This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2007, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
It's a job that has been overseen solely by the courts for two decades.
But now a task force headed by Sen. Chris Buttars wants a new, independent commission to evaluate how Utah's judges are performing and let voters know about it.
"I don't think judges should judge the judges," Buttars said Friday.
Members of a proposed, politically neutral 13-member commission would be equally chosen by the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. Sitting judges and legislators would not be eligible.
Court officials said they were surprised to learn last month they will likely be losing control of the evaluation process. As conceived in February when it was formed, Buttars' Judicial Retention Election Task Force was supposed to study how to improve an information pamphlet sent to voters asked to keep or reject judges appointed by the governor.
The committee took a quantum leap, recommending a body independent of the courts be created to evaluate judges.
"The working group came back with a proposal that was broader than we expected," said assistant court administrator Richard Schwermer. "We conveyed to the task force early on that we think we do an excellent job now of performance evaluations of judges."
But even court officials agree that results of attorney surveys on judicial performance that are published in the pamphlet are confusing.
"The communication of the information in a useful way to the public is not happening," Schwermer conceded.
Buttars put it more strongly. "Right now the pamphlet is worthless," he said. "I've never met anyone who can understand it."
Sen. Scott McCoy, D.-Salt Lake City, expressed concern early on the task force might stray beyond its stated duty. He had pointed to language allowing the task force to make recommendations about "any other issue related to the manner of judicial retention elections . . . "
On Friday, McCoy said the proposed commission could be a good thing if it helps voters make more informed choices.
"But devil is in the details," McCoy added, saying it will be important for the commission to stay on track and not become politicized. "There's nothing inherently wrong with taking [the evaluation process] out of the exclusive control of the courts, as long as they [courts] are still involved," he said.
When asked if he thought legislators intended all along to wrest the process away from the courts, Schwermer replied: "That would be a pretty cynical view." Yet lawmakers have in recent years taken a larger role in vetting judicial candidates and tried to force reforms in the way judges are disciplined.
Buttars denied that re-structuring was pre-ordained.
"It evolved," Buttars said. "It rose to the surface real fast that we needed to have an independent commission."
He added: "We're not after the judges. We have great judges. But when you have them being judged by their own peers, that raises some concerns."
The notion of forming a commission was publicly announced at an Oct. 1 task force meeting, following two weeks of brainstorming by a smaller "working group" composed of Buttars and three other legislators.
An initial proposal included serving legislators and sitting judges in the commission membership. That was changed after Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Christine Durham - who is on the task force with district court judges Hans Chamberlain and Gary Stott - raised concerns about the potential for political influence.
The last remaining hurdle is to simplify survey results from attorneys and jurors who are familiar with judges up for retention. Currently, judges must score at least 70 percent on 75 percent of the survey questions for a favorable rating.
The task force is considering a 1-to-5 scale for survey questions pertaining to a judge's abilities, and a yes/no question as to whether a respondent recommends that the judge be retained.
The task force has also suggested litigants be asked to participate in surveys about the judge on their case, in addition to witnesses who have testified in cases before a judge and court staff who have worked with a judge.
The first performance evaluations administered by the commission would occur in 2012, according to the task force proposal. Task force members hope to vote Tuesday on a final draft that will become a bill introduced in January.
Schwermer said Friday the three judicial members of the task force are in agreement with the draft proposal.
"It's a little touchy, but this is the legislative process, this is how policies get made," Schwermer said. "This process is better and more thoughtful than just introducing a bill in session, with no opportunity to participate . . . That's all we can ask for, in fairness."
Proposed makeup of a new judicial performance evaluation commission:
* Four members appointed by the chief justice of the Utah Supreme Court.
* Four by the governor.
* Two each by the president of the Senate president and the speaker of the House of Representatives.
* The executive director of the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice.
* No more than half can be from the same political party or attorneys by profession.