| NEWS | You’re Fired Voters could kick Justice Bill Montgomery off the Arizona Supreme Court. But will they? BY KATYA SCHWENK T he story of how Bill Montgomery, Maricopa County’s former hard-line, controversial top prosecutor, ended up on the Arizona Supreme Court is a rather undemocratic one. Governor Doug Ducey made some deft political moves and appointed him to the powerful court under intense scrutiny — and loud opposition — in 2019. But this year, voters get their first change to weigh in on Montgomery. He’s up for judicial retention election, meaning voters can choose whether or not to keep him on the state’s high court for a full six- year term. Compared to the slate of high-profile races that will be decided on November 8, judicial races have received scant atten- tion. But they matter, according to Cathy Sigmon, co-founder of Civic Engagement Beyond Voting. People’s lives, she said, “are being affected by these rulings and laws” passed down by Arizona’s judges. Sigmon’s organization, which is nonpartisan but has a progressive bent, produces Gavel Watch, which provides a rundown of judicial races on the ballot. This year, the group highlighted Montgomery and urged voters to oppose his bid for retention. That recommenda- tion was based, in part, on recent findings by the Commission on Judicial Performance Review. Gavel Watch considers “whether [ judges] bring a preconceived bias into the courtroom and whether they have blatantly violated ethical standards — which I think is the case with Montgomery,” Sigmon said. Montgomery, in a statement to Phoenix New Times, also pointed to the findings from the commission, which voted 19-2 that his performance was satisfactory. “In my first performance review, the JPR voted overwhelmingly that I met judicial performance standards,” Montgomery said. Montgomery has a storied legacy in Maricopa County. From 2010 to 2019, he led the county attorney’s office. He initially won his seat as the county’s top prosecutor with the blessing and generous funding of then-Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The controversial sheriff saw Montgomery as a close ally. For the next nine years, Montgomery helmed the powerful office. He stepped in Gage Skidmore/Creative Commons to defend Arpaio against probes by the U.S. Department of Justice and supported the sheriff’s hardline stance on immigration, despite Arpaio’s mounting legal troubles. Montgomery also made a name for himself as an anti-marijuana crusader, bringing felony charges against one medical mari- juana user for possessing weed-infused candy and forcing people into a marijuana diversion program that spurred legal chal- lenges for being extortive. Montgomery’s tenure at the county attorney’s office solidified the agency’s hard-line, conservative reputation — a legacy that current County Attorney Rachel Mitchell wants to carry on if she wins a full term. The impact of Montgomery’s run is still being felt. Trent Bouhdida, one of many people prosecuted under Montgomery for low-level mari- juana offenses, is serving his fourth year of a 16-year prison sentence from 2018. A Highly Scrutinized Appointment By 2019, Bill Montgomery’s ambitions had expanded beyond the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. In February 2019, he was eyeing an open seat on the Arizona Supreme Court. He applied but was rejected by the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments in March. Then, just months later as another seat opened up — Montgomery again put his name in the hat. Only by this time, Ducey had replaced three members of the commission who had originally rejected Montgomery. “Miraculously, once Governor Ducey replaced several people on that commission, he was suddenly qual- ified,” Sigmon said. The commission approved Montgomery’s candidacy, and in September, Ducey selected him for the Supreme Court. The pick came despite protests by advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union. “We are deeply, deeply concerned that this person who fueled mass incarceration is now trying to be a Supreme Court Arizona Supreme Court Justice Bill Montgomery faces a retention election. justice,” Analise Ortiz, then an ACLU strat- egist and now candidate for Arizona state representative, said at the time. Paul Bender, a professor at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, described the state Supreme Court as “very conservative. Much more conser- vative than it’s ever been since I’ve been here, and I’ve been here quite awhile.” Ducey has appointed five of the seven current Supreme Court justices. Given how far to the right the court leans, Bender said, Montgomery is hardly an extremist on the court. “He’s some- where in the middle,” he said. But Montgomery oversaw criminal prosecu- tions in the state’s largest county for many years, so he’s been forced to recuse himself from many of the criminal cases that come before the high court. That has given him less influence on the court. But there also have been some concerns raised about Montgomery’s conduct on the court, including by the Commission on Judicial Performance Review. The commission makes findings on the perfor- mance of judges to inform voters prior to retention elections. It’s made up of judges, attorneys, and members of the public who don’t work in the legal field. This year, the commission voted 19-2 that Montgomery met judicial perfor- mance standards. The two commissioners in opposition may seem small, but it’s the first time in at least a decade, the period of time for which data is available, that a Supreme Court justice did not receive a unanimous vote from the commission. “It’s shocking for a Supreme Court justice,” Sigmon said. Three Supreme Court justices — James Beene, Ann Timmer, and Montgomery — face a retention election this year. Beene and Timmer, along with every other judge up for election on the Court of Appeals and in Pinal, Pima, and Coconino counties, received unanimous votes from Vocal Vets Arizona veterans stump for Mark Kelly, thump ‘dumb and dangerous’ Blake Masters. BY ELIAS WEISS B lake Masters is mixing up the MAGA playbook. Veterans of all ages usually cast reliably red votes, but since 2020, more and more veterans are ditching the grand old party. Masters, Arizona’s Republican U.S. Senate candidate who is endorsed by former President Donald Trump, could speed up that process with his incendiary comments about the military — something he brazenly defended at a televised debate last month. That’s why veterans across the political spectrum condemned Masters’ attack on service members and stumped for his oppo- nent, Democrat U.S. Senator Mark Kelly, at rallies in Phoenix on October 17 and 18. Masters has insisted there’s “rot” in the military — doubling down on his previous claims that the military and veterans are “totally incompetent,” “woefully inade- quate,” “piss poor,” and “embarrassing.” Masters also reviled U.S. entry into World War II as “unjust,” said Al Qaeda is not a real threat to America, and defended conspiracy theories around the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He’s also peddled election conspiracy theories; sounded off hoary sexist, racist, and anti-Semitic tropes; and called for a ban on gay marriage. (His billionaire Silicon Valley bankroller, Peter Thiel, is gay.) ‘Wild Ass Claims’ U.S. Representative Ruben Gallego, a veteran and Democrat from Phoenix, criti- cized Masters with a scathing op-ed for Fox News and accused him for turning his back on the military. On October 17, Gallego also rallied with veterans during an event at Governmental Mall in downtown Phoenix. “When you make some wild ass claims like he has, you are seeing something that is both dumb and dangerous,” Gallego told Phoenix New Times. “He should take some time to learn the basics before he runs his mouth.” Veterans including David Lucier, a U.S. Army Green Beret from Tempe who served in the Vietnam War, rallied for Kelly at the event on Monday. Lucier turned 21 on the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Kelly, at the same age, became a naval aviator and flew dozens of combat missions in Operation Desert Storm. When Masters was 21, “he was holed up in >>p 11 a dorm room writing a blog, calling the U.S. entry into World War II ‘unjust’ and quoting Nazi war criminals,” Lucier said. Lucier rhetorically asked >>p 11 9 phoenixnewtimes.com | CONTENTS | FEEDBACK | OPINION | NEWS | FEATURE | NIGHT+DAY | CULTURE | FILM | CAFE | MUSIC | PHOENIX NEW TIMES NOV 3RD–NOV 9TH, 2022
