← All judges

Alex J. Martinez

Supreme Court

Meets Standards(Retain)4 cycles on record

Evaluation history

  • 2010 retention cycle
    Supreme Court
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    VotersRetained· 59.5% yes
    859,051 yes · 584,026 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 2010 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2010 Retention Survey Report 2009 Interim Survey Report 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 9 to 1 that Justice Alex J. Martinez BE RETAINED. Justice Martinez was appointed to the Colorado Supreme Court in 1996. He is a graduate of the University of Colorado and the University of Colorado School of Law. Justice Martinez has been involved with many community service activities and organizations, including services for primary, secondary and college students, social service organizations, and the arts. He has served as the Chair of the Public Access to Electronic Information Committee (which computerized court filings) and the Child Welfare Appeals Committee. He has also served on the Criminal Rules Committee and the Criminal Jury Instruction Committee. He is a former Vice President of the Colorado Bar Association and served on the Executive Council of the Pueblo Bar Association. He also has served on the board of directors for the University of Colorado Law School Alumni and Servicios De La Raza, a non-profit provider of counseling and treatment services. Prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court, Justice Martinez was a District Court Judge for the Tenth Judicial District, Pueblo County, 1988-1996, and a County Court Judge in Pueblo County, 1983-1988. He served as a Deputy State Public Defender in Pueblo and Denver for six years before his appointment to the bench. Attorneys who responded to survey questions indicate that, compared to the other justices, Justice Martinez's performance is somewhat stronger in the areas of being courteous towards attorneys, being fair and impartial, and issuing opinions in a timely manner. They indicate Justice Martinez's performance is somewhat weaker in the area of writing opinions that are clear and that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. Many attorneys commented that he is smart and concerned about each side of a legal argument. However, some attorneys also commented that he writes opinions that are too long and occasionally confusing. Some district court judges made similar comments. The Commission reviewed a number of opinions written by Justice Martinez and found them to demonstrate knowledge of the law and adequate legal reasoning. His opinions reflect a conscientious approach to explaining the basis of the Court's decision. At times, however, his opinions can be unnecessarily lengthy and could be improved by a more concise and pointed legal analysis. Justice Martinez's judicial demeanor reflects fairness and respect to all parties. Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 76% recommended to retain, 17% not to retain, and 6% expressed no opinion. Excluding those who had no opinion, 81% recommended to retain and 19% not to retain. Of all judges surveyed, 82% recommended to retain, 10% not to retain, and 7% expressed no opinion. Excluding those who had no opinion, 88% recommended to retain and 11% not to retain. (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.)
  • 2000 retention cycle
    Supreme Court
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    VotersRetained· 71.6% yes
    949,094 yes · 375,789 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 2000 Recommendation: Retain The State Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Justice Alex J. Martinez BE RETAINED. Justice Martinez was appointed to the Colorado Supreme Court in 1996. Prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court he was a District Court Judge for the 10th Judicial District, Pueblo County, 1988-1996, and a County Court Judge in Pueblo County, 1983-1988. For six years prior to the County Court bench, Justice Martinez was a Deputy State Public Defender in Pueblo. He is a graduate of the University of Colorado and the University of Colorado School of Law. Justice Martinez has been heavily involved in maintaining a positive relationship between the Supreme Court, the public and practicing bar. He has served as the chair of the Public Access to Electronic Information Committee (computerizing the courts), the Criminal Rules Committee, the Criminal Jury Instruction Committee, and as chair of Child Welfare Appeals. He is a former vice president of the Colorado Bar Association and served on the Executive Council of the Pueblo Bar Association. He currently serves on the University of Colorado Law School Alumni Board of Directors and the Servicios De La Raza Board of Directors. The State Commission was very impressed with Justice Martinez. As a former trial judge and now as a Supreme Court Justice, he exhibits a keen understanding of the judicial system, and displays outstanding judicial demeanor and intellectual ability. The commission was also impressed with Justice Martinez's involvement in community and bar association activities as a positive component of his judicial role. Attorneys and court personnel rated Justice Martinez very highly. Eighty-two percent (82%) voted to retain Justice Martinez, 7% voted not to retain, and 11% had no opinion. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of trial court judges voted to retain Justice Martinez, 2% voted not to retain, and 9% had no opinion.
