Monica M. Márquez
Supreme Court
Meets Standards2 cycles on record
Evaluation history
- 2024 retention cycleSupreme CourtCommission vote: 10 for · 0 against · 1 recusedMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 64.1% yes1,613,684 yes · 905,209 no50% needed to retainThe State Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Chief Justice Monica M. Márquez MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, by a vote of 10–0 with one recusal. The Colorado statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, and service to the legal profession and the public. The Commission found Chief Justice Márquez to be well prepared and articulate in oral argument, courteous, and respectful to attorneys appearing before the Court. The Commission reviewed several of Chief Justice Márquez’ opinions and found them to be clear, thoughtful, well-reasoned, and issued in a timely manner. The Commission found Chief Justice Marquez to be inquisitive, deeply thoughtful and asked insightful and detailed questions. Overall, the Commission believes that Chief Justice Márquez is an asset to the Colorado Supreme Court, while commending her thoughtful reflection and continuous activity in the community. Attorney survey responses indicate that Chief Justice Márquez’ performance is strong in the areas of being fair and impartial towards each side of the case and conducting hearings in a neutral manner. Numerous attorneys commented that Chief Justice Márquez is intelligent, thoughtful, and brings a new unbiased vision to the court, and her fairness and impartiality are unquestioned. The survey responses and comments of judges indicate that Chief Justice Márquez is dedicated to bettering the workplace culture of the entire judicial branch. She is methodical in her decision-making and embodies the best qualities of a judicial officer: fair, kind, and inclusive. She writes thoughtful opinions, is hard working, and deeply committed to improving the court system as the Chief Justice. The Commission surveyed responses from attorneys and judges regarding Chief Justice Márquez’ performance, read opinions she authored, observed her in oral arguments, reviewed her self-evaluation, and conducted a personal interview. She received an overall score of 3.8 on a 4.0 scale. Among the survey questions was “Meets performance standards?”. Of attorneys responding to the survey, 95% stated Yes, with 5% rating as “No, does not meet,”. Of judges responding to the survey, 98% stated yes, with 2% rating as “No, does not meet,”. A total of 20 attorneys and 41 Judges responded to the survey.
- 2014 retention cycleSupreme CourtMeets Standards(Retain)VotersRetained· 67.8% yes1,061,694 yes · 504,044 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2014 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2014 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2013 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The State Commission on Judicial Performance recommends by a vote of 10 to 0 that Justice Monica M. Márquez BE RETAINED. Justice Márquez was appointed to the Colorado Supreme Court in 2010. She received a bachelor's degree from Stanford University in 1991 and earned her law degree from Yale Law School in 1997. Following graduation, Justice Márquez served as a law clerk for two federal judges. She was in private law practice until 2002, and then worked in the Colorado Attorney General’s Office. In that Office she served as Assistant Solicitor General and Assistant Attorney General in the Public Officials Unit and Criminal Appellate Section, and as Deputy Attorney General in charge of the State Services Section. Prior to her appointment to the Court, Justice Márquez served on the boards of the Colorado Hispanic Bar Association, the Colorado GLBT Bar Association, and the Latina Initiative, and chaired the Denver Mayor’s GLBT Commission. The Commission reviewed survey responses from attorneys and judges regarding Justice Márquez’ performance, read opinions she authored, observed her in oral arguments, reviewed her self-evaluation, and conducted a personal interview. Among the survey questions was “how strongly do you recommend that Justice Márquez be retained or not be retained in office?” Of attorneys responding to the survey, 83% recommended to retain, 8% recommended not to retain, and 8% made no recommendation regarding retention. Of judges responding to the survey, 93% recommended to retain, 2% not to retain, and 6% made no recommendation regarding retention. (These percentages do not add up to 100% due to rounding.) Attorney survey responses indicate that Justice Márquez’ performance is strong in the areas of being courteous toward attorneys, treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or economic status, and allowing parties to present their arguments. Numerous attorneys commented that Justice Márquez is intelligent and well prepared for oral argument. The survey responses and comments of district court and appellate judges similarly indicate that Justice Márquez writes thoughtful opinions, is hard working, and contributes to the community. The Commission found Justice Márquez to be well prepared and articulate in oral argument, and courteous and respectful to attorneys appearing before the Court. The Commission reviewed several of Justice Márquez’ opinions and found them to be clear, thoughtful, and well-reasoned. Overall, the Commission believes that Justice Márquez is an asset to the Colorado Supreme Court, and commends her continuous activity in the community.
