Apologies for the absence, had some stuff going on.
But I’m back!
And you are, too! How rad!
And since no one seems to be paying much attention to the extremely scary shit going down in statehouses and everyone seems hyper-focused on federal races at a time when SCOTUS is making states (including, but not limited to, those controlled by Republicans) a lot more powerful just a few months ahead of elections in 85 legislative chambers across 44 states, here I am, banging that drum.
Scary Thing #1 is something I wrote a bit about way back in April, but it’s suddenly extremely relevant, because the scary thing has gone from a “might happen” to a “definitely happening.”
Just before the Arizona legislature wrapped up its session for the year (a pretty shittastic one generally, but more on that in future missives), Republicans voted to send a measure to this fall’s ballot that’s not only incredibly undemocratic, but is also designed specifically to protect two state Supreme Court justices who supported the state’s Civil War-era near-total abortion ban.
A couple of Republicans crossed the aisle to vote with Democrats to block that ban before it could go into effect, but the state still has a 15-week ban on the books.
Two of the justices who ruled in support of the 1864 abortion ban are up for “retention elections” this fall: Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn Hackett King (NB: one of those names will be kinda important later).
Justices Bolick and Hackett King were appointed by former GOP Gov. Doug Ducey, who also stacked the commission that selects nominees and expanded the state Supreme Court from five to seven justices in 2016.
A little background on the Arizona Supreme Court:
Currently, the Copper State’s highest court consists of seven justices, all of whom were appointed by Republican governors.
Two years after a justice is appointed, they must go before voters in a yes/no retention election.
If “no” wins the retention election, the governor appoints their replacement, and two years later, that new justice goes before voters.
After that first two-year stint, justices face the voters in retention elections every six years.
If a justice loses one of those six-year retention elections, the two-then-six-year cycle restarts for their appointed replacement.
Fun fact! No Arizona Supreme Court justice has ever lost a retention election.
Statehouse Republicans are generally pleased with their all GOP-appointed state Supreme Court justices and would very much like Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs to not be able to appoint any new ones.
But thanks to their ruling on the 1864 abortion ban, Bolick and Hackett King face a concerted progressive effort to unseat them in November’s retention elections.
So Arizona Republicans cooked up a clever little scheme to insulate not only Bolick and Hackett King from accountability via the ballot box, but also every other state Supreme Court justice ever.
… and by “clever little scheme” I actually mean “diabolical plot to undermine judicial accountability and democracy forever and ever amen.”
Republicans in Arizona’s legislature have passed a measure (one that does not need gubernatorial approval) that, if approved by voters this fall, would not only retroactively nullify the results of November’s judicial retention elections, but would also effectively give state Supreme Court justices permanent appointments (until the mandatory retirement age of 70, at least).
Here’s what’s up:
In March, Arizona's Republican-controlled state legislature started the process of placing a constitutional amendment on the ballot this fall that would effectively eliminate retention elections for judgeships, absent some seriously impeachable offense.
Instead of requiring periodic retention elections, these yes/no races would be triggered only if a judge fails to demonstrate "good behavior"— established in the measure as a pretty doggone high threshold that includes felony or fraud convictions and obvious financial conflicts of interest in cases over which they preside.
If they manage to stay on the good side of ”good behavior,” state judges (not just Supreme Court justices, by the by) would essentially have lifetime tenures on the bench until they reach that mandatory retirement age.
But wait! There’s more!
As if eliminating any kind of meaningful accountability for most state judges weren’t bad enough, there’s that retroactivity clause.
If passed on Nov. 5, 2024, the amendment would retroactively take effect on Oct. 31, 2024, and “the returns of any votes of retention or rejection in the general election held on November 5, 2024” would be specifically nullified.
So if Arizona voters reject the retention of those two justices on Nov. 5 but this amendment passes on the same day, it’ll be like the retention vote never happened.
Republicans are moving from voter suppression to outright election elimination
Just before Arizona’s legislative session finally ended earlier this month, GOP lawmakers wrapped up the process of sending this measure to the ballot.
Fun fact! One of 16 Senate Republicans who voted to send this measure to the ballot was Sen. Shawna Bolick, the wife of Justice Bolick (see? Toldja his name would be kinda important later).
Several colleagues requested she recuse herself but everyone knows shame is for Democrats.
