← Election Series · Down-ballot coverage · Arizona

Per-judge retention calls inside

Pinal County voters will see 13 retention questions on the November 3, 2026 ballot: the six Superior Court judges in this guide, plus Supreme Court Justice John R. Lopez IV and the six Court of Appeals Division II judges, who are covered judge by judge in this series' appellate guide. Every judge on Arizona's official 82-judge slate appears exactly once across the series' three guides. Early voting is already open.

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.

One Pinal-specific fact belongs in that explainer: Pinal County entered merit selection after the 2010 census showed its population had passed the threshold, which is why two of the six judges below were first elected in 2010 and now stand for retention like appointees — their table entries say so rather than naming an appointing governor they never had.

Pinal County Superior Court — 6 judges

| Judge | Court/Division | On the bench since | Appointed by | JPR vote | Our call | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | Jessica K. Dixon | Pinal County Superior Court — Family | 2023 | Katie Hobbs | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Steven J. Fuller | Pinal County Superior Court — Criminal | 2011 | Elected 2010 — no appointing governor | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Danielle Harris | Pinal County Superior Court — Criminal | 2023 | Katie Hobbs | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Delia R. Neal | Pinal County Superior Court — Civil | 2016 | Doug Ducey | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Karen F. Palmer | Pinal County Superior Court — Juvenile | 2023 | Katie Hobbs | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain | | Daniel A. Washburn | Pinal County Superior Court — Other | 2011 | Elected 2010 — no appointing governor | Meets Judicial Performance Standards | Retain |

Per-judge notes — the one real file in this guide, printed in full

Five of these six judges have no individual file beyond the JPR's Meets vote, and this guide invents none. The sixth has the most serious file of any judge in this series. It is printed here in full — and then priced under the same standard this page applies to every candidate it covers.

Judge Steven J. Fuller — an investigated, uncharged, denied accusation; a dismissed conduct file; and our standard. The documented record, in order: Fuller was first elected in 2010. In late 2017, an allegation that he had sexually abused a juvenile was reported — a young woman had disclosed alleged abuse beginning at age 13 to a church official, whose church's attorney informed Mesa police — and the investigation was transferred to the Pima County Sheriff's Office to avoid a conflict of interest (PinalCentral reporting, June 2018). Pima County prosecutors decided not to file criminal charges. Fuller denied the accusations, and his attorney stated he had passed a polygraph examination (same reporting). The Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct opened a file on its own initiative to monitor the criminal investigation and, having reviewed its results, dismissed the matter on August 15, 2018 (Commission Order 18-074, issued unredacted because the matter was already public). Gavel Watch adds that in 2018 Fuller received four individual "does not meet" votes in the JPR process, the most of any Arizona judge that year; he received full Meets findings in 2022 and again in 2026, and Gavel Watch's own 2026 rating for Fuller is "Reservations," not Do Not Retain.

Our pricing of that file follows the standing rule of this coverage, stated in print many times: an unproven accusation alone never disqualifies. A flaw must be proven — in service or in documented conduct — before it costs a candidate this page's support. What is proven here is an investigation, a prosecutorial decision not to charge, a denial, and a conduct commission that reviewed the investigation and closed its file. What is not proven — by a court, a prosecutor, or the conduct commission — is the accusation itself. To call Vote NO on this record would be to convict on an allegation the institutions charged with testing it did not sustain, and this page does not do that for any candidate of any party. The file is printed in full above so that Pinal voters can weigh it with their own eyes; our call under our stated standard is Retain.

Judge Daniel A. Washburn — a survey footnote, nothing more. Washburn, first elected in 2010 alongside Fuller, draws a note in Gavel Watch for a 25% "Poor" + "Very Poor" attorney rating in Legal Ability in his JPR report — on what Gavel Watch itself flags as a small sample. The commission voted Meets. A small-sample survey reading is not a performance failure. 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 Pinal slate: Retain — all six, no exceptions. Every judge in this guide carries a JPR vote of Meets Judicial Performance Standards. The one serious adverse file in the guide — Judge Fuller's — is printed in full above, and on its documented facts (investigated, never charged, denied, conduct file dismissed) it does not meet this page's proven-flaw standard for a Vote NO. No other sourced adverse record on any Pinal judge appears in this research. That is the honest call on this record: retain across the board.

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