Surveys & reports
- 2024 cycle
- 2023 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Justice Monica M. Márquez 2021 Ju dicial Performance Survey Report Supreme C ourt Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results. . 3 Overall Score (Attorneys and Judges) . . 3 Performance Scores (Attorneys and Judges) . . 4 Individual Category Scores . . 5 Summary of Responses . . 6 Detailed Report . . 7 General Evaluation Questions (Attorneys) . . 7 Appellate Writing (Attorneys) . . 8 Inter-Judge Survey Questions . . 9 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney . .10 Methodology and How to Read Results . .10 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges. .13 Methodology and How to Read Results . .13 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . .14 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Justice Márquez, 47 attorneys and judges completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 47 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 (Attorneys and Judges) 4 3.8 3.6 3 2 1 0 Justice Márquez All Supreme Court Justices All Supreme Court Justice Márquez Justices Overall Grade 3.8 3.6 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Monica M. Márquez 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores (Attorneys and Judges) 100% 97% 96% 92% 86% 80% 60% 40% 20% 11% 8% 4% 3% 4% 0% Justice Márquez All Supreme Court Justice Márquez All Supreme Court Justices Justices Attorneys Judges Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Judges All All Justice Supreme Justice Supreme Márquez Court Márquez Court Justices Justices Yes, meets performance 92% 86% 97% 96% standards No, does not meet 0% 11% 3% 4% performance standards No opinion 8% 4% 0% 0% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Monica M. Márquez 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.8 General (Attorneys) 3.7 3.8 Writing (Attorneys) 3.4 3.8 Inter-Judge Evaluation 3.7 Justice Márquez All Supreme Court Justices All Justice Supreme Márquez Court Justices General (Attorneys) 3.8 3.7 Writing (Attorneys) 3.8 3.4 Inter-Judge Evaluation 3.8 3.7 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Monica M. Márquez 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge K nowledge Attorneys 47 26% 32% 15 Judges 32 14% - 32 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Monica M. Márquez 6 ## Page 7 Detailed R eport General Evaluation Questions (Attorneys) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Justice Márquez Overall 3.8 Supreme Court Justices Overall 3.7 Supreme Court Justice Márquez Justices Number of Responses Overall Overall Being fair and impartial toward each side of 3.4 3.4 15 the case Allowing parties to present their arguments 4.0 3.8 12 and answer questions Treating parties equally regardless of race, 3.7 3.6 14 sex, or economic status Being courteous toward attorneys 3.9 3.9 14 Not engaging in ex parte communications 4.0 4.0 13 Being prepared for oral argument 3.9 3.7 13 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Monica M. Márquez 7 ## Page 8 Appellate Writing (Attorneys) 0 1 2 3 4 Justice Márquez Overall 3.8 Supreme Court Justices Overall 3.4 Justice Márquez Supreme Court Number of Overall Justices Overall Responses Writing opinions that are clear 3.8 3.3 12 Writing opinions that adequately explain the 3.9 3.3 12 basis of the Court's decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.6 3.6 12 Making decisions without regard to possible 3.7 3.5 13 criticism Making reasoned decisions based upon the 3.8 3.3 13 law and facts Refraining from reaching issues that need 3.7 3.5 13 not be decided 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Monica M. Márquez 8 ## Page 9 Inter-Judge Survey Questions 0 1 2 3 4 Justice Márquez Overall 3.8 Supreme Court Justices Overall 3.7 Supreme Justice Court Number of Márquez Justices Responses Overall Overall Writing opinions that are clear 3.8 3.6 31 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 3.8 3.7 31 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.7 3.7 29 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.8 3.7 31 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts 3.8 3.6 31 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided 3.8 3.7 32 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.8 3.7 32 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or economic status 3.9 3.8 32 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Monica M. Márquez 9 ## Page 10 Appendix 1. Survey M ethods – A ttorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Justice Márquez, 47 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 47 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Interim, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2021 administration, a total of 62,982 survey invitations were sent to 10,316 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2021. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 6.1 judges. In total 9,605 surveys were completed with an additional 7,234 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 15% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 27%. Non-attorneys The 2021 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 34,758 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 4,018 surveys were completed with an additional 1,590 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2021 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on May 28th, 2020. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first quarter of 2020 on May 28th, 2020. Reminders were sent on June 15th and July 8th, 2020. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2020 with email invitations sent on August 6th, 2020 and reminders was sent on August 25th, 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2020 on November 9th, 2020. Reminders sent on November 19th and December 16th, 2 020. The final data collection took place in January 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020 on January 21st, 2021. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2 021. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2020 and ran through the response deadline of February 15th, 2021. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email, but using a different process. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Monica M. Márquez 10 ## Page 11 To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 15th, 2021. During this period 61 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 15thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2021 were held over for the 2022 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 34,758 4,018 12% Court Staff Email Invite 3,141 1,779 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 61 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 597 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, 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 2020 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. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Monica M. Márquez 11 ## Page 12 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 interim. 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. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Monica M. Márquez 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 2. Survey M ethodology - A ppellate Ju dges 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 reports in 2021. A ll 192 district judges were invited via email to evaluate each of the 17 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges receiving retention reports. A total of 85 responses were received for a response rate of 44%. The second phase of data collection was the inter-appellate evaluation where appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate their peers receiving reports in 2021. Appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate their peers receiving reports with the exception that no judge was invited to evaluate themselves for a total of 29 survey invitations sent. A total of 7 responses were received for a response rate of 24%. 