Legal Plunder

What is Plunder?  Frederic Bastiat, in his book “The Law” said, “When a portion of wealth passes out of the hands of him who has acquired it, without his consent, and without compensation, to him who has not created it, whether by force or by artifice, I say that property is violated, that plunder is perpetrated.” 

If that is plunder, what is legal plunder?   Bastiat explains that ‘Legal Plunder’ occurs when the ‘law’ is used as an instrument of plunder!  Legal plunder is the worst kind of plunder because the plunder (ie wealth passing out of your hands without your consent or compensation) is enforced by governmental law.  Bastiat asserts legal plunder occurs for 2 reasons “Naked Greed” or “misguided philanthropy”.

The words “Legal Plunder” are offensive and I apologize for using these terms in the same sentence in speaking of the City of Mesa.  But I ask, has Legal Plunder occurred at the City of Mesa?

I will present 3 different situations where legal plunder may or may not have occurred.  You decide.

EXAMPLE 1: PMGAA

The Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport Authority (PMGAA) was created in 1993 in partnership with Apache Junction, Gila River Indian Community, Gilbert, Mesa, Phoenix and Town of Queen Creek. 

Between 1993 and January 2015, the Member agencies expended over $85 million predominately for Airport operations.   Was that money a gift or loan?  

The City of Mesa Council report for the Council meeting of 12 January 2015 says.

“PMGAA records all Member agencies contributions as loans payable.”

At the Council meeting of 12 January 2015 Mayor Giles said that “the airport is now at a point where it is generating revenue---.”  Regardless, the City Council authorized the City Manager to amend the agreement with PMGAA.

“-------- TO OFFICALLY RECHARACTERIZE THE MEMBERS LOANS TO PMGAA AS CUMULATIVE APPROPRIATIONS.” 

By the clever use of language, the $52.4 million the City of Mesa loaned to PMGAA was swept away and forgiven. No interest or principal has been repaid. 

17 January 2015, the Mesa Tribune carried an article written by Trevor Godfrey titled “Mesa Forgives Loans to Gateway” and provided this information:

“With interest, the amount Gateway would have repaid to Mesa totaled more than $70 million, and the total amount to all partners over $200 million”.

The City of Mesa continues to contribute (gift) well over $1 million per year to PMGAA.  It comes from the wallet of non-Mesa residents without their consent and given to a special interest group (private companies) under the guise of ‘Law’. 

Is it ‘Legal Plunder’?  You decide:

EXAMPLE 2: $1 LAND SALE

12/12/2016 Item 5-C on the City of Mesa Council Agenda authorized the City Manager to sign an agreement on behalf of the City of Mesa with a private developer to sell a City owned parcel of land for $1 provided he achieved approval for Federal subsidizing of a 5-story, 71 unit low income housing project.  The land was appraised for $380,591. 

The agenda item was approved over the Mayor’s objection because he felt adequate public notice had not been given nor sufficient time given to secure bids from as many developers as possible.

Would you consider it plunder if I sold a parcel of land you owned that was worth a considerable amount of money for $1?  If I cannot do that to you, is it legal plunder when the City Council sells land that we own as citizens for $1? Is it possible this council action is an example of ‘Naked Greed’ or misguided philantrophy? 

How many police and fire personnel could we have hired for $380,591?

EXAMPLE 3: SALES TAX INCREASE FOR EDUCATION

The last example I present for consideration is the determination of the City to raise taxes to build an ASU campus.  Here are some quotes from a 29 January 2017 East Valley Tribune article written by Jim Walsh:

Giles lamented the fact that he was unsuccessful “increasing the sales tax rate---creating $38 million in new revenue.”  While Mesa voters rejected a sales tax initiative that would have bolstered public safety and built an ASU campus downtown, Giles is re-doubling his efforts on both fronts.

In Giles opinion, Mesa’s high level of poverty is tied directly to a lower level of higher educational attainments.

“The best answer to poverty is education,” Giles said. From my prospective, ASU has never been off the plate. We are anxious to have more ASU in Mesa.”

In my opinion, the failure of Question 1 to pass last November was because the majority of voters living in Mesa sent the message---We do not want a sales tax increase to build an ASU Campus!   Free college education is not “Free”!  It is amazing how generous government can be with someone else’s money.

The estimated tax income generated if the sales tax (Question 1) were to have passed would have been $38 million per year.  But $38 million per year is not created out of thin air!  It comes from the disposable income of Mesa residents.  Since they will pay a $38 million increase in cost of products, they will by default pay more for less!  Is it legal plunder to take from families who struggle month to month to pay their utilities and to put food on the table to build more buildings down town that primarily benefit the builders, downtown merchants and big business (ASU)?   

