Rule 3-111.04. Evaluation and certification of judges and commissioners.
Intent:
To establish the procedures by which the Council will evaluate and certify judges for retention election or reappointment.
To establish the procedures by which the Council will evaluate and certify commissioners for reappointment.
Applicability:
This rule shall apply to the Judicial Council and to the judges and commissioners of the courts of record and courts not of record.
Statement of the Rule:
(1) At its meeting in December of odd-numbered years, the Council shall begin the process of determining whether the judges subject to election at the next general election meet the standards of performance provided for in this rule. The Administrative Office of the Courts shall assemble all evaluation information, including:
(1)(A) attorney and juror survey scores;
(1)(B) judicial education records;
(1)(C) self declaration forms;
(1)(D) records of formal and informal sanctions by the Supreme Court; and
(1)(E) any information requested by the Council.
(2)(A) Prior to the meeting the Administrative Office of the Courts shall deliver the records to the Council and to the judges being evaluated.
(2)(B) In a session closed in compliance with Rule 2-103, the Council shall consider the evaluation information and make a preliminary finding of whether a judge met the performance standards established by Rule 3-111.03.
(2)(C) If the Council finds the judge met the performance standards, it is presumed the Council will certify the judge be retained in the general election. If the Council finds the judge did not meet the performance standards, it is presumed the Council will not certify the judge be retained in the general election. The Council may certify the judge for retention election or withhold decision until after meeting with the judge.
(2)(D) A presumption against certification may be overcome by a showing of good cause to the contrary. A presumption in favor of certification may be overcome by:
(2)(D)(i) reliable information showing non-compliance with a performance standard; or
(2)(D)(ii) formal or informal sanctions by the Supreme Court of sufficient gravity or number or both to demonstrate lack of substantial compliance with the Code of Judicial Conduct.
(3) At the request of the Council the judge shall meet with the Council in January. At the request of the Council the presiding judge and other reviewing judge shall report to the Council any meetings held with the subject judge, the steps toward self improvement identified as a result of those meetings, and the efforts to complete those steps. Not later than 5 days after the December meeting, the Administrative Office of the Courts shall deliver to the judge being evaluated notice of the Council’s action and any records not already delivered to the judge. If the judge is to meet with the Council, the notice shall contain an adequate description of the reasons the Council has withheld its decision and the date by which the judge is to deliver written materials. The Administrative Office of the Courts shall deliver copies of all materials to the Council and to the judge prior to the January meeting.
(4)(A)At its January meeting in a session closed in accordance with Rule 2-103, the Council shall provide to the judge adequate time to present evidence and arguments in favor of certification. Any member of the Council may present evidence and arguments of which the judge has had notice opposed to certification. The burden is on the person arguing against the presumed certification. The Council may determine the order of presentation. The Council may continue the closed meeting with the judge to the February Council meeting.
(4)(B) At its January or February meeting in open session, the Council shall approve its final findings and certification regarding all judges standing for retention election at the next general election.
(5) Between the date of certification and the next general election, the Chief Justice shall notify the Judicial Council of any order of sanction entered by the Supreme Court against a judge certified by the Council.
(6) Between the date of certification and the next general election, a member of the Judicial Council voting in the majority may move to reconsider the certification of a judge and present to the Council facts material to certification occurring before or since certification, which, if known at the time of certification, may have led to a contrary result. If the motion to reconsider passes, the Council shall notify and meet with the judge in like manner to the notification and meeting under paragraphs (3) and (4) of this rule. After the meeting the Council shall decide in open session whether to certify the judge. If the Council changes its original certification decision, it shall use the most effective means available to publish its final decision.
(7) The Council shall approve the statements and descriptions required by §20A-7-702 for the voter information pamphlet. The judge may review and edit the biographical summary. The Administrative Office of the Courts shall promptly deliver the approved statement regarding a judge to the judge and shall deliver the approved statement regarding all judges to the Lt. Governor no later than August 1. Upon delivery to the Lt. Governor, the Administrative Office of the Courts shall publish the statement regarding all judges on the Internet.
(8) For municipal justice court judges, the Council shall use the same evaluation process as for judges of the courts of record, but the process shall begin in December of even numbered years, approximately 14 months prior to the expiration of the municipal judges’ terms of office. The Administrative Office of the Courts shall deliver a statement similar in content and purpose to the one described in §20A-7-702 to the respective judges and to the Mayor of the judges’ jurisdictions no later than August 1 prior to the expiration of the municipal judges’ terms of office. The Administrative Office of the Courts shall publish the statements on the Internet.
(9) For commissioners, the Council shall use the same evaluation process as for judges, but the Council may remove the commissioner upon the same grounds and statement of reasons for which it could certify a judge not be retained. The timing of meetings shall be such as to conclude all steps at least 60 days prior to expiration of the commissioner’s term of office. The Administrative Office of the Courts shall notify the commissioner of the dates of all events and meetings. The Administrative Office of the Courts shall promptly notify the presiding judge of the Council’s finding, certification and statement of reasons.