Using Judicial Performance Evaluations to Promote Judicial Accountability

By Kourlis, Rebecca Love; Singer, Jordan M. | Judicature, March/April 2007 | Go to article overview

Using Judicial Performance Evaluations to Promote Judicial Accountability


Kourlis, Rebecca Love, Singer, Jordan M., Judicature


In November 2006, voters in several states faced ballot measures that would have crippled the ability of state courts to do the work we expect of them. The "JAIL 4 Judges" referendum would have subjected South Dakota's judges to civil and criminal penalties for deciding cases in ways that offended a small minority of citizens. A proposal in Montana threatened judges with special recall elections if they made unpopular decisions. In Colorado, a ballot initiative sought to penalize judicial experience by imposing retroactive term limits for appellate judges, a measure that would have ousted nearly half the sitting appellate bench. And Oregon voters considered whether to elect their appellate judges by geographic district, apparently intending to tie judicial candidates more closely to the values of a particular region of the state.

Each of these initiatives was couched as an effort to hold judges more accountable, "accountability" being defined (implicitly or explicitly) by their sponsors as adherence to the will of the majority. The chief architect of the Colorado initiative, for example, argued that term limits would make the judiciary as a whole "more responsive to the sovereign will of the people." Similarly, in Montana, proponents argued that recall of individual judges would "be a powerful tool for judicial accountability and democratic oversight of a branch of government that for too long has been too removed from the will of the people."

Although none of these initiatives was ultimately successful, those who want an effective, impartial judiciary can ill-afford to be complacent about the conditions that fueled their placement on the ballot. The public is increasingly being asked to hold judges accountable for the outcomes of specific cases, rather than the appropriateness of the process used to reach those outcomes. This was not always the case. The time is ripe to return "judicial accountability" to its traditional role: a necessary partner, along with judicial independence, in ensuring an effective judicial branch.

This article summarizes the results of a recent comprehensive study of an existing but underutilized approach to process-oriented judicial accountability: judicial performance evaluation (JPE). The study, undertaken by the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver, concluded that if properly designed and executed, JPE can be an effective means of building appropriate, shared expectations about the proper role of the judiciary, and could be implemented in every American jurisdiction.1

A primer on JPE

Nineteen states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, employ some form of a judicial performance evaluation program (see "Overview of official judicial performance evaluation programs," page 204). These programs vary in their specifics-for example, they may use slightly different criteria for measuring judges' performance, or seek information from somewhat different sources, or share information with the public in different ways-but as a general rule all focus on whether judges are managing cases efficiently, deciding them on the basis of established facts and applicable law, explaining their decisions clearly, and exhibiting proper courtroom demeanor. In addition, regardless of the differences in their formats, JPE programs are uniformly process-oriented, not outcome-oriented: what matters is whether the judge handled a case in a balanced, fair, and efficient manner-not whether the ultimate decision in the case provoked limited or even widespread opposition.

Each judge is typically evaluated by an independent commission consisting both of attorneys and non-attorneys. The commission provides surveys to attorneys, jurors, and others who have interacted with the judge in a professional setting, asking for anonymous responses to questions about the judge's professional skills. In more comprehensive programs, the commission also reviews the judge's case management statistics and written opinions, solicits public comments on the judge's performance, and conducts one or more interviews with the judge. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Using Judicial Performance Evaluations to Promote Judicial Accountability
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.