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 February 1st, 2021 and a reminder was sent on February 8th. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 15th, 2 021. The inter-appellate evaluation was also conducted online using online using the Voxco research suite. A single email invitation was sent on February 1st, 2021. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 15th, 2021. 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 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. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Monica M. Márquez 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 181 47 0 15 32% Judges 221 32 0 32 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they had sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Monica M. Márquez 14 - 2024 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Justice M onica M. Márquez 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report Supreme C ourt Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results. . 3 Overall Score. . 4 Performance Scores. . 5 Individual Category Scores . . 6 Detailed Report – Attorney Survey . . 7 General Evaluation Questions (Attorneys) . . 7 Appellate Writing (Attorneys). . 7 Detailed Report – Judge Survey . . 8 General Evaluation Questions (Judges). . 8 Appellate Writing (Judges) . . 8 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . . 9 Methodology and How to Read Results . . 9 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology – Appellate Judges. . 15 Methodology and How to Read Results . . 15 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Justice Márquez, 61 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 61 responses. Invitation Number of Respondent Type Sent Responses Attorney email invite 525 19 Attorney Survey Website N/A 0 Court Attorney (self-select) 58 1 Total Attorneys - 20 Judges 260 41 Total N/A 61 Respondents were asked to rate the judges on these aspects of judicial performance using the categories of Never or Almost Never, Once in a While, Some of the Time, Frequently, and Every or Almost Every Time. These categories were converted into a numeric scale from 0 to 4: Never or Almost Never – 0; Once in a While – 1; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 3; Every or Almost Every Time – 4. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Monica M. Márquez 3 ## Page 4 Overall Score 4.0 3.8 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Justice Márquez Overall Justice Márquez Number of Responses Overall Overall Grade 3.8 61 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Monica M. Márquez 4 ## Page 5 Performance Scores Percentage Number of Responses Attorneys Judges Attorneys Judges Yes, meets performance 95% 98% 19 40 standards No, does not meet performance 5% 2% 1 1 standards No opinion 0% 0% 0 0 Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Monica M. Márquez 5 ## Page 6 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.8 General 3.9 3.7 Writing 3.8 Score Attorneys Score Judges Score Number of Responses Attorneys Judges Attorneys Judges General 3.8 3.9 18 40 Writing 3.7 3.8 20 40 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Monica M. Márquez 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report – At torney Survey General Evaluation Questions (Attorneys) Justice Márquez Number of Responses Overall Is fair and impartial toward each side of the 3.6 18 case. Conducts hearings in a neutral manner. 3.9 18 Appellate Writing (Attorneys) Justice Márquez Number of Overall Responses Writes opinions that are clear. 3.9 18 Writes opinions that adequately explain the 3.9 18 basis of the Court's decision. Issues opinions in a timely manner. 3.8 19 Makes decisions without regard to possible 3.8 19 criticism. Makes reasoned decisions based upon the law 3.6 20 and facts. Refrains from reaching issues that need not be 3.8 19 decided. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Monica M. Márquez 7 ## Page 8 Detailed Report – Ju dge Survey General Evaluation Questions (Judges) Justice Márquez Number of Responses Overall Is fair and impartial toward each side of the 3.9 40 case. Conducts hearings in a neutral manner. 4.0 32 Appellate Writing (Judges) Justice Márquez Number of Overall Responses Writes opinions that are clear. 3.8 40 Writes opinions that adequately explain the 3.9 40 basis of the Court's decision. Issues opinions in a timely manner. 3.7 35 Makes decisions without regard to possible 3.9 39 criticism. Makes reasoned decisions based upon the law 3.8 39 and facts. Refrains from reaching issues that need not be 3.9 37 decided. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Monica M. Márquez 8 ## Page 9 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – At torney and No n- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Justice Márquez, 61 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 61 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. A. Response Rates Attorneys The response rate is the number of attorneys that answered at least one survey question divided by the total number of attorneys that were asked to evaluate judges. During the 2024 cycle, 11,083 attorneys were sampled and asked to evaluate 1 or more judges. Among these attorneys, 4,251 responded. The attorney response rate is 38%. The judge completion rate is the total number of attorney/judge pairs (each instance an attorney was asked to evaluate an individual judge with an answer to one or more questions regarding this specific judge) divided by the total number of attorney/judge pairs included in the cycle. During the cycle there was a total of 119,479 pairs with 16,041 responses, for a judge completion rate of 13%. This includes 10,359 responses where the attorneys lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge. The evaluation completion rate is the number of evaluations with response to the aspects of judicial performance questions (5,682) divided by the total number of responses, including those where the attorney indicated she lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge (16,041). The evaluation completion rate is 35%. During the course of this cycle, most attorneys were asked to participate in more than one quarterly data collection administration to evaluate different judges, with a maximum of three administrations during the cycle. In addition, attorneys were allowed to evaluate judges who were not included in their invitations. A total of 637 surveys were completed among those attorneys selecting other judges to evaluate. These surveys were not factored in the survey response or completion rates but were factored into the percentage and counts of evaluations with answers to the aspects of judicial performance questions. Non-attorneys Court staff select judges to evaluate. Because they selected judges themselves, the response rate cannot be calculated. Similarly, we don’t know the sample size of the juror survey because the survey was administrated by the court. We also don’t know the sample size of the citizens feedback survey because citizens self select to participate. Thus, the response rate of these groups cannot be calculated. During the 2024 cycle, 117,355 non-attorneys (not including court staff, jurors, and citizens) were sampled and asked to evaluate one or more judges. Among these non-attorneys, 6,614 responded. The non-attorney response rate is 6%. Note that the judge completion rate is equal to response rate among non-attorneys. The evaluation completion rate is the number of evaluations with responses to the aspects of judicial performance questions, 3,794, divided by the total number of responses, including those where the attorney indicated they lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge (6,641). The evaluation completion rate is 57%. