Arizona Voters Keep Libertarian Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick
He’ll be around to protect our freedom for a few more years.

Control of the presidency and Congress weren't the only important matters on the ballot this week. In Arizona, voters chose to keep Clint Bolick, a prominent libertarian legal mind, on the state's Supreme Court. Arizona judges face periodic retention elections which are usually routine matters, rarely resulting in anybody losing their seat. This year, though, Bolick and another justice were targeted after a controversial abortion decision; despite the campaign against them, both cruised to victory.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
Co-Founder of the Institute for Justice
Bolick is probably best known beyond Arizona as the co-founder, with the late Chip Mellor, of the Institute for Justice (I.J.) in 1991. The organization's timeline notes that it started small, "with Chip Mellor, Clint Bolick, Scott Bullock, and two other staff members."
"When Chip and Clint created the Institute for Justice in 1991, their most ambitious goal was to resurrect the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause as the primary source of protection for individual rights against state and local governments—including particularly the right of occupational freedom," Clark Neily, a former IJ staffer, wrote for the Cato Institute after Mellor passed away last month.
Earlier in Bolick's career, I briefly corresponded with him (not that I think Bolick remembers) after reading his 1990 book, Unfinished Business: A Civil Rights Strategy for America's Third Century. That book helped confirm my decision to go to law school and the path I wanted to pursue as an attorney.
Through no fault of Bolick's, I dropped out of law school in favor of other pursuits, ultimately culminating in what I'm doing now. Bolick himself moved on from I.J. to serve as president and general counsel of the Alliance for School Choice, where he litigated on behalf of education freedom.
In 2007, Bolick joined Arizona's Goldwater Institute, where he headed up its litigation efforts. "Bolick has successfully won landmark precedents defending school choice, freedom of enterprise, private property rights and challenging corporate subsidies and racial classifications," according to a 2014 profile by Townhall's Rachel Alexander.
In 2016, Bolick told Reason's Damon Root that his favorite case was a lawsuit that inspired first Texas, and then Congress, to pass "legislation making it illegal for public entities to discriminate in adoption placement" with a particular emphasis on barring racial considerations.
An Immediate Target on the Arizona Supreme Court
That year, Republican Doug Ducey, Arizona's then-governor, appointed Bolick to the state Supreme Court, He became the first registered Independent on that body, and almost certainly the first to sport a scorpion tattoo on his hand, celebrating a victory in a tattoo studio's free speech case. The court's caseload spans everything from mundane legal matters to First Amendment issues and eminent domain. Bolick compiles his decisions, whether majorities, concurrences, or dissents, online for easy perusal.
"I am especially passionate about our state constitution and have authored opinions vindicating its speech and privacy guarantees, among others," he wrote in the Arizona Republic last summer.
Arizona requires judges to go through periodic retention elections, two years after they're appointed, and then every six years thereafter. As an associate justice with a history of libertarian legal positions, Bolick was immediately targeted by hostile groups. The National Education Association wanted him removed from the court because of his support for school choice. He survived his first retention election in 2018 with 71 percent of the vote.
A Controversial Abortion Decision
This year, Bolick and Justice Kathryn King, who is up for her first retention election, were targeted for their rulings in a hotly contested abortion case. As the U.S. Supreme Court returned the issue of abortion to the states in the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, state lawmakers scrambled to pass laws either protecting or restricting access to the procedure.
Shortly before Dobbs, Arizona adopted legislation allowing abortions up to 15 weeks, and afterwards only in the case of medical emergency. But the state already had a law on the books, dating back to 1864 in territorial days, that was much more restrictive. It was effectively suspended during the Roe era, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruling shielded abortion from restrictions, but revived by Dobbs. The state Supreme Court considered if the 2022 law was written so that it superseded the 1864 law. The majority opinion, which Bolick and King joined, ruled that the more recent law did not repeal the earlier one.
It wasn't a policy decision, but a question of whether lawmakers had competently drafted their legislation. They hadn't.
"In a poignant historical moment, my legislator wife immediately joined the effort to overturn our ruling," Bolick noted in that Arizona Republic piece, referring to his wife Shawnna, a state senator. "That caused no marital disharmony because she is a policymaker and I am not."
But a lot of people are more interested in outcomes than they are in how those outcomes are achieved—and never mind that the legislature fixed its mistake by repealing the territorial-era law. Abortions were further protected in this week's election when Arizona voters passed Proposition 139, amending the state Constitution to specify that abortion is a fundamental right and permitted up to fetal viability. The Arizona Secretary of State's vote count currently has Proposition 139 passing by 61 percent to 39 percent.
Victory With the Voters
The same count has Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick retaining his seat by 58 percent to 42 percent (King won by a similar margin).
A ballot measure that would have done away with retention elections, Prop. 137, was overwhelmingly defeated, 77 percent to 23 percent.
"Dear friends, I am honored to have the opportunity to serve on the USA's best state supreme court for another three years," Bolick responded to the results on Facebook. "I am beyond grateful for your votes, your support, and your prayers. This was so important to win to preserve an independent judiciary in AZ, and it appears we did so decisively. I couldn't have better friends and colleagues!!"
