John Lopez IV
Non-Partisan | Arizona
Candidate Profile
Originalist
BIOGRAPHY
EDUCATION
Candidate did not provide
WORK & MILITARY
Candidate did not provide
AFFILIATIONS
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES HELD
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES SOUGHT
Candidate did not provide
SELECTED CONTRIBUTIONS
CONSERVATIVE
GIVEN BY CANDIDATE (1)
Jeff Flake (2013)
RECEIVED BY CANDIDATE (0)
OTHER INFORMATION
In Keating v. State (2026), Vice Chief Justice John Lopez joined the majority of the Arizona Supreme Court in deciding whether Proposition 144 violated Arizona’s Separate Amendment Rule. Prop. 144 contains six election-related provisions, including citizen-only voting and registration, restrictions on foreign campaign spending, voter ID, election tabulation, and limits on election laws. The court held that the provisions were sufficiently related because they all concern election administration and share the goal of protecting elections from ineligible participation and foreign influence.
In Arizona for Abortion Access v. Toma (2024), Vice Chief Justice Lopez authored the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision order holding that the Legislative Council’s use of the phrase “unborn human being,” taken from existing Arizona law, did not violate the requirement for an impartial voter-pamphlet analysis. The Court reversed the lower court and allowed the voter pamphlet to proceed.
In the Court’s later full opinion, Arizona for Abortion Access v. Montenegro (2025),, Lopez joined the majority, which explained that using the statutory language accurately described existing law. The Court emphasized that the case concerned the impartiality of the voter guide, not the legality of abortion itself.
In Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Mayes/Hazelrigg (2024), in which Justice Lopez authored the Arizona Supreme Court’s majority opinion, the Court considered whether newer abortion laws had replaced or limited Arizona’s 1864-era abortion ban. The Court held that they had not, meaning the older ban could be enforced. The Court relied on the statutory language and legislative history, concluding that the newer law did not independently authorize abortions after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs ended the federal constitutional right to abortion. The Court did not decide whether the ban itself was constitutional, leaving those questions for the lower court.
In Arizonans for Second Chances, Rehabilitation, and Public Safety v. Hobbs (2020), in which Justice Lopez joined the majority and wrote a concurrence, the Arizona Supreme Court considered whether initiative groups could bypass Arizona’s constitutional requirement for in-person, witnessed signatures during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court held that the Secretary of State could not accept electronic signatures because doing so would effectively require the judiciary to rewrite the Constitution and election laws. Lopez emphasized that allowing the Court to suspend constitutional rules during an emergency would weaken the rule of law and improperly expand judicial power. He concluded that the pandemic’s temporary burden on ballot access was preferable to permanently changing the law by judicial fiat.
In Brush & Nib Studio, LC v. City of Phoenix (2019), in which Justice Lopez joined the majority, the Arizona Supreme Court considered whether Phoenix could require a Christian-owned art studio to create custom wedding invitations for same-sex weddings under the city’s anti-discrimination law. The Court held that the city could not force the artists to create those invitations because doing so would require them to express a message that conflicted with their religious beliefs. The Court relied on Arizona’s free-speech and religious-freedom protections and found that the invitations were protected expression, not simply a service. Lopez’s vote therefore supported protecting religiously objecting businesses from being required to create expressive products for same-sex weddings.
In State v. Nunez-Diaz (2019), in which Justice Lopez concurred in the result, the Arizona Supreme Court considered whether a defendant who was already subject to deportation could show prejudice from his lawyer’s failure to explain that a guilty plea would cause severe immigration consequences. Lopez agreed that Nunez-Diaz was entitled to relief, but for a narrower reason than the majority. He concluded that deportation and loss of possible immigration relief were too speculative to count as prejudice because Nunez-Diaz was already deportable. However, the plea created a permanent bar to returning to the United States, which was a direct and certain harm. Lopez therefore found that this specific harm justified relief.
QUESTIONNAIRE
RIGHT TO LIFE
Was Dobbs v. Jackson rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain. (Holding: In Dobbs, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal constitution does not confer a right to abortion.)
Did not answer
Does the federal Constitution support the right to physician assisted suicide? Please explain in light of Washington v. Glucksberg (1997).
Did not answer
Human life deserves legal protection from conception until natural death.
Did not answer
How do you view the judiciary’s role in matters of abortion regulation following Dobbs?
Did not answer
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Do you believe religious liberty is at risk in the United States. If so, what is the judiciary's proper role in addressing this issue?
Did not answer
Does the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment require government to be strictly secular or does it allow for the nation's religious heritage?
Did not answer
Was Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain. (Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court held tha the state may not show religious hostility when enforcing anti-discrimination laws against a business owner.)
Did not answer
VALUES
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
Did not answer
What is your understanding of parental rights under the Constitution regarding the upbringing of children, particularly regarding choices about education and sexual identity?
Did not answer
Is gender identity a protected class under the Constitution? Please explain the constitutional basis for your view.
Did not answer
ABOUT YOU
Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If so, please explain.
Did not answer
Have you ever been penalized for sexual misconduct in either civil or criminal court? If so, please explain.
Did not answer
I voted in these primaries and general elections:
Did not answer
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY
Describe your judicial philosophy.
Did not answer
Do you believe judges should primarily apply the law according to its original public meaning, or do you believe the law evolves over time to reflect contemporary values?
Did not answer
Which current or past U.S. Supreme Court justice best reflects your judicial philosophy?
Did not answer
Was Obergefell v. Hodges rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain. (Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court held Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses create a right for same-sex couples to marry.)
Did not answer
A. How should a judge approach a case where the constitutional or statutory text is clear on its face? B. Conversely, how should a judge proceed when the text is ambiguous or silent on a disputed issue?
Did not answer
What is your view of judicial restraint versus judicial activism? How do you define each?
Did not answer
What is the proper role of a judge?
Did not answer
When applying or interpreting the text of a statute or constitutional provision, is it ever proper for a judge to consider present day public opinion or consequences?
Did not answer
If precedent departs from the Constitution’s text or original meaning, should a judge follow it or correct the error? Please explain.
Did not answer
CRIMINAL JUSTICE & PUBLIC SAFETY
The burden of proof in a criminal case is generally that the state must provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Some say the reason the burden of proof is so high is because we greatly value ensuring that the innocent are not unjustly imprisoned. Please comment on this topic.
Did not answer
When reviewing wrongful conviction claims, what role, if any, should judges play in determining remedies?
Did not answer
2ND AMENDMENT
What is your understanding of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms?
Did not answer
OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES
Which branch of government do you believe was intended to wield the most authority?
Did not answer
