| Report Recommends Moving Forward With Evaluations of Nevada Judges |
| Monday, 11 May 2009 09:41 | ||||||||||||||
|
Nevada should move forward to establish a statewide system to evaluate the performance of elected judges, according to a report from the Nevada Supreme Court’s Article 6 Commission. The report lists five recommended steps to implement a judicial evaluation system as a way to assist voters in determining how well judges are doing their jobs. “Voters frequently complain that they have insufficient knowledge to determine if a sitting judge is worthy of being returned to the bench,” said Justice Ron Parraguirre, who represents the Supreme Court on the Article 6 Commission. The Nevada Judicial Evaluation Pilot Project was conducted by the Grant Sawyer Center for Justice Studies at the University of Nevada, Reno.
“The Article 6 Commission wanted to determine if broad based evaluations could paint an accurate picture of a judge’s performance,” Justice Parraguirre said. “It is clear from this study that such evaluations can be very useful for the voting public and the judges themselves.” Currently, attorneys in Clark and Washoe Counties are polled biennially about the performance of judges in their counties and the Nevada Supreme Court. The evaluation system employed in the Article 6 Commission’s pilot project went beyond that to include not only attorneys, but jurors, court staff, and other judges. Originally, litigants were included as a survey group in the pilot project. However, contact information for these individuals was not available through the courts. The report recommends that a methodology be developed to include this group in future judicial evaluations. The current judicial evaluation systems in Nevada are not funded or conducted by the judiciary. In Clark County, the Review Journal newspaper conducts the surveys of lawyers. In Washoe County, the evaluations are conducted by the Washoe County Bar Association. The five recommendations in the report are:
Currently about 20 states use some form of judicial evaluations. The report states that “Judicial performance evaluation programs are a proven approach to promoting accountability without necessarily restricting judicial independence.” The report notes that judges should be “evaluated using objective and neutral criteria related to the process of judging rather than specific case outcomes.” While judicial evaluations have proven value in any judicial selection system, the report states that “the interest in judicial evaluations was given further impetus” because of the possibility that a merit selection system will be implemented in Nevada. Senate Joint Resolution 2 (SJR-2), if passed a second time by the 2009 Nevada Legislature and approved by voters in 2010, would amend the Nevada Constitution to provide for the appointment of judges rather than through contested elections. Under a so-called “Missouri Plan,” judges would periodically face voters who would decide whether a judge is retained. “SJR-2 would require development of a judicial evaluation process as part of a new approach to selecting judges,” the report states. The Grant Sawyer Center for Justice Studies was involved in studying judicial evaluations well before the Article 6 Commission contacted the Center about issues in Nevada. Four years ago, the American Bar Association contracted with the Center to re-evaluate guidelines for judicial evaluations that the ABA promulgated in 1985. The Center worked with the National Judicial College to study states using judicial evaluations and recommended updates to the ABA guidelines. CONTACT Bill Gang Public Information Officer Nevada Supreme Court 702-486-3232 office 702-279-6375 mobile
|
||||||||||||||
| Last Updated on Friday, 26 June 2009 10:40 |
Download Judicial Evaluation Project Report
