106
107
109
110
111
112
113
203
301
302
JPR Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
WHO JUDGES THE JUDGES? YOU DO! WE CAN HELP.
Use the following summary and report by the Commission on Judicial Performance Review (JPR) to Finish the Ballot! The JPR Commission was established by voters to evaluate judges' performance during retention elections. While judges initially are appointed, this report can help you decide whether these judges meet judicial performance standards and should be retained. Which judges appear on your ballot depends on your county and the court on which the judge serves. By using this report to finish your ballot, you will help ensure Arizona's strong and impartial judiciary!
In 1974, Arizona voters decided that in counties with populations over 250,000 (currently Maricopa and Pima) and for Arizona's Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals, judges would be appointed by the Governor from a list of qualified candidates. The Arizona Constitution directs commissions to nominate candidates based primarily on their merit, with consideration given to the diversity of Arizona's population. Arizona voters then periodically vote whether to retain these judges as their terms expire. This system is known as Merit Selection and Retention.
Created by a constitutional amendment, the 30-member JPR Commission conducts standards-based performance evaluations of judges and reports these results. Most of the JPR Commission's members are not lawyers or judges. This report provides JPR Commission findings, survey results, and states whether each judge in a retention election "meets" or "fails to meet" judicial performance standards.
The JPR Commission evaluates each judge up for retention election to assess whether the judge:
This year, as every election year, the JPR Commission sought public input and made its decisions using that input. Attorneys, jurors, litigants, witnesses, and other judges returned over 16,000 surveys on judges. The JPR Commission held public hearings open to anyone wishing to speak about the judges up for retention this year. The JPR Commission accepts signed, written comments about merit-appointed judges at any time.
Every voter can take an active role in this judicial review process; use this summary and report to guide your votes for judges up for retention. After reviewing a judge's information, mark "Yes" or "No" next to the judge's name on the Judge Checklist in the back of this pamphlet. Use this checklist to finish your ballot.
Visit www.AZJudges.info for more information.
Contact the Commission on Judicial Performance Review: (602) 452-3311
or email [email protected]
Arizona Supreme Court and COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE
THE FOLLOWING JUDGES DO NOT MEET JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:
NONE
THE FOLLOWING JUDGES MEET JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:
ARIZONA SUPREME COURT:
Rebecca White Berch
COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE:
Daniel A. Barker
Michael J. Brown
John C. Gemmill
Philip L. Hall
Patrick Irvine
Jon W. Thompson
Lawrence F. Winthrop
ALL ARIZONA VOTERS VOTE ON THE FOLLOWING SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
Chief Justice
27 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Surveys Distributed: 47
Surveys Returned: 26
Surveys Distributed: 601
Surveys Returned: 192
Surveys Distributed: 43
Surveys Returned: 18
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Administrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
93%
99%
98%
MARICOPA COUNTY VOTERS VOTE ON THE FOLLOWING COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I JUDGES
Attorney
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 1,642
Surveys Returned: 377
Superior Court Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 394
Surveys Returned: 152
90%
96%
94%
95%
Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2001
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 1,207
Surveys Returned: 333
Surveys Distributed: 284
Surveys Returned: 100
87%
97%
Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2002
Surveys Distributed: 1,512
Surveys Returned: 382
Surveys Distributed: 370
Surveys Returned: 133
89%
Surveys Distributed: 1,625
Surveys Returned: 261
Surveys Distributed: 291
Surveys Returned: 101
91%
APACHE/COCONINO/LA PAZ/MOHAVE/NAVAJO/YAVAPAI/YUMA COUNTY VOTERS VOTE ON THE FOLLOWING COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I JUDGES
Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2007
Surveys Distributed: 625
Surveys Returned: 139
Surveys Distributed: 170
Surveys Returned: 60
Surveys Distributed: 1,516
Surveys Returned: 321
Surveys Distributed: 377
Surveys Returned: 128
92%
Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 1995
Surveys Distributed: 1,449
Surveys Returned: 341
Surveys Returned: 143
82%
86%
pima county superior court - pima county voters only
Borek, Ted B.
