Judges in Maricopa and Pima counties do not want a justice retention campaign. But as political polarization and electoral denial approach the judiciary, it may have to.

Lawyers say the merit-selection-retention system used to select judges in Arizona’s largest county largely avoids partisan pitfalls, but an unusual retention election in 2022 already promises more. He feared that he was at risk of politicization.

But as mistrust of elections seeps into the judiciary and judges tasked with deciding rulings in election campaigns and other controversial cases come under fire, the threat is even greater.

Political consultants and judicial commissioners are now planning to advise judges at an upcoming judicial conference to prepare to set up a campaign committee in 2024. But they warn that they must do so within strict limits of judicial ethics.

“This is a delicate little minefield they have to navigate,” said April Elliott, executive director of the Arizona Judicial Conduct Commission and staff director of the Judicial Ethics Advisory Board.

“They should be ready and ready to do this, whether they think they will be targeted or not.”

Past retention elections in Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, and Coconino counties have ended without widespread hype and smear campaigns against the retaining candidates.

As the Judiciary Performance Review slogan, “Get the Ballot Done,” attests, voters often pass judges’ lists during the voting period without much thought, or at all. It often happens.

However, the 2022 election saw a small number of organized campaigns to oust judges for ideological differences. And some have succeeded.

Three judges were not appointed by voters in 2022, but only one was disqualified for judicial performance by the judicial performance review.

Law enforcement officials now worry that the successful expulsion in the 2022 elections will encourage more political groups to lead campaigns against judges who run counter to their rulings and ideologies.

And now, that fear is exacerbated as the campaign is brought to court, and the staunch supporters of the losing candidate turn to the judicial judge.

Maricopa County Judge Peter Thompson, who is set to remain in office in the next election, ruled against losing gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake in the latest round of election lawsuits, but refused to sanction her attorney.

Waves of Kari Lake supporters Rep. Rachel Jones, Republican, Tucson, He called Mr Thompson “corrupt,” “a traitor,” and a “coward.”

David Becker, executive director and founder of the Center for Election Innovation and Research and the Election Officials Legal Advocacy Network, noted that claims of election corruption continue to lose in court.

“Every time the court told the losing candidate to shut up or shut up,” Becker said. “They’ve done neither, they’ve been given the opportunity to present evidence over and over again,” Becker said.

Becker said the courts appeared to be the logical next step for those distrustful of the election.

“Of course, a court that requires a losing candidate to actually produce evidence to actually make a case is a threat,” Becker said. “It is only natural that the judiciary system will be attacked in the same way as electoral administration.”

Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer, who remains a key figure in the election denial, drew parallels between distrust of the electoral system and growing distrust of the judiciary.

“Make a story about people and how they manipulate the process in some way rather than managing it,” Richer said. “And for this judge it was not about the neutral application of the law, but about himself and his personal feelings, his background and his loyalty to his country.”

Richer said the law and factual backing are increasingly being pushed back instead of hinting at political motives.

“As a society, we have to be very reluctant to attribute motives and wrongdoing to institutions because we don’t like the results,” Richer said. “I was pretty disappointed that the judge didn’t take sanctions against Lake’s lawyers recently. But I think it’s subversive and reckless to say, ‘Well, it’s because he’s a coward.'”

Elliott said the ethics committee has seen a surge in complaints, many of which relate to dissatisfaction with the verdict.

“It’s a hostile system. Some people will come out of court very unhappy,” Elliot said.

“And in this day and age, it certainly engenders even more resentment than it once did.”

“I think the raw sentiment translates to ‘we need to get rid of these people and appoint judges who are more in line with our point of view,'” she said.

In addition to Elliott, Judiciary Appointment Commissioner and Highground COO Doug Cole and former state legislator Jonathan Peyton will speak on a panel at the upcoming Judiciary Conference. It warns judges of the potential need to set up and advise election commissions. They think about how to do it in line with judicial ethics, rules and opinions.

While first-instance judges are subject to campaign contributions equal to those of legislative candidates, Elliott hopes appeals judges will be subject to the same contribution limits as statewide candidates. there is

Judges subject to retention may not endorse or oppose candidates, speak on behalf of political groups, solicit or accept campaign contributions personally outside of campaign committees, or make any promises, issues, or promises that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the judicial office.

Judges are permitted to give “factically accurate” answers to false, premeditated or unjustified allegations made against them. They can also get endorsements, but they need to be careful how that endorsement is received, Elliot said.

Unlike traditional judicial elections, where opposition is clearly marked, judges do not know who will oppose their re-election, and efforts to oust judges seen last year came very late in the election, he said. It pointed out.

A panel of the Judiciary Council has finally advised judges to act aggressively ahead of the 2024 elections.

“We have a system that ultimately leaves the choice to voters,” Elliott said. “I really hate to see verdicts and controversial cases used as weapons to remove judges.”