Committee advances bill to add due-process for elected justices of the peace amid court opposition

The Arizona House Committee on Federalism, Military Affairs and Elections on Thursday advanced House Bill 2976, a measure that would create specific due‑process steps before administrative actions materially alter an elected justice of the peace’s statutory authority.

Sponsor Representative Alma Hernandez, D‑Tucson, told the committee she brought the bill after conversations with justices who said administrative orders had removed operational control from elected JPs without notice or a path to restoration. “We are not trying to change their role. We're just saying that there should be due process,” Hernandez said.

Why it matters: Supporters say the bill fills a procedural gap that leaves elected JPs without recourse when administrative supervision reassigns staffing, budgeting or daily operations. Justice Sarah Mae Williams of Ajo told the committee that Administrative Order 2025‑207 transferred control of her court to a superior court administrator 16 hours after an emergency virtual meeting, with no written findings or chance to respond. “I continued to answer publicly for court operations while lacking the authority to correct or manage the issues raised,” Williams said.

Opponents, including Liana Garcia, director of government affairs for the Arizona Supreme Court, urged defeat or major amendment, arguing the bill intrudes on the chief justice’s constitutional power. “Article 6, section 3 very plainly says that the chief justice of the Supreme Court has administrative supervision over all of the courts in the state,” Garcia said, adding that the Supreme Court must be able to step in when a justice cannot perform duties or when public safety is at stake.

What the bill does: HB2976 would require notice and an opportunity to be heard, written findings and judicial review when an administrative action materially alters a JP’s statutory authority. Supporters say it would not dictate outcomes or obstruct judicial discipline but would add process and timelines for restoration of local administration.

Debate and outcome: Committee members split on separation‑of‑powers concerns. Several members said the legislature can set boundaries and require procedural protections for elected officials that receive administrative oversight; others said the change likely requires a constitutional amendment. After extended discussion, the committee gave the bill a due‑pass recommendation (6 ayes, 1 present).

What’s next: The bill will be scheduled for further consideration with possible amendments to narrow scope, clarify standards of proof, and address constitutional concerns raised by the Supreme Court’s staff.

Reporting note: Quotations and attributions in this article come from committee testimony and staff remarks recorded in the committee transcript.