← All judges

Elizabeth L. Harris

Court of Appeals

Meets Standards2 cycles on record

Evaluation history

  • 2026 retention cycle
    Court of Appeals
    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: 2026 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2023 Interim Survey Report (PDF) The State Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Judge Elizabeth L. Harris, by vote of 9-0 with one commissioner absent, and one commission vacancy, MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Colorado’s statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, and service to the legal profession and the public. The Commission finds that her opinions are clear, well-written, and reasonably timely. At oral arguments, she is well-prepared, succinct in her questions, respectful, and seeks to draw out the issues most important to the Court’s decision-making process. Judge Harris received positive comments from lawyers about her preparation, intelligence, familiarity with the record on appeal, and knowledge of the law.  Lawyers noted the length of time required for Judge Harris to issue an opinion as a weakness.  Judge Harris received positive comments from fellow judges for her writing ability, her thoughtfulness and her engagement in committee work for Colorado Courts. Judges also noted Judge Harris’ timeliness in issuing decisions as a weakness. The Commission commends Judge Harris for her commitment to community service and the Court of Appeals/Supreme Court summer internship program.  Such efforts beyond the daily work of the Court of Appeals demonstrate dedication to serving the legal profession and the public. In sum, the Commission finds Judge Harris to be a valuable member of the Court of Appeals. To conduct our evaluation, the Commission interviewed Judge Harris, reviewed her self-evaluation, observed oral arguments, read a selection of her legal opinions, and considered survey responses from attorneys and judges. The Commission received survey responses from only 5 attorneys and 22 judges.  Nevertheless, the Commission is confident in this opinion because 93% of responding judges and attorneys agreed, and all remaining sources of information available supported a finding that Judge Harris “Meets Performance Standards.” Judge Harris is a graduate of Georgetown University and New York University School ofLaw. She began her legal career as a law clerk for the Honorable John Porfilio of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. After her clerkship, she spent five years at the Federal Public Defender’s Office in Colorado and then joined the law firm of Jacobs Chase, which was later acquired by Husch Blackwell. In 2013, she opened her own law firm where she focused on appellate litigation. She was appointed to the Colorado Court of Appeals in 2015.
  • 2018 retention cycle
    Court of Appeals
    Meets Standards
    VotersRetained· 63.5% yes
    1,268,530 yes · 729,496 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 2018 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2018 Retention Survey Report 2017 Interim Survey Report The State Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Judge Elizabeth L. Harris MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, by a vote of 6 to 3. The judicial performance standards are: integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public.   Judge Harris joined the Colorado Court of Appeals in 2015. She received a B.A. from Georgetown University and her Juris Doctorate from New York University in 1996. She clerked for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, was a federal public defender from 1997 to 2003, and then worked in private practice. She is on the board of directors of the Colorado Women’s Bar Association Foundation, is a member of the Doyle Inn of Court, and prepares University of Denver law school students for oral argument competitions. The Commission interviewed Judge Harris, read a selection of her legal opinions, observed her in court, reviewed her self-evaluation, and considered survey responses from attorneys and judges. One survey question asked whether Judge Harris met judicial performance standards. Of the attorneys who responded to that question, 65% answered yes, 12% answered no, and 23% had no opinion. Of the judges who responded to that question, 90% answered yes and 10% answered no. A total of 35 attorneys and 21 judges completed the survey.   Judge Harris has been on the bench for nearly three years, and this is her first retention review. She received high scores for her preparation and equal treatment of parties regardless of background or ethnicity. She received low marks for making decisions based on the law and facts and also for reaching issues that need not be decided. The Commission agrees that Judge Harris at times reaches issues that she need not decide. Sometimes she unnecessarily reexamines facts and lower courts’ reasoning, which reduces her efficiency and which may create a perception that she is unfair. Lack of timeliness also has been a problem for Judge Harris, although she has shown substantial improvement. She recognizes these issues and is taking concrete steps to address these areas of concern. Judge Harris demonstrates strong writing skills, diligence, and a commitment to fairness.

