2022 Colorado Voter Knowledge Assessment
Voter Poll Report — 2022 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 strong plurality of Colorado voters (49%) who participated in the recent election report being aware of judicial evaluations conducted by the Colorado Commissions on Judicial Performance. Among those who have heard of the evaluations, nearly half (49%) say the goals of the commissions are to provide voters with information about the performance of each judge running for retention.
The Colorado Blue Book (among voters aware of commission evaluations or recommendations)
Almost all (91%) recall receiving a copy of the Colorado Blue Book in the mail and 82% used the book to review judicial performance evaluations. 91% say 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 (among voters aware of commission evaluations or recommendations)
One-third visited the commissions' website to review the evaluations of the judges, up from 20% in 2020. 81% of visitors say the information was helpful in assisting them to be better informed when voting on justices and judges, compared to 76% in 2020.
Judicial Information Needed
50% of voters say they feel most voters do have enough information to make informed decisions during retention elections, up from 24% in 2020. Voters would like: better descriptions of performance, better survey data, and to know a judge's stance on a particular issue and sentencing.
Performance & Credibility of the Commissions
Among those aware of commission evaluations or recommendations: when asked to rate the importance of the commissions' goal to improve the performance of each judge, 88% say the commissions' goals are very important or important, an increase from 76% in 2020. A similar figure (92%) say the commissions' goal to provide voters with information about the performance of each judge on the ballot for retention election is also very important or important, an increase from 77% in 2020.
Three-in-five (61%) say the commissions are doing an excellent or good job in getting voters information about the performance of Colorado's judges and justices that are on the ballot for retention. 31% say the commissions are doing an excellent job getting information to voters, an increase from 24% in 2020.
71% say they relied on the information from the commissions (a score of 4 or 5) to decide whether to retain judges, an increase from 61% in 2020.
When asked to evaluate the credibility of the commissions' evaluations, almost three-quarters (72%) say they feel the commissions' evaluations are trustworthy (a score of 4 or 5) with 36% saying the commissions' evaluations are very trustworthy. Both percentages are higher than in 2020.
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 2022, 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 the phone survey was composed of listed telephone numbers of registered Colorado voters. This sample included cellular telephone numbers. The sample for the online panel survey was composed of registered voters with email addresses.
Data Collection
Data collection took place from November 18 to December 17 and was conducted by MDR's call center. The online survey was administered on December 7 in the Voxco platform.
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 428 surveys were completed. Of these, 215 were completed via telephone and 213 were completed online.
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?
Nearly half (49%) of Coloradans who participated in the recent election report being aware of judicial evaluations conducted by the Colorado Commissions on Judicial Performance, up from 45% in 2020. Voters with graduate degrees (63%) are significantly more likely to be aware of judicial evaluations conducted by the Colorado Commissions on Judicial Performance.
| Response | 2018 (n=400) | 2020 (n=400) | 2022 (n=428) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 53% | 45% | 49% |
| No / Don't Know | 47% | 55% | 51% |
Perceived Goals or Missions of the Commissions (Q4)
Q4: Do you happen to know what are any of the goals of the Commissions on Judicial Performance?
Among those who have heard of the Colorado Commissions on Judicial Performance's evaluations, nearly half (49%) say the goals of the commissions is to provide voters with information about the performance of each judge who is running for retention — a significant increase from 2020. It is important to note that only one-third (32%) say they are unsure of the goals of the commissions, much lower than in 2020.
| Response | 2018 (n=212) | 2020 (n=179) | 2022 (n=210) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Provide voters with information about the performance of each judge who is running for retention | 15% | 11% | 49% |
| To improve the performance/skills of judges | 12% | 11% | 26% |
| To rate/grade judges' performance | 21% | 24% | 25% |
| Other | 0% | 6% | 8% |
| Don't Know / Won't Say | 61% | 67% | 32% |
Awareness 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?
Among voters who did not initially say they have heard of the Colorado Commissions on Judicial Performance, only 17% say they are aware of the commissions after being aided with a brief description of the commissions' function. This is a slight decrease compared to 25% in 2020.
| Response | 2018 (n=188) | 2020 (n=221) | 2022 (n=219) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 26% | 25% | 17% |
| No / Don't Know | 74% | 75% | 83% |
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?
Asked of those aware of the Commissions on Judicial Performance.
Overall, three-quarters of voters with an awareness of the Commissions on Judicial Performance say they recall reading or hearing about judicial evaluations or recommendations that are written by the commissions. This is a slight increase compared to 69% in 2020.
| Response | 2018 (n=251) | 2020 (n=235) | 2022 (n=218) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 64% | 69% | 75% |
| No / Don't Know | 36% | 31% | 25% |
Recollection of Receiving the Blue Book (Q7)
Q7: Do you recall receiving a copy of the Blue Book in the mail?
