Utah Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission
| Judicial nominating commissions |
|---|
 |
| Individual nominating committees |
| Select a committee in the dropdown below and click "Submit" to view information about that committee. |
| Methods of judicial selection |
| Partisan elections |
| Nonpartisan elections |
| Michigan method |
| Retention elections |
| Assisted appointment |
| Bar-controlled commission |
| Governor-controlled commission |
| Hybrid commission |
| Legislative elections |
| Gubernatorial appointment |
The Utah Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, also known as the "JPEC," is an independent state commission in Utah established by state statute in 2008 that publishes evaluations on judges standing for judicial retention elections.[1] The JPEC consists of 13 members appointed by the Utah State Senate, the Utah House of Representatives, the Utah Supreme Court, the Governor of Utah, and the executive director of the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice.
The JPEC publishes performance evaluations of judges standing for retention elections and makes recommendations about whether voters should retain judges.[1]
Members
Last updated: April 2023.
Utah Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission has 13 members. The governor and the Supreme Court each have four appointees to the commission. The president of the Utah State Senate and the speaker of the Utah House of Representatives each receive two appointees. The thirteenth member is the executive director of the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice. The following restrictions apply to the makeup of the Commission: no more than seven members of the commission may be lawyers and no more than half of the appointees can be from the same political party. Only six members of the JPEC can be members of the Utah State Bar. Members are appointed for four-year terms.[2]
| Members of the Utah Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, April 2023[3] | ||
|---|---|---|
| Name | Appointed by | Term-end date |
| Tom Ross | Executive director of the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice | January 1, 2025 |
| Mallory Bateman | Governor | July 1, 2024 |
| Christine Durham | Supreme Court | July 1, 2022 |
| Sherrie Hayashi | Governor | July 1, 2024 |
| Blair Hodson | Supreme Court | July 1, 2022 |
| James Jenkins | Senate | July 1, 2024 |
| Curtis Jensen | House of Representatives | September 1, 2022 |
| Sonya Martinez-Ortiz | Governor | May 27, 2026 |
| Gil Miller | Senate | July 1, 2022 |
| Bridget Romano | Governor | May 27, 2026 |
| Shannon Sebahar | House of Representatives | July 1, 2024 |
| David Jordan | Supreme Court | July 1, 2024 |
| Richard Hoffman | Supreme Court | July 1, 2024 |
Process
The commission has three stated goals:[1]
| “ |
|
” |
The JPEC evaluates all judges who stand for retention election. The JPEC describes the performance evaluations this way:
| “ |
To accomplish these goals, the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission conducts multi-faceted evaluations of judges. As judges stand for retention elections, the Commission publishes the evaluation report and makes a recommendation whether the judge should be retained in office. The voters ultimately decide whether or not each judge will continue to serve in office.[4] |
” |
Duties
According to the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission Act, the Commission's duties are:
| “ |
(1) The Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission shall: (a) conduct a performance evaluation for each justice court judge in the third and fifth year of the justice court judge's term; (b) classify each justice court judge into one of the following three categories: (i) full evaluation; (ii) midlevel evaluation; or (iii) basic evaluation; and (c) establish evaluation criteria for each of the three categories. (2) A full evaluation justice court judge shall be subject to the requirements of this chapter. (3) A midlevel evaluation justice court judge shall be governed by this chapter, except as provided below: (a) the commission shall administer an intercept survey periodically outside the courtroom of the evaluated justice court judge in lieu of the survey specified in 10 Section 78A-12-204; and (b) courtroom observation may not be conducted for midlevel evaluation justice court judges. (4) A basic evaluation justice court judge shall be governed by this chapter, except as provided below: (a) basic evaluation justice court judges shall comply with minimum performance standards for judicial education, judicial conduct, cases under advisement, and any other standards the commission may promulgate by administrative rule; and (b) courtroom observation and surveys may not be conducted for basic evaluation justice court judges.[4] |
” |
Control of judicial selection commissions
Assisted appointment is a method of judicial selection in which a nominating commission reviews the qualifications of judicial candidates and submits a list of names to the governor, who appoints a judge from the list.[5]
At the state supreme court level, this method is further divided into the following three types, based on the makeup of the judicial nominating commissions. Those types are:
- Governor-controlled commission - The governor is either responsible for appointing a majority of the members of the nominating commission or may decline to appoint a candidate from a list provided by the nominating commission.
- Bar-controlled commission - The state Bar Association is responsible for appointing a majority of the members of the nominating commission.
- Hybrid - There is no majority of members chosen by either the governor or the state Bar Association. The membership of these commissions is determined by different rules in each state.
Twenty-two courts in 22 states used assisted appointment to select state supreme court justices as of June 2021.[6][7] Utah used a governor-controlled commission. The table below shows the number of courts using each variation of assisted appointment at the state supreme court level.
| Assisted appointment methods in state supreme courts | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Method | Courts (of 23) | ||
| Governor-controlled majority | 10 | ||
| Bar-controlled majority | 1 | ||
| Hybrid | 12 | ||
About judicial selection
Each state has a unique set of guidelines governing how they select judges at the state and local level. These methods of selection are:
Election
- Partisan election: Judges are elected by the people, and candidates are listed on the ballot alongside a label designating political party affiliation.
- Nonpartisan election: Judges are elected by the people, and candidates are listed on the ballot without a label designating party affiliation.
- Michigan method: State supreme court justices are selected through nonpartisan elections preceded by either partisan primaries or conventions.
- Retention election: A periodic process whereby voters are asked whether an incumbent judge should remain in office for another term. Judges are not selected for initial terms in office using this election method.
Assisted appointment
- Assisted appointment, also known as merit selection or the Missouri Plan: A nominating commission reviews the qualifications of judicial candidates and submits a list of names to the governor, who appoints a judge from the list.[5] At the state supreme court level, this method is further divided into the following three types:
- Bar-controlled commission: The state Bar Association is responsible for appointing a majority of the judicial nominating commission that sends the governor a list of nominees that they must choose from.
- Governor-controlled commission: The governor is responsible for appointing a majority of the judicial nominating commission that sends the governor a list of nominees they must choose from.
- Hybrid commission: The judicial nominating commission has no majority of members chosen by either the governor or the state bar association. These commissions determine membership in a variety of ways, but no institution or organization has a clear majority control.
Direct appointment
- Court appointment: Judges are selected by judges in the state judiciary.
- Gubernatorial appointment: Judges are appointed by the governor. In some cases, approval from the legislative body is required.
- Legislative election: Judges are selected by the state legislature.
- Municipal government selection: Judges are selected by the governing body of their municipality.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Utah Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, "About Us," accessed November 22, 2021
- ↑ Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission Commission, "Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission Act," accessed November 22, 2021
- ↑ Utah Governor, "BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS," accessed April 25, 2023
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 American Bar Association, "Judicial Selection: The Process of Choosing Judges," June 2008 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "ambaroverview" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ As of June 2021, Oklahoma had two state supreme courts: one for civil matters and one for criminal matters.
- ↑ North Dakota uses this method only for vacancies.
Federal courts:
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals • U.S. District Court: District of Utah • U.S. Bankruptcy Court: District of Utah
State courts:
Utah Supreme Court • Utah Court of Appeals • Utah District Courts • Utah Juvenile Courts • Utah Justice Courts
State resources:
Courts in Utah • Utah judicial elections • Judicial selection in Utah
