SITTING ON TWO BENCHES: Arizona's 2nd Supreme Court Is Based In... Honduras? Arizona Semi-Retired Justice, Judges Are Only Senior Arbiters In "Precarious" Semi-Autonomous City

A semi-retired Arizona Supreme Court Justice and two other retired Arizona judges comprise the highest level of arbitrators in a privately-owned, semi-autonomous, Ayn Rand-inspired city on a Honduran island. The New York Times Magazine reports this week that "Próspera" also is in a battle for survival with the current Honduran government.

Retired Justice John Pelander is one of the three "Senior Arbiters" for the Próspera Arbitration Center and heads the "Appellate Division". PAC is essentially the judicial branch for the ZEDE ("Zone for Employment and Economic Development") "backed by the Silicon Valley billionaires Peter Thiel, Sam Altman and Marc Andreessen". Earlier this month, Arizona's Law reported that Pelander had been given a one-year contract by the Arizona Supreme Court to handle cases on a part-time, as needed basis. 

The Administrative Order (below) details that he receive a fixed part-time salary of approximately $24,000. He participated, for example, in the two expedited appeals involving Arizona's abortion rights ballot measure. (He was in the majorities keeping the measure on the ballot, and permitting the Legislature to include the term "unborn human being" to describe a fetus in the "impartial analysis".)

Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Ann Timmer tells Arizona's Law that Pelander's Honduran quasi-judgeship does not give her "cause for concern." Arizona's Code of Judicial Conduct would not permit a full-time judge or justice to moonlight like that, but it specifically exempts either a "retired judge available for assignment" or a part-time judge from those restrictions.

The long-form NY Times Magazine (worth the read) contained this attention-grabbing nugget: "An arbitration center staffed by three retired Arizona judges handles dispute resolution. (In order to enter the jurisdiction, I was told I needed to sign an “agreement of coexistence” binding myself to 4,202 pages of rules, violations of which would be subject to the jurisdictional authority of the arbitration center.)"

A quick search revealed that the other two Arizonans making up Próspera's "Supreme Court" are retired Court of Appeals Judge John Gemmill and retired Superior Court Judge Kenneth Mangum. (Mangum is also a Board Member.) The Arbitration Center lists several other attorneys as "Arbiters" and "Arbitral Officers", with only the Arizonans at the highest of the three levels. 

The article and website also set out other Arizona ties to Próspera - the Founder/CEO is listed as "Arizona entrepreneur Erick Brimen", and the Co-Chair of the Arbitration Center is former Goldwater Institute General Counsel Nick Dranias.

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich. 

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

BREAKING: AZ Supreme Court Blesses Leg Council's Analysis Of Open Primaries' Initiative Focusing On RCV Provision, REVERSES Trial Court (READ Decision)

The Arizona Supreme Court has now blessed the Republican Legislative Council's "impartial analysis" of both citizens' initiatives appearing on November's ballot. After previously allowing "unborn human being" instead of "fetus", the Justices today reversed the Superior Court judge's decision that the analysis "misleadingly" elevates and characterizes the ranked choice voting provisions of the Open Primaries (aka Make Elections Fair Arizona) initiative.

(This is a developing story. Please check back later for more details.)

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich. 

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

BREAKING: Robert F. Kennedy FILES Arizona Paperwork, Lists Same New York Residence Found To Be "Sham" Address; Says He Turned In 110,000 Signatures

The plot thickened this afternoon, as Independent Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. turned in a purported 110,000 signatures to get on the Arizona General Election ballot, but listed a home address in New York that a judge in that state found to be a "sham" address.

While Arizona does not require a Presidential candidate to live in New York, Kennedy did sign the nomination paper attesting that the Katonah address is his "actual residence address".

The nomination paper will likely be one of the bases for filing a legal challenge to keep him off the Arizona ballot. Arizona - unlike New York - is a swing state and even though Kennedy only polls at 5% in Arizona, both major parties are wary of Kennedy tipping the balance to the other party.

Validity of the signatures will be another. Out of the "purported" 110,000 signatures turned in, 42,303 need to be considered valid.

If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits.  

We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.

