We are on the brink of destroying our judicial system in Arizona.

Partisan actors want to punish judges who have ruled contrary to their politics.

They see the judiciary as a second legislature, in which every judge must toe a political line — theirs.

But the judiciary is not a second legislature. It is a fundamental part of our democratic system, which separates the power of the executive, the legislature and the courts.

A functioning judiciary is key to democracy

These are checks and balances that disperse power and help keep government honest.

Politicize the court, raise money and mount campaigns against judges whose opinions you dislike, and you will force judges to turn into politicians to save their jobs.

With no insulation from the political culture, judges will begin to vote the politics of the moment. Rather than interpreting law, they will make law.

You will have a second legislature.

What you won’t have is a functioning judiciary. You will have chased people of substance from the bench and replaced them with political hacks — servants of political parties.

They won’t dare deviate from popular politics, knowing they’ll get tossed the next time they’re on the ballot.

Don’t read politics into judges’ decisions

This year judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican governors have cautioned us not to read politics into their decisions.

The latest comes from Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Hannah, who ruled that our Democratic governor and GOP leadership are not breaking the law by sweeping opioid-settlement funds.

In so doing, he ruled against Attorney General Kris Mayes and her effort to stop the raid on funds held by her office.

Hannah was appointed to the bench by then Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano, a political leader with whom Kris Mayes is well acquainted.

In 2002, Napolitano appointed Mayes to be press secretary of her campaign for governor. She later gave Mayes a senior role in her administration.

Democrat-appointed judge ruled against Mayes

In ruling against Mayes on opioid funds, Hannah explained that, had he been a policymaker, he would have “absolutely” been persuaded by the attorney general’s arguments, The Arizona Republic’s Stacey Barchenger reported.

But he is not a policymaker. He’s a judge. He followed the law.

“This money is subject to appropriation (by the Legislature),” he said. “That’s clear language.”

And so the Napolitano appointee ruled against the former Napolitano aide.

That’s how courts work.

Arizona Supreme Court knew abortion was hot

After the fall of Roe v. Wade, the states became the place where abortion law would be decided.

That meant the Arizona Legislature and its courts would have to work through a legal thicket. With Roe gone, Arizona had two laws on the book. Which, if any, do we follow?

The Arizona Supreme Court was petitioned to answer a piece of the puzzle:

Does our oldest abortion law — a Civil War-era near total ban on abortion — still stand?

If Arizona was going to do what every state must do post-Roe — determine what its abortion law will be — it first had to know what Arizona’s law is at this moment.

The judges who made this decision knew it would be explosive. They knew it was likely to be misinterpreted as an endorsement of abortion law crafted during the Civil War.

We know this, because they told us in their decision.

We’re just interpreting the law, justices said

The Arizona Supreme Court majority cautioned that “This case involves statutory interpretation — it does not rest on the justices’ morals or public policy views regarding abortion.”

So, the justices did what judges are tasked to do — they interpreted the law.

They found in a 4-2 ruling that the Arizona Legislature had not cleared the 1864 abortion law from the books. It remained in intact.

Supreme Court justice: Don’t dismantle our system now

Knowing just how volatile this issue was, Justice Ann Timmer took the extraordinary step of defending her colleagues in her dissent:

“The majority’s opinion today will undoubtedly be derided by many as result-oriented or a reflection of individual justices’ ideology. My dissenting opinion will probably spark similar criticism. That is the cross borne by all judges in controversial social-issue cases like this one. But nothing is further from the truth.

In upholding our oaths to follow the laws of this state, we simply disagree — vehemently — about what those laws mean.”

This is how courts are supposed to work

Following the ruling, Kris Mayes went to war. She called the decision “unconscionable,” an “affront to freedom.”

She said the decision would go down in history as a “stain on our state.”

She added, “It is one of the worst decisions in the history of the Arizona Supreme Court, if not the worst.”

And she vowed, “I will not prosecute anyone under this draconian law.”

A month later Mayes thanked the same court for granting her motion for a 90-day stay on enforcement of the 1864 abortion law.

“I am grateful,” wrote the attorney general.

That’s how courts work.

Phil Boas is an editorial columnist with The Arizona Republic. Email him at phil.boas@arizonarepublic.com. 

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Arizona is about to destroy its court system. Listen to judges first