Empowering Voters
Empowering Voters
Public Performance Evaluation (PDF)
Public Performance Evaluation: Empowering Voters with Information
Why does Minnesota need judicial performance evaluations?
Currently voters have little to no information about how judges perform. One of the most common complaints when voters enter the polling booth is not just that the vast majority of judges run unopposed, but they have no information about who is running and how they have performed. Unlike most professionals, judges have been excluded from an objective review of their job. The best way to empower voters is to give them the information they want and need.
What is public performance evaluation?
Under the Impartial Justice Act, public performance evaluation works through a nonpartisan commission. Not only does this assist judges by providing them with feedback on their performance, which they do not presently receive, it also provides voters with a critical resource to make informed decisions at the ballot box. Many states use some form of judicial performance evaluation, including Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Tennessee, and Utah.
What is the nonpartisan commission’s structure?
The Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission consists of 24 members. A majority of which are non-attorneys. The members would be appointed as follows:
o Governor appoints 8 members (no more than 3 attorneys)
o Supreme court appoints 8 members (no more than 4 attorneys)
o Legislature (majority and minority) appoints 8 members (no more than 4 attorneys)
Who would make up the public performance evaluation commission?
The Impartial Justice Act would require that all members of the commission be residents of Minnesota. The members should be individuals of outstanding competence and reputation and be of balanced geographic and demographic representation to represent the diverse communities in Minnesota. The governor, Supreme Court, and legislature must work together to ensure these requirements are met.
How is the evaluation of a judge conducted?
A judge is evaluated twice during their term. The first time is to provide a personal “report card” for the judge to improve or maintain their job performance and happens midway through their term. The second evaluation, for the public, is conducted during the year the judge is up for retention.
The commission will collect information about the performance of each judge. Anonymous survey forms will be sent to a representative sampling of attorneys, litigants, other judges, and other persons who have been in contact with the judge being evaluated and who have direct knowledge of the judge’s judicial performance during the evaluation period.
Each evaluation must include a public hearing and an opportunity for written public comments on the judge’s performance. The judge must also be given an opportunity to submit written comments and appear at the hearing.
Are the commission’s meetings public?
Yes. The meetings of the commission must be open to the public unless the commission discusses issues related to the judge’s health or allegations against the judge that may be defamatory. All data collected by the commission must also be made public.
On what factors is a judge evaluated?
The required standards developed by the commission must include:
o Knowledge of the law
o Procedure
o Integrity
o Impartiality
o Temperament
o Respect for the litigants
o Respect for the rule of law
o Administrative skill
o Punctuality
o Communication skill
The commission will not evaluate a judge based on the judge’s judicial opinions; that is the purpose of the appellate court.
What happens after the evaluation?
After the evaluation, the commission will assemble an assessment, as well as a rating for the judge of either “well-qualified,” “qualified,” or “unqualified.” The rating does not appear on the ballot, but the rating and assessment must be made available to the public
What is the timeline for a judge under the Impartial Justice Act?
o A judge is appointed by the governor through a list of nominees presented by the Merit Selection Commission.
o The judge must stand for retention in the next regularly scheduled election cycle more than 1 year after appointment.
o If the judge is retained (i.e. receives more than a 50% “yes” vote), then the judge serves a complete term.
o Midway through the judge’s term, the judge is privately evaluated by the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission to improve or maintain their job performance.
o In the final year of the judge’s term, the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission conducts a full-scale public review of a judge and makes the results publicly available to the electorate.
o Finally, at the end of the judge’s term, the judge must stand for a retention election.
