Ballot Math / Judicial retention

Judicial retention: Maricopa County

The 57 judges on your ballot, explained

November 3, 2026 general election. Retention questions appear near the end of every Maricopa County ballot, and they are the section voters most often guess at or skip. This page names every judge and gives you the official record on each one.

How retention works

Arizona uses merit selection for these courts. Judges are first appointed, then stand for retention at regular intervals. There is no opponent and no replacement candidate on the ballot. The only question is whether the judge stays: more yes votes than no votes keeps the judge in office.

Two different kinds of official information

The finding. The Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review decides whether each judge meets judicial standards. Its 2026 finding: all 57 judges on this ballot met standards. There is no official "does not meet" judge this year. The commission publishes only its conclusion, not a vote count.

The survey scores. The commission also surveys attorneys, litigants, jurors, and court staff who appeared before each judge, and publishes the percentage who rated the judge Acceptable or above in five categories. These percentages are not the finding. A judge can meet standards overall and still have one weak category, and several judges below do. That gap between the finding and the surveys is the most useful information on this page.

Arizona Supreme Court: 1

Finding: Meets standards. In his earlier survey period his Communication score was 94, the rest 100.

Court of Appeals, Division I: 8

All eight: finding of Meets standards. Jacobs's 87 on Administrative Performance is the only appellate category score below 90. Morse's perfect scores rest on the smallest sample on this page.

Maricopa County Superior Court: 48

Superior Court is where most residents who ever see a courtroom actually end up. The division column shows the kind of cases each judge currently handles: Criminal, Civil, Family, Juvenile, or Other (including probate and administrative assignments).

All 48: finding of Meets standards. Scores below 90 are highlighted. Welty's Legal Ability is listed as not applicable in his official report, consistent with an administrative assignment. "See note" on three judges: our sources disagree on which governor appointed them, so we print only the bench year for those three rather than guess. See Verification notes.

Formal discipline on the record

One judge on this ballot has a verified formal discipline record. Bradley Astrowsky (Family) received a reprimand from the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct in 2019 (cases 19-362 and 19-363) for failing to rule in a timely manner in a family law case he knew had been undecided for more than 60 days, and for submitting inaccurate salary certifications. The commission found violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including the rule requiring judges to dispose of matters promptly. Source: the commission's 2020 annual report, linked below.

No formal discipline in the last six years was verified for any of the other 56 judges in the official and major-outlet sources we checked. Campaigns against individual judges, especially in family court, are common and are not discipline; this page reports only formal actions.

Three honest ways voters handle this section

• Yes on all. This follows the official performance review exactly: all 57 met standards, so keep all 57.
• Use the survey detail. This page exists for voters who want more than the headline finding: keep the judges whose courtroom ratings are strong, and make your own call on the handful with weak categories or a discipline record.
• Leave some or all blank. This is allowed, it is common, and a blank item does not affect any other vote on your ballot.
• Follow a partisan or advocacy guide. Several organizations publish judge guides, and they disagree sharply with each other and with the official review, because they grade rulings and ideology rather than courtroom performance. Using one is a values choice, not a performance finding.

Sources

• Official 2026 Judicial Performance Reports table (assignments, years on the bench, findings, and each judge's full report): jpr.azcourts.gov
• Example official report, Justice Lopez: jpr.azcourts.gov (PDF)
• Arizona Republic, October 22, 2026, on the 57 Maricopa County retention questions and the all-Meets finding: azcentral.com
• Arizona Republic, September 29, 2026, listing the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals judges on the ballot: azcentral.com
• Ballot roster cross-check, including the note that Mark H. Brain did not file for retention: Ballotpedia, Maricopa County elections 2026
• Astrowsky reprimand: Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct, 2020 Annual Report: azcourts.gov (PDF)
• 2026 General Election Publicity Pamphlet, judicial performance section (note the 49-name discrepancy described above): azfb.org hosted copy (PDF)
• Voting deadlines and envelope instructions: City of Chandler 2026 General Election Pamphlet, Voting Information (the same state rules apply across Maricopa County): chandleraz.gov

Ballot Math: analysis only, no endorsements. Judges get the same treatment as every other office on this site: the record, the official review, and the sources, in the open. Back to Ballot Math home.