The Judicial Performance Review Committee analyzes the performance of nonpartisan judges seeking retention in the next general election. In voting whether or not they believe a judge substantially meets overall judicial performance standards, committee members consider a variety of information about each judge, including lawyers’ ratings of judges, jurors’ ratings of some trial judges and written opinions from judges.
For both appellate and trial judges, lawyers’ survey results were converted into a numerical score between 1 and 5, with 1 being the poorest and 5 being the best. The number of responses and the average score is listed for each criteria.
Members of the public who served on juries before trial judges during the last two calendar years were asked to complete a survey. It is important to note that juries do not serve in appellate courts, so no juror survey information was included in the review of appellate judges seeking retention.
Each appellate judge was asked to provide up to five written opinions for use by the review committee. The committee examined the decisions authored by each judge for adherence to the record, clarity of expression, logical reasoning, and application of law to the facts presented.
Each trial judge was asked to provide up to three written opinions for use by the review committee. The committee examined the decision authored by each judge for thoroughness of findings, clarity of expression, logical reasoning, and application of the law to the facts presented.