Articles

The following three articles appeared in the Arizona Republic:

http://www.arizonarepublic.com/opinions/articles/1125sun1-25.html

‘People’s courts’ deserve better. Qualifications for justices of the peace outdated, inadequate

Nov. 25, 2001

Help wanted: Men or women needed to dispense justice. No experience necessary. Good pay. The successful applicant will preside over preliminary hearings on criminal felony cases; rule on civil cases up to $10,000; handle small claims such as homeowner association disputes; grant orders of protection when domestic violence is alleged; handle criminal misdemeanors and traffic cases. Must be at least 18 years old, a resident of Arizona and able to read and write English. No background check or references necessary. Those interested in joining this group of highly paid elected officials should apply to voters.

Astonishing? Yes.

Fiction? No.

Arizona’s qualifications for justice of the peace don’t begin to reflect the importance of the job. During the past fiscal year, justice courts processed 854,028 filings, which represents 35 percent of the entire court caseload in Arizona, according to the Supreme Court. Justice courts collected nearly $50 million dollars in revenue.

The average person is more likely to come in contact with one of these courts of limited jurisdiction than any other court. The quality of justice he or she receives is not only of great personal concern, it will also leave
a lasting impression about the entire third branch of government.

If she’s lucky, she won’t get a judge who’s engaged in criminal misconduct.

Or prone to doze off on the bench.

Or given to making fun of people’s names.

If he’s lucky, he’ll get one of the many hard-working, honest and careful justices of the peace who serve in Arizona.

But justice should not depend on luck.

Arizona’s justice courts should not be built on judicial qualifications that were recognized as outdated five decades ago. Since 1952, seven major court reform studies recommended changes to the state’s justice courts. But not much changed. The qualifications to become a justice of the peace remain at rock bottom. Those who oppose raising the qualifications offer an appealing and misleading argument. They say JP courts are the people’s courts, and therefore these courts should be accessible to everyone. That means, they say, JP courts should be run with common sense by average people.

In truth, all courts should be the people’s courts, and all courts should be accessible to all people. That’s the promise of America’s justice system. In truth, education, experience and a felony-free background do not negate common sense. They enhance it.

In today’s complex world, a judge dealing with a $9,999 legal dispute had better bring more than good sense to the decision-making process. The stakes are high: the result could ruin a family financially. In today’s violent
world, a judge deciding whether to issue an order of protection had better be making the decision based on facts and the law. The stakes are even higher: victims of domestic violence can be in mortal danger.

Judges – all judges - need to understand the law. They need to know the importance of basing their decisions on the law, not their personal views or opinions. Education won’t ensure that, but it helps.

Other courts of limited jurisdiction have evolved far beyond justice of the peace courts. Municipal courts, which are run by cities to deal with violations of city ordinances, insist on judicial qualifications that reflect the importance of the job. In most Arizona cities with municipal courts, the judges are chosen by the city council based on qualifications outlined in the city ordinance. In Phoenix, these judges must be lawyers.

Municipal courts are people’s courts, too. But here, people have a reasonable expectation that the judge is qualified. Ironically, municipal judges generally have to measure up to a higher standard, but justices of the peace have more jurisdictional authority. In addition to an understanding of the law, higher standards could help ensure that justices of the peace realize the importance of a strict code of conduct.

Statistics and individual cases (see accompanying box) argue convincingly that too many of them don’t. In the 30 years the Arizona Supreme Court’s Commission on Judicial Conduct has been responding to complaints about judges, there have been 45 cases where it found reason to bring formal charges against a judge. Twenty-seven of those cases were against justices of the peace. Two of the three judges removed from the bench in the past 30 years were justices of the peace. Two other justices of the peace recently resigned after felony convictions.

Justices of the peace do an important job. The qualifications to become a justice of the peace should reflect that.

http://www.arizonarepublic.com/opinions/articles/1126mon1-26.html

Picking JPs on merit is only sane approach

Qualifications, not slogans and back-slapping, should be criteria

Nov. 26, 2001

Arizona is of two minds when it comes to selecting judges. One is sane, sensible and nationally recognized as wise. The other is pure politics. Moving the selection of justices of the peace in Pima and Maricopa counties into
the sane category would be a major improvement in the state’s judicial system.

The sane approach is merit selection. Under it, judges on the Appeals Court and the Supreme Court and Superior Court judges in Pima and Maricopa Counties are appointed from a qualified pool of candidates. In this system, an independent panel identifies several candidates who meet high standards of education and professionalism. The governor appoints a judge from among those names. The person who takes the bench understands the job and has the training and temperament to do it.

The political approach applies to justices of the peace statewide and Superior Court judges in the rural counties. In this system, the woman or man who can raise the most money, make the best-sounding campaign slogans and back-slap most effectively gets the black robe.

