(The Center Square) – With 73% of Arizona precincts reporting, Proposition 137 will not come to a vote, with only 21.61% of voters voting in favor of it Tuesday.

Proposition 137 would have ended the current four- and six-year term limits for trial and appeals court judges and replaced it with an unlimited term as long as they maintained “good conduct.”

“Proposition 137 would amend the Arizona Constitution to provide that judges and justices appointed through the merit selection process would no longer be subject to a fixed term of four or six years and an automatic retention vote,” reads -on in legislative analysis. “To the contrary, Proposition 137 provides that judges and justices who have not reached the mandatory retirement age will hold office subject to good conduct.”

Under the proposed amendment, bad behavior contributing to a retention vote includes final conviction for a criminal offense, final conviction for a crime involving fraud or dishonesty, initiation of personal bankruptcy proceedings, seizure of a mortgage or if the The majority of the members of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission believe that the judge or judge does not meet the standards of judicial performance.

“The JPR Commission would evaluate each judge and judge at least once every four years,” the legislative analysis reads. “The membership of the JPR Commission would be expanded to include one member appointed by a majority of the Arizona House of Representatives and one member appointed by a majority of the Arizona State Senate.”

Additionally, the commission would be required to investigate a judge or justice at the request of a state lawmaker.

Supporters of this measure put forward two main arguments: shorter election nights and ethical checks on judges.

“In Maricopa County, more than fifty people are running for retention,” read a statement from Prescott resident Connie Martin, sponsored by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. “Who are these people? Does anyone really know? Of course not. None of us do. There are so many, in fact, that it is possible that many bad judges are hiding among the good ones. That’s probably why none of them ever lose. This proposal would ensure that the vote would be much shorter. It would also ensure that the worst judges are selected to appear on the ballot. If passed, it will make elections less expensive, a shorter ballot, fewer errors in counting ballots (which will ensure we get a faster result on Election Day!) and distinguish judges who did a terrible job.

However, those against Proposition 137 argue that simply putting unethical judges on the ballot disempowers voters, noting that furthermore, Proposition 137 is retroactive, which means that if it is voted on, it will void all votes. on the judge candidates this electoral cycle.

“This measure allows Arizona judges to hold their positions until they retire at age 70, without the public oversight Arizonans currently enjoy,” Dean Martin, a Phoenix resident, said in a statement. “From now on, every 6 years, judges are faced with retention elections. Judges who make decisions contrary to the majority opinion of Arizonians may be held accountable by the will of the voters and not be retained. We have had this right for over 50 years and it plays an important role in our democracy because it allows us to vote for judges who we know will work for justice in Arizona and not those who support a partisan political agenda .