Surveys & reports

  • 2026 cycle
    • 2025 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full interim survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 The Honorable Elizabeth L. Harris 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report Appellate Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Retention Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Respondent Characteristics . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Retention . 7 General Evaluation . 8 Writing .10 Survey of District and Appellate Judges .12 Methodology and How to Read Results .12 Retention .14 Individual Questions .15 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Elizabeth L. Harris, 89 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 36 agreed they had worked with Judge Harris enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 36 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F for fail 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 4.00 3.34 3.15 2.91 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Combined Attorneys District and Appellate Judges Table 1 Judge Elizabeth L. Harris Overall Scores District and Combined Attorneys Appellate Judges Overall Grade 3.15 2.91 3.34 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 100% 92% 80% 69% 60% 56% 40% 20% 0% Combined Attorneys District & Appellate Judges Table 2 Judge Elizabeth L. Harris Overall Retention Scores District & Combined Attorneys Appellate Judges % Recommending 69% 56% 92% Retention 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Elizabeth L. Harris Overall Category Scores District and Area Attorneys Appellate Judges General 3.28 3.34 Writing 2.54 N/A 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 3 ## Page 6 Respondent Characteristics Table 4: Response Rates % Without Undeliverable or Group Total Sent Complete Response Rate** sufficient Not Applicable* knowledge*** Attorneys 238 0 65 27% 65% District and Appellate 307 0 24 8% 46% Judges *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. ** Response rates are calculated by adding the number of completed responses to the number of undeliverable responses and dividing the results by the total invitations sent. ***The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Harris, 65 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 23 agreed they had worked with Judge Harris enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 23 responses. The survey results are divided into two sections: General Evaluation and Writing. 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 “Appellate Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2016-2017 administration, a total of 23,267 survey invitations were sent to 5,865 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices eligible to receive interim evaluations in 2017. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3 judges. 4,676 surveys were completed with an additional 2,022 responses where the attorneys 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 60%. b. Methodology The 2016 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16, 2016. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16, 2015 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 September 27th, October 12th, and November 1st. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2017. Invitations were sent to attorneys who had appeared before judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. A pre-notification letter was sent to these attorneys on January 31st, 2017 and followed up by emailed invitations sent on February 7th, February 16th and February 27th. Additional invitations were sent out on request throughout data collection. All online surveys were closed and mail returns were cut off on March 2nd, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 5 ## Page 8 c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 6 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Those that indicated that they were familiar with the Judge’s written opinions were asked to rate the judge in an additional six areas related to the Judge’s writing skills. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge or justice be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “Don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. d. Analysis: 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 attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge or justice’s strengths and weaknesses. 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. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 6 ## Page 9 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Harris be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Elizabeth L. Harris Total Retain 56% Neither 17% Total Not Retain 26% Figure 3 100% 80% 60% 50% 40% 30% 26% 22% 19% 17% 20% 11% 14% 4% 6% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Harris All Appellate Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 7 ## Page 10 General Evaluation Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Harris 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 3.40 Appellate General Overall Average 3.28 3.44 Being prepared for oral argument 2.90 3.84 Not engaging in ex parte communications 3.75 3.49 Being courteous toward attorneys 3.24 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or 3.55 economic status 3.65 Allowing parties to present their arguments and 3.46 answer questions 3.09 3.13 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.26 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All Appellate Judges Judge Harris 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 8 ## Page 11 Table 6 Appellate General Judge Elizabeth L. Harris All Overall A B C D Fail DK/NA Appellate Average Number of Responses: 23 Judges Being fair and impartial toward 65% 4% 22% 9% -- -- 3.26 3.13 each side of the case Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 52% 17% 22% 4% 4% -- 3.09 3.46 questions Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or 61% 22% 4% -- -- 13% 3.65 3.55 economic status Being courteous toward 48% 22% 17% 4% -- 9% 3.24 3.49 attorneys Not engaging in ex parte 43% 4% 4% -- -- 48% 3.75 3.84 communications Being prepared for oral 39% 22% 17% 9% 4% 9% 2.90 3.44 argument Appellate General Overall Average 3.28 3.40 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 