« Ind. Courts - "Publisher of details in case taken to court" | Main | Ind. Law - Lake election board reversed by court on party-change issue »

Friday, August 03, 2007

Courts - "States Look for Ways to Gauge Judge Performance"

Brittney Pescatore of The National Law Journal has this story today, headlined: "States Look for Ways to Gauge Judge Performance: Judicial evaluation programs catching on." Some quotes:

As public interest in judges' professional performance grows, states' use of judicial performance evaluations has been on the rise.

States are increasingly institutionalizing the evaluation process, passing statutes requiring the formation of a judicial evaluation commission.

Kansas is the most recent to launch an official judicial performance evaluation program. A state commission was established in 2006. It will send out its first questionnaires to evaluators this month for judges on the 2008 ballot.

In March of this year, a Minnesota commission chaired by former Gov. Al Quie released its report on ways to preserve an impartial judiciary. * * *

Florida also explored the possibility of implementing a formal judicial evaluation system, but its commission recommended against doing so in June.

Performance-evaluation programs measure criteria such as the professionalism of judges, how well they manage caseloads and the respect with which they treat people in the courtroom.

The Kansas commission plans to survey a variety of people who interact with the judges, including attorneys, jurors, appellate judges and members of the court staff. The state will issue a voter guide to the public, including a recommendation on whether to retain judges in the upcoming election, said Malia Reddick, a member of the Kansas commission and director of research and programs at the American Judicature Society.

The AJS and other legal reform groups are hailing performance evaluations as a way to hold judges accountable while respecting their independence.

"It's the right way to provide judicial accountability," said Reddick, adding that initiatives such as J.A.I.L. 4 Judges in South Dakota, or Judicial Accountability Initiative Law, are the wrong direction. J.A.I.L. 4 Judges was a failed constitutional amendment on the ballot in South Dakota last year that would have curtailed judicial immunity and allowed judges to be prosecuted for their rulings. The group that sponsored the amendment is seeking to get it passed in other states.

The Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS), based at the University of Denver, published a report in 2006 called "Shared Expectations: Judicial Accountability in Context," which recommended performance-evaluation programs as a responsible way to hold judges accountable. According to the report, 19 states now have systems, including Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Tennessee and Utah.

"Accountability for the judiciary is a hot topic," said Rebecca Kourlis, executive director of the IAALS and a co-author of the report, "but the term 'accountable' is being held hostage by people who have political agendas."

See the website for the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System here. From the website:
As a continuation of the work begun last year with the release of "Shared Expectations: Judicial Accountability in Context", we have just released a companion report entitled, "Transparent Courthouse™: A Blueprint for Judicial Performance Evaluation." Together, these reports provide exhaustive research showcasing the challenges and opportunities faced by jurisdictions as they work to build robust judicial performance standards and metrics.

We will also be working in coming months to educate the community about the importance of aligning proven methods of judicial selection with a robust judicial performance program. Written remarks on this subject were recently offered to the New York Assembly Committee on the Judiciary, as they work to build a new system of judicial selection in that state. (click here for testimony). We are excited about the potential for real reform to our courts in 2007 and look forward to sharing news of progress with you.

You can access the two reports online. However, and I find this somewhat offputting, you cannot do so without providing at least your first and last name, email address, affiliation. Your phone number is also requested.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 3, 2007 09:01 AM
Posted to Courts in general