Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct Amendment, Proposition 102 (1988)
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.
|Arizona Proposition 102 (1988)|
Official results via: Arizona Secretary of State
Text of measure
The text of the ballot read:
House Concurrent Resolution 2009
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.
Note: Deleted language is crossed out, added language is capitalized.
- The State Bar of Arizona
- The Arizona Magistrates Association
- The League of Women Voters of Arizona
Arguments in favor of the amendment included:
- 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.
Arguments against the amendment included:
- 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. House votes:
- Ayes - 51
- Nays - 4
- Not Voting - 5
- Ayes - 25
- Nays - 1
- Not Voting - 4
- 1988 ballot measures
- Arizona 1988 ballot measures
- List of Arizona ballot measures
- Arizona Commission on Judicial Qualifications Amendment, Proposition 103 (1970)
- Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct (On Judgepedia)
- 1988 ballot measure voting guide
- Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
State of Arizona
|State executive officers||
Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Treasurer | Superintendent of Public Instruction | Director of Insurance | Director of Agriculture | Commissioner of Lands | Director of Labor | Chairman of Corporation Commission | State Mine Inspector |