As chair of Arizona’s Commission for Judicial Performance Review, William Auther says the state’s retention system depends on transparency, data, and voter understanding ahead of 2026 elections.
William Auther didn’t set out to spend nearly 15 years overseeing Arizona’s judicial performance review process. But now, as chair of the Commission for Judicial Performance Review, he is positioning the system to keep high-performing judges on the bench heading into the 2026 retention elections.
Auther. a product liability attorney by trade. frames his work around a simple question voters face every cycle: after hearing from the public and evaluating judicial performance. what does the state do with what it learns?. In his view. Arizona’s approach works because it is structured to reduce politics and emphasize outcomes that everyday court users can feel—especially the “middle of the system” role judges play when legal disputes move from filings to rulings.
A judge’s role, and why temperament matters
Auther’s most forceful theme is judicial temperament—the practical way a judge manages conflict in the courtroom and. crucially. whether litigants feel heard.. He argues that the legitimacy of the courts is not just about legal correctness. but about process: people can accept losing when they understand why the decision went the way it did.
He links that mindset to performance evaluation.. A good judge. he says. is legally competent and hard-working. but also able to create a forum where participants believe they had a meaningful chance to tell their story.. The state’s retention system. in his framing. is designed to vet candidates before they reach the bench and then to monitor them over time so voters are not left guessing.
From a human perspective, his background as an attorney shapes how he describes what “real” courtroom experiences look like.. He recalls a contentious hearing during a trip to a rural county in Mississippi—an episode he uses to highlight the difference he says Arizona’s approach makes in ensuring the process is fair and not pre-decided behind the scenes.
That comparison is less about naming a rival system than about underscoring a broader point: retention is not abstract. It affects whether citizens believe the courts operate consistently, with transparency, and with consistent opportunities to be heard.
How Arizona’s review process has expanded
Auther says his learning curve began when he joined the commission. not because he didn’t understand the theory of review. but because the “nuts and bolts” required experience with data. logistics. and decision-making.. He describes a process in which commissioners must evaluate independently. bring their own perspectives. and discuss what the information actually means.
Over time, he says the commission expanded its toolkit.. The rules allow for more review options. and the commission has improved data collection and strengthened what it can consider beyond basic metrics.. Public hearings remain central. and the commission’s meetings are open—meaning residents can show up and speak directly rather than only reading summaries later.
Auther also points to a more robust dataset than when he first joined in 2012.. He emphasizes that the commission can review hearing videos and consider timeliness and written outputs. including orders and opinions. particularly involving state appellate and supreme court justices.. The goal, he argues, is to “look behind the numbers,” not treat performance scoring like a one-dimensional scorecard.
Analytically, the importance of that evolution is that it gives voters more than a slogan about a judge’s record. It turns retention into a structured fact-finding exercise, where public input and performance evidence can be weighed together.
Facing retention-election pressure without politicizing the criteria
Auther acknowledges that judicial retention elections have drawn a sharper spotlight in recent years.. He says the commission has increasingly fielded calls and inquiries that try to connect judicial outcomes to political identity—asking. for example. about party lines or a governor’s appointment history.
His response is emphatic: the commission does not use political affiliation or who appointed a judge as decision criteria.. In his view, that distinction matters because a fair retention process can’t reduce judicial performance to partisan branding.. He describes it as an issue of fairness—why should an elector’s decision be steered by criteria that don’t directly measure how the judge performs?
At the same time, Auther argues there is a need for voter education.. He believes the system becomes clearer once people visit the commission’s materials and see what the commission reviews.. He also suggests many voters do make decisions based on the available information. provided it is presented in a way they can understand.
What to watch heading into 2026
Auther says he does not see obvious “highly political” issues emerging this cycle.. He points to a quieter news environment and fewer headline-grabbing opinions circulating widely in the press.. But he also cautions that no one can fully predict how candidates and advocates will frame judicial records once voters begin focusing on retention.
The broader implication is that the commission’s credibility depends on maintaining its focus as external campaign dynamics intensify.. Auther insists that nearly all judges under review are high performers and that the record does not swing dramatically from one year to the next.. Still. retention elections often test not only performance but public confidence—whether voters believe the system is rigorous. fair. and designed to serve the public. not political narratives.
For Arizonans. that means the next phase of judicial politics may be less about whether the commission has the data. and more about whether voters use it.. If education improves and the commission continues to expand how it reviews performance. Auther’s central promise—keeping high-performing judges in place—rests on a foundation that is measurable rather than partisan.
In the background. the question looms the same way it does in many states that use retention rather than contested challengers: can a performance-based system endure when political energy flows toward every institution?. For Auther. the answer is rooted in transparency. independent evaluation. and the idea that courtroom fairness is something people notice long before election day.