The best guide for the citizen interested (as few are) in making an informed vote on judicial retention is the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review. Unlike voting based on party affiliation like the ideologues over at Sonora Alliance are advocating, retention should be based on ability, not ideology.
I'm not kidding myself that many people will actually bother. The drop-off for this section of the ballot is astronomical. Of course, that means that relatively few informed votes can carry a lot of weight. If you want to be such a voter, I'm here to help.
Unlike most of you, I actually clicked through to the JPR. Then I looked at the scores, and then I looked at the reviews by attorney's who appeared in the judges courtrooms, the juries who sat in the jury boxes, and the witnesses who took the stands in their courts. It is rare for the jurors or witnesses to complain; they don't actually spend all the much time with the judge, and they are usually fairly indulgent toward these parties. Where the real friction happens is with the attorneys whom they deal with repeatedly and garner a reputation amongst. That's where to look for signs of trouble.
The standards by which the judges are, well, judged are comprehensive, but frankly, the standards aren't that hard to meet if you are capable of getting appointed in the first place. It shouldn't therefore be too surprising that every single judge up for review in Arizona received a nearly unanimous "Meets Standards" from the Commission.
So, I will only bother to highlight those rare individuals who did not get a unanimous score. At the most, only 1 or 2 commissioners gave any judge a "Does Not Meet Standards." It is important to realize that even 1 such vote is unusual, and could possibly mean that there is a significant problem with the performance of the judge. This isn't a popularity contest; the commissioners only vote that way if they see a serious issue.
So, who got flagged?
The Honorable Janet E. Barton of the Maricopa Superior Court collected 2 "Does Not Meet" votes. Based on attorney surveys, it seems that she has some issues with her judicial temperament. 22% of attorneys surveyed gave her a "Poor" (PO) or "Unsatisfactory" (UN). The main beef seems to be that she has demonstrated to some attorneys a lack of compassion, understanding, or courtesy. She's probably doesn't tolerate fools lightly (lord knows enough of them are attorneys), but this doesn't seem like a reason not to retain her.
The Honorable Edward O. Burke of the Maricopa Superior Court also caught 2 "Does Not Meet" votes. Based on the attorney surveys, there is a slight issue with his legal ability (19% of those surveyed gave him a PO or UN) and with his temperament (15% PO or UN). In my view, if 20% of your colleagues DON'T think you an idiot, you're probably a mute.
The Honorable John M. Gaylord of the Maricopa Superior Court got dinged with just 1 "Does Not Meet" vote. Looking at the surveys, I can't imagine why. Maybe the commissioner didn't like his name...
The Honorable Bethany G. Hicks of the Maricopa Superior Court had one commissioner slap her with a "Does Not Meet" vote. Looking at the surveys, I can't imagine why it was only one commissioner. Fully 38% of attorney respondents gave her UN or PO for her legal ability. The is by far the lowest of any current judge. She also had 27% UN or PO for communication skills, and an impressive 18% who gave her UN or PO marks for judicial temperament. Those are some seriously troubling numbers.
The Honorable Jonathan H. Schwartz of the Maricopa Superior Court Juvenile Division got "Does Not Meet" from 2 commissioners. 14% of attorneys responding rated Judge Schwartz as PO for legal ability. 29% gave his a PO or UN for his judicial temperament. And 23% gave him PO or UN for his administrative performance - most of those complaints seem to center around his punctuality and calendar management.
That's it. Just five judges had issues serious enough that at least 1 commissioner couldn't in good conscience give him or her a "Meets Standard" vote. Make of it what you will, but at least now you won't face that long list of names completely without information.
I have been saying this for years, I also looked through the JPR, for personal reasons. I have had my life destroyed by these incompetent so called Judges. Through my horrible divorce and custody battle that lasted from 1997-2004 we had 5 different Judges, and TWO of them were so horrible, I can not even begin to tell you how many of my civil rights were violated, it was a complete mockery of Justice System. I have been trying to find if any recordings were made at the hearings that involved these Judges. Oh and , since I am rambling on and on...my Point was that the TWo Judges That Ruined my family are two of the Very SAME JUdges on your above Blog...Edward O. Burke and Bethany G. Hicks.
Posted by: L.Mort | June 17, 2007 at 10:00 PM
i absolutely agree with l. morts comment. now i know i am not alone. i too, feel i have been victimized by the very same bethany g. hicks. i will never forget her name, her face, nor will i forget her demeanor in the courtroom that horrible day back in Oct 2001. my life has never been the same since and neither has my daughters'.
Posted by: n.walsh | July 10, 2008 at 10:05 PM
Orange County Superior Court Former Judge Kelly MacEachern
Here is an interesting site about Orange County's first Judge to be removed from the bench:
http://www.kellymaceachern.com/
Posted by: kelly maceachern | October 09, 2008 at 01:40 AM
The California Supreme Court denied Kelly MacEacherns’ appellate petition for review of the CJPs’ removal decision on Dec. 10th. More information can be viewed here:
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=559626&doc_no=S166837
Posted by: Ethan Kolasinski | December 21, 2008 at 02:27 AM