General
A1 Communications
Cable Techs Health Care
Sierra Tucson
Eating Disorders Program Coordinator Trades/Construction
RANCHO RESORT
MAINTANANCE POSITION

When you open your ballot for the Nov. 4 general election you'll notice that Pima County's Superior Court judges don't have any opponents.

That's because Arizona has a judicial merit selection and retention process, which means voters get to decide whether to keep them or replace them, but not who the replacement is.

In Pima and Maricopa counties, judges are appointed by the governor, rather than winning their seats through a traditional election, and then stand for "retention" every four years.

Since most voters never see any of the judges in action, and there is no campaigning, a state commission regularly surveys lawyers, jurors and other people involved in court cases about how the judges are doing.

This year, 79 percent of the commission members voted Judge Edgar Acuña is meeting judicial performance standards, the lowest of any of the 20 judges up for retention.

The other 19 were all rated as meeting standards by at least 90 percent of the commission. Twelve of those received unanimous votes.

Although judges in the 13 smaller counties are still selected through a traditional election, in Pima and Maricopa counties an attorney must apply and be evaluated by a non- partisan commission that ultimately recommends the top three candidates to the governor, who makes the final selection.

After an initial two-year term, they come up for retention every four years.

According to a January Center for Arizona Policy Report, in the 34 years since Pima and Maricopa counties went to the judicial retention system only two judges have ever been voted off the bench.

Since 1992, voters have had some help in making those decisions from the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance.

The commission not only surveys people involved in the legal community but also holds public hearings and solicits written comments.

This year, the commission surveyed 14,000 litigants, witnesses, jurors, lawyers, court staffers and attorneys between Aug. 27 and Dec. 31, 2007, about the judges they appeared before. Judges were scored on their legal ability, integrity, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance and their settlement activities.

Judges receiving a unanimous vote were: Paul Tang, Deborah Bernini, Michael Miller, Leslie Miller, Richard Fields, Nanette Warner, Patricia Escher, Jane Eikleberry, Charles Sabalos, Virginia Kelly and Jan Kearney.

Twenty-eight commissioners felt Sarah Simmons met the standards, while one abstained.

Four of the judges had at least one commissioner who didn't believe they met the judicial performance standards: John Leonardo, Stephen Villarreal, Kenneth Lee and Carmine Cornelio.

Two commissioners felt Clark Munger didn't meet the standards, and three felt Gus Aragón and Howard Hantman didn't meet the standards — which still put them all at or above the 90 percent mark.

Six judges, or 21 percent of the commissioners, felt Acuña fell short of the standards.

Judges were rated unsatisfactory, poor, satisfactory, very good or superior in each of the six areas.

Most of the judges scored at least 80 percent satisfactory or better in every category, with a few exceptions, such as:

• Just sixty-two percent of lawyers felt Acuña's judicial temperament was satisfactory or better. A higher than average number of them marked him down for a lack of courtesy, patience and understanding.

• Fifty percent of litigants and 78 percent of attorneys felt Munger's judicial temperament was satisfactory or better. He too was cited for lack of patience.

• Sixty-eight percent of attorneys felt Hantman's judicial temperament was satisfactory or better, with the others citing patience and courtesy issues.

• Seventy percent of attorneys felt Aragón's legal ability was satisfactory, very good or superior.

• Seventy-one percent of attorneys felt Leonardo's settlement activities were satisfactory, very good or superior.

The commission is made up of members of the public and no more than six judges and lawyers. According to its Web site, the current membership is made up of active and retired educators, engineers, psychologists, accountants, business executives and community volunteers.

In Maricopa County, the commissioners unanimously agreed that most of the judges "met" the judicial performance standards. Judge Crane McClennen, however, scored poorly. Seventeen commissioners said he didn't meet performance standards, 10 said he did and two declined to vote.