The Judicial Performance Review

  In 1992 Arizona voters amended the state Constitution to create a process for evaluating the performance of judges appointed through merit selection. The Constitution requires that the performance evaluation process include input from the public and that judicial performance reports be given to the voters before the state's general election. The Commission on Judicial Performance Review (JPR Commission) was created to conduct the periodic performance reviews of appointed judges required by the Constitution. The JPR Commission works under procedures adopted by the Supreme Court and sets standards for judicial performance including whether judges can apply the law fairly, treat people with respect and manage a courtroom.

The Voters Evaluation

 Under the performance evaluation process, public input about each judge's performance is collected through surveys conducted by jurors, witnesses, litigants, people who represent themselves in court, attorneys and court staff who have observed the judge at work. This input is then used to rate key aspects of each judge's performance.

 

 The public has the key role in the judges review process, as the JPR Commission uses the public input to decide whether each judge subject to retention election "Meets" or "Does Not Meet" judicial performance standards. The Commission reports its decision and the information collected from the surveys in the Secretary of State Voter Information Pamphlet and on this website. Voters can use the JPR Commission's findings and data reports to decide how they will vote on each judge on the retention ballot.

The Commission Composition

 The Commission on Judicial Performance Review is composed of 34 members, all appointed by the Arizona Supreme Court.
 The Commission can have no more than seven judges and six attorneys, so the majority of the members are public members who are not members of the legal community.
 This gives the public a 2.6 to 1 ratio, the 2.6 being the public and the 1 being of the legal community. These ratios work, if you are aware of the process and procedures of the J.P.R.
 Now, this doesn't mean the judges up for retention doesn't have or devised methods to evade the proper process of judicial performance review.
 Some judges will not have your information (usually email address and name) sent to JPR when eligible for taking the survey on the judge you have a hearing with during the time of evaluation. Other judges will not hold hearings in the evaluation periods.
 A "mid-term survey" is conducted from February through May of odd-numbered years for judges who were retained at the preceding regular general election.
 A "retention election survey" is conducted from February through May of odd-numbered years for judges eligible for retention at the next regular general election who will be the subject of the Commission's election-year meeting under Rule 6.
 A "special survey" is conducted from August through November of odd-numbered years for judges appointed from July through the general election date of the preceding even-numbered year and the subject of the Commission's election-year meeting under Rule 6.
 The Commission may extend the length of any survey period.

Feeding a cow roses, Does not get you better appreciation.

 To know the entire process of judicial performance review is not an easy task to reveal, especially when the information you need is in the hands of the people you may be reviewing or up for retention. See Ariz. R. P. Jud. Perfor. Rev. 5
Survey Periods and Public Vote; Appellate Judges. Appellate judges are surveyed on a continuing basis but are the subject of the Commission's electionyear meeting only in the even-numbered year in which the appellate judge is eligible for retention. The Commission may review only those surveys that are applicable to the judge's current term.