Has Legal Plunder occurred at the City of Mesa?  You decide.  Will it occur in the future?  You decide!

ROBBED OF $380,591

12/12/2006 Item 5-C on the City of Mesa Council Agenda:   authorizes the City Manager to sign an agreement on behalf of the City of Mesa with Mesa Housing Associates LL, LLC; and MHA III LLC.  The following is a summary of the agreement.

1. The City will sell a 0.59 acre partial at a market value of $129,000 to Mesa Housing Associates II, LLC for a 3-story 24 unit apartment project. 

2. The City will sell a 63, 400 SF (1.45 acre) lot adjacent to #1 above for $1 provided the developer obtains Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) approval for a 5-story, 71 unit affordable senior apartment building (ie low income).  The developer has until June 29, 2018 to obtain LIHTC award and close escrow.  If he doesn’t achieve LIHTC approval, the developer will purchase the land for $380,591. 

#1 (Market Rate Parcel) above is not of much concern to me because it simply is following a successful pattern of a recently constructed projects and should benefit the City.

However, #2 was a big concern to me.  Why?

• Low Income Housing is not needed in this part of town
• It makes no sense to sell land worth $380,591 for $1.  The City Council needs to learn a basic law of economics = Buy Low, Sell high!!  not the other way around.
• Lack of Transparency.  The Council did not go through a reasonable bidding or public comment phase.

The following were the Players in the game to make this decision:

DEVELOPER:  The developer is in the game for one purpose---to make money.  I do not fault him for that and I hope he continues to be a successful businessman.  In this particular case he has proven he can build a quality product that is successful---which he has completed right next door to this property.  There is some negative press about this developer in the Tempe News where there were some pretty shady things going on in the City of Tempe on an unrelated project, but I do not have the facts and will not pass along what I do not know.  If someone wants to research it, they can easily enough.  The developer would be crazy to not take a chance on this property if he can get it for $1 with Federal subsidies to boot.  This is a sweet deal for the Developer at Tax payer expense.  There is no doubt the Developer has nurtured the City Staff and City Council to ensure the project passes.  It would be interesting to know which Council members received campaign donations from the Developer.

CITY OF MESA STAFF:  If you read the City staff report you will find the staff supports this project and even make the statement in Section L of the “Amended and Restated Development Agreement” that this project is “in the vital and best interest of the City and the health, safety and welfare of the residents”.   It makes no sense to me why the staff would say this project is "vital" or has anything to do with health and safety of the community.  You could argue that those who live in the low income housing have increased welfare, but it seems strange the staff thinks the project is so vital.  It would have been more 'vital' to sale the land for market value and use the money for Police and Fire personnel that did not pass in the recent Question 1.  It makes me wonder what was going on behind the scenes.

CITY COUNCIL: 6 of the council members were present at the council meeting.  In the end only Mayor Giles voted against the item.  Councilmen Luna, Kavanaugh, Finter, Thompson and Richins voted for the item.  Even though there were many people who spoke passionately against the issue, Councilmen Luna and Kavanuagh didn't think it important to explain their vote to the public.  I respect and appreciate all of the Councilmen.  Each of them are good men and I have no doubt have a sincere interest in the City.  They are intelligent and successful in their careers.  So it seems very strange to me indeed why they would vote to give a valuable piece of land away for $1.  I wish I really understood the forces acting behind the scene to make them choose this option.  I am sure that if any one of them had personal title to this piece of land and were asked to give it away for $1, not one of them would do it!

PUBLIC: 2 people spoke in favor--the Developer and a businessman next door who good see increased income if the item passed.  8 members of the public spoke against it.  Nearly every one expressed concern about having more low income housing in the area and some mentioned the land giveaway. Anyone familiar with Mesa recognizes that the West side of Mesa is deteriorating because it is the older part of Town.  Residents believe that more low income housing will simply turn downtown Mesa into a 'destination site' for welfare recipients and will continue to devalue property.

RANDOM QUESTIONS:
When the City posted these parcels to receive bids from Developers, it was for only a few days---really not adequate time to test the market.  Why?

There was no 'Public Comment' phase during the process that lasted nearly a year.  The item was on the Consent agenda and would have passed without Public Awareness.  Why?

