Arizona Judicial Performance Review Chair William Auther Eyes 2026 Retention Elections With Steady Hand

Former Product Liability Attorney Brings Decades of Legal Experience to Arizona's Judicial Performance Review Commission

PHOENIX William Auther did not set out to spend nearly 15 years serving on Arizona's Commission for Judicial Performance Review. But when an open spot allowed him to witness how the state evaluates its judges, he came to understand just how vital the system is to maintaining a high-caliber bench.

Now chair of the commission, Auther will use his experience to provide steady guidance to voters ahead of the 2026 judicial retention elections, according to Arizona Capitol Times.

Auther, a product liability attorney by trade, joined the commission in 2012 after an initial application for a different committee. He has since served on three separate task forces to review rules and update the evaluation process.

"It took me one full cycle to see the whole process from start to finish. I knew about the surveys, I knew about the data. I knew that there was a website you could go to to try to read some of the data. It wasn't always in the most user friendly format," Auther said. "I knew all of those things, but I didn't really know the nuts and bolts about — how much data do you get? What are the commissioners actually given? How do you evaluate? Is this good, bad or otherwise? Should we call this judge in or not, ask this judge for an explanation or not?"

The decision-making process requires each commissioner to independently review the data and express their own views. According to Auther, the system has evolved significantly since 2012.

"We've expanded our rules to allow us to do a lot more. We've improved the data collection. The public hearings are always important to hear what people are saying. Our meetings are public, and anybody can show up to those and say anything they want. We've expanded the scope of things we can look at," Auther explained. "We can go and look at the hearing videos, if we think that's important, we can review court data on timeliness of things. We can review orders, written orders, written opinions, especially when it comes to the state Court of Appeals and Supreme Court justices."

Auther emphasizes that judicial temperament is as important as legal ability. He noted that courts serve people across a wide range of issues, from probate matters to juvenile cases to divorce proceedings to traffic violations.

"Judicial temperament is incredibly important. Making people feel like they've been heard. People can understand losing when they understand why they lost. When they feel like they were able to tell their story and participate and they were heard in the process, it makes losing a lot more palatable," Auther said. "We have to ensure that the public feels like they are being heard and have a forum to actually have a meaningful resolution of whatever issue is that they're in the courts for."

The commission has gathered information about judge performance from everyone who uses the court system, making it available to voters through the commission's website. Auther noted that once voters access this information, they tend to make informed decisions based on the data.

"It is debatable whether people really are trying to educate themselves, or whether they just have decided it's a political issue. They're going to call it by party lines. I can't tell you how many calls we get every year, what's this person's political affiliation? That's not part of the calculus. We don't look at it. We don't care, because there can be good judges and bad judges from any political affiliation, so we don't tip the scales based on that," Auther said.

The commission has not seen highly political issues emerge in recent election cycles. Auther indicated he does not anticipate any major political controversies arising in the 2026 retention elections.

According to Arizona PBS, it is uncommon for judges to be voted out in Arizona. Over Auther's 12 years on the commission, only five or six judges have been voted off during that period. More importantly, some judges choose not to face voters when they see their survey scores and data, deciding instead to retire or move on to other work.

"Two years ago we had a couple that were voted off. We've had a handful over the years," Auther said. "More importantly, some judges decide not to face the voters in the retention election when they see their survey scores and see their data. They know the commission is going to be looking at them and just decide to retire or move on to something else."

Auther's background as a product liability attorney gives him firsthand experience with how different legal systems function. He recalled a particularly frustrating experience in a rural Mississippi court where a judge made a ruling without hearing arguments from both sides.

"I was down in a very tiny rural county in Mississippi for a hearing. I had a local lawyer who I was working with. It was a very contentious hearing. There was a lot riding on it. It was a big motion. I went down there and met with the lawyer. We go to court the next morning. We're there at 8:45 for our 9:00 a.m. hearing; 9:15 a.m. rolls around, no one's there; 9:30 a.m. rolls around, no one's there; 9:45 a.m. rolls around, and all of a sudden, the judge walks out of chambers with the opposing lawyer following him," Auther recounted. "The judge takes the bench. The opposing lawyer stands next to the bench. I'm at the council table with my local counsel. Like, what's going on here? The judge says, 'I've been talking about this motion with Mr. So and So, the plaintiff's lawyer here, and we decided that you're going to do this, and that's going to be my ruling.' And I said, 'Judge, may I be heard on it?' He goes, 'Well, you can.' But we — he and the other lawyer — have already decided this. I made the little argument he would let me make, and he didn't change his ruling. And that was that."

Auther contrasted that experience with Arizona's judicial system, which he believes is among the best in the country. He returned to Arizona after that incident, noting how fortunate he was to be back in a system that respects due process.

"It was that, and I remember, thinking about it on the plane coming home, thinking, God I'm glad to be getting back to Arizona, because that just would just never happen here. It would never happen, and no one would even contemplate something like that," Auther said.

Auther's experience in other states with different judicial evaluation systems convinced him that Arizona's approach is superior. He noted that virtually everyone encounters courts in their lives, whether through personal legal matters or those of family members and employers.

Retention System Balances Performance Standards With Public Input

The Arizona judicial retention system was designed to help voters make informed decisions about judges while maintaining performance standards throughout a judge's tenure.

According to the commission's approach, information about judge performance is gathered from all users of the court system and made available to voters through the commission's website. This allows the public to decide whether to retain appointed judges during retention elections.

"If the judge is re-elected they will face another retention election in four more years. Information about the judge's performance is gathered from everyone who uses the court system and is made available to voters," Auther explained.

Auther noted that the appointment process itself is robust, with various commissions making recommendations to the governor, who then appoints judges. Once appointed, the Judicial Performance Review Commission ensures judges continue to meet performance standards throughout their tenure.

The commission has improved its ability to review court data, including hearing videos and written opinions from appellate courts and the Arizona Supreme Court. These improvements came from recommendations made by prior task forces, which the courts readily adopted.

Auther expects the 2026 retention elections to proceed without the highly political issues that sometimes emerge in other election cycles. He believes that once voters understand the evaluation process and have access to comprehensive data through the commission's website, they will make their decisions based on performance rather than political affiliation.

"The public hearings are always important to hear what people are saying. Our meetings are public, and anybody can show up to those and say anything they want," Auther said. "We have a more robust dataset now than we did in 2012 for sure, and a stronger ability to really look behind the numbers."

Auther plans to use his extensive experience as a commissioner to provide steady guidance to voters as they head into the 2026 judicial retention elections, ensuring that the Arizona judicial system continues to serve the public effectively and fairly.

---

Sources:

• Arizona Capitol Times: "William Auther: Aiming to retain high performing judges"
• Arizona PBS: "How the retention election system works in Arizona"