← All judges

Melissa Hart

Supreme Court

Meets Standards1 cycle on record

Evaluation history

  • 2020 retention cycle
    Supreme Court
    Commission vote: 11 for · 0 against
    Meets Standards
    VotersRetained· 74.6% yes
    2,021,131 yes · 689,375 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 2020 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2020 Retention Survey Report 2019 Interim Survey Report The State Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Justice Melissa Hart MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, by a vote of 11-0.  The Colorado statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Justice Hart has been on the Colorado Supreme Court for just under three years and this is her first retention evaluation.  The Commission finds that Justice Hart is fair and impartial, makes decisions without regard to possible criticism, and treats parties equally regardless of race, sex, or economic status.  Comments from attorneys and judges highlighted Justice Hart’s engagement with the community; her thoughtful and respectful approach to counsel, parties, and other justices; and her exceptional intellect.  The Commission also finds her opinions to be concise, thoughtful, and well reasoned.  The Commission believes that Justice Hart is a valuable addition to the Colorado Supreme Court. To conduct the evaluation, the Commission interviewed Justice Hart, reviewed her self-evaluation, observed oral arguments, read a selection of her legal opinions, and considered survey responses from attorneys and judges.  One survey question asked whether Justice Hart met judicial performance standards.  Of the attorneys who responded to that question, 90% answered yes, 5% answered no, and 5% had no opinion.  Of the judges who responded to that question, 98% answered yes and 2% answered no.  A total of 24 attorneys and 62 judges responded to the survey.