Browning, Christopher C.
Campoy, Hector E.
Chandler, Terry
Chon-Lopez, Javier
Cruikshank, Michael
Harrington, Charles V.
Nichols, Richard D.
Assignment During Survey Period: Civil
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2000
26 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
Note: Judge Borek is a member of the JPR Commission who could not vote on his own performance finding.
Surveys Distributed: 219
Surveys Returned: 53
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 35
Surveys Returned: 6
Juror Responses
Surveys Returned: 13
Settlement Activities
Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1998
Surveys Distributed: 203
Surveys Returned: 51
Surveys Distributed: 140
Surveys Returned: 32
Juror
Surveys Distributed: 45
Surveys Returned: 19
Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile
Surveys Distributed: 109
Surveys Returned: 21
Surveys Distributed: 423
Surveys Returned: 67
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2004
Judicial Performance Standards
Evaluation Categories
Surveys Distributed: 169
Surveys Returned: 36
Surveys Distributed: 137
Surveys Returned: 31
Surveys Distributed: 99
Surveys Returned: 29
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2007
Surveys Distributed: 113
Surveys Returned: 28
Surveys Distributed: 204
Surveys Returned: 44
88%
Assignment During Survey Period: Presiding Family
Presiding Judge Responses
Surveys
Distributed: 53
Distributed: 125
Surveys Returned: 45
Distributed: 143
Surveys Returned: 15
Distributed: 0
85%
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1999
Surveys Distributed: 181
Surveys Returned: 76
Surveys Distributed: 146
Surveys Returned: 42
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1995
Surveys Distributed: 207
Surveys Distributed: 115
Surveys Distributed: 56
Aceto, Mark F.
Anderson, Aimee L.
Anderson, Arthur T.
Barton, Janet E.
Bassett, Edward W.
Bergin, Dawn M.
Brodman, Roger E.
Brotherton, William L.
Budoff, Robert
Burke, Edward O.
Chavez, Harriett E.
Davis, Norman J.
Donahoe, Gary E.
Duncan, Sally S.
Fenzel, Alfred M.
Fink, Dean M.
Foster, George H.
Gaines, Pendleton
Gama, J. Richard
Grant, Larry
Granville, Warren J.
Hauser, Brian R.
Hegyi, Hugh E.
Heilman, Joseph B.
Hicks, Bethany G.
Hoag, M. Jean
Hyatt, Carey S.
Ishikawa, Brian K.
Jones, Michael D.
Kreamer, Joseph C.
Lee, Raymond
Mangum, J. Kenneth
Martin, Daniel G.
Mroz, Rosa P.
Myers, Samuel J.
Norris, Benjamin R.
O’Connor, Karen L.
Pineda, Susanna C.
Rayes, Douglas L.
Rea, John C.
Reinstein, Peter C.
Ronan, Emmet J.
Talamante, David M.
Thumma, Samuel J.
Verdin, Maria del Mar
Warner, Randall H.
Welty, Joseph C.
Willett, Eileen S.
