Rule 6 - Commission Evaluation; Public Vote(a) Relevant Information. In determining whether a judge meets or does not meet the judicial performance standards for retention, the Commission members must consider, and give appropriate weight to, only: (1) the compiled survey data, excluding data from surveys of court employees;(2) comments from public hearings or calls to the public;(3) written comments received;(4) written or oral information submitted by the judge in an invitational meeting or otherwise;(5) information obtained from the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct;(6) the judge's calendar assignment;(7) past survey results; and(8) information obtained by use of other evaluation tools under Rule 5(b)(4).(b) Comparison to Other Judges; Limitation. A judge's survey results as compared with the mean scores of all judges reviewed may be considered by the Commission but must not be given dispositive effect in determining whether a judge meets or does not meet the judicial performance standards for retention.(c) Public Vote; Retention.(1)Consent Agenda. To determine whether each judge who is subject to retention "meets" or "does not meet" the Rule 5(a) judicial performance standards for retention, all judges, identified only by number, are placed on a consent agenda.(2)Removal from Consent Agenda. Before the Commission votes on the consent agenda, judges may be removed from the consent agenda on the request of any Commission member.(3)Effect of Removal from Consent Agenda. The Commission must vote separately on each judge removed from the consent agenda. The vote of each Commission member must be recorded.(4)Effect of Inclusion on Consent Agenda. The Commission will vote on whether to approve the consent agenda by a voice vote. Approval of the consent agenda means all judges on the consent agenda are determined to meet the Rule 5(a) judicial performance standards for retention by a vote of all Commission members present and eligible to vote.(5)Voting on Consent Agenda. Before voting on the consent agenda, the Chair must identify on the record any Commission member who is recused from voting under Rule 9(a)(2) or is not eligible to vote under Rules 4(d)(2)(B) or 9(b); identify the number of each judge the Commission member is recused from or ineligible to vote on; and state that the voice vote taken on the consent agenda does not include the vote of the Commission member on judges so identified.(6)Discussion. No vote may be taken on any judge without a full and fair opportunity for Commission discussion.(7)Question Presented. The question before the Commission, whether voting on the consent agenda or on individual judges, is whether the judge's record of performance meets the Rule 5(a) judicial performance standards and demonstrates the judge's fitness for retention in office. A "nay" vote on the question presented is a vote that a judge does not meet the Rule 5(a) judicial performance standards sufficient for retention in office.(d) Public Vote; Cooperation. The Commission must determine whether any judge substantially failed to cooperate with the judicial performance review process and identify the conduct resulting in that determination.Ariz. R. P. Jud. Perfor. Rev. 6
Adopted Aug. 24, 2023, effective 10/1/2023.