2018 Colorado Voter Knowledge Assessment
Voter Poll Report — 2018 Retention Election
About this report
The report was prepared by the research team at Market Decisions Research of Portland, Maine. This research was conducted on behalf of the Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation (OJPE) to gather information on the knowledge and perception of Colorado voters about the Judicial Performance Evaluation Process.
Key Findings
Awareness of Judicial Evaluations
A majority of Colorado voters (53%) who participated in the recent election reported being aware of judicial evaluations conducted by the Colorado Commissions on Judicial Performance. Among those who have heard of the Commissions, 21% said the goals of the Commissions is to rate/grade a judge's performance.
Thoughts on Performance Standards or Retention Recommendation
Over a quarter (29%) said performance standards are better when compared to the retention recommendations while less than one-in-ten (9%) thought they are worse. When asked why they thought performance standards were better or worse, the primary reason among those who thought they were better was that the retention recommendation was influencing their vote, while the top reason among those who thought they were worse was the belief that there was nothing wrong with the retain or not retain recommendation.
The Colorado Blue Book
Over four-in-five voters (84%) recalled receiving a copy of the Blue Book in the mail. Nearly two-thirds (64%) said they used the voter guide, also known as the Colorado Blue Book, to review judicial performance evaluations. Over half (57%) said the Blue Book was helpful in assisting them to be better informed when voting on justices and judges in the recent November election.
The Website
Only 8% of voters visited the Commissions' website to review the evaluations of the judges. Among those who visited the website, 71% said the information was helpful in assisting them to be better informed when voting on justices and judges. Program information (50%) was the most helpful information found on the website.
Performance & Credibility of the Commissions
When asked to rate the importance of the Commissions' goal to improve the performance of each judge, 86% of Colorado voters said the Commissions' goal is important, with 53% saying very important. A similar figure (86%) said the Commissions' goal to provide voters with information about the performance of each judge on the ballot for retention election is important, with 59% saying very important.
Nearly a third (31%) said the Commissions are doing a poor or very poor job in getting voters information regarding the performance of Colorado's judges and justices on the ballot for retention. Over a quarter (29%) did not rely at all on information provided by the Commissions.
When asked to evaluate the credibility of the Commissions' evaluations, less than half (46%) said they feel the Commissions' evaluations are trustworthy (a score of 4 or 5), with 26% saying the Commissions' evaluations are very trustworthy.
Judicial Information Needed
About half of voters said they feel most voters do not have enough information to make informed decisions during retention elections. Nearly a third (30%) of voters said they would like to have better descriptions of performance. This was followed by "judges stance on a particular issue" (28%) and more information on "sentencing" (18%).
Methodology
Background
The Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation (OJPE) periodically polls Colorado voters to gather information on their knowledge and perception about the Judicial Performance Evaluation Process. In 2018, the OJPE contracted Market Decisions Research (MDR) of Portland, Maine to field a survey to Colorado voters and then provide OJPE with this detailed report.
Sample
The sample for this survey was composed of listed telephone numbers of registered Colorado voters. This sample included both landline and cellular telephone numbers.
Data Collection
Data collection took place from December 17 to December 21 and was conducted from the facilities of MDR's data collection partner, Portable Insights, in Warwick, Rhode Island.
Survey Instrument
The survey instrument for this survey was designed by the Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation.
Completed Surveys
Over the course of data collection, a total of 400 surveys were completed via telephone. Of these, 200 were completed via landline telephones and 200 were completed via cellular telephones.
Limitations
It is important to keep in mind that the survey results presented in this report are of the unweighted sample. Given the nature of the survey questions, and in some cases, the small sample sizes for certain sub-groups, one should use caution when drawing conclusions from the results. They may only represent the opinions of those who completed the survey and not the larger population of Coloradans.
Sampling Error
The overall sampling error for a sample of 400 is ±5% at the 95% confidence level. This means that given a percentage response, say 45%, there is a 95% chance that the actual percentage is between 40% and 50% if everyone in the population were surveyed. Sub samples of groups of respondents will have higher margins of error: ±6% for 300, ±7% for 200, ±8% for 150, and ±10% for 100.
