Proposition 137 - Proposed Amendment to the Arizona Constitution by the Legislature Relating to the Judicial Department.

Summary

Eliminates term limits for state supreme court justices. Stipulates that terms for supreme court and appellate court judges last during good behavior. Indicates circumstances that will trigger a retention election for a judge. Establishes commissions to evaluate judicial performance.

A "yes" vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to eliminate judicial terms for judges of the Arizona Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, and judges of the Superior Court in counties with more than 250,000 people. Voters will no longer have the ability to decide whether to retain those judges at the end of their judicial terms. Those judges would instead be subject to a retention election only if they were convicted of a felony or a crime involving fraud or dishonesty; were a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding; held a mortgage under foreclosure; or did not meet performance standards according to the Commission on Judicial Performance Review. The House of Representatives and the Senate will each be able to appoint one member to the Commission. If any legislator asks the Commission to investigate whether a judge has engaged in misconduct, the Commission must investigate that allegation. If approved, these amendments will apply retroactively such that votes cast in the November 2024 election about whether to retain a judge will not be given effect.

A "no" vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current system of voters deciding whether to retain a judge at the end of their judicial term.

Arguments

"I oppose that very strongly. The merit system of judicial selection was instituted in Arizona in 1974 by a civilian initiative. It was put on the ballot and voted for by the people of Arizona. It was improved and reinforced in the 1990s. So we have had this system of judicial retention, which is truly the gold standard in the nation. The merit selection process includes a bipartisan commission which recommends three or more justices to the governor to appoint. And then it also has a retention system that, that is a very important part of the whole process to allow the citizens of Arizona to also weigh in after a period of time on the bench." - Cathy Sigmon, in opposition to Proposition 137 (Learn more)

"Now as much as ever the people are aware of the tremendous power and the way it can be abused. SCR 1044 would take away my right and the right of my constituents who want to vote to not retain those justices who approved the 1864 abortion ban. This is what authoritarianism looks like folks. It's terrifying." - State Rep. Analise Ortiz (D), in opposition to Proposition 137 (Learn more)

"Judges can't fear political accountability for individual decisions that they make in individual cases. There does need to be the ability to influence indirectly over time judicial philosophy. There are differences in that, and the body of politics should have the ability to influence the judicial philosophy under which they are governed. But the retention election holds the possibility of seeking to have judges held politically accountable for individual decisions. And that's an attack on the independence of the judiciary." - Bob Robb, in support of Proposition 137 (Learn more)

"Judicial retention is not really working. Our judicial retention process is leading to these ballots that are pages of pages of pages. There's like a full third of voters who aren't even voting on judicial retention, which is not a helpful check in our system of checks and balances." - State Rep. Alexander Kolodin (R), in support of Proposition 137 (Learn more)

Measure Details