The best mailer in support of Prop 137, which would end judicial retention elections, is the early ballot itself. Hard to believe that anyone would support continuing this farce after staring at all those mystery judges on the ballot. Some may know about the Supreme Court justices, but that is an anomaly.
My partner and I spent less than an hour looking at different sites like the Judicial Performance Reports and some others, and were able to make reasonably confident picks.
If we wanted a Christofascist state like you do, Mr. Kavanagh, we'd just let your team pick judges for life.
To say it's been a failure in the US Supreme Court would be an understatement.
And swine like Hickman wonder why readership is dropping at the Herald/Review. File under "Duh". The Herald/Review also supports Lori Zucco for Cochise County Attorney. She is married to the Presiding Superior Court Judge in Sierra Vista. How will that work? He will have to recuse himself every time she is trying to prosecute a case in his Court. Bringing in substitutes costs money. How in TF is this "Conservative"? How is it even possible? How can it get this weird? Vote for Scott Eckstein. Vote Blue up and down the ballot if you haven't already.
Now that there is a legal framework, and in the category of being proactive (instead of just complaining), why not look to ASU and one of its election integrity initiatives to develop a system to track and disclose dark money donors? I’m guessing they could enlist tech expertise to come up with a program, or programs, that would expedite the search process (and identify refinements that would make the legal framework work better).
I am shocked that your editorial board didn’t take a stand for AZ women by endorsing proposition 139, especially after seeing all the harm that has come to women because of abortion bans. And then you totally missed the mark on prop 137, which is designed to protect the seats of justices Bolick and King, who voted to reinstate a near total abortion ban dating back to 1864. That’s why the language is retroactive! And then the link you provided with “pros” and “cons” argues that “justices are under attack.” How about the women who are being dehumanized by a legislature that wants to control their bodies, backed by activist judges? Seriously, do better.
Obv, you need to fill out the fake ballot and win the $500.
The best mailer in support of Prop 137, which would end judicial retention elections, is the early ballot itself. Hard to believe that anyone would support continuing this farce after staring at all those mystery judges on the ballot. Some may know about the Supreme Court justices, but that is an anomaly.
My partner and I spent less than an hour looking at different sites like the Judicial Performance Reports and some others, and were able to make reasonably confident picks.
If we wanted a Christofascist state like you do, Mr. Kavanagh, we'd just let your team pick judges for life.
To say it's been a failure in the US Supreme Court would be an understatement.
Power to the People
https://www.azcourts.gov/jpr/Judicial-Performance-Reports/2024-Judicial-Performance-Reports/2024-Maricopa-Reports
And swine like Hickman wonder why readership is dropping at the Herald/Review. File under "Duh". The Herald/Review also supports Lori Zucco for Cochise County Attorney. She is married to the Presiding Superior Court Judge in Sierra Vista. How will that work? He will have to recuse himself every time she is trying to prosecute a case in his Court. Bringing in substitutes costs money. How in TF is this "Conservative"? How is it even possible? How can it get this weird? Vote for Scott Eckstein. Vote Blue up and down the ballot if you haven't already.
Now that there is a legal framework, and in the category of being proactive (instead of just complaining), why not look to ASU and one of its election integrity initiatives to develop a system to track and disclose dark money donors? I’m guessing they could enlist tech expertise to come up with a program, or programs, that would expedite the search process (and identify refinements that would make the legal framework work better).
I am shocked that your editorial board didn’t take a stand for AZ women by endorsing proposition 139, especially after seeing all the harm that has come to women because of abortion bans. And then you totally missed the mark on prop 137, which is designed to protect the seats of justices Bolick and King, who voted to reinstate a near total abortion ban dating back to 1864. That’s why the language is retroactive! And then the link you provided with “pros” and “cons” argues that “justices are under attack.” How about the women who are being dehumanized by a legislature that wants to control their bodies, backed by activist judges? Seriously, do better.
Great read.
Maybe one day we'll overturn Citizens United.