Allison P. Ernst
Trial Court · Pueblo · Pueblo
Meets Standards2 cycles on record
Evaluation history
- 2026 retention cycleTrial Court · Pueblo · PuebloCommission vote: 8 for · 2 againstMeets StandardsVotersOn the November 3, 2026 ballot· Coloradans vote on this judge’s retention on November 3, 2026; the outcome will appear here after the election.Retention Year: 2026Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: 2026 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2023 Interim Survey Report (PDF) The Tenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance agrees by a vote of 8-2, that Judge Allison P. Ernst MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Ernst presides over criminal cases as well as runs the Competency Court Docket in Pueblo, County which she was instrumental in implementing. Judge demonstrated a commitment to serving individuals with mental health needs, particularly through her work on competency matters. Judge Ernst’s demeanor is described as professional, respectful, compassionate, and thoughtful. She is diligent, knowledgeable, and thorough. Judge Ernst strives to make the right decisions, uphold the law, and ensure due process. Judge Ernst is very motivated and is involved in the legal community serving on numerous judicial committees and councils. Judge Ernst’s opinions reflect her knowledge of the law and are evidence of her ongoing learning by proactively educating herself and staying well informed of changes in the law. There is some concern that the judge’s sentencing practices may, at times, be more lenient than typical for comparable cases, with outcomes leaning toward the lower end of the range in certain matters. This has raised questions about consistency and proportionality, as well as whether those decisions consistently align with the seriousness of the offense, broader considerations of public safety, and public confidence in the judicial system. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Ernst, reviewed opinions she authored, observed her in court, and reviewed judicial performance survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who had interaction in Judge Ernst’s court. A total of four (4) attorneys and ten (10) non attorneys responded to the judicial performance surveys expressing their opinion of Judge Ernst. The Commission found the survey responses consistent with their independent evaluations. Based on these findings a majority of the Commission agreed that Judge Ernst meets performance standards. Judge Ernst was appointed to the District Court in December 2016. She obtained both her undergraduate and law degree from Michigan State University. Directly after law school, Judge Ernst was awarded an Equal Justice Works Fellowship with Michigan State University’s Low Income Taxpayer Clinic. She then moved to Colorado and was hired by the Colorado State Public Defender’s Office in 2005 and worked as a public defender until 2011 at which time transition to private practice until she was appointed to the District Court.
- 2020 retention cycleTrial Court · Pueblo · PuebloMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 70.5% yes55,164 yes · 23,088 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2020 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2020 Retention Survey Report 2019 Interim Survey Report The Tenth Judicial Performance Commission unanimously (9-0) agrees that Judge Allison P. Ernst MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Ernst was appointed by Governor Hickenlooper on December 17, 2016, as a District Judge for the Tenth Judicial District. Judge Ernst has presided over dockets handling probate, domestic, mental health, civil and truancy cases. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Ernst, reviewed her judicial opinions, transcript of a hearing, performed extensive courtroom observation, interviewed local agencies and reviewed the results of the 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report. On the Survey, all surveyed groups had a sufficient result rate from those who had experience with Judge Ernst. Of the attorneys responding to the survey, 80% indicated that Judge Ernst met performance standards, 10% indicated Judge Ernst did not meet performance standards and 10% had no opinion. Of the non-attorneys, 100% indicated she met performance standards. Judge Ernst indicated that the appointment to civil cases and mental health cases were challenges as they were both areas of law she had not previously practiced. However, Judge Ernst through practical experience on the bench, extensive research of statutes and caselaw, and consulting with peers has improved in these areas of law. Judge Ernst’s areas that garnered the most negative comments were Case Management and Diligence. Judge Ernst scored a 3.2 in both categories whereas the average score for all District Judges in Colorado in both categories was 3.4. Judge Ernst agrees that she needs to improve her timeliness on issuing orders. Judge Ernst excelled in areas of Application of Knowledge of Law (3.4 whereas the average for all Judges is 3.3), Demeanor (3.6 compared to 3.5 average) and Fairness (4.0 compared to 3.7 as an average). Attorneys and Non-Attorneys commented that Judge Ernst was respectful and patient with all participants, bright, hardworking and competent. Furthermore, it was perceived that Judge Ernst truly is concerned about the cases and the parties and wants to do a good job. Several parties commented about Judge Ernst’s positive demeanor in the courtroom. During courtroom observations, Judge Ernst was observed as “thinking outside the box” especially with regard to the truancy cases. It was clear that Judge Ernst truly cares about the students and families and strives to find ways to solve the truancy issue in a way that benefits the student, family and school. Judge Ernst is very thoughtful when dealing with pro-se parties in her courtroom and explains things in a manner that are easily understood without providing legal advice. Judge Ernst’s professional goals are to improve her case management and to rule on motions in a timely manner. Judge Ernst has implemented methods towards this goal already by reviewing all of the pleadings prior to hearing the case in order to better understand the issues before the Court and to try to rule directly from the bench rather than entering a written order at a later date. Based on the Commission’s overall evaluation, Judge Ernst meets or exceeds performance standards.