Arizona mandatory retirement age for judges is 70, so Bolick can serve until 2027 and won't face any more retention elections. That means Arizona's libertarian Supreme Court justice will be with us for a few years more. The state's residents can only hope that he'll be replaced by somebody with a comparable track record of fighting for liberty.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
AZ also voted to crackdown on human trafficking. MAPedo types raged.
Do you agree with the new Arizona referendum that was just passed?
I agree with arresting, prosecuting, and imprisoning human traffickers. I understand how NAMBLA MAPedo types rage against such activities.
I’m not in AZ, a human trafficker, or a MAPedo.
I agree with arresting, prosecuting, and imprisoning human traffickers.
I agree with this, in principle. However, as was discussed earlier, the Arizona law in question defines “human trafficking” in an overly broad manner.
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03212.htm
In this law, “human trafficking” includes:
And with the new Arizona referendum that was passed, this crime now has a mandatory life sentence as punishment.
So one could certainly argue that a person who incidentally facilitates minors engaging in prostitution ought to be guilty of something, but I think it goes too far to demand life in prison.
This is not defending human trafficking, this is objecting to unjust punishments for crimes.
Is incidentally the mental gymnastics that MAPedo types use to justify to themselves their MAPedo behavior is acceptable when they modify language to attempt to provide plausible deniability such as prostitutes using “roses” instead of “dollars”?
No, "incidentally" means individuals who bear less culpability for a crime than those who were more directly involved. I don't think all should be treated the same and all should be thrown in jail for life. Do you?
You just knowing gave the illegal alien boy a ride to a prostitution gig and paid in roses so totes ok? Plausible deniability would be the stains on your shirt being from Arby’s, Pizza Hut, and Burger King.
8. Refers to money. Prostitution is selling sex for money, whereas exchanging it for political favors from Trump or his pal who hanged himself with a paper napkin is perfectly legal rent-seeking. By continuing the moral work of Our Lord Jesus Caucus and whipping those money-grubbing Jyooz out of the God's 'Murrican temple, money could be abolished and prostitution cease to exist. The U.S. Mint, like the Fed, is enabling prostitution and hence all manner of trafficking--according to Christian Mystical Altruism™
Hank, you can legally exchange money for therapy or to refill your prescriptions.
Man you missed off the pro pedo wing of the liberaltarians this morning.
You mean Nobartium? He is not here. Nobartium is the one who has said that age of consent laws are arbitrary and therefore not libertarian.
But this is just bad faith trolling. Since you advocate for fair treatment for Jan. 6 rioters, does that make you "pro-insurrection" or "pro-rioting"? Of course not.
Civil trespass ≠ pedophiling
I believe Jesse has stated that the few that caused damage on J6 should be prosecuted for that. People peacefully protesting being punished by the system not so much.
Vandalism ≠ pedophiling
I know, interrupting the coronation of Joe “15M magic votes” Biden >>>> a child having sex with an adult
Congratulations on not understanding that I am not a libertarian, nor understanding that it is base libertarianism which leads us to conclude the age of consent isn't consistent with the ideology.
You have indeed been pissed off.
He survived his first retention election in 2018 with 71 percent of the vote.
LOL. So you're saying it was close?
It wasn't a policy decision, but a question of whether lawmakers had competently drafted their legislation. They hadn't.
"In a poignant historical moment, my legislator wife immediately joined the effort to overturn our ruling," Bolick noted in that Arizona Republic piece, referring to his wife Shawnna, a state senator. "That caused no marital disharmony because she is a policymaker and I am not."
I think this is a real good test of a competent jurist. Will they decide a case in the correct way according to the text of the law and the Constitution, even if they disagree with the policy implications of doing so? It is too easy for people of all types to rationalize to themselves via mental gymnastics why a case should be decided in a particular way based on the outcomes, not based on the text of the law. Glad to see Clint Bolick didn't do that here.
"Arizona mandatory retirement age for judges is 70..."
I wish the same were true of POTUS-Emperors, Congress-Slimes, and Scamenators at the fed-up-with-them Fed level! Airline pilots have to retire at ? 64 or 65, so why not these scumbags ass well?
You would have lost joe many years ago.
I lost Joe many years ago... He is LOST to me! I even cut him (the SHILL and the SWILL!) out of my will!
Entirely too much pandering and socialism for me... And the same is true of Dear Leader TrumpfenFarter-Fuhrer! (I cut Emperor Trump out of my will ass well.)
Ackshully, it was the scumbags on the Libertarian and Democratic Platform Committees who helped Trump appoint sitting Suprema Corte justices-for-life. THEY get to say what the law says. Those sojers-at-Armageddon gleefully watched the rights-respecting lady judge--born six weeks after Hitler made Chancellor--leave them an opening to Christianize the Law of the Land. "I came not to send peace but a sword. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." Now you know who to thank.
Arizona judges appear the ballot every term ending with a ballot question “should thus judge be retained.” This year there were like 9 up for reapproval. Historically they all pass. I can’t recall one judge not retained through voting.