Asked of all that recall reading or hearing about judicial evaluations or recommendations written by the Commissions on Judicial Performance.
Among those aware of judicial evaluations or recommendations, 91% recall receiving a copy of the Colorado Blue Book in the mail, comparable to 2020.
| Response | 2018 (n=150) | 2020 (n=162) | 2022 (n=163) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 95% | 94% | 91% |
| No / Don't Know | 4% | 6% | 9% |
Use of the Blue Book to Review Judicial Performance Evaluations (Q8)
Q8: Did you use the voter guide, also known as the Colorado Blue Book, to review judicial performance evaluations?
Asked of all that recall reading or hearing about judicial evaluations or recommendations written by the Commissions on Judicial Performance.
Over four-in-five aware of commission evaluations or recommendations (82%) say they used the voter guide, also known as the Colorado Blue Book, to review judicial performance evaluations. This is comparable to the 82% in 2020.
| Response | 2018 (n=126) | 2020 (n=153) | 2022 (n=148) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 85% | 82% | 82% |
| Somewhat (volunteered) | 4% | 8% | 11% |
| No / Don't Know | 0% | 10% | 7% |
Blue Book Helpfulness (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 all that recall reading or hearing about judicial evaluations or recommendations written by the Commissions on Judicial Performance and read the Colorado Blue Book.
Nine in ten (91%) of those aware of commission evaluations or recommendations and that read the Colorado Blue Book found the guide helpful, up slightly from 2020.
| Response | 2018 (n=126) | 2020 (n=138) | 2022 (n=137) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 83% | 87% | 91% |
| No | 14% | 12% | 8% |
| Don't Know / Won't Say | 4% | 1% | 1% |
Visited the Commissions' Website (Q10)
Q10: Did you visit the website to review the evaluations of the judges?
Asked of all that recall reading or hearing about judicial evaluations or recommendations written by the Commissions on Judicial Performance.
One-third (33%) of those aware of commission evaluations or recommendations visited the website to review the evaluation of judges, up from 20% in 2020. 48% of those 18 to 49 visited the website.
| Response | 2018 (n=150) | 2020 (n=162) | 2022 (n=163) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 14% | 20% | 33% |
| No | 84% | 78% | 67% |
| Don't know / won't say | 2% | 2% | — |
Website Helpfulness (Q11 and Q12)
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 all visiting the website.
Among those who visited the judicial performance website, four in five (81%) say the information was helpful in assisting them to be better informed when voting on justices and judges, a slight increase from 76% in 2020.
| Response | 2018 (n=21) | 2020 (n=33) | 2022 (n=53) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 67% | 76% | 81% |
| Somewhat | 5% | 18% | 13% |
| Don't know / won't say | 23% | 6% | 6% |
Q12: What in particular did you find helpful?
Among those who visited the judicial performance website, the evaluation narrative was the most helpful information (64%), followed by a complete list of judges with recommendations (62%).
| Response | 2018 (n=21) | 2020 (n=33) | 2022 (n=50) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluation Narrative | — (not asked) | — (not asked) | 64% |
| Complete List of Judges with Recommendations | — (not asked) | 42% | 62% |
| Survey Reports | 19% | 23% | 52% |
| Infographics | 14% | 10% | 20% |
| Program Information | 33% | 10% | 22% |
| Other (Please Specify) | — (not asked) | 61% | 10% |
| Don't know / won't say | 33% | 3% | 0% |
Media Recall of the Commissions (Q13)
Q13: 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?
The vast majority of voters (85%) say they do not recall hearing or seeing anything in the last 6 months about the Commissions on Judicial Performance. Facebook (6%) and newspaper (4%) were the most common places for those who recall hearing or seeing something about the commissions.
| Response | 2018 (n=400) | 2020 (n=400) | 2022 (n=428) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes, Facebook | 3% | 2% | 6% |
| Yes, newspaper | 7% | 7% | 4% |
| Yes, radio | 1% | 1% | 4% |
| Yes, television | 7% | 4% | 3% |
| Yes, Twitter | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| Other | — | 3% | 3% |
| No / Don't Know / Won't Say | 84% | 86% | 85% |
Importance of Goal — Improving Judge Performance (Q14)
Q14: Overall, how would you rate the importance of the Commissions' goal to improve the performance of each judge?
Asked of all that recall reading or hearing about judicial evaluations or recommendations written by the Commissions on Judicial Performance.
