Justice faces ethics complaint over promise to 'fight for conservative principles'

A complaint filed with the state's Judicial Conduct Commission accuses Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick of violating legal ethics for vowing at a Republican club meeting to continue “fighting for conservative principles.”.

In a formal complaint to the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct, Save Our Schools Arizona, a public education advocacy group, cited an article Politico It quoted Bolick as saying that he and Justice Kathryn King had “checked our politics at the door” but said he would continue to “fight for conservative principles.”

The group claimed the comments violated “several provisions” of the judicial ethics canon.

“The judicial codes of conduct clearly state that judges should at all times strive for conduct that ensures the greatest possible public confidence in their independence and impartiality,” said Beth Lewis, director of Save Our Schools. “I think both independence and impartiality are in question.”

A committee working to retain Bolick and King dismissed the complaint as merely a last-ditch campaign foe.

Daniel Scarpinato, spokesman for the Judicial Independence PAC, said it was a “frivolous complaint designed to create more political acrimony before the election.”

According to the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct, general campaign and political rules prohibit judges from engaging in political or campaign activities that are inconsistent with the “independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”

Judges are not prohibited from expressing their personal views on legal or policy issues, as long as they distinguish these from a promise, commitment, or obligation to govern in a particular manner and “recognize the overriding judicial obligation to enforce the law without.” Applying and maintaining consideration.” about his personal point of view.”

“The making of any commitment, promise or obligation is not dependent upon or limited to the use of any particular words or expressions; Instead, the entirety of the statement must be examined to determine whether a reasonable person would believe that the candidate for judicial office has made an express commitment to achieve a particular result,” the rules say.

A Politico from October 12th An article detailing the intersection of judicial race and abortion mentioned Bolick's appearance at an Oct. 5 meeting of the Sun City West Republicans Club. According to the club's meeting minutes, King was also present.

“Standing between a fully decorated Christmas tree and a cardboard cutout of Trump giving his double thumbs up, Bolick said he and King knew how to “check our policies at the courthouse door.”

In the article, Bolick said the abortion ruling was “a convenient excuse to try to inflame people on the left and replace us with judges who will sign off on their ideological agenda.”

He continued to emphasize his own fairness and independence, but assured “the assembled Republicans that he would continue to 'fight for conservative principles.'

According to Politico and Republican Club meeting minutes, Bolick also noted his advocacy of constitutional principles, his time clerking for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his work for the Goldwater Institute. But he emphasized generally that judges cannot be political.

Complaints filed with the Commission on Judicial Conduct remain confidential, but Save Our Schools claimed Bolick's appearance and comments violated “multiple” provisions of judicial conduct.

As part of the investigation of complaints about judicial conduct, the Commission may review relevant materials, interview witnesses and obtain a response from the judge, with a standard time period of approximately three to four weeks to respond to the complaint.

Alberto Rodriguez, spokesman for the court, pointed out that the commission currently has about 160 open complaints and, given the usual deadlines for a complaint, no solution would be reached before the election.

The complaint falls into the larger battle over court retention this cycle, with Bolick and King taking center stage and both proponents and groups opposing retention claiming the other aids and abetts the politicization of the courts.

Lewis acknowledged this but said the goal was to make voters aware of the issue.

Save Our Schools Arizona argues against retaining Bolick and King, with Lewis noting the justices' previous rulings rejecting two education funding proposals.

“It’s personal for us,” Lewis said.

Save Our Schools Arizona launched the Judicial Independence Defense PAC, a committee aimed at keeping Bolick and King on the bench. Lewis said the committee's promise to “protect our independent judiciary” and “keep politics out of the court” had been undermined by Bolick.

“The court should not be politicized,” Lewis said. “But I think Bolick and King have politicized the court.”

Lewis also pointed to funding from conservative donors like Jeffrey Yass and Randy Kendrick.

Scrpinato said he thought Save Our Schools “didn’t have a lot of credibility to talk about anything that had to do with independence, or lowering the temperature, or keeping politics out of anything. They were obsessed with doing politics everywhere.”

As for the goal of the Judicial Independence Defense PAC, Scarpinato said the goal is to retain all judges in the upcoming election.

“There is no credible reason to remove them. There are no substantive or ethical objections. The legal community is not proposing to remove them,” Scarpinato said. “The reasons for their removal are all partisan and political.”