Judicial Performance Evaluation

State Links

  • Reports and Commissions on Judicial Performance


Selection Procedures. The Alaska Judicial Council is tasked with evaluating judicial performance in the case of retention elections.  Detailed information about procedures, legal authority, comments, evaluation materials, and other information related to judicial evaluation are available on the web site.

Retention Evaluation Materials for Judges on the Ballot in 2006. This web site includes information on how the Alaska Judicial Council voted on the 31 judges on the ballot.


The Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review.  The Commission establishes judicial performance standards, determines if judges are following these standards, and reports its findings to the state's voters.  There is also a section on the web site for Arizona citizens to participate in the merit selection and retention of the state's judges.


California's Commission on Judicial Performance is constitutionally created, and "deals with the censure, removal, retirement, or private admonishment of judges and commissioners for either misconduct of inability to perform their duties because of permanent disability."


Commission on Judicial Performance: County Links. This site includes information about the performance of judges in specific counties in Colorado.


Judicial Performance Evaluation Program. Connecticut Judicial Branch.  This site includes information on Connecticut's Judicial Performance Evaluation Program including Committee members, meeting agendas and minutes,


In addition to a disciplinary function, the District of Columbia's Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure conducts performance evaluations of those judges eligible for reappointment.


Hawaii Judicial Performance Review.   This website offers information on the performance program established in Hawaii as well as information on the Judicial Evaluation Review Panel.

Judicial Performance Program: 2008 Report. The Judiciary of the State of Hawaii (Oct. 2008).


Kansas Commission on Judicial Performance. The newly created Kansas Commission on Judicial Performance plans to begin judicial performance evaluation during 2008. 


The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Judicial Performance Evaluation Committee was established in 2001.  All judges have been evaluated at least once; the Committee is in the process of gathering information to conduct a second evaluation.     


Commission on Judicial Performance.  Site includes information about the evaluation commission and links to the commission's members, rules, and staff.

Joint Legislative Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review (PEER): Report to the Mississippi Legislature. Mississippi Joint Legislative Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review (PEER Committee) (June 2002). This report includes background information on the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance, legal authority and responsibility for regulating judges, conclusions, and recommendations.

New Hampshire

Judicial Performance Evaluation Program. New Hampshire Supreme Court, June 30, 2005.  A summary of results of the JPE program implemented by the state of New Hampshire in 2001; submitted to the New Hampshire Supreme Court annually.

New Jersey

The New Jersey Judicial Performance Program was adopted in 1986 and implemented in 1987. The goals are to improve judicial performance on an individual and institutional basis; to enrich judicial education; to efficiently assign and utilize judges within the New Jersey Judiciary; and to enhance the reappointment process. According to the program description, "[a]nonymous questionnaires are sent to attorneys who participate in actual cases before judges in the Program. Attorneys are asked to evaluate judges on over 30 performance standards in areas of legal ability, judicial management skills, and comportment." Appellate judges receive anonymous questionnaires to evaluate trial court judges if and when their rulings are appealed. Results of the questionnaires are shared with individual judges, assignment judges, the state supreme court, the governor, state senate judiciary committee, and the judicial evaluation commission.

New Mexico

The New Mexico Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission provides public access to judicial performance evaluation results searchable by name, court, district or county.  This website also includes links to a variety of other information regarding judicial performance evaluation in New Mexico.

North Carolina

Brody, David C. North Carolina Judicial Performance Evaluation Pilot Program: Final Report. Prepared for the North Carolina Bar Association (Rev. 2008). This report presents findings, comments, and recommendations of North Carolina's Judicial Education Pilot Program.

Rhode Island

The Rhode Island Judicial Performance Evaluation Program was created Supreme Court, Article 6, Rule 4 on March 25, 1993.


Tennessee Appellate Judges Evaluation Report. Judicial Evaluation Commission (2006).  This report provides the results of judicial performance evaluation for Tennessee Appellate Court Judges.


The Utah Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission's new website includes information on how attorneys, court staff, and jurors rated each judge; how courtroom observers evaluated each judge; and whether the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission recommended that the judge be retained in office.  The surveys used by attorneys, court staff and jurors to evaluate a judge's performance are also available on the site.


The Walsh Commission's final report, "The People Shall Judge," recommended that "[i]nformation about how sitting judges perform should be collected and made available to the public."

Brody, David C. “A Report on the Washington State Judicial-Performance Evaluation Pilot Project.” Washington State Bar News 56, no. 9 (September 2002): 30-35. This article focuses on a pilot project developed in 1999 by the Washington chapter of the American Judicature Society. The project aimed to "design and test a judicial-performance evaluation program for superior court judges in Washington that would foster judicial self-improvement and provide information to voters in judicial elections."