When rating the importance of the commissions' goal to improve the performance of each judge, 88% of those aware of commission evaluations or recommendations say the commissions' goal is very important or important; 65% say this goal is very important. In 2020, 76% rated the commission's goal to improve performance as very important or important.
| Rating | 2018 (n=150) | 2020 (n=162) | 2022 (n=182) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 — Very Important | 55% | 56% | 65% |
| 4 | 30% | 20% | 23% |
| 3 | 7% | 10% | 9% |
| 2 | 1% | 4% | 1% |
| 1 — Not Important at All | 3% | 5% | 2% |
| Don't know / won't say | 0% | 4% | 1% |
Importance of Goal — Informing Voters (Q15)
Q15: 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?
Asked of all that recall reading or hearing about judicial evaluations or recommendations written by the Commissions on Judicial Performance.
When rating the importance of the commissions' goal to provide voters with information about the performance of each judge on the ballot for retention election, 92% of those aware of commission evaluations or recommendations indicate the goal is very important or important, 73% indicate the goal is very important. This is an increase from 77% in 2020 that indicated the goal is very important or important.
| Rating | 2018 (n=150) | 2020 (n=162) | 2022 (n=182) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 — Very Important | 66% | 65% | 73% |
| 4 | 24% | 12% | 19% |
| 3 | 5% | 13% | 6% |
| 2 | 3% | 1% | 1% |
| 1 — Not Important at All | 2% | 6% | 2% |
| Don't know / won't say | 3% | 4% | 1% |
How Well the Commissions Are Getting Information to Voters (Q16)
Q16: 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?
Asked of all that recall reading or hearing about judicial evaluations or recommendations written by the Commissions on Judicial Performance.
When rating how well the commissions are doing in getting information to voters about the performance of Colorado's judges and justices on the ballot for retention, three in five (61%) of those aware of commission evaluations or recommendations say the commissions are doing an excellent or good job (a score of 4 or 5); 31% say the commissions are doing an excellent job getting information to voters. This is an increase from 54% in 2020 that indicated the commissions are doing an excellent or good job getting voters information.
| Rating | 2018 (n=150) | 2020 (n=162) | 2022 (n=182) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 — Excellent | 20% | 23% | 31% |
| 4 | 27% | 31% | 30% |
| 3 | 27% | 28% | 25% |
| 2 | 10% | 8% | 8% |
| 1 — Very Poor | 10% | 7% | 5% |
| Don't know / won't say | 6% | 3% | 1% |
Level of Reliance on Commissions' Information (Q17)
Q17: How much did you rely on this information for making your decisions whether or not to retain judges?
Asked of all that recall reading or hearing about judicial evaluations or recommendations written by the Commissions on Judicial Performance.
Seven-in-ten (71%) of those aware of commission evaluations or recommendations say they relied on the information from the commissions (a score of 4 or 5) to decide whether to retain judges; near half (48%) say they relied very much on the information provided by the commissions. This is an increase from 61% in 2020.
| Rating | 2018 (n=150) | 2020 (n=162) | 2022 (n=182) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 — Relied very much | 47% | 42% | 48% |
| 4 | 16% | 19% | 23% |
| 3 | 16% | 18% | 12% |
| 2 | 4% | 7% | 6% |
| 1 — Did not rely on at all | 13% | 13% | 10% |
| Don't know / won't say | 4% | 1% | 1% |
Trustworthiness / Credibility of the Commissions' Evaluations (Q18)
Q18: How trustworthy or credible do you find the Commissions' evaluations?
In 2022, question was asked of those that recall reading or hearing about judicial evaluations or recommendations written by the Commissions on Judicial Performance. 2018 and 2020 data were recalculated for comparison.
When evaluating the credibility of the commissions' evaluations, almost three-quarters (72%) of Colorado voters say the commissions' evaluations are trustworthy (a score of 4 or 5) with 36% saying the commissions' evaluations are very trustworthy. This is an increase from 59% finding the information very trustworthy or trustworthy in 2020.
| Rating | 2018 (n=178) | 2020 (n=180) | 2022 (n=182) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 — Very Trustworthy | 33% | 34% | 36% |
| 4 | 27% | 25% | 36% |
| 3 | 24% | 17% | 18% |
| 2 | 2% | 7% | 4% |
| 1 — Not Trustworthy at All | 3% | 8% | 4% |
| Don't know / won't say | 11% | 9% | 3% |
Do Most Voters Have Enough Information? (Q19)
Q19: Generally, do you feel most voters have enough information to make informed decisions about which judges should be retained and which judges should not?
Half of voters say most voters have enough information to make informed decisions about which judges should be retained and which judges should not, significantly higher than in 2020 (24%).
| Response | 2018 (n=400) | 2020 (n=400) | 2022 (n=428) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes, have enough information | 39% | 24% | 50% |
| No, do not have enough information | 49% | 70% | 48% |
| Don't know / won't say | 12% | 6% | 2% |
Types of Information Voters Want More Of (Q20)
Q20: What types of judicial retention information would you like to have more of?
