Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Evaluations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers consider HB 11‑30 to expand judicial evaluations and publish comments
Summary
Rep. Bob Lynn told the Judiciary Committee HB 11‑30 would add in‑court observations, require statistical review of processing times and publish anonymized comment submissions; judges and the judicial branch warned about confidentiality, ABA guidance and measurement limits.
CONCORD — The House Judiciary Committee heard lengthy testimony on House Bill 11‑30, which would change how New Hampshire evaluates judges by adding in‑court observations, routine statistical analysis of case processing times and public posting of individual evaluation comments in anonymized form.
Representative Bob Lynn, the bill’s prime sponsor, said the measure “defines for the first time ‘judicial officer,’ adds in‑court observations and calls for statistical analysis of processing times” to give a fuller picture of performance. Lynn said he discussed the approach with Chief Justice Gordon McDonald and that he had received a Jan. 26 letter from Judge John Pendleton expressing concerns about making commenters’ remarks public.
Supporters including Representative Laurie Corson and Lynn Chalette of the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic Violence framed the measure as a way to restore public trust and to protect victims. Corson recounted the case of Marisol Fuentes and urged the committee to “hold every public servant accountable, especially the ones whose decisions can mean life or death.” Chalette said the bill would help identify training needs and mitigate biases in limited questionnaire returns by adding objective data and neutral courtroom observations.
But the judicial branch raised specific objections. Lauren Warner, deputy general counsel for the judicial branch, told the committee the American Bar Association guidelines “recommend that judicial‑evaluation public comment not be posted publicly” and warned that raw statistical measures such as processing time can reflect scheduling and clerks’ management rather than a judge’s individual performance. Warner said circuit court judges often lack control over dockets and that publishing comments could incentivize submissions that relate to case outcomes rather than judicial temperament or impartiality.
Committee members questioned whether anonymization in the bill would sufficiently protect victims and litigants. Representative Birch noted the attorney‑discipline process screens complaints before public disclosure and asked whether HB 11‑30 has any preliminary screening; Lynn said the bill does not replicate that screening and acknowledged the publication of comment text would be a “significant change.”
The bill’s backers said they are willing to work with stakeholders on amendments, and multiple witnesses offered written testimony for the record. The committee did not take final action on the bill at the hearing; members later discussed disposition motions and scheduled follow‑up work.
The committee’s next procedural step is expected to consider amendments that address privacy and measurement methodology before a final vote by the panel.
