Howe, Randall M.

Meet the Justice

Division:

Division I

Judicial Performance Review Committee Score:

Meets JPR Standards

Bio:

View Candidate Bio

Responses

Response Legend

*Comment
−Declined to respond

Question	Response	Comments/Notes
1. Please describe your judicial philosophy — how you understand the role of a judge, and how you go about deciding the cases that come before you.	−
2. Is there a jurist — from any court, living or deceased — whose approach to judging you particularly admire? Please name the jurist and briefly explain why.	−
3. Where would you place your own approach to statutory construction on the spectrum below, with “textualism” at one end (1) and “purposivism” at the other(10)?	−
4. Please rate your agreement with the following statement of Chief Justice John Roberts on a scale of 1 to 5 with a "1" for strongly agree to a "10" for strongly disagree: “Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.”	−
5. Please rate your agreement with this statement from former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall on a scale of 1 to 5 with a "1" for strongly disagree to a "5" for strongly agree: "Judicial power, as contradistinguished from the power of the laws, has no existence. Courts are the mere instruments of the law, and can will nothing. When they are said to exercise a discretion, it is a mere legal discretion, a discretion to be exercised in discerning the course prescribed by law; and, when that is discerned, it is the duty of the Court to follow it. Judicial power is never exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the Judge; always for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the Legislature; or, in other words, to the will of the law."	−
6. Please rate your agreement with the following statement of Chief Justice John Marshall on a scale of 1 to 5 with a "1" for strongly disagree to a "5" for strongly agree: "The Due Process Clause specially protects those fundamental rights and liberties that are, objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.	−
7. Is there anything else you would like Arizona voters to know about how you approach your work as a judge?	−

Judicial Decisions

AZ PETITION PARTNERS v. HON. THOMPSON/STATE

Case Date: 05/24/2022Case Number: 1 CA-SA 21-0170Question Presented: Whether A.R.S. § 19-118.01, prohibiting “per-signature” payments to circulators and punishing violators with a class one misdemeanor, violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech?Decision: A.R.S. § 19-118.01(B) is unconstitutional under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.Judge Position: Joined the 3/0 decision.

BATTY v. AZ MEDICAL BRD

Case Date: 05/10/2022Case Number: 1 CA-CV 21-0021Question Presented: Whether A.R.S. § 32-1401(27)(aa)(ii), which prohibits a physician from engaging in “verbal conduct or physical contact of a sexual nature” with a patient, is constitutionally void for vagueness.Decision: A.R.S § 32-1401(27)(aa)(ii) is not unconstitutionally vague.Judge Position: Joined the 3/0 decision.

ARIZONA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOC et al v STATE

Case Date: 01/06/2022Case Number: CV-21-0234-T/APQuestion Presented: Whether four legislative budget reconciliation bills violate the Arizona Constitution’s “title requirement” and “single subject rule.”Decision: "Three bills violate the title requirement and are void in part, and one bill violates the single subject rule and is entirely void. "Judge Position: Joined the 7/0 decision in which J. Bolick authored a concurring opinion. Justice Kathryn H. King has recused herself from this matter. Pursuant to article 6, section 3 of the Arizona Constitution, the Honorable Randall M. Howe, Judge of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, was designated to sit in this matter.Summary of Dissent or Concurrence: Concurrence by J. Bolick: The Arizona constitution assigns to the judiciary, not the legislature, the task of determining whether a bill complies with the title requirement or single subject rule.