Detailed Findings
Awareness of Judicial Evaluations (Q3)
Q3: Have you ever heard of judicial evaluations conducted by the Colorado Commissions on Judicial Performance? (n=400)
Over half (53%) of Coloradans who participated in the recent election reported being aware of judicial evaluations conducted by the Colorado Commissions on Judicial Performance. College graduates (67%) were significantly more likely to be aware of judicial evaluations conducted by the Colorado Commissions on Judicial Performance, while those earning less than $40,000 annually were less likely to be aware of the evaluations (43%).
| Response | % |
|---|---|
| Yes | 53% |
| No / Don't Know | 47% |
Perceived Goals or Missions of the Commissions on Judicial Performance (Q4)
Q4: Do you happen to know what are any of the goals of the Commissions on Judicial Performance? (n=212)
Among those who have heard of the Colorado Commissions on Judicial Performance's evaluations, slightly over one-in-five (21%) said the goals of the Commissions is to rate/grade a judge's performance. It is important to note that 61% said they did not know.
| Response | % |
|---|---|
| To rate/grade judges' performance | 21% |
| Provide voters with information about the performance of each judge | 15% |
| To improve the performance/skills of judges | 12% |
| Other | 0% |
| Don't Know / Won't Say | 61% |
Awareness of the Commissions After Aided Description (Q5)
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? (n=188)
Among voters who did not initially say they have heard of the Colorado Commissions on Judicial Performance, slightly over a quarter (26%) said they are aware of the Commissions after being aided with a brief description of the Commissions' function.
| Response | % |
|---|---|
| Yes | 26% |
| No / Don't Know | 74% |
Recall of Judicial Evaluations or Recommendations (Q6)
Q6: Do you recall reading or hearing about any of the judicial evaluations or recommendations that were written by the Commissions on Judicial Performance? (n=400)
Overall, 46% of voters said they recall reading or hearing about any of the judicial evaluations or recommendations that were written by the Commissions on Judicial Performance. Those earning less than $40,000 per year (36%) and those with a high school degree or less (28%) were considerably less likely to recall reading or hearing about evaluations or recommendations from the Commissions.
| Response | % |
|---|---|
| Yes — Unaided | 38% |
| Yes — Aided | 9% |
| No / Don't Know | 54% |
Thoughts on Performance Standards vs. Retention Recommendation (Q7)
Q7: What are your thoughts on whether performance standards are better or worse? (n=399)
Over a quarter (29%) said performance standards are better when compared to the retention recommendations, while less than one-in-ten (9%) thought they are worse. Those with a high school degree or less (12%) were significantly less likely to think that performance standards are better.
| Response | % |
|---|---|
| Better | 29% |
| Worse | 9% |
| Don't Know / Won't Say | 62% |
Q7o: Why do you say that? (n=151)
When asked why they thought performance standards were better or worse, the primary reason among those who thought they were better was that the retention recommendation was influencing their vote, while the top reason among those who thought they were worse was that they believe there's nothing wrong with the retain-or-not-retain recommendation.
| Reason | Overall | Performance standards are better | Performance standards are worse |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retain-or-not-retain is telling you how to vote / Performance standards help you make up your own mind | 17% | 22% | — |
| Performance standards are better (general) | 12% | 16% | — |
| Performance standards give more information / a better understanding of the judges | 11% | 15% | — |
| More suited to the issue / More focus on performance | 9% | 12% | — |
| Clearer or easier to understand | 7% | 9% | — |
| They are the same / Makes no difference | 5% | 6% | — |
| Nothing wrong with retain or not retain / Simpler / Not hard to understand | 5% | — | 23% |
| Performance standards are weaker or too difficult | 5% | — | 23% |
| Prefers retain or not retain | 3% | — | 11% |
| Other | 24% | 20% | 37% |
| Have no idea / No answer | 2% | 1% | 6% |
Recollection of Receiving the Blue Book (Q8)
Q8: Do you recall receiving a copy of the Blue Book in the mail? (n=400)
Over four-in-five voters (84%) recalled receiving a copy of the Blue Book in the mail. Those living in the Eastern Plains region (94%) were considerably more likely to recall receiving the Blue Book.
| Response | % |
|---|---|
| Yes — Unaided | 69% |
| Yes — Aided | 15% |
| No / Don't Know | 16% |
Use of the Blue Book to Review Judicial Performance Evaluations (Q9)
Q9: Did you use the voter guide, also known as the Colorado Blue Book, to review judicial performance evaluations? (n=336)
Nearly two-thirds (64%) said they used the voter guide, also known as the Colorado Blue Book, to review judicial performance evaluations. Those earning less than $40,000 per year (51%) and those with a high school degree or less (47%) were considerably less likely to use the Blue Book.
| Response | % |
|---|---|
| Yes | 64% |
| Somewhat | 9% |
| No / Don't Know | 27% |
Blue Book Helpfulness (Q10)
Q10: 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? (n=400)
Over half (57%) of voters said the Colorado Blue Book was helpful in assisting them to be better informed when voting on justices and judges in the recent November election. Those with a high school degree or less (42%) as well as those living in the Eastern Plains region (47%) were considerably less likely to find the Blue Book helpful.
