THIRD ANNUAL
STATE OF THE JUDICIARY ADDRESS

The Honorable Charles E. Jones
Chief Justice
March 27, 2003

State of the Judiciary
Chief Justice Charles E. Jones
March 27, 2003
Introduction

Case and Revenue Data in
the Courts

Madam President, Mr. Speaker, fellow government officials:

Let me begin with some statistics as to the current involvement of the courts in everyday
Arizona life. During 2002, nearly 2.4 million
cases were filed in the courts of this state and
more than $200 million were generated in fines,
fees and restitution payments. These revenues
flow into general and special governmental
funds at the state, county and municipal levels.
Last year, revenues increased by more than 8.6
percent while case filings remained approximately flat. Increases in collections came about
largely as the result of significant adjustments
and better planning at the administrative level of
our superior courts and our courts of limited
jurisdiction.

Good evening and thank you for the opportunity
to speak on the state of the Judicial Branch of
government in Arizona. I want to thank particularly the Valley Citizens League, the League of
Women Voters, the State Bar, and the Maricopa
County Bar Association for hosting this forum.
Before I begin, let me introduce my judicial colleagues: Vice Chief Justice Ruth McGregor,
Justices Rebecca Berch, Michael Ryan and the
most recent addition to the court, Justice Andy
Hurwitz. At the conclusion of my remarks, the
members of the court will entertain your questions.

In addition, restitution payments collected by the
courts on behalf of the victims of crime
increased a dramatic 67 percent. We have
accomplished this even though it is not normally
accepted that courts become collectors of the
general revenues of the state.

My Background
I care deeply about our great state. My roots are
here. My paternal grandparents came from the
southeastern United States in the 1870s during
Reconstruction following the Civil War. They
settled in Prescott where my father was born and
where he received his schooling during the latter
part of the 19th century.

Nevertheless, it is important that we do so, if for
no other reason than to bolster public trust and
confidence in government generally, and in the
courts specifically. This means that court orders
must be enforced. Yet, in many instances, courts
are not equipped to enforce their own orders
without the aid of the other branches of government. While most individuals voluntarily pay
court-ordered fines and penalties, others ignore
them. It is a simple fact that most court orders
have money attached: a fine, a fee, victim resti-

My wife, Ann, who is here this evening, was
born and raised in the Gila River Valley, the
small farming community of Safford. We raised
our children in Arizona. They all attended the
public schools. They are now grown, educated,
settled, and to our good fortune, all are currently
employed.
1

tution, child support payments or some other
obligation.

Improving Case Processing
Notwithstanding what I have said, courts are not
about statistics and dollars. Every case addressed
by every court is a reflection of real people with
real problems. For them, the disputes and the
issues are critical. Judges emphasize the serious
nature of court proceedings, and strive constantly to improve the manner in which we manage
cases and deal with children, crime victims,
criminal defendants, civil litigants, and others,
all of whom are entitled to due process of the law
as guaranteed by the constitutions of the United
States and the state of Arizona.

In 1990, the Judiciary began an effort to improve
the enforcement of court orders and to increase
revenues. At that time collections totaled $70
million per year. Since then, we have tracked
increases in collections over the $70 million
baseline. I am pleased to report that the aggregate increase in judicial collections since 1990
now totals roughly one billion dollars.
With the help of the other branches of government, there is more that we can do. We have proposed to the Governor and to the Legislature that
we embark on a penalty enforcement program as
a way to help the current budget crisis. Our
analysis suggests that we can increase revenues
statewide over the next year or so by something
between $50 million on the low end and $114
million on the high end. We have taken the first
step, requiring all courts to participate in the Tax
Refund Intercept Program which interacts with
the Arizona Department of Revenue to intercept
tax refunds from those who owe court-ordered
fines, fees, and penalties.

For example, several years ago, we discovered
an acute need to change methods of case management in the criminal courts of Maricopa
County. People charged with crimes but not yet
brought to trial were allowed to languish in the
Maricopa County Jail Complex for as many as
800 or 900 days, some even up to as many as
1500 days. We became aware that a federal civil
rights suit against Maricopa County was in the
planning stage by reason of Federal
Constitutional provisions requiring speedy trial.
We therefore undertook major steps largely
under the direction of my predecessor, Chief
Justice Tom Zlaket, to bring about dramatic
reductions in pre-trial delays. Resistance by
some was substantial, but improvement had to
occur, and it did. Now 90 percent of criminal
cases are completed in 180 days.

Our improvements are paying off. By the end of
last year we had collected $2.5 million, as of
today, we have already intercepted more than $4
million.
Another step involves work with members of the
Arizona congressional delegation to secure a
change in federal law by adding court-ordered
debt in the 50 state court systems to the existing
list of eligible categories for which the internal
revenue service can intercept federal tax refunds.
Federal tax refund intercept is done for various
purposes and should be allowed for courtordered debt as well.