Why is the price per SF for the Affordable project nearly $1 greater than the price set on the Market rate land?  It isn't a lot of money, but it appears there was a conscious effort to increase the value of the land the City was giving away.  Why?

The price on the land was fixed early 2016 and remains fixed until November 2017.  Why is there no allowance for adjustment of price given such a long period before close of escrow?

I and a few friends only had 2 days to research this agenda item and prepare a rebuttal, but we did our best.  We prepared fliers and got them out to people, I and Arizona Senator David Farnsworth, District 16, visited with Council Kevin Thompson before the meeting to try to convince him to vote ‘NO’.

I attended the Council study session and requested item 5-C be removed from the Consent agenda.  Then I and about 8 people spoke during the Council meeting.

Here is a video of me speaking.  CLICK HERE

The right thing for the Council to have done is to vote 'NO' on the item which would have effectively killed the deal.  The City could then begin the process again with a sufficient time to receive more competitive bids and to receive public comments or could have just let the land sit until a more opportune time.  There is no pressing need to give away $380,591!

In the end, Mayor Giles voted ‘NO’ and Councilmen Thompson, Luna, Kavanaugh, Finter and Richins all voted ‘YES’.  

As a result the residents of Mesa were robbed of $380,591.

The 6 members of the council who made this decision are like the Team on a basketball court.  They are the 'players'.  I am confident that none of them would have given this land away for $1 if it had been their personal land.  So I ask myself, these are the players, but who is the coach calling the shots or at least who is really in control of the decisions that are being made on the playing field?

I am not happy about the result.  But I am happy for the opportunity to understand better how the council thinks, to develop more relationships, establish additional credibility and to have the opportunity to work with some of my friends learning how to magnify the power of our Civic Authority!  So for me, I consider the activity a great success and had a lot of fun doing it!

Please leave comments on this blog!  

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

Hello Fellow Americans!

Do you feel you need "Election Recovery Classes" following the recent election?

Do you feel your vote for the President and Vice-President did not really count for anything?

Are you frustrated with the Electoral College Process?

The Founding Fathers established the Electoral College process as the preferred method to elect the President and Vice President.  Read about it in Article II Section 1 of the Constitution.

THE PROBLEM:   There is a movement under way to effectively change the Electoral process through an interstate compact that throws all the Electoral votes from the states who sign the compact to the President who receives a majority vote throughout the entire country.  This movement is called the NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE (NPV).  or the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

You can read all about what the proponents have to say about it at this site:

NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE-

I personally feel NPV is a bad idea.  The following provides the main talking points from the above web site of the proponents and my counter to those arguments:

1.  NPV Proponents Argument #1: NPV is a Constitutionally Conservative Approach; State winner-take-all laws are State laws, not part of the constitution and were never debated by Constitutional Convention or mentioned in the Federalist Papers.

My Counter #1:  I really hate it when people don't tell the truth.  NPV was in fact debated during the Constitutional Convention and rejected.   During the CC, the Founding Fathers discussed 3 ideas for selecting the president:  1.  Congress select President    2.  State Legislatures select president   3.  Direct popular vote   4.  Finally, the Committee of Eleven came up with the idea of the Electoral College  :  Art II Section I  and empowered the States not the popular vote to guarantee a Republican form of government: Art IV Section 4  The United States of America is a Republic (review your Pledge of Allegiance!).  A Democracy always implodes on itself eventually.

My Counter #2:  Alexander Hamilton explained the reasons to prefer the Electoral College over a NPV in Federalist Paper #68  Federalist Paper #68--

My Counter #3:  We have used the Electoral College process for over 200 years.  To change it now is neither conservative nor is it in principal-- Constitutional.  Two Centuries have encouraged coalition building, given a voice to big and small states alike, and discouraged voter fraud.  NPV proponents think they are smarter than 200 years of a successful system!

My Counter #4:  A NPV will open the door for much greater possibilities for voter fraud with its resultant law suits, protests and riots.  That is far from a 'conservative' approach!

2.  NPV Proponent Argument #2:    NPV is a State Based system; States remain in control.

My Counter #1:   NPV is not State Based by the very definition of NPV.  The States give up their Sovereignty when they sign this agreement.  They no longer can decide how their Electors vote since the Electors are bound by the Compact with other States to cast their votes according to the NPV regardless of how their State popular vote decided.  What happens in another State can totally reverse the will of the people in the State.  I believe there will be riots in that State whose Electoral votes are cast different than their popular vote.  Why stir up contention if the current system is working fine? 

My Counter #2:     Individual states set their own rules as to who can vote,  such as early elections, etc, but the State no longer controls how their State Electoral votes are cast.

