Randall M. Howe

Meet the Judge

Division:
Division 1
Judicial Performance Review Committee Score:
100%
Bio:
View Candidate Bio
Survey Response from Judge:
Judge declined to respond to the Center for Arizona Policy survey.

Judicial Decisions

VINIEGRA v. TOWN OF PARKER
Case Date: 10/06/2016Case Number: 1 CA-CV 15-0359Question Presented: Whether the one-year statute of limitation for bringing actions against public entities violates equal protection or the anti-abrogation clause of the Arizona Constitution.Decision: Arizona law does not violate Arizona Constitution.Judge Position: Joined in the 3/0 decision.
ARNER v. RYAN
Case Date: 05/07/2015Case Number: 1 CA-CV 13-0562Question Presented: Whether Arizona law permitting the Director of the Department of Corrections to assess fees on prisoner spendable accounts is an unconstitutional “special law” that violates the Arizona Constitution. Decision: The Arizona law is constitutional.Judge Position: Joined in the 3/0 decision.
GALLARDO et al. v. STATE OF ARIZONA et al.
Case Date: 07/23/2014Case Number: 1 CA-CV 14-0272 AQuestion Presented: Whether an amendment to Arizona law mandates that “a county with a population of at least three million persons shall elect two additional governing members” to its community college district board, constitutes a special law in violation of the Arizona Constitution.Decision: Arizona law is unconstitutional. Judge Howe wrote a special concurring opinion that he would like to address the time frame the legislature may rely upon to establish the population threshold. Note the Arizona Supreme Court overturned the ruling, CV_14-0208.Judge Position: Specially concurred in the 3/0 decision.
STATE v. BURGESS
Case Date: 08/07/2018Case Number: 1 CA-CR 16-0857; 1 CA-CR 16-0923Question Presented: Whether Arizona law providing that “[i]t is not a defense to a prosecution [for child prostitution] that the other person is a peace officer posing as a minor . . .” is unconstitutional unless it is applied only to non-in-person solicitations. Decision: The law is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose and therefore constitutional.Judge Position: Authored the 3/0 decision.