  • 1996 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Pueblo · Pueblo
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    VotersRetained· 77.0% yes
    35,572 yes · 10,611 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 1996 Recommendation: Retain The Tenth District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Martinez BE RETAINED. Judge Alex J. Martinez has been a Pueblo District Court Judge since 1988. Before that Judge Martinez was a Pueblo County Court Judge for five years. Before becoming a county court judge, Judge Martinez was a public defender in the Pueblo Public Defender’s Office. As a district court judge, Judge Martinez presides over civil, domestic relations, criminal and juvenile cases. A survey was conducted to evaluate the performance of Judge Martinez from members of law enforcement, attorneys, litigants, jurors, and court personnel. A couple of responses to the survey suggested that Judge Martinez, at times, was controlling during trials and biased in favor of women in certain decisions. Overall, however, those responding to the survey gave Judge Martinez very high marks for compassion, integrity, judicial demeanor, and control of his courtroom. Judge Martinez presides over a very difficult docket with a substantial case load. However, Judge Martinez is energetic, well-prepared, knowledgeable and extremely patient, especially with parties who are not represented by lawyers. Judge Martinez received a very high rating for retention.
  • 1990 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Pueblo · Pueblo
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    VotersRetained· 76.1% yes
    29,640 yes · 9,316 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 1990 Recommendation: Retain Judicial Performance Commission’s recommendation: Should Be Retained. Judge Martinez was admitted to the practice of law in 1976. He served with the deputy state public defender system in Denver and Pueblo. In 1983 he was appointed as judge of Pueblo County Court. He presided in County Court until 1988 when he was appointed to the District Court. Martinez presently presides over Division E of the District Court. His caseload includes criminal, civil, domestic, juvenile and mental health cases. A survey conducted to evaluate the performance of Martinez sought responses from members of law enforcement, courthouse staff, probation and social services departments, attorneys, litigants and members of the community. Some responses to the survey questioned whether Martinez was always free from favoritism in his handling of cases. However, other response praised Martinez for his fair treatment of the issues before him and his courteous treatment of litigants.

Surveys & reports

  • 2010 cycle
    • 2009 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full interim survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee AAlleexx JJ.. MMaarrttiinneezz 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Supreme Court ## Page 2 September 30, 2009 The Honorable Alex J. Martinez Colorado State Judicial Bldg. 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Dear Justice Martinez: This year, The State Commission on Judicial Performance has requested Talmey- Drake Research & Strategy to provide interim survey reports concerning all justices and judges. Going forward, there will continue to be survey reports on retention justices and judges in retention election years and interim survey reports on all justices and judges in non-retention years. Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy conducted the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey regarding appellate judges among attorneys who have had a case they appealed decided between July 1, 2008 and March 31, 2009, and for which an opinion was published. The results in this report also include responses to surveys conducted prior to July 1, 2008 and not used in previous reports. These earlier surveys were conducted by mail. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into three main sections: Results. The results section is broken down into three parts. Tables: A table displaying the percentage distribution of grades for each question that used an “A” to “F” scale, your average grade for each question and the combined average for the other six Supreme Court justices. The table also shows the averages for all “A” to “F” questions combined. The table also gives the percentage results to the retain/do not retain question. Graphs: Following the table is a set of graphs displaying the average grades for each question. Comments: Respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. These comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. Most spelling and typographical errors have been fixed, but where the respondent entered a comment in all upper or all lower case, or without punctuation, the comment was not corrected. Methodology. The second section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. Questionnaire. And the final section provides a copy of the questions that were used. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 The Honorable Alex J. Martinez September 30, 2009 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300 ext 1 or by email at talmey@talmeyresearch.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, Jane Howell, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuussttiiccee AAlleexx JJ.. MMaarrttiinneezz ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 3377)) ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Average Justice Alex J. Martinez All Supreme Court Justices Sample Size = 37 Justice Excluding A B C D Fail DK/NA Martinez Justice Martinez Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 66% 20% 11% 3% 0% 0% 3.49 3.26 2b.Writing opinions that are clear. 57% 30% 8% 5% 0% 0% 3.38 3.08 2c.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 51% 30% 11% 5% 0% 3% 3.31 3.13 Court's decision. 2d.