COMMITTEE ON MUNICIPAL OVERSIGHT & ELECTIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AMENDMENTS TO S.C.R. 1044
(Reference to Senate engrossed resolution)
Page 1, line 9, strike "except as provided by" insert "as amended exclusively through the provisions of"; after "article" insert "and articles vi.i and viii"
Line 17, after the comma strike remainder of line insert "as determined exclusively through the provisions of"
Line 18, after "ARTICLE" insert "and articles vi.i and viii"
Line 45, strike "except as provided by" insert "as determined exclusively through the provisions of"; after "article" insert "and articles vi.i and viii"
Page 4, line 3, after the first "A" insert "final"; after "OFFENSE" insert "if not otherwise removed pursuant to article vi.i, section 3"
Line 4, after "A" insert "final"
Line 5, after "DISHONESTY" insert "if not otherwise removed pursuant to article vi.I, section 3"
Line 11, after "ARTICLE" insert ", by a majority of all members of the commission on judicial performance review,"
Page 6, line 26, after "BEHAVIOR" insert ", as determined exclusively through the provisions of this article and articles vi.i and viii"
Page 9, between lines 17 and 18, insert:
"Sec. 9. Findings
The People of the State of Arizona find and declare as follows:
1. Judicial retention elections in the State of Arizona are simultaneously too infrequent, because judges whose conduct proves unsuitable for judicial office may serve for years before next standing for retention; and too frequent, because judges whose conduct is objectively satisfactory stand for retention regardless of their good behavior and performance.
2. The voters of the State of Arizona have exercised the right not to retain a judge in 0.3% of judicial retention elections to date, indicating both general satisfaction with judicial performance in the state and an ongoing public interest in electoral accountability for the judicial branch.
3. The number of judicial retention elections appearing on the ballot unduly increases the financial cost of elections, the length and complexity of ballots, and the complexity and duration of vote tabulation.
4. The voters of the State of Arizona will be able to research judicial performance more efficiently, and persons who are not well suited for judicial office will be unable to “hide in a crowd” of peers, when retention elections feature only judicial officers whose conduct falls below objective standards.
5. It is appropriate to amend the process of judicial retention elections to ensure accountability for the judicial officers of this State and to increase the efficiency of our elections."
Renumber to conform
Page 9, line 18, strike "Retroactivity" insert "Effective dates"
Line 23, after the period, insert "This act shall expire on, and be of no further effect after, December 31, 2034."
Between lines 23 and 24, insert:
"Sec. 11. Short title
This act shall be titled the "Judicial Accountability Act of 2024"."
Amend title to conform