In State v. City Court of Tucson, 150 Ariz. 99, 722 P.2d 267 (1986) the court held that the chief magistrate of a city court lacked authority under Rule 10.2 to require city prosecutors to avow that they had filed their notices in good faith. Id. There, the court construed the magistrate's order as an intrusion on the supreme court's exclusive authority to make procedural rules for Arizona's courts. Id. In so doing, it emphasized that its rule-making authority "'may not be supplemented or superseded'" by state courts of more limited jurisdiction. Id. Although the magistrate had not suggested that her order constituted a local rule, the supreme court concluded that "the order was in effect a local rule which was not approved by this court and is of no force and effect." Id. The Arizona Supreme Court examined a city prosecutor's policy to routinely disqualify a certain judge in DUI matters until he could be "re-educated" and until his "approach to the law changed." 150 Ariz. at 101-02, 722 P.2d at 269-70 (addressing whether the trial court could require affirmation from counsel under Rule of Criminal Procedure 10.2 that the notice to strike was filed in good faith). The supreme court stated: (1) any such blanket policy infringed upon the obligation of each prosecutor to "exercise his or her individual professional judgment on a case by case basis," and; (2) the policy was an "improper attempt to influence a judge in his judicial decisions." Id. at 102, 722 P.2d at 270.