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 62% 32% 0% 0% 0% 5% 3.66 3.36 2e.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 70% 14% 5% 0% 0% 11% 3.73 3.41 questions. 2f. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 62% 22% 3% 0% 0% 14% 3.69 3.42 2g.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 68% 14% 8% 11% 0% 0% 3.38 2.92 facts. 2h.Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 51% 19% 5% 0% 3% 22% 3.48 2.98 decided. 2i. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 70% 3% 3% 3% 0% 22% 3.79 3.71 economic status. 2j. Being courteous toward attorneys. 78% 14% 3% 0% 0% 5% 3.80 3.58 2k.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 51% 3% 0% 0% 0% 46% 3.95 3.91 2l. Being prepared for oral argument. 65% 19% 5% 0% 3% 8% 3.56 3.53 Overall Average Grade: 3.60 3.34 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 55 ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Percentage Justice Alex J. Martinez All Supreme Court Justices Sample Size = 37 Justice Excluding Martinez Justice Martinez 5. How strongly do you recommend that Justice Martinez be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retention 74% 69% Somewhat recommend retention 20% 14% Somewhat recommend not to retain 6% 8% Strongly recommend not to retain 0% 9% Total Retain 94% 83% Total Not Retain 6% 17% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retention 72% 64% Somewhat recommend retention 19% 13% Undecided or Don't Know 3% 7% Somewhat recommend not to retain 6% 7% Strongly recommend not to retain 0% 8% Total Retain 91% 77% Undecided/Don't Know 3% 7% Total Not Retain 6% 15% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 66 ## Page 7 Justice Alex J. Martinez Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Average Grades 3.60 Overall average grade 3.34 3.49 2a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 3.26 3.38 2b. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.08 2c. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 3.31 decision. 3.13 3.66 2d. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.36 2e. Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 3.73 questions. 3.41 3.69 2f. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.42 3.38 2g. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 2.92 3.48 2h. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 2.98 2i. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic 3.79 status. 3.71 3.80 2j. Being courteous toward attorneys. 3.58 3.95 2k. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.91 3.56 2l. Being prepared for oral argument. 3.53 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Justice Martinez All Supreme Court Justices Except Justice Martinez 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 77 ## Page 8 Justice Alex J. Martinez Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Q5. How strongly do you recommend that Justice Martinez be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 74% Strongly retain 69% 20% Somewhat retain 14% All SC Justices Justice Except Justice 6% Martinez Martinez Somewhat not retain Total Retain 94% 83% 8% Total Not Retain 6% 17% 0% Strongly not retain 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 72% Strongly retain 64% 19% Somewhat retain 13% All SC Justices 3% Justice Except Justice Undecided or Don't Know Martinez Martinez 7% Total Retain 91% 77% Undecided or DK 3% 7% 6% Total Not Retain 6% 15% Somewhat not retain 7% 0% Strongly not retain 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Justice Martinez All Supreme Court Justices Except Justice Martinez 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 88 ## Page 9 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 10 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: For the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received data files from the Colorado Judicial Department containing the names of attorneys who had appeals decided with a published opinion by the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals between July 1, 2008 and March 31, 2009. Each attorney in the sample was then assigned to evaluate up to a maximum of seven judges and justices who had written opinions, concurrences or dissents in the cases he or she had appealed. If there were fewer than seven Supreme Court justices for an attorney to potentially evaluate, and he or she had cases decided by the Court of Appeals during the time period, the attorney was asked to evaluate the appropriate Court of Appeals judges. However, the combined total number of justices and judges any one attorney was asked to evaluate did not exceed seven. The 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges was conducted online. All attorneys who were listed in the data files were first sent a letter introducing them to the Survey and informing them that they would soon be receiving an email with a link to the Survey. The letter also included the Survey’s Web address, and a password if the respondent wished to take the survey before receiving the email. Approximately one week after the letter was mailed a first email was sent, and a week after that a second reminder email was sent. In order to increase the number of responses, attorneys who had not responded after the second email request were telephoned and asked to either go online to take the survey, or if they preferred, to complete the survey by telephone. Responses to surveys conducted in prior years by mail that had not been used in a previous Judicial Performance report were combined with the above data to create the total sample used in the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey. The table below shows the count of completed survey evaluations by Supreme Court and Court of Appeals by when the data was collected. 