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 (the JPR Commission) was created to conduct the periodic performance reviews of appointed judges required by the Constitution. The JPR Commission works under rules adopted by the Arizona Supreme Court and their set standards for judicial performance including whether judges have command of relevant substantive law, treat people with respect, and manage a courtroom.

Voters evaluate judges through public input 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 aspects of each judge's performance. The public has the key role in the performance 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. Judges under the merit selection and retention system appear on the ballot as nonpartisan candidates. A judge's political affiliation is not considered or included in the Commission's report or the Publicity Pamphlet.

The Commission on Judicial Performance Review exists to provide meaningful and accurate information to the public for its use in voting on the justices and judges appointed to the bench through merit selection. To do this, a carefully designed method of providing clear and accurate information about each justice and judge appearing on the ballot at the general election is used.

The Commission on Judicial Performance Review is composed of 34 members. 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.

Members of the Commission on Judicial Performance are appointed by the Arizona Supreme Court. The Supreme Court seeks people with outstanding competence and reputation and who are also sensitive to the needs of and held in high esteem by the communities in which they serve.

Persons interested in being considered for appointment to the Commission must complete an application. Applications are vetted and considered according to the county and member-type vacancy. The Court strives to appoint members who reflect, to the extent possible, the geographic, ethnic, racial and gender diversity of their communities. The Court holds that competence and diversity among the members will enhance fairness and public confidence in the judicial performance review process.

Once appointed by the Court, Commission members serve a four-year term.

Judicial performance reviews are conducted twice during a judge's term - once at midterm and once at the end of the term just before the general election. The review is a two-part process: (1) Data Collection and Reporting, and (2) Self-Evaluation and Improvement:

Data Collection and Reporting: Survey forms are distributed to people who have contact with the judges during a prescribed period of time. Survey recipients include attorneys, jurors, litigants, witnesses, people who represent themselves in court, court staff, other judges, and parties who have contact with presiding judges. The Commission also holds public hearings prior to every election year and accepts written comments from the public at any time.

Self-Evaluation and Improvement: Judges complete self-evaluations to rate their own performance. The categories on the self-evaluation form are identical to the categories on the various survey forms to give the judge the opportunity to compare their perspective of their performance with the survey responses. Each judge is then assigned to acConference team composed of one public volunteer, one attorney volunteer, and one judge volunteer. The conference team meets with the judge to review the data report, survey comments and public comments, and helps the judge set performance goals. The conference team reports its work with a judge in a conference team report. The report is confidential and is not distributed to the Commission for use in its decisions. A copy of the conference team report, with identifying information removed, is used by the Judicial College of Arizona to assist in developing more effective judicial education programs.

To maintain the integrity of the judicial performance review process and ensure confidentiality, the Commission contracts with an independent data center to collect survey responses and compile the data. Respondents send completed surveys directly to the data center. Survey forms are never collected by JPR Commission staff. Only compiled data from surveys returned directly to the data center is used.

The data center assigns each judge a code number. All survey responses are entered into a database under the code number. When the survey period ends, a compiled data report is generated for each code number.

When reviewing data reports and public input to make its decision about whether a judge has met judicial performance standards, the Commission works only with code numbers, not the names of the judges. This system is intended to reduce potential bias on the part of Commission members when voting on whether a judge "Meets" or "Does Not Meet" judicial performance standards.

Confidential comments on survey forms are retyped at the data center to omit names or other identifying information. The retyped comments are grouped and reported by respondent type in a separate document. Neither the JPR Commission nor the public has access to the survey comments. They are used only to assist in preparing the judge's self-improvement plan.

 (1) command of relevant substantive law and procedural rules;

  (2) impartiality;

  (3) clarity of oral and written communications;

  (4) judicial temperament and professionalism upholding public confidence in the legal system and demonstrating appropriate respect for everyone; and

  (5) possession of the administrative and management skills and work ethic necessary to be productive and efficient.

The JPR Commission carefully considers the following factors when determining whether a judge or justice "Meets" or "Does Not Meet" judicial performance standards:

• Compiled statistical reports of the survey results.
• Transcribed comments from public hearings.
• Written comments from the public.
• Written or oral comments to the Commission submitted by the judge or justice being reviewed.
• Information obtained from the Commission on Judicial Conduct.
• Additional tools as outlined in the JPR rules of procedure
• The assignment of the judge, e.g. Civil, Criminal, Family, Juvenile, Probate, Special Assignment, Administrative.

