This Giving Tuesday, help ensure voters have the information they need to make confident, informed decisions. Donate now!

Christopher A. Coury

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Christopher A. Coury
Silhouette Placeholder Image.png
Maricopa County Superior Court
Tenure
Present officeholder
Term ends
2029

Elections and appointments
Last election
November 5, 2024
Education
Bachelor's
University of Notre Dame, 1991
Law
University of Notre Dame Law School, 1994

Christopher A. Coury is a judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court in Arizona. His current term ends on January 1, 2029.

Coury ran for re-election for judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court in Arizona. He won in the retention election on November 5, 2024.

Coury was initially appointed by Gov. Jan Brewer (R) on January 28, 2010, effective March 2010.

Biography

Coury received a B.A. from University of Notre Dame in 1991, graduating magna cum laude, and a J.D. from the university's law school in 1994, graduating cum laude. He began his legal career as a clerk for the Arizona Court of Appeals (1994–1995) and as an attorney at the firm of O’Connor Cavanagh (1995–1996). Coury then worked as a deputy county attorney for the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (1996–1998) before returning to private practice as an attorney at the firm of Ryley Carlock & Applewhite (1999–2010).[1]

Awards and associations

  • State Bar of Arizona
  • State Bar of Nevada
  • Maricopa County Bar Association
  • Board of Directors, Notre Dame Law Association (representing Arizona, Southern California, Southern Nevada and Mexico)[1]

Elections

2024

See also:  Municipal elections in Maricopa County, Arizona (2024)

Maricopa County Superior Court, Christopher A. Coury's seat

Christopher A. Coury was retained to the Maricopa County Superior Court on November 5, 2024 with 63.5% of the vote.

Retention
 Vote
%
Votes
Yes
 
63.5
 
808,189
No
 
36.5
 
463,913
Total Votes
1,272,102


Endorsements

Ballotpedia did not identify endorsements for Coury in this election.

2020

Maricopa County Superior Court, Christopher A. Coury's seat

Christopher A. Coury was retained to the Maricopa County Superior Court on November 3, 2020 with 65.2% of the vote.

Retention
 Vote
%
Votes
Yes
 
65.2
 
840,792
No
 
34.8
 
449,296
Total Votes
1,290,088

2016

See also: Arizona local trial court judicial elections, 2016

Arizona held elections for 80 superior court judgeships on November 8, 2016. Sixty-three of those seats were up for retention election. Three counties—Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal—use retention elections for their superior courts.[2]

Maricopa County Superior Court, Christopher A. Coury Retention Election, 2016
Name Yes votes
Green check mark transparent.pngChristopher A. Coury72.59%
Source: Maricopa County, Arizona, "November 8, 2016 General Election," November 9, 2016 These election results are unofficial and will be updated after official vote totals are made available.

2012

See also: Arizona judicial elections, 2012 - Superior Courts

Coury was retained with 71.51 percent of the vote in the general election on November 6, 2012.[3][4]

Campaign themes

2024

Ballotpedia survey responses

See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection

Christopher A. Coury did not complete Ballotpedia's 2024 Candidate Connection survey.

2020

Christopher A. Coury did not complete Ballotpedia's 2020 Candidate Connection survey.

Noteworthy cases

Arizona Proposition 208 (2020)

See also: Molera v. Hobbs

Jaime Molera, chairperson of Arizonans for Great Schools and a Strong Economy (AGSSE), filed a lawsuit against the ballot initiative in the Maricopa County Superior Court. According to AGSSE, the 100-word petition language failed to describe how the ballot initiative changes income tax rates. On July 31, 2020, Judge Christopher Coury ruled that the 100-word petition language was misleading and enjoined Secretary of State Katie Hobbs from certifying the citizen-initiated measure for the ballot. Judge Coury said the petition did not contain sufficient explanations regarding the type, amount, and permanence of the proposed tax, how revenue would be allocated, and the types of businesses that would be affected. Judge Coury also stated that some petitioner payment practices violated the state's pay-per-signature ban.[5]

See also


External links

Footnotes