appointed to Maricopa County

Superior Court: 1985

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Foreman MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 124

Surveys Returned: 29

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 29

Surveys Returned: 11

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 24

Surveys Returned: 5

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

92%

87%

92%

91%

92%

87%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

McCLENNEN, CRANE

Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1997

63% of the Commission Voted Judge McClennen

MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

17 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

10 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 161

Surveys Returned: 51

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 60

Surveys Returned: 21

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 78

Surveys Returned: 27

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

95%

91%

86%

71%

68%

91%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

95%

99%

88%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
99%
100%
93%
N/A

 

SCHNEIDER, BARRY C.

Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Schneider MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 169

Surveys Returned: 53

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 124

Surveys Returned: 17

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 52

Surveys Returned: 27

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

97%

94%

91%

80%

98%

96%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

99%

100%

93%

100%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

TRUJILLO, RICHARD J.

Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001

59% of the Commission Voted Judge Trujillo

MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

16 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

11 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 119

Surveys Returned: 34

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 63

Surveys Returned: 17

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 26

Surveys Returned: 6

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

66%

90%

71%

88%

72%

75%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

96%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

97%

100%

94%

N/A

FAMILY Judges

AKERS, LINDA A.

Assignment During Survey Period: Family

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1996

96% of the Commission Voted Judge Akers MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

27 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

1 Commissioner Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 205

Surveys Returned: 73

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 341

Surveys Returned: 37

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

87%

95%

85%

87%

95%

92%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

82%

72%

76%

89%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

BLAKEY, A. CRAIG, II

Assignment During Survey Period: Family

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2002

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Blakey MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 134

Surveys Returned: 51

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 190

Surveys Returned: 24

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

95%

96%

92%

91%

98%

87%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

98%

100%

98%

100%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

CONTES, CONNIE

Assignment During Survey Period: Family

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2002

86% of the Commission Voted Judge Contes MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

24 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

4 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 199

Surveys Returned: 72

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 201

Surveys Returned: 27

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

99%

100%

97%

99%

96%

98%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

78%

81%

69%

77%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

DITSWORTH, JOHN R.

Assignment During Survey Period: Family

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Ditsworth MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 42

Surveys Returned: 16

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 118

Surveys Returned: 24

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

97%

99%

97%

100%

94%

100%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

99%

100%

99%

100%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HARRISON, CARI A.

Assignment During Survey Period: Family

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Harrison MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 136

Surveys Returned: 52

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 254

Surveys Returned: 57

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

96%

99%

96%

98%

98%

100%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

95%

91%

93%

92%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

MAHONEY, MARGARET R.

Assignment During Survey Period: Family

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2002

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Mahoney

MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

 

Surveys Distributed: 143

Surveys Returned: 54

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 301

Surveys Returned: 48

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

92%

96%

96%

96%

91%

93%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

96%

98%

94%

96%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

OBERBILLIG, ROBERT H.

Assignment During Survey Period: Family

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1998

96% of the Commission Voted Judge Oberbillig MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

27 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

1 Commissioner Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 149

Surveys Returned: 59

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 436

Surveys Returned: 75

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

92%

93%

91%

87%

98%

88%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

84%

81%

78%

85%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SHELDON, STEVEN D.

Assignment During Survey Period: Family

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1990

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Sheldon MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 173

Surveys Returned: 71

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 336

Surveys Returned: 36

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

96%

96%

97%

96%

97%

93%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

97%

91%

95%

99%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

STEINLE, ROLAND J., III

Assignment During Survey Period: Family

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001

96% of the Commission Voted Judge Steinle MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

27 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

1 Commissioner Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 162

Surveys Returned: 68

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 436

Surveys Returned: 37

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

91%

89%

90%

66%

94%

77%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

81%

81%

66%

89%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

UDALL, DAVID K.

Assignment During Survey Period: Family

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Udall MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 125

Surveys Returned: 53

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 457

Surveys Returned: 56

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

97%

96%

93%

97%

95%

98%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

90%

89%

87%

90%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

 

JUVENILE Judges

ARELLANO, SILVIA R.

Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1990

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Arellano MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 132

Surveys Returned: 40

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 83

Surveys Returned: 16

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

99%

98%

97%

91%

97%

99%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

99%

94%

95%

100%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

COLE, DAVID R.

Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1989

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Cole MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 143

Surveys Returned: 45

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 56

Surveys Returned: 12

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

97%

99%

97%

93%

87%

89%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

99%

100%

100%

94%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

FRANKS, PAMELA J.

Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1989

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Franks MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 159

Surveys Returned: 53

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 596

Surveys Returned: 89

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

98%

95%

96%

82%

99%

98%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

99%

99%

98%

97%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KLEIN, ANDREW G.

Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Klein MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 122

Surveys Returned: 38

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 252

Surveys Returned: 50

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

99%

98%

100%

99%

100%

92%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

99%

100%

97%

99%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

McVEY, MICHAEL R.

Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1993

100% of the Commission Voted Judge McVey MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 150

Surveys Returned: 39

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 144

Surveys Returned: 31

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

94%

96%

97%

90%

97%

99%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

MILES, LINDA H.

Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001

93% of the Commission Voted Judge Miles MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

25 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

2 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 138

Surveys Returned: 45

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 225

Surveys Returned: 41

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

78%

95%

92%

82%

73%

85%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

93%

93%

94%

89%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SANDERS, TERESA A.

Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Sanders MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 161

Surveys Returned: 47

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 106

Surveys Returned: 24

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

99%

99%

97%

99%

98%

100%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

SARGEANT, WILLIAM P., III

Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1986

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Sargeant MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 139

Surveys Returned: 38

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 112

Surveys Returned: 27

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

98%

99%

98%

97%

100%

99%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

96%

92%

91%

94%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

STEPHENS, SHERRY K.

Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Stephens MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 119

Surveys Returned: 32

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 348

Surveys Returned: 61

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

100%

99%

100%

99%

100%

98%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

99%

100%

100%

97%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

 

 

SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT Judges

CAMPELL, COLIN F.

Assignment During Survey Period: Presiding Judge

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1990

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Campbell

MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 2

Surveys Returned: 1

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 16

Surveys Returned: 3

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

MARTIN, GREGORY H.

Assignment During Survey Period: Special Assignment

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1989

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Martin

MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 192

Surveys Returned: 60

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 23

Surveys Returned: 16

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 28

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

98%

98%

100%

98%

97%

96%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

98%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

REINSTEIN, RONALD S.

Assignment During Survey Period: Special Assignment

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1985

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Reinstein MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 272

Surveys Returned: 101

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 24

Surveys Returned: 9

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 18

Surveys Returned: 10

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

100%

100%

100%

99%

100%

99%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SANTANA, MARK R.

Assignment During Survey Period: Special Assignment

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001

100% of the Commission Voted Judge Santana MEETS Judicial Performance Standards

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Did Not Meet"

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 126

Surveys Returned: 46

Litigant/Witness/ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 61

Surveys Returned: 27

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 83

Surveys Returned: 25

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Score (See Footnote)

97%

99%

97%

98%

99%

85%

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

96%

100%

98%

N/A

Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

99%

N/A

 

 

Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
General Election November 2, 2004

The Ballot Format displayed in HTML reflects only the text of the Ballot Proposition and does not reflect how it will appear on the General Election Ballot.
Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced as submitted in the "for" and "against" arguments.


JANICE K. BREWER
Arizona Secretary of State
Disclaimer

© September 2004