NEW UPDATE: Arizona Battle Over Documentary Proof of Citizenship to Register to Vote JOINED At the U.S. Supreme Court

Several Responses were filed with the U.S. Supreme Court this afternoon opposing Republican legislative leaders' attempt to force Arizona counties to REJECT any state voter registration applications filed between now and October if they do not provide documentary proof of citizenship (instead of just swearing to be a citizen).

(Assigned) Justice Elena Kagan is expected to decide next week whether or not to order compliance with the 2022 bills that added the requirement. She could also ask the entire bench to decide the on-again, off-again stay of an injunction against the provisions.

The request to permit the prohibition was filed last week by House Speaker Ben Toma and Senate President Warren Petersen, along with the Republican National Committee. (below)

Today's Responses were filed by the Arizona Attorney General's Office (and the Governor), the Secretary of State's Office, the U.S. Department of Justice and the national and Arizona Democratic organizations.

Both sides are trying to turn the Supreme Court's "Purcell Principle" to their advantage. (It is named after former Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell, and stands for the principle that courts should be reluctant to change elections laws and procedures too close to the election.) 

The 2022 provision has not been in effect during the past two years of litigation, and the District Court Judge issued an injunction against it several months ago. In June, Republicans tried to get a stay of the injunction pending appeal. One 9th Circuit panel granted it, only to be reversed by the panel actually hearing the appeal.

Toma/Petersen/RNC addressed the Purcell Principle head on, claiming it should work in favor of enforcing the law as passed. Today's Responses note that it has not been in effect and should not cause confusion and difficulty during the next seven weeks of voter registration efforts.

The Arizona Attorney General's Response also argues that Toma and Petersen do not have an interest that would be harmed by the court's refusal because they make laws and are not in charge of enforcing them.

Several years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court told Arizona that they could not reject federal voter registration applications if they do not provide documentary proof of citizenship. Those voters can be restricted from voting in state (and local) contests, however. This case deals with rejecting registrations that come in on Arizona's own paper forms if the prospective voter does not yet have an Arizona ID and does not attach proof of citizenship.

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich. 

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

(PLEASE CLICK BELOW TO REVIEW THE STAY REQUEST AND RESPONSES)

OFF THE BENCH, ON THE BENCH: AZ Supreme Court Recusal Merry-Go-Round Picks Up Speed and Chief Justice Timmer Explains How It Works, and How One Retired Justice Got Both Abortion Cases

If you're an Arizona's Law reader and/or paying attention elsewhere, you are aware of the wave of Arizona Supreme Court Justice recusals that has been building. Today, it crashed to the shore with a decision in one of the abortion rights measure cases and with recusals in two more cases (below).

In two of the four election-related cases with recusals, retired Justices were called in to come off the bench... and get on the bench.

The Court wants Arizonans to have confidence in the judicial system, including this recusal/replacement system. Arizona's Law had questions for new Chief Justice Ann Timmer, and is here to explain how this process works.

A recap: Today, the Court split 5-2 on finding that Republican lawmakers can tell voters that the citizens' abortion rights ballot initiative involves an "unborn human being" (instead of a "fetus"). Justice Clint Bolick did not take part in the case because his wife (Shawnna Bolick) was one of the Republican lawmakers on the Legislative Council that chose that "impartial" language. Retired Justice John Pelander took his place and was part of the majority.

Also today, Justice Clint Bolick recused himself in two more cases. One is the other appeal regarding the abortion rights ballot measure, and the other involves citizens' open primaries initiative. (Shawnna Bolick was involved in the latter, but Clint Bolick's reason for recusing in the Arizona Right to Life appeal is less clear.)

Pelander was tapped to replace Bolick in the 2nd abortion case, and retired Justice Rebecca Berch in the new open primaries case.

We asked Chief Justice Ann Timmer to explain the process she used, and how Justice Pelander wound up on both abortion cases. Here is the (email) conversation (lightly edited for clarity):

*****

Arizona's Law: Who decides which retired Justice (or lower court judge) will sit on which case?

Chief Justice Timmer: I do.

Arizona's Law: What are the bases for those decisions?