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Monica M. Márquez 9 ## Page 10 Summary of Response Rates for Reporting Details of the responses from each group used in reporting aspects of judicial performance are included in the table below. Table 1: Answered Questions About Invitation Method Invitations Sent Aspects of Judicial Performance Attorney Attorney email 119,479 5,682 Attorney Survey Website N/A 21 Court Attorney (self-select) 58 37 Non-attorney Non-attorney email 117,355 3,794 Court Staff Email Invite (Self- 2497 793 select) Appellate Judge 260 992 Citizen Feedback N/A 43 Juror Survey Unknown 42 B. Methodology The 2024 attorney survey was conducted in four cycles online, beginning on September 10, 2023. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first and second quarters of 2023, 2023. Reminders were sent on September 18 and October 10, 2023. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2023 with email invitations sent on November 2, 2023, with reminders sent on November 9, 2023, and November 16, 2023. The final data collection occurred in January 2024. On January 14, 2024, invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the fourth quarter of 2023. Reminders were sent on January 23 and January 28, 2023. Invitations were sent out by request throughout the data collection process. In addition to emailed invitations, throughout the entire data collection period attorneys could self-select via a public link. Data was downloaded for analysis on February 5, 2024. Data collection for non-attorneys began on September 9, 2023, and ran through the response deadline of February 4, 2024. Survey invitations were sent via email in quarterly batches to most non-attorneys, mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email but using a different process. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are provided with a list of all judges in their district or county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors received email invitations and were also allowed to self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 4, 2024. The survey remained open and any responses for judges received after February 4 were held over for the 2025 evaluation cycle. Citizens could evaluate judges by accessing the survey through a link available on the Colorado OJPE website. C. Questions 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Monica M. Márquez 10 ## Page 11 In the core of the survey, attorneys and non-attorneys (27 attorney and 24 non-attorney) evaluated district and county judges on 50 aspects of judicial performance. These aspects represent the behaviors that judges should or should not demonstrate. The questions asked of attorneys and non-attorneys are listed in the following table: Questions for Attorney to evaluate district and county judges Case Management Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for cases Provides an alternative to in-person hearings when appropriate Application and Knowledge of Law Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts Bases decisions on evidence and arguments Issues consistent decisions when the circumstances are similar Rulings cite the applicable substantive law Consistently applies laws and rules Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision Communications Makes sure all participants understand the proceedings When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Provides written communications that are clear, thorough, and well- reasoned Listens carefully during court proceedings Demeanor Gives proceedings a sense of dignity Treats participants with respect Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g., attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom Maintains a professional demeanor in the courtroom Diligence Uses good judgment in application of relevant law and rules Is willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming Does the necessary “homework” and is prepared for cases Fairness Conducts their courtroom in a neutral manner Is fair and impartial to both side. Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation Questions for Attorney to evaluate appellate judges 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Monica M. Márquez 11 ## Page 12 General Is fair and impartial toward each side of the case Conducts hearings in a neutral manner. Writing Writes opinions that are clear. Writes opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. Issues opinions in a timely manner. Makes decisions without regard to possible criticism. Makes reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. Refrains from reaching issues that need not be decided. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Monica M. Márquez 12 ## Page 13 Questions for Non-Attorney to evaluate district and county judges Case Management Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for cases Provides an alternative to in-person hearings when appropriate Application and Knowledge of Law Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts Gives reasons for rulings Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure. Communications Makes sure all participants understand the proceedings Uses language that everyone can understand Speaks clearly so everyone in the courtroom can understand what's being said Gives reasons for a ruling when needed Demeanor Gives proceedings a sense of dignity Treats participants with respect Has a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear in court Diligence Begins court on time Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. Sets reasonable schedules for cases. Is prepared for cases Manages court proceedings so there is little wasted time. Fairness Gives participants an opportunity to be heard Treats those involved in the case without bias Treats people fairly who represent themselves Gives each side enough time to present their case D. Analysis and Reporting Attorneys were asked to rate the judges on these aspects of judicial performance using the categories of Never or Almost Never, Once in a While, Some of the Time, Frequently, and Every or Almost Every Time. These categories were converted into a numeric scale from 0 to 4: Never or Almost Never – 0; Once in a While – 1; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 3; Every or Almost Every Time – 4. For the following questions, the scales were reversed because these are behaviors judges should not demonstrate: Never or Almost Never – 4; Once in a While – 3; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 1; Every or Almost Every Time – 0. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Monica M. Márquez 13 ## Page 14 Application and Knowledge of Law Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision Communications When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Demeanor Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom. Fairness Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories; six categories for district and county judges. The district and county categories were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, and Fairness. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge’s or justice’s written opinions). 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 are reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) is reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report includes the distribution of responses for each question, i.e., the percentage of attorneys that indicated they observed this behavior (six categories). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought the judge met judicial performance standards. This is reported in the Performance Scores section of the report. Changes in 2024 Cycle A new system of ratings was developed and used during the 2024 cycle. Prior to the 2024 cycle, the aspects of judicial performance were rated using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. E. Comments At the end of each group of questions, attorneys and court staff had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Attorney and court staff also had the option to leave comments about the judge’s strength and weakness. All respondents had the option to leave comments about the judge’s performance in general. 