Kelly S. Hansen

Trial Court · Washington · Washington

Meets Standards3 cycles on record

Evaluation history

2026 retention cycle
Trial Court · Washington · Washington
Meets Standards
VotersOn 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: *Insufficient Response to Publish 2026 Survey Report *Insufficient Response to Publish 2025 Survey Report The Thirteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance finds that the Honorable Kelly S. Hansen MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The Commission voted 7-0 Judge Hansen meets performance standards. Two of the members of the commission were not present for the voting and the commission has one vacancy. After meeting with Judge Hansen, and after reviewing the work Judge Hansen has done over the last four years, the commission unanimously agreed that Judge Hansen meets performance standards. There were inadequate survey responses for Judge Hansen, therefore the commission was forced to rely on judicial observation, the submissions by Judge Hansen, the meeting with Chief Judge and the interview to make their decision. Judge Hansen effectively applies the law and is studious to stay up to date on any changes in the legislature. Judge Hansen treats people fairly in her courtroom and is dedicated to making sure her courtroom is efficient. Judge Hansen is a part-time judge in Washington County; she manages her judicial duties while also maintaining a private practice. Based on all of the aforementioned considerations, the Judicial Performance Commission recommends that Judge Hansen meets performance standards. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Hansen, reviewed the opinions she authored, observed her in court, and reviewed comments from interested parties during the evaluation. As previously mentioned, there were not enough survey responses for the Commission to review them. Judge Hansen is educated about this process and strives to be successful on the bench. The Commission addressed minimal concerns with Judge Hansen, Judge Hansen is dedicated to serving the citizens of Washington County. The Commission believes Judge Hansen will continue to strive for excellence while she is on the bench. Judge Hansen is a 5th generation resident of Washington County. She was born and raised in Washington County. Judge Hansen lives in Akron with her husband and 2 sons. In 2004, she began practicing law in Akron. In 2011, she started her own law practice, Hansen Law LLC. Over the years, she has served the surrounding communities as follows: Stratton Municipal Court Judge; Stratton Town Attorney; Otis Town Attorney; Deputy District Attorney for the 13th Judicial District; Yuma City Attorney and Municipal Prosecutor; Akron Municipal Court Judge; Fort Morgan Municipal Court Deputy Judge; Sterling Alternate Municipal Judge; and Wray Municipal Court Judge. In 2016, she was appointed by Governor Hickenlooper to serve as the Washington County Court Judge. Judge Hansen continues to practice law full-time in Akron in the areas of real estate, estate planning, probate, business entities, and other miscellaneous areas. Judge Hansen enjoys waterskiing, sailing, reading, watching her sons in their many extracurricular activities, and spending time with family.
2022 retention cycle
Trial Court · Washington · Washington
Meets Standards
VotersRetained· 83.2% yes
1,829 yes · 370 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 Thirteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees (8-0, with one member absent and one vacancy) that Judge Kelly S. Hansen MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. 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. Judge Hansen has been serving as the Washington County Court Judge since the fall of 2016. This is a part-time (20%) position. Judge Hansen’s County Court docket consists primarily of traffic, civil, and misdemeanor cases, and a limited number of some small claims matters. Judge Hansen has a “no-nonsense” temperament and a straightforward and direct communication style. She manages the docket efficiently, keeping proceedings moving in an expeditious manner. Most of the individuals who appear before Judge Hansen do so without an attorney. Judge Hansen effectively communicates with these individuals in a way that ensures that they understand the process and proceedings, while still keeping things moving. Judge Hansen exhibits confidence in this role and a mastery of the relevant law and procedures. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Hansen, reviewed a sampling of her written rulings, observed her in court, and reviewed comments and responses from a survey of individuals familiar with Judge Hansen. Of those who completed the survey, only 4 attorney and 4 non-attorney respondents indicated that they had worked with Judge Hansen enough to evaluate her performance. The Commission placed limited weight upon the survey results due to the small number of respondents. With that said, Judge Hansen scored significantly higher than the statewide average for all County Court judges in almost every category assessed. This is consistent with the Commission’s observations of Judge Hansen’s performance. Based upon the Commission’s overall evaluation, Judge Hansen has demonstrated that she meets or exceeds performance standards in all categories (integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and public).