My Counter #3:   Under NPV, the election code in any given state will always effect the election results in another State because codes are very different from one State to another (early voting, registering to vote, qualifying to register, felon voting, recounts).  Each of these differences is an opportunity for lawsuits claiming unfair treatment.  The list of possible complaints is endless.

My Counter #4:  The small less populated States will never have much influence against a blockade of populous States who have signed the NPV agreement.  Therefore, small States will end up with absolutely no control.

3. NPV Proponent Argument #3: NPV is not changing the Constitution

My Counter #1: Technically none of the 'words' of the Constitution are being changed, but in reality, NPV is an 'end-run' around the Constitution to effectively put in place something even worse then the National Popular Vote considered by the Founding Fathers.  If enough States sign the NPV agreement to total 270 Electoral Votes, then it doesn't matter what the rest of the States think.  They will have no say on whether such a process is put into place or not.  The reality is that if a NPV were made a matter of a Constitutional Amendment, it is highly unlikely that it would pass by the required 3/4's of the States and the Proponents of NPV know it.  What they are doing is sneaky underhanded politics.

My Counter #2: The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) has been signed by 11 States all of which are "blue states" for a total of 165 Electoral Votes.  There are plenty of legal opinions stating that "Congress would have to approve the NPVIC before it could go into effect. Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution states that: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power." See wikipedia:  NPVIC--

 NPV is a liberal approach which guarantees the President will always be elected by densely populated Cities and States.  If NPV had been in place, Al Gore would have been president instead of Bush and Hillary Clinton would have been president instead of Trump.  NPV is neither Constitutional nor Conservative.

NPV would stir up mountains of contention which we do not need right now.  There is no compelling reason to change how we have been doing things successfully for over 200 years, so why take a chance on this liberal idea?  If it ain't broke, don't fix it!  A NPV, would theoretically require recounts in EVERY PRECINCT IN EVERY STATE, not just selected precincts in selected states. So principles and Constitution aside, from a pragmatic level, this would be chaos well beyond what we are seeing this year.

WHY A POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IS A BAD THING


This is an interesting News Report:           FOX NEWS ON NPV


What can you do to stop NPV?  By convincing your representatives at the State level to reject it!

1.  Find out who your State Senate and House Representatives are.  In Arizona, follow this link:

State of Arizona Legislature

2.  Email them  a simple message: Click on this link to get a downloadable word document you can customize:                                        Letter to your Legislator

__________________________________________________________

Did you send a letter or email to your representative?  Please make a comment on this post if I have moved you to action.
_______________________________________________________________
I invite you to learn more about the Center for Self-Governance at this link.  Sign up for their Level 1 class or ask me where the next class is.

Center for Self-Governance

Arrested!

The following is a true story!

My partner and I walked into a fancy law firm in down town Mesa and asked to see the supervisor of the business.  The supervisor seeing the police uniform and gun sensed things were not exactly right and invited my partner and I into her office.  We then told her we were there to arrest one of her employees.  Not wanting to make a scene, she asked us to wait just out the front door.  We obliged and were standing outside the door when a nice looking well dress woman in high heels came outside and asked what was going on.  

You should have seen the look of shock on her face when we told her we were there to arrest her! My partner explained she had failed to appear in court on an issue dealing with domestic violence.  She was crying explaining how she had endured abuse and now she was being arrested!  How could that be?!  I was feeling sympathetic to her cause and thinking maybe we needed to go reason with the judge, but my partner kindly explained our duty was to follow the orders of the judge and asked her to come with us peacefully.

He handcuffed her, put her in the police van and we hauled her off to court.  We stayed with her through the process.  She saw the judge, was ordered to pay some money and renew her address with MVD and then my partner and I took her back to work.

Next my partner and I rushed off to the scene of a couple fighting in the parking lot of a Jack in the Box at Main and Val Vista.  They were in an argument what to do next after they had been sitting in their car and 20 random young men came up with baseball bats and broke all the windows in their car while they were sitting in the parking lot!  There was indeed glass everywhere.  We checked their auto registration and found the auto to have an expired registration.  Now that the auto had broken glass and no registration they could not legally drive the car anywhere.  My partner interviewed them some more.  We couldn't really do much so advised them to get someone to help move their car.  My partner said this was all part of a drug war and they showed all the signs of being druggies.  There wasn't any more we could do, so left.

