Judicial Performance Evaluations

In a recent op-ed, Joanne Slotnik, former executive director of the Utah Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, touts the state’s successful judicial selection system, which includes robust performance evaluation for judges and retention elections by the public.

Nevada, which directly elects nearly all of its state judges, has never implemented an official judicial performance evaluation program. Instead, between 1992 and 2013, the state’s largest newspaper conducted its own surveys of attorneys in Clark County regarding judges seeking reelection until their survey methodology came under sharp criticism. Now the surveys are set to return, with some significant retooling.

State courts, where 95 percent of all cases are filed, are powerful. Their decisions can have profound effects on our rights and our lives—from whether Massachusetts officials can detain people based on a request from federal immigration authorities to whether a Michigan voter-initiated redistricting proposal could appear on the ballot.

Judicial performance evaluation (JPE) took center stage in the Fall/Winter 2017 issue of Voir Dire, the American Board of Trial Advocates’ magazine. The cover story, written by IAALS’ own Rebecca Love Kourlis and Natalie Knowlton, discussed JPE programs in place today around the country and how trial attorneys, in particular, fit into those processes. As one part of the larger O’Connor Judicial Selection Plan, JPE programs assess judges based on objective performance criteria, including surveys of those who work with or appear before the judge being evaluated. Kourlis and Knowlton note that trial attorneys have a unique and critical role to play in these surveys.

This week, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper signed legislation to reauthorize and restructure the state’s judicial performance evaluation (JPE) program. Colorado was one of the first states in the nation to establish a JPE program to help judges improve their own performance on the bench and inform voters about that performance for judicial retention elections. The 1988 legislation that created Colorado’s program included a provision scheduling the program for repeal in 30 years—on June 30, 2019. Earlier this year, both the General Assembly and the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation tackled head-on the challenge of drafting new legislation to keep the program in place, and IAALS applauds their efforts.

Robust evaluation of judges has a dual purpose. It educates judges on their strengths and weaknesses on the bench and equips them to make necessary improvements. It also empowers voters, legislators, and governors with meaningful information they can use when deciding whether to retain or reappoint judges. Across the country, people are struggling with how to gauge whether a judge is doing a good job.

Based on its decade of work in the field of judicial performance evaluation (JPE), IAALS was invited to contribute a chapter on this topic to the recently published 8th edition of the American Bar Association’s The Improvement of the Administration of Justice.

The judicial screening and nominating process, used to select judges in two thirds of the states, is one area in which implicit bias may have a negative impact. This potential is addressed in a great new resource from the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School, which provides nominating commission members with concrete guidance on the steps they can take to promote a more diverse bench.

IAALS is proud to announce Joanne C. Slotnik, Former Executive Director of the Utah Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, as the inaugural recipient of our Quality Judges Award in recognition of her contributions to preserving judicial accountability and impartiality. Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, also Honorary Chair of IAALS’ O’Connor Advisory Committee to the Quality Judges Initiative, was on hand last night for the Phoenix event and award presentation.

When the Supreme Court of Missouri in January 2008 adopted a rule authorizing The Missouri Bar to create and administer the state’s first true judicial performance evaluation program, the state bar was faced with a very tight timeframe for implementation and a seemingly endless set of questions. How and where do we start? How should the evaluation be conducted? What form should the survey instrument take? What information should be considered by evaluators?