The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling that upholds the constitutionality of geographic voting districts used for court of appeals judge retention elections, rejecting a challenge brought by four Arizona voters in Knight v. Fontes.
The December 4, 2025 decision, authored by Justice Beene and joined by all seven justices, concluded that Arizona Revised Statutes Section 12-120.02 does not violate the Free and Equal Elections Clause or the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Arizona Constitution.
The case originated in Maricopa County Superior Court, where Judge Frank W. Moskowitz initially ruled against the plaintiffs. The Arizona Supreme Court's affirmation represents the final resolution of this constitutional challenge to the state's judicial retention process.
Plaintiffs Bonnie Knight and others argued that the four geographic voting districts created by the statute violated fundamental constitutional principles of equal representation and voting rights. They contended that the geographic divisions for judicial retention elections created unequal treatment among Arizona voters.
The challenge was brought by the Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation at the Goldwater Institute, represented by attorneys Jonathan Riches, Timothy Sandefur, Scott Day Freeman, and ParkerJackson. Andrew W. Gould of Hotlzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak argued the case before the court.
Defending the current system, Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes was represented by the Arizona Attorney General's Office, led by Attorney General Kristin K. Mayes. Assistant Attorneys General Kara Karlson, Karen J. Hartman-Tellez, Kyle Cummings, Alexander W. Samuels, Emma H. Mark, Joshua G. Nomkin, and Gabriela Monico participated in the defense.
The retention election system at issue governs how Arizona voters decide whether to retain court of appeals judges for additional terms. Under the current structure established by A.R.S. § 12-120.02, the state is divided into four geographic voting districts for these judicial retention elections.
The Arizona Constitution's Free and Equal Elections Clause, found in Article 2, Section 13, requires that all elections be free and equal. The Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause, located in Article 2, Section 21, mandates equal treatment under the law for all citizens.
Plaintiffs argued these constitutional provisions were violated by the geographic district system, claiming it created unequal voting power and representation among Arizona citizens based on their location within the state.
The Supreme Court's opinion, however, found no constitutional violation in the current retention election structure. The unanimous decision suggests the court viewed the geographic districts as constitutionally permissible under both challenged constitutional provisions.
This case represents part of ongoing litigation involving Arizona's election processes and constitutional interpretation. The Goldwater Institute, which brought the challenge, frequently litigates constitutional issues related to government structure and individual rights.
The retention election system for judges has been a subject of periodic legal and political debate in Arizona. Unlike contested elections where multiple candidates compete, retention elections ask voters simply whether sitting judges should continue in their positions for additional terms.
The geographic district approach was designed to ensure different regions of Arizona have appropriate representation in judicial retention decisions, particularly given the state's diverse urban and rural populations with varying interests and concerns.
The case proceeded directly to the Arizona Supreme Court as a special action, bypassing the typical appellate process. This procedure is used for cases involving significant constitutional questions or matters requiring expedited resolution.
The court's decision maintains the status quo for Arizona's judicial retention process, ensuring continued use of the four-district geographic system for court of appeals judge retention elections.
For election administration, the ruling provides clarity and certainty for future retention elections. Secretary of State Fontes and county election officials can continue implementing the established district-based system without constitutional concerns.
The decision also reflects the Arizona Supreme Court's approach to constitutional interpretation, showing reluctance to invalidate established electoral processes absent clear constitutional violations.
Legal observers note this case demonstrates the ongoing tension between ensuring equal voting rights and accommodating geographic and regional differences within state election systems.
The unanimous nature of the decision suggests broad judicial consensus that the current retention election structure falls within constitutional bounds, despite the plaintiffs' equal protection arguments.
This ruling concludes the immediate constitutional challenge to Arizona's judicial retention election districts, though future challenges to other aspects of the state's election processes remain possible as election law continues evolving through litigation and legislative action.