So yes, Arizona Republicans are not only asking voters to deprive themselves of their ability to hold justices accountable, but they’re also asking voters to nullify the results of an election they’ve already voted in.
But this nakedly undemocratic ballot measure specifically designed to keep current GOP appointees on the Arizona Supreme Court as long as possible isn’t the only measure voters will be considering this fall.
There are already 10 others.
And those are just the ones the GOP-controlled legislature sent to the ballot specifically to bypass the (likely) veto of Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs.
Fun fact! These 11 measures are the most the legislature has referred to the ballot in a single year since 1984.
Voters may not see all 11 of them, however; lawsuits have already been filed against at least three (including the judicial retention measure).
But also voters may see more than 11 ballot measures.
Several citizen-initiated measures could qualify, including one that would enshrine the fundamental right to abortion access in the state constitution.
Supporters of the pro-abortion measure have gathered (and still are gathering – they have until July 3) far more than the number of required signatures to qualify, so it’s widely expected to make the November ballot (we’ll know for sure by the end of next month).
But – and, as an erudite consumer of this missive, I know this will shock, SHOCK you – Republican lawmakers are not only trying to eliminate voters’ ability to hold judges accountable, but they’re also trying to ratfuck the citizen initiated ballot measure process.
Constitutionally, petitioners must gather signatures equal in number to 10% of all the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election to place a proposed statute on the ballot (255,949 this year) and 15% to place a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot (383,923 this year).
Those signatures are gathered statewide, which makes sense, since ballot measures are voted on statewide.
It’s a daunting prospect logistically, and many signature gatherers (often volunteers) canvas high-traffic areas in or near population centers (... where a lot of statewide votes come from, obviously) to collect enough signatures for their measure of choice to qualify for the ballot.
Unsurprisingly, GOP lawmakers are pretty unhappy about the fact that a pro-abortion ballot measure is almost certainly going to qualify for the ballot this fall (they even tried – but eventually gave up on – ratfucking the measure by placing a competing one with a misleading name on the ballot themselves).
Their solution?
Ratfuck the signature collection requirements for citizen-initiated measures by imposing prohibitive geographic requirements on where signatures must be gathered.
Proposition 134, if passed, will replace the statewide signature requirements with legislative district-by-district signature requirements.
Specifically, instead of collecting 10% or 15% of signatures equal to the number of votes cast in the most recent governor’s race statewide, petitioners must meet that threshold in each of Arizona’s 30 legislative districts.
… which include some far-flung, spread-out, rural-ass places that might be super hostile to a given petitioner’s agenda; while Arizona is closely politically divided statewide, some areas skew extremely blue or extremely red.
Fun fact! Biden and Trump each received more than 70% in at least one legislative district in the 2020 election.
Real people with real experience gathering signatures for ballot measures say that the resources and capacity this arbitrary new requirement would demand could prove “insurmountable.”
An Arizona election law attorney who’s worked on ballot measures in the past put it plainly: “This is nothing but a backdoor way to shut down the initiative process.”
It’s no accident that the proposed amendment passed the legislature on straight party-line votes.
So yeah, Arizonans’ ballot are going to be wicked long this year (in Maricopa County – home to 65% of the state’s total population – ballots will reportedly “already be two pages long” even before citizen-initiated measures are added), but the judicial retention elections and ballot measures are only part of the picture.
The entire Arizona legislature – 60 House seats and the 30 Senate seats they’re nested within – is on the ballot in November.
And with itty-bitty one-seat majorities in both chambers (Democrats need to flip just two seats in each to win control), Republicans are right to be nervous about their ability to wield political power in the state.
Democrats are fielding nominees in almost every state Senate and House district, and organizing in support of the abortion ballot measure and against the judicial retention elections and ballot measure could help juice Democratic energy and turnout.
The competitiveness of legislative majority control and the other incredibly impactful ballot items make Arizona a top place to watch this fall (not ready to declare it THE top place yet – we’ll chat again after the July 30 primaries).
Other top targets for both parties (and current control): Michigan House (D), Minnesota House (D), New Hampshire House (R), New Hampshire Senate (R), Pennsylvania House (D), Pennsylvania Senate (R), Wisconsin Assembly (R).
Also, Dems are looking to crack GOP supermajorities in Kansas and North Carolina.
Much more on all this to come.
As ever, thanks for hanging in, and stay awesome!