Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick reacted defiantly to an ethics complaint filed against him by the progressive group Save our Schools Arizona (SOSAZ). “Bring it on!” he said in a statement issued to the press in response. SOSAZ alleged some remarks Bolick made during a speech to a Republican club crossed into politics.
Bolick and another conservative Arizona Supreme Court Justice, Kathryn King, are up for reelection in 2024 and progressives are targeting them for over their vote upholding Arizona’s old abortion law, which has since been repealed.
SOSAZ cited an article in Politico which quoted Bolick’s remarks to the Sun City West Republican Club in early October. He said their ruling on abortion was only “a convenient excuse to try to get people on the left riled up and replace us with judges who will rubber stamp their ideological agenda.” He said he would continue “fighting for conservative principles,” and brought up his work for the Goldwater Institute and the Reagan Justice Department, and mentioned that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is a mentor and his child’s godfather.
The group said in a press release, “SOSAZ’s written complaint asserts that Justice Bolick’s active campaigning at a Republican Party event violates several provisions of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct, which states that judges ‘should aspire at all times to conduct that ensures the greatest possible public confidence in their independence, impartiality, integrity, and competence.’ Justice Bolick’s appearance and comments at this Republican Party meeting certainly do not meet this standard, and we should expect better of our judges, especially those sitting on the state’s highest court.”
That language is contained in the preamble of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct.
Bolick, who once worked as the vice president of litigation for the Goldwater Institute and who is known as an intellectual heavyweight on the court, sent The Arizona Sun Times a lengthy statement, posted below, in response to the complaint. In it, he said he will be standing up for the free speech rights of judges, and declared, “Bring it on.”
Bolick added the “executive director, Beth Lewis, tweeted that her vote against me was ‘personal,’ ‘gleeful anger,’ and revenge.’” The justice said those reasons for filing a complaint are an “abuse of process.”
He noted that he does not endorse candidates nor discuss pending cases. Nor does his wife, State Representative Shawnna Bolick (R-Phoenix).
A search of Arizona case law reveals that almost no judges have ever been disciplined over politics. Longstanding case law is very specific regarding which political activities judges are prohibited from engaging in. They include speaking on the merits of ballot initiatives, encouraging passage of a tax increase, and opposing a bond increase. Judges are given wide latitude to discuss issues directly affecting judges.
The Arizona Supreme Court Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee issued an opinion in 1976 regarding judges speaking to political groups. It said judges may speak to partisan groups provided the speech does not “give the appearance that he or she is giving support to a particular candidate, a political party or a particular political issue.” While Bolick voted to uphold Arizona’s old abortion law, State Representative Shawnna Bolick crossed party lines and voted with Democrats to repeal the law.
The opinion stressed that judges may freely discuss issues related to the judiciary. “Indeed Canon 4 encourages a judge to engage in activities to improve the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice.”
According to a source, progressive Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Bruce Cohen regularly sends out emails to all the other judges on the bench attacking conservatives and conservative political positions. He has never been disciplined.
Bolick’s full response to the complaint is below:
A political organization that is opposed to my retention as an Arizona Supreme Court justice has reportedly filed a judicial ethics complaint against me. My response: Bring it on.
I have spent much of my career as a lawyer and judge defending and protecting free-speech rights. I am glad to have the chance to stand up for my own and other judges’ free-speech rights.
Judges necessarily enjoy fewer free-speech rights than others. But we have the right to forcefully defend ourselves against an unprecedented campaign to replace judges solely for political reasons.
In doing so, I adhere meticulously to judicial ethics rules. Judges cannot endorse candidates for office, and I do not (not even my wife). Judges cannot ask for money to support their campaigns, and I do not. Judges may not talk about pending cases or issues that may come before the Court, and I do not. In short, we are forced to “campaign” with one arm tied behind our backs. Our opponents have no such restraints.
The rules do allow us to speak at partisan events, although we cannot serve as party officers and cannot endorse candidates. That is no problem for me, as I have been a registered independent for more than two decades and am the only independent to ever serve on the Court. Since the campaign to remove Justice Kathryn King and me from the Court, I have spoken at both partisan and nonpartisan events.
During the retention campaign, I feel like I spend half my time defending against liberal critics over judicial opinions they do not like, and the other half against conservative critics of opinions they do not like. My colleagues and I were “censured” by the Maricopa County Republican Party executive committee for voting against their wishes in election cases. As a judge committed to the rule of law, I see criticisms from both sides as a badge of honor.
The group’s news release makes clear this is about politics, not judicial ethics. Its executive director, Beth Lewis, tweeted that her vote against me was “personal,” “gleeful anger,” and “revenge.” Filing a judicial ethics complaint for “revenge” is an abuse of process.
But I hope they will pursue it even after the election because we need a clear precedent protecting the free-speech rights of judges to defend themselves, and I will be proud to have my name in the caption.
– – –
Rachel Alexander is a reporter at The Arizona Sun Times and The Star News Network. Follow Rachel on Twitter / X. Email tips to [email protected].