2009 Online Data Collected Data Collected Survey 2006 - 2008 2005 - 2006 Total Supreme Court 80 83 55 218 Court of Appeals 1,074 302 27 1,403 Total 1,154 385 82 1,621 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 1100 ## Page 11 Questions: The questions used online for the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the judge or justice’s performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance (see question list at the end of this report). These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Respondents were also asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge or justice be retained or not retained. Comments: While the numerical (closed-ended) questions were the same from 2005 through 2009, the comment questions were different in 2009. In the 2009 survey the two comment questions asked for the justice’s strengths and the justice’s weaknesses. Prior to 2009 the comments questions asked for “Comments about (Justice) relating to any of your response to the previous (closed ended) questions?” The second comment question was asked after the retain/do not retain question and asked: “And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining (Justice)?” Positive responses to these questions are included under Justice’s Strengths in the comments section and negative responses are included under Justice’s Weaknesses. These comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. Most spelling and typographical errors have been fixed, but where the respondent entered a comment in all upper or all lower case, or without punctuation, the comment was not corrected. Cooperation Rate: The overall response rate for the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations (Supreme Court plus Court of Appeals) divided by the number of possible evaluations. An equivalent response rate for an individual justice is computed as the number of completed evaluations for that justice divided by the number of possible evaluations that could have been completed for the justice. A table of the overall response rate and the response rate for Justice Martinez is shown below. No Undeliv- Completed Response Sent Response erable Evaluations Rate Justice Martinez 129 82 9 37 30.8% All Supreme Court Justices 551 302 30 218 41.8% All Appellate Judges 6985 5191 155 1621 23.7% (SC and COA) The 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey was the first time in which the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges survey was conducted online. A total of 1,678 attorneys were asked to participate in the online survey and on average to evaluate 3.48 judges or justices each—a total of 5,834 potential survey evaluations—257 Supreme Court and 5,577 Court of Appeals. Just over twenty- six percent (26.5%) of attorneys surveyed evaluated one or more appellate judges or justices. Fifty-four out of 165 attorneys who were asked to evaluate one or more Supreme Court justices did so (32.7%). Similarly, 445 attorneys who were 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 1111 ## Page 12 asked to evaluate one or more Court of Appeals judges completed the evaluation of at least one judge (29.4%). The average number of judges or justices evaluated per attorney was 2.59 for a total of 1,154 (19.8%) completed evaluations—80 Supreme Court and 1,074 Court of Appeals. Note, these figures are only for the online survey (plus telephone follow-up interviews) and will not match the numbers in the All Appellate Judges response rate in the table above, which include evaluations from the prior mail surveys. Projectability: Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre-election poll of 500 likely Colorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for Candidate A on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%-confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of- error. The Colorado Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is not projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a self-selecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. Commercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples—the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge being evaluated, and who most often—albeit not always—are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state’s judicial system. Survey Results: The report shows the survey results both graphically and in tables. Tables: This section shows the percentage distribution of grades and the average numerical grade for each of the A through F scaled questions (A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F = 0) for Justice Martinez as compared to the average grade for all 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 1122 ## Page 13 justices excluding Justice Martinez. For comparison purposes, the next two pages show the combined percentage distribution of grades and grade averages for all Supreme Court justices. The overall averages shown in the graphs and tables are calculated by summing the average grade for each question and dividing by the number of questions summed. This gives each question equal weight in computing the overall averages. The sample size is shown at the beginning of the section and on each of the tables. This is the number of respondents who answered most or all of the questions in the questionnaire. It should be noted, however, that the number of responses for individual questions can vary from the overall sample size. Graphs: The graphs visually display the average numerical grade for each of the A through F scaled questions (A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F = 0) for the report- justice compared to the average grade for all justice excluding Justice Martinez . In addition to the grade-scale graphs, the question regarding retention is also graphed. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 1133 ## Page 14 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges All Supreme Court Justices Sample Size = 218 Average A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 60% 20% 9% 3% 6% 3% 3.26 2b.Writing opinions that are clear. 52% 27% 9% 7% 4% 0% 3.08 2c.