Amanda C. Hopkins

Trial Court · Alamosa · Alamosa

Meets Standards2 cycles on record

Evaluation history

2026 retention cycle
Trial Court · Alamosa · Alamosa
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 Twelfth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (6-0), with two commission vacancies and two commissioners absent, finds that Judge Amanda C. Hopkins MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The commission evaluated Judge Hopkins based on several criteria, including integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Judge Hopkins presides over civil, domestic relations, juvenile, criminal, and water matters throughout the San Luis Valley. Judge Hopkins is a fair and impartial decision maker who “treats all matters, litigants, and parties with equal respect.” Attorneys and non-attorneys alike highlight Judge Hopkins's effective communication and active listening skills, noting her commitment to ensuring that all participants understand the proceedings and feel that their voices have been fairly heard. Judge Hopkins diligently prepares for her docket, stays up-to-date on case law and statutory changes, and issues thorough findings and orders. Due to her diligent preparation and understanding of the law, appellate judges from the Colorado Court of Appeals scored Judge Hopkins’s overall performance as a 3.6 out of 4. Furthermore, whether focusing on the remediation of generational trauma and educational neglect within her truancy docket or navigating the complexities of high-profile litigation with care, Judge Hopkins demonstrates an unwavering commitment to the community. Her administrative leadership as Chief Judge and her judicial approach reflect a sincere dedication to enhancing the legal outcomes and quality of life for all residents of the Twelfth Judicial District. One area of growth highlighted by attorneys, non-attorneys, and Judge Hopkins herself, is the timeliness of her decision making in civil litigation. Judge Hopkins acknowledged delays in issuing written orders and has sought further training and education to address this issue. Additionally, a few survey responses raised concern regarding Judge Hopkins’s understanding of water law, the rules of civil procedure, and the rules of evidence. Based on the Commission’s overall evaluation, Judge Hopkins has demonstrated that she meets performance standards in all categories. In reaching this finding, the Commission interviewed Judge Hopkins, conducted numerous courtroom observations, and reviewed judicial performance data, which includes Judge Hopkins’s written orders, feedback from attorneys and non-attorneys, and a self-evaluation done by the Judge herself. Because of the small number of survey responses, the Commission used the survey feedback to address concerns during Judge Hopkins’s interview and check the Commissioner’s independent findings. Judge Hopkins was appointed to the bench in 2018 and named Chief Judge of the 12th Judicial District in 2023. She graduated from the University of Puget Sound in 2001 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in International Political Economy and received her Juris Doctor from Seattle University in 2006. Prior to joining the bench, Judge Hopkins worked for the Alamosa Office of the State Public Defender and became the managing deputy public defender of the office in 2011. In 2025, Judge Hopkins received the “Restorative Justice Champion” award from the Center for Restorative Programs for her work with families and schools appearing on her truancy docket.
2020 retention cycle
Trial Court · Alamosa · Alamosa
Meets Standards
VotersRetained· 71.5% yes
15,215 yes · 6,050 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2020 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2020 Retention Survey Report The Twelfth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees (7-0) that Judge Amanda C. Hopkins MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Hopkins presided over several case types this term, including juvenile (35% of her docket), criminal, (35% of her docket), civil (15% of her docket), probate (10% of her docket), and domestic relations (5% of her docket) cases. Based on the Commission’s overall evaluation, Judge Hopkins has demonstrated that she meets or exceeds performance standards in all categories. She received her highest survey scores in the categories of demeanor and fairness. Her survey results were above statewide averages for district judges in all categories. Judge Hopkins was noted to diligently prepare for hearings and trials. Her opinions are clear and easily understood. Based on these findings, the Commission unanimously agreed that Judge Hopkins meets judicial performance standards. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Hopkins, reviewed opinions she authored, observed her in court, reviewed comments received from interested parties during the evaluation, and reviewed survey responses from appellate judges, attorneys and non-attorneys who had experience with Judge Hopkins. In the final survey question, respondents (other than appellate judges) were asked if they thought Judge Hopkins met judicial performance standards. Of the attorneys responding to the survey, 89% answered, yes, meets performance standards; the remaining 11% had no opinion. Of non- attorneys responding to the survey, 100% answered yes, meets performance standards. A total of twenty-two persons responded to surveys expressing their opinion of Judge Hopkins’s performance.

