Knight et al v. Fontes et al

Argument summary

AI-generated — not an official transcript or court record.

1. Petitioners argue that the Arizona Constitution implies a statewide electorate for Court of Appeals retention elections because Article 6, Section 38 groups these judges with Supreme Court justices for filing purposes, unlike Superior Court judges who file at the county level.
2. The State contends that the Constitution does not explicitly define the electorate for the Court of Appeals because the legislature created the court and retains discretion to determine its makeup and jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9.
3. Petitioners assert that ARS 12-120.02 is unconstitutional because it divides a statewide electorate into unequal geographic districts, violating the free and equal elections clause and the equal privileges and immunities clause.
4. The State argues that the current system balances urban and rural interests by ensuring every voter has a say in judges from their geographic area, maintaining parity with the constitutionally mandated geographic restrictions on judicial appointments.
5. Justices questioned whether mandamus is the appropriate remedy if a constitutional violation is found, suggesting the court might simply declare the statute unconstitutional and allow the political branches to address the issue.
6. Petitioners maintain that mandamus is proper because Article 6, Section 38 mandates statewide elections for Court of Appeals judges, creating a non-discretionary duty for the Secretary of State to place them on a statewide ballot.

Recordings

1. Recording · PT48M11S · Captions available