Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct Amendment, Proposition 102 (1988)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Voting on
State Judiciary
State judiciary.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Arizona Constitution
Flag of Arizona.png
Preamble
Articles
1234566.178910111213141516171819202122252627282930

The Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct Amendment, also known as Proposition 102, was on the November 8, 1988 ballot in Arizona as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. It was approved.

This amendment to Article VI.I renamed the Arizona Commission on Judicial Qualifications to the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct, provided for two additional members, increased member terms to six years, provided for additional disciplinary options, and expanded oversight to all state courts.[1]

Election results

Arizona Proposition 102 (1988)
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 661,261 64.47%
No364,35635.53%

Official results via: Arizona Secretary of State

Text of measure

The text of the ballot read:

OFFICIAL TITLE

House Concurrent Resolution 2009
A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to the Commission on Judicial Conduct; providing for the Commission on Judicial Conduct; prescribing composition and terms of members; prescribing remedies for misconduct; prescribing applicability; making conforming changes; amending the article heading of article VI.I, constitution of Arizona, and amending article Vl.l, sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, constitution of Arizona.

DESCRIPTIVE TITLE

Amending Arizona Constitution changing name of Commission on Judicial Qualifications to Commission on Judicial Conduct; increasing membership from nine to eleven, adding a municipal court judge and one citizen; changing terms from four to six years; including municipal judges under the commission's jurisdiction and expanding discipline for misconduct.[1][2]

Constitutional changes

ARTICLE VI.I.
COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS CONDUCT
1. Composition; appointment; term; vacancies
Section 1. A. A commission on judicial qualifications CONDUCT is created to be composed of nine ELEVEN persons consisting of two judges of the court of appeals, two judges of the superior court, and one justice of the peace AND ONE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE, who shall be appointed by the supreme court, two members of the state bar of Arizona, who shall be appointed by the governing body of such bar association, and two THREE citizens who are not judges, retired judges nor members of the state bar of Arizona; who shall be appointed by the governor subject to confirmation by the Senate ill the manner prescribed by law.
B. Terms of members of the commission shall be four SIX years, except that INITIAL TERMS OF TWO MEMBERS APPOINTED BY THE SUPREME COURT AND ONE MEMBER APPOINTED BY THE STATE BAR OF ARIZONA FOR TERMS WHICH BEGIN IN JANUARY, 1991 SHALL BE FOR TWO YEARS AND INITIAL TERMS OF ONE MEMBER APPOINTED BY THE SUPREME COURT AND ONE MEMBER APPOINTED BY THE STATE BAR OF ARIZONA FOR TERMS WHICH BEGIN IN JANUARY, 1991 SHALL BE FOR FOUR YEARS. If a member ceases to hold the position that qualified him for appointment his membership on the commission terminates. An appointment to fill a vacancy for an unexpired term shall be made for the remainder of the term by the appointing power of the original appointment.
2. Disqualification of judge
Section. 2. A judge is disqualified from acting as a judge, without loss of salary, while there is pending an indictment or an information charging him in the United States with a crime punishable as a felony under Arizona or federal law, or a recommendation to the supreme court by the commission on judicial qualifications CONDUCT for his SUSPENSION, removal or retirement.
3. Suspension or Removal of judge
Section 3. On recommendation of the commission on judicial qualifications CONDUCT, or on its own motion, the supreme court may suspend a judge from office without salary when, in the United States, he pleads guilty or no contest or is found guilty of a crime punishable as a felony under Arizona or federal law or of any other crime that involves moral turpitude under such law. If his conviction is reversed the suspension terminates, and he shall be paid his salary for the period of suspension. If he is suspended and his conviction becomes final the supreme court shall remove him from office.
4. Retirement of judge
Section 4. A. On recommendation of the commission on judicial qualifications CONDUCT, the supreme court may retire a judge for disability that seriously interfers with the performance of his duties and is or is likely to become permanent, and may censure, SUSPEND WITHOUT PAY or remove a judge for action by him that constitutes wilful misconduct in office, wilful and persistent failure to perform his duties, habitual intemperance or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute. B. A judge retired by the supreme court shall .be considered to have retired voluntarily. A judge removed by the supreme court is ineligible for judicial office in this state.
5. Definitions and rules implementing article
Section 5. The term "Judge" as used in this constitutional amendment ARTICLE shall apply to all justices of the peace, JUDGES IN COURTS INFERIOR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW, judges of the superior court, judges of the court of- appeals and justices of the supreme court. The supreme court shall make rules-implementing this article and providing for confidentiality of proceedings. A judge who is a member of the commission or supreme court shall not participate as a member in any proceedings hereunder involving his own censure, SUSPENSION, removal or involuntary retirement.[1]

Note: Deleted language is crossed out, added language is capitalized.

Support

Supporters included:[1]

  • The State Bar of Arizona
  • The Arizona Magistrates Association
  • The League of Women Voters of Arizona

Arguments in favor of the amendment included:[1]

  • Changing the name better reflects the purpose of the commission to monitor conduct.
  • It subjects all judges in the state, including municipal court judges, to the commissions oversight.
  • It allows citizen complaints against municipal judges to go the commission instead of the local city council.
  • It extends due process rights to notice and a hearing to municipal judges.
  • It expands the authority of the Supreme Court to allow for suspension without pay as an option for discipline.

Opposition

Arguments against the amendment included:[1]

  • It extends authority of the commission, controlled by judges, to all judges.
  • It creates a commission that is more concerned with the conduct of judges rather than the qualifications a judge needs to serve.
  • Increasing the membership increases the associated cost of the commission.
  • The commission is still unbalanced in terms of citizen representation in the commission.
  • The addition of one more judge to the commission is not offset by the addition of another citizen.

Path to the ballot

Proposition 102 was placed on the ballot by HCR 2009.[1] House votes:

  • Ayes - 51
  • Nays - 4
  • Not Voting - 5

Senate votes:

  • Ayes - 25
  • Nays - 1
  • Not Voting - 4

See also

BP-Initials-UPDATED.png
Suggest a link

External links

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1988 ballot measure voting guide
  2. Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.