The JPC’s Work Continues After the Election
For most of us, as the adrenaline rush of watching a close election wears off, we forget about the returns and put aside the research into candidates we did prior to the election. But at the Judicial Performance Commission (JPC), our work continues. All judges on the retention ballot were retained. Although the JPC found three judicial candidates not recommended for retention, it identified nineteen judges recommended for who nonetheless had issues which ought to be addressed. Now that the election has ended, the work of monitoring improvements in their judicial performance must begin.
As we’ve said in earlier posts about the JPC, voter education is only one goal. The longer goal is improvement to the judiciary through improving the performance of judges who are retained, as well as helping voters identify which judges should not be retained.
The Pilot Project of the Judicial Performance Commission of Cook County was based on the judicial performance commission models in use in five states: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Tennessee. The Colorado commission has been in place since 1988, and, recently, the value of the Colorado Commission has been questioned. If evaluations do not convince voters to vote against retention, do the evaluations serve a vital function?
We believe they do. Although retention rates in judicial offices remain near 100%, formal evaluations of retention candidates have positive impact on the judiciary. In a 2008 survey of judges in Colorado, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System reported that over 85% of trial judges and 50% of appellate judges report judicial performance evaluations have been “significantly beneficial” or “somewhat beneficial” to their professional development. Many judges in Colorado also feel that the Commission had no negative effects on their judicial independence, but instead increases their judicial independence. The Justice at Stake website has additional resources for information about judicial evaluations.
The election has passed, but the responsibility to reform and bring oversight to the judiciary has not.