How IAALS Research Led Utah to Update Judicial Performance Evaluation

On March 23, 2026, Utah’s legislature passed SB233, a bill that made modifications to the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission (JPEC). 

IAALS’ Recommendations for Modernizing Judicial Performance Evaluation report prompted conversations about updating performance measures within the commission. The JPEC placed significant value on both IAALS’ research and recommendations. The years IAALS spent studying judicial performance evaluation systems, gathering data, and engaging with stakeholders across the country gave the commission confidence in its recommendations.

Shortly after receiving the IAALS report, JPEC began discussing these recommendations  and potential improvements to the evaluation process with stakeholders. As JPEC began these conversations, one legislator shared his interest in making changes to the JPEC statute and invited us to propose revisions at the same time. The timing created an opportunity to consider the IAALS recommendations alongside other statutory changes.

The changes enacted in SB233 include:

Updating the performance measures used to evaluate judges. This is the first statutory change to the original performance measures since JPEC was created in 2008. These changes align our metrics more closely to the current roles and responsibilities of judges. New performance measures now include Legal Competence, Impartiality, Clarity of Communication, Judicial Temperament, Administrative Capacity and Procedural Fairness.

• Studying litigants as a potential survey group. JPEC is currently testing the idea of including survey responses from self-represented litigants in the evaluation data.  The goal of our testing is to determine whether we can gather reliable data from litigants, ensure that we are able to reach them successfully, and meaningfully incorporate their perspectives into the evaluation of judges. 
• Adding more flexibility to the survey tool and measurement standards. Specific requirements in the statute limited flexibility to follow best practices. Changes expand the way questions can be asked, allow for flexibility in the rating scales, and grant latitude in the use of open-ended questions.
• Incorporating specific time standards for appellate courts.
• Studying whether or not “abuse of discretion” appellate rulings could be used as a metric for measuring judicial performance.

One of the most important lessons learned from this process was the value of building strong channels of communication with legislators and other stakeholders. Listening carefully to stakeholder concerns, priorities, and ideas made this collaboration possible. For jurisdictions considering similar changes, approaching the process as a partnership, engaging stakeholders early, and remaining open to thoughtful feedback throughout the process is critical to success. 

Judicial performance evaluation in Utah has helped focus voters on the process of judging itself, using objective criteria to evaluate judicial performance. The system provides a structured, consistent way to evaluate qualities that make a good judge, such as legal ability, procedural fairness, judicial temperament, communication, and courtroom management. This process helps create a thoughtful and balanced assessment of judicial performance. 

Looking ahead, I hope judicial performance evaluation continues to strengthen public trust in a fair and unbiased evaluation process. I also hope our process continues to evolve and improve as we consider new sources of feedback and refine evaluation methods to ensure they remain fair, reliable, and meaningful for judges, court users, and the public.