2014 Colorado Voter Poll Report

About this report

This research study was commissioned by the Colorado Commissions on Judicial Performance to assess voters' knowledge about the Commissions, as well as to identify the best methods of getting information to voters so that they may make informed decisions regarding the retention of judges in Colorado. The report was prepared by Research & Polling, Inc., a survey research firm based in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

---

Methodology

The interview

A random sample of registered voters who participated in the recent November 2014 General Election was interviewed by telephone. Landline and cell phone telephone numbers were generated from the Research & Polling, Inc. database. All interviews were conducted between November 19, 2014 and December 2, 2014.

The telephone interviewers are professionals who are brought together for a training session prior to each survey. This ensures their complete and consistent understanding of the survey instrument. A total of 408 Colorado voters completed interviews.

Margin of error

A sample size of 408 at a 95% confidence level provides a maximum margin of error of approximately 4.9%. In theory, in 95 out of 100 cases, the results based on a sample of 408 will differ by no more than 4.9 percentage points in either direction from what would have been obtained by interviewing all Colorado voters who participated in the November election.

Sample bias

In any survey, there are some respondents who will refuse to speak to the professional interviewer. A lower response rate among certain types of individuals can result in a sample wherein certain types of individuals are over-represented or under-represented. The potential for sampling bias increases as the response rate decreases. Research & Polling, Inc. often sets quotas for various segments of the population who are historically undercounted. This has the effect of minimizing, but not necessarily eliminating, sampling bias.

Subgroups analyzed

The report summarizes the results from each question in the survey and reports on any variances in attitude or perception, where significant, among demographic subgroups. The subgroups examined include:

• Gender
• Ethnicity
• Age
• Household income
• Education attainment level
• Length of residency
• Political affiliation
• Region of Colorado

---

Executive Summary

Introduction

It is common knowledge that most voters pay a lot more attention to high profile races such as president, U.S. Senate, or governor than they do to lower profile judicial races. In fact, Colorado voters freely acknowledge that they have insufficient information to make informed decisions about whether or not to retain judges. Specifically, only one-third of Colorado voters feel they are sufficiently informed to decide which judges should be retained. Further, only one-quarter of Colorado voters feel that most of the electorate has enough information to make informed decisions about the retention of judges.

This self-reported acknowledgement among the voters that they are not well-informed while casting votes in judicial retention elections creates a great opportunity for the Commissions on Judicial Performance to perform an important public service by continuing to educate voters about the performance of judges, thereby enabling the electorate to make better informed decisions. One of the challenges facing the Commissions will be to identify additional resources and develop more effective strategies to increase their visibility among the electorate so that more voters will take advantage of this important service.

Perceived importance of the Commissions on Judicial Performance

The missions of the Colorado Commissions on Judicial Performance are to provide voters with constructive information on each judge running for retention, as well as to improve the professional skills of each judge. These missions are viewed as important to Colorado voters as evident by the 80% who say providing voters with information on each judge is important, and the 85% who say the mission to improve the performance of each judge is important.

Awareness of the Commissions on Judicial Performance

Generally speaking, however, awareness of the Commissions on Judicial Performance among Colorado voters is somewhat low, as 36% of voters say they have heard of the Commissions when asked in an unaided manner. Another 15% say they have heard of the Commissions after given a brief description, bringing the total to 51% who say they have heard of or are aware of the Commissions. Further, among those who say they have heard of the Commissions, half are aware of the goals and missions of the Commissions, while the other half did not know of the missions or goals. Notably, voters of higher socio-economic status are more likely to be aware of the Commissions.

When asked, unaided, what the missions or goals of the Commissions are, 23% say the Commissions provide voters with information about the performance of each judge running for retention, 21% say the Commissions rate or grade judges, 12% say the Commissions' goal is to improve the performance of judges, and 11% say the Commissions recommend whether or not to retain judges.

Information sources: usefulness and quality

The Blue Book. The Blue Book is an invaluable source of information among voters who take the time and effort to review the performance of judges. In fact, among those who say they have read or heard about the Commissions' evaluations and recommendations, over nine-in-ten say they have received the Blue Book. Nine-in-ten also say they at least used the book to review retention recommendations and that it was helpful in assisting them to make informed decisions when voting. Interestingly, females compared to males, and Republicans compared to Democrats, are more likely to say they used the Blue Book.

