Page 17 - Phoenix Vol 11 No 4

Judges should re ect the diversity of the communities they serve. is is not a dream, whimsical
illusion, or ideological concept. It is a founding principle set forth by the Arizona Constitution, Article VI, Section 37(C). e primary consider- ation being merit, the governor “shall consider the diversity of the state’s population” in appointing judges to the appellate courts statewide, in- cluding the Supreme Court, and trial court judges in Coconino, Maricopa, Pima and Pinal counties.
In 1992, Arizona voters approved Proposition 109, which called for the adoption of a process for evaluating the performance of the judiciary. e process, which we now know as “mer- it selection” has been the way forward for the Arizona judiciary for 27 years.
One of the reasons Arizona voters chose a merit-based selection of cer- tain judges (instead of an election- based selection of certain judges) was to try to increase diversity of the bench. Did it work? Where are we now 27 years later? And what more can we do?
For a more complete analysis of where we are now, read the complete Bench Diversity Project: Second An- nual Report, a joint e ort of the Ari- zona Supreme Court Commission on Minorities in the Judiciary and the Administrative O ces of the Courts. is report, by lead author Professor Paul Bennet of the James E. Rogers
College of Law at the University of Arizona, highlights many important ndings including the following:
• e Arizona State Court Judiciary
does not re ect the categorical di- versity of the state’s population. Whites are signi cantly over-repre- sented on the bench. Minorities are under-represented.
• At all levels of court, Hispanics are signi cantly under-represented in the Arizona Judiciary.
• In both Juvenile Courts and Crimi- nal Courts, there are signi cant disparities between the diversity of judicial o cers and the populations they serve.
• Women continue to be underrep- resented on the Bench in all courts, except for Superior Court commis- sioners where more women than men serve as judicial o cers.
• Di erent courts show di erent di- versity. Limited jurisdiction courts tend to be more diverse. Superior Court commissioners show much greater gender inclusion but are over 90% white.
is history and these facts propel and inform the Appointments com- mittee for Los Abogados. e ap- pointments Committee promotes the advancement of our members and other diverse candidates to the judi- ciary and other leadership positions in the legal community. e Commit- tee provides con dential mentorship and guidance to candidates, includ-
ing connecting members with judges and conducting mock interviews. Los Abogados works to understand and assist judicial selection committees at all stages, including the nominating commissions and the Governor’s ad- ministration.
In addition, our committee hosts CLEs and judicial mentoring pro- grams. is year we will be publish- ing a video series highlighting vari- ous pathways to the bench. Special thanks to Judge John Lopez (Arizona Supreme Court), Judge James Beene (Arizona Supreme Court), Judge Maria Elena Cruz (Arizona Court of Appeals), Judge Daniel Collins (U.S. Bankruptcy Court), Judge John Tu- chi (U.S. District Court), Judge Sara Agne (Superior Court), and Judge Enrique Medina Ochoa (Justice of the Peace), for their participation in this important endeavor. I am proud to Co-Chair William Knight with the Appointment Committee.
SHAYNA FERNANDEZ WATTS IS AN EMPLOYMENT AND COMMERCIAL LITIGATION ATTORNEY AT RUSING LO- PEZ & LIZARDI, PLLC, THE PROUD SPONSOR OF THIS ARTICLE AND OF LOS ABO-
GADOS. RL&L IS A PROMINENT LAW FIRM, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY TO SHAYNA IS THE FACT THAT THEY ARE AS COMMIT- TED AS SHE IS TO THE COMMUNITY AND TO EDUCATION. SHAYNA SERVES ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR LOS ABOGA- DOS. SHAYNA WAS RECENTLY CHOSEN FROM A NATIONAL POOL OF CANDIDATES TO RECEIVE THE TOP LAWYERS UNDER 40 AWARD FROM THE HISPANIC NATION- ALBARASSOCIATION.
The Balanced
Eye of Justice
BY SHAYNA FERNANDEZ WATTS, APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEE CO-CHAIR
17