Chief Justice Timmer: As with the United States Supreme Court, the Arizona Supreme Court is not required by statute or the constitution to replace justices who have recused from cases.  Regardless, and unlike SCOTUS ("Supreme Court of the United States"), the Court follows a practice of generally appointing judges to fill in for justices who recuse from a case.  If two justices recuse, I do not fill the positions, leaving five justices (an odd number) to decide the case.  If only one justice recuses, or more than two recuse, leaving an even number, I will appoint replacements.

Arizona's Law: How do you choose among the retired Justices or Judges from the Court of Appeals?

Chief Justice Timmer: I follow a practice that avoids matching up a replacement justice with a case. Specifically, I call on either retired Justices Pelander or Berch—alternating between both in a sequential manner. (Capitalizing on these Justices’ great experience, the Court has retained them to serve as fill-in justices or to head court projects, as needed.)  That appointment is based on which of the two are up next to serve as a replacement—no case-matching is involved. 

On occasion, one or both may decline to serve as a replacement due to a conflict of interest or not being available for a conference or oral argument. If one is not available, the other will be asked.  If both are unavailable, I will ask the Chief Judge of one of the divisions of the court of appeals to designate a judge to serve.  If the appeal came from a division one case, I ask the division two Chief Justice and vice versa.  If the appeal bypassed the Court of Appeals, I ask the Chief Judge of whichever division has waited the longest to fill in. Each Chief Judge uses a practice to select a judge that avoids merely picking a particular judge.

Arizona's Law: Well, the two recusals today are a little confusing, then. If you alternate, why did Justice Pelander appear to get two cases in a row - both related to the abortion rights ballot measure? (The Right to Life case was filed six days before the open primaries appeal.)

Did Justice Bolick recuse from the newer case before the older abortion case, did retired Justice Berch pass on the abortion case, or something else?

Chief Justice Timmer: Your second possible explanation was correct. I make the assignments in the order I receive the notification of a recusal. That would most often track case number sequence, but not always. It did here, but Justice Berch passed on the abortion case.

*****

Anticipating at least some of the recusals, on July 17, Timmer issued Administrative Orders calling retired Justices Pelander and Berch back into as-needed service for the coming year. Per the Orders and an Arizona Constitution provision, both are entitled to be paid for their work on the cases.

By the way, in keeping with the process that Chief Justice Timmer explained, Justices Bolick and Kathryn King both recused themselves from the appeal about the Legislature's judicial retention ballot measure. Neither of them were replaced, and the five remaining Justices - who are not on the ballot this year - will decide it.

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

BREAKING: Judge DENIES Public Records Request For Elections Employees' Identities Due To "Legitimate Security Concerns", Awards Maricopa County Its Attorneys' Fees

 In a long-awaited decision, a Superior Court judge today DENIED a lawsuit filed to use public records laws to obtain the identities of all Maricopa County elections employees who worked with verifying ballot envelope signatures. 

Judge Scott Blaney found that there are "legitimate security concerns" if the identities of lower level and non-managerial employees were released.

The "We the People Arizona Alliance" will also be responsible for Maricopa County's attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defending the suit. 

The judge declined to consider whether We the People attorney Bryan Blehm handled the evidentiary hearing while under suspension by the State Bar of Arizona.

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich. 

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

BREAKING: Jenna Ellis Flips, Agrees To Testify Against Other Defendants In "Fake Electors" Case; Judge Scolds Toma/Petersen For Gratuitous Attacks On AG Mayes

Former Trump/Giuliani attorney Jenna Ellis has "flipped" and agreed to testify against fellow defendants in Arizona's "Fake Electors" case; in return, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has agreed to dismiss all charges against her*.

Also, in the case today, Judge Bruce Cohen slapped Republican legislative leaders Ben Toma and Warren Petersen for filing unnecessarily inflammatory arguments against Mayes. He agreed to consider their friend of the court ("amicus") brief about the new anti-SLAPP provisions that form the basis for the defendants' Motions to Dismiss.