Commissions' website. When it comes to the Commissions' website, just one-fifth of those who have read or heard about the Commissions' evaluations and recommendations say they have visited the Commissions' website to review the evaluations of judges. However, among those who did visit, 90% say the information on the website was at least somewhat helpful. This indicates that although use of this resource may be less common, it is helpful to voters researching retention information. Voters of higher socio-economic status are slightly more likely to say they visited the Commissions' website to review the evaluations of judges.

Newspaper and television. When it comes to publicity from television and newspaper, the majority (81%) of voters say they have not heard anything about the Commissions on Judicial Performance, while 10% mention newspaper, 7% mention television, and 2% say they have read and heard of the Commissions through both newspaper and television.

Performance of the Commissions in carrying out their missions

Among those who recall reading or hearing about any of the judicial retention evaluations or recommendations written by the Commissions, just over half (54%) say they feel the Commissions are doing a good job (a score of 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale) getting voters information about the performance of justices and judges.

Notably, among those who did recall hearing or reading about the judicial evaluations and recommendations written by the Commissions, 61% say they relied on this information from the Commissions to make decisions on whether or not to retain judges, and 64% say they feel the Commissions' evaluations are trustworthy and credible. Very few voters (14%) find the Commissions on Judicial Performance to be untrustworthy or not credible.

Information preferences

Voters who feel as though they do not have enough information on judicial retention were asked which types of information they would like more of. Voters say they would like more information regarding a judge's stance on a particular issue (25%), what cases judges have heard and the rulings for each (18%), better descriptions of good and bad behavior (15%), whether the judge is liberal or conservative (9%), more biographical information (8%), and more survey data (8%).

When asked how they would like to receive information from the Commissions regarding judicial retention recommendations, voters are likely to say mail (42%), the Blue Book (35%), or an electronic source, such as the Internet (18%), email (17%), or the Commissions' website (9%). Of note, those who are younger and those with higher incomes prefer information via electronic communication, while those who are older prefer the Blue Book, local newspaper, or television.

Final thoughts

Although the majority of voters who have heard of the Commissions say the missions of the Commissions are important, awareness of the Commissions on Judicial Performance among Colorado voters is somewhat low. Further, among those who say they have heard of the Commissions, only half are aware of the goals and missions of the Commissions. However, there is good news in that the majority of those who have heard of the Commissions say they received the Blue Book, used it, and found it helpful. Although the website is used by fewer voters, the majority who did utilize the website say it was helpful in assisting them to make retention decisions.

Because the majority of voters believe the Commissions' goals and missions are important, it is important to increase general awareness of the Commissions and their missions among voters. Increasing awareness will likely result in a greater percentage of voters rating the Commissions as trustworthy and credible as well as increase the percentage of voters who rely on the Commissions' information to make informed retention decisions. Informing voters in advance that they will be receiving judicial retention information from particular publications such as the Blue Book, and targeting certain demographic subgroups via different information sources may raise knowledge and awareness levels among Colorado voters.

---

Detailed Findings

Awareness of Colorado Commissions on Judicial Performance (Q3)

Q3: Have you ever heard of the Colorado Commissions on Judicial Performance?

Over one-third (36%) of likely voters say they have heard of the Commissions, while the majority (64%) has not. Respondents more likely to say they have heard of the Colorado Commissions on Judicial Performance include:

• Those who are college graduates or higher (43%) compared to those with some college education or less (28%).
• Those residing in the Metro (42%) and South Front Range region (40%) compared to those residing in the North Front Range (27%) and Western Slope (24%) regions.

Total sample (n=408):

Perceived Goals or Missions of the Commissions (Q4)

Q4: Do you happen to know what are any of the goals or the missions of the Commissions on Judicial Performance?

Asked of those who have heard of the Commissions. Up to 3 unaided responses.

Nearly one-quarter (23%) of respondents say the mission or goal of the Commissions is to provide voters with information about the performance of each judge who is running for retention. One-fifth (21%) say the mission or goal of the Commissions is to rate or grade judges, while one-in-ten say to improve the performance or skills of judges (12%) or to recommend whether to retain judges (11%). Two percent of respondents say the goal of the Commissions is to report on bad judges. Importantly, nearly half of those who say they have heard of the Commissions do not know the goals or missions of the Commissions.

Among those who have heard of the Commissions (n=145):

* Less than 1% reported.

Awareness After Aided Description (Q5) and Overall Awareness

Q5: The Colorado Commissions on Judicial Performance evaluate the job performance of Colorado's judges standing for retention and reports their findings to Colorado's voters prior to each election. Are you aware of these Commissions?

Asked of those who did not initially say they have heard of the Commissions.

