|
FREQUENTLY ASKED
QUESTIONS
What is "merit selection" of
judges?
Merit selection is a way of choosing judges through a non-partisan
commission of lawyers and non lawyers that investigates and evaluates
applicants. The commission submits the names of the most highly
qualified applicants to the Governor, who makes the final selection.
Two-thirds of the states and the District of Columbia use some form of
merit selection to choose their judges.
Unlike the federal system, merit selection in Arizona is not a system
that grants lifetime judgeships. Once Arizona judges are appointed, they
must periodically stand for retention election, when voters decide
whether to keep or remove them. Performance review is a way of
evaluating the judges who seek to remain on the bench. A commission
reviews the judges' job performances to determine if they are meeting
judicial performance standards. The public uses the information provided
from the performance reviews at the retention election to decide if the
judges should remain in office. While a number of states use some form
of performance review to evaluate their judges, Arizona also requires
its judges to undergo a self-evaluation process.
Arizona voters approved merit selection in 1974. At that time, Arizonans
voted to discontinue the popular election of appellate judges, Supreme
Court justices, and trial court judges in the most populous counties.
Three judicial nominating commissions were created to screen judicial
candidates for nomination to the Governor for appointment (currently the
Commission on Appellate Court Appointments, and the Maricopa and Pima
County Commissions on Trial Court Appointments).
A constitutional amendment passed by Arizona voters in 1992 increased
the number of non lawyer members on the nominating commissions, created
the Commission on Judicial Performance Review to give the public
information on the performance of judges, and opened all aspects of the
process to the public. The amendment broadened public participation in
selecting and reviewing judges.
Why did Arizona voters adopt the merit selection system?
The merit selection process promotes judicial impartiality and integrity
because judges are not forced to solicit campaign contributions from,
among others, attorneys who practice before them and people who might
someday appear before them in court.
In other states, judicial candidates have been forced to spend
thousands, sometimes millions of dollars, to run an election campaign in
heavily populated areas.
Merit selection has these advantages:
- Promotes Public Accountability -
Retention elections held under merit selection systems are an effective
and appropriate means of holding judges accountable to the people. In
addition to being subject to removal and other sanctions available for
misbehavior by the Commission on Judicial Conduct, all merit system
judges are regularly subject to removal from office by popular vote. By
contrast, elected judges in other states can be removed by popular vote
only if they are opposed in the general election. Since judges are
frequently unopposed, the people often have less "control" over elected
judges. Retention elections also allow the general public, bar
associations and the media to focus on problems with a particular
judge's performance, rather than on campaign rhetoric often heard in
contested election campaigns. The Judicial Performance Review Commission
assesses whether or not judges meet judicial performance standards
through the collection of data and reports its findings to voters in the
Secretary of State's Guide. The voters decide whether to retain the
judges in office.
- Produces a Highly-Qualified Judiciary -
Merit selection judges are chosen from a large pool of applicants on the
basis of their qualifications rather than on political signs and
slogans. Qualified attorneys are often unwilling to risk their practices
on the expensive effort that is required for election to office.
Candidates who are unable to raise sufficient campaign contributions
have less likelihood of winning office - no matter their qualifications.
This results in a reduced field from which qualified candidates can be
selected. Merit selection removes these barriers and also prevents
qualified applicants from being screened out by political parties
because of their lack of political credentials. Furthermore, it has the
advantage of assuring that only qualified and competent applicants reach
the bench.
- Fosters Impartiality -
Sometimes judges are required to make unpopular decisions in order to
uphold the law. It is the job of the courts to make sure that the limits
of power placed on each branch of government are observed. Judges who
must depend on winning re-election to keep their jobs may be unable to
remain impartial as they could be penalized by the voters for making one
or two unpopular decisions.
- Encourages Diversity on the Bench -
An increased number of minorities and women have been appointed to the
bench because merit selection encourages a larger pool of qualified
candidates.
- Incorporates Representative Democracy -
Merit selection compensates for limited voter knowledge about, or
interest in, even contested judicial elections. Under merit selection, a
nominating commission, rather than the Governor alone, makes the initial
determination of the applicants' qualifications. The majority of the
commission members are non-lawyers appointed by the Governor with the
approval of the Senate.
- Provides Continuous Improvement of the Judiciary -
Arizona's retention process includes a second important component, self
evaluation. Midway through a judge's term in office, and again before a
retention election, a judge meets with a team composed of one public
volunteer, one attorney, and one judge appointed to assist the judge in
setting performance goals. This makes self-evaluation and continuous
improvement an integral component of the judiciary.
Why is the merit selection system only used to select judges for
Maricopa and Pima counties?
The Arizona constitution provides that merit selection will be used to
select judges in counties with a population greater than 250,000 people.
At this time only Maricopa and Pima counties exceed that population
threshold. Other counties may choose to adopt merit selection by popular
vote. When a county’s population exceeds 250,000 as documented by the
U.S. Census, that county automatically enters the merit selection
system. Currently, Superior Court judges are elected in nonpartisan
elections in all counties except Maricopa and Pima.
Are nominating commission meetings open to the public or are the
nominees chosen behind closed doors?
