Appealing to voters

It's not just Superior Court judges ... Local voters also will decide on two appeals court judges ... Long ballots coming in November.

You might not recognize their names, but you’ve probably heard about them.

Every so often, Arizona Court of Appeals judges pop up in news stories about controversial topics that ignite weeks of heated debate, like abortion rights or election conspiracies.

They also rule on countless other issues that rarely break into the news cycle, from how the City of Tucson awards contracts to determining the rights of criminal defendants.

This November, Pima County voters are going to decide whether to keep two of them on the bench or send them packing.

Judge Peter J. Eckerstrom and Judge Christopher Staring are up for a retention vote in Division Two, which covers much of Southern Arizona. Those two offices are on top of the 16 Pima County Superior Court judges voters will decide whether to retain in November.

Eckerstrom was appointed by Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano in 2003. Staring was appointed by Republican Gov. Doug Ducey in 2015.

Like every other judge up for a retention vote in Arizona, both Staring and Eckerstrom meet the standards of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review. They also both got a “yes” recommendation in the Gavel Watch report from Civic Engagement Beyond Voting.

Eckerstrom popped up in the news earlier this year when he had to explain how appeals courts work to a lawyer representing Kari Lake in one of her many election-related lawsuits.

He also wrote the order that allowed abortions to restart in Arizona after Roe v. Wade was dismantled in 2022. A few months later, he was on a panel that peppered attorneys on both sides with questions about which of Arizona’s abortion laws should be enforced.

His Judicial Performance Review showed 76% of attorneys who responded to a survey said he was “superior” in legal reasoning ability and 88% said he was “superior” in basic fairness and impartiality.

Staring’s performance review showed 61% of attorneys said he was “superior” in legal reasoning ability and 71% said he was “superior” in basic fairness and impartiality.

Staring appeared in the news in July when he was on the panel that ruled Cochise County officials disenfranchised voters in a jail district tax election.

Back in 2019, Staring pushed back on what he saw as the overly broad sweep of a ruling that said religious freedoms allowed a Phoenix company to not make wedding invitations for same-sex couples.

Three years ago, he was on the panel that ruled the public does not have a legal right to know the names of jurors, saying the ease of finding personal information on the internet could discourage jurors from serving.

While voters consider whether to keep judges like Eckerstrom and Staring on the bench, they’ll also decide whether they should make those decisions as a routine part of the election cycle.

Proposition 137 is going to be on the ballot in November and if voters approve it, judges would only have to face a retention vote if they don’t meet performance standards or if they’re found guilty of a crime, go bankrupt, or other issues that cast them in a bad light.

Return both ballots: Pima County’s ballot will span four pages on two pieces of paper, joining Maricopa and most of the state’s other counties in spilling past the usual one-piece ballot, Jim Nintzel writes in the Tucson Sentinel.

New sheriff in town?: Members of the Tucson Crime Free Coalition turned up the heat on Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos, hosting a press conference with his opponent, Heather Lappin, and Nanos’ critics, who say crime is on the rise. Police stats say otherwise, KGUN’s Kenny Dahr reports.

"The scandals, the lawsuits, investigations, employees arrested, inmate deaths, deputies shot, and scores of deputies leaving for other agencies are but symptoms of a larger problem. That problem specifically is Chris Nanos and his handpicked men that occupy senior command,” Sergeant Aaron Cross, president of the Pima County Deputy’s Organization, said.

All votes are equal: The presidential candidates are going deep into unfriendly territory to turn out every last vote, the Arizona Republic’s Stephanie Murray notes, citing Trump’s visit to liberal Tucson and would-be Second Lady Gwen Walz’s trip to conservative Mohave County.

“A Republican voter in Tucson is equal in strength to a Republican voter in Apache Junction or San Tan Valley or any kind of dark-red area. And vice versa,” DJ Quinlan, the former elections director for the Arizona Democratic Party, said. “Sometimes these areas get ignored because they're not as vote-rich.”

Behind the podium: Six attendees of Trump’s Tucson rally reported stinging eye injuries after the event, and one of them told KVOA’s Chorus Nylander she was nearly blind the morning after the rally. All of them were seated behind Trump, and the former president’s team said it’s “collecting information.”

Debating the border: Voters heard arguments for and against Proposition 314, which would give state authorities more immigration enforcement powers, in a debate hosted by the Clean Elections Commission and the Arizona Media Association. The Arizona Luminaria has the debate video and all the background on the ballot measure.

Gotta follow the rules: A judge’s ruling threw the future of the Copper World mine into question, the Arizona Daily Star’s Tony Davis reports. State officials violated open meetings law when they approved the right-of-way to remove tailings for the mine southeast of Tucson, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney ruled. He said the agenda and minutes for a meeting of the State Land Department’s Board of Land Appeals were “inaccurate and misleading.”

126: The record number of days in a row Tucson has stayed above 90 degrees. Tucson was set to tie that record Thursday.