To ensure the confidentiality and integrity of the JPR process, all survey data and public comments are encoded with a judge number assigned by the data center prior to being given to the Commission members. Commission members never know the identity of a judge or justice until after the public vote on whether a judge or justice "Meets" or "Does Not Meet" judicial performance standards unless a judge appears in person to address the Commission.

Report of the Commission: After the Public Vote Meeting, the Commission makes its findings available to the public in the Secretary of State Voter Information Pamphlet and on the Commission's website.

For more than 50 years Arizona has benefited from a judicial merit selection and retention process. Merit selection is a way of choosing judges that uses a nonpartisan commission to investigate and evaluate applicants for judgeships. The commission then submits the names of at least three highly qualified applicants to the Governor. The Governor appoints appellate court judges statewide and trial court judges in Coconino, Maricopa, Pima and Pinal counties from lists of nominees submitted by a judicial nominating commission.

Public members make up the majority of every judicial nominating commission. There are five nominating commissions - one for appellate court appointments, and four local commissions on trial court appointments in Coconino, Maricopa, Pima and Pinal counties. Each commission is composed of ten public members and five attorney members and is chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or their designee.

Merit selection is not a system that grants lifetime judgeships. In Arizona, after an initial two-year term of office, then every six years for appellate judges, and four years for trial court judges thereafter, judges appointed under merit selection are evaluated by the voters in an uncontested retention election. Voters have the power to remove or retain judges during the retention elections.

Merit selection is a way of choosing judges through a non-partisan commission of lawyers and non-lawyers that investigates and evaluates applicants. The commission submits the names of the most highly qualified applicants to the Governor, who makes the final selection. Two-thirds of the states and the District of Columbia use some form of merit selection to choose their judges.

Unlike the federal system, merit selection in Arizona is not a system that grants lifetime judgeships. Once Arizona judges are appointed, they must periodically stand for retention election, when voters decide whether to keep or remove them. Performance review is a way of evaluating the judges who seek to remain on the bench. A commission reviews the judges' job performances to determine if they are meeting judicial performance standards. The public uses the information provided from the performance reviews at the retention election to decide if the judges should remain in office. While a number of states use some form of performance review to evaluate their judges, Arizona also requires its judges to undergo a self-evaluation process.

Arizona voters approved merit selection in 1974. At that time, Arizonans voted to discontinue the popular election of appellate judges, Supreme Court justices, and trial court judges in the most populous counties. Four judicial nominating commissions have since been created to screen judicial candidates for nomination to the Governor for appointment (currently the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments, and the Coconino, Maricopa, Pima and Pinal County Commissions on Trial Court Appointments).

A constitutional amendment passed by Arizona voters in 1992 increased the number of non-lawyer members on the nominating commissions, created the Commission on Judicial Performance Review to give the public information on the performance of judges, and opened all aspects of the process to the public, The amendment broadened public participation in selecting and reviewing judges.

For more information on the benefits of merit selection, please visit the Judicial Nominating Commission's website.

• Encourage highly qualified people to apply to serve as a judge.
• Volunteer to serve on a judicial nominating commission. Applications are available from the Governor's office when volunteers are needed.
• Send your comments on applicants being considered for judgeships to the Judicial Nominating Commission.
• Complete a JPR survey when you are in court as a juror, litigant or witness during the survey period.
• Send your comment on a judge's performance at any time to the address below or through the link on this website.
• Volunteer to serve on the JPR Commission or a Conference Team by calling or writing to the JPR Commission. Apply now.
• Be an informed voter. Read the findings and report of the JPR Commission before you vote in the retention elections.

REPLACES POLITICS WITH PROFESSIONALISM
The merit selection process promotes judicial impartiality and integrity because judges are not forced to solicit campaign contributions from, among others, attorneys who practice before them and people who might someday appear before them in court.

In other states, judicial candidates have been forced to spend thousands, sometimes millions of dollars, to run an election campaign in heavily populated areas.

