Who Judges the Judges [pdf]
Judges Summary - Appellate Courts [pdf]
Judges Details - Appellate Courts [pdf]
Judges Summary - Pinal County Superior Court [pdf]
Judges Details - Pinal County Superior Court [pdf]
Judges Summary - Pima County Superior Court [pdf]
Judges Details - Pima County Superior Court [pdf]
Judges Summary - Maricopa County Superior Court [pdf]
Judges Details - Maricopa County Superior Court [pdf]
JPR Voter Checklist only in pdf
Voters! Finish the Ballot!
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!
Some Arizona judges are appointed through Merit Selection and rated by the JPR Commission.
Merit Selection and Retention
In 1974, Arizona voters decided that for Arizona’s Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, and Superior Courts in counties with populations over 250,000 (currently Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal) 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.
JPR Commission Evaluations & Report
Created by a constitutional amendment, the 30-member JPR Commission conducts standards-based performance evaluations of judges. Most of the JPR Commissioners are public members, not lawyers or judges. JPR reports its results to the public. 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.
Judicial Performance Standards
The JPR Commission evaluates each judge up for retention election to assess the judge’s:
Public Input Throughout the Process
This year, as every election year, the JPR Commission sought public input from citizens who have had direct experience with judges and made its decisions using that input. In 2013, 60,000 surveys on judges were distributed to attorneys, jurors, litigants and witnesses. 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.
Use JPR Results and Checklist
Every Voter can take an active role in this judicial review process. Use this JPR 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 Judges Checklist tear-off sheet in this pamphlet. Refer to your 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]
Reading This Data
Judicial Performance Commission Results indicate how JPR Commissioners voted, whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial Performance Standards based on survey information as well as all other information submitted by the public or the judge. Judicial Performance Surveys percentages show results of surveys completed by respondents based on the averaged results of the survey respondents who rated the judge “satisfactory” or better in combined Judicial Performance Standards categories.
Judicial Performance Standards include:
RESULTS OF THE COMMISSION’S VOTE ON THE APPELLATE COURT JUSTICES AND JUDGES
The following judges DO NOT MEET Judicial Performance Standards
NONE
The following judges MEET Judicial Performance Standards
ARIZONA SUPREME COURT:
Scott Bales
Robert Brutinel
COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE:
Andrew W. Gould
Randall M. Howe
Diane M. Johnsen
Patricia A. Orozco
Samuel A. Thumma
COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO:
Garye L. Vasquez
Judge
JPR Votes
“Meets”
Judicial
Standards
“Does Not Meet” Judicial
Did
Not
Vote
JPR Commission Member
Did Not Vote on Self
Details
JPR Page
Bales, Scott
29
0
81
Brutinel, Robert
Gould, Andrew
82
Howe, Randall
Johnsen, Diane
83
Orozco, Patricia
Thumma, Samuel
84
Vasquez, Garye
27
2
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS
29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards
Judicial Performance Surveys
Attorney Responses
Superior Court Judge Responses
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
95%
96%
98%
99%
100%
N/A
90%
97%
89%
94%
91%
84%
27 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards
2 Commissioners Did Not Vote
88%
RESULTS OF THE COMMISSION’S VOTE ON THE PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES
Gilberto V. Figueroa
Steven J. Fuller
Brenda E. Oldham
Daniel A. Washburn
Kevin D. White
Judicial Standards
“Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards
Did Not Vote
JPR Commission Member Did Not Vote on Self
Figueroa, Gilberto
87
Fuller, Steven
Oldham, Brenda
88
Washburn, Daniel
1
White, Kevin
28
89
Litigant/Witness Responses
93%
74%
71%
83%
1 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards
1 Commissioner Did Not Vote
86%
78%
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards
87%
76%
75%
69%
RESULTS OF THE COMMISSION’S VOTE ON THE PIMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES
Catherine M. Woods
Jeffrey T. Bergin
Christopher Browning
Javier Chon-Lopez
Charles Harrington
Danelle B. Liwski
James E. Marner
Richard D. Nichols
Kathleen A. Quigley
Kenneth C. Stanford
Bergin, Jeffrey
92
Browning, Christopher
Chon-Lopez, Javier
93
Harrington, Charles
Liwski, Danelle
94
Marner, James
Nichols, Richard
95
Quigley, Kathleen
Stanford, Kenneth
96
Woods, Catherine
7
22
82%
7 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards
22 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards
80%
RESULTS OF THE COMMISSION’S VOTE ON THE MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES
Benjamin R. Norris
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT:
Mark F. Aceto
Aimee L. Anderson
Arthur T. Anderson
Bradley Astrowsky
Cynthia J. Bailey
Janet E. Barton
Edward W. Bassett
Dawn M. Bergin
James T. Blomo
Mark H. Brain
Roger E. Brodman
William L. Brotherton
Katherine M. Cooper
Janice K. Crawford
David O. Cunanan
Norman J. Davis
Sally S. Duncan
Boyd W. Dunn
Alfred M. Fenzel
Dean M. Fink
George H. Foster, Jr.
J. Richard Gama
Warren J. Granville
Hugh E. Hegyi
Michael J. Herrod
Bethany G. Hicks
Carey S. Hyatt
Brian K. Ishikawa
Joseph C. Kreamer
Daniel G. Martin
Rosa P. Mroz
Samuel J. Myers
Karen L. O’Connor
Susanna C. Pineda
Jay Polk
Gerald J. Porter
John C. Rea
Peter C. Reinstein
Emmet J. Ronan
Joan M. Sinclair
Pamela Hearn Svoboda
David M. Talamante
Danielle J. Viola
Randall H. Warner
Joseph C. Welty
Eileen S. Willett
JPR Votes “Meets” Judicial Standards
Not Vote
Aceto, Mark
102
Anderson, Aimee
Anderson, Arthur
103
Astrowsky, Bradley
25
4
Bailey, Cynthia
104
Barton, Janet
Bassett, Edward
105
Bergin, Dawn
Blomo, James
106
Brain, Mark
Brodman, Roger
107
Brotherton, William
Cooper, Katherine
108
Crawford, Janice
Cunanan, David
109
Davis, Norman
Duncan, Sally
110
Dunn, Boyd
Fenzel, Alfred
111
Fink, Dean
Foster, Jr. George H.
112
Gama, J. Richard
Granville, Warren
113
Hegyi, Hugh
Herrod, Michael
114
Hicks, Bethany
Hyatt, Carey
115
Ishikawa, Brian
Kreamer, Joseph
116
Martin, Daniel
Mroz, Rosa
117
Myers, Samuel
Norris, Benjamin
3
118
O’Connor, Karen
Pineda, Susanna
119
Polk, Jay
Porter, Gerald
18
11
120
Rea, John
Reinstein, Peter
121
Ronan, Emmet
Sinclair, Joan
122
Svoboda, Pamela
Talamante, David
123
Viola, Danielle
Warner, Randall
124
Welty, Joseph
Willett, Eileen
125
92%
25 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards
4 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards
77%
0%
79%
All Respondents
67%
1 JPR Commission Member-Did Not Vote on Self
68%
73%
3 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards
25 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards
59%
18 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards
11 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards
66%
70%
Top of Page
© September 2014