| Response | % |
|---|---|
| Yes | 57% |
| No | 31% |
| Don't Know | 12% |
Visited the Commissions' Website (Q11)
Q11: Did you visit the website to review the evaluations of the judges? (n=400)
Only 8% of Colorado voters visited the Commissions' website to review the evaluations of the judges.
| Response | % |
|---|---|
| Yes | 8% |
| No | 90% |
| Don't Know | 2% |
Website Helpfulness (Q12 and Q13)
Q12: Was the information on the judicial performance website helpful in assisting you to be better informed when voting on justices and judges? (n=31)
Among those who visited the judicial performance website, nearly three-quarters (71%) said the information was helpful in assisting them to be better informed when voting on justices and judges.
| Response | % |
|---|---|
| Yes | 71% |
| Somewhat | 6% |
| No / Don't Know | 23% |
Q13: What in particular did you find helpful? (n=24)
Program information (50%) was the most helpful information found on the website.
| Response | % |
|---|---|
| Program Information | 50% |
| Survey Reports | 21% |
| Infographics | 17% |
| Don't Know / Won't Say | 33% |
Media Recall of the Commissions (Q14)
Q14: Do you recall hearing or seeing anything in the newspaper, on television, on the radio, or on social media (Facebook/Twitter) in the last 6 months about the Commissions on Judicial Performance? (n=400)
The vast majority of voters (84%) say they do not recall hearing or seeing anything in the last 6 months about the Commissions on Judicial Performance. Newspaper (7%) and television (7%) were the most common place for those who recalled hearing or seeing something about the Commissions.
| Response | % |
|---|---|
| Yes, newspaper | 7% |
| Yes, television | 7% |
| Yes, Facebook | 3% |
| Yes, Twitter | 1% |
| Yes, radio | 1% |
| No / Don't Know | 84% |
Importance of Goal — Improving Judge Performance (Q15)
Q15: Overall, how would you rate the importance of the Commissions' goal to improve the performance of each judge? (n=400)
When asked to rate the importance of the Commissions' goal to improve the performance of each judge, 86% of Colorado voters said the Commissions' goal is important, with 53% saying very important. Hispanic voters (80%) were significantly more likely to rate the importance of the Commissions' goal to improve the performance of each judge as very important.
| Rating | % |
|---|---|
| 5 — Very Important | 53% |
| 4 | 23% |
| 3 | 11% |
| 2 | 2% |
| 1 — Not Important at All | 4% |
| Don't Know / Won't Say | 8% |
Importance of Goal — Informing Voters (Q16)
Q16: Overall, how would you rate the importance of the Commissions' goal to provide voters with information about the performance of each judge on the ballot for retention election? (n=400)
When asked to rate the importance of the Commissions' goal to provide voters with information about the performance of each judge on the ballot for retention election, 86% of Colorado voters said the Commissions' goal is important, with 59% saying very important. Hispanic voters (84%) were significantly more likely to rate this goal as very important.
| Rating | % |
|---|---|
| 5 — Very Important | 59% |
| 4 | 19% |
| 3 | 8% |
| 2 | 3% |
| 1 — Not Important at All | 5% |
| Don't Know / Won't Say | 6% |
How Well the Commissions Are Getting Information to Voters (Q17)
Q17: 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? (n=400)
When asked to rate how well the Commissions are doing in getting voters information regarding the performance of Colorado's judges and justices on the ballot for retention, slightly more than a third (34%) of Colorado voters said the Commissions are doing an excellent/good job (a score of 4 or 5) with only 15% saying excellent. It is important to note that nearly a third (31%) said the Commissions are doing a poor or very poor job.
| Rating | % |
|---|---|
| 5 — Excellent | 15% |
| 4 | 19% |
| 3 | 23% |
| 2 | 15% |
| 1 — Very Poor | 16% |
| Don't Know / Won't Say | 13% |
Level of Reliance on Commissions' Information (Q18)
Q18: How much did you rely on this information for making your decisions whether or not to retain judges? (n=400)
Less than half (44%) of Colorado voters say they relied on the information from the Commissions (a score of 4 or 5) to decide whether or not to retain judges, with 31% saying they relied very much on the information. Over a quarter (29%) did not rely at all on the information.