9 ## Page 12 Writing Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Harris 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 3.08 Appellate Writing Overall Average 2.54 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 3.08 decided 2.38 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 2.8 facts 2.22 3.2 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.00 3.34 Issuing opinions in a timely manner 2.75 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of 3.1 the Court's decision 2.72 3.18 Writing opinions that are clear 2.78 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All Appellate Judges Judge Harris 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 10 ## Page 13 Table 7 Appellate Writing Judge Elizabeth L. Harris All Overall A B C D Fail DK/NA Appellate Number of Responses: 18 Average Judges Writing opinions that are clear 33% 28% 22% 17% -- -- 2.78 3.18 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 44% 17% 11% 22% 6% -- 2.72 3.1 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 28% 17% 11% -- 11% 33% 2.75 3.34 Making decisions without regard to 33% 22% 11% 11% -- 22% 3.00 3.2 possible criticism Making reasoned decisions based 39% 17% 6% 6% 33% -- 2.22 2.8 upon the law and facts Refraining from reaching issues 33% 17% 11% 6% 22% 11% 2.38 3.08 that need not be decided Appellate Writing Overall Average 2.54 3.08 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 11 ## Page 14 Survey of District and Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Harris, 24 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 13 agreed they had worked with Judge Harris enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 13 responses. a. Response rates For the inter-appellate evaluation, invitations were sent via email to all 28 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Judges and justices not receiving interim evaluations were invited to evaluate all their appellate peers being evaluated this interim period. Appellate Judges and Justices receiving 2017 interim evaluations were invited to evaluate their fellow judges, but not themselves. Of these, 23 responded and 21 completed the survey. The response rate was 82% and the completion rate was 91%. District judges were invited to evaluate their peers receiving 2017 interim evaluations on the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court via email. For this survey all district judges were sent invitations to evaluate the 12 Court of Appeals judges or Supreme Court justices being reviewed. A total of 3,324 survey invitations were sent and 126 responded and all completed the survey. The overall response rate was 4% and the completion rate was 100%. b. Methodology Both District Judges and fellow members of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals were asked to evaluate the appellate judges and justices being review in 2017. The evaluation of appellate judges and justices being reviewed by their peers in the appellate courts began with an email invitation sent on March 14th. The evaluation of appellate judges and justices by their peers in the district courts began with an email invitation sent on March 14th. c. Questions Both groups of judges providing appellate evaluations answered the same questions. The survey consisted of a series of 9 questions where the respondent was asked to rate the judges performance with an A through F letter grade. They were then asked how strongly they do or do not recommend the judge or justice for retention and given an opportunity to provide any written comments. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 12 ## Page 15 d. Analysis 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 attorneys 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. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 13 ## Page 16 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Harris be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 8 Judge Elizabeth L. Harris Total Retain 92% Neither 0% Total Not Retain 8% Figure 6 100% 80% 70% 60% 46% 46% 40% 23% 20% 6% 8% 2% 0% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Harris All Appellate Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 14 ## Page 17 Individual Questions Using a grade scale, where "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the following appellate judges on each aspect by selecting the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don't have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please select "No Grade". Figure 7 3.57 Appellate Judge Overall Average 3.34 3.96 Not engaging in ex parte communications 3.80 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or 3.76 economic status 3.83 3.62 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.54 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 3.44 decided 3.23 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 3.5 facts 3.62 3.65 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.62 3.32 Issuing opinions in a timely manner 1.85 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of 3.52 the Court's decision 3.54 3.49 Writing opinions that are clear 3.54 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All Appellate Judges Judge Harris 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 15 ## Page 18 Table 9 Appellate Individual Questions Judge Elizabeth L. Harris All Overall A B C D Fail DK/NA Appellate Average Number of Responses: 13 Judges Writing opinions that are clear 69% 23% -- 8% -- -- 3.54 3.49 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 69% 23% -- 8% -- -- 3.54 3.52 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner -- 38% 15% 38% 8% -- 1.85 3.32 Making decisions without regard to 69% 23% 8% -- -- -- 3.62 3.65 possible criticism Making reasoned decisions based 77% 15% -- 8% -- -- 3.62 3.5 upon the law and facts Refraining from reaching issues that 38% 54% -- 8% -- -- 3.23 3.44 need not be decided Being fair and impartial toward each 69% 23% -- 8% -- -- 3.54 3.62 side of the case Treating parties equally regardless of 77% 15% -- -- -- 8% 3.83 3.76 race, sex, or economic status Not engaging in ex parte 62% 15% -- -- -- 23% 3.80 3.96 communications Appellate Judge Overall Average 3.34 3.57 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 16
    • 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.

