You probably don't think about the Arizona Supreme Court until something huge happens. Maybe it’s a ruling on a controversial 1864 abortion law or a high-stakes election challenge that ends up on every national news feed. It’s wild how much power these seven people actually hold over your daily life. They aren't just faces in robes sitting in a fancy building in Phoenix. They are the final word on the Arizona Constitution. Honestly, their decisions carry more weight for Arizonans than almost anything coming out of D.C. most days.
The court has been through a lot of changes lately. It used to be smaller. Back in 2016, former Governor Doug Ducey signed legislation to expand the court from five justices to seven. Critics called it "court-packing," while supporters argued a growing state needed a bigger bench to handle the workload. Regardless of how you feel about the politics, that move fundamentally reshaped the judiciary for a generation.
Who are the Arizona Supreme Court justices right now?
The current bench is entirely composed of appointees from Republican governors, mostly from the Ducey era. That’s a massive shift from twenty years ago when the court was more of a mixed bag.
Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer took the lead recently. She’s been on the court since 2012, originally appointed by Jan Brewer. Timmer is known for being incredibly precise. She isn't someone who goes for the flashy headline; she’s a "letter of the law" kind of jurist. Then you have Vice Chief Justice John R. Lopez IV, who was one of the two seats added during that 2016 expansion. He’s the first Latino to serve on the state’s highest court, which was a pretty big deal at the time.
The rest of the roster includes James Beene, Bill Montgomery, Clint Bolick, and Kathryn King. Each brings a different flavor to the room. Bolick, for example, came from a background of libertarian legal advocacy—specifically the Goldwater Institute. He’s often the one writing about individual liberty and checking government overreach. Montgomery, on the other hand, was the Maricopa County Attorney, bringing a "law and order" prosecutor's lens to the bench.
It's a group that agrees on a lot but clashes on the fine print.
How they actually get the job (and keep it)
Arizona uses something called the merit selection system. It’s supposed to keep the "gross" part of politics out of the courtroom, though people still argue about whether it works. Basically, a non-partisan commission screens applicants and sends a list of names to the Governor. The Governor has to pick from that list.
✨ Don't miss: Kaitlin Marie Armstrong: Why That 2022 Search Trend Still Haunts the News
But here is the kicker: they don't stay there forever without your permission.
Arizonans vote on "retention." You’ve seen those long lists at the bottom of your ballot that nobody ever seems to know how to fill out. You aren't voting for a candidate against an opponent. You are voting "Yes" or "No" on whether they should keep their job.
They serve six-year terms.
Recently, this process turned into a total battlefield. In 2024, there were massive campaigns to oust Justices Bolick and King because of their vote on the 1864 abortion ban. It was one of the first times in Arizona history that judicial retention elections felt like a high-budget political thriller. Millions of dollars poured in. People were actually paying attention to the bottom of the ballot.
The weight of the 1864 ruling
We have to talk about the 1864 law. It’s the elephant in the room.
In early 2024, the Arizona Supreme Court justices ruled that a Civil War-era law—which effectively banned almost all abortions—was enforceable. The backlash was instantaneous. People were shocked that a law written before Arizona was even a state could suddenly dictate modern healthcare.
🔗 Read more: Jersey City Shooting Today: What Really Happened on the Ground
The legal logic from the majority was essentially that they aren't legislators. They argued that because the legislature never specifically repealed the 1864 law, it stayed on the books. They saw their role as interpreting what existed, not making up new rules based on modern vibes.
Chief Justice Timmer actually dissented in that case. She argued that more recent laws passed by the legislature should have taken precedence. It showed a real rift in how the justices view their responsibility to the public versus their responsibility to the literal text of the law.
Why the "Constitutional" part matters
Arizona’s Constitution is actually "longer and weirder" than the U.S. Constitution. It has specific protections for things like privacy that the federal version doesn't explicitly name.
When a case reaches these seven people, they aren't usually looking at the U.S. Bill of Rights. They are looking at the Arizona Declaration of Rights. This means they can grant more rights to Arizonans than the U.S. Supreme Court grants to Americans. Conversely, they can interpret state law in ways that feel much more restrictive.
The 2024 Reform: Proposition 137
While we’re talking about how they keep their jobs, we have to mention the recent attempt to change the rules. There was a huge push via Proposition 137 to basically end term-based retention elections.
The idea was that if a justice is doing a good job (as determined by judicial performance reviews), they stay on the bench until they hit the mandatory retirement age of 70. Voters would only get to chime in if the justice performed poorly.
💡 You might also like: Jeff Pike Bandidos MC: What Really Happened to the Texas Biker Boss
Voters hated this.
The measure failed because people in Arizona, regardless of their party, tend to be pretty protective of their right to fire someone in power. It was a clear signal that while the merit system is okay for picking the judges, the "we the people" part of the retention vote stays.
Practical Insights for Arizonans
If you want to actually understand what’s happening with your court, don't wait for the nightly news. The court actually livestreams its oral arguments. It’s surprisingly boring most of the time—lots of talk about "statutory construction" and "procedural bars"—but it’s where the real work happens.
Here is what you should do to stay informed:
- Check the JPR (Judicial Performance Reports): Before every election, the state releases a report card for every judge. They survey lawyers, staff, and other judges who have worked with them. If a judge gets a "does not meet standards" rating, you should probably know why before you vote.
- Follow the "Special Actions": Not every case takes years to get to the Supreme Court. Sometimes the justices take a "Special Action" to decide something immediately because it’s an emergency for the state. These are the cases that usually involve elections or major public policy.
- Watch the Clerk’s Office: The court's website posts every single opinion as it’s released. Usually, they drop at 10:00 AM on Tuesdays or Thursdays.
The Arizona Supreme Court is the last line of defense for the state's laws. Whether you agree with their leanings or not, their interpretation of the Arizona Constitution is what defines the limits of your freedom in the Grand Canyon State.
Next Steps for Engagement
To truly understand how the bench impacts you, start by looking up the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct. This is where you can see if any justices or lower-court judges have faced disciplinary actions or ethics complaints. Additionally, keep a close eye on the Arizona Secretary of State's office during election cycles to see which groups are funding the campaigns for or against specific justices. Transparency in who pays for the "Vote No" or "Vote Yes" ads tells you a lot about the interests at stake. Finally, if you're interested in a specific legal issue, search the court's online archive for past opinions written by individual justices to get a feel for their legal philosophy before they end up back on your ballot.