Court Battle Over Changes to Arizona’s Commission on Court Appointments
The Brennan Center and Justice at Stake have filed an amicus brief in a challenge to an April 2013 law changing the process by which Arizona’s Commission on Appellate Court Appointments recommends candidates to fill judicial vacancies. The April legislation both requires the nominating commission to submit more candidates than originally required, but also permits them, on an internal vote, to submit fewer candidates than previously required. The change had earlier been rejected by Arizona’s voters and in July, members of a special judicial screening panel called the law unconstitutional and filed a petition for special action with the Arizona Supreme Court. The amicus brief was filed in support of that petition.
The amicus brief focuses on the benefits accruing from merit commission systems, like Arizona’s, which are “an effective way to reduce the influence of special interests and political partisans on the courts and thereby increase judicial quality and independence.”
Arizona has used a merit selection system, with a nominating commission and gubernatorial appointment since the 1970’s. Amendments to the state constitution in the 1990’s opened the nominating commission hearing to the public, as well as created a judicial performance commission for evaluating judges before retention elections. The amicus filed by the Brennan Center and Justice at Stake notes that “Arizona’s merit selection system is widely regarded as succeeding in producing excellent judges” and recognizes that Arizona’s system serves as a model for best practices.
Indeed, Chicago Appleseed recognized Arizona’s judicial performance commission as a model of good practice in drafting its policy recommendations for a judicial performance commission in Illinois. Evaluation of judicial officers and judicial candidates based upon source-neutral data and objective metrics can only benefit the judiciary by ensuring qualified professionals reach the bench and by providing continued meaningful feedback on their performance overtime.
We hope that Arizona’s system will not be weakened by these changes, but the Brennan Center and Justice at Stake make a compelling argument that the new law increases the governor’s influence over the make-up of the judiciary. At the very least, the change, explicitly rejected previously by the public, undermines public confidence in the independence of their judiciary and mires the appointments process in ever-more-hostile partisan politics by attempting to circumvent a constitutionally-established process.