All but one judge up for retention met judicial standards, the Judicial Performance Review Commission found in its 2024 review of judges and justices.
The latest round of judicial performance review marks the first since a task force undertook a major rule and process overhaul after three judges were not retained in 2022, despite only one judge being deemed unfit for the bench.
In recommended and since-adopted rule changes, commissioners prioritized heightened voter information and clarity going into the 2024 retention election, citing “voter confusion” in the past cycle as a conduit for a higher judicial rejection rate among voters.
The latest cycle brought a fundamental change to how commissioners vote and puts out a general goal to “maximize the information available to voters,” a move which comes in tandem with growing electoral interest in judicial retention elections.
Adopted rule changes to the commission shifted how the commission reviews judges prior to the vote. The process has long relied on survey responses to assess where judges may be falling short, but the task force added in opportunities for judges to address the commission on any failings prior to a vote.
In the course of this year’s judicial performance review, commission members reviewed more than 14,000 survey responses from attorneys, jurors, parties, witnesses, victims in criminal cases, court employees and any other judicial officers or people who had direct contact and knowledge for a judges’ performance during the specified period, and took note of public comments.
The commission then sent out “letters of concern” to judges who see low scores in surveys and allow an opportunity to respond in writing or in an in-person conference under executive session, or both.
Doug Cole, JPR commissioner and task force member, noted that in past cycles, judges could be met with surprise “no” votes in the final roll call vote without an adequate opportunity for the judicial candidate to respond.
“The meeting where we go through all the data and vote to decide who to send a letter of concern to, that's the time to flag any concern whatsoever on a candidate. That's the time to do it. Not during the voting session,” Cole said.
As part of rule changes, commissioners can also review additional information in evaluating a judge in executive session, including courtroom video and audio recordings, number of notices of change of judge, written opinions and orders and case management statistics.
In this cycle, two judges received letters from the commission, according to Alberto Rodriguez, spokesman for the court.
The rule changes overhauled voting procedure, too.
In past cycles, the commission would take a roll call vote for each judge and include the count of commissioners who voted a judge met and did not meet standards and those who abstained from the vote given a conflict of interest or absence from a conference with a judge.
But the taskforce assembled found “voter confusion” over what exactly an abstention vote meant could have played some role in voters ousting an inordinate number of judges in 2022.
Cole noted roll call votes, including abstentions, were previously included in election information guides. And though the guide included an explanation of what abstention votes represented, “if people didn’t dig down, it raised questions,” Cole said. “ If you didn't dig deep, you didn't get it.”
Now, the commission lists all judges and justices up for retention on a consent agenda, denotes recusals and then allows an opportunity to remove judges who received a letter of concern for a roll call vote, before voting on the judges found to meet standards in one motion.
JPR convened on April 26 to vote on whether judges and justices up for retention meet standards of judicial performance.
Judges and justices are listed anonymously, denoted only by their court and division, on the consent agenda for a mass voice vote on whether judges met judicial standards.
JPR Chair Mike Hellon, ahead of the vote, noted the standards at play, including a “command of relevant substantive law and procedural rules, impartiality, clarity in written and oral communication, judicial temperament and professionalism, upholding public confidence in the legal system, and demonstrating appropriate respect for everyone, and possession of the administrative and management skills and work ethic necessary to be productive and efficient.”
Commissioners then moved to recuse themselves on specific judges if there was a question to their impartiality, a conflict of interest, failure to appear at a prior conference with a judge, or if the judge in question was themselves.
The commission removed a single judge, later revealed to be Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jo Lynn Gentry, from the consent agenda. Two commissioners voted that Gentry met standards, one abstained and 25 found she was not fit for the bench.
The remaining 69 judges and two Supreme Court justices were found to have met judicial performance standards.
And with the vote out of the way, the commission now prepares to release full survey results, commission votes and additional performance information on judges to the public on JPR’s website and the Secretary of State’s Election Information Guide in July.
Under new rules, the guide will not include a breakdown on votes, but rather whether the commission found the judge met or did not meet judicial standards. And the commission’s report on judicial performance will include the judges’ associated court, any current assignment, number of years of service, and whether the judge has failed to cooperate with the JPR process.
Blanca Moreno Calles, JPR program manager, noted the commission’s website will also include comprehensive survey results, commission vote results, links to bios and links to opinions for appellate judges.
But some components of review are still kept under wraps. Though the results and review process by-and-large hinge on survey results, court rules still render confidential “all information, survey forms, letters, notes, memoranda, and other data received by the Commission in connection with any judicial performance evaluation,” including any letters or information shared in conferences with judges in executive session.
Catherine Sigmon, co-founder of Civic Engagement Beyond Voting and founder of the judicial voting guide Gavel Watch, said the existing limits to what voters can see stymie true transparency.
“I always believe in more disclosure rather than less,” Sigmon said. “The commission has confidential information that is not part of the score itself there is confidential information that they hear, as well as interviews and testimony that is done in closed executive session that we are just not privy to.”
She continued, “My biggest concern is to what extent they're basing their recommendations on the actual surveys or confidential information that has no visibility.”
But Cole said the commissioners’ decisions at most every step of the process are based on survey results, which, in addition to most recent results, can date back up to 12 years for judges.
“Our key decisions are based on surveys,” Cole said. “The public sees what we see.”
The court plans to put out the judicial performance reports in July.
And Sigmon plans to put out Gavel Watch, a voting guide with recommendations on retention elections, by the first week of September, after judges have to officially declare whether they are seeking retention.
“Voters in Arizona really treasure the right to be able to vote on the judges,” Sigmon said. “And they are incredibly hungry for more information.”
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0