LPC opposes proposed changes to judicial retention, citing separation concerns; motion passes

The League's Legislative Policy Committee voted Feb. 24 to oppose two bills that would alter judicial retention procedures and the commission that evaluates judges.

Background and debate

Speakers warned the proposed changes risked politicizing judicial retention. Roger Choo (League staff) said the selection and review process for judges was designed to remove political influence from judicial appointments and evaluations. "This basically said that our legislative committee is going to put their effective endorsement on the ballot on this retention of elections," Choo said, adding that the change ‘‘deeply bothers’’ him.

Other members raised constitutional and practical concerns about one branch of government influencing retention for another. A committee speaker said the typical public commenters on judicial performance are those upset with outcomes, and noted the value of an independent performance-evaluation commission that solicits assessments from lawyers and litigants familiar with courtroom performance.

Motion and vote

Committee members moved and seconded a change in the League’s position to oppose the bills that would replace the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission (JPEC) with a joint legislative commission and add legislative statements to retention ballots. After a voice vote the chair declared the motion passed.

Why it matters

Speakers argued the bills would increase the risk that judges feel political pressure and would diminish an independent, professional review process that produces contextualized evaluations for voters.

Next steps

The League will register opposition on the bills and include talking points for members who contact legislators.