Surveys & reports

  • 2020 cycle
    • 2019 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full interim survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 The Honorable Justice Melissa Hart 2019 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 . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 General Evaluation Questions . 7 Appellate Writing . 8 Inter-Judge Survey Questions . 9 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney .10 Methodology and How to Read Results .10 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology – Inter Judge Evaluations .12 Methodology and How to Read Results .12 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .14 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Justice Hart, 36 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 36 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 3.6 3.3 3 2 1 0 Justice Hart All Appellate Judges All Appellate Justice Hart Judges Overall Grade 3.3 3.6 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Melissa Hart 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 92% 82% 80% 77% 80% 60% 40% 20% 20% 16% 11% 7% 6% 5% 2% 0% Justice Hart All Appellate Judges Justice Hart All Appellate Judges Attorneys Judges Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Judges All All Justice Justice Appellate Appellate Hart Hart Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 80% 82% 77% 92% standards No, does not meet 20% 11% 16% 5% performance standards No opinion 0% 7% 6% 2% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Melissa Hart 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.6 General 3.6 3.2 Writing 3.3 3.3 Judge Evaluation 3.6 Justice Hart All Appellate Judges All Justice Appellate Hart Judges General 3.6 3.6 Writing 3.2 3.3 Judge Evaluation 3.3 3.6 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Melissa Hart 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 14 40% 36% 5 Judges 55 27% 56% 31 In addition to the responses above, Justice Hart received 0 responses via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Melissa Hart 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report General Evaluation Questions 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Justice Hart Overall 3.6 Appellate Judges Overall 3.6 Appellate Justice Hart Overall Number of Responses Judges Overall Being fair and impartial toward each side of 3.6 3.4 5 the case Allowing parties to present their arguments 3.6 3.7 5 and answer questions Treating parties equally regardless of race, 3.6 3.7 5 sex, or economic status Being courteous toward attorneys 3.6 3.7 5 Not engaging in ex parte communications 3.5 4.0 4 Being prepared for oral argument 3.6 3.6 5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Melissa Hart 7 ## Page 8 Appellate Writing 0 1 2 3 4 Justice Hart Overall 3.2 Appellate Judges Overall 3.3 Appellate Judges Number of Justice Hart Overall Overall Responses Writing opinions that are clear 3.2 3.4 4 Writing opinions that adequately explain the 3.2 3.3 4 basis of the Court's decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.2 3.4 4 Making decisions without regard to possible 3.2 3.5 4 criticism Making reasoned decisions based upon the 3 3.2 4 law and facts Refraining from reaching issues that need 3.2 3.4 4 not be decided 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Melissa Hart 8 ## Page 9 Inter-Judge Survey Questions 0 1 2 3 4 Justice Hart Overall 3.3 Appellate Judges Overall 3.6 Justice Appellate Number of Hart Judges Responses Overall Overall Writing opinions that are clear 3.2 3.6 28 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 3.2 3.6 28 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.2 3.6 23 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.3 3.7 28 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts 3.2 3.6 29 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided 3.3 3.5 26 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.3 3.7 28 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or economic status 3.7 3.9 29 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Melissa Hart 9 ## Page 10 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Justice Hart, 36 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 36responses. The survey results are divided into five sections: Performance, General Evaluation, Appellate Writing, Strengths and Weaknesses a. Response rates During the 2018 administration, a total of 16,364 survey invitations were sent to 5,769 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.8 judges. In total 3,837 surveys were completed with an additional 2,309 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 38% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 62%. b. Methodology The 2018 attorney survey was conducted in 4 quarterly cycles online beginning on June 4th, 2018. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first quarter of 2018 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on June 4th, 2018 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on June 7th, June 18th, and July 2nd, 2018. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2018 beginning with a pre- notification letter sent on August 10th, 2018. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on August 13th, August 27th, and September 11th, 2018. For those attorneys with appearances during the 3rd quarter of 2018, the process was repeated again with a letter sent on November 26th and a series of emails sent on November 29th, December 11th, and December 29th, 2018. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2019. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2018. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on January 25th followed up by email invitations sent on February 5th, February 11th, and February 19th, 2019. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Melissa Hart 10 ## Page 11 c. Questions In the core of the survey, appellate judges were rated on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. 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 2018 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. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Melissa Hart 11 ## Page 12 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology – Inter Judge Evaluations Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates This portion of data collection consisted of two parts. The first involved district judges being invited to evaluate the appellate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. All 179 district judges were invited via email to evaluate each of the 15 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges receiving interim reports for a total of 2,685 invitations sent. A total of 671 responses were received for a response rate of 25%. The second phase of data collection was the inter-appellate evaluation where appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate their peers receiving interim reports in 2019. All 28 appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate all 15 of their peers receiving reports with the exception that no judge was invited to evaluate themselves for a total of 405 survey invitations sent. A total of 147 responses were received for a response rate of 36%. b. Methodology The evaluation of appellate judges and justices by district judges was conducted online using Qualtrics 360 research software. Invitations were sent to district judges via email on February 1st, 2019 with reminders sent on February 6th and 19th. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 21st, 2019. The inter-appellate evaluation was also conducted online using online using Qualtrics 360 research software. A single email invitation was sent on February 6th, 2019. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 21st, 2019. c. Questions In the core of the survey, appellate judges were rated on 8 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. 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 2018 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. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Melissa Hart 12 ## Page 13 Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Melissa Hart 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 35 14 0 5 36% Judges 206 55 0 31 56% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they had sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Melissa Hart 14
    • 2020 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 The Honorable Justice Melissa Hart 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report Supreme Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 General Evaluation Questions . 7 Appellate Writing . 8 Inter-Judge Survey Questions . 9 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney . 10 Methodology and How to Read Results . 10 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology – Inter Judge Evaluations . 12 Methodology and How to Read Results . 12 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 14 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Justice Hart, 24 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 24 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 3.6 3 2 1 0 Justice Hart Justice Hart Overall Grade 3.6 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Melissa Hart 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 98% 90% 80% 60% 40% 20% 5% 5% 2% 0% 0% Attorneys Judges Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Judges Yes, meets performance 90% 98% standards No, does not meet 5% 2% performance standards No opinion 5% 0% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Melissa Hart 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Justice Hart 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 General 3.5 Writing 3.4 Inter-Judge Evaluation 3.6 Justice Hart Justice Hart General 3.5 Writing 3.4 Inter-Judge Evaluation 3.6 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Melissa Hart 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 57 30% 42% 24 Judges 62 29% - - In addition to the responses above, Justice Hart received 0 responses via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Melissa Hart 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report General Evaluation Questions 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Justice Hart Overall 3.5 Justice Hart Overall Number of Responses Being fair and impartial toward each side of 3.7 22 the case Allowing parties to present their arguments 3.6 24 and answer questions Treating parties equally regardless of race, 3.7 21 sex, or economic status Being courteous toward attorneys 3.7 23 Not engaging in ex parte communications 3.9 16 Being prepared for oral argument 3.5 23 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Melissa Hart 7 ## Page 8 Appellate Writing 0 1 2 3 4 Justice Hart Overall 3.4 Number of Justice Hart Overall Responses Writing opinions that are clear 3.4 9 Writing opinions that adequately explain the 3.4 9 basis of the Court's decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.6 13 Making decisions without regard to possible 3.7 17 criticism Making reasoned decisions based upon the 3.4 18 law and facts Refraining from reaching issues that need 3.3 15 not be decided 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Melissa Hart 8 ## Page 9 Inter-Judge Survey Questions 0 1 2 3 4 Justice Hart Overall 3.6 Justice Number of Hart Responses Overall Writing opinions that are clear 3.6 42 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 3.5 42 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.6 38 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.6 40 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts 3.6 42 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided 3.6 39 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.7 42 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or economic status 3.8 39 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Melissa Hart 9 ## Page 10 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Justice Hart, 24 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 24responses. The survey results are divided into five sections: Performance, General Evaluation, Appellate Writing, Strengths and Weaknesses a. Response rates During the 2020 administration, a total of 57,819 survey invitations were sent to 9,958 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving retention reports in 2020. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 5.8 judges. In total 10,433 surveys were completed with an additional 6,536 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 18% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 29%. b. Methodology The 2020 attorney survey was conducted in 3 cycles online beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2019 were sent a series of email invitations beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Reminders were sent on September 24th and October 9th, 2019. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2019 with email invitations sent beginning November 25th, 2019. Reminders were sent on December 4th and December 11th, 2019. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020. This cycle included email invitations sent on January 29th, 2020. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2020. A final email informing respondents of the cycle closing was sent on February 18th, 2020. invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. c. Questions In the core of the survey, appellate judges were rated on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2019 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. 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. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Melissa Hart 10 ## Page 11 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 question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Melissa Hart 11 ## Page 12 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology – Inter Judge Evaluations Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates This portion of data collection consisted of two parts. The first involved district judges being invited to evaluate the appellate judges and justices receiving retention reports in 2020. All 190 district judges were invited via email to evaluate each of the 4 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges receiving retention reports for a total of 760 invitations sent. A total of 250 responses were received for a response rate of 33%. The second phase of data collection was the inter-appellate evaluation where appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate their peers receiving retention reports in 2020. Appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate all 5 of their peers receiving reports with the exception that no judge was invited to evaluate themselves for a total of 116 survey invitations sent. A total of [NUMRESP] responses were received for a response rate of [RR}. b. Methodology The evaluation of appellate judges and justices by district judges was conducted online using the Voxco research suite. Invitations were sent to district judges via email on January 27th, 2020. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 20th, 2020. The inter-appellate evaluation was also conducted online using online using the Voxco research suite. A single email invitation was sent on January 28th, 2020. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 20th, 2020. c. Questions In the core of the survey, appellate judges were rated on 8 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2019 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Melissa Hart 12 ## Page 13 Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Melissa Hart 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 190 57 0 24 42% Judges 217 62 0 0 29% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they had sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Melissa Hart 14

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