Pick Arizona justices of the peace via merit, some say
Justices of peace currently elected
bySonuMunshi - Feb. 20, 2012 09:19 PM
The Republic | azcentral.com
Debate exists among court watchers over whether appointment based on merit rather than election with few requisites would improve the quality of Arizona justices of the peace.
No law degree is required of the judges, who hear such cases as evictions, domestic-violence complaints and civil lawsuits under $10,000 in the state's numerous justice courts.
Justices of the peace are one of the few elected judicial posts in Arizona's major metro areas.
A recent misconduct case involving northwest Valley Justice of the Peace Phillip Woolbright brought scrutiny about qualifications to the post that can pay a six-figure annual salary. Woolbright, in a response to the case, noted he was a relatively new judge without legal training and limited judicial experience.
Some say common sense, not a law degree, could have avoided Woolbright's predicament.
Woolbright since last year has faced an investigation by the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct for misconduct that included trying to dodge a court worker serving an order of protection against him. Woolbright was chastised for continuing to hear orders of protection that came before him on the bench and for embroiling a court employee in trying to avoid the server.
He also faces a criminal misdemeanor charge in the violation of the protection order filed by his estranged wife.
Woolbright, whose education includes computer-chip design and preacher training, was elected to the Arrowhead Justice Court in 2010.
To run for justice of the peace, an Arizona resident must be at least 18 years old, be able to read and write English and be a qualified voter in the precinct where he or she would serve.
Legal advocates say some non-lawyers are adept at handling the relatively simpler cases, but they note merit selection, or at least more training, would improve judicial quality.
"If the judge doesn't have a full grasp of the issues and is not fair, then we have taken away what we promise the people of our country," said former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Ruth McGregor, a merit-selection advocate.
Arizona is one of the few states where justices of the peace run partisan races and among about 20 states that don't require law degrees.
McGregor said in recent years the Arizona Supreme Court revamped a few weeks' course to make sure those elected to justice courts are familiar with the law in the kinds of cases they handle. Justices of the peace must then pass assessments in different subject areas.
Attorneys representing Community Legal Services, a legal aid group for low-income residents, recently sent a letter to the presiding judge of Maricopa County Justice Courts to urge more training for justices of the peace, so they apply laws fairly.
Jeffrey Kastner, managing attorney with the non-profit, said they routinely encounter justices of the peace who do not follow evidence and procedure rules in eviction cases.
Critics say it's simplistic to believe anyone with limited training can preside over justice courts.
"Their decisions can mean the difference between someone being evicted and becoming homeless, or having a judgment of thousands of dollars against them, which for some people can ruin lives," Kastner said.
However, even advocates of merit selection say the Woolbright incident could have happened with an appointee, as attorneys are not immune to ethics woes.
Disciplinary action against the state's justices of the peace in the past two years was about split between those with a legal background and those without.
A majority of them are not attorneys.
Jennifer Perkins, an attorney who investigates complaints for the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct, said allegations against non-lawyer judges are often for perceived political conduct, as many justices of the peace have served in other political offices.
Proponents of allowing non-lawyers on the bench said merit appointment doesn't remove the politics, is less transparent and takes away voters' ability to oust a judge.
They said a justice court is supposed to be a community court, less formal and non-threatening. Since cases are less complex, they can be handled by someone who takes basic training and can learn on the job.
"Going to law school is the best way to do it but I know JPs who did not go to law school and are still excellent," said Steven McMurry of Encanto Justice Court, a trained attorney.
McMurry said Woolbright's case is about an individual's ethics and not his limited legal background.
Attorney Michael Parham said he doesn't see why the position should be "lawyerized," other than "to satisfy professional conceit" of some lawyers who don't like facing non-lawyer judges in court.
Parham said he was involved with efforts to carve out procedures for evictions after a 2004 study from the William E. Morris Institute for Justice criticized those justice-court proceedings as lopsided in favor of landlords.
Parham said such improvements, along with training for new judges, work. If not, there's always the judicial commission to sanction errant judges.