An additional 15% of voters say they are aware of the Commissions after being prompted or aided with additional information. When taking into account the respondents who, unaided, say they have heard of the Commissions, and those who were aided with a brief summary of the Commissions' functions, 51% of likely voters say they have heard of or are aware of the Commissions.

Total sample (n=408):

Recall Reading/Hearing About Judicial Evaluations or Recommendations (Q6)

Q6: Prior to the November election, the Commissions on Judicial Performance evaluated all of the County, District Court, and appellate judges and justices in Colorado that were on the ballot for their retention election. The Commissions reported their findings by writing a summary narrative for each judge. The Commissions also recommended whether each judge should be retained by the voters. Do you recall reading or hearing about any of the judicial evaluations or recommendations that were written by the Commissions?

Asked of those aware of the Commissions (unaided or aided).

Among those who have heard of the Commissions, the majority (73%) say they recall reading or hearing about the judicial evaluations or recommendations while just 26% say they do not recall reading or hearing anything. Notably, residents of higher socio-economic status are more likely to say they recall reading or hearing about the judicial evaluations or recommendations.

Among those aware of the Commissions (n=207):

Recollection of Receiving the Blue Book (Q7)

Q7: The State of Colorado produces and mails a ballot information booklet, also known as the Blue Book, which includes non-partisan information on Constitutional amendments and the judicial retention recommendations from the Commissions on Judicial Performance. Do you recall receiving this publication in the mail or not?

Asked of all who recall reading or hearing about judicial evaluations or recommendations.

The vast majority (92%) of respondents say they received the Blue Book in the mail, while just 8% say they either did not receive it or they don't know. Those more likely to recall receiving the Blue Book include:

• Males (97%) compared to females (87%).
• Those ages 50 to 64 (98%) compared to those ages 18 to 49 (87%) and seniors (90%).

Among those who recall judicial evaluations/recommendations (n=152):

Utilization of the Blue Book (Q8)

Q8: Did you use the voter guide, also known as the Colorado Blue Book, to review judicial retention recommendations?

Asked of those who received the Blue Book.

Among those who received the Blue Book, 85% say they used the booklet to review judicial retention recommendations, while 4% say they only somewhat used the booklet and 11% say they did not use the booklet. Interestingly, females (91%) compared to males (80%), and Republicans (92%) compared to Democrats (83%) are more likely to say they used the Blue Book to review judicial retention recommendations.

Among those who received the Blue Book (n=140):

Voter Guide Helpful When Voting on Judges (Q9)

Q9: Was the voter guide that you received helpful in assisting you to be better informed when voting on justices and judges on your ballot in the recent November election?

Asked of those who used the voter guide.

Among those who say they used the Blue Book to review judicial retention recommendations, nine-in-ten say the booklet was helpful in assisting them to be better informed when voting on justices and judges on the ballot in the recent November election. Those more likely to say they found the information in the Blue Book helpful include:

• Those under age 50 (100%) compared to those over age 50 (84%).
• Those earning $80,000 or more (98%) compared to those earning under $80,000 (88%).
• Those with graduate degrees (100%) compared to those with a college education or less (87%).
• Republicans (97%) compared to Democrats (91%) and those of other political parties (79%).

Among those who used the voter guide (n=125):

Visited the Commissions' Website (Q10)

Q10: The Commissions on Judicial Performance reports judicial retention recommendations and information on their website, coloradojudicialperformance.gov. Did you visit the Commissions on Judicial Performance website to review the evaluations of the judges?

Asked of those who recall reading or hearing about judicial evaluations/recommendations.

Just one-fifth of respondents say they have visited the website, while the majority (81%) says they have not. Those slightly more likely to say they have visited the website include those of higher socio-economic status.

Among those who recall evaluations/recommendations (n=152):

Website Helpful When Voting on Judges (Q11)

Q11: Was the information on the judicial performance website helpful in assisting you to be better informed when voting on justices and judges on your ballot in the recent November election?

Asked of those who visited the website.

Among those who say they have visited the website to review evaluation information, 63% say the website's information was helpful in assisting them to be better informed when voting on justices and judges on the ballot for retention in the recent November election, while 27% say the information on the website was somewhat helpful. One-in-ten respondents say the information on the judicial performance website was not helpful.

Among those who visited coloradojudicialperformance.gov (n=30):

Media Recall of the Commissions (Q12)

Q12: Do you recall hearing or seeing anything in the newspaper or on television in the last 6 months about the Commissions on Judicial Performance?

Asked of those who recall reading or hearing about judicial evaluations/recommendations.

