Quoted:
To keep it simple I just vote NO on all of them.

Quoted:
On my ballot (That I mailed in a couple of weeks ago), they were all uncontested.  I figure they don't need my vote so I leave them blank.

The Days of "Impartial Judges" Are Long Gone

The takeaway that every Democratic and Independent voter should now have after witnessing the Kava-Naughty debacle is that JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS MATTER.

If you're in a county that has a "nonpartisan merit system" for judges, it can become especially hard to fully complete your ballot because of the sheer number of judges who might be up for Yes/No retention---all listed without notation of party affiliation or judicial ideology. In this type of system, judges are initially politically appointed and then face a retention election after being in office for a period of years.

Now, purists will say, "But judges are supposed to be impartial, so party ideology doesn't matter." To them I say, "WAKE THE HELL UP and smell the puke that's been hurled on you!"

With my own 2018 General Election Ballot in Arizona, 51 judges are listed, all of whom voters are supposed to decide whether to keep on the bench or not. Unfortunately, a lot of people skip this portion of the ballot because, short of looking up actual judicial decisions of each and every one of these guys (which might take you two serious weeks of research to achieve on top of your actual day job), most don't have a clue whether to say 'yes' or 'no' on any particular judge.

So, How Can You Determine Which Judges to Keep & Which to Dump?

Do you know who does vote 'yes' or 'no' for every last one of the "nonpartisan" judges up for retention? You got it, dear ones…far-right Rethuglicans. Why? How? It's really quite simple: The right-wingnut groups and Rethuglican PACs always provide judicial voting lists for their constituents…who to say 'yes' on and who to say 'no' on. Unfortunately, at least in my state, the Democratic organizations have not seemed to have picked up on this simple idea.

So, what should Democrats and Independents do to stop leaving the judicial retentions blank on their ballots? Duh…just vote exactly opposite however the Rethuglicans tell their sheeple to vote. Very simple and it doesn't take hours upon hours of research.

Where does one find such lists? That's simple, too. Just go to the websites of the far-right-wingnuts in your state. For example, in Arizona, I always go to "Intellectual Conservatives" (I know, what an oxymoron, right?) to know which judges to keep or dump by voting in reverse of what the Repugnants say. You know you have your own versions of this kind of crazy online in your state.

If you're not from Arizona, you can stop reading now and go follow through with the action plan I just gave you (if you have "nonpartisan" judges to contend with on your ballots). Then, post your results online to help your neighbors.

Arizona's "Judicial Performance Review"

Most Democrats I've talked to who do actually fill in the judicial part of the ballot do so based on the "recommendations" of the state's "Judicial Performance Review" (JPR), which, frankly, is the biggest crock of shart that ink has ever been wasted on.

The JPR is based on surveys completed mostly by lawyers, but also by a few litigants, jurors, witnesses, court staff, and a mysterious category called "parties who have contact with presiding judges." (WTF? I'm not sure I even want to know who's in that last group.)

Survey participants rank judges in general categories like "legal ability," "temperament," "communication skills," "administrative skills," etc. These surveys are then reviewed by a panel of 31-34 "volunteers" selected by Arizona's Rethuglican-packed Supreme Court. This commission then votes as to whether judges "meet" or "don't meet" standards, and all without the public ever getting to see the raw data upon which the commission's votes are supposedly based.

Not surprisingly, since this judicial evaluation system was put into place for Arizona's three largest counties back in 1992, very few judges ever get dinged in the JPR as "not meeting judicial standards." Everyone's usually just peachy-keen! In other words, if they have a pulse and a law degree and if they can sit on the bench without veering too far off into Kava-Naughty rage, then the sitting judges will meet the JPR standards.

What is interesting, though, is a look at the handful of judges through the years who have gotten the elusive JPR "does NOT meet standards." Only a couple of true miscreants are on that short list. The rest tend to be women judges who…surprise, surprise…bucked up against Rethuglican ideology! Imagine that…

Democrats, stop using the JPR as a "guide" to anything. It says nothing about judicial biases or ideologies, let alone the consequential decisions being made in these judges' courtrooms that have profound impact on public life.

For Arizonans Only: Supreme Court & Courts of Appeals; Superior Court (Maricopa County)

For Arizonans, I've reversed the "Friends of Kelli Ward" how-to-vote list for judges on the ballot this year. (Sorry, Pima County and Pinal County Superior Court judges were not on this list.) Because we all know Ward is her own special kind of Rethuglican cray-cray, we most certainly want to do exactly opposite what she says!

So, print out this list and use it to mark your ballots accordingly:

Justices of the Supreme Court:

BOLICK, CLINT---NO, NO, & HELL NO! [Biggest political-operative, Rethuglican ass-wipe in Arizona & leader of the Abolish Public Schools movement]

PELANDER, JOHN, III---NO

Judges of the Courts of Appeals:

SWANN, PETER---YES [Division 1]
ECKERSTROM, PETER---YES [Division 2]
ESPINOSA, PHILIP---NO [Division 2]
STARING, CHRISTOPHER---NO [Division 2]

Judges of the Maricopa Superior Court:

ANDERSON, ARTHUR T.--- YES
ASTROWSKY, BRAD H.--- NO
BACHUS, ALISON S.--- YES
BAILEY, CYNTHIA J.--- YES
BARTON, JANET E.--- NO
BERGIN, DAWN---YES
BLAIR, MICHAEL C.--- NO
BRAIN, MARK H.--- NO
BRODMAN, ROGER E.--- YES
CAMPAGNOLO, THEODORE---YES
COMO, GREGORY S.--- YES
COOPER, KATHERINE "KAY"---YES
CRAWFORD, JANICE K.--- NO
CULBERTSON, KRISTIN R.--- NO
CUNANAN, DAVID O.--- NO
DUNCAN, SALLY SCHNEIDER---YES
FINK, DEAN M.--- YES
FISH, GEOFFREY H.--- NO
FOSTER, GEORGE H.--- YES
FOX, DEWAIN D.--- NO
GRANVILLE, WARREN J.--- NO
GREEN, JENNIFER E.--- NO
HERROD, MICHAEL J.--- NO
HOPKINS, STEPHEN M.--- NO
KREAMER, JOSEPH C.--- YES
LEMAIRE, KERSTIN G.--- NO
MARTIN, DANIEL G.--- NO
MOSKOWITZ, FRANK W.--- YES
MROZ, ROSA---NO
MYERS, SAM J.--- NO
O'CONNOR, KAREN L.--- NO
OTIS, ERIN O.--- NO
PINEDA, SUSANNA C.--- YES
POLK, JAY M.--- NO
REA, JOHN CHRISTIAN---NO
RECKART, LAURA M.--- NO
ROGERS, JOSHUA D.--- NO
RUETER, JEFFREY A.--- YES
RYAN-TOUHILL, JENNIFER C.--- NO
SINCLAIR, JOAN M.--- NO
SMITH, JAMES D.--- NO
STEINER, RONEE KORBIN---NO
SUKENIC, HOWARD D.--- NO
SVOBODA, PAMELA HEARN---YES
VIOLA, DANIELLE J.--- NO
WARNER, RANDALL H.--- NO
WELTY, JOSEPH C.--- YES
WHITEHEAD, ROY CHARLES---YES

So there you go Arizonans...straight from the horse's ass of none other than Kelli Ward. Mark your ballots as noted above and stick it in Kelli's eye.

Now get those Early Ballots in, or show up at the polls on Nov. 6 armed (with knowledge) and ready!    

Quoted:
To keep it simple I just vote NO on all of them.

Quoted:
To keep it simple I just vote NO on all of them.