Arizona may revive abortion ban mandating prison time. Anti-abortion judge must recuse himself.
Arizona Supreme Court Judge Bill Montgomery accused Planned Parenthood of 'genocide.' It’s safe to say his 'impartiality might reasonably be questioned.'
Ethics can be difficult.
Except when they’re not.
Except they will be.
Because this is Arizona.
For example, soon to come before the Arizona Supreme Court is a case that could revive an 1864, pre-statehood abortion ban that mandates as much as a five-year prison term for providers.
Among the seven members of the court who will decide that case is Bill Montgomery, a hyper-political, hyper-partisan, virulent anti-abortion former prosecutor appointed by former Gov. Doug Ducey.
What the Code of Judicial Conduct says
The Arizona Mirror and The 19th (a nonprofit, independent news operation out of Austin, Texas) noted in an article that Montgomery said in the past that Planned Parenthood (whose lawyers are arguing against reinstating the 1864 law) “is responsible for the greatest genocide known to man.”
Now for the ethics part. And please, try not to laugh out loud when you read the next sentence.
Arizona has an official “Code of Judicial Conduct.”
(I can hear you.)
Anyway, Rule 2.11 of that code, under “Disqualification,” reads in part, “A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned … .”
Montgomery didn’t only make the “genocide” comment. He was never shy about his feelings.
I never expected I'd need an abortion. Our outdated laws made me pay for it myself.
Former Gov. Ducey packed the court with partisans
At a protest in front of Planned Parenthood’s offices a few years back, he said, “Today’s protest calls for several specific goals. We call for Congress to end federal funding for Planned Parenthood. There is no reason to fund this charade of women’s health care any longer. The profit-driven atrocities must end and America must not fund them anymore.”
Seems pretty clear that Montgomery’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” And that he should disqualify himself.
Except, perhaps, in Arizona.
This isn’t new. Former Gov. Ducey first increased the number of judges on the Supreme Court from five to seven (when no one said it was needed), then stacked the court with partisans like Montgomery.
Republicans controlled Arizona. Then Turning Point USA tried to help.
The first time Montgomery came up for consideration, Chief Justice Scott Bales told Montgomery, “One broad statement is that you have very strongly held beliefs that have been expressed in different settings, which give people concerns about your ability as a judge to be fair.”
Montgomery should bow out, but ...
When the former prosecutor didn’t make the cut that time around, Ducey rigged the supposedly neutral system for selecting judicial candidates to pick the judges he wanted, like Montgomery.
When Montgomery was under consideration, Scott O’Connor, the son of former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, said selecting someone like him for the state’s highest court “will do no service to the public’s faith in the judicial system.”
What would bolster the public’s faith in the judicial system?
Ethics.
But ethics can be difficult.
Except when they’re not.
Except they will be.
Because this is Arizona.
EJ Montini is a columnist at The Arizona Republic/azcentral.com, where this column first published. Reach Montini at ed.montini@arizonarepublic.com.