In addition, we recently established a separate
pilot program of three divisions of the Superior
Court in Maricopa County to deal with cases certified as "complex civil litigation." This will
allow other judges to handle the more routine
cases without being bottled up with management
of complex litigation. Programs of this nature
are currently used in other states as well. I should
add, that the Maricopa County Superior Court is
now the fifth largest in the nation, with ninety2

one (91) separate divisions – meaning 91 superior court judges plus court commissioners and
hearing officers. The Honorable Colin
Campbell, whom I believe is here this evening,
presides over that court. I would ask Judge
Campbell and any other members of the superior court to stand and be recognized at this time.

the tens of thousands. At the end of the day, the
courts can do only so much. Families must take
some responsibility for themselves. To our great
misfortune, too many of us turn too often to the
courts to solve problems that even the best courts
are not equipped to address.
Last session, the Legislature enacted SB 1088.
This came after hard work by a study committee
consisting of both legislators and judges on the
"Integrated Family Court Project" whose report
was issued this past winter.

Other Successful Projects
We have made particular progress with the concept of the Model Court Program in all 15 counties of the state for dependent, neglected, and
abused children. In the past, each county developed its own program. These are cases of
children having real needs, who are in their
predicament through no fault of their own.
Approximately three years ago, working with
the Legislature, we obtained necessary legislation and funding to take the Model Court
Program statewide and adopted a new set of uniform rules to govern.

Based on that report, we announce the creation
of family court programs in three pilot counties:
Maricopa, Coconino, and Pinal. They will test
new, perhaps non-adversarial ways of handling
these cases. We will then determine what works
and what does not, and will attempt to take the
best of the results statewide just as with the
Model Court Program of three years ago.

Domestic Violence Order
Database

Instead of having kids under court-ordered foster
care, at times lasting months and years, the period for many young people has been cut to days
and weeks, such that our children can now anticipate more rapid placement in permanent families where they can be properly nurtured.
Because of the budget cuts to programs providing services that have kept many children out of
trouble, we are concerned to see the numbers of
children in foster care now rising dramatically.

On a related subject, violence plagues too many
families in Arizona. Last year, more than 49,000
individuals came to our courts seeking protection from another person. We were not able, on a
timely basis, to provide knowledge of these
court orders to law enforcement officers called
to the scene of a domestic disturbance. We now
enter these orders electronically into a statewide
database which, when completed, will make the
orders available to officers in the field. If we
could end violence simply by issuing court
orders things would improve dramatically, but
we cannot. Nevertheless, when an order of protection is issued, we want to make it available to
law enforcement personnel at the time it is needed. We will be able to do this when all courts are
integrated under one automated database.

Family Court Pilots
Unfortunately, in today's world, too many of our
children and families (that is, where there are
families) find themselves ministered to by the
courts, hardly a satisfactory solution. Simply by
reason of abuse, neglect, divorce, and delinquency, much of it brought about by family disintegration, juveniles are now in the court system by
3

sons not trained, not licensed and not informed
as to the consequences of flawed legal representation. New rules adopted by the court will help
remedy these abuses and provide people a wider
choice by which to obtain competent legal services, for example, legal document preparers are
now authorized but will have to be certified by
the Court's regulatory licensing arm.

The Arizona Fiduciary
Program
Courts have a particular responsibility to protect
families and children. We deal with thousands of
cases every year involving individuals who are
disabled or otherwise incapacitated. Many
require the appointment of a state fiduciary to
handle personal affairs. Fiduciaries are authorized to handle money and property for these
individuals. To our continuing dismay, we learn
of fiduciaries who have taken advantage of this
trust by misappropriating large sums of money
belonging to the individual they were appointed
to protect.

The Courts and the
Legislature
H.G. Wells once said, "Human history is, in
essence, a history of ideas." Another wise person
said, "When I was young I relied on analysis.
Now that I am old, I rely on experience." The
men and women of the Arizona Legislature, now
in session, are faced with the daunting task of
molding ideas into good public policy, using
both analysis and experience, and relying on history in the process.

We requested and obtained legislation for the
licensing, oversight, and auditing of all persons
involved as fiduciaries in the state program. We
have already seen much improvement. Several
of the errant fiduciaries are in prison and fortunately most of the losses are bonded.

Governor Napolitano made the following statement just a few days ago, "The manner in which
we address and resolve the fiscal crisis today,
will largely determine what this state will look
like ten, twenty, and thirty years from today." It
is thus vital that every Arizonan become
informed as to what is happening in state government and to advise legislators what vision
each holds for the future of the state.

Lawyer Discipline
In addition, we have taken steps this past year to
provide citizens with better access to the State
Bar lawyer disciplinary system. The commission
hears cases in which lawyers have taken advantage of their clients, misappropriated client funds
or delivered grossly inadequate representation.
Some are complex cases requiring time to investigate and resolve. Even with complex cases, we
are now disposing of 90 percent of citizen complaints in less than six months and are striving
to have 98 percent of all cases completed in 22
months.