Surveys & reports

2026 cycle
- 2025 Interim 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.
- 2026 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Structured scores pending
  Full numeric extraction isn’t complete for this cycle’s layout yet. Open the source PDF above for the underlying data.
2020 cycle
- 2020 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Overall score
  3.6
  judge rating, 0–4 scale
  Attorneys recommend
  89%
  25 respondents
  Non-attorneys recommend
  100%
  11 respondents
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Amanda C. Hopkins 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor . 10 Diligence . 11 Fairness . 13 Survey of Appellate Judges . 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 15 Methodology and How to Read Results . 15 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges . 18 Methodology and How to Read Results . 18 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 19 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Hopkins, 22 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 22 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 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Hopkins All District Judges Judge Hopkins All District Judges Overall Grade 3.6 3.4 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda C. Hopkins 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 92% 89% 83% 80% 60% 40% 20% 11% 12% 5% 6% 3% 0% Judge Hopkins All District Judges Judge Hopkins All District Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge District District Hopkins Hopkins Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 89% 83% 100% 92% standards No, does not meet 0% 12% 0% 6% performance standards No opinion 11% 5% 0% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda C. Hopkins 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.6 Case Management 3.4 3.5 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.6 Communications 3.5 3.6 Diligence 3.4 3.7 Demeanor 3.5 3.7 Fairness 3.7 Judge Hopkins All District Judges Judge All District Hopkins Judges Case 3.6 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.5 3.3 Law Communications 3.6 3.5 Diligence 3.6 3.4 Demeanor 3.7 3.5 Fairness 3.7 3.7 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda C. Hopkins 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 25 29% 52% 13 Non-Attorneys 11 44% 82% 9 In addition to the responses above, Judge Hopkins received 0 response(s) via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda C. Hopkins 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Hopkins Overall 3.6 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Hopkins Attorneys 3.4 Judge Hopkins Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Hopkins Judges Hopkins Hopkins Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.6 3.5 3.4 4.0 14 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.9 18 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.7 3.4 3.5 4.0 17 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.6 18 cases 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda C. Hopkins 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Hopkins Overall 3.5 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Hopkins Attorneys 3.4 Judge Hopkins Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Hopkins Judges Hopkins Hopkins Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.8 19 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.2 3.3 3.2 N/A 10 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 4 3.3 4 N/A 5 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 9 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 8 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 9 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 9 pressure 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda C. Hopkins 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Hopkins Overall 3.6 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Hopkins Attorneys 3.4 Judge Hopkins Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Hopkins Judges Hopkins Hopkins Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.9 19 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 10 reasoned Using language that everyone 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 9 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.9 3.7 N/A 3.9 9 being said 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda C. Hopkins 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Hopkins Score 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Hopkins Attorneys 3.7 Judge Hopkins Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Hopkins Judges Hopkins Hopkins Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.6 19 Treating participants with respect 3.7 3.5 3.7 3.7 19 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.6 19 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 9 appear before him/her 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda C. Hopkins 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Hopkins Score 3.6 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Hopkins Attorneys 3.3 Judge Hopkins Non-Attorneys 3.8 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda C. Hopkins 11 ## Page 12 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Hopkins Judges Hopkins Hopkins Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.2 3.3 3.2 N/A 10 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.7 3.4 3.7 N/A 7 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.4 3.4 3.4 N/A 10 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 9 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.9 3.7 N/A 3.9 9 Maintaining appropriate control 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 9 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.9 3.6 N/A 3.9 9 cases Managing court proceedings so 3.4 3.5 N/A 3.4 9 that there is little wasted time 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda C. Hopkins 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Hopkins Score 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.7 Judge Hopkins Attorneys Judge Hopkins Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Hopkins District Judge Hopkins Judge Hopkins Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.7 3.7 N/A 3.7 9 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 9 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.8 3.7 N/A 3.8 6 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.6 3.7 N/A 3.6 9 case 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda C. Hopkins 13 ## Page 14 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Hopkins 2 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Hopkins enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Hopkins Score 3.5 Judge Hopkins District Judges Number of Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 3.5 3.6 2 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda C. Hopkins 14 ## Page 15 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Hopkins, 22 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 22 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2020 administration, a total of 57,819 survey invitations were sent to 9,958 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving retention reports in 2020. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 5.8 judges. In total 10,433 surveys were completed with an additional 6,536 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 18% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 29%. Non-attorneys The 2020 administration was a year of transition for the non-attorney survey. The bulk mailing of invitation letters and survey booklets was ceased and replaced with several other methods on a trial basis. During the 2020 cycle non-attorneys were invited through email, SMS messages, push to web handout cards, and push to web letters. Contact methods varied by the type of respondent and contact information available. In total through these methods 1520 surveys were completed with an additional 761 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 13% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 7%. b. Methodology The 2020 attorney survey was conducted in 3 cycles online beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2019 were sent a series of email invitations beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Reminders were sent on September 24th and October 9th, 2019. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2019 with email invitations sent beginning November 25th, 2019. Reminders were sent on December 4th and December 11th, 2019. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020. This cycle included email invitations sent on January 29th, 2020. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2020. A final email informing respondents of the cycle closing was sent on February 18th, 2020. invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection among non-attorneys transitioned away from bulk mailings and toward electronic invitations during the 2020 cycle. Due to this transition, non-attorney responses are down from the 2019 cycle. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda C. Hopkins 15 ## Page 16 Data collection for non-attorneys began on September 3rd, 2019 and ran through the response deadline of February 20th, 2020. Survey invitations were sent by four different methods on a trial basis: Email, SMS message, push to web hand out, and push to web letter. Details on the responses from each method are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Email 10,609 1300 12% SMS/Text Message 49 19 39% Push to web hand out Unknown 89 N/A Push to web letter 334 60 18% Citizen Feedback Unknown 52 N/A In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2020. During this period 52 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2020 were held over for the 2021 interim evaluation cycle. c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2019 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda C. Hopkins 16 ## Page 17 with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda C. Hopkins 17 ## Page 18 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 29 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 2 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Hopkins to evaluate their performance. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges standing for retention. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Voxco survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 21st, 2020. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda C. Hopkins 18 ## Page 19 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 85 25 0 13 52% Staff 23 9 0 7 - Others 2 2 0 2 - Total Non-Attorneys 25 11 0 9 82% Total Respondents 110 36 0 22 61% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda C. Hopkins 19

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

Sources

2026 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Aug 5, 2026
2020 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026