The majority (81%) say they do not recall hearing or seeing anything in the newspaper or on television, while one-in-ten say they recall seeing something about the Commissions in the newspaper and another 7% say they recall seeing something on television. Two percent of respondents say they recall hearing or seeing something about the Commissions both in the newspaper and on television.

Among those who recall evaluations/recommendations:

Importance of the Commissions' Mission to Inform Voters (Q13)

Q13: [After reading the Commissions' first mission]: Overall, how would you rate the importance of the Commissions' mission to provide voters with information about the performance of each judge on the ballot for retention? Using a 5-point scale where 5 means this mission is very important and 1 means it is not important at all.

Eight-in-ten voters say this mission is important with 58% who say this mission is very important. Just 8% of voters say this mission is not important. Those more likely to rate the importance of this mission as very important include:

• Females (63%) compared to males (52%).
• Those ages 50 to 64 (65%) compared to those ages 18 to 49 (51%) and seniors (58%).
• Those with a graduate degree (66%) compared to those with a high school education or less (49%).

Total sample (n=408) — Mean: 4.3:

Importance of the Commissions' Mission to Improve Judge Performance (Q14)

Q14: [After reading the Commissions' second mission]: Overall, how would you rate the importance of the Commissions' mission to improve the performance of each judge? Using a 5-point scale where 5 means this mission is very important and 1 means it is not important at all.

The vast majority (85%) of voters say this mission is important with two-thirds (65%) saying this mission is very important. Just 4% of voters say this mission is not important. Those more likely to say this mission is very important include:

• Females (75%) compared to males (55%).
• Republicans (73%) compared to Democrats (64%) and those of other political parties (58%).

Total sample (n=408) — Mean: 4.5:

Performance of the Commissions in Informing Voters (Q15)

Q15: Overall, how well are the Commissions doing in getting voters information regarding the performance of Colorado's judges and justices on the ballot for retention? Please use a 5-point scale in which 5 means they are doing an excellent job and 1 means they are doing a very poor job.

Asked of those who recall reading or hearing about judicial evaluations/recommendations.

The majority (54%) of respondents say the Commissions are doing an excellent/good job (a score of 4 or 5), with three-in-ten saying the Commissions are doing an excellent job. One-fifth gives a neutral rating (a score of 3) and another fifth (19%) gives a poor rating (a score of 1 or 2). Those more likely to say the Commissions are doing a good job getting voters information include:

• Those ages 18 to 49 (62%) compared to those over age 50 (50%).
• Those with a graduate degree (72%) compared to those who are college graduates or less (50%).
• Republicans (69%) compared to Democrats (57%) and those of other political parties (36%).

Among those who recall evaluations/recommendations (n=150) — Mean: 3.6:

Reliance on Commissions' Information (Q16)

Q16: How much did you rely on this information for making your decisions whether or not to retain judges? Using a 5-point scale in which 5 means you relied on this information very much and 1 means you did not rely on it at all.

Asked of those who recall reading or hearing about judicial evaluations/recommendations.

The majority (61%) of respondents say they relied on the information from the Commissions (a score of 4 or 5) with 45% who say they relied very much on the information. Nearly one-quarter (23%) of voters say they did not rely on the information from the Commissions. Respondents more likely to say they relied very much on the information from the Commissions include:

• Females (52%) compared to males (39%).
• Those residing in the Metro region (60%) compared to those in the South Front Range (25%) and Western Slope regions (24%).
• Those ages 18 to 49 (51%) compared to seniors (38%).
• Republicans (58%) compared to Democrats (42%) and those of other political parties (37%).

Among those who recall evaluations/recommendations (n=150) — Mean: 3.7:

Trustworthiness of the Commissions' Evaluations (Q17)

Q17: How trustworthy or credible do you find the Commissions' evaluations? Please use a 5-point scale in which 5 means very trustworthy and 1 means not trustworthy at all.

Asked of those who recall reading or hearing about judicial evaluations/recommendations.

The majority (64%) of respondents say they feel the Commissions' evaluations are trustworthy (a score of 4 or 5) with 36% who say the Commissions' evaluations are very trustworthy. Over one-in-ten respondents rate the Commissions' evaluations as untrustworthy (a score of 1 or 2) with 9% who say the evaluations are not trustworthy at all. Those more likely to say the Commissions' evaluations are very trustworthy include:

• Females (47%) compared to males (26%).
• Those under age 50 (48%) compared to those over 50 (28%).
• Those residing in Colorado 20 years or less (49%) compared to those residing in the state more than 20 years (31%).
• Republicans (45%) compared to Democrats (33%) and those of other political parties (32%).