  • 2018 cycle
    • 2017 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full interim survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 The Honorable Elizabeth L. Harris 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report Appellate Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Retention Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Respondent Characteristics . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Retention . 7 General Evaluation . 8 Writing .10 Survey of District and Appellate Judges .12 Methodology and How to Read Results .12 Retention .14 Individual Questions .15 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Elizabeth L. Harris, 89 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 36 agreed they had worked with Judge Harris enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 36 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F for fail 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 4.00 3.34 3.15 2.91 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Combined Attorneys District and Appellate Judges Table 1 Judge Elizabeth L. Harris Overall Scores District and Combined Attorneys Appellate Judges Overall Grade 3.15 2.91 3.34 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 100% 92% 80% 69% 60% 56% 40% 20% 0% Combined Attorneys District & Appellate Judges Table 2 Judge Elizabeth L. Harris Overall Retention Scores District & Combined Attorneys Appellate Judges % Recommending 69% 56% 92% Retention 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Elizabeth L. Harris Overall Category Scores District and Area Attorneys Appellate Judges General 3.28 3.34 Writing 2.54 N/A 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 3 ## Page 6 Respondent Characteristics Table 4: Response Rates % Without Undeliverable or Group Total Sent Complete Response Rate** sufficient Not Applicable* knowledge*** Attorneys 238 0 65 27% 65% District and Appellate 307 0 24 8% 46% Judges *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. ** Response rates are calculated by adding the number of completed responses to the number of undeliverable responses and dividing the results by the total invitations sent. ***The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Harris, 65 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 23 agreed they had worked with Judge Harris enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 23 responses. The survey results are divided into two sections: General Evaluation and Writing. 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 “Appellate Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2016-2017 administration, a total of 23,267 survey invitations were sent to 5,865 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices eligible to receive interim evaluations in 2017. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3 judges. 4,676 surveys were completed with an additional 2,022 responses where the attorneys 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 60%. b. Methodology The 2016 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16, 2016. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16, 2015 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 September 27th, October 12th, and November 1st. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2017. Invitations were sent to attorneys who had appeared before judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. A pre-notification letter was sent to these attorneys on January 31st, 2017 and followed up by emailed invitations sent on February 7th, February 16th and February 27th. Additional invitations were sent out on request throughout data collection. All online surveys were closed and mail returns were cut off on March 2nd, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 5 ## Page 8 c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 6 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Those that indicated that they were familiar with the Judge’s written opinions were asked to rate the judge in an additional six areas related to the Judge’s writing skills. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge or justice be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “Don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. d. Analysis: 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 attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge or justice’s strengths and weaknesses. 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. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 6 ## Page 9 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Harris be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Elizabeth L. Harris Total Retain 56% Neither 17% Total Not Retain 26% Figure 3 100% 80% 60% 50% 40% 30% 26% 22% 19% 17% 20% 11% 14% 4% 6% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Harris All Appellate Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 7 ## Page 10 General Evaluation Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Harris 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 3.40 Appellate General Overall Average 3.28 3.44 Being prepared for oral argument 2.90 3.84 Not engaging in ex parte communications 3.75 3.49 Being courteous toward attorneys 3.24 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or 3.55 economic status 3.65 Allowing parties to present their arguments and 3.46 answer questions 3.09 3.13 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.26 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All Appellate Judges Judge Harris 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 