Anthony Nathaniel Baca

Evaluation history

• 2022 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Dolores · Dolores

  Commission vote: 7 for · 0 against

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 70.5% yes

  766 yes · 320 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2022 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard 2022 Retention Survey Report (PDF) Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Commission on Judicial Performance for the Twenty-Second Judicial District finds that Judge Anthony Nathaniel Baca MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, by a vote of 7 - 0. The Colorado statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. The Commission found Judge Baca’s focus and commitment to a rural Colorado county as evidence of his integrity.  The Commission was impressed at Judge Baca’s ability to give each case his focus and preparation to meet his stated goal of improving access to the justice system.  The Commission reviewed legal decisions submitted by Judge Baca and found them to be thoughtful, well-reasoned and clearly written.  The Commission observed that Judge Baca is prepared for the docket and takes the time to communicate to each court participant.  It was noted that Judge Baca treats challenging court participants with respect and works to keep them informed and on topic.  We are impressed with your work in the justice community and the youth in Dolores County. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Baca, interviewed the Chief Judge, read a selection of legal opinions authored by Judge Baca, observed him in court, reviewed survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who had experience with Judge Baca, and reviewed a self-evaluation prepared by Judge Baca.  Based on these materials and activities, the Commission finds Judge Baca meets performance standards and is an asset to the Courts and the State of Colorado.

Surveys & reports

• 2022 cycle
  • 2022 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Overall score

    3.9

    judge rating, 0–4 scale

    Attorneys recommend

    100%

    3 respondents

    Non-attorneys recommend

    86%

    respondent count not on record
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Anthony N. Baca 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor . 10 Diligence . 11 Fairness . 12 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 13 Methodology and How to Read Results . 13 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 16 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Baca, 10 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 10 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.9 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Baca All County Judges Judge Baca All County Judges Overall Grade 3.9 3.4 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony N. Baca 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 86% 83% 83% 80% 60% 40% 20% 14% 13% 12% 4% 6% 0% Judge Baca All County Judges Judge Baca All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Baca Baca Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 100% 83% 86% 83% standards No, does not meet 0% 13% 0% 12% performance standards No opinion 0% 4% 14% 6% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony N. Baca 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 Case Management 3.4 3.8 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.9 Communications 3.5 3.7 Diligence 3.4 4.0 Demeanor 3.4 4.0 Fairness 3.3 Judge Baca All County Judges Judge All County Baca Judges Case Management 4.0 3.4 Application and 3.8 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.9 3.5 Diligence 3.7 3.4 Demeanor 4.0 3.4 Fairness 4.0 3.3 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony N. Baca 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 3 9% 100% 3 Non- 8 - - 7 Attorneys *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Baca received 0 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony N. Baca 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Baca Overall 4 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Baca Attorneys 4 Judge Baca Non-Attorneys 3.9 County Judge Baca Judge Baca Judge Baca Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 4 3.5 4 4.0 9 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.9 3.4 4 3.8 9 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.9 3.5 4 3.9 9 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 4 3.5 4 4.0 10 cases 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony N. Baca 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Baca Overall 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Baca Attorneys 3.5 Judge Baca Non-Attorneys 3.9 County Judge Baca Judge Baca Judge Baca Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.7 3.3 3.7 3.7 10 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 3 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 4 3.3 4 N/A 2 similar Consistently applying laws and 4 3.3 4 N/A 2 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.9 3.3 N/A 3.9 7 Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 4 3.3 N/A 4.0 7 outside pressure 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony N. Baca 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Baca Overall 3.9 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Baca Attorneys 4 Judge Baca Non-Attorneys 3.9 County Judge Baca Judge Baca Judge Baca Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.9 3.5 4 3.9 10 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 4 3.4 4 N/A 2 thorough and well- reasoned Using language that everyone 3.9 3.6 N/A 3.9 7 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.9 3.7 N/A 3.9 7 what’s being said 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony N. Baca 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Baca Score 4 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Baca Attorneys 4 Judge Baca Non-Attorneys 4.0 County Judge Baca Judge Baca Judge Baca Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 4 3.4 4 4.0 10 Treating participants with respect 4 3.4 4 4.0 10 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 4 3.3 N/A 4.0 7 appear before him/her 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony N. Baca 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Baca Score 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Baca Attorneys 3.3 Judge Baca Non-Attorneys 3.9 County Judge Baca Judge Baca Judge Baca Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 3 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 4 3.4 4 N/A 2 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 4 3.4 4 N/A 2 for cases Beginning court on time. 3.9 3.5 N/A 3.9 7 Maintaining appropriate control 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 7 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 4 3.5 N/A 4.0 7 cases Being prepared for cases. 3.9 3.5 N/A 3.9 7 Managing court proceedings so 3.9 3.4 N/A 3.9 7 that there is little wasted time 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony N. Baca 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Baca Score 4.0 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Baca Attorneys 4 Judge Baca Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge Baca County Judge Baca Judge Baca Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.9 3.4 N/A 3.9 7 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 4.0 3.3 N/A 4.0 7 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 4.0 3.4 N/A 4.0 7 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 4.0 3.4 N/A 4.0 7 case Conducting their courtroom in a neutral 4.0 3.3 4 4.0 10 manner. Being fair and impartial 4.0 3.3 4 N/A 3 to both sides. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony N. Baca 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Baca, 10 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 10 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the administration, a total of 89,078 survey invitations were sent to 10,845 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving reports in 2022. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 8.2 judges. In total 9,005 surveys were completed with an additional 9,895 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 10% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 21%. Non-attorneys The 2022 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 86,758 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 5,463 surveys were completed with an additional 2,466 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2022 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on June 15th, 2021. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first quarter of 2021 on June 15th, 2021. Reminders were sent on June 30th and July 9th, 2021. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2021 with email invitations sent on August 23rd, 2021 and reminders was sent on September 2nd, 2021 and September 14th, 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2021 on November 9th, 2021. Reminders sent on November 18th and December 2nd, 2021. The final data collection took place in January 2022. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2021 on January 19th, 2022. Reminders were sent on January 28th, February 2nd and 12th, 2022. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2021 and ran through the response deadline of February 28th, 2022. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email but using a different process. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony N. Baca 13 ## Page 14 To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 28th, 2022. During this period 938 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 28th or for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2022 were held over for the 2023 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 90,845 6,068 7% Court Staff Email Invite 3,471 1,861 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 220 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 938 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence and fairness. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2021 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 23 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony N. Baca 14 ## Page 15 The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony N. Baca 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Rate Attorney 35 3 3 100% Staff - 5 5 - Others 14 3 2 67% Juror - 0 0 - Citizen Feedback - 0 0 Total Non-Attorneys - 8 7 - Total Respondents - 11 10 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony N. Baca 16

Score cards render where the PDF extractor found numeric fields (partial is shown with “—” for missing tiles). “Read full survey text” surfaces the complete report transcription for every survey on file. Source PDFs on OJPE are always linked above for fidelity. Coverage note on Sources.

Sources

• 2022 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026