Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One holds that the Maricopa County Justice Courts’ qualification requirements for pro tem Justice of the Peace applicants are not facially unconstitutional.

A former pro tem magistrate for the Nogales Municipal Court applied to be a pro tem Justice of the Peace in Maricopa County. The Maricopa County Justice Courts rejected the applicant, finding he was ineligible under court’s Bench Policy because he did not have a law degree and because his application did not include the required letter of recommendation. Later, the courts clarified that his rejection was based on the lack of a recommendation letter because his service as a former pro tem magistrate exempted him from the law-degree requirement.

The applicant sued for declaratory relief, asserting that the Maricopa County Justice Courts Bench Policy was facially unconstitutional. He argued that the law-degree requirement violated Article 6, Section 31(A) of the Arizona Constitution, which states that pro tem judges must be members of the bar, but that pro tem justices of the peace shall have “the same qualifications” as elected justices of the peace, who are not required to have law degrees.

After two rounds of summary judgment, the superior court ruled in favor of the Justices, finding the Bench Policy was not unconstitutional because it allowed the elected justice to decide amongst several qualification criteria to determine who to appoint as a pro tem in their court. A law degree was just one of four options listed in the policy. The applicant appealed.

The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that the Bench Policy is not facially unconstitutional. The Court declined to reach the broader constitutional question of whether Article 6, Section 31(A) prohibits the courts from imposing a law degree requirement on pro tem justices of the peace applicants. Instead, the Court focused on the legal standard to establish that a law is facially unconstitutional: there must be no set of circumstances under which the law could be valid. Here, the Bench Policy offers multiple paths to qualification, including a law degree or prior service as a city magistrate or previously serving as a non-attorney pro tem. Because the law degree is only one of several acceptable qualifications, the policy does not categorically exclude non-lawyers and is thus not facially unconstitutional.

Judge Howe authored the opinion of the Court, in which Judges Bailey and Jacobs joined.

Posted by: Payslie M. Bowman