8 ## Page 11 Table 6 Appellate General Judge Elizabeth L. Harris All Overall A B C D Fail DK/NA Appellate Average Number of Responses: 23 Judges Being fair and impartial toward 65% 4% 22% 9% -- -- 3.26 3.13 each side of the case Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 52% 17% 22% 4% 4% -- 3.09 3.46 questions Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or 61% 22% 4% -- -- 13% 3.65 3.55 economic status Being courteous toward 48% 22% 17% 4% -- 9% 3.24 3.49 attorneys Not engaging in ex parte 43% 4% 4% -- -- 48% 3.75 3.84 communications Being prepared for oral 39% 22% 17% 9% 4% 9% 2.90 3.44 argument Appellate General Overall Average 3.28 3.40 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 9 ## Page 12 Writing Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Harris 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 3.08 Appellate Writing Overall Average 2.54 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 3.08 decided 2.38 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 2.8 facts 2.22 3.2 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.00 3.34 Issuing opinions in a timely manner 2.75 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of 3.1 the Court's decision 2.72 3.18 Writing opinions that are clear 2.78 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All Appellate Judges Judge Harris 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 10 ## Page 13 Table 7 Appellate Writing Judge Elizabeth L. Harris All Overall A B C D Fail DK/NA Appellate Number of Responses: 18 Average Judges Writing opinions that are clear 33% 28% 22% 17% -- -- 2.78 3.18 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 44% 17% 11% 22% 6% -- 2.72 3.1 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 28% 17% 11% -- 11% 33% 2.75 3.34 Making decisions without regard to 33% 22% 11% 11% -- 22% 3.00 3.2 possible criticism Making reasoned decisions based 39% 17% 6% 6% 33% -- 2.22 2.8 upon the law and facts Refraining from reaching issues 33% 17% 11% 6% 22% 11% 2.38 3.08 that need not be decided Appellate Writing Overall Average 2.54 3.08 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 11 ## Page 14 Survey of District and Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Harris, 24 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 13 agreed they had worked with Judge Harris enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 13 responses. a. Response rates For the inter-appellate evaluation, invitations were sent via email to all 28 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Judges and justices not receiving interim evaluations were invited to evaluate all their appellate peers being evaluated this interim period. Appellate Judges and Justices receiving 2017 interim evaluations were invited to evaluate their fellow judges, but not themselves. Of these, 23 responded and 21 completed the survey. The response rate was 82% and the completion rate was 91%. District judges were invited to evaluate their peers receiving 2017 interim evaluations on the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court via email. For this survey all district judges were sent invitations to evaluate the 12 Court of Appeals judges or Supreme Court justices being reviewed. A total of 3,324 survey invitations were sent and 126 responded and all completed the survey. The overall response rate was 4% and the completion rate was 100%. b. Methodology Both District Judges and fellow members of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals were asked to evaluate the appellate judges and justices being review in 2017. The evaluation of appellate judges and justices being reviewed by their peers in the appellate courts began with an email invitation sent on March 14th. The evaluation of appellate judges and justices by their peers in the district courts began with an email invitation sent on March 14th. c. Questions Both groups of judges providing appellate evaluations answered the same questions. The survey consisted of a series of 9 questions where the respondent was asked to rate the judges performance with an A through F letter grade. They were then asked how strongly they do or do not recommend the judge or justice for retention and given an opportunity to provide any written comments. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 12 ## Page 15 d. Analysis 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 attorneys 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. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 13 ## Page 16 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Harris be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 8 Judge Elizabeth L. Harris Total Retain 92% Neither 0% Total Not Retain 8% Figure 6 100% 80% 70% 60% 46% 46% 40% 23% 20% 6% 8% 2% 0% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Harris All Appellate Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 14 ## Page 17 Individual Questions Using a grade scale, where "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the following appellate judges on each aspect by selecting the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don't have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please select "No Grade". Figure 7 3.57 Appellate Judge Overall Average 3.34 3.96 Not engaging in ex parte communications 3.80 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or 3.76 economic status 3.83 3.62 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.54 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 3.44 decided 3.23 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 3.5 facts 3.62 3.65 