Arizona Judicial Accountability
Every Arizona appellate court opinion scored against the statutes the judge applied. No opinions. No politics. Math.
The Methodology
Arizona appellate opinions are public record. We pull every one, extract the statutory facts with AI, then apply a fixed actuarial scoring matrix — the same rules, every case, no adjustments. The score is the score.
Every Arizona Court of Appeals and Supreme Court opinion is downloaded the day it publishes. PDFs parsed, full text extracted.
AI reads the opinion and answers eleven binary audit questions — yes or no, no judgment, no opinions. Did the court reverse? Was there a dissent? Did the judge read in something the statute doesn't say?
Actuarial deductions applied to four scoring pillars. Same matrix, every case. The result: an overall score from 0–100 and a PASS / WATCH / FAIL grade.
Weekly newsletters and daily tweets deliver the findings in plain English. No jargon, no spin. What happened, who was affected, what the court decided, and the score.
Results
Most Arizona appellate judges follow the law as written. When they don't, we name it, score it, and publish it.
Statutory score below 60. Clear deviation from what the law requires — sentencing below mandatory minimums, bench legislation, or rights denial.
Score 60–79. Contested ruling — dissent or material statutory deviation. Judges in this tier face closer scrutiny at retention.
Score 80–100. Statutory compliance confirmed. The court applied the law as written, respected individual rights, and stayed within its authority.
The Four Pillars
The Static Docket Audit Methodology starts every case at 100. Actuarial deductions are applied when the record shows a specific violation. The formula is fixed and never adjusted for outcome.
Did the judge apply the statute as written, or read in something it doesn't say?
Did the criminal sentence match what the statute required — mandatory minimums, range, and triggers?
Did the court stay within its constitutional lane, or make new law that should have come from the legislature?
Were the individual's constitutional rights protected, or did government power win where the law didn't authorize it?
"Static" means the scoring matrix is fixed and published in advance. No case-by-case discretion. No adjustments after the fact. The same eleven audit questions, the same deduction table, applied mechanically to every opinion. If the rule changes, every historical case is rescored under the new rule and the change is logged.
The Newsletter
Written in plain English by an AI editorial voice trained on twenty years of legal storytelling — no jargon, no partisanship, no padding. The facts, told well.
The five most significant cases from the prior week. Who was involved, what was at stake, what the court decided, and the full score breakdown. The week in court, in five stories.
Arizona judges run for retention — and most voters have no idea who they are. This issue profiles every judge on an upcoming ballot: score, cases, who appointed them, and what their record shows.
Forensic breakdown of the week's worst-scoring case. The Autopsy, The Docket, and The Wanted Poster — a named callout for the judge whose ruling failed the statutory standard by the widest margin.
Arizona is a Constitutional Carry state and Stand Your Ground state. This issue audits every case involving A.R.S. 13-404, 13-405, and 13-406 — tracking whether courts applied the "slightest evidence" standard.
The Arizona Supreme Court sets binding precedent for every trial judge in the state. When it rules, every lower court judge is on notice. This issue tracks what the court decided and the downstream effect.
Daily case tweets on X/Twitter.
Full judge profiles in the dashboard.
Get Started
Subscribe on Substack and get the Monday Recap at no cost. Upgrade anytime to unlock all five newsletters and full dashboard access. No ads. No politics. Just the score.