2018 retention cycle
Trial Court · Washington · Washington
Meets Standards
VotersRetained· 84.9% yes
1,894 yes · 338 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2018 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2018 Retention Survey Report The Thirteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees (8-0, with two members absent) that Judge Kelly S. Hansen MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Hansen was appointed Washington County Court Judge in the fall of 2016. As a part-time judge, she continues to work as an attorney in private practice, where she handles real estate, estate planning, probate, and business matters. Over the years, Judge Hansen has also served surrounding communities in a variety of capacities, including as municipal court judge, city/town attorney, and prosecutor. Judge Hansen earned her Bachelor of Arts degree in political science in 2000 from Colorado State University, where she graduated cum laude and was a member of the Honors Program. In December of 2002, she earned her Juris Doctorate from the University of Denver College of Law, where she was Staff Editor of the University of Denver Law Review and a Marshall in Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Hansen, reviewed a sampling of her written rulings, observed her in court, and reviewed comments and responses from a survey of individuals familiar with Judge Hansen. Of those who completed the survey, 2 attorney and 11 non-attorney respondents indicated that they had worked with her enough to evaluate her performance. The Commission placed limited weight upon the survey results due to the small sample size. When asked if Judge Hansen meets performance standards, the responses were as follows: 50% of the 2 attorney respondents said “yes”, 50% had “no opinion; 90% of the 11 non-attorney respondents said “yes”, 10% had “no opinion”. Judge Hansen’s County Court docket consists of primarily of traffic and misdemeanor cases, as well as some civil and small claims matters. Based upon the Commission’s overall evaluation, Judge Hansen has demonstrated that she meets or exceeds performance standards in all categories (integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and public). In observations, Commissioners noted Judge Hansen’s efforts to make sure individuals who appeared before her without an attorney understood the process and what they needed to do next. Survey comments emphasized Judge Hansen’s moral integrity, commitment to the community, and willingness to perform additional research prior to making a decision. Some comments noted that the Judge tends to speak too quickly, a habit Judge Hansen acknowledged she was working on in her interview. Written opinions evidenced Judge Hansen’s knowledge of the law and effective communication skills. All available information suggests Judge Hansen is an asset to the community both on and off the bench, and the Commission unanimously agreed that she meets performance standards.

Surveys & reports

2022 cycle
- 2022 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Overall score
  3.8
  judge rating, 0–4 scale
  Attorneys recommend
  100%
  10 respondents
  Non-attorneys recommend
  100%
  respondent count not on record
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Kelly S. Hansen 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 Hansen, 8 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 8 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 3.8 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Hansen All County Judges Judge Hansen All County Judges Overall Grade 3.8 3.4 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 100% 83% 83% 80% 60% 40% 20% 13% 12% 4% 6% 0% Judge Hansen All County Judges Judge Hansen 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 Hansen Hansen Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 100% 83% 100% 83% standards No, does not meet 0% 13% 0% 12% performance standards No opinion 0% 4% 0% 6% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.9 Case Management 3.4 3.8 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.8 Communications 3.5 3.7 Diligence 3.4 3.7 Demeanor 3.4 3.8 Fairness 3.3 Judge Hansen All County Judges Judge All County Hansen Judges Case Management 3.9 3.4 Application and 3.8 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.8 3.5 Diligence 3.7 3.4 Demeanor 3.7 3.4 Fairness 3.8 3.3 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 10 20% 40% 4 Non- 5 - - 4 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 Hansen 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 Kelly S. Hansen 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Hansen Overall 3.9 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Hansen Attorneys 4 Judge Hansen Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Hansen Judges Hansen Hansen Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 4 3.5 4 4.0 5 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.7 3.4 4 3.3 7 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.8 3.5 4 3.7 5 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 4 3.5 4 4.0 7 cases 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Hansen Overall 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Hansen Attorneys 4 Judge Hansen Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Hansen Judges Hansen Hansen Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.9 3.3 4 3.7 7 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 4 3.3 4 N/A 4 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 4 3.3 4 N/A 4 similar Consistently applying laws and 4 3.3 4 N/A 4 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.7 3.3 N/A 3.7 3 Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 3 3.3 N/A 3.0 3 outside pressure 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Hansen Overall 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Hansen Attorneys 3.8 Judge Hansen Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Hansen Judges Hansen Hansen Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.8 3.5 4 3.7 6 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.5 3.4 3.5 N/A 2 thorough and well- reasoned Using language that everyone 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 3 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 3 what’s being said 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Hansen Score 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Hansen Attorneys 3.9 Judge Hansen Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Hansen Judges Hansen Hansen Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.9 3.4 4 3.7 7 Treating participants with respect 3.7 3.4 3.8 3.7 7 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.3 3.3 N/A 3.3 3 appear before him/her 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Hansen Score 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Hansen Attorneys 3.8 Judge Hansen Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Hansen Judges Hansen Hansen Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 4 3.3 4 N/A 4 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.5 3.4 3.5 N/A 4 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.8 3.4 3.8 N/A 4 for cases Beginning court on time. 