Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
| Judicial nominating commissions |
|---|
 |
| Individual nominating committees |
| Select a committee in the dropdown below and click "Submit" to view information about that committee. |
| Methods of judicial selection |
| Partisan elections |
| Nonpartisan elections |
| Michigan method |
| Retention elections |
| Assisted appointment |
| Bar-controlled commission |
| Governor-controlled commission |
| Hybrid commission |
| Legislative elections |
| Gubernatorial appointment |
The Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review, also known as the JPR Commission, is an independent state commission in Arizona established by the Arizona Constitution that plays a role in the state's judicial selection process. The Commission was formed in 1992 by a state constitutional amendment passed by voters. According to its website, The JPR Commission “was created to conduct the periodic performance reviews of appointed judges required by the Constitution, and “and sets standards for judicial performance including whether judges can apply the law fairly, treat people with respect and manage a courtroom.”[1]
Judges in Arizona are selected through a variety of methods, varying by level of court and, in the case of the superior courts, by county population. The Arizona Supreme Court, Arizona Court of Appeals, and Arizona Superior Court use the assisted appointment method, where the governor selects a nominee from a list provided by a nominating commission. The Arizona Superior Court also uses nonpartisan elections.[2]
Judges of the Arizona Superior Court are selected in one of two ways:
- In counties with a population exceeding 250,000, judges are appointed by the governor from a list of names compiled by the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments.[2] Pima, Pinal, and Maricopa counties use this method. The state constitution provides for other counties to adopt merit selection through ballot initiative, which Coconino County did in 2018. After appointment, judges serve for two years and then must run in a yes-no retention election in the next general election. If retained, judges will go on to serve a four-year term.[2]
- In the state's other 13 counties, judges run in partisan primaries followed by nonpartisan general elections.[2]
Arizona is one of nine states that uses a combination of assisted appointment and other methods.
Members
The JPR Commission has 34 members who are either private citizens, attorneys, or judges that are selected by the Arizona Supreme Court.
According to the JPR Commission's website, “Persons interested in being considered for appointment to the Commission must complete an application. Applications are vetted, and considered according to the county and member-type vacancy. The Court strives to appoint members who reflect, to the extent possible, the geographic, ethnic, racial and gender diversity of their communities. The Court holds that competence and diversity among the members will enhance fairness and public confidence in the judicial performance review process.
Once appointed by the Court, Commission members serve a four-year term or the remainder of an unexpired four-year term.”[3]
Click here for a full list of JPR Commission members.
Process
According to the Judicial Performance Review Commission, the performance standards for judges are:[3]
| “ |
(1) command of relevant substantive law and procedural rules; (2) impartiality; (3) clarity of oral and written communications; (4) judicial temperament and professionalism upholding public confidence in the legal system and demonstrating appropriate respect for everyone; and (5) possession of the administrative and management skills and work ethic necessary to be productive and efficient.[4] |
” |
A judicial performance review is conducted two times during a judge's term. The first is conducted at the midterm, and the second is conducted at the end of the term.[3]
To conduct the review, "Survey forms are distributed to people who have contact with the judges during a prescribed period of time. Survey recipients include attorneys, jurors, litigants, witnesses, people who represent themselves in court, court staff, other judges, and parties who have contact with presiding judges."[3]
Judges also evaluate their own performance using a self-evaluation form that includes categories identical to those included on the other survey forms.[3]
When determining whether a judge meets or does not meet performance standards, the following factors are considered:[3]
| “ |
|
” |
Duties
The powers and duties of the commission include:[5]
- Administering the review program
- Making determinations as to whether judges meet judicial performance standards
- Adopting polices and procedures to collect information to conduct performance reviews
- Approving survey, self-evaluation, and other forms
- Working with the Committee on Judicial Education and Training to prioritize the development of training and education programs for judges
- Providing advance notice of public hearings
- Developing ways of informing voters about judicial performance
Control of judicial selection commissions
Assisted appointment is a method of judicial selection in which a nominating commission reviews the qualifications of judicial candidates and submits a list of names to the governor, who appoints a judge from the list.[6]
At the state supreme court level, this method is further divided into the following three types, based on the makeup of the judicial nominating commissions. Those types are:
- Governor-controlled commission - The governor is either responsible for appointing a majority of the members of the nominating commission or may decline to appoint a candidate from a list provided by the nominating commission.
- Bar-controlled commission - Members of the state Bar Association are responsible for electing a majority of the members of the nominating commission.
- Hybrid - There is no majority of members chosen by either the governor or the state Bar Association. The membership of these commissions is determined by different rules in each state.
Twenty-three courts in 22 states used assisted appointment to select state supreme court justices as of June 2021.[7][8] Arizona used a governor-controlled commission. The table below shows the number of courts using each variation of assisted appointment at the state supreme court level.
| Assisted appointment methods in state supreme courts | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Method | Courts (of 23) | ||
| Governor-controlled majority | 10 | ||
| Bar-controlled majority | 1 | ||
| Hybrid | 12 | ||
The map below highlights the states that use each of the three types of assisted appointment.
About judicial selection
Each state has a unique set of guidelines governing how they select judges at the state and local level. These methods of selection are:
Election
- Partisan election: Judges are elected by the people, and candidates are listed on the ballot alongside a label designating political party affiliation.
- Nonpartisan election: Judges are elected by the people, and candidates are listed on the ballot without a label designating party affiliation.
- Michigan method: State supreme court justices are selected through nonpartisan elections preceded by either partisan primaries or conventions.
- Retention election: A periodic process whereby voters are asked whether an incumbent judge should remain in office for another term. Judges are not selected for initial terms in office using this election method.
Assisted appointment
- Assisted appointment, also known as merit selection or the Missouri Plan: A nominating commission reviews the qualifications of judicial candidates and submits a list of names to the governor, who appoints a judge from the list.[6] At the state supreme court level, this method is further divided into the following three types:
- Bar-controlled commission: Members of the state Bar Association are responsible for electing a majority of the judicial nominating commission that sends the governor a list of nominees that they must choose from.
- Governor-controlled commission: The governor is responsible for appointing a majority of the judicial nominating commission that sends the governor a list of nominees they must choose from.
- Hybrid commission: The judicial nominating commission has no majority of members chosen by either the governor or the state bar association. These commissions determine membership in a variety of ways, but no institution or organization has a clear majority control.
Direct appointment
- Court appointment: Judges are selected by judges in the state judiciary.
- Gubernatorial appointment: Judges are appointed by the governor. In some cases, approval from the legislative body is required.
- Legislative election: Judges are selected by the state legislature.
- Municipal government selection: Judges are selected by the governing body of their municipality.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ AZcourts.gov, "Arizona Judicial Performance Review," accessed November 12, 2021
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 National Center for State Courts, "Methods of Judicial Selection: Arizona," accessed August 22, 2016
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Azcourts.gov, "Frequently Asked Questions," accessed April 11, 2025
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Azcourts.gov, "Rules of Procedure," accessed April 11, 2025
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 American Bar Association, "Judicial Selection: The Process of Choosing Judges," June 2008 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "ambaroverview" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ As of June 2021, Oklahoma had two state supreme courts: one for civil matters and one for criminal matters.
- ↑ North Dakota uses this method only for vacancies.
Federal courts:
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals • U.S. District Court: District of Arizona • U.S. Bankruptcy Court: District of Arizona
State courts:
Arizona Supreme Court • Arizona Court of Appeals • Arizona Superior Court • Arizona Justice Courts • Arizona Municipal Courts
State resources:
Courts in Arizona • Arizona judicial elections • Judicial selection in Arizona