Mayes hinted about the Ellis Cooperation Agreement on Friday in an interview, but released it today (below). Today, she said that "(t)his agreement represents a significant step forward in our case. I am grateful to Ms. Ellis for her cooperation with our investigation and prosecution. Her insights are invaluable and will greatly aid the State in proving its case in court."

Judge Cohen agreed to partly accept the Toma-Petersen brief about what the legislature's intent was in expanding the anti-SLAPP ("Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation") statute in 2022.

"Since its enactment, there have been no identified reported cases in Arizona that address or apply this amended statutory provision. In that regard, Senator Petersen and Speaker Toma are uniquely positioned to inform as to the public policy considerations behind the 2022 amendments to the statute. For that limited purpose, their Brief is welcomed by the Court."

The judge was not pleased with the rest of it, though:

"Having so concluded, the bulk of the Brief from Senator Petersen and Speaker Toma focuses on matters that are either beyond the assertions made thus far by the named defendants or are the separate perspectives of Senator Petersen and Speaker Toma in what must be characterized as an extremely charged political environment."

* If Ellis violates the agreement, the Attorney General can re-file the charges and Ellis agrees not to argue that the statute of limitations had passed.

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich. 

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

BREAKING, GAIN TWO OR LOSE ONE? Arizona Would Gain 2 New Federal Judges In Bill Passed Unanimously By Senate Today; AZ Sen. Mark Kelly a Co-Sponsor

Arizona would gain two new federal judgeships under a bill passed unanimously by the Senate today. Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) is one of the 17 co-sponsors. However, if a companion bill passed earlier this year is not signed into law, Arizona could LOSE a judge in 2025.

If the bill passes the House and is signed by President Biden, Arizona would gain a judge - to be appointed by the President elected in November - in 2027, and a second judgeship in 2031. The bill would create 66 judges nationally, in five stages, beginning next year.

Additionally, another Senate-passed bill that would convert one of Arizona's other judgeships from being "temporary" to permanent is also pending in the House. Without this bill (that also impacts nine other "temporary judgeships"), U.S. District Court Judge Michael Liburdi's "seat" might be taken away next July. (Liburdi was nominated by former President Donald Trump.)

The "temporary judgeships" were passed back in 2002 because Congress could not agree on permanent expansions. As Reuters reports, an increasingly partisan Congress has feared creating openings that would be filled by a President of the opposing party. (That would also explain why today's bill is staged out over multiple Presidential terms.)

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich. 

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

BREAKING: Abortion Rights Measure REMAINS On November Ballot

8/20, 6pm: BREAKING: Arizona Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY rules that ABORTION RIGHTS initiative STAYS ON NOVEMBER BALLOT

The Arizona Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the citizens' abortion rights initiative did not omit a critical provision in its petition summary, and that it will remain on the November ballot.

The challenge was filed by Arizona Right to Life. The Order, written by Chief Justice Ann Timmer, said that the Plaintiff/Appellant instead "challenges the Description's accuracy in describing these (principal) provisions." And, that is not for the court to decide, said the Order.

8/14, 12pm: "BREAKING: "Unborn human being" is impartial and will be used to describe abortion rights Constitutional amendment in November ballot pamphlet, per split AZ Supreme Court"

The Arizona Supreme Court split 5-2 today in allowing legislative Republicans to use "unborn human being" as part of their "impartial analysis" of the citizens' Constitutional amendment measure placing abortion rights into the Arizona Constitution.

The Justices will release their full written Opinion at a later date, but said they believe it qualifies as "impartial analysis" because one of the Republicans' statutes (that would be overturned) uses the phrase instead of the scientifically-accepted term of "fetus". (There are approximately 15 Arizona statutes that use the term "fetus" and two that use "unborn human being".)

Chief Justice Ann Timmer and Justice James Beene dissented and would have left the lower court's injunction against the language in place. That means the majority includes Vice Chief Justice John Lopez, Justices Robert Brutinel, Kathryn King, and Bill Montgomery. Retired Justice John Pelander is the 5th vote, as he substituted in for the recused Clint Bolick (details below).

The Leg Council's "impartial analysis" will be front and center in the publicity pamphlet mailed by the state to all voters. That is the one that will be followed with paid arguments in favor of the measure and opposed to it.