Now, as to the courts, the Arizona Constitution
vests administrative responsibility for the entire
state court system in the Supreme Court, and
particularly with the Chief Justice. I and Vice
Chief Justice McGregor and other members of
the Court have met individually this session with
many members of the Legislature to discuss the
operating budget of the Judicial Branch.
Statewide, the Judicial Branch employs some
11,000 persons and oversees the administration
and management of the superior court in each of

UPL
The Supreme Court has also taken steps to curb
certain elements of the unauthorized practice of
law. Many people are being harmed daily by per4

the fifteen counties, the justice of the peace
courts, the city magistrate courts, the court of
appeals, and, of course, the Supreme Court itself.
In its entirety our Judicial system is comprised of
more than 400 judges who preside in an equal
number of courtrooms statewide. Court operations are funded partly by the state and partly by
the counties and cities.

maintain our justice system in healthy operating
condition.
Because of similar problems, courts in other
states have begun to stop processing certain
cases and have been forced to cut hours of operation. It is important that we state for the record,
given the size of the deficit facing this state in
fiscal year 2004, if the judicial budget were to be
cut as proposed by JLBC, Arizona will face similar prospects.

The Judiciary was constitutionally established as
a separate branch in a tripartite government. In
the Philadelphia debates of 1787, the founding
fathers established three independent, coequal
branches of government, each vested with powers unique to its own mission. The "separation of
powers" principle with a built-in system of
checks and balances and was intended to prevent
the excessive use of power by any one branch, or
by any one person. At the same time, the powers
vested would ensure that no branch of government could be positioned to destroy another.
Moreover, government, as conceived by the
framers, could not function unless all three
branches were maintained in proper balance. We
were all taught that lesson when then Chief
Justice John Marshall handed down his landmark decision in Marbury v. Madison declaring
an act of Congress unconstitutional. Marshall's
cousin, Thomas Jefferson, was furious. Yet
Marbury was destined to become the fountainhead of American constitutional law.

Through fiscal 2003, we have been cut by $26.1
million, reflecting a reduction in excess of 13
percent of our total general fund budget. We
have been forced to eliminate over 200 positions,
mostly among probation officers. The JLBC proposal for 2004, seeking to cut or shift an additional $38.3 million, is so destructive that, if
adopted, would undermine the ability of the
courts to perform essential constitutional duties.
Perhaps most importantly, it will undermine the
ability of courts to maintain a criminal justice
system with the capacity to deal with the broad
range of public safety and law enforcement
issues affecting every person, every family and
every neighborhood in this state.
In making this statement, I am constrained to
point out, as a word of caution, that if one branch
of government fails, government itself fails. The
founders knew that, and with more than 200
years of experience, it should be abundantly
clear today.

I and my colleagues on the Court fully recognize
that in difficult years, courts must take their fair
share of reductions and must cooperate to that
end. However, a few legislators have expressed
dissatisfaction with court decisions, and on that
basis advocate cutting the budget to "control" the
courts. I submit it is not appropriate to reduce the
budget by reason of disagreement with judicial
decisions. My hope is that the Legislature will
allow us to work with them to find a proper combination of reductions and at the same time

Speaking personally, it is clear to me that the
budget impasse in this state cannot be solved
unless the community and business leaders of
Arizona step forward, letting their feelings be
known as to what our government should be and
what Arizona should look like as a state 20 years
from now. I believe Arizona's future hangs in the
balance. Leaders, with their profound influence,
5

cannot afford to turn away and assume a "business as usual" posture.

You would be interested to learn that 94 percent
of all cases filed in all courts of Arizona each
year are filed in the limited jurisdiction courts. It
is thus important that justice dispensed in these
courts be consistent, and most importantly, that
the judgments adhere to the rule of law.

Justice of the Peace Courts
Let me say just a word about reforms in
Arizona's justice of the peace courts. These are
important courts. Attempts to upgrade their operations have been attempted several times during
the last quarter century. The first effort was led
by then majority leader of the Arizona Senate,
Sandra Day O'Connor. Other efforts have followed, each time without success. The legal
community is all too aware that the system cries
out for improvement in the 21st century. Too
many of these courts still cling to the notion that
they are political institutions representing political constituencies, instead of functioning as
courts of law.

In addition to the pro tem correction, we have
implemented a more comprehensive education
and training curriculum for new judges, and have
added a testing component that was used in
January and early March for the first time this
year. It was successful. Class members took their
studies seriously. Everyone worked and the
results showed. My goal is to provide every new
judge, law trained or not, with the ability to succeed.
We have not recommended that elected justices
of the peace be lawyers. But we are insisting that
when citizens come to one of these courts, they
have a judge who knows and understands the
law applicable to the particular problem. The
parties deserve no less. We expect litigants, victims, lawyers and others to be treated with
respect. We expect that a dignified courtroom be
provided in which to plead a case. Judges in all
courts must be trained to understand the requirements of due process within our system of american jurisprudence.