Among those who recall evaluations/recommendations (n=150) — Mean: 3.8:

Do Most Voters Have Enough Information? (Q18)

Q18: Generally, do you feel most voters have enough information to make informed decisions about which judges should be retained and which judges should not?

Just one-quarter of voters say they feel as though most voters have enough information, while the vast majority says they do not (66%) or are unsure (9%). Those with graduate degrees (34%) compared to those who are college graduates or less (22%), and Republicans (30%) compared to Democrats (24%) and those of other political parties (21%) are more likely to say they feel as though most voters have enough information to make informed decisions regarding judicial retention.

Among those who say they recall hearing or reading about any of the judicial evaluations or recommendations written by the Commissions, 46% say they feel as though most voters have enough information to make informed decisions about which judges should be retained and which judges should not; however, 47% say voters do not have enough information and another 7% did not know if voters have enough information.

Total sample (n=408):

Types of Judicial Information Voters Want More Of (Q19)

Q19: What types of judicial retention information would you like to have more of? Up to 3 unaided responses.

Asked of those who feel voters do not have enough information.

One-quarter of respondents say they would like to have information about judges' stances on particular issues, while one-third mention either information about what cases judges have heard and the rulings of those cases (18%) or better descriptions of good and bad behavior (15%). Nearly one-in-ten mention whether the judge is liberal or conservative (9%), more biographical information (8%), or more survey data (8%). Political party affiliation was mentioned by 6% and 4% mention either pro-defense/prosecution or a performance grade for each judge.

Among those who feel voters don't have enough information (n=269) — Top 10 unaided responses:

Overall Self-Reported Knowledge About Judge Retention (Q20)

Q20: How informed do you feel you are about making knowledgeable decisions about which judges should be retained? Using a 5-point scale in which 5 means you feel very informed and 1 means you feel not informed at all.

One-third of voters say they feel informed (a score of 4 or 5) with 15% who say they feel very informed; however, 17% give a neutral rating (a score of 3) and 49% say they are uninformed. Three-in-ten voters say they are not informed at all as to making knowledgeable decisions about which judges should be retained. Notably, residents with high socio-economic status and those residing in the South Front Range and Metro regions are more likely than others to say they feel they are informed (a score of 4 or 5).

Among those who say they recall hearing or reading about any of the judicial evaluations or recommendations written by the Commissions, nearly two-thirds (63%) say they feel informed with 31% who say they feel very informed. Just one-fifth of voters who say they recall hearing or reading about any of the judicial evaluations or recommendations written by the Commissions say they did not feel informed.

Total sample (n=408) — Mean: 2.7:

Preferred Way of Receiving Information from the Commissions (Q21)

Q21: How would you prefer to receive information from the Commissions on Judicial Performance regarding judicial retention recommendations? Up to 4 unaided responses.

Two-fifths of voters say they would prefer to receive information via mail (42%) while 35% say they would prefer information from the Blue Book (which is distributed via mail). Over two-fifths of voters would prefer to receive information electronically either through the Internet (18%), email (17%), or the Commissions' website (9%). Local newspaper was mentioned by 8%, television by 7%, and a brochure or flyer by 6%.

Generally speaking, voters who are under age 50 (62%) compared to those over age 50 (30%) and those earning over $80,000 (54%) compared to those earning under $80,000 (40%) would prefer to receive information electronically either through the Internet, email, or the Commissions' website. Voters ages 50 to 64 (46%) are more likely than those ages 18 to 49 (30%) and seniors (30%) to say they would prefer to receive information via the Blue Book. Finally, seniors (28%) are more likely than those under age 65 (10%) to say they prefer receiving information through local newspaper or television.

Total sample (n=408) — Top 9 unaided responses:

---

Demographics

Total sample (n=408).

Gender

Age

Household Income

Ethnicity

Education

Length of Residency in Colorado

Political Affiliation

Region

---

Appendix — Survey Instrument

The full 2014 survey instrument (27 numbered items including the intake and demographic questions) is reproduced on pages 44–51 of the source PDF. The telephone script began with an intake block verifying the respondent's registered-voter status and county (Q1), participation in the November 2014 General Election (Q2), and whether the interview was conducted on a landline or cell phone. The substantive judicial performance questions ran Q3–Q21 (reported above), followed by demographic questions Q22–Q27 (age, household income, ethnicity, education, length of residency, political affiliation) plus gender (recorded by the interviewer).

For the verbatim questionnaire, see the original PDF (pages 44–51).

---

Report prepared by Research & Polling, Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico, for the Colorado Commissions on Judicial Performance — December 2014.