| Rating | % |
|---|---|
| 5 — Relied very much | 31% |
| 4 | 13% |
| 3 | 15% |
| 2 | 7% |
| 1 — Did not rely on at all | 29% |
| Don't Know / Won't Say | 7% |
Trustworthiness / Credibility of the Commissions' Evaluations (Q19)
Q19: How trustworthy or credible do you find the Commissions' evaluations? (n=400)
When asked to evaluate the credibility of the Commissions' evaluations, less than half (46%) said they feel the Commissions' evaluations are trustworthy (a score of 4 or 5), with 26% saying the Commissions' evaluations are very trustworthy.
| Rating | % |
|---|---|
| 5 — Very Trustworthy | 26% |
| 4 | 20% |
| 3 | 22% |
| 2 | 5% |
| 1 — Not Trustworthy at All | 7% |
| Don't Know / Won't Say | 21% |
Do Most Voters Have Enough Information? (Q20)
Q20: Generally, do you feel most voters have enough information to make informed decisions about which judges should be retained and which judges should not? (n=400)
About half (49%) of voters said they feel most voters do not have enough information to make informed decisions about which judges should be retained and which judges should not. Those aged 18 to 49 years (54%) were significantly more likely to report having enough information.
| Response | % |
|---|---|
| Yes, have enough information | 39% |
| No, do not have enough information | 49% |
| Don't Know | 12% |
Types of Judicial Retention Information Voters Want More Of (Q21)
Q21: What types of judicial retention information would you like to have more of? (n=197)
Nearly a third (30%) of voters said they would like to have better descriptions of performance. This was followed by "judges stance on a particular issue" (28%) and more information on "sentencing" (18%).
| Response | % |
|---|---|
| Better descriptions of performance | 30% |
| Judges stance on a particular issue | 28% |
| Sentencing | 18% |
| More biographical information / More information in general | 12% |
| Better survey data | 9% |
| What cases they have had and their rulings / the outcomes of their cases | 7% |
| Political party affiliation | 6% |
| Liberal / Conservative | 6% |
| Performance grade for each judge | 2% |
| Use simple terms not legal jargon so people can understand | 2% |
| Other | 13% |
| Don't Know / Won't Say | 23% |
Overall Self-Reported Knowledge About Judge Retention (Q22)
Q22: How informed do you feel you are about making knowledgeable decisions about which judges should be retained? (n=400)
Two-in-five (40%) of Colorado voters say they feel informed (a score of 4 or 5) about making knowledgeable decisions about which judges should be retained, with 18% saying they feel very informed. Nearly a third (31%) did not feel informed.
| Rating | % |
|---|---|
| 5 — Very informed | 18% |
| 4 | 22% |
| 3 | 26% |
| 2 | 13% |
| 1 — Not Informed at All | 18% |
| Don't Know / Won't Say | 3% |
Demographics
Age
| Category | % |
|---|---|
| 18 to 34 years | 11% |
| 35 to 49 years | 21% |
| 50 to 64 years | 35% |
| 65 years or older | 34% |
| Won't Say | 0% |
Household Income
| Category | % |
|---|---|
| Less than $20,000 | 7% |
| $20,000 to $39,999 | 13% |
| $40,000 to $59,999 | 17% |
| $60,000 to $79,999 | 14% |
| $80,000 and over | 32% |
| Won't Say | 18% |
Ethnicity
| Category | % |
|---|---|
| Hispanic | 6% |
| Anglo / Caucasian | 76% |
| Black / African-American | 3% |
| Native American Indian | 2% |
| Other Descent | 7% |
| Won't Say | 6% |
Education Level
| Category | % |
|---|---|
| Some high school | 1% |
| High school graduate | 12% |
| Some college / Associate degree / Vocational certificate | 29% |
| College graduate (4 years) | 29% |
| Graduate work or degree | 28% |
| Won't Say | 2% |
Gender
| Category | % |
|---|---|
| Male | 50% |
| Female | 50% |
Length of Residency
| Category | % |
|---|---|
| Less than 8 years | 5% |
| 8 to 20 years | 16% |
| More than 20 years | 79% |
| Won't Say | 1% |
Political Affiliation
| Category | % |
|---|---|
| Democrat | 31% |
| Republican | 40% |
| Unaffiliated / Other | 29% |
Region
| Category | % |
|---|---|
| Eastern Plains | 9% |
| Metro | 40% |
| North Front Range | 18% |
| South Front Range | 21% |
| Western Slope | 12% |
Appendix — Survey Instrument
The full survey instrument (Colorado JPEC November 2018 questionnaire) is reproduced in the source PDF. It includes qualifying questions (Q1–Q2: registered voter, voted in recent general election), the main battery (Q3–Q22, rendered above), and demographic questions (Q23–Q28 plus interviewer-coded gender, phone number, and county code). See the original PDF, pages 34–47 for the verbatim instrument, including skip logic and interviewer scripting.