All meetings are open to the public and all voting occurs in public
session. Occasionally the commissions conduct a very brief part of a
meeting in executive session, when two-thirds of the members vote to do
so, to address sensitive information such as selection of the questions
to be asked at interviews.
I am interested in applying.
Can I contact one or more commission members before a vacancy to discuss
the nominating process?
Yes, anyone who is interested in applying may contact any commission
member with questions about the process. The commission rules encourage
members to actively recruit qualified applicants and members often find
that speaking with potential applicants individually or in group
settings is a useful recruitment tool. However, the rules specifically
prohibit any advance agreement to vote for a recruited applicant and
also prohibit substantive communication with an applicant after an
application is filed. At the same time, potential applicants should know
that it is not necessary to have met with any commission member before
applying in order to be considered.
Please contact us if you would like more information or to arrange for
someone to speak with your group about the judicial nominating process.
What
qualifications are the commissions looking for?
At a minimum, applicants must meet the residency, age and legal practice
requirements established by law. The criteria considered by all
commissions include integrity, legal knowledge and ability, professional
experience, judicial temperament, communication skills, diligence,
public service and impartiality. As an example, when looking at an
applicant’s temperament the commission members evaluate the applicant’s
common sense, compassion, decisiveness, firmness, humility,
open-mindedness, patience, tact and understanding.
The Arizona constitution requires that the commissions consider the
diversity of Arizona’s population when making nominations. While the
constitution directs that merit shall be the primary consideration in
making nominations, the commissions take the additional directive to
consider our population’s diversity very seriously.
The commissions that nominate judges for the Superior Court also
consider an applicant’s trial, mediation and administrative experience.
A trial court judge must speak effectively in order to be understood by
the people appearing in court and by jurors, so the commission evaluates
the applicant’s ability to express legal concepts using plain language.
The commission that nominates judges for the appellate courts also
evaluates the applicant’s research, writing and interpersonal skills.
Because of the decision-making process in the appellate courts, it is
important that those judges be able to give and receive criticism of
opinions and arguments without giving or taking personal offense.
The commission considers an applicant’s demonstrated ability to produce
well-reasoned and understandable opinions.
As an applicant, should I have my references write or call the
commission members?
The commission welcomes and needs written assessments of an applicant’s
skills, expertise, ethics and any other characteristic relevant to an
individual's potential for a judgeship. Many applicants solicit letters
of reference supporting their application. However, applicants are
advised "more" is not necessarily "better." The commissions feel that
ten to twelve substantive letters of reference are usually adequate to
give the commission an insight into what others think about the
applicant.
Letters about applicants should be sent to the commission in care of the
Human Resources Department, Administrative Office of the Courts, 1501 W.
Washington, Suite 227, Phoenix, AZ, 85007, as opposed to individual
commission members. Written comments can also be sent to
jnc@courts.az.gov.
All letters and comments timely sent to those addresses will be
forwarded to all commission members.
The commissions also welcome telephone calls to individual members from
citizens who can provide candid insight into an applicant’s
qualifications. Please see the commission membership lists for direct
contact information for each member.
Applicants should not personally contact commission members about their
application during the nomination process. The commission rules prohibit
members from individually interviewing applicants or committing in
advance to vote for any applicant.
How can citizens participate in selecting, reviewing and voting on
judges?
• Encourage highly qualified people to
apply to serve as a judge.
•
Volunteer to serve
on a judicial nominating commission. Applications are available from the
Governor's Office when volunteers are needed.
•
Send your comments
on applicants being considered for judgeships to a Judicial Nominating
Commission.
• Volunteer to serve on the Commission on
Judicial Performance Review
(JPR) or a JPR Conference Team.
• Complete and return a judicial performance survey when you are
in court as an attorney, juror, litigant or witness during the survey
period.
•
Send your comments
on a judge's performance at any time to the JPR Commission.
•
Be an informed voter.
Read the findings and report
of the JPR Commission before you vote
in retention elections.
What information is available to the public about the people who apply
for a judicial office?
All applications received by the commissions are posted on this website.
They are also available for public review during business hours at the
Administrative Office of the Courts, Human Resources Department, 1501
West Washington Street, Suite 227, Phoenix, AZ, 85007.
A small section of each application containing personal, family and
reference information is kept confidential for use only by the
commission and the Governor.
Can a member of the public contact the commission or an individual
member to offer comments about an applicant?
Citizens familiar with an applicant are encouraged to share their
comments with the commission via this website, or by sending an e-mail
to jnc@courts.az.gov or a written comment to the commission in care of
the Human Resources Department, Administrative Office of the Courts,
1501 West Washington Street, Suite 227, Phoenix, AZ, 85007.
The nominating process operates best when a full range of information is
available to commission members. Members spend significant time
contacting people in the community, lawyers and judges to discuss an
applicant’s qualifications. The commissions also welcome unsolicited
comments. The commission rules do not allow members to accept anonymous
comments, but members can assure confidentiality in those limited cases
when it is appropriate, such as when the comment is about a supervisor
or a colleague.
|
Merit Selection at Work