Below is the language that will be on the (separately mailed or voted in-person) actual ballot.

************

UPDATE, 8/6, 11:15am: "BREAKING: Justice Montgomery's (Initial) Answer: I Refuse To Recuse, Planned Parenthood Is Not a Party In This Case"

Arizona Supreme Court Justice Bill Montgomery today refused to recuse himself from the expedited appeal on whether Republicans in the Legislature can substitute "unborn human being" for "fetus" in an impartial description of November's abortion rights ballot measure.

Montgomery writes that just because he recused himself last year from the 1864 abortion ban case in which Planned Parenthood was a named party, does not mean that he cannot impartially decide the current case. "The present matter does not involve either of the parties from PPAZ nor any of the facts or legal issues present in that case. Thus, the basis for the previous recusal in PPAZ, as well as the PPAZ motion for recusal, is not relevant to these present proceedings."

As noted before, Montgomery also initially refused to recuse in the previous case. He reconsidered one week later.

**********

UPDATE, 8/5, 5pm: "BREAKING: Right To Life Lawsuit Against Arizona's Abortion Rights Ballot Measure DISMISSED"

********

UPDATE, 8/5, 1:45pm: "BREAKING, 2nd TO STEP ASIDE? AZ Supreme Court Justice Bill Montgomery Needs to RECUSE From Abortion Rights Ballot Language Case, Motion Argues"

Leading with two provocative and religious Bill Montgomery quotes about Planned Parenthood, abortion rights advocates filed a Motion for the Arizona Supreme Court Justice to recuse himself from the expedited appeal on how the proposed constitutional amendment should be described on November's ballot.

Their motion begins by restating some of what then-Maricopa County Attorney Montgomery told a 2015 protest: “Planned Parenthood kills children and sells their body parts.” And, “The voice of the Holy Spirit will whisper in your soul,” and “you will not be at rest until you reconcile with the truth.”

The ballot measure would enshrine abortion rights in the Arizona Constitution, but Republican lawmakers voted to change the term from a "fetus" to an "unborn human being" and claim that that is impartial.

"This Motion for Recusal raises a related – but similarly simple – legal question; would a reasonable, objective observer doubt the ability of an Arizona Supreme Court justice who publicly said similar phrases to act impartially in resolving this appeal?"

It notes that Montgomery initially refused to recuse himself from the case earlier this year that ended up reinstating the 1864 complete abortion ban, but changed his mind the following week after raising an incident where he had investigated some left-behind boxes of Planned Parenthood materials for criminal wrongdoing. 

"...but we have no idea what “additional information” caused him to recuse only eight days after refusing to do so in a 10-page, single-spaced order. That recusal now speaks volumes. And that’s all the more true because Planned Parenthood entities are large financial backers of the ballot measure at issue."

Although Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona has been a key member of the coalition getting the abortion rights measure on November's ballot, the Motion describes it as an "endorser" and "large financial backer".

Justice Clint Bolick recused himself from this expedited case last week, and was replaced by former Justice John Pelander.

Briefing is to be completed this week, and the court will consider the matter without oral argument.

**********

UPDATE, 4:45pm: "Justice Bolick Issues Statement Clarifying His Recusal Guidelines"

Following our reporting of yesterday's recusal in the Prop. 139 ballot language case (and previous articles elsewhere), Justice Clint Bolick today issued a statement (through the court) clarifying when he will and when he will not take himself off of an appeal.

When his wife is "a prime sponsor or prominently identified as a supporter or opponent" of a law that then faces a constitutional challenge, he will recuse. "Otherwise, he (I) will not."

Here's the full statement:

Justice Bolick worked closely with the Court’s ethics counsel to develop guidelines for disqualification consistent with his duty under Rule 2.7 of the Rules of Judicial Ethics to decide cases in which he does not have a conflict. In addition to disqualification rules that apply regardless of his wife Shawnna Bolick’s elected status, such as when she is a party to litigation, he will recuse in any challenge to the constitutionality of a law in which he is aware that his wife was a prime sponsor or prominently identified as a supporter or opponent. Otherwise, he will not.