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. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Monica M. Márquez 14 ## Page 15 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology – Ap pellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results A. Response Rates All 223 district judges were invited via email to evaluate each of the 37 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges receiving retention reports. Appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate their peers with the exception that no judge was invited to evaluate themselves. A total of 71 judges responded and completed 992 evaluations. 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 16th, 2024 and reminders were sent on January 26th a nd January 31st, 2 024. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 4th, 2 024. C. Questions 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). Questions for Attorney to evaluate appellate judges General Is fair and impartial toward each side of the case Conducts hearings in a neutral manner. Writing Writes opinions that are clear. Writes opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. Issues opinions in a timely manner. Makes decisions without regard to possible criticism. Makes reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. Refrains from reaching issues that need not be decided. D. Analysis and Reporting Judges were asked to rate the judges on these aspects of judicial performance using the categories of Never or Almost Never, Once in a While, Some of the Time, Frequently, and Every or Almost Every Time. These categories were converted into a numeric scale from 0 to 4: Never or Almost Never – 0; Once in a While – 1; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 3; Every or Almost Every Time – 4. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Monica M. Márquez 15 ## Page 16 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 are reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) is reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report includes the distribution of responses for each question, i.e., the percentage of attorneys that indicated they observed this behavior (six categories). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought the judge met judicial performance standards. This is reported in the Performance Scores section of the report. Changes in 2024 Cycle A new system of ratings was developed and used during the 2024 cycle. Prior to the 2024 cycle, the aspects of judicial performance were rated using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or 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. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Monica M. Márquez 16
- 2014 cycle
- 2013 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee MMoonniiccaa MM.. MMáárrqquueezz 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Supreme Court ## Page 2 May 28, 2013 The Honorable Monica M. Márquez Colorado Supreme Court 101 West Colfax Avenue, Suite 800 Denver, CO 80202 Dear Justice Márquez: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This report is based on a survey of attorneys who have had cases heard before the Supreme Court in which you authored an opinion, concurrence, or dissent. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney survey. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 3. The third section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 4. The final section provides a copy of the questionnaire that was used for attorneys. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President ## Page 3 SSuummmmaarryy ooff RReessuullttss Attorneys rated the justices on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Attorneys assigned Justice Monica M. Márquez an overall average grade of 3.36. Justice Márquez Average Attorney Grades by Year Justice Márquez Average Sample Year Score Size 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 3.36 46 All Years 3.36 46 The results presented in this report are based on data collected from 2005 through 2012. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Provisional justices will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. 1 ## Page 4 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuussttiiccee MMoonniiccaa MM.. MMáárrqquueezz ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 4466)) ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Justice Monica M. Márquez All Supreme Justice Court Justices Márquez Sample Size = 46 Excluding Justice Márquez* A B C D Fail DK/NA Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 61% 11% 11% 2% 4% 11% 3.37 3.16 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 67% 17% 7% 2% 0% 7% 3.60 3.38 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 67% 7% 7% 0% 4% 15% 3.56 3.50 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 72% 9% 7% 2% 0% 11% 3.68 3.35 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 48% 2% 2% 0% 0% 48% 3.88 3.85 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 59% 11% 13% 2% 2% 13% 3.40 3.33 Question 2 Average Grade 3.58 3.43 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 63% 7% 19% 4% 4% 4% 3.27 3.16 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 59% 11% 11% 11% 4% 4% 3.15 3.10 Court's decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 44% 15% 22% 4% 0% 15% 3.17 3.35 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 52% 15% 11% 7% 4% 11% 3.17 3.18 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 56% 11% 11% 7% 15% 0% 2.85 2.87 facts. 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 56% 7% 11% 4% 7% 15% 3.17 3.07 decided. Question 3 Average Grade 3.13 3.12 Overall Average Grade: 3.36 3.28 * Includes only the Supreme Court justices evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 2 ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices Percentage Justice Monica M. Márquez All Supreme Justice Court Justices Márquez Excluding Justice Márquez* How strongly do you recommend that Justice Márquez be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 52% 45% Recommend retain 27% 21% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 11% 15% Recommend not retain 7% 11% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 9% Total Retain 79% 66% Neither 11% 15% Total Not Retain 9% 20% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 50% 43% Recommend retain 26% 20% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 11% 14% Recommend not retain 7% 10% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 8% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 4% 4% Total Retain 76% 63% Neither 11% 14% Total Not Retain 9% 18% Don't Know 4% 4% * Includes only the Supreme Court justices evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 3 ## Page 7 Justice Monica M. Márquez Survey of Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices Average Grades 3.36 Overall average grade 3.28 3.58 Question 2 average grade 3.43 3.37 2a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 3.16 2b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and 3.60 answer questions. 3.38 2c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 3.56 economic status. 3.50 3.68 2d. Being courteous toward attorneys. 3.35 3.88 2e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.85 3.40 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 3.33 3.13 Question 3 average grade 3.12 3.27 3a. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.16 3b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the 3.15 basis of the Court's decision. 3.10 3.17 3c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.35 3.17 3d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.18 2.85 3e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 2.87 3.17 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.07 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Justice Márquez All SC Judges Excluding Justice Márquez* * Includes only the Supreme Court Justices evaluated during this interim cycle. 