In a remarkable turn of events, Arizona Supreme Court justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King, who encountered significant opposition due to a contentious ruling earlier this year that reinstated a near-total abortion ban, will retain their positions on the bench. This substantial outcome, reflecting the will of the electorate, marks a historical moment, as Arizona voters have never before removed a Supreme Court justice.
According to unofficial results reported by ABC News and NBC News, both justices received overwhelming support, each garnering approximately 60% of the votes cast. This decision underscores the electorate’s preference for the established judicial merit system, which evaluates judges based on performance rather than political motivations.
On the same ballot, Arizona voters decisively turned down Proposition 137, a measure that sought to eliminate term limits for judges. The Associated Press confirmed the failure of this proposition, with a stunning three out of four voters expressing opposition to the reform. Had it passed, Proposition 137 would have fundamentally reshaped the current system of judicial elections, allowing judges to remain in office even if voted out by the public.
Once all of the votes are counted, counties across the state will conduct a canvass to officially report results to the state. This certification by the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office will occur in late November, finalizing the election outcomes.
Justice Bolick expressed his gratitude in an email to The Arizona Republic, stating he was “humbled and ecstatic” to continue serving on what he deems “one of the finest courts in the nation.” He reflected on the electoral results, suggesting they reveal a public disinclination to radically alter the judicial system, particularly amid growing pressures from political extremes to reject judges who maintain high performance ratings from those who appear before them. “The vote for Justice King and me was so resounding under the circumstances,” he noted, “that I hope no good judge ever has to endure a campaign like this again.” King, however, did not provide a comment in response to requests from the media.
Normally considered unexciting, this year’s judicial elections were fueled by rising political tension following the landmark April ruling that reinstated an abortion ban dating back 160 years. The 4-2 opinion by the Arizona Supreme Court ignited a surge in advocacy for abortion rights, as Democrats sought to leverage the issue to galvanize voter turnout. While this strategy did not yield clear success in early election results, it prompted swift action from lawmakers and Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs to repeal the controversial ban, replacing it with a law allowing abortions up to 15 weeks of pregnancy.
In reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling, progressive groups rallied to mobilize voters against the two justices, both of whom were appointed by former Republican Governor Doug Ducey. However, counter campaigns emerged advocating for their retention by highlighting the success of the voter-approved system designed to assess judicial performance. These campaigns decried the politicization of the judiciary in response to a single ruling and emphasized the ongoing efforts to establish abortion rights in the state constitution, presenting a more permissive legal framework than currently exists.
Historically, Arizona voters opted for a merit-based judicial selection system 50 years ago, replacing traditional elections with an appointment process that includes public evaluations for continuing a judge’s tenure. Arizona Supreme Court justices are retained for six-year terms, and the recent election reaffirmed Arizonans’ preference for this system, as they rejected the sweeping changes proposed by Proposition 137, which would have drastically modified the existing protocol for judicial elections amidst a significant number of judges also on the ballot.
The rejected measure would have eliminated automatic retention elections, allowing public input regarding judges’ standing only under specific circumstances such as felony convictions or issues of integrity. The Commission on Judicial Performance Review, which assesses judges based on various competencies, has confirmed that both Justice Bolick and Justice King meet the required standards.
Justice Bolick was appointed to the court in 2016, while Justice King joined in 2021. Bolick is notable for being Ducey’s first appointee to the court, which expanded from five to seven justices shortly after. It’s important to note that Bolick will not complete a full six-year term, as Arizona judges are required to retire at 70, with his milestone birthday set for late 2027. King has the distinction of being the fifth woman to serve on the notoriously pivotal court, which until last month, had all its justices appointed by Republican governors.
With the recent retirement of former Justice Robert Brutinel on October 31, Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs has gained an opportunity to appoint a replacement, a process that is currently underway requiring a public applications and evaluations by a bipartisan commission.
This story will be updated as election results are reported.
Reach reporter Stacey Barchenger at stacey.barchenger@arizonarepublic.com or 480-416-5669.
Arizona Supreme Court justices political affiliation
**Interview with Justice Clint Bolick on Retention and the Future of Arizona’s Judiciary**
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us today, Justice Bolick. It seems that the recent election results have been quite historic, with both you and Justice King receiving significant support from the electorate. How does it feel to be retained despite the surrounding controversies?
**Justice Clint Bolick:** Thank you for having me. I’m truly humbled and ecstatic to continue serving on what I believe is one of the finest courts in the nation. The support we received, especially given the tumultuous circumstances surrounding our rulings, reinforces my faith in the electorate’s commitment to a merit-based judicial system. It shows that voters are not easily swayed by political extremes when it comes to their judiciary.
**Interviewer:** Your ruling in favor of reinstating a near-total abortion ban in Arizona certainly ignited a wave of mobilization among progressive groups. What do you think this intense opposition says about the current political climate in Arizona?
**Justice Bolick:** It illustrates the growing tension in the political landscape and the passion that issues like reproductive rights can invoke. However, I believe it also reflects a desire for stability and fairness in our judicial system, which is designed to evaluate judges based on performance rather than political motivations. It’s crucial to maintain our focus on upholding the rule of law, regardless of fluctuating public sentiments.
**Interviewer:** During the election, Proposition 137 aimed to eliminate term limits for judges but was overwhelmingly rejected by voters. What does this outcome indicate about the public’s view on accountability in the judiciary?
**Justice Bolick:** The rejection of Proposition 137 strongly indicates that voters value the accountability provided by term limits for judges. They seem to appreciate a system where judges’ performance can be regularly evaluated, and I think this is a significant endorsement of our existing merit-based selection process. It’s important that we retain a judiciary that is responsive to the public while maintaining its independence.
**Interviewer:** Reflecting on the opposing campaigns both for and against your retention, what do you think is the most critical takeaway for the future of judicial elections in Arizona?
**Justice Bolick:** One key takeaway is the importance of not allowing individual rulings to dictate the fate of a judge’s career. Our system needs to uphold the credibility of judicial review without succumbing to political pressures. I sincerely hope that moving forward, we can engage in more constructive conversations about judicial roles and responsibilities, rather than allowing them to become collateral damage in political battles.
**Interviewer:** What’s next for you and the Arizona Supreme Court in light of these events?
**Justice Bolick:** We’ll continue our work on the court, focusing on upholding the law and ensuring that justice is administered fairly. We expect to see ongoing discussions around important issues like reproductive rights, and I hope that as the legal landscape evolves, we can contribute positively to that dialogue. As justices, our responsibility is to interpret the law fairly and impartially, and that’s what we intend to continue doing.
**Interviewer:** Thank you, Justice Bolick, for sharing your insights today. It’s a pivotal time for Arizona’s judiciary, and we appreciate your thoughts on these crucial issues.
**Justice Clint Bolick:** Thank you for having me, and for engaging in such important discussions about our judiciary’s future.
