Washington, DC— Today, the nation's first comprehensive study of the systems that hold state and federal judges accountable ranked Arizona fourth best in the nation, yet called the state's program far from perfect and gave it a C+ grade. To shine a light on the typically secretive and toothless systems that often fail to remove abusive and incompetent judges from the bench, legal consumer watchdog group HALT, Inc. released its 2008 Judicial Accountability Report Card, analyzing programs in all 50 states, D.C. and the federal circuits.

"Arizona's combination of strict sanctions and consumer-friendly procedures make it one of the most effective systems of judicial oversight in the country," stated HALT Senior Counsel Suzanne M. Blonder.

Blonder noted, however, that the state still falls short in several critical areas. HALT gave demerits to Arizona for failing to place meaningful limitations on the reimbursement and compensation that judges may accept in connection with privately funded trips. "Arizona's laws unfortunately include massive loopholes that still allow members of the judiciary to be wined and dined on the corporate dime," noted Blonder.

Additionally, Arizona does not give lay persons a sufficient voice on the Commission on Judicial Conduct, which is composed of six judges, two attorneys and just three public members. And while Arizona's Judicial Conduct Commission's Web site offers many helpful resources, including a downloadable complaint form and past disciplinary rulings, the site is difficult to navigate and information is hard to find.

Still a model state in other respects, HALT's study noted that unlike rules in many states which "gag" consumers from disclosing that they have filed a complaint against a judge, Arizona rules explicitly allow complainants to speak publicly about ethics complaints. In addition, most states primarily rely on private disciplinary sanctions, including closed-door reprimands and secret censures. "Arizona's exclusive application of formal, public discipline adds teeth to its system for removing dishonorable members of the judiciary, and it also provides the public with needed information about judges' misconduct," explained Blonder.

Arizona ranked below Washington state, Connecticut and Pennsylvania, and just above California and Texas, but none of the top states scored higher than a B average on the Report Card. More than half of the states received grades in the C range and HALT issued D's to 14 jurisdictions. Two states- Maine and Mississippi-flunked outright.

"At a time when the American public has lost faith in the impartiality and fairness of the nation's judiciary, it's critical that we have an effective system of oversight for judges," stated Blonder. "Arizona's program may have flaws, but in significant areas, it provides a model for the rest of the nation."