Next my partner and I made a high speed chase trying to catch up to a car we thought was being driven by a man who had a $300,000 reward on his head.  When the car pulled into a drive way and he got out, it wasn't our man, so we smiled and waved and drove on to our next adventure.

This time we went to a woman's house who had graffiti on her garage door and sidewalk.  This poor woman had been harassed for the last 4 years with phone calls, messages, emails with lewd pictures and messages, entry into her home, threats to family and friends, etc.  While there the bad guy actually called her several times.  We were recording the conversation between the woman and the bad guy without the bad guy knowing.  Finally my partner broke into the conversation and talked to the bad guy and told him to leave her alone.  Then we took the woman to the City Court with a stack of emails she had received over the years and helped her filed an order of protection against the bad guy.  Because of my partner's diligence and persistence, this is the first time this woman has had the courage to do something solid to stand up against evil.

Wow!  What a day.  We worked all day and didn't even have time for lunch.  At the end of the day a message had come across the computer saying the City was at "Critical Service Levels" and there was a general call for officers to work another 6 hours = 16 hour day.  I was too tired, so I went home.

So was accomplished my assignment with the Mesa Leadership Class to have a 'ride-along' with a City of Mesa Police Officer.  I don't want the job.

My take away from this experience:

1. I have a new respect for the service being provided by our Police officers.  I find them to be a little big-headed, but it looks like a certain personality is really needed for this type job.  The Police are in harms way every minute of the day and have to deal with an element of society that moves about around us that the rest of us fear and want nothing to do with.
2. I found this officer to be and I believe most officers are compassionate and really do want to help people, but they must be vigilant and ready for action at any moment.
3. I feel stronger than ever that Question 1 the City of Mesa is pushing purportedly to fund Police and Fire is a big smoke screen.  The City Council has neglected the Police department for a long time, yet they always have money to do other less important projects.  Really Question is intended to pump money into the general fund for pet projects down town.  There is no guarantee the Police and Fire will get anything and the funds collected will be collected forever and used for whatever pet projects a Politically minded Mayor wants as his legacy. 
4. If you really care about Police and Fire, vote no on Question 1.  Tell the council to analyze the budget they do have, get rid of the fluff and then if necessary propose the Question again with just Police and Fire and I would vote for it.

Arizona Brain Food and Question 1

I hope I have convinced all City of Mesa residents to vote 'NO' on Question 1.

Here is my analysis:  QUESTION 1: VOTE 'NO'

Mayor Giles, Mesa, is the biggest proponent of Question 1.  He appears in meetings all over the place, has call-in webinars, and recorded messages that come over the phone.

I was surprised to see that I am captured on the City of Mesa Facebook page talking to Mayor Giles discussing Question 1 as we were packing bags for Arizona Brain Food.    

VIDEO WITH MAYOR GILES AND WALLACE

Please vote 'NO'.  The Mayor is not telling the whole story.

VOTE 'NO'

Trick or Trump

TRICK OR TRUMP and the SCARIEST DAY OF THE YEAR

I received several comments on my last post "Who to Vote for" which prompted me to prepare a new post about the Presidential Race.

First, let me say I do not intend to stir up hard feelings among my friends and people I respect.  Let us express our opinions respectfully and thoughtfully.  The Presidential race is a very important one, but not more important than my family and friends.  Election Day 2016 is truly the Scariest Day of the Year!  

One commenter addressed my particular personal concerns about the Presidential race that I want to share and its impact on me.

I present those reasons as the 'Trick or 'Trump' of election day, the scariest day of the year.

   1. Donald Trump will appoint a conservative to the supreme court.

       Trick. Hillary will appoint a liberal judge. Will Trump really appoint a conservative to the supreme court?  He is so unpredictable you cannot be sure about that.  Trump's condemnation of a sitting Judge simply because of his Spanish heritage suggests Trump doesn't understand what it takes to be a good judge and that Trump will base his judgment on petty issues.   

  2. We need a Republican in the White House.

      Trick.   I agree it would be of tremendous value to have a Republican president with a Republican controlled House and Senate.  The problem is Trump is not a true conservative or a real Republican.  He was a Democrat from 2001 to 2008 and it was difficult to tell what he was prior to that.  Now during the most important race of my life time he has disavowed the Republican Party.  Worse, Trump is so destructive to the Republican Party that he will likely be a cause of the Republicans losing seats in Congress and in state elections. Republican candidates are distancing themselves from Trump because it weakens their chance for election or re-election.  What will the situation be after a few years of Trump in the White House - will the Republican party be stronger or weaker or even exist?  Will Congress be more Republican or less?  Will he be inclined to work with the Republican leadership in Congress whom he now treats as enemies or is he determined to do just his own thing?  

