What appears to be a routine filing made Wednesday in Abe Hamadeh’s election challenge involving the Arizona Attorney General race may have a much deeper meaning, according to public records obtained by Arizona Daily Independent.
Attorney Jennifer Wright filed the request with Judge Lee Jantzen of the Mohave County Superior Court in hopes of having a scheduling conference set. This would allow the parties to know what deadlines will be in place if Jantzen grants Hamadeh’s motion for a new trial to present evidence that he, not Kris Mayes, received the most valid votes last November.
Wright’s request was made despite the fact Jantzen has three weeks remaining of his 60-day deadline to rule on the motion for new trial. The clock began May 16 when Jantzen conducted oral arguments in the matter and promised he would have a ruling “in a couple weeks.”
But the public records show Jantzen stipulated in May 2018 to a censure by the Arizona Supreme Court for “misconduct in office” following an investigation that showed the judge missed the 60-day deadline by more than one year.
Jantzen, who became a superior court judge for Mohave County in 2009, acknowledged as part of the censure that “he has previously received a warning from the Commission for similar misconduct involving a delayed ruling.”
He was also reprimanded in 2021 for the same problem.
A censure is one step down from a suspension and one step above a public reprimand. A censure can be imposed by the Arizona Supreme Court while a reprimand can be imposed by the Court or the Court’s Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC).
The Arizona Judicial Branch has two check-and-balance systems in place in an attempt to guard against judges accidently or intentionally ignoring the 60-day deadline.
The first system involves a quarterly report prepared by the clerk of the court for each county and submitted to the Arizona Supreme Court’s Administrative Office of the Courts. The report lists each judge who has any motion outstanding for more than 60 days as of the time the report is prepared.
While helpful for judges and their administrative assistants, the report will not reflect a case that went over the 60-day limit if it was finally ruled on before the clerk’s report is prepared.
More importantly, the second system is Arizona Revised Statute 12-128.01, which requires each superior court judge to attest when “signing off” to get paid that they have no pending matters outside the 60-day deadline.
The 2018 censure noted Jantzen had, from June 2015 to September 2017, falsely signed statements pursuant to ARS 12-128.01 by certifying he had no matters outstanding more than 60 days.
Jantzen’s 2021 Reprimand Order shows the judge signed his March 2020 payroll certification with a notation that a ruling in a 2020 case was overdue. The ruling was finally issued at 78 days.
In that case, CJC Chairman Hon. Louis Frank Dominguez explained why Jantzen was receiving a lower form of discipline in light of the judge’s history of delayed rulings.
“Although Judge Jantzen has a prior public censure for a delayed ruling issue, the Commission found that a public reprimand is warranted in this matter based on the length of the delay and mitigating information supplied by Judge Jantzen, which included new techniques for affirmatively addressing complex cases and litigants, and new calendaring and tracking methods,” Dominguez wrote.
In addition to Hamadeh’s motion for a new trial, Jantzen has not ruled on a motion to compensate several people in multiple counties who were brought in to help inspect ballots prior to the Dec. 23 evidentiary trial on Hamadeh’s election challenge.
Six months later, they are still waiting. Some of those persons are due hundreds of dollars, according to court records.
There is also an outstanding “Motion for Order” filed in Hamadeh’s case on Dec. 28. Jantzen’s April 11 order setting the May 16 hearing on the new trial motion
noted the Dec. 28 motion would also be discussed, but the judge failed to do address it.