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.62 3.32 Issuing opinions in a timely manner 1.85 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of 3.52 the Court's decision 3.54 3.49 Writing opinions that are clear 3.54 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All Appellate Judges Judge Harris 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 15 ## Page 18 Table 9 Appellate Individual Questions Judge Elizabeth L. Harris All Overall A B C D Fail DK/NA Appellate Average Number of Responses: 13 Judges Writing opinions that are clear 69% 23% -- 8% -- -- 3.54 3.49 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 69% 23% -- 8% -- -- 3.54 3.52 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner -- 38% 15% 38% 8% -- 1.85 3.32 Making decisions without regard to 69% 23% 8% -- -- -- 3.62 3.65 possible criticism Making reasoned decisions based 77% 15% -- 8% -- -- 3.62 3.5 upon the law and facts Refraining from reaching issues that 38% 54% -- 8% -- -- 3.23 3.44 need not be decided Being fair and impartial toward each 69% 23% -- 8% -- -- 3.54 3.62 side of the case Treating parties equally regardless of 77% 15% -- -- -- 8% 3.83 3.76 race, sex, or economic status Not engaging in ex parte 62% 15% -- -- -- 23% 3.80 3.96 communications Appellate Judge Overall Average 3.34 3.57 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 16
    • 2018 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 The Honorable Elizabeth L. Harris 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report Appellate 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 General Evaluation . 8 Writing .10 Performance Score.12 Survey of District and Appellate Judges .13 Methodology and How to Read Results .13 Individual Questions .15 Performance Score.17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Elizabeth L. Harris, 155 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 56 agreed they had worked with Judge Harris enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 56 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 4.00 3.63 3.27 3.02 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Combined Attorneys District and Appellate Judges Table 1 Judge Elizabeth L. Harris Overall Scores District and Combined Attorneys Appellate Judges Overall Grade 3.27 3.02 3.63 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 1 ## Page 4 Performance Scores Figure 2 100% 90% 80% 77% 65% 60% 40% 23% 20% 13% 12% 11% 10% 0% Combined Attorneys District & Appellate Judges Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Table 2 Judge Elizabeth L. Harris Overall Retention Scores District & Combined Attorneys Appellate Judges Yes, meets performance 77% 65% 90% standards No, does not meet performance 11% 12% 10% standards No opinion 13% 23% 0% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Elizabeth L. Harris Overall Category Scores District and Area Attorneys Appellate Judges General 3.26 3.63 Writing 2.78 N/A 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates % Without Undeliverable or Group Total Sent Complete Response Rate sufficient Not Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 243 0 68 28% 49% District and Appellate 209 0 87 42% 76% Judges *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 Elizabeth L. Harris 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Harris, 68 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 35 agreed they had worked with Judge Harris enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 35 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 “Appellate 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. c. Questions 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 5 ## Page 8 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. 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 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 6 ## Page 9 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 Elizabeth L. Harris 7 ## Page 10 General Evaluation Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Harris 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 3.26 Appellate General Overall Average 3.60 2.94 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.41 Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 3.13 questions 3.58 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or 3.65 economic status 3.75 3.35 Being courteous toward attorneys 3.60 3.74 Not engaging in ex parte communications 3.94 3.45 Being prepared for oral argument 3.64 Judge Harris All Appellate Judges 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 8 ## Page 11 Table 5 Appellate General Judge Elizabeth L. Harris A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Being fair and impartial toward 14 10 7 3 1 -- 35 each side of the case Allowing parties to present their 18 5 6 1 2 3 35 arguments and answer questions Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or 23 5 3 -- -- 4 35 economic status Being courteous toward attorneys 17 9 4 1 -- 4 35 Not engaging in ex parte 20 1 1 1 -- 12 35 communications Being prepared for oral argument 19 8 3 1 -- 4 35 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 9 ## Page 12 Writing Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Harris 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 2.78 Appellate Writing Overall Average 3.35 2.94 Writing opinions that are clear 3.46 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 2.82 Court's decision 3.42 2.97 Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.40 3.38 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.51 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 2.48 facts 3.18 