Bolick faces opposition to his judicial retention on this November's ballot, and has promised to fight to retain his seat on the bench. Also on the ballot is a legislative referral - that Sen. Bolick voted in favor of - to nullify the retention vote (and radically change the judicial retention process). 

*****

UPDATE, 4:15pm: "U.S. and Arizona Supreme Courts Give Arizona AG Mayes a "Just In Case" Extension On 1864 Abortion Ban Case"

The Arizona Supreme Court today agreed not to put its status quo-shattering April Opinion putting the 1864 complete abortion ban into effect for seven more weeks, until after the Legislature's repeal goes into effect.

Attorney General Kris Mayes last month asked the U.S. Supreme Court to give her office an extension to file a Petition appealing the Arizona decision. Her request specifically indicates that her office will not know until the September 13 deadline for citizens' referendum petitions to be filed whether an appeal will be necessary or moot. (Such a drive would require 127,985 valid signatures.)

After the extension to September 23 was approved by (assigned) Justice Elena Kagan, the Arizona Supreme Court today agreed to not issue its mandate before then.

Barring a successful super-stealthy petition drive, the Legislature's repeal of the 1864 abortion ban will go into effect, and all eyes will again be on whether voters approve Prop. 139 (below) in November.

*****

UPDATE, 1:20pm: The article has been updated to reflect that state Sen. Shawnna Bolick is one of the Appellants because she is a member of the Legislative Council.

Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick recused himself yesterday from hearing the expedited appeal on whether the official ballot language for Prop. 139 - the abortion rights measure - should use the phrase "unborn human being" to describe what the proposed constitutional language calls a "fetus".

The Court also set the expedited briefing schedule for the ballot language case, with all briefing to take place next week and for a subsequent decision without oral argument. (That is standard operating procedure for election appeals to the Supreme Court, especially with a ballot printing deadline looming.)

Bolick is married to one of the defendants appealing the case, and retired Justice John Pelander will take his seat on the bench (for this case). 

Bolick did NOT recuse himself from the April 9 Opinion which put Arizona's 1864 complete abortion ban into place. That controversial decision was handed down two months after his wife, state Sen. Shawnna Bolick, led many of her Republican colleagues to issue a Legislative Proclamation officially urging Arizonans not to sign petitions to put the abortion measure onto this November's ballot. 

Although the checking and challenging process is continuing, the proposed constitutional amendment protecting all abortions before fetal viability and require a healthcare professional to determine that a post-viability abortion is necessary to protect the potential mother's health turned in more than 800,000 signatures, and is now dubbed Prop. 139.

The Republican-controlled Legislative Council decided to describe the fetus as an "unborn human being" in the Official Description of Prop. 139, and the proponents took the matter to Court. 

Last week, Superior Court Judge Christopher Whitten quickly determined that the description was not "an impartial analysis of the provisions" and ordered a summary "that replaces the phrase with a neutral term." Bolick is one of the six Republican members of the Leg Council; together with House Speaker and Senate President Warren Petersen, the Republicans appealed last week's decision.

While Justice Bolick has now recused himself, there has been no indication that Justice Bill Montgomery also plans to.

Montgomery was the only Justice to recuse himself from April's Planned Parenthood v Hazelrigg 1864 abortion ban case. He did so only under pressure from Planned Parenthood for incendiary comments he had made when he was Maricopa County Attorney. (He accused Planned Parenthood of "atrocities" and "genocide".

Last year, Planned Parenthood filed a Motion for Recusal, which Justice Montgomery initially denied in a lengthy written Order. However, one week later, he reversed himself in light of information that he had also led an investigation into some discovered Planned Parenthood files.

Planned Parenthood is one of the founding members of the Arizona for Abortion Access coalition that has put forward Prop. 139.

Although he could again change his mind, it may be difficult for Justice Montgomery to distinguish his November recusal from a failure to recuse in this expedited case involving the same party. To date, the abortion rights coalition has not filed a new Motion for Recusal in this case.

Disclosure: This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich. Paul has been an active participant in AAA coalition member Healthcare Rising in promoting this initiative.

>

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.