Arizona Eagletarian

Arizona Eagletarian

Saturday, October 11, 2014

Vote the ENTIRE ballot. We can FIRE Cathi Herrod's husband!

In a one-two punch that could launch a lot of POW to the jaw of Christian Dominionism's influence -- for the time being -- on Arizona, I strongly recommend you vote BOTH sides of your ballot for this year's general election.

Regular readers already know that Cathi Herrod is one of the most insidious and sinister characters to exert influence at the Arizona Capitol. Her husband, Michael John Herrod, sits on the Maricopa County Superior Court bench. This year, MR. Herrod is up for a retention vote.

In Maricopa County, judges are selected by merit and appointed by the governor. But voters get to say, every certain number of years, whether a judge has performed appropriately enough to justify keeping his job.

This year, it's MR. Herrod's turn. While it is difficult to get enough voters to actually toss a judge, Herrod's Dominionist cronies were among the driving forces behind Prop. 115 in 2012. It was a measure that would have made it -- except for the fact that voters declined to pass it -- easier to remove judges from office.

Whether or not we succeed in canning Judge Herrod, if we see enough NO votes, it will put the Dominionists on notice that they are being watched closely and will not be allowed to operate in the dark. They will be held accountable.

So, regardless of how you vote on any of the other judges, please join me in voting NO on the question of retaining Michael John Herrod as a Superior Court judge in Maricopa County.


  1. In the performance of his job duties, is he a capable and impartial jurist? Even though his wife is a lobbyist with views that I find wrong at best and abhorrent at worst, if he is capable and impartial in his duties, what grounds do I have not to vote for his retention?

  2. Sarah, who told you that you have to justify your vote to ANYONE?

    What you decide to do with your vote is not an issue I have any right to specify the grounds on which you must make that decision.

    I, however, recommend, urge and cajole -- advocate -- but I cannot ask you to justify that vote to me on ANY basis.

    The irony comes in because it was Herrod's political sect that pushed Prop. 115 so that THEY could advocate much more easily with political arguments (this judge ruled against our wishes on X,Y and Z lawsuits and our political beliefs say that's wrong) if the voters had passed the measure.

    Don't think for a minute that Cathi Herrod's influence and religion are completely walled off from her husband's courtroom.

    Bottom line: we have this opportunity. It is up to each voter to decide how to address the matter.