Today at noon, Secular AZ will be speaking with Arizona attorney, Victor Aronow, to get his perspective on the judicial retentions. https://secularaz.org/calendar/
"A lot of the time, voters just vote “yes” for all the judges on their ballots, Klumpp found in his research." I always vote no on all of the judges to cancel out one of those voters; the risk of mass removal of good judges is nil unless a lot more people start doing that.
This excerpt tells you all you need to know about how poorly sourced this article is - and how deeply progressive left influences have infiltrated our national and state bar organizations and the NGO’s who populate that environment (has it occurred to you that citing membership in the federalist society as a reason to vote against retention of a judge, regardless of the quality of their legal work, infringes on their first amendment rights of association, which they do not give up when appointed to the bench?):
“For example, CEBV recommended voters not retain Court of Appeals Judge Angela Paton, citing her ties to the Federalist Society, a conservative and libertarian legal organization that’s been extremely consequential in getting right-leaning judges appointed.” (FWIW, by “right leaning”, they mean seeking to apply our constitution and laws enacted by our elected representatives as written - instead of reinterpreting them to fit a desired political result). The campaign against Bolick and King illustrates this perfectly - whether you agree with the result or not, their decision regarding the 1864 abortion law was effectively dictated by the state legislature when it enacted the state law that (thankfully) now applies again - and, assuming the polling is accurate, will shortly be replaced by a constitutional amendment approved by the voters that broadens abortion access considerably - IMO, the appropriate legal remedy in this instance. Similarly, attempting to use a Yelp style review system in a judicial context will, IMO, only serve to promote the comments of those with negative views and encourage partisan groups to engage to game the system (having practiced law in Arizona for 42 years, I experienced the inception and growth of the “best of” industry - highly dependent on whipping votes, regardless of merit - and, having been fortunate to receive many accolades myself, I appreciated all recognition but truly valued the awards that came from confidential client and peer review processes. In a private practice context, that process has remained largely legitimate - but, in the case of judges, I have been appalled to witness how even those review processes have been degraded by partisan politics. I am not arguing that there are not bad judges - indeed, I am guessing many of those, because their political views do not conflict with those driving the processes you describe in this article, are proceeding without comment or particular notice. Rather, the focus should be an evaluation process that is as objective as possible, based on the actual legal duties and obligations of the judiciary - not a judge’s membership in an association (if you want to go down that road, check out the disproportionate influence of the plaintiff’s bar - not exactly representing the paragons of virtue in the legal universe, IMO - on judicial selection and evaluation - especially their contributions to progressive politicians who will support (and not attempt to restrain) their highly profitable exploitation of the legal system for their own benefit.
Judges are certainly allowed to be members of whatever organization they like, but voters have a right to consider that membership when voting on retention.
I have no respect for an organization that harbors and defends insurrectionists, so I will be voting NO on any Judge who is a member of the Federalist Society.
"Arizona is one of only six states that puts judges through a review process with a commission that provides reviews to voters. Much of that review process, however, plays out behind closed doors."
The alternative being what? Public meetings of commissioners negotiating? Taking testimony from interest groups?
"...CEBV recommended voters not retain Court of Appeals Judge Angela Paton, citing her ties to the Federalist Society..." Come on. This can't be a serious argument not to retain.
Today at noon, Secular AZ will be speaking with Arizona attorney, Victor Aronow, to get his perspective on the judicial retentions. https://secularaz.org/calendar/
"A lot of the time, voters just vote “yes” for all the judges on their ballots, Klumpp found in his research." I always vote no on all of the judges to cancel out one of those voters; the risk of mass removal of good judges is nil unless a lot more people start doing that.
This excerpt tells you all you need to know about how poorly sourced this article is - and how deeply progressive left influences have infiltrated our national and state bar organizations and the NGO’s who populate that environment (has it occurred to you that citing membership in the federalist society as a reason to vote against retention of a judge, regardless of the quality of their legal work, infringes on their first amendment rights of association, which they do not give up when appointed to the bench?):
“For example, CEBV recommended voters not retain Court of Appeals Judge Angela Paton, citing her ties to the Federalist Society, a conservative and libertarian legal organization that’s been extremely consequential in getting right-leaning judges appointed.” (FWIW, by “right leaning”, they mean seeking to apply our constitution and laws enacted by our elected representatives as written - instead of reinterpreting them to fit a desired political result). The campaign against Bolick and King illustrates this perfectly - whether you agree with the result or not, their decision regarding the 1864 abortion law was effectively dictated by the state legislature when it enacted the state law that (thankfully) now applies again - and, assuming the polling is accurate, will shortly be replaced by a constitutional amendment approved by the voters that broadens abortion access considerably - IMO, the appropriate legal remedy in this instance. Similarly, attempting to use a Yelp style review system in a judicial context will, IMO, only serve to promote the comments of those with negative views and encourage partisan groups to engage to game the system (having practiced law in Arizona for 42 years, I experienced the inception and growth of the “best of” industry - highly dependent on whipping votes, regardless of merit - and, having been fortunate to receive many accolades myself, I appreciated all recognition but truly valued the awards that came from confidential client and peer review processes. In a private practice context, that process has remained largely legitimate - but, in the case of judges, I have been appalled to witness how even those review processes have been degraded by partisan politics. I am not arguing that there are not bad judges - indeed, I am guessing many of those, because their political views do not conflict with those driving the processes you describe in this article, are proceeding without comment or particular notice. Rather, the focus should be an evaluation process that is as objective as possible, based on the actual legal duties and obligations of the judiciary - not a judge’s membership in an association (if you want to go down that road, check out the disproportionate influence of the plaintiff’s bar - not exactly representing the paragons of virtue in the legal universe, IMO - on judicial selection and evaluation - especially their contributions to progressive politicians who will support (and not attempt to restrain) their highly profitable exploitation of the legal system for their own benefit.
Judges are certainly allowed to be members of whatever organization they like, but voters have a right to consider that membership when voting on retention.
I have no respect for an organization that harbors and defends insurrectionists, so I will be voting NO on any Judge who is a member of the Federalist Society.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/07/federalist-society-insurrection-cowards.html
If you want an objective take on the Bolick and King retention election and state legislature’s proposition, Bob Robb (as usual) offers an informed and balanced perspective. https://open.substack.com/pub/robertrobb/p/yes-on-bolick-and-king-no-on-prop?r=1pv2jp&utm_medium=ios
"Arizona is one of only six states that puts judges through a review process with a commission that provides reviews to voters. Much of that review process, however, plays out behind closed doors."
The alternative being what? Public meetings of commissioners negotiating? Taking testimony from interest groups?
"...CEBV recommended voters not retain Court of Appeals Judge Angela Paton, citing her ties to the Federalist Society..." Come on. This can't be a serious argument not to retain.