Assessing judiciary performance

The Judicial Performance Evaluations Commission wants your input. 

Founded in 2008 by the Utah State Legislature, the Judicial Performance Evaluations Commission is an independent state body responsible for assessing judges’ performance for voters. The commission consists of 13 commissioners who are appointed by Utah’s three branches of government to serve staggered terms. These volunteer commissioners come from a variety of professions, backgrounds and regions across Utah. It’s a component of the merit selection process in the state of Utah. 

In an interview over the phone, executive director Mary-Margaret Pingree explained that the merit retention process in the Utah constitution prohibits partisan appointment of judges. 

“Recognizing that judges are accountable to you, the voters, helps you really understand how you can make a difference in this process, because your vote is your voice,” Pingree said. 

The focus is on a person’s qualifications when they are applying to be a judge. The first step is a position opening up, following a judicial nominating commission. Those who are interested in becoming a judge apply to the judicial nominating commission. The commission interviews the candidates, looks at their qualifications and picks the five most qualified people. Those names are forwarded to the governor, who interviews those five people and picks the person he thinks is the most qualified. The Senate also looks at their qualifications and eventually will confirm or not confirm the appointment. Public input is also a part of the process.

“There’s a real focus on how qualified a person is for the job,” Pingree said. “The person takes the bench and becomes a judge, and after they’ve been on the bench for a while, then voters get a chance to weigh in, and we are part of the last part of the merit selection process, which is helping voters decide whether they think that judge should continue to be a judge.”

The commission uses eight criteria sets to evaluate judges, but assess more heavily on legal ability, integrity and judicial temperament, administrative skill and procedural fairness. 

The organization has a section on its website where the public can submit comments if they have had experiences with a judge. Additionally, they survey attorneys, court staff, social workers and anyone who has been in a judge’s courtroom. These surveys include questions related to four specific areas, and the results are summarized and made available to voters. The summary is presented numerically, allowing users to see how a judge compares to their peers on a scale of one to five. If a user selects a judge from Logan, they can view that judge’s performance relative to others in each category. The organization also conducts courtroom observations by sending regular citizens to observe judges, with the resulting reports accessible on the website for voters to read.

Brett Folkman, a trial court executive in Logan’s First District Court oversees the management and administration of operations within the court. Folkman said JPEC evaluations are valuable to judges for multiple reasons. 

“It gives them an idea of how they’re seen on the bench, and gives them some good feedback about positive or negative feedback about the way they’re perceived,” Folkman said. 

Pingree said one of the biggest challenges the commission faces is making the process as unbiased as possible. When commissioners evaluate a judge, they eliminate bias by removing any potentially biasing information from their assessment. The commissioners, who review all the relevant data, can check online how judges fare against minimum performance standards. In preparing this data, the evaluators strip away details such as the judge’s gender, location and age, which could influence the commissioners’ judgments. The goal is to provide the public with an objective evaluation of a judge’s qualifications. 

“Judges impact our lives in a lot of different ways. I think there’s a heightened awareness of judges’ decisions right now. I think people are paying attention to judges, not just statewide, but nationally,” Pingree said. 

JPEC provides information that helps you learn about judges, their ability to apply the law, how good their temperament is and their ability to be fair. Casting an informed vote holds our judges accountable. This year, 45% of judges on the ballot are new and have been on the bench for less than five years. 

“The more information voters have, the better,” Folkman said. “It’s a good resource anybody who’s interested needs to check out the website.” 

There are 50 judges on the ballot this year ranging across all the courts, including Matthew B. Durant, Bryan Galloway, Brandon J. Maynard, Ryan Tenney and Spencer Walsh. Visit judges.utah.gov for more information.