← Election Series · Down-ballot coverage · Arizona

Per-judge retention calls inside

This is the longest single list on any Arizona ballot this year: the Maricopa County Superior Court retention slate. The election is November 3, 2026; early voting is already open. The other two guides in this series cover the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Pima and Coconino judges (27) and the Pinal County Superior Court (6); every judge on the official slate appears exactly once across the three guides.

The slate caveat, printed up front: the Judicial Performance Review's official 2026 slate lists 49 Maricopa Superior Court judges — the 49 names tabled below. azcentral reported on October 22, 2026 that the list Maricopa voters actually face includes 48 superior court judges — 57 judges in total on a Maricopa ballot (1 Supreme Court justice + 8 Court of Appeals Division I judges + 48 superior court judges) — after late retirements trimmed the superior-court list. Which of the 49 slate names is the one that drops could not be resolved at this sourcing depth, and we will not guess at a judge's name. All 49 slate names are tabled here; if one name below does not appear on your ballot, that is the discrepancy, and your sample ballot is the controlling document.

How retention works — read this first

Arizona does not elect these judges in contested races. Under the merit-selection system Arizona voters adopted in 1974, a nonpartisan nominating commission screens applicants and sends the governor a list of at least three qualified names, and the governor appoints. Every appointed judge then faces the voters in a retention election — an uncontested, nonpartisan, yes-or-no question asked judge by judge: shall this judge be retained in office? A judge first stands for retention after an initial two-year term; after that, Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges stand every six years and trial-court (Superior Court) judges every four years. A majority of YES votes retains the judge for a new term. A majority of NO votes removes the judge: the seat becomes vacant when the term expires and is filled by the governor from a nominating commission's list — a NO vote does not elect any named replacement. (Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review FAQ; azcentral, October 22, 2026.)

The performance evidence voters are given comes from the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review (JPR). The commission — 34 members appointed by the Arizona Supreme Court, a majority of them public members who are neither judges nor attorneys — surveys the attorneys, jurors, litigants, witnesses, court staff and fellow judges who have seen each judge work, takes public comment, and considers information from the Commission on Judicial Conduct. It grades judges against five standards: command of the law, impartiality, clarity of communication, judicial temperament and professionalism, and administrative skill and work ethic. It then votes, judge by judge, on whether the judge Meets Judicial Performance Standards or Does Not Meet them, and publishes that vote in the Secretary of State's publicity pamphlet and at azjudges.info. (JPR FAQ.)

For 2026 the commission's verdict was uniform: every judge on the official slate — all 82 names in these three guides — was found to Meet Judicial Performance Standards. No judge on the slate carries a JPR failure or a recorded JPR dissent in the official table. (JPR, 2026 Judicial Performance Reports; azcentral, September 29, 2026.)

The honest gap in this guide: the per-judge survey percentages behind those votes sit behind individual report links at azjudges.info and in the publicity pamphlet, and they are not reproduced here. The commission's Meets-Standards vote is what this guide prices. Where an advocacy guide's reading of a judge's percentages is part of a story below, we say so, name the guide, and grade it as advocacy — we do not present its reading as the commission's finding.

How to use the tables: "Appointed by" names the governor who appointed the judge, per the JPR roster research file; for judges first elected before their county entered merit selection, the table says so instead. Judges who took the bench in 2023 straddle the Ducey–Hobbs transition; their appointing governors are taken from Civic Engagement Beyond Voting's 2026 Gavel Watch, which lists an appointing governor for every judge, and are printed here as sourced to that report.