I vote no on all them every year. But it has been a completely useless process. They all get retained. Most Arizona voters don't know anything about AG, sos, let alone the records of the judges.
True, but it’s a good thing the ability to toss them is available.
If bad enough to cause voters to know their name, legislature probably has cover to impeach.
I'm sure after the Soros DA losses, he will start funding no votes against judges he dislikes. So system is ripe for abuse.
So you are opposed to retention elections for judges?
So you voted no on an actual libertarian justice. Figures.
He'll vote for a Democrat before he'll vote for a libertarian.
Another idiot that doesn't have a team tries to join in on an idiotic gotcha from his team mate. Lol.
In fairness, I think Jesse is saying that he is opposed to the whole idea of retention election for judges. Which is a perfectly defensible position to take, but it is strange coming from a populist-sympathizing guy like Jesse.
Hey Mike. Welcome back from outing yourself. Again. I vote no on all judges. As I don’t do research on their cases. Having around 12 a year is a broken process. Votes from ignorance, as yours and jeffs are, are not good votes.
But nice try at an idiotic gotcha. Congrats buddy!
Have you picked up a libertarian book yet?
Mike the Sea Lion is a coloring book that helps children understand the transition process.
Arizona witch burners are certain to try to revive a 1275 law allowing Agents of God to torture physicians accused of helping witches engage in birth control--strictly in order to induce them to confess in furtherance of divine justice, of course. Opposition can thus be put to the torch for obstructing divine justice--like in Ceausescu's Romania.
It’s a simple matter of dunking them in water. If they drown, they were innocent..
At least they had a chance to prove innocence unlike those evil J6ers.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14057903/Trump-revenge-list-sworn-enemies-prison-second-term.html
Trump has sworn he’ll get revenge on a long list of enemies.. so who will be first in the firing line?
In the firing line, or in front of the firing squad?
Lol. You’ll even repeat the firing squad lie. Holy fuck psarc.
But totally not broken or a Democrat.
You're upset that deep state actors who abuses their powers will be.... fired. Think about that. God damn man.
But justice is not the same as revenge.
If Trump wants to pursue justice against individuals who may have broken the law, then I don't think anyone here would complain, as long as his pursuit is even-handed. But if he is just going to target the people that he thinks wronged him, then that is when it's no longer justice, but revenge. And if he uses the law as his vehicle to seek revenge, then I think that is what your team would label 'lawfare'.
Trump's actual words were "I am your retribution" and retribution is defined as "punishment inflicted on someone as vengeance for a wrong or criminal act."
Jesse knows full well what Trump plans to do, and he'll be right there defending it saying "But mommy, they did it first! That makes it ok!"
Firing squads!!!!
I do know his plans. Just posted it in the roundup. He has said more than one sentence you picked up from MSNBC. Lol.
Even YOUR article says he will fire them psarc. Did you read YOUR article?
God damn you clowns.
Defending state abuses against your enemies. It is amazing.
Trump made a deal with the Mises Caucus to appoint some libertarians if they supported him. The MC leaders held up their end of the bargain by sabotaging their own nominee, fundraising for Trump (via RFK) and finally, in the last few days outright endorsing him.
In the unlikely event that Trump even remembers the deal, he could fulfill his end of the bargain by appointing either Don Willett or Clint Bolick to the SC.
So I watched the first part of the Joe Rogan interview with Dave Smith. Dave said that he was rooting for Trump so hard on election night. Sure didn't sound like Dave "reluctantly and strategically" voted for Trump. Honestly, I struggle to see how the Dave Smith/Mises Caucus wing of the Libertarian Party meaningfully differs from the Trump Republican Party. Dave was more critical of Netanyahu than typical Trump Republicans, and Dave seems less willing to buy into the obvious Team Red bullshit that is circulating out there (i.e. "hacked election machines from Venezuela"). But other than that, they seem to be almost the same.
At one point Dave called Trump a war criminal, but now he is rooting for him?
I struggle to see how the Dave Smith/Mises Caucus wing of the Libertarian Party meaningfully differs from the Trump Republican Party
That's because you're a die-hard leftist and lack the ability to think a single thought your masters didn't put in your head.
Gods above, the bulk of your post is just regurgitated Harris campaign propaganda.
Chase sabotaged himself. Along with the rest of the other Democrat anti MC libertarian cosplayers you pal around with Mike.
Yeah, why couldn't Chase force the national LP to support him?
Explain how you think that could occur.
Chase could ONLY do that shit if he STRONGLY advocated political violence!!!
HANG MIKE PENCE, Chase! Get with These New Times of Der Dear Leader TrumpfenFarter-Fuhrer!!!!
(This is the NEW LiberTARTianism according to sore-in-the-cunt CuntSoreVaTurds!!!!)
Sadly, we apparently also voted to remove control of judges from the electorate to the state government by eliminating elections once a judge is on the bench - now as long as the governor thinks 'they do a good job' they can stay, indefinitely.
"Arizona Voters Keep Libertarian Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick."
1. Much to the chagrin of the republicans and democrats.
2. Libertarians are slowly but surely gaining momentum when it comes to getting elected.
Unfortunately, the momentum is very slow.