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1995
Surveys Distributed: 114
79%
80%
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2007
Surveys Distributed: 134
Surveys Returned: 39
Surveys Distributed: 380
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1999
Surveys Returned: 23
Surveys Distributed: 89
Surveys Returned: 9
Surveys Distributed: 42
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2000
1 Commissioner Voted "Does Not Meet"
Surveys Returned: 43
Surveys Distributed: 34
76%
74%
Assignment During Survey Period: Family
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2008
Surveys Distributed: 162
Surveys Distributed: 369
Surveys Returned: 25
Surveys Distributed: 148
Surveys Returned: 40
Surveys Distributed: 96
Surveys Returned: 17
Surveys Distributed: 149
Surveys Distributed: 522
Surveys Returned: 59
1 Commissioner Voted "Not Voting"
Surveys Distributed: 112
Surveys Distributed: 439
Surveys Returned: 35
83%
84%
78%
Surveys Distributed: 329
Surveys Returned: 97
Surveys Distributed: 77
Surveys Distributed: 27
Surveys Returned: 20
Surveys Distributed: 313
Surveys Returned: 72
Surveys Returned: 2
Assignment During Survey Period: Civil; NW Presiding
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2003
Distributed: 4
Distributed: 182
Surveys Returned: 56
Distributed: 205
Distributed: 27
Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile; Associate Presiding
Presiding Judge
Distributed: 151
Surveys Returned: 63
Distributed: 42
Surveys Returned: 7
Distributed: 54
50%
Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal Presiding
Distributed: 57
Surveys Returned: 27
Distributed: 29
Distributed: 11
Surveys Returned: 8
Distributed: 104
67%
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2004
Surveys Distributed: 240
Surveys Distributed: 61
Surveys Returned: 10
Surveys Distributed: 58
73%
Surveys Distributed: 172
Surveys Returned: 33
Surveys Distributed: 191
Surveys Returned: 50
Surveys Distributed: 24
Surveys Distributed: 9
Surveys Returned: 5
Surveys Distributed: 175
Surveys Returned: 37
Surveys Distributed: 54
Surveys Returned: 3
Surveys Distributed: 81
Surveys Returned: 55
81%
69%
Surveys Distributed: 192
Surveys Returned: 41
Surveys Distributed: 78
Surveys Distributed: 93
Assignment During Survey Period: Presiding Civil
Distributed: 31
Surveys Returned: 11
Distributed: 130
Distributed: 7
Surveys Returned: 1
Surveys Distributed: 348
Surveys Returned: 84
Surveys Distributed: 20
Surveys Returned: 16
Surveys Distributed: 244
Surveys Returned: 62
Surveys Distributed: 68
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1991
Surveys Distributed: 236
Surveys Returned: 46
Surveys Distributed: 18
Surveys Distributed: 197
Surveys Distributed: 22
Surveys Distributed: 10
Surveys Distributed: 199
Surveys Distributed: 36
Surveys Distributed: 32
72%
15 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
12 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"
Surveys Distributed: 453
Surveys Returned: 126
Surveys Distributed: 69
Surveys Distributed: 37
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1996
Surveys Returned: 38
Surveys Distributed: 389
Surveys Returned: 34
Surveys Distributed: 349
Assignment During Survey Period: Assoc. Presiding Juvenile
Distributed: 22
Distributed: 108
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Distributed: 435
Surveys Returned: 47
Surveys Distributed: 57
Surveys Distributed: 12
Surveys Returned: 71
Surveys Distributed: 52
22 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
5 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"
Surveys Distributed: 102
71%
Surveys Returned: 64
Surveys Distributed: 46
Surveys Distributed: 16
Surveys Distributed: 94
Surveys Distributed: 235
Surveys Distributed: 139
Surveys Distributed: 65
Surveys Distributed: 166
Surveys Returned: 48
Surveys Distributed: 55
24 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
3 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"
Surveys Distributed: 130
Surveys Distributed: 279
75%
Assignment During Survey Period: Presiding Probate
Distributed: 5
Distributed: 74
Distributed: 36
Surveys Distributed: 138
Surveys Distributed: 457
Surveys Returned: 109
Surveys Distributed: 8
Surveys Distributed: 281
Surveys Distributed: 48
Surveys Distributed: 388
64%
65%
Assignment During Survey Period: Family; SE Presiding
Distributed: 17
Distributed: 180
Distributed: 254
Surveys Distributed: 246
Note: Judge Verdin is a member of the JPR Commission who could not vote on her own performance finding.
Surveys Distributed: 155
Assignment During Survey Period: Associate Presiding Family
Distributed: 37
Distributed: 139
Surveys Returned: 52
Distributed: 262
Surveys Returned: 14
Surveys Distributed: 241
Surveys Returned: 49
Surveys Returned: 12
Surveys Distributed: 167
Surveys Returned: 22
FOOTNOTE: The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge “satisfactory”, “very good”, or “superior” in each of the Commission’s evaluation categories. Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials). The JPR Commission votes “Yes” or “No” on whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge. Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court’s website.
Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
© August 2010