Surveys & reports
- 2026 cycle
- 2025 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Allison Ernst 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C 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 Survey of Appellate Judges .13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges.17 Methodology and How to Read Results .17 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .18 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Ernst, 81 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 81 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 3.4 3.2 3 2 1 0 Judge Ernst All District Judges Judge Ernst All District Judges Overall Grade 3.2 3.4 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 87% 85% 82% 80% 64% 60% 40% 33% 20% 12% 11% 7% 7% 6% 3% 3% 0% Judge Ernst All District Judges Judge Ernst All District Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge District District Ernst Ernst Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 87% 82% 64% 85% standards No, does not meet 7% 12% 33% 11% performance standards No opinion 7% 6% 3% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.3 Case Management 3.4 3.1 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 3.3 Communications 3.6 3.3 Diligence 3.4 3.3 Demeanor 3.5 2.9 Fairness 3.5 Judge Ernst All District Judges Judge All District Ernst Judges Case 3.3 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.1 3.4 Law Communications 3.3 3.6 Diligence 3.3 3.4 Demeanor 3.3 3.5 Fairness 2.9 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 64 44% 70% 45 Non- 53 7% 68% 36 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Ernst received 1 response(s) via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Ernst Overall 3.3 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Ernst Attorneys 3.3 Judge Ernst Non-Attorneys District Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.1 3.4 3.1 N/A 39 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.4 3.4 3.4 N/A 45 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.1 3.3 3.1 N/A 41 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 46 cases 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Ernst Overall 3.1 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Ernst Attorneys 3.4 Judge Ernst Non-Attorneys 2.7 District Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Being able to identify and 3 3.4 3.3 2.5 81 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.4 3.2 3.4 N/A 45 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3 3.1 3 N/A 1 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 46 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.3 3.2 3.3 N/A 44 rules Giving reasons for rulings 2.8 3.5 N/A 2.8 33 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 2.6 3.5 N/A 2.6 31 pressure 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Ernst Overall 3.3 District Judges Overall 3.6 Judge Ernst Attorneys 3.4 Judge Ernst Non-Attorneys 3.3 District Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.2 81 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.2 3.3 3.2 N/A 45 thorough and well reasoned Using language that everyone 3.2 3.7 N/A 3.2 37 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.4 3.7 N/A 3.4 37 being said 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Ernst Score 3.3 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Ernst Attorneys 3.6 Judge Ernst Non-Attorneys 2.8 District Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.1 81 Treating participants with respect 3.3 3.5 3.6 2.9 81 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.1 3.4 3.5 2.6 80 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 2.7 3.5 N/A 2.7 37 appear before him/her 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Ernst Score 3.3 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Ernst Attorneys 3.3 Judge Ernst Non-Attorneys 3.3 District Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.2 3.2 3.2 N/A 45 rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.3 3.5 3.4 3.1 78 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.6 3.4 3.6 N/A 41 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 35 Maintaining appropriate control 3.4 3.7 N/A 3.4 36 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.2 3.6 N/A 3.2 34 cases Managing court proceedings so 3.3 3.5 N/A 3.3 33 that there is little wasted time 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Ernst Score 2.9 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Ernst Attorneys Judge Ernst Non-Attorneys 2.9 Judge Ernst District Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 2.9 3.6 N/A 2.9 37 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 2.7 3.5 N/A 2.7 36 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.0 3.6 N/A 3.0 25 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 2.8 3.5 N/A 2.8 34 case 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 12 ## Page 13 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Ernst 3 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Ernst enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Ernst Score 4.0 District Judges Number of Judge Ernst Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 4.0 3.6 3 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Ernst, 81 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 81 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2018 administration, a total of 16,364 survey invitations were sent to 5,769 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.8 judges. In total 3,837 surveys were completed with an additional 2,309 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 38% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 62%. Non-attorneys During the 2018 administration, a total of 143,430 survey invitations were sent to non-attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. In total 4,862 surveys were completed with an additional 1,925 responses where the individual 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 6% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 72%. b. Methodology The 2018 attorney survey was conducted in 4 quarterly cycles online beginning on June 4th, 2018. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first quarter of 2018 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on June 4th, 2018 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on June 7th, June 18th, and July 2nd, 2018. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2018 beginning with a pre- notification letter sent on August 10th, 2018. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on August 13th, August 27th, and September 11th, 2018. For those attorneys with appearances during the 3rd quarter of 2018, the process was repeated again with a letter sent on November 26th and a series of emails sent on November 29th, December 11th, and December 29th, 2018. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2019. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2018. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on January 25th followed up by email invitations sent on February 5th, February 11th, and February 19th, 2019. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection among non-attorneys also featured four quarterly cycles with each cycle consisting of a mailed invitation letter with instructions to access the survey online followed by a mailed survey booklet with a prepaid 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 14 ## Page 15 return envelope. To meet tight reporting deadlines, the order was switched for the 4th quarter administration and the survey booklet was sent first followed by the letter. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on November 5th, 2018 and reminders sent on November 13th and 26th. In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 21st, 2019. During this period 87 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 21stor for judges not receiving an interim evaluation in 2019 were held over for the 2020 evaluation cycle. Table 1: Non-Attorney Data Collection Dates Cycle Invitation Letter Survey Booklet Q1 5/18/18 6/20/18 Q2 8/2/18 9/7/18 Q3 11/9/18 12/19/18 Q4 1/31/19 1/23/19 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, and Diligence. 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 2017 administration with only minor changes to make the survey gender neutral. 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 19 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, 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 15 ## Page 16 an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. 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. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 29 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 3 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Ernst to evaluate their performance. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Voxco survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 29th, 2019. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. 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. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 17 ## Page 18 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 147 64 0 45 70% Law Enforcement 0 0 0 0 - Litigant 326 13 17 9 69% Juror 6 2 0 1 50% Others 462 38 23 26 68% Total Non-Attorneys 794 53 40 36 68% Total Respondents 941 117 40 81 69% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 18 - 2026 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)Structured scores pending
Full numeric extraction isn’t complete for this cycle’s layout yet. Open the source PDF above for the underlying data.
- 2020 cycle
- 2019 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Allison Ernst 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C 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 Survey of Appellate Judges .13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges.17 Methodology and How to Read Results .17 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .18 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Ernst, 81 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 81 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 3.4 3.2 3 2 1 0 Judge Ernst All District Judges Judge Ernst All District Judges Overall Grade 3.2 3.4 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 87% 85% 82% 80% 64% 60% 40% 33% 20% 12% 11% 7% 7% 6% 3% 3% 0% Judge Ernst All District Judges Judge Ernst All District Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge District District Ernst Ernst Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 87% 82% 64% 85% standards No, does not meet 7% 12% 33% 11% performance standards No opinion 7% 6% 3% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.3 Case Management 3.4 3.1 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 3.3 Communications 3.6 3.3 Diligence 3.4 3.3 Demeanor 3.5 2.9 Fairness 3.5 Judge Ernst All District Judges Judge All District Ernst Judges Case 3.3 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.1 3.4 Law Communications 3.3 3.6 Diligence 3.3 3.4 Demeanor 3.3 3.5 Fairness 2.9 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 64 44% 70% 45 Non- 53 7% 68% 36 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Ernst received 1 response(s) via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Ernst Overall 3.3 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Ernst Attorneys 3.3 Judge Ernst Non-Attorneys District Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.1 3.4 3.1 N/A 39 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.4 3.4 3.4 N/A 45 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.1 3.3 3.1 N/A 41 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 46 cases 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Ernst Overall 3.1 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Ernst Attorneys 3.4 Judge Ernst Non-Attorneys 2.7 District Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Being able to identify and 3 3.4 3.3 2.5 81 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.4 3.2 3.4 N/A 45 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3 3.1 3 N/A 1 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 46 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.3 3.2 3.3 N/A 44 rules Giving reasons for rulings 2.8 3.5 N/A 2.8 33 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 2.6 3.5 N/A 2.6 31 pressure 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Ernst Overall 3.3 District Judges Overall 3.6 Judge Ernst Attorneys 3.4 Judge Ernst Non-Attorneys 3.3 District Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.2 81 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.2 3.3 3.2 N/A 45 thorough and well reasoned Using language that everyone 3.2 3.7 N/A 3.2 37 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.4 3.7 N/A 3.4 37 being said 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Ernst Score 3.3 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Ernst Attorneys 3.6 Judge Ernst Non-Attorneys 2.8 District Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.1 81 Treating participants with respect 3.3 3.5 3.6 2.9 81 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.1 3.4 3.5 2.6 80 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 2.7 3.5 N/A 2.7 37 appear before him/her 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Ernst Score 3.3 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Ernst Attorneys 3.3 Judge Ernst Non-Attorneys 3.3 District Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.2 3.2 3.2 N/A 45 rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.3 3.5 3.4 3.1 78 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.6 3.4 3.6 N/A 41 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 35 Maintaining appropriate control 3.4 3.7 N/A 3.4 36 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.2 3.6 N/A 3.2 34 cases Managing court proceedings so 3.3 3.5 N/A 3.3 33 that there is little wasted time 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Ernst Score 2.9 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Ernst Attorneys Judge Ernst Non-Attorneys 2.9 Judge Ernst District Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 2.9 3.6 N/A 2.9 37 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 2.7 3.5 N/A 2.7 36 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.0 3.6 N/A 3.0 25 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 2.8 3.5 N/A 2.8 34 case 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 12 ## Page 13 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Ernst 3 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Ernst enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Ernst Score 4.0 District Judges Number of Judge Ernst Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 4.0 3.6 3 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Ernst, 81 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 81 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2018 administration, a total of 16,364 survey invitations were sent to 5,769 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.8 judges. In total 3,837 surveys were completed with an additional 2,309 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 38% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 62%. Non-attorneys During the 2018 administration, a total of 143,430 survey invitations were sent to non-attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. In total 4,862 surveys were completed with an additional 1,925 responses where the individual 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 6% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 72%. b. Methodology The 2018 attorney survey was conducted in 4 quarterly cycles online beginning on June 4th, 2018. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first quarter of 2018 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on June 4th, 2018 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on June 7th, June 18th, and July 2nd, 2018. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2018 beginning with a pre- notification letter sent on August 10th, 2018. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on August 13th, August 27th, and September 11th, 2018. For those attorneys with appearances during the 3rd quarter of 2018, the process was repeated again with a letter sent on November 26th and a series of emails sent on November 29th, December 11th, and December 29th, 2018. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2019. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2018. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on January 25th followed up by email invitations sent on February 5th, February 11th, and February 19th, 2019. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection among non-attorneys also featured four quarterly cycles with each cycle consisting of a mailed invitation letter with instructions to access the survey online followed by a mailed survey booklet with a prepaid 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 14 ## Page 15 return envelope. To meet tight reporting deadlines, the order was switched for the 4th quarter administration and the survey booklet was sent first followed by the letter. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on November 5th, 2018 and reminders sent on November 13th and 26th. In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 21st, 2019. During this period 87 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 21stor for judges not receiving an interim evaluation in 2019 were held over for the 2020 evaluation cycle. Table 1: Non-Attorney Data Collection Dates Cycle Invitation Letter Survey Booklet Q1 5/18/18 6/20/18 Q2 8/2/18 9/7/18 Q3 11/9/18 12/19/18 Q4 1/31/19 1/23/19 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, and Diligence. 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 2017 administration with only minor changes to make the survey gender neutral. 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 19 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, 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 15 ## Page 16 an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. 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. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 29 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 3 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Ernst to evaluate their performance. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Voxco survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 29th, 2019. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. 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. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 17 ## Page 18 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 147 64 0 45 70% Law Enforcement 0 0 0 0 - Litigant 326 13 17 9 69% Juror 6 2 0 1 50% Others 462 38 23 26 68% Total Non-Attorneys 794 53 40 36 68% Total Respondents 941 117 40 81 69% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 18 - 2020 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)Overall score3.4judge rating, 0–4 scaleAttorneys recommend80%58 respondentsNon-attorneys recommend100%3 respondents
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Allison Ernst 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C 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 . 13 Survey of Appellate Judges . 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 15 Methodology and How to Read Results . 15 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges . 18 Methodology and How to Read Results . 18 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 19 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Ernst, 44 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 44 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 3.4 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Ernst All District Judges Judge Ernst All District Judges Overall Grade 3.4 3.4 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 92% 83% 80% 80% 60% 40% 20% 12% 10% 10% 5% 6% 3% 0% Judge Ernst All District Judges Judge Ernst All District Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge District District Ernst Ernst Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 80% 83% 100% 92% standards No, does not meet 10% 12% 0% 6% performance standards No opinion 10% 5% 0% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.2 Case Management 3.4 3.4 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.4 Communications 3.5 3.2 Diligence 3.4 3.6 Demeanor 3.5 4.0 Fairness 3.7 Judge Ernst All District Judges Judge All District Ernst Judges Case 3.2 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.4 3.3 Law Communications 3.4 3.5 Diligence 3.2 3.4 Demeanor 3.6 3.5 Fairness 4.0 3.7 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 58 34% 71% 41 Non-Attorneys 3 75% 100% 3 In addition to the responses above, Judge Ernst received 0 response(s) via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Ernst Overall 3.2 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Ernst Attorneys 3.2 Judge Ernst Non-Attorneys 3.5 District Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 2.9 3.5 2.9 2.7 38 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.4 3.5 3.4 4.0 43 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3 3.4 3 3.3 36 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.5 3.4 3.5 4.0 42 cases 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Ernst Overall 3.4 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Ernst Attorneys 3.4 Judge Ernst Non-Attorneys 3.9 District Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.7 43 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.4 3.3 3.4 N/A 39 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 33 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.6 3.3 3.6 N/A 40 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 