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 52% 26% 9% 7% 5% 1% 3.13 Courts decision. 2d.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 54% 29% 6% 4% 1% 6% 3.36 2e.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 62% 16% 9% 4% 1% 8% 3.41 questions. 2f. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 56% 18% 3% 3% 4% 17% 3.42 2g.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 56% 15% 11% 11% 8% 0% 2.92 2h.Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 48% 20% 7% 5% 8% 12% 2.98 2i. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 65% 6% 2% 1% 3% 22% 3.71 economic status. 2j. Being courteous toward attorneys. 66% 20% 5% 3% 1% 5% 3.58 2k.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 57% 4% 0% 0% 0% 39% 3.91 2l. Being prepared for oral argument. 59% 16% 7% 2% 1% 14% 3.53 Overall Average Grade: 3.36 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 1144 ## Page 15 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges All Supreme Court Justices Sample Size = 218 Average Grade 5. How strongly do you recommend that the Justice be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retention 69% Somewhat recommend retention 14% Somewhat recommend not to retain 8% Strongly recommend not to retain 9% Total Retain 83% Total Not Retain 17% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retention 64% Somewhat recommend retention 13% Undecided or Don't Know 7% Somewhat recommend not to retain 7% Strongly recommend not to retain 8% Total Retain 77% Undecided/Don't Know 7% Total Not Retain 15% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 1155 ## Page 16 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 17 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 the [Judge/Justice] 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/NS for Don’t Know/Not Sure. a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. A B C D F DK/NS b. Writing opinions that are clear. A B C D F DK/NS c. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court’s decision. A B C D F DK/NS d. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. A B C D F DK/NS e. Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer questions. A B C D F DK/NS f. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. A B C D F DK/NS g. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. A B C D F DK/NS h. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. A B C D F DK/NS i. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status. A B C D F DK/NS j. Being courteous toward attorneys. A B C D F DK/NS k. Not engaging in ex parte communications. A B C D F DK/NS l. Being prepared for oral argument. A B C D F DK/NS ## Page 18 3. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 4. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 5. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend the judge be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend the judge be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend the judge not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend the judge not be retained in office . 1
    • 2010 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee AAlleexx JJ.. MMaarrttiinneezz 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report Supreme Court ## Page 2 March 25, 2010 The Honorable Alex J. Martinez Colorado State Judicial Bldg. 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Dear Justice Martinez: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report. The report is based on two surveys relating to how you are seen carrying out the performance of your office: One of attorneys who have had cases heard before the Supreme Court, and a second survey of district judges regarding Supreme Court justices who are standing for retention in November, 2010. The methodology underlying these surveys has changed somewhat since the last reports were issued in 2009. A few minutes perusing the methodology section toward the end of this report should inform you of the relevant changes, and provide you with a methodological context to better interpret your survey results. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: A brief summary of the results of the two surveys. 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 at the back of this report. The numerical results of the survey of district judges in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these judges made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the district judge questionnaire is at the back of this report. The fourth section of the Report discusses the methodology of the surveys. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.200.7385 ## Page 3 Hon. Justice Alex J. Martinez March 25, 2010 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300 ext 1 or by email at talmey@talmeyresearch.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, Jane Howell, at 303-866-6465. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 SSuummmmaarryy ooff RReessuullttss Attorneys assigned Justice Alex J. Martinez an overall average grade11 of 3.35, and District Judges assigned Justice Martinez an overall average grade of 3.43 resulting in a combined grade of 3.39. The average combined grade for all Supreme Court Justices standing for retention was 3.39 . The combined average grade is computed as the total of the overall average from the attorney survey plus the overall average from the district judge survey, divided by two. Justice Martinez Average Grades Combined Attorney District Judge Overall Grade 3.39 3.35 3.43 Sample Size - 155 135 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected from 2005 through 2009. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Justice Martinez’s overall average grades from attorneys for each of these years. Justice Martinez Average Attorney Grades by Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Overall Grade 3.44 3.09 3.50 3.39 3.31 Sample Size 13 22 32 41 47 Table 2 1 The overall average grade for the attorney and district judge surveys are computed by summing the average grade for each A through F question and dividing by the number of questions. See the tables in each of the survey sections. 