New judge assigned to lawsuit over judicial retention ballot referral

Corrections & Clarifications: The lawsuit challenges a legislative ballot referral. The ballot referral was incorrectly described in the headline and text of a previous version of the article.

A new judge has been assigned to a lawsuit challenging a legislative ballot referral that would end most judicial retention elections in Arizona.

Progress Arizona is suing to prevent Senate Concurrent Resolution 1044 from appearing on the ballot.

The group alleges SCR 1044 is unconstitutional because it bears a deceptive title and contains more than a single amendment to the state constitution.

The measure states that only judges who have been convicted of a felony, declared bankruptcy or been found not to have followed judicial standards should stand for retention.

"It basically eliminates retention, but then it also really changes the makeup of the judicial performance review committee, and those are separate amendments that have to be voted on separately," said Jim Barton, an attorney for Progress Arizona.

Kory Langhofer, an attorney for the legislative leaders intervening in the case, disputes the lawsuit's claims.

"The title of the act — Judicial Accountability Act of 2024 — is exactly what it is. It's about judicial accountability," Langhofer said. "Regarding the separate amendment issue, I think when the court looks at it, it will find that everything is sufficiently interrelated and that it will qualify for the ballot."

Currently, trial judges in Maricopa, Pima, Pinal and Coconino counties, appeals court judges and Supreme Court justices are subject to Arizona's retention election system.

Citing this set of circumstances, Judge Joseph Welty, the presiding judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court, assigned the case to Judge John Napper, a Yavapai County judge.

In Arizona's rural counties, like Yavapai, judges are elected. Therefore, Napper is not subject to the retention election process the ballot referral seeks to change.

Welty specified in his order that the case remains a Maricopa County case, and he assigned it to Napper as a visiting judge.

Barton said he thought Napper was a good choice and that the reassignment would satisfy potential conflict-of-interest concerns.

"He wants there to not even be an appearance of impropriety," Barton said of Welty assigning the case to Napper. "So that makes sense to me."

Langhofer said removing the case from a judge who faces retention elections was good practice. "And I'm not aware of Judge Napper saying anything that suggests bias either way, so it seems like the case is where it should be," he said.

The parties are in the process of briefing Napper, and they anticipate an oral argument will be scheduled.

Have a news tip? Reach the reporter at [email protected] or 812-243-5582. Follow him on X, formerly known as Twitter, @JimmyJenkins.

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: New judge assigned to judicial retention ballot referral lawsuit