38 rules Giving reasons for rulings 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 3 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 3 pressure 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Ernst Overall 3.4 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Ernst Attorneys 3.4 Judge Ernst Non-Attorneys 3.9 District Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.7 3.6 3.6 4.0 42 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 3.2 3.3 3.2 N/A 38 reasoned Using language that everyone 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 3 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.7 3.7 N/A 3.7 3 being said 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Ernst Score 3.6 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Ernst Attorneys 3.6 Judge Ernst Non-Attorneys 4.0 District Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.6 3.5 3.5 4.0 43 Treating participants with respect 3.7 3.5 3.7 4.0 43 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.6 3.4 3.5 4.0 42 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 3 appear before him/her 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Ernst Score 3.2 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Ernst Attorneys 3.1 Judge Ernst Non-Attorneys 4.0 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 11 ## Page 12 District Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.1 3.3 3.1 N/A 40 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.2 3.4 3.2 N/A 36 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3 3.4 3 N/A 39 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 3 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 3 Maintaining appropriate control 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 3 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 3 cases Managing court proceedings so 4 3.5 N/A 4.0 3 that there is little wasted time 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Ernst Score 4.0 District Judges Overall 3.7 Judge Ernst Attorneys Judge Ernst Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge Ernst District Judge Ernst Judge Ernst Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 4.0 3.7 N/A 4.0 3 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 4.0 3.6 N/A 4.0 3 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 4.0 3.7 N/A 4.0 3 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 4.0 3.7 N/A 4.0 3 case 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 13 ## Page 14 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Ernst 3 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Ernst enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Ernst Score 3.3 District Judges Number of Judge Ernst Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 3.3 3.6 3 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 14 ## Page 15 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Ernst, 44 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 44 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2020 administration, a total of 57,819 survey invitations were sent to 9,958 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving retention reports in 2020. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 5.8 judges. In total 10,433 surveys were completed with an additional 6,536 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 18% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 29%. Non-attorneys The 2020 administration was a year of transition for the non-attorney survey. The bulk mailing of invitation letters and survey booklets was ceased and replaced with several other methods on a trial basis. During the 2020 cycle non-attorneys were invited through email, SMS messages, push to web handout cards, and push to web letters. Contact methods varied by the type of respondent and contact information available. In total through these methods 1520 surveys were completed with an additional 761 responses where the respondent 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 13% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 7%. b. Methodology The 2020 attorney survey was conducted in 3 cycles online beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2019 were sent a series of email invitations beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Reminders were sent on September 24th and October 9th, 2019. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2019 with email invitations sent beginning November 25th, 2019. Reminders were sent on December 4th and December 11th, 2019. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020. This cycle included email invitations sent on January 29th, 2020. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2020. A final email informing respondents of the cycle closing was sent on February 18th, 2020. invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection among non-attorneys transitioned away from bulk mailings and toward electronic invitations during the 2020 cycle. Due to this transition, non-attorney responses are down from the 2019 cycle. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 15 ## Page 16 Data collection for non-attorneys began on September 3rd, 2019 and ran through the response deadline of February 20th, 2020. Survey invitations were sent by four different methods on a trial basis: Email, SMS message, push to web hand out, and push to web letter. Details on the responses from each method are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Email 10,609 1300 12% SMS/Text Message 49 19 39% Push to web hand out Unknown 89 N/A Push to web letter 334 60 18% Citizen Feedback Unknown 52 N/A In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2020. During this period 52 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2020 were held over for the 2021 interim evaluation cycle. 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, and Diligence. 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 2019 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 19 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. 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 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 16 ## Page 17 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. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 17 ## Page 18 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 29 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 3 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Ernst to evaluate their performance. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges standing for retention. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Voxco survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 21st, 2020. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. 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. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 18 ## Page 19 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 173 58 0 41 71% Staff 4 3 0 3 - Others 0 0 0 0 - Total Non-Attorneys 4 3 0 3 100% Total Respondents 177 61 0 44 72% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Allison Ernst 19
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
- 2026 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Aug 5, 2026
- 2020 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026