Maricopa County Superior Court — the 49 judges on the official JPR slate

| Judge | Court/Division | On the bench since | Appointed by | JPR vote | Our call | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | Bradley Astrowsky | Maricopa County Superior Court — Family | 2012 | Jan Brewer | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Michael C. Blair | Maricopa County Superior Court — Juvenile | 2016 | Doug Ducey | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | John L. Blanchard | Maricopa County Superior Court — Civil | 2019 | Doug Ducey | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Mark H. Brain | Maricopa County Superior Court — Criminal | 2011 | Jan Brewer | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Robert I. Brooks | Maricopa County Superior Court — Family | 2020 | Doug Ducey | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Sunita A. Cairo | Maricopa County Superior Court — Criminal | 2023 | Doug Ducey | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Michelle Carson | Maricopa County Superior Court — Family | 2023 | Katie Hobbs | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Gregory S. Como | Maricopa County Superior Court — Juvenile | 2015 | Doug Ducey | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Katherine M. Cooper | Maricopa County Superior Court — Juvenile | 2011 | Jan Brewer | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Max-Henri Covil | Maricopa County Superior Court — Criminal | 2020 | Doug Ducey | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Kristin Culbertson | Maricopa County Superior Court — Criminal | 2016 | Doug Ducey | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Marvin L. Davis | Maricopa County Superior Court — Juvenile | 2020 | Doug Ducey | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Monica B. Edelstein | Maricopa County Superior Court — Criminal | 2020 | Doug Ducey | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Geoffrey Fish | Maricopa County Superior Court — Criminal | 2014 | Jan Brewer | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Dewain Fox | Maricopa County Superior Court — Civil | 2015 | Doug Ducey | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Jillian B. Francis | Maricopa County Superior Court — Family | 2022 | Doug Ducey | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Marischa H. Gilla | Maricopa County Superior Court — Juvenile | 2023 | Katie Hobbs | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Jennifer Green | Maricopa County Superior Court — Criminal | 2015 | Jan Brewer | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Lauren R. Guyton | Maricopa County Superior Court — Family | 2024 | Katie Hobbs | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Melody Garland Harmon | Maricopa County Superior Court — Juvenile | 2023 | Katie Hobbs | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Michael J. Herrod | Maricopa County Superior Court — Civil | 2011 | Jan Brewer | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Charlene D. Jackson | Maricopa County Superior Court — Family | 2022 | Doug Ducey | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Melissa I. Julian | Maricopa County Superior Court — Civil | 2019 | Doug Ducey | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Amy M. Kalman | Maricopa County Superior Court — Family | 2023 | Katie Hobbs | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Joseph S. Kiefer | Maricopa County Superior Court — Criminal | 2019 | Doug Ducey | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Ronee Korbin Steiner | Maricopa County Superior Court — Juvenile | 2015 | Doug Ducey | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Joseph C. Kreamer | Maricopa County Superior Court — Criminal | 2007 | Janet Napolitano | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Kerstin G. LeMaire | Maricopa County Superior Court — Other | 2015 | Doug Ducey | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Daniel G. Martin | Maricopa County Superior Court — Criminal | 2007 | Janet Napolitano | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Julie A. Mata | Maricopa County Superior Court — Family | 2020 | Doug Ducey | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Steven W. McCarthy | Maricopa County Superior Court — Family | 2023 | Katie Hobbs | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Frank W. Moskowitz | Maricopa County Superior Court — Civil | 2015 | Doug Ducey | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Samuel J. Myers | Maricopa County Superior Court — Criminal | 2007 | Janet Napolitano | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Suzanne M. Nicholls | Maricopa County Superior Court — Criminal | 2020 | Doug Ducey | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Colleen E. O'Donnell-Smith | Maricopa County Superior Court — Family | 2023 | Katie Hobbs | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Jay M. Polk | Maricopa County Superior Court — Juvenile | 2011 | Jan Brewer | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Michael Z. Rassas | Maricopa County Superior Court — Juvenile | 2020 | Doug Ducey | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Joshua D. Rogers | Maricopa County Superior Court — Juvenile | 2015 | Doug Ducey | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Jeffrey Rueter | Maricopa County Superior Court — Criminal | 2015 | Doug Ducey | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Jennifer Ryan-Touhill | Maricopa County Superior Court — Civil | 2015 | Doug Ducey | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Aryeh D. Schwartz | Maricopa County Superior Court — Criminal | 2020 | Doug Ducey | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Danielle J. Viola | Maricopa County Superior Court — Civil | 2011 | Jan Brewer | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Randall H. Warner | Maricopa County Superior Court — Civil | 2007 | Janet Napolitano | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Joseph C. Welty | Maricopa County Superior Court — Presiding Judge) | 2007 | Janet Napolitano | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Roy Chuck Whitehead | Maricopa County Superior Court — Juvenile | 2015 | Doug Ducey | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Paula A. Williams | Maricopa County Superior Court — Family | 2023 | Katie Hobbs | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | William R. Wingard | Maricopa County Superior Court — Family | 2023 | Katie Hobbs | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Cassie B. Woo | Maricopa County Superior Court — Family | 2019 | Doug Ducey | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Melissa M. Zabor | Maricopa County Superior Court — Family | 2023 | Katie Hobbs | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain |

Per-judge notes — what the campaigns say, and what the record shows

Maricopa's retention list draws more organized campaigning than any other in Arizona. The campaigns are printed here as facts about the campaigns, with their stated bases evaluated on the evidence. Only two of the 49 judges draw a "Do Not Retain" recommendation from the state's most detailed advocacy report; neither recommendation survives this guide's sourcing standard, and the reasons are printed in full.

Judge Bradley Astrowsky — the one misconduct claim in this guide, and its sourcing limit. Civic Engagement Beyond Voting's Gavel Watch recommends Do Not Retain, as it did in 2022, writing that Astrowsky was "reprimanded by Commission on Judicial Conduct in 2019, for delaying judgment in a marriage dissolution case to the extent of non-compliance with the law," and criticizing a 2021 ruling that sent two children to a reunification program. That reprimand claim matters enough to check, and here is the honest state of the check: the reprimand appears in Gavel Watch's 2022 and 2026 reports — the same organization, twice — and no primary Commission on Judicial Conduct order, court record, or independent news report confirming a 2019 reprimand of Judge Astrowsky could be located in this research. A formal reprimand is a public act; if it happened, a primary record should exist, and this guide will not print an advocacy compilation's uncorroborated claim as established fact or rest a Vote NO on it. What is independently documented about Astrowsky's judging cuts the other way as often as not: he struck down Phoenix's Super Bowl "clean zone" signage scheme as an unconstitutional delegation of government power (2023, widely reported) and ruled against Phoenix's and Tucson's prevailing-wage ordinances under state law (2024, reported). He carries a 2026 Meets vote. Retain — with the Gavel Watch claim printed here, attributed and graded, so any voter who can source the underlying order can weigh it.