4 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 8 Justice Monica M. Márquez Survey of Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices How strongly do you recommend that Justice Márquez be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 52% Strongly recommend retain 45% 27% Somewhat recommend retain 21% Excluding DK Respondents All SC Judges 11% Neither retain nor not retain Justice Except Justice 15% Márquez Márquez* 7% Total Retain 79% 66% Somewhat recommend not retain 11% Neither 11% 15% Total Not Retain 9% 20% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 50% Strongly recommend retain 43% 26% Somewhat recommend retain 20% 11% Neither retain nor not retain 14% Including DK Respondents All SC Judges 7% Justice Except Justice Somewhat recommend not retain Márquez Márquez* 10% Total Retain 76% 63% Neither 11% 14% 2% Strongly recommend not retain Total Not Retain 9% 18% 8% Total DK 4% 4% Don't know enough to make a 4% recommendation 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Justice Márquez All SC Judges Excluding Justice Márquez* * Includes only the Supreme Court Justices evaluated during this interim cycle. 5 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 9 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 10 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report are based on the survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used for this survey. Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges/Justices a. Sample: The Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices sample comes from a list of issued Supreme Court opinions provided by the Clerk of the Supreme Court. This list included the names of the attorneys associated with the cases and the names of the justices who authored opinions, concurrences or dissents for those cases. Only judges and justices that are due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge and justice by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013. The number of possible judges and justices that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice and eight years for a COA judge. To use a Supreme Court justice as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for ten years. After ten years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool will be deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated justices and judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. 7 ## Page 11 Respondents were also asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the rating scale for the “retention” question was changed to: Strongly recommend retain, Recommend retain, Neither recommend nor not recommend retain, Recommend not retain, Strongly recommend not retain, or Don’t know enough to make a recommendation. Due to the changes in the response categories for the retention question, the results to this question have only been compiled among the survey respondents from this year’s interim survey. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The column on the far right shows the justice’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all Supreme Court Justices (excluding the report-justice) receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all Supreme Court justices are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-justice and the second column displays the percentages for all Supreme Court justices (excluding the report-justice). The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the justice’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the justice’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the justice and the State Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the justice and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 8 ## Page 12 e. Cooperation Rate: From 2005 through 2012, the overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations, resulting in an overall cooperation rate of 32.6% for Justice Márquez and 26.1% for all Supreme Court justices. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. Looking at only the 2012 results, the cooperation rate for Justice Márquez is 32.6% and the cooperation rate for all Supreme Court justices is 34.0%. The table below shows the overall cooperation rate for all Supreme Court justices and the cooperation rate for Justice Márquez. These cooperation rates are based on data collected from 2005 through 2012. Requested No Undeliv- Completed Cooperation Evaluations Response erable/Not Evaluations Rate Applicable Justice Márquez 177 95 36 46 32.6% All SC Justices* 1473 1003 116 354 26.1% * Includes only the Supreme Court justices evaluated during this interim cycle. 9 ## Page 13 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices All Supreme Court Justices* Average Sample Size = 354 Grade (0.0 to A B C D Fail DK/NA 4.0 scale) Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 56% 18% 12% 4% 6% 4% 3.18 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 59% 22% 8% 4% 1% 6% 3.41 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 63% 12% 6% 1% 3% 14% 3.50 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 59% 22% 10% 3% 2% 5% 3.39 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 57% 5% 1% 0% 1% 36% 3.85 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 53% 18% 10% 3% 3% 13% 3.34 Question 2 Average Grade 3.45 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 53% 23% 14% 6% 4% 1% 3.17 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 50% 25% 12% 7% 5% 1% 3.10 Court's decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 50% 21% 14% 3% 1% 12% 3.33 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 53% 17% 10% 6% 5% 10% 3.18 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 48% 17% 18% 6% 10% 0% 2.86 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 44% 22% 14% 4% 5% 11% 3.08 Question 3 Average Grade 3.12 Overall Average Grade: 3.28 * Includes only the Supreme Court justices evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices All Supreme Court Justices* Average Grade (0.0 to 4.0 scale) How strongly do you recommend that the Justice be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 47% Recommend retain 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 14% Recommend not retain 9% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 70% Neither 14% Total Not Retain 16% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 45% Recommend retain 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 13% Recommend not retain 9% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 4% Total Retain 67% Neither 13% Total Not Retain 15% Don't Know 4% * Includes only the Supreme Court justices evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 11 ## Page 15 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 16 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey Questions 1. [This question asked for each judge evaluated.] Which of the following types of cases have you appealed to the [Court of Appeals/Supreme Court] in which [ Judge/Justice Last Name] authored the decision, concurred or dissented? (Please check all that apply.) Civil ....................................................................................................... 1 Criminal ................................................................................................ 2 Domestic .............................................................................................. 3 Juvenile ................................................................................................. 4 Other ..................................................................................................... 5 2. Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade [ Judge/Justice Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge/justice, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer questions. c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status. d. Being courteous toward attorneys. e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. f. Being prepared for oral argument. Would you say you are sufficiently knowledgeable about [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s legal writings to have formed an opinion about them? Yes (Ask Q3a to Q3f) No (Skip to Q4) Don't know (Skip to Q4) 3. Please evaluate [ Judge/Justice Last Name] on the following topics. a. Writing opinions that are clear. b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 4. What would you say are [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s strengths? __________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ## Page 17 5. What would you say are [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 6. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that [Judge/Justice Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6 - 2014 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee MMoonniiccaa MM.. MMáárrqquueezz 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report Supreme Court ## Page 2 March 26, 2014 The Honorable Monica M. Márquez Colorado Supreme Court 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, CO 80202 Dear Justice Márquez: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases heard before the Supreme Court in which you authored an opinion, concurrence, or dissent; and 2) district judges and appellate judges. It’s important to note that Supreme Court non- attorney employees were also asked to evaluate you (using the non-attorney survey), but the results are not included in this report due to the very low number of completed surveys. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the two surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 3. The numerical results of the survey of district judges and appellate judges in both tabular and graphical form, and any comments the judges might have made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the district/appellate judge questionnaire is in the final section of this report. 4. The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. ## Page 3 Hon. Monica M. Márquez March 26, 2014 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President enc: 5140 SAN FRANCISCO RD NE, ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87109 WWW.RPINC.COM 505-821-5454 ## Page 4 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Attorneys assigned Justice Monica M. Márquez an overall average grade of 3.46, and the district judges and appellate judges assigned Justice Márquez an overall average grade of 3.75, resulting in a combined average grade of 3.61. Justice Márquez Average Grades Attorneys District and Combined (All Years) Appellate Judges Overall Grade 3.61 3.46 3.75 Sample Size - 75 117 Table 1 The attorney results presented in this report are based on data collected from 2005 through 2013. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) The table below shows Justice Márquez's overall average grades from attorneys for each year in which survey results are available. Provisional justices will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Average Attorney Grades by Year Justice Márquez Average Sample Year Score Size 2005 NA NA 2006 NA NA 2007 NA NA 2008 NA NA 2009 NA NA 2010 NA NA 2011 NA NA 2012 3.36 46 2013 3.64 29 All Years 3.46 75 Table 2 2 ## Page 5 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuussttiiccee MMoonniiccaa MM.. MMáárrqquueezz ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 7755)) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Justice Monica M. Márquez Sample Size = 75 Justice Márquez A B C D Fail DK/NA Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 68% 9% 8% 4% 3% 8% 3.48 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 75% 13% 5% 1% 0% 5% 3.70 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic 72% 8% 4% 1% 3% 12% 3.65 status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 77% 8% 5% 1% 0% 8% 3.75 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 56% 1% 1% 0% 0% 41% 3.93 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 65% 9% 9% 1% 1% 13% 3.57 Question 2 Average Grade 3.68 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 67% 8% 18% 3% 3% 3% 3.37 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 59% 15% 13% 8% 3% 3% 3.24 Court's decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 46% 18% 18% 5% 0% 13% 3.21 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 62% 10% 10% 5% 5% 8% 3.28 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 62% 10% 10% 5% 13% 0% 3.03 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 51% 10% 10% 3% 5% 21% 3.26 Question 3 Average Grade 3.23 Overall Average Grade: 3.46 Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices Percentage Justice Monica M. Márquez Justice Márquez How strongly do you recommend that Justice Márquez be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 64% Recommend retain 19% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 8% Recommend not retain 7% Strongly recommend not retain 1% Total Retain 83% Neither 8% Total Not Retain 8% 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 5 ## Page 8 Justice Monica M. Márquez Survey of Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices Average Grades Overall average grade 3.46 Question 2 average grade 3.68 2a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 3.48 2b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and 3.70 answer questions. 2c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 3.65 economic status. 2d. Being courteous toward attorneys. 3.75 2e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.93 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 3.57 Question 3 average grade 3.23 3a. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.37 3b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the 3.24 basis of the Court's decision. 3c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.21 3d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.28 3e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 3.03 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.26 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Justice Márquez 6 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 9 Justice Monica M. Márquez Survey of Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices Q6. How strongly do you recommend that Justice Márquez be retained or not retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 64% Recommend retain 19% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 8% Justice Márquez Total Retain 83% Neither 8% Recommend not retain 7% Total Not Retain 8% Strongly recommend not retain 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 7 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 SSuurrvveeyy ooff DDiissttrriicctt aanndd AApeelaattee JJuuddggeess RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuussttiiccee MMoonniiccaa MM.. MMáárrqquueezz ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 177)) ## Page 11 Survey of District and Appellate Judges Regarding Supreme Court Justices Average Justice Monica M. Márquez Sample Size = 117 Justice Márquez A B C D Fail DK/NA 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. 74% 14% 1% 0% 1% 10% 3.78 2. Writing opinions that are clear. 72% 16% 4% 0% 0% 9% 3.75 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 72% 15% 3% 1% 0% 9% 3.75 Court's decision. 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 41% 21% 5% 3% 0% 30% 3.44 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 74% 10% 1% 1% 0% 14% 3.84 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 69% 19% 4% 1% 0% 7% 3.69 facts. 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 61% 19% 2% 0% 0% 18% 3.72 decided. 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 78% 7% 2% 1% 0% 12% 3.85 economic status. 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 61% 7% 0% 0% 0% 32% 3.90 Overall Average Grade: 3.75 10. Recommend to be retained/not retained in office. Strongly recommend retain 83% Recommend retain 10% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 6% Recommend not retain 0% Strongly recommend not retain 2% Total Retain 93% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 2% Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 9 ## Page 12 Justice Monica M. Márquez Survey of District and Appellate Judges Regarding Supreme Court Justices Average Grades Overall average of 1 through 9 3.75 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. 