  3.  Trump is the only chance to beat Hillary Clinton.

       Trick.  Now this is the ONLY reason I would vote for Trump, but Trump has disrupted the political landscape within the Republican party so bad that the now splintered Republican party doesn't stand a chance to beat Clinton, in my opinion!  Every time Trump opens his mouth he widens the gap and fractures the Republican party further.  Vice President nominee, Pence can't even defend Trump.  The media doesn't make this stuff up.  I have seen Trump time and time again put his foot in his mouth.

  4. Trump will make America great again.

      Trick.  He has repeatedly demonstrated an inclination to lie, ignore facts and do whatever is best for "Trump" and Trump alone.  In my opinion he doesn't understand the Constitution and has a willingness and inclination to ignore it.  Many political analysist say his policies have the potential to be more destructive than Hillary's policies. His actual words and lack of intelligent logic do not engender confidence in his abilities on the world stage or in America.  To me he is divisive and lacking in serious judgment.  

Trump or Trick?  I want neither.

I reveal who I will vot for in this post:

 WHO I WILL VOTE FOR

We have a Democracy only 1 day out of the year.  We have a Republic 365 days out of the year.  The problem is that most of us do not have a clue what it means to have a Republic or how to exercise our Civic Authority.  

If you truly want to make a difference in America, find where the Center for Self-Governance is teaching their classes.  Start with Level 1 and end with Level 5 and you will be part of a powerful Team who through development of game plans can and are making a true difference in America.

Check it out here:  CENTER FOR SELF GOVERNANCE

At least watch the videos found on NATIONAL CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL STUDIES.

AZ Judges: Keep them or Dump Them?

In the past I have never known what to do about the question of Judges, so I would just blindly marked them.  But we can do better than that!

AZ JUDICIAL ORGANIZATION

The Arizona Supreme Court is the highest court in Arizona. The court currently consists of one chief justice, a vice chief justice, and three associate justices. Justices are appointed by the governor from a list compiled by a bi-partisan commission. The justices are re-elected after an initial two-year term following their appointment. Subsequent re-elections occur every six years. 

The Arizona Court of Appeals, further divided into two divisions, is the intermediate court in the state. Division One, based in Phoenix, consists of 16 judges, and has jurisdiction in the western and northern regions of the state, along with the greater Phoenix area. Division Two is based in Tucson and has six judges.

Each county of Arizona has a Superior Court, which is a trial court of general jurisdiction. The size and organization of individual superior courts are varied and generally depend upon the size of the particular county

HOW ARE JUDGES SELECTED?
SUPREME COURT
There are five justices on the Arizona Supreme Court, each appointed by the governor from a list of names compiled by the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments. The initial term of a new justice is at least two years, after which the justice stands for retention in an uncontested yes-no election. Subsequent terms last six years
COURT OF APPEALS
There are 23 judges on the Arizona Court of Appeals, each appointed in an identical fashion to those of the Arizona Supreme Court (although with different job qualifications, as seen below). Like supreme court justices, court of appeals judges serve initial terms of at least two years and subsequent terms of six years
SUPERIOR COURTS
The 174 judges of the Arizona Superior Court are selected in one of two ways:

• In counties with a population exceeding 250,000, judges are selected through the merit selection method. (OnlyPima, Pinal and Maricopa counties currently subscribe to this method, though the constitution provides for other counties to adopt merit selection through ballot initiative). After appointment, judges serve for two years and then must run in a yes-no retention election in the next general election. If retained, judges will go on to serve a four-year term.^[1]
• In the state's other 13 counties, judges run in partisan primaries followed by nonpartisan general elections. Interim vacancies are filled through gubernatorial appointment, and newly appointed judges must run in the next general electio

HOW DO WE DETERMINE WHETHER TO KEEP A JUDGE OR NOT?

The first way to be an informed voter is to visit JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW

Watch this video on VOTING FOR JUDGES

The "2016 General Election Publicity Phamplet" also provides some pretty good information and a score for all of the judges.  See page 94

Since I am in Maricopa County, I can see how all of the judges performance reviews at this location:    MARICOPA COUNTY JUDICIAL REVIEW

You can click on each of the judges listed to get a more detailed report of their judicial review.

MY OPINION
Based on my own personal assessment, I am voting YES on all the judges except: Garcia, Jeanne M and  Gentry, Jo Lynn