Last year I made a decision that drew negative
reaction from some legislators and from several
justices of the peace. The constitution requires
that any time a temporary judge, commonly
known as a judge "pro tem," is appointed to sit
on an Arizona court, that judge must be a member of the Bar. Article 6, Section 31. As of last
summer, we had some number of pro tem JPs
serving in these positions who did not satisfy the
requirement. It was a decision I did not make
without considerable legal analysis. But, in the
end, the words of the constitution are clear and
plain in their meaning. It was the right thing to
do. A constitutional requirement cannot yield to
inconvenience.

Rule of Law
The rule of law is vital. We conduct business
thinking little of it, but, like the air we breathe, it
is all around us. The rule of law, applicable in
our courts, is the principle that holds together our
national economy, our institutions, our schools,
our churches, our very nation.

A number of JPs have been working with the
Administrative Office of the Courts to help
upgrade the justice court system. A proposed
amendment increasing qualifications training is
pending in the Legislature. These efforts have
the Court's approval, and we hope they succeed.

Interestingly, big business is not willing to invest
in a state where the rule of law is not consistently followed. Human experience has taught that
6

where there is no rule of law, behavior becomes
unpredictable. That is precisely why teams of
people came to these shores during the 17th,
18th, and 19th centuries, fleeing areas of the
world that operated under kings and despots. On
a whim, a person could lose his property, his
family, or even his life.

good policy?" In contrast, judges ask the question, "what is the law?" Courts do not operate in
a majoritarian atmosphere. They do not represent
a political constituency, and their decisions cannot be driven by politics. Legislatures are
designed to pursue majority interests. Courts are
designed to protect legal interests. Occasionally
these interests clash.

At the creation of the American Nation, the
founders understood keenly the importance of
the rule of law. They understood that people
with power sometimes engage in acts that
exceed that power. The founders created a government of limited powers, with three branches,
each operating in its own sphere, each functioning as a check and balance on the others.

In recent news coverage, I noted statements by
legislators critical of certain Arizona Supreme
Court decisions: a tax refund case, the public
school finance case, the very recent clean elections decision. All too often, criticism of Court
decisions normally arises from a strictly political
perspective, attempting to interpret the decision
in light of partisan politics. We understand that
approach for those who represent a political constituency. A court decision, however, should be
viewed from a judicial perspective on the basis
of rational analysis of the language of the law.
The two approaches are remarkably different.

The correctness of John Marshall's decision in
Marbury was foretold by such founders as
Franklin, Adams, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay,
all of whom understood well the principle by
which a court of law could invalidate an act of
the Legislature that had strayed beyond constitutional limits. In federalist No. 78, Alexander
Hamilton stated, "The courts were designed to
be an intermediate body between the people and
the Legislature, in order, among other things, to
keep the latter within the limits assigned to their
authority. When the will of the Legislature,
declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to
that of the people, declared in the Constitution,
the judges ought to be governed by the latter
rather than the former."

When the Legislature disagrees with our interpretation of a statute, a majority of the
Legislature can change the statute. We are never
offended when that happens. We must take the
law as it exists, not as some would like it to be. I
do not suggest that the courts get it right 100 percent of the time, but I do confirm here and now
that the decisions of your Supreme Court are not
driven by today's news, and they should not.
Even so, we continue to hear statements by some
in the Legislative Branch that courts "must have
their hands slapped" or that "the court needs to
be punished," or that "the Legislature must take
control of the court." Such thinking is misguided and undermines important constitutional principles intended by the founding fathers as a
foundation stone of government.

There are unique differences between the legislative process on one hand, and the judicial
process on the other. Legislators operate in a
decidedly majoritarian atmosphere where decisions are made by majority rule. The judicial
process is vastly different. Courts operate largely under the bill of rights on precise analysis and
application of constitutional and statutory language. Legislators ask this question, "What is

In all my years of experience, I am aware that at
times people say things they really don't mean,
7

particularly in a moment of frustration. I am also
aware that times are difficult, and frustrations are
high.
Our nation was founded on the concept that the
people are entitled to anticipate what the rule of
law is. Though taken for granted, experience
teaches that if we erode the rule of law, no matter how well intentioned the motives, our precious institutions, both public and private, will
suffer similar erosion. As the nation today wages
war against a dictator who has ruled an entire
nation by his own vile means, the significance of
the law and the constitutional protections
citizens in America enjoy become more meaningful every day.
I thank you for your time and attention, and in
particular the invitation to address this audience
of leading citizens this evening.

8