Kick these judges off the bench

Judge Catherine Woods

Editorial board, The Republic | azcentral.com2:11 p.m. MST October 21, 2014

Our View: For the first time, Arizona's Judicial Performance Review board has recommended voters oust two
sitting judges.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2014/10/17/judicial-performance-review/17462547/

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

In an unprecedented move, the state's Judicial Performance Review panel recommends two judges not be retained
The panel surveys hundreds of people who come in contact
with courts to learn about judges' performance
The commission seriously considers claims that judges act
"imperiously," which can undermine people's faith in the
system

Inside this year's Arizona General Election Guide is a chart

depicting one of the most dramatic and least noticed
stories of the 2014 campaign.
The Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review reports that two Superior Court judges one in Maricopa
County and the other in Pima County do not meet its standards for retention.
The commission is telling voters they should remove those
judges.
In the eyes of the commission chairman, that is "historic."
"We have never had scores like this before," said Chairman
Mike Hellon. "We have never had two judges voted not to be
retained."
It wasn't close.
The commission members concluded 25-3 that Maricopa
County Superior Court Judge Benjamin Norris "does not meet
judicial standards." Similarly, the panel voted 22-7 against the
retention of Pima County Superior Court Judge Catherine
Woods.
A glance at the complete list of the commission's recommendations tells nearly all you need to know about how unusual
those tallies are. Nine of the 10 Pima County judges up for
retention earned 29-0 scores. Then, there was Judge Woods'
tally, in which 22 of those same commissioners concluded she
was not fit to continue as a judge.
Of 46 Maricopa County judges reviewed by the commission,
42 were deemed unanimously to have met judicial standards.
Three judges received no more than four negative votes.

One judge, Gerald Porter, earned a shaky 18-11 recommendation that he meets standards. And then, there was the Norris
eye-opener, with just three members recommending retention.
The Arizona system for retaining judges in the state's most
populous counties Maricopa, Pima and Pinal is meritbased. It is intended to give voters a say in whether judges stay
on the bench while defusing as much as possible the politics
of judicial elections.
At the heart of the process is the work of the review commission, which surveys a wide variety of people who come in
contact with the courts, including attorneys, jurors, litigants,
witnesses, court staff and other judges. The commission typically is composed of 18 members of the public, six attorneys
and six judges.
The reviews are thorough. They include responses from the
judges themselves to negative surveys. But the panel's votes
are informed recommendations and nothing more. In the end,
it is all up to the voters.
In the case of Judge Norris, the panel's survey include a great
many respondents who had strong objections to the judge's
courtroom manner. Norris received high marks in categories
such as "integrity" and "administrative performance."
But when it came to categories such as "temperament" and
"communications," he tanked. Especially for a judge sitting in
the emotionally wrenching Family Court division, low scores
in those categories can be damning.
"Every person has a right to leave the courtroom feeling their
rights have been considered and their arguments heard in
fact, not just heard, but seriously considered," said Hellon.
"Demeanor," he added, "is a very, very important consideration. If people don't come out of the court feeling they've been
treated fairly, the system doesn't work."

Voters rarely exercise their right to oust a sitting judge. But,

Hellon said, the correlation between negative JPR reviews and
the percentage of voters voting not to retain those judges is
increasing. Voters are paying attention to the reviews.
Occasionally, activist groups attempt to gin up campaigns to
oust judges for political reasons. There is at least one such
campaign underway this year. The work of the review commission is the antithesis of those efforts.
Other judges on the JPR commission logged "no retention"
votes against the two low-scoring judges. So much for the
cynical belief that judges are members of an exclusive club
who watch out for each other.
The final judgment, however, is up to voters. It may be a difficult choice. But maintaining a court system that keeps the
public faith is absolutely crucial to a nation of laws.