News & Updates

Richard Gabriel recently penned an article for CNN following the conclusion of the George Zimmerman trial, in which he referenced several reports that examine potential biases in the justice system. Among them was IAALS’ Leveling the Playing Field: Gender, Ethnicity, and Judicial Performance Evaluation, which explores whether there is evidence that implicit biases enter into evaluations of judges’ performances.

In Minnesota, a broad-based group known as the Coalition for Impartial Justice, which includes more than 30 business, labor, religious, citizen, and legal groups, is working to implement the 2007 recommendations of the Quie Commission. The commission was unanimous in calling for the adoption of a "merit selection" process for judges and a performance evaluation program, with a majority of the commission favoring retention elections for subsequent terms.

The Tennessee legislature ended its 2013 session without renewing the state’s judicial nominating commission, which screens applicants for appellate court vacancies and recommends the best qualified candidates to the governor for appointment. The commission expires on June 30, and as of July 1, there will be no process in place for filling vacancies on the supreme court, court of appeals, and court of criminal appeals.

Socially conservative legislators in Alaska have proposed a bill that would remove the judicial council’s authority to make recommendations regarding judges standing for retention. In Tennessee, legislators have proposed a bill that would allow them to reconstitute the nine-member performance evaluation commission with no judge members. It would also authorize the commission to rewrite existing evaluative criteria and to prevent judges who receive a recommendation “for replacement” from standing for retention.

The Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Judicial Evaluation Commission has posted the first of its endorsements of judicial candidates, in preparation for the May 21 primary election. The Bar’s review process consists of a questionnaire on the candidate’s legal background, an investigation by a three-member panel, and an interview with the full commission, after which the candidate is notified of the Bar’s decision.

As the quality of judges and integrity of the judiciary continue to receive heightened attention, education and outreach has increasingly become the focus for the courts. Slowly joining the social media bandwagon, judicial performance evaluation (JPE) sites have been cropping up. What is emerging in the world of retention elections and JPE results?

The D.C. Bar Judicial Evaluations Committee is beginning its annual survey of attorneys about judges sitting on the D.C. Court of Appeals and D.C. Superior Court. The results of the evaluations are given to the evaluated judge and the chief judge of his/her court.

Judicial performance evaluation results published by the new Utah Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission (JPEC) were not seen by many Utah citizens, the JPEC reports. For the first time, the Lieutenant Governor’s Office did not send the voter information pamphlet to all registered voters.

Proponents of replacing Minnesota’s nonpartisan judicial elections with commission-based gubernatorial appointment, retention elections, and performance evaluation were pleased to see Democrats regain a majority in the legislature for 2013, believing that the reform movement lost momentum when Republicans took over in 2010.

The judicial performance evaluation commission recommended retention of three appellate judges standing for retention in November, though one judge scored lower than his colleagues on timeliness of rulings and handling his ongoing workload.

This November, in addition to executive and legislative candidates, Colorado voters will be deciding whether or not to retain Colorado judges. Under Colorado’s system for selecting and retaining judges, all judges who will appear on the ballot must undergo a performance evaluation, the results of which are provided to the public as a tool for casting an informed retention vote. A website—www.knowyourjudge.com—is helping voters locate this information for the judges who will appear on their ballot.

This fall, judges are running in contestable elections in 32 states and standing in yes/no retention elections in 17 states. Judicial elections are typically low-information contests, where voters may cast their ballots based on party affiliation, name recognition, or ballot position rather than on qualifications and experience. But in a handful of states, voters will have the benefit of broad-based and objective evaluations of incumbent judges’ performance on the bench and, in one state, of the judicial potential of their challengers.

Based on Colorado’s Know Your Judge PSA, the North Carolina Bar Association has released a its own PSA that urges voters to take the initiative to become informed about their judicial candidates before they vote and not to skip the judicial portion of the ballot.

All 18 judges up for retention in Pima County Superior Court received generally high scores by the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance, with most scoring higher than 85 percent in all categories. Judges in Pima and Maricopa counties (and state appellate judges) must stand for periodic retention by voters.

The Utah Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission has published its evaluation reports and recommendations online. The Commission was created by statute in 2008 and undertook midterm evaluations in 2010 that were only for self-improvement purposes.

The commission on judicial performance released evaluation reports for 90 judges standing for retention in November. Only one judge—a county court judge in El Paso County—received a “do not retain” recommendation.

Results from two efforts to evaluate judicial candidates in the state have been released recently. The King County Bar Association’s screening committee gave “unqualified” ratings to three of 13 candidates for contested seats on the King County Superior Court.

The Nebraska State Bar Association’s 2012 Judicial Performance Evaluation results have been released, showing positive ratings for judges across the state, and the Bar has developed a radio spot to draw attention to this resource for voters. Nebraska uses the “Missouri Plan” for selecting judges and after appointment judges serve an initial term of three years before standing for a retention vote.

All eight candidates for the state’s appellate courts qualified for public financing, with supreme court candidates receiving $240,100 each and court of appeals candidates receiving $164,400. At least two outside groups are raising and spending funds in support of the Republican supreme court candidate.

The house of representatives voted to abolish the Kansas Commission on Judicial Performance and end the state’s judicial performance evaluation program. While House Democrats believe the program provides important information to voters about judges, Republicans questioned its impartiality since all evaluated judges have been recommended for retention.