1 ## Page 5 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuussttiiccee AAlleexx JJ.. MMaarrttiinneezz ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 115)) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Average Justice Alex J. Martinez All Supreme Court Justices Sample Size = 155 Justice Excluding A B C D Fail DK/NA Martinez Justice Martinez Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 60% 16% 9% 7% 4% 4% 3.27 3.15 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 61% 19% 8% 3% 1% 7% 3.47 3.43 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 68% 9% 5% 3% 3% 13% 3.59 3.59 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 70% 17% 5% 2% 1% 6% 3.61 3.50 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 54% 5% 2% 1% 1% 37% 3.76 3.80 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 56% 21% 8% 3% 3% 8% 3.35 3.46 Question 2 Average Grade 3.51 3.49 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 48% 21% 20% 7% 3% 0% 3.05 3.15 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 46% 27% 16% 7% 4% 1% 3.05 3.10 Court's decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 56% 25% 7% 1% 2% 9% 3.43 3.31 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 64% 16% 12% 2% 2% 5% 3.46 3.24 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 55% 14% 14% 10% 7% 0% 2.99 2.83 facts. 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 49% 16% 16% 4% 4% 11% 3.15 2.87 decided. Question 3 Average Grade 3.19 3.08 Overall Average Grade: 3.35 3.29 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 33 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Percentage Justice Alex J. Martinez All Supreme Court Justices Sample Size = 155 Justice Excluding Martinez Justice Martinez 6. How strongly do you recommend that Justice Martinez be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 64% 64% Somewhat recommend retain 17% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 9% 9% Strongly recommend not retain 10% 11% Total Retain 81% 80% Total Not Retain 19% 20% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 60% 59% Somewhat recommend retain 16% 15% Undecided or Don't Know 6% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 8% 8% Strongly recommend not retain 9% 11% Total Retain 76% 74% Undecided/Don't Know 6% 6% Total Not Retain 17% 19% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 44 ## Page 8 Justice Alex J. Martinez Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Average Grades 3.35 Overall average grade 3.29 3.51 Question 2 average grade 3.49 3.27 2a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 3.15 2b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and 3.47 answer questions. 3.43 2c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 3.59 economic status. 3.59 3.61 2d. Being courteous toward attorneys. 3.50 3.76 2e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.80 3.35 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 3.46 3.19 Question 3 average grade 3.08 3.05 3a. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.15 3b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the 3.05 basis of the Court's decision. 3.10 3.43 3c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.31 3.46 3d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.24 2.99 3e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 2.83 3.15 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 2.87 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Justice Martinez All Supreme Court Justices Excluding Justice Martinez 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 5 ## Page 9 Justice Alex J. Martinez Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Q6. How strongly do you recommend that Justice Martinez be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 64% Strongly recommend retain 64% 17% Somewhat recommend retain 16% All SC Justices Justice Except Justice 9% Martinez Martinez Somewhat recommend not retain Total Retain 81% 80% 9% Total Not Retain 19% 20% 10% Strongly recommend not retain 11% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 60% Strongly recommend retain 59% 16% Somewhat recommend retain 15% All SC Justices 6% Justice Except Justice Undecided or Don't Know 6% Martinez Martinez Total Retain 76% 74% Undecided or DK 6% 6% 8% Total Not Retain 17% 19% Somewhat recommend not retain 8% 9% Strongly recommend not retain 11% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Justice Martinez All Supreme Court Justices Excluding Justice Martinez 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 6 ## Page 10 SSuurrvveeyy ooff DDiissttrriicctt JJuuddggeess RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuussttiiccee AAlleexx JJ.. MMaarrttiinneezz ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 113355)) ## Page 11 Survey of District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges Average All SC Justice Alex J. Martinez Retention Justices Sample Size = 135 Excluding Justice Justice A B C D Fail DK/NA Martinez Martinez 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. 52% 22% 11% 4% 1% 12% 3.35 3.44 2. Writing opinions that are clear. 45% 30% 11% 5% 2% 7% 3.21 3.40 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of 52% 27% 9% 4% 2% 7% 3.33 3.46 the Court's decision. 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 32% 25% 5% 4% 1% 33% 3.24 3.29 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 61% 16% 4% 2% 1% 16% 3.60 3.58 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 47% 29% 8% 6% 2% 8% 3.25 3.37 facts. 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 43% 24% 10% 4% 1% 18% 3.28 3.28 decided. 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 71% 5% 5% 2% 1% 16% 3.71 3.74 economic status. 