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 2.55 decided 3.27 Judge Harris All Appellate Judges 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 10 ## Page 13 Table 6 Appellate Writing Judge Elizabeth L. Harris A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Writing opinions that are clear 14 9 5 4 1 -- 33 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 12 11 4 4 2 -- 33 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 12 9 4 3 1 4 33 Making decisions without regard to 19 5 2 3 -- 4 33 possible criticism Making reasoned decisions based 11 7 5 7 3 -- 33 upon the law and facts Refraining from reaching issues that 12 4 4 6 3 4 33 need not be decided 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 11 ## Page 14 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Harris meets judicial performance standards? Table 7 Judge Elizabeth L. Harris Yes, meets performance 65% standards No, does not meet 12% performance standards No opinion 23% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 12 ## Page 15 Survey of District and Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Harris, 87 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 21 agreed they had worked with Judge Harris enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 21 responses. a. Response rates For the inter-appellate evaluation, invitations were sent via email to 27 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Judges and justices not standing for retention in 2018 were invited to evaluate all their appellate peers standing for retention. Appellate Judges and Justices standing for retention in 2018 were invited to evaluate their fellow judges up for retention, but not themselves. Of these, 14 responded and completed the survey. The response rate was 52%. District judges were invited to evaluate their peers standing for retention on the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court via email. For this survey all district judges were sent invitations to evaluate the 6 Court of Appeals judges or Supreme Court justices standing for retention. A total of 1,098 survey invitations were sent and 442 responded and completed the survey. The overall response rate was 40%. b. Methodology Both District Judges and fellow members of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals were asked to evaluate the appellate judges and justices standing for retention in 2018. The evaluation of appellate judges and justices standing for retention by their peers in the appellate courts began with an email invitation sent on January 26th, 2018. The evaluation of appellate judges and justices by their peers in the district courts began with an email invitation sent on January 9th. A reminder email was sent on January 16th to those who had not yet responded. c. Questions Both groups of judges providing appellate evaluations answered the same questions. The survey consisted of a series of 9 questions where the respondent was asked to rate the judges performance with an A through F letter grade. They were then asked whether or not the judge met performance standards and given an opportunity to provide any written comments. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 13 ## Page 16 d. Analysis 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 attorneys 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. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 14 ## Page 17 Individual Questions Using a grade scale, where "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the following appellate judges on each aspect by selecting the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don't have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please select "No Grade". Figure 5 0 1 2 3 4 3.63 Appellate Judge Overall Average 3.73 3.76 Writing opinions that are clear 3.69 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 3.67 Court's decision 3.68 2.72 Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.59 3.68 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.82 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 3.62 facts 3.66 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 3.55 decided 3.65 3.86 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.77 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or 3.81 economic status 3.84 4 Not engaging in ex parte communications 4.00 Judge Harris All Appellate Judges 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 15 ## Page 18 Table 8 Appellate Individual Questions Judge Elizabeth L. Harris A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Writing opinions that are clear 18 2 -- 1 -- -- 21 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 16 4 -- 1 -- -- 21 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 6 5 4 2 1 3 21 Making decisions without regard to 14 4 1 -- -- 2 21 possible criticism Making reasoned decisions based 15 5 -- 1 -- -- 21 upon the law and facts Refraining from reaching issues that 13 5 2 -- -- 1 21 need not be decided Being fair and impartial toward each 19 1 1 -- -- -- 21 side of the case Treating parties equally regardless of 18 2 1 -- -- -- 21 race, sex, or economic status Not engaging in ex parte 8 -- -- -- -- 4 12 communications 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 16 ## Page 19 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Harris meets judicial performance standards? Table 9 Judge Elizabeth L. Harris Yes, meets performance 90% standards No, does not meet 10% performance standards No opinion 0% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth L. Harris 17

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