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 3 Maintaining appropriate control 3.3 3.6 N/A 3.3 3 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 3 cases Being prepared for cases. 4 3.5 N/A 4.0 3 Managing court proceedings so 3.7 3.4 N/A 3.7 3 that there is little wasted time 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Hansen Score 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Hansen Attorneys 3.9 Judge Hansen Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge Hansen County Judge Hansen Judge Hansen Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 4.0 3.4 N/A 4.0 3 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.5 3.3 N/A 3.5 2 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.7 3.4 N/A 3.7 3 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 4.0 3.4 N/A 4.0 3 case Conducting their courtroom in a neutral 3.9 3.3 4 3.7 7 manner. Being fair and impartial 3.8 3.3 3.8 N/A 4 to both sides. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Hansen, 8 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 8 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 Kelly S. Hansen 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 Kelly S. Hansen 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 Kelly S. Hansen 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Rate Attorney 50 10 4 40% Staff - 1 1 - Others 64 4 3 75% Juror - 0 0 - Citizen Feedback - 0 0 Total Non-Attorneys - 5 4 - Total Respondents - 15 8 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 16
2018 cycle
- 2018 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Overall score
  —
  judge rating, 0–4 scale
  Attorneys recommend
  83%
  respondent count not on record
  Non-attorneys recommend
  90%
  respondent count not on record
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Kelly S. Hansen 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Performance Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Case Management . 8 Application and Knowledge of Law . 9 Communications .10 Demeanor .11 Diligence .12 Performance Score.13 Survey of Non Attorneys .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Demeanor .17 Fairness .18 Communications .19 Diligence .20 Application of Law .21 Performance Score.22 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Kelly S. Hansen, 20 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 13 agreed they had worked with Judge Kelly enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 13 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 Figure 1 3.95 4 3.46 3.45 3.38 2.92 3 2 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other* Table 1 Judge Kelly S. Hansen Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.38 2.92 3.46 3.95 3.45 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 1 ## Page 4 Performance Scores Figure 2 100% 100% 90% 83% 83% 80% 60% 50% 50% 40% 20% 17% 17% 10% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Table 2 Judge Kelly S. Hansen Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance 83% 50% 90% 100% 83% standards No, does not meet performance 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% standards No opinion 17% 50% 10% 0% 17% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Kelly S. Hansen Overall Category Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Area Attorneys Total Jurors Attorneys Other Case Management 3.67 N/A N/A N/A Application and 2.60 3.27 3.83 3.29 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.00 3.52 4.00 3.67 Diligence 2.83 3.65 3.90 3.70 Demeanor 2.50 3.45 4.00 3.32 Fairness N/A 3.41 4.00 3.29 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 11 0 4 36% 50% Total Non- 289 84 16 8% 31% Attorneys Staff 4 0 3 75% 33% Jurors 17 2 3 20% 33% Other Non- 268 82 10 5% 30% Attorneys *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased. **The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Kelly, 4 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 2 agreed they had worked with Judge Kelly enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 2 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “County Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2017 administration, a total of 20,283 survey invitations were sent to 6,391 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2018. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3.2 judges. In total 3,983 surveys were completed with an additional 1,943 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 29% 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 67%. b. Methodology The 2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on August 8th, 2017. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2017 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on August 8th, 2017 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 August 10th, August 29th, and September 21st. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2017 beginning with a pre-notification letter sent on November 10th, 2017. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on November 20th, December 4th, and December 12th. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in February 2018. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2017. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on February 12th, followed up by email invitations sent on February 15th, and February 19th. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Appellate staff attorneys received the same survey as other attorneys, but were invited separately with a series of email invitations starting with the initial invite on December 14th and followed by a reminder on January 10th, 2018. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 5 ## Page 8 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. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2016 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. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Survey Attorney Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each categ ory by survey group. 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. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 6 ## Page 9 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 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 questions on bias and 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. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 7 ## Page 10 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Kelly on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 3 0 1 2 3 4 3.67 Case Management Overall Average 3.39 4 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.55 3.5 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.38 3.5 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.39 4 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.34 Judge Kelly All County Judges Table 5 Case Management Judge Kelly S. A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Hansen Promptly issuing a decision on the 1 -- -- -- -- 1 2 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 1 1 -- -- -- -- 2 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 1 1 -- -- -- -- 2 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 2 -- -- -- -- -- 2 cases *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 8 ## Page 11 Application and Knowledge of Law Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Kelly on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 0 1 2 3 4 2.6 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.16 3 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.24 3 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.10 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 2.5 are similar 3.15 2 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.11 2.5 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.11 Judge Kelly All County Judges Table 6 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Kelly S. Hansen A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Being able to identify and -- 2 -- -- -- -- 2 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence -- 2 -- -- -- -- 2 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are -- 1 1 -- -- -- 2 similar Being fair and impartial to both -- 1 -- 1 -- -- 2 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and -- 1 1 -- -- -- 2 rules *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 9 ## Page 12 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Kelly on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 0 1 2 3 4 3 Communications Overall Average 3.38 2.5 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.46 3.5 Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned 3.30 Judge Kelly All County Judges Table 7 Communications Judge Kelly S. Hansen A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants -- 1 1 -- -- -- 2 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 1 1 -- -- -- -- 2 thorough and well reasoned *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 10 ## Page 13 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Kelly on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 6 0 1 2 3 4 2.5 Demeanor Overall Average 3.28 2.5 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.36 2.5 Treating participants with respect 3.30 2.5 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.18 Judge Kelly All County Judges Table 8 Demeanor Judge Kelly S. Hansen A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of -- 1 1 -- -- -- 2 dignity Treating participants with respect -- 1 1 -- -- -- 2 Conducting his/her courtroom in a -- 1 1 -- -- -- 2 neutral manner *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 11 ## Page 14 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Kelly on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 7 0 1 2 3 4 2.83 Diligence Overall Average 3.18 Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3 rules 3.14 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 2.5 for cases 3.22 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3 they are complicated and time consuming 3.23 Judge Kelly All County Judges Table 9 Diligence Judge Kelly S. Hansen A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Using good judgment in application of relevant -- 2 -- -- -- -- 2 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being -- 1 1 -- -- -- 2 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time -- 2 -- -- -- -- 2 consuming *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 12 ## Page 15 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Kelly meets judicial performance standards? Table 10 Judge Kelly S. Hansen Yes, meets performance 50% standards No, does not meet 0% performance standards No opinion 50% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 13 ## Page 16 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Kelly S. Hansen, 16 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 11 agreed they had worked with Judge Kelly enough to evaluate their performance. This report reflects these 11 responses. a. Response rates During the 2017 administration, 5,130 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 100,869 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 1,334 complete surveys have been received and an additional 569 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 30% and the completion rate is 70%. Among other non-attorneys, 2,824 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,549 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys was 6% and the completion rate was 74%. b. Methodology The 2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning August 17th, 2017 and ending on February 20th, 2018. 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 December 5th and a reminder sent on December 13th. Other non-attorneys with court experiences in the first and second quarters of 2017 where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on August 17th informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. This was followed up with a second mailing that also included the information to access the survey online, as well as a full printed survey booklet and postage-paid return envelope. This second mailing was sent on September 18th, 2017. This process for other non-attorneys was repeated for those who had experience with judges during the third quarter of 2017. For this cycle the pre-notification letter was sent on November 14th, and the survey booklet on December 13th. For respondents with court experiences during the 4th quarter of 2017, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 29th, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 20th. