2026 Federal Survey "*" indicates required fields 1Candidate Info2Survey Candidate Name* First Last Email* Court*District (If Applicable)Candidate PhotoAccepted file types: jpg, png, gif, Max. file size: 2 MB. Part I - In your own wordsThese two questions are the heart of the survey. Take as much space as you need, attach additional pages, or answer them in a letter instead — whichever suits you.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.If you would prefer, you may instead identify an opinion, article, or speech of your own that you believe best reflects your approach to judging.Part II - Interpretation and methodEach question below asks about your method of interpretation, not about the outcome of any case. Space to explain your answer follows each question, and we encourage you to use it.3. Where would you place your own approach to statutory construction on the spectrum below, with “textualism”1 at one end (1) and “purposivism” 2 at the other(10)?3. Where would you place your own approach to statutory construction on the spectrum below, with “textualism”<sup>1</sup> at one end (1) and “purposivism” <sup>2</sup> at the other(10)? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3. Please explain your answer.(Optional, but encouraged — there is no word limit.)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 disagree to a "5" for strongly agree: “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.” 34. Please rate your agreement with the reasoning in this statement from the U.S. Supreme Court on a scale of 1 to 10 with a "1" for strongly agree to a "10" for strongly disagree: 1 2 3 4 5 4. Please explain your answer.(Optional, but encouraged — there is no word limit.)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: This question asks only about the reasoning quoted; it does not ask whether you agree with the outcome of the case. "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."45. Please rate your agreement with this statement from former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall on a scale of 1 to 10 with a "1" for strongly agree to a "10" for strongly disagree: 1 2 3 4 5 5. Please explain your answer.(Optional, but encouraged — there is no word limit.)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: This question asks only about the interpretive standard described; it does not ask whether you agree with the outcome of the case. "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.56. Please rate your agreement with the following description of the substantive component of the Due Process Clause. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Please explain your answer.(Optional, but encouraged — there is no word limit.)Part III - In closing7. Is there anything else you would like Arizona voters to know about how you approach your work as a judge?We will publish whatever you write here in full.1 “textualism. (1892) The doctrine that the words of a governing text are of paramount concern and that what they fairly convey in their context is what the text means.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019). 2 “purposivism. (1994) The doctrine that texts are to be interpreted to achieve the broad purposes that their drafters had in mind; specif., the idea that a judge-interpreter should seek an answer not only in the words of the text but also in its social, economic, and political objectives[.]” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019). 3 Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr.: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. (Sept. 12, 2005) (opening statement of Judge Roberts). 4 Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738, 866 (1824). 5 Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720–21 (1997) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
