Rebutting Arizona Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch

A couple weeks ago, the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court, Rebecca White Berch, wrote an op-ed which The Arizona Republic newspaper published. Titled "Agency's ratings of judges keep voters informed," the Chief Justice is really politicking for one of her own. For it turns out that the Republican Tea Party is working to remove Justice John Pelander. And Berch doesn't want voters to read the Tear Party's material against him.

Before we knew the subtext, we offered the Arizona Republic our rebuttal to Chief Justice White Berch, based on our experience (as here) of social meida's impact on the judiciary.

You can read her original op-ed if you want, but you'll be able to figure out what she said as we quote her back, below.

(For whatever reasons, The Arizona Republic did not publish our letter. It didn't even acknowledge receipt.)

---

 Social media shines light on dark Judiciary

In her My Turn column (Monday October 22), Rebecca White Berch, the Chief 'Justice' of the Arizona Supreme Court, lamented over the "unfortunate" effect social media might have on voters voting to retain judges. She worried that voters might learn too much about judges by Googling their names to find what we say about them. But that would be double-plus ungood.

Berch is worried that social media might "unfairly" portray judges. Or that "people who have an agenda" or are too stupid to understand might "misrepresent" legal opinions. So, as in the People's Paradise of North Korea, Berch suggests that, while voters have a civil duty to be informed, voters should only be informed through government approved sources. Like the State's official Judicial Performance Review Commission.

But the JPR, like the Commission on Judicial Conduct, is composed of judges and attorneys. Priests and altar boys in the Church of the Court. Hardly independent. (Attorneys are licensed by the State Bar, an arm of the Arizona Supreme Court. Consequently, their livelihood depends on pleasing their masters.)

No, it's only We, the People, those outside the Court who are truly independent observers of the priesthood.

Look, we need the citizen oversight social media brings (that those in power usually hate) because the Judicial branch is has the least light shining on it.

First, from a simple logistics perspective, most voters have never had the misfortune of experiencing our "professional and impartial court system." So it's important for voters who haven't experienced candidate judges first hand to hear the real world experiences of those who have.

Second, it's almost impossible for the average citizen to find any "dirt" on judges through official channels because the judiciary doesn't report dirt. And that's by the judiciary's own design.

For example, a few years ago, for a few months, you could search for a judge by name on the Commission on Judicial Conduct's website to see if there were any complaints of judicial misconduct against him. (But only "valid" complaints. If the Commission dismisses a complaint, as it almost always does, the judge's name is kept secret.) Presumably unpopular with bad judges up for retention, this search feature mysteriously stopped working for two whole years, officially said to be "under construction." (The Commission's website now says this feature is "disabled" after an email to the Court's PIO.) As it is now, voters who want to be informed have to read EVERY valid complaint on the Commissions website to weed out bad judges.

So, while the data is there, it's not easy to find. And there's no "two party" system (love it or hate it) in the judiciary to find it for us, as there is in the Legislature and Executive, where one side gleefully reports the wrongdoings of the other. The ONLY way for informed voters to get uncensored information about judges is via social media, where good citizens post their complaints and observations on the web. (The Press not able to report it all.)

Berch has been quoted saying "I live in the real world." But I submit she lives in an imaginary world, a sterile Judicial Utopia, where only good is reported. And she would like us to put our blinders on and join her in her narrow view of the State's version of "Pravda."

Social media has always been the bane of repressive governments and those who detest transparency. But in our world, informed voters need social media to shine light as long as the Judiciary insists on a blackout.