Judge Julie A. Mata — targeted over two 2026 ballot rulings; the targeting report also gets her biography wrong. Gavel Watch recommends Do Not Retain, citing her July 2026 ruling allowing Proposition 142 to reach the ballot and her August 2026 ruling on Proposition 212's ballot description, plus its reading of low survey percentages in her individual JPR report (percentages this guide does not reproduce — see the honest gap above). Two rulings in live ballot litigation, either of which the losing side was free to appeal, are a jurisprudence dispute, not a performance failure. The same report lists Mata as a 2013 appointee of Governor Brewer; she was in fact appointed to the Superior Court by Governor Doug Ducey in 2020 — the governor's own appointment announcement and her JPR record both say so — after serving as a court commissioner from 2013. A report that misstates its target's basic biography is a reason to check its other claims twice, not to adopt them. The commission voted Meets. Retain.

Judge Joseph C. Kreamer — a ruling some readers will dislike, printed because it is the most consequential in this guide. In August 2026, Judge Kreamer struck the legislature's referred Proposition 145 from the ballot, holding that its no-severance clause violated the Arizona Constitution's single-subject rule (per Gavel Watch's account of the ruling, which rates Kreamer Retain). Readers who supported that referral will weigh the ruling themselves; a single-subject holding is a legal judgment, reviewable on appeal, and no source in this research presents it as anything else. It is not a performance file. Retain.

The organized vote-no lists — what they are and what they rest on. Three organized efforts urge Maricopa voters to reject judges wholesale, and a fourth organizes the defense. (1) The Freedom Club PAC, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club's campaign arm, publishes a full yes/no judicial list at azballot.org. (2) The LD 4 Republican voter guide publishes its own vote-no list. (3) Commentator Rachel Alexander's graded guide at Intellectual Conservative (October 2026, summarized by Bridge News) assigns F grades to a long list of these judges. Read closely, the stated bases across those lists are rulings the authors disagree with — above all election-case rulings, including Judge Randall H. Warner's dismissals of the 2020 and 2022 election challenges and Presiding Judge Joseph C. Welty's case assignments — plus appointing governors, past clerkships, campaign donations by judges' critics' lights, and in at least one case (Judge Roy Chuck Whitehead) personal accusations sourced to a social-media account, which no other source in this research corroborates and which Gavel Watch — no friend of conservative judges — answers with a "No Objections" rating. On the other side, the bipartisan lawyers' PAC Arizonans for an Independent Judiciary supports retaining every judge the commission found Meets, and Gavel Watch's own Do Not Retain list for Maricopa stops at the two judges above. None of the 49 carries a JPR Does-Not-Meet vote, and none of the vote-no lists documents a conduct-commission finding against any of them. Disagreement with election rulings is an argument voters may weigh; under the rule this guide applies, it is not a proven performance failure. All 49: Retain.

OUR CALL

Our rule for retention is deliberately narrow, and it is the same rule we apply to every candidate in this coverage: a flaw must be proven — demonstrated in service or in documented conduct — before it costs anyone our support. Applied here: we call Retain for every judge whose JPR vote is Meets Judicial Performance Standards and against whom no sourced adverse record exists. A Vote NO call from this page requires a sourced basis printed in the guide — a JPR dissent or failure, documented misconduct, or a corroborated ruling pattern that shows a judge cannot do the job. Disagreement with a judge's rulings, dislike of the governor who appointed the judge, and a judge's pre-bench career as a partisan lawyer are not performance failures, and we do not price them as ones.

Applied to the Maricopa slate: Retain — every judge on it, no exceptions. Every one of the 49 carries a JPR vote of Meets Judicial Performance Standards. Our research surfaced no JPR dissent or failure on any of them, and no corroborated misconduct record: the single misconduct claim in the field — the Astrowsky reprimand — is printed above with its sourcing state stated plainly, and it does not meet the standard this page requires before it tells a voter to remove a judge. The slate is retain-across-the-board because that is the honest call on this record — not because retention is automatic, but because nobody, in a year of unusually organized campaigns against these judges, produced a sourced case that any one of them has failed at the job the JPR measures. One practical note follows from the caveat at the top of this guide: the ballot itself will carry 48 of these names, not 49. Vote Retain on each name your ballot actually shows.

For the complete Election 2026 breakdown — every race, claim by claim — see the full coverage on our website.

Vote early. Research your candidates. Choose the best moderates, whatever their party — no extremism from either side. And encourage your friends and family to do the same.

Sources

Election result — November 4, 2026

Result pending. No verified call (Associated Press or official) as of November 4, 2026. This page will be updated when the race is called or certified. The original article above is unchanged.

AI-assisted article — but the sources are human, and the facts are very real.

← Full down-ballot enumeration