Evaluating Judges
87 percent of all state court judges face election to gain or retain their seats, according to the National Center for State Courts, with 39 states electing at least some of their judges. State courts in the United States are unique in the world—neither our own federal system, nor any other nation, elects judges. According to the judicial selection resources published by the American Judicature Society, no two states even use the same system to place judges into their positions and most states use hybrid systems. Hybrid systems combine elements of judicial selection including: appointments by elected officials (as in U.S. federal courts) or appointment by higher courts; appointments with confirmation by independent bodies; initial election in a partisan election; initial election in a nonpartisan election; and retention election for judges after having served an initial term.
Illinois is one of these hybrid states. Judges in Illinois first earn their seat either through partisan election, when a judicial vacancy occurs at the end of a judge’s term, or through appointment, when a judicial vacancy occurs during a judge’s term. Regardless of how the judge first earned his or her seat, each judge in Illinois faces a general election at the end of his or her term of office. The retention election is nonpartisan—the ballot does not indicate a political affiliation for the judge and merely lists his or her name and the court where he or she sits. Voters cast either a “yes” vote or a “no” vote, indicating whether that judge should be retained in office.
Under the retention election system, dozens of judges are on the retention ballot in every general election. Judges receiving a minimum of 60% yes vote retain their judicial office. Unfortunately, voters often approach these elections with very little information about the candidates. Chicago Appleseed supports a project that hopes to address this gap in voter education: the Judicial Performance Commission of Cook County, an independent pilot project for evaluating judges in Cook County. Chicago Appleseed provides research into the judges’ performance and the Judicial Performance Commission evaluates the retention candidates. For the 2010 general election, the JPC released evaluations of the 69 judges standing for retention shared these evaluations with the public and with the judges themselves.
According to the National Center for State Courts, 18 states currently use bodies based on a performance commission model to evaluate sitting judges. The performance commission model is a means of evaluating sitting judges where the central question is: Does this judge possess the qualities which make a fine jurist, regardless of the case before the bench? Evaluations of a judge undertaken from this model focus on the objective qualities of judicial performance, attempting to remove considerations of any individual case outcome from assessing a judge’s skill, clarity and professionalism in bringing a case to conclusion. The State of Illinois does not have formal evaluation process, nor an official body in place, to research and report on the performance quality of sitting judges, whether to inform voters about the judicial retention candidates or to inform judges about deficiencies in their judicial performance.
At Chicago Appleseed, we have begun data collection and research for the 2012 judicial retention election. Between now and early 2012, staff and volunteers with Chicago Appleseed will conduct hundreds of personal interviews with attorneys who have recently appeared in the courtrooms of the 2012 judicial retention candidates, as well as conduct an anonymous electronic survey of additional attorneys with experience before the candidates. Staff and volunteers will observe many of these judges in their courtrooms, recording observations about the judge’s demeanor and the functioning of the courtroom. Staff and volunteers will conduct further research into the published writings (opinions, articles, or editorials) of the judges, as well as those written about them. Thorough and neutral assessment of the performance aptitude of sitting judges strengthens the judiciary by helping voters make educated decisions in retention elections. It also strengthens the judiciary by providing meaningful feedback, which is concerned with on-going performance and not case outcomes.