Over one-third (35%) of voters say they would like to have better descriptions of performance. This was followed by a judge's stance on a particular issue (26%) and better survey data (26%).
| Response | 2018 (n=197) | 2020 (n=281) | 2022 (n=204) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Better descriptions of performance | 30% | 32% | 35% |
| Judges stance on a particular issue | 28% | 27% | 26% |
| Better survey data | 9% | 9% | 26% |
| Sentencing | 18% | 12% | 25% |
| Political party affiliation | 6% | 14% | 18% |
| More biographical information / More information in general | 12% | 24% | 15% |
| Liberal / Conservative | 6% | 7% | 10% |
| What cases they have had and their rulings / the outcomes of their cases | 7% | 3% | 6% |
| Performance grade for each judge | 2% | 2% | 3% |
| Use more media source to provide information | — | 3% | 0% |
| Use simple terms not legal jargon so people can understand | 2% | 0% | 0% |
| Pro Defense / Prosecution | — | 1% | — |
| All of above | — | 2% | — |
| Other | 13% | 3% | 5% |
| Don't Know / Won't Say | 23% | 20% | 10% |
Overall Self-Reported Knowledge About Judge Retention (Q21)
Q21: How informed do you feel you are about making knowledgeable decisions about which judges should be retained?
Over one-third (35%) of Colorado voters say they felt informed (a score of 4 or 5) about making knowledgeable decisions about which judges should be retained, with 14% saying very informed. Two-in-five (41%) did not feel informed, a slight decrease from 48% in 2020.
| Rating | 2018 (n=400) | 2020 (n=400) | 2022 (n=182) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 — Very informed | 18% | 13% | 14% |
| 4 | 22% | 14% | 21% |
| 3 | 26% | 23% | 24% |
| 2 | 13% | 18% | 16% |
| 1 — Not Informed at All | 18% | 30% | 25% |
| Don't know / won't say | 3% | 2% | 0% |
Demographics
Age Categories
| Category | 2018 | 2020 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18 to 34 years | 11% | 7% | 18% |
| 35 to 49 years | 21% | 15% | 28% |
| 50 to 64 years | 35% | 30% | 27% |
| 65 years or older | 34% | 47% | 27% |
| Won't Say | 0% | 1% | 0% |
Household Income
| Category | 2018 | 2020 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Less than $20,000 | 7% | 7% | 6% |
| $20,000 to $39,999 | 13% | 14% | 11% |
| $40,000 to $59,999 | 17% | 15% | 18% |
| $60,000 to $79,999 | 14% | 13% | 14% |
| $80,000 and over | 32% | 32% | 45% |
| Won't Say | 18% | 19% | 6% |
Ethnicity
| Category | 2018 | 2020 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hispanic | 6% | 6% | 7% |
| Anglo / Caucasian | 76% | 80% | 79% |
| Black / African-American | 3% | 1% | 3% |
| Native American Indian | 2% | 1% | 3% |
| Other Descent | 7% | 6% | 5% |
| Won't Say | 6% | 6% | 6% |
Education Level
| Category | 2018 | 2020 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Some high school | 1% | 1% | 0% |
| High school graduate | 12% | 11% | 10% |
| Some college / Associate degree / Vocational certificate | 29% | 33% | 29% |
| College graduate (4 years) | 29% | 27% | 34% |
| Graduate work or degree | 28% | 26% | 26% |
| Won't Say | 2% | 3% | 0% |
Gender
| Category | 2018 | 2020 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 50% | 51% | 44% |
| Female | 50% | 50% | 55% |
Length of Residency
| Category | 2018 | 2020 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Less than 8 years | 5% | 7% | 20% |
| 8 to 20 years | 16% | 15% | 17% |
| More than 20 years | 79% | 78% | 63% |
| Won't Say | 1% | 1% | — |
Region
| Category | 2018 | 2020 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eastern Plains | 9% | 7% | 7% |
| Metro | 40% | 39% | 49% |
| North Front Range | 18% | 19% | 16% |
| South Front Range | 21% | 22% | 18% |
| Western Slope | 12% | 14% | 9% |
Political Affiliation
| Category | 2018 | 2020 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Democrat | 31% | 34% | 42% |
| Republican | 40% | 31% | 22% |
| Unaffiliated / Other | 29% | 36% | 35% |
| Won't Say | — | — | 1% |
Appendix — Survey Instrument
The full 2022 survey instrument is reproduced in the source PDF (slides 33–44). It extends the 2018 and 2020 instruments by adding a new "Evaluation Narrative" option to Q12 (website helpfulness). 2022 is the first year the survey was fielded in a dual-mode design: 215 responses via telephone and 213 responses via online panel. See the original PDF for the verbatim instrument.