3.78 2. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.75 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 3.75 Court's decision. 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.44 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.84 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 3.69 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.72 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic 3.85 status. 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.90 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q10. Recommend to be retained/not retained in office. Strongly recommend retain 83% Recommend retain 10% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 6% Justice Márquez Total Retain 93% Recommend not retain 0% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Justice Márquez 10 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 13 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 14 Methodology The results shown in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on the survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges and the survey of District Judges and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges. Below is a description of the methodologies used for these two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices a. Sample: The Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices sample comes from a list of Supreme Court opinions provided by the Clerk of the Supreme Court. This list included the names of the attorneys associated with the cases and the names of the justices who authored opinions, concurrences or dissents for those cases. Only judges and justices that are due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge and justice by excluding those not due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014. The number of possible judges and justices that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice and eight years for a COA judge. To use a Supreme Court justice as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for ten years. After ten years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool will be deleted. 12 ## Page 15 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated justices and judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge 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. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The column on the far right shows the justice’s average grade for each question. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the justice’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the justice’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the justice and the State Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the justice and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 13 ## Page 16 e. Cooperation Rate: From 2005 through 2013, the overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey- evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations, resulting in an overall cooperation rate of 31.6% for Justice Márquez. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. Looking at only the 2013 results, the cooperation rate for Justice Márquez is 30.2%. A table of Justice Márquez’s cooperation rate is shown below. This cooperation rate is based on data collected from 2012 through 2013. Undeliv- Requested No erable/Not Completed Cooperation Evaluations Response Applicable Evaluations Rate Justice Márquez 289 162 52 75 31.6% II District Judges and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges a. Sample: One-hundred seventy-one (171) district judges and 27 appellate judges (Supreme Court and Court of Appeals) were sent a questionnaire asking them to evaluate the appellate judges eligible to stand for retention in November 2014. b. Questions: The questionnaire consisted of nine A through F questions, plus the retention recommendation question (see Questionnaire section). The A through F responses were converted to numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. c. Analysis: The District Judges and Appellate Judges Regarding Supreme Court Justices section shows a table of the percentage distribution for the nine questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The column to the right shows the justice’s average grade for each question. The overall averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. 14 ## Page 17 The following page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form and the percentage distribution to the retention question in bar-graph form. The last part of the District Judges and Appellate Judges Regarding Supreme Court Justices section lists the comments district and appellate judges wrote about the justice. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, the district judge and appellate judge respondents were given the opportunity to write a comment about each appellate judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the appellate judge and the State Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the appellate judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. An effort has been made to correct spelling and typographical errors. e. Cooperation Rate: In 2014, 198 questionnaires were mailed (171 district judges and 27 appellate judges) and 117 were returned, though not all appellate judges were evaluated in every returned questionnaire. 15 ## Page 18 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 19 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey Questions 1. [This question asked for each judge evaluated.] Which of the following types of cases have you appealed to the [Court of Appeals/Supreme Court] in which [ Judge/Justice Last Name] authored the decision, concurred or dissented? (Please check all that apply.) Civil ....................................................................................................... 1 Criminal ................................................................................................ 2 Domestic .............................................................................................. 3 Juvenile ................................................................................................. 4 Other ..................................................................................................... 5 2. Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade [ Judge/Justice Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge/justice, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer questions. c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status. d. Being courteous toward attorneys. e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. f. Being prepared for oral argument. Would you say you are sufficiently knowledgeable about [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s legal writings to have formed an opinion about them? Yes (Ask Q3a to Q3f) No (Skip to Q4) Don't know (Skip to Q4) 3. Please evaluate [ Judge/Justice Last Name] on the following topics. a. Writing opinions that are clear. b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 4. What would you say are [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s strengths? __________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ## Page 20 5. What would you say are [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 6. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that [Judge/Justice Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 ## Page 21 ## Page 22 ## Page 23 ## Page 24
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
- 2024 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
- 2014 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026