Arizona Public Judicial Review Amendment, Proposition 109 (1992)

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

The Arizona Public Judicial Review Amendment, also known as Proposition 109 and House Concurrent Resolution 2009, was on the November 3, 1992 election ballot Arizona as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. It as approved.

This amendment to Article VI allowed increased public participation in the judicial selection process in Maricopa and Pima Counties, which were the Arizona counties that had populations of over 250,000 at the time of Proposition 109 approval.[1]

Election results

Arizona Proposition 109 (1992)
Approveda Yes 738,655 57.88%

Official results via: State of Arizona Official Canvass

Text of measure

The text of the ballot read:


House concurrent resolution 2009
A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona; amending Article VI, Sections 12, 28, 30, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 40, Constitution of Arizona; amending Article VI, Constitution of Arizona, by adding new Sections 41 and 42; relating to the Judicial Department.


Amending the Arizona Constitution to change the method of appointing Superior Court judges in counties with populations of at least 250,000 and all appellate judges; change the appointment and composition of the commissions on court appointments; provide for increased public participation; require consideration of population diversity; require a judicial evaluation system.[1][2]

Constitutional changes

The full changes to the Constitution of Arizona can be found in the State of Arizona 1992 Ballot Propositions guide.


Those in support of the amendment included:[1]

  • State Bar of Arizona

Arguments in favor of the amendment included:[1]

  • Allowing the people to be more involved in the judicial system will garner more respect for the law and the administration of justice.
  • The justice system will be more accountable to the people if this proposition passes.
  • The proposition will require a public performance evaluation process for all justices and judges seeking to be retained in office.


Arguments in opposition of the amendment included:[1]

  • The merit system has produced high quality judges in the superior court and appellate courts.
  • The proposition will give people with little law training more authority over the judicial appointment process.
  • The state and county bar associations conduct thorough evaluations of judges and justices.

See also

Suggest a link

External links


  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 State of Arizona 1992 Ballot Proposition voting guide
  2. Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.