PROMOTES PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
Retention elections held under merit selection systems are an effective and appropriate means of holding judges accountable to the people. In addition to being subject to removal and other sanctions available for misbehavior by the Commission on Judicial Conduct, all merit system judges are regularly subject to removal from office by popular vote. By contrast, elected judges in other states can be removed by popular vote only if they are opposed in the general election. Since judges are frequently unopposed, the people often have less "control" over elected judges. Retention elections also allow the general public, bar associations and the media to focus on problems with a particular judge's performance, rather than on campaign rhetoric and hyperbole often heard in contested election campaigns. The Judicial Performance Review Commission assesses whether or not judges meet judicial performance standards through the collection of data and reports its findings to voters in the Secretary of State's Voter Information Pamphlet. The voters decide whether to retain the judges in office.

PRODUCES A HIGHLY-QUALIFIED JUDICIARY
Merit selection judges are chosen from a large pool of applicants on the basis of their qualifications rather than on political signs and slogans. Qualified attorneys are often unwilling to risk their practices on the expensive effort that is required for election to office. Candidates who are unable to raise sufficient campaign contributions have less likelihood of winning office - no matter their qualifications. This results in a reduced field from which qualified candidates can be selected. Merit selection removes these barriers and also prevents qualified applicants from being screened out by political parties because of their lack of political credentials. Furthermore, it has the advantage of assuring that only qualified and competent applicants reach the bench.

FOSTERS IMPARTIALITY
Sometimes judges are required to make unpopular decisions in order to uphold the law. It is the job of the courts to make sure that the limits of power placed on each branch of government are observed. Judges who must depend on winning re-election to keep their jobs may be unable to remain impartial as they could be penalized by the voters for making one or two unpopular decisions.

ENCOURAGES DIVERSITY ON THE BENCH
An increased number of minorities and women have been appointed to the bench because merit selection encourages a larger pool of qualified candidates.

INCORPORATES REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
Merit selection compensates for limited voter knowledge about, or interest in, even contested judicial elections. Under merit selection, a nominating commission, rather than the Governor alone, makes the initial determination of the applicants' qualifications. The majority of the commission members are non lawyers appointed by the Governor with the approval of the Senate.

PROVIDES CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT OF THE JUDICIARY
Arizona's retention process includes a second important component, self evaluation. Midway through a judge's term in office, and again before a retention election, a judge meets with a team composed of one public volunteer, one attorney, and one judge appointed to assist the judge in setting performance goals. This makes self-evaluation and continuous improvement an integral component of the judiciary.
 

High standards are set for Arizona's judiciary.

The JPR Commission evaluates each judge up for retention election to assess the judge’s:

• Legal Ability: Decides cases based on applicable law, demonstrating competent legal analysis.
• Integrity: Free from personal bias. Administers justice fairly, ethically, and uniformly.
• Communication Skills: Issues prompt and understandable rulings and directions.
• Judicial Temperament: Dignified, courteous, and patient.
• Administrative Performance: Manages courtroom and office effectively. Issues rulings promptly and efficiently.

One way to help the Commission decide whether a judge or justice "Meets" or "Does Not Meet" judicial performance standards, the members compare the survey data of a judge or justice against two threshold standards. For each category of judicial performance, judges are rated and scored as "Very Good" 5 points, "Good" 4 points, "Acceptable" 3 points, "Poor" 2 point, and "Very Poor" 1 point. First, if a judge or justice has an average score of 2.0 or less for any category from any group of respondents, the judge warrants further review. Second, if 25 percent or more of any group of respondents rate the judge or justice as "poor" and "very poor" in any category, further review is also warranted. The categories of legal ability, integrity, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance and administrative skills are subject to the threshold standard settlement activities is not because it is very difficult to evaluate.

For any judge or justice who does not meet the standard, or even if the standard is met, the Commission may ask the Commission Chair to invite the judge to respond in confidence, by letter or in person, regarding questions about scores, public comments, letters, or other performance-related questions. All information, including the letter to the judge and the response from the judge, is coded by judge number to maintain the integrity and confidentiality of the process. The only instance in which a judge's identity is revealed before the Commission vote is if a judge appears in person to address the Commission.