The one who wins the bench will be a successful politician, but that individual may lack the understanding, education or temperament to do the job. A merit-selected judge isn’t beholden to those who finance his or her campaigns. Elected judges may find themselves presiding over cases involving people whose contributions helped put them into office. The potential for conflict – and corruption – is considerably greater.

The best solution would be to choose all the state’s judges through merit selection. Rural counties have not chosen to take that option, but they should strongly consider it. Pima and Maricopa counties would make a large and consistent leap toward a better judiciary by requiring merit selection for justices of the peace.

The current system would have to be modified to reflect the more local nature of Justice Courts. A widely hailed 1995 study into how to improve courts of limited jurisdiction suggested that the presiding Superior Court
judge of each county head a county merit selection panel. Under this proposal, panel members would be appointed by members of the Pima or Maricopa county Boards of Supervisors and the state Bar Association. The panels would identify qualified individuals who demonstrated the kind of common sense and understanding of the legal system essential for good judges. Justices of the peace would be appointed from this group. Voters would still have a say. A simplified retention system, similar to the one currently in use for appointed judges,
would provide an independent evaluation of a judge’s performance. During periodic retention elections, voters would use that information to determine whether a justice of the peace should be remain on the bench.

The recommendations of this study committee, which was appointed by then-Chief Justice Stanley
Feldman and headed by Martin Shultz, provide a good place to begin to structure a merit selection system for justices of the peace. The proposals in that report, which are far broader and more far reaching than simply moving to merit selection for justices of the peace, were met with enthusiasm by most members of the judiciary. Several bills were drafted to achieve the improvements. Politics stopped the bills and the momentum for change.

It’s time to get it moving again.

Justice Charles Jones, who will become the chief justice in January, has indicated an interest in doing just that. He deserves strong support from other judges, lawmakers, the Governor’s Office and the business community.
The reform should take the politics out of the selection of lower court judges in the state’s two most populous counties. It’s the sane and sensible thing to do.

http://www.arizonarepublic.com/opinions/articles/1127tue2-27.html

Salary structure for JPs is messy, ripe for abuse.
System can rob taxpayers while still being unfair to some judges

Nov. 27, 2001

Taxpayers who sign paychecks for the state’s 83 justices of the peace have a right to expect a simple and easy-to-understand salary schedule. Instead they have a system characterized as a “beast” by Arizona Chief Justice Thomas Zlacket. A system that provides a “perverse incentive,” says Martin Shultz, who chaired a committee to reform the lower courts.

The Shultz committee’s 1995 report said justice of the peace salaries “are set by a complex formula that is susceptible to inaccuracy and abuse.” Recommended reforms didn’t happen then. They should happen now. That statutory formula for paying justices of the peace puts their salaries within a range of 25 percent to 70 percent of a superior court judge’s pay, which is $120,750. A JP earning the maximum salary would get in excess of $84,000 a year. But JPs also make money performing marriage ceremonies. In addition, some JPs simultaneously serve as municipal court judges and get a separate salary for that. Superior Court judges are prohibited from getting paid in two jurisdictions.

The determination of what percentage of a Superior Court judge’s salary a JP gets is made with “productivity
credits” that a judge earns for the cases filed in his or her courtroom. A judge with enough credits gets the full 70 percent. But the statute does not say that’s a full-time salary, and a justice of the peace earning maximum
salary could take another job and leave pro tem judges to do the work in justice court. That’s happened in the past, says David Byers of the Administrative Office of the Courts. He says the statute addresses how many cases are filed, not how many a JP actually hears.

The fact that “incorrect reporting of case filings can erroneously increase or decrease salaries” was cited by the Shultz commission as one reason to reform the salary system. Another reason was that the current system, in effect, links judges’ salaries to law enforcement activity. A police chief who wanted to hurt a justice of the peace could set a speed trap on either edge of that JP’s jurisdiction, depriving the JP of cases that would ordinarily be filed in his or her court – and possibly lowering the judge’s pay.

This messy system for setting pay was devised as a way of fairly compensating both urban JPs, who handle a great many cases, and rural ones, who are generally not as busy. Some method of balancing those differing workloads is needed. The current system is clearly not the best way. That’s why reforming it was among the 38 recommendations made in the comprehensive and highly praised report issued by the Shultz commission. Five bills outlining reform of the lower courts landed in the Legislature as a result of that effort. None of them passed.

Not one.

It is in the best interest of Arizona residents that some of those proposals be revised and returned to lawmakers. Six years of inaction and a growing rogues’ gallery of bad-boy JPs add urgency to the call for reforms.

It’s time taxpayers understood what’s going on.