The Judicial Performance Evaluation Task Force has issued recommendations for changes to the evaluation process for judges and judges subject to maintenance elections.

The JPR Commission’s rule review comes shortly after an unusual 2022 election in which voters ousted three Maricopa County Superior Court judges, even though the commission deemed only one unfit for court. It was conducted.

Citing efforts by outside groups to misinterpret the latest JPR-reviewed abstention votes as negative, some have speculated that the 2022 election will be a political party in the state’s nationally-recognized meritorious selection process. I was worried that it would be a sign of the further strengthening of the influence of

Task Force members are looking to better educate voters, provide more input from the public, focus on improving the overall judiciary, and put safeguards into the committee’s rejection process.

Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Brutinell, chairman of the JPR task force, and members of the task force, which is made up of JPR commissioners, judges, attorneys, and public commissioners, called the investigation “voter confusion.” In response to the drop in votes, he worked to review the criteria. and according to a recommendation petition filed in the High Court.

Doug Cole, a task force member, judicial appointee and HighGround COO, said members had “completely dug deep” into the JPR rules.

The task force changed the rules in 2019, essentially codifying minor procedural changes.

Cole said the most recent effort looked at the rules “overlapping feedback we’ve heard over the last two election cycles.”

The JPR Commission is currently voting on whether judges “meet” or “do not meet” the criteria for suspension. Task force members now want to evaluate judicial standards from her two perspectives: maintenance and improvement.

Addition of improvements will allow judges to find places where changes need to be made, but the need for improvements in itself will not be grounds for deletion.

However, if the evaluation determines that the judge did not meet the judicial standards, the new rule will give the judge an opportunity to meet with the committee at the board meeting to discuss where and why the score did not meet. be done.

In 2022, only one judge was found to be unfit to sit on the jury. But four Superior Court judges were criticized for their voting guides on staying in office.

Former state legislator Jonathan Peyton said the last election cycle raised serious concerns about loopholes in party influence in the judges’ merit selection process.

Unlike other states where judges run and are elected in tandem with political parties, Arizona’s judicial meritocratic selection system is largely circumvented by political parties.

Payton made a presentation to the task force at its February meeting, highlighting groups seeking to influence the Remain election.

Ahead of 2022, an organization called Civic Engagement Beyond Voting has published a 2022 voter guide that includes a “Gavel Watch” section focused on judicial retention.

The group notes that it focuses on “whether judges carry ideological bias into their work,” citing JPR Reviews among other third-party judicial score sites, noting that “federalism Association membership or activity” as reason for refusal to retain. .

CEBV includes Arizona Supreme Court Justice William Montgomery, Court of Appeals Cynthia Bailey, Maricopa County Superior Court Justices Bradley Astroski, Rusty Crandell, Stephen Hopkins and Howard Schenick. I gave the recommended “no” vote.

Crandell, Schenick and Hopkins were rejected by the voters, but both Crandell and Schenick were deemed eligible to remain by JPR.

In Crandell’s case, 90% of the JPR commissioners who voted deemed him fit to stay. However, only 20 of the 32 committee members voted. Mr. Schenich voted that 59% of members met judicial standards, while 10 did not vote.

The task force’s petition cites “voter confusion about what an abstention vote indicates.” Committee members may abstain from voting to avoid a conflict of interest or by reason of absence.

At the top of JPR’s website, it states, “Commission vote counts may vary depending on abstention. An abstention vote is a procedural matter within the committee and is not considered negative in any way as to a judge’s performance.” should not be considered.”

But Peyton said outside groups used abstention votes to foment suspicion or hint at reluctant reasons for not voting, “weaponizing” the JPR’s scores and abstaining votes to expel judges. said to be using

He said the JPR score could be used “as an excuse to criticize judges who just don’t like it.”

Peyton called the current meritorious selection process the “golden jewel” of judicial selection, and said the politicization seen in 2022 would jeopardize the process. He was concerned about a political “arms race” to retain judges and stressed the need for immediate solutions to avoid similar efforts in the future.

“I’ve never seen a group say, ‘Last time it was a big success, we should stop while we’re leading,'” Peyton said. “I have never seen anything like that in my life in politics.”

A task force worked to address potential pitfalls. Under the proposed rule, vote deniers would be recorded before voting, and votes taken under the consent agenda would exclude deniers.

Regarding voter involvement in justice maintenance elections, the Task Force recommends that JPR “make the most of the information available to voters” and publish publicly available judicial performance evaluation information on judges eligible for maintenance. hopes for

With the goal of “increasing opportunities for meaningful public comment,” the task force will allow the committee to divide into smaller groups and hold meetings outside of Maricopa County to gather public input. He said he was aiming to broaden the scope of his views.

And second, the proposed new rules would allow commissioners to ask follow-up questions to those addressing the commission.

The Task Force also recommended developing and expanding the survey to include additional input from those with courtroom experience of judges.

“This proposal will increase voter confidence in this process,” Cole said. “It’s a very lengthy process for a judge seeking bail to go through his JPR proceedings. But I think these proposed rules will create more transparency, not just for judges, but for the public.”

The Arizona Supreme Court granted the task force’s petition to expedite consideration of the proposed rule and place the petition on the August 2023 rule agenda. The court ordered the proposed rule change to be open for public comment, with a June 7 deadline.