Arizona’s judicial system could face a dramatic shift with Proposition 137 on the November 2024 ballot, which seeks to eliminate retention elections for judges. The proposal has ignited fierce debate, not just between political parties but also within conservative circles. While supporters argue it’s necessary to protect conservative justices from politically motivated attacks, critics—including some on the right—warn it could strip voters of a crucial check on judicial power. As both sides gear up for a contentious battle, the future of Arizona’s judiciary—and the role of voter accountability—hangs in the balance.

The core question is whether the short-term protection of conservative judges outweighs the long-term consequences for Arizona’s judiciary and political landscape.

Freedom Caucus Chair, Sen. Jake Hoffman (R-LD15), told the Arizona Globe, “Failing to pass Prop 137 will result in Katie Hobbs controlling the Arizona Supreme Court majority for years to come. The same judicial insanity and activism we see in places like California, New York, and Illinois will happen right here in Arizona — something we cannot allow to happen.”

Rachel Alexander, a former attorney and current election security journalist (Arizona Sun-Times, Townhall, more), also supports the measure: “The legislature referred Prop. 137 to the ballot because the Democrats are very organized this year, campaigning against conservative Arizona judges. They appear poised to take out at least two of them in their retention elections, Arizona Supreme Court justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King.” She went on to explain, “Prop. 137 would reverse any vote to remove them. It would also eliminate retention elections so judges would only be removed for good cause. With Katie Hobbs as the alleged governor, she will get to replace all the conservative judges removed in retention elections.”

Proponents of Proposition 137 argue that it is necessary to protect conservative justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King, both of whom are in the crosshairs of Democratic efforts due to their role in the Court’s ruling on Planned Parenthood v. Mayes. The decision upheld Arizona’s 1864 ban on elective abortions following the SCOTUS overturn of Roe v. Wade. In what many are calling a “revenge campaign,” Democrats have mobilized to oust these two justices.

If passed, Proposition 137 would shield the justices from regular retention elections, allowing them to serve indefinitely based on “good behavior.” Retention elections would only trigger under specific circumstances, such as felony convictions, fraud-related crimes, or failure to meet performance standards. While a commission would still review judicial performance, the Arizona voters’ power to retain or remove judges would largely be eliminated. Supporters argue this would reduce political pressures on the judiciary, but critics see it as a blow to public accountability.

One of those critics is influential Republican attorney Jen Wright, who is publicly voicing concerns over the Proposition: “A once good friend and former mentor told me he always voted his conscience be damned the consequences. I will be doing just that in November. The injustice in Arizona cannot continue. Vote No on Prop 137.”

Wright also told the Arizona Globe, “Retention elections are the only way Arizonans get a say in the composition of our judiciary. We’ve seen how rogue judges in states like Colorado and in countries like Brazil are undermining the rule of law. The judiciary has broad power to interpret laws and rights. Without retention elections, Arizonans will have no way to stop judicial tyranny.” She added, “Although many conservatives like the current bench, imagine who will replace them, and what could happen if there is no accountability to the people? It is a shortsighted solution to protect the current bench at the expense of having their future replacements serve for life.”

Wright also pointed to the potential long-term consequences, saying, “I suspect Hobbs will appoint a relatively young attorney to replace retiring Justice Brutinel. That replacement could serve for 30 years with zero accountability. Is that what conservatives really want?”

Abe Hamadeh, the staunch Conservative candidate who won the contentious Republican primary to run for Debbie Lesko’s Congressional seat (CD8), is likewise opposing Prop 137, posting on X:

As the debate surrounding Proposition 137 heats up in the final stretch to the November election, Democrats and Republicans are drawing sharp lines over what this change will mean for the future of Arizona’s judiciary and the state’s political landscape. And with the array of staunch Conservatives seemingly joining forces with the Democrats, it’s hard for Republicans to determine which viewpoint makes the most sense.