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 14 ## Page 17 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 opened on August 20th, 2017 and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2018. During this period 54 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20th or for judges not standing for retention in 2018 were held over to be included in the 2019 evaluation cycle. The core questions of this survey matched the regular non-attorney survey with additional demographic questions to identify both the judge and the respondent leaving feedback. When leaving feedback, respondents were required to leave their name and contact information as well as pass a captcha verification check to prevent automated responses. During analysis, these responses were screened so that each respondent could only evaluate each judge or justice once during the cycle and to remove responses for those that provided false or incomplete contact information. c. Questions Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a 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. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. Question Category Areas* Court Staff Other Non-attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each catego ry by survey group. 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 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. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 15 ## Page 18 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the respondent with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the meets performance standards question. 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 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. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. 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. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and allowed to leave open ended responses to each. 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. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 16 ## Page 19 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 8 0 1 2 3 4 3.45 Demeanor Overall Average 3.56 3.64 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.61 3.45 Treating participants with respect 3.60 3.6 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.54 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.4 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.51 Judge Kelly All County Judges Table 11 Demeanor Judge Kelly S. Hansen A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 8 2 1 -- -- -- 11 Treating participants with respect 8 1 1 1 -- -- 11 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 8 1 -- 1 -- -- 10 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 8 -- 1 -- 1 -- 10 him/her *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 17 ## Page 20 Fairness Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 9 0 1 2 3 4 3.41 Fairness Overall Average 3.56 3.4 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.59 3.36 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.53 3.75 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.54 3.36 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.59 Judge Kelly All County Judges Table 12 Fairness Judge Kelly S. Hansen A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving participants an 7 2 -- -- 1 -- 10 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 8 1 1 -- 1 -- 11 case without bias Treating fairly people who 6 2 -- -- -- 2 10 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 7 2 1 1 -- -- 11 to present his or her case *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 18 ## Page 21 Communications Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 10 0 1 2 3 4 3.52 Communications Overall Average 3.69 3.45 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.65 3.55 Using language that everyone can understand 3.70 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.7 what’s being said 3.72 Judge Kelly All County Judges Table 13 Communications Judge Kelly S. Hansen A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants understand the 7 2 2 -- -- -- 11 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 8 1 2 -- -- -- 11 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 8 1 1 -- -- -- 10 hear what’s being said *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 19 ## Page 22 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 11 0 1 2 3 4 3.65 Diligence Overall Average 3.59 3.91 Beginning court on time 3.53 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.36 for cases 3.64 3.82 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.67 3.55 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.60 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.7 wasted time 3.55 Judge Kelly All County Judges Table 14 Diligence Judge Kelly S. Hansen A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Beginning court on time 10 1 -- -- -- -- 11 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 8 -- 2 1 -- -- 11 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 9 2 -- -- -- -- 11 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 9 1 -- -- 1 -- 11 Managing court proceedings so that there is 7 3 -- -- -- 1 11 little wasted time *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 20 ## Page 23 Application of Law Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 12 0 1 2 3 4 3.27 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.52 3.4 Giving reasons for rulings 3.52 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.18 outside pressure 3.55 3.3 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.52 Judge Kelly All County Judges Table 15 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Kelly S. Hansen A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving reasons for rulings 6 2 2 -- -- 1 11 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 6 3 1 -- 1 -- 11 pressure Being able to identify and 7 1 1 -- 1 -- 10 analyze relevant facts *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 21 ## Page 24 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Kelly meets judicial performance standards? Table 16 Judge Kelly S. Hansen Yes, meets performance 90% standards No, does not meet 0% performance standards No opinion 10% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kelly S. Hansen 22

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
2022 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
2018 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026