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 46% 4% 2% 0% 0% 49% 3.87 3.76 Overall Average Grade: 3.43 3.48 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 184 ## Page 12 Survey of District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges Percentage Justice Alex J. Martinez All SC Sample Size = 135 Retention Justices Justice Excluding Martinez Justice Martinez 10. Recommend to be retained/not retained in office. [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 69% 75% Somewhat recommend retain 19% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 9% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 3% Total Retain 88% 91% Total Not Retain 11% 9% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 64% 72% Somewhat recommend retain 18% 15% Undecided or Don't Know 7% 4% Somewhat recommend not retain 8% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 3% Total Retain 82% 87% Undecided/Don't Know 7% 4% Total Not Retain 10% 9% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 195 ## Page 13 Justice Alex J. Martinez Survey of District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges Average Grades 3.43 Overall average of 1 through 9 3.48 3.35 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. 3.44 3.21 2. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.40 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 3.33 Court's decision. 3.46 3.24 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.29 3.60 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.58 3.25 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 3.37 3.28 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.28 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 3.71 economic status. 3.74 3.87 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.76 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Justice Martinez All SC Retention Justices Excluding Justice Martinez 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 1160 ## Page 14 Justice Alex J. Martinez Survey of District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges Q10. Recommend to be retained/not retained in office. Excluding Undecided Respondents 69% Strongly recommend retain 75% 19% Somewhat recommend retain 16% All SC Justices 9% Justice Except Justice Somewhat recommend not retain Martinez Martinez 6% Total Retain 88% 91% Total Not Retain 11% 9% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 64% Strongly recommend retain 72% 18% Somewhat recommend retain 15% All SC Justices 7% Justice Except Justice Undecided or Don't Know 4% Martinez Martinez Total Retain 82% 87% 8% Undecided or DK 7% 4% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 10% 9% 6% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Justice Martinez All SC Retention Justices Excluding Justice Martinez 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 1171 ## Page 15 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 16 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on two surveys1: The survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges and the survey of District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges. Below is a description of the methodology of the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges a. Sample: The Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges sample comes from a list of issued Supreme Court opinions provided by the Clerk of the Supreme Court and a similar list of Court of Appeals opinions provided by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. These lists included the names of the attorneys associated with the cases and the names of the judges who authored opinions, concurrences or dissents for those cases. i. Prior to 2009, the survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges was conducted using paper questionnaires mailed to the attorneys‟ offices. All attorneys from the Supreme Court opinions list and the Court of Appeals opinions list were assigned to evaluate justices or judges subject to the following rules applied in the order shown. 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same justice or judge in a 24-month period. 2. Attorneys would only be asked to evaluate justices or judges who had written an opinion, concurrence or dissent in one of their cases. 3. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a Supreme Court justice and a Court of Appeals judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the justice. 4. If at this point there were still several justices or judges the attorney could potentially evaluate, the attorney was assigned the justice or judge with whom he or she had had the most cases with opinions issued during the sampling time frame. 5. If there were still several justices or judges the attorney could evaluate, he or she was either randomly assigned to one of them, or assigned to the justice or judge with the smallest sample in order to even out sample sizes. Attorneys were mailed a questionnaire, and if they did not respond they were sent a reminder postcard followed by a second questionnaire and in some cases a second reminder postcard. Questionnaires were barcoded, and if an attorney mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Attorneys who did not 1 A third survey was attempted of Supreme Court and COA non-attorney employees. Talmey-Drake Research received lists of 21 Supreme Court employees and 15 Court of Appeals employees. No justice or judge had more than one completed survey-evaluation, and therefore the results are not reported. 13 ## Page 17 complete the second request were then telephoned and asked to complete the survey by phone. ii. In 2009 the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey moved from being a paper survey mailed to potential respondents to an online survey. Moving the survey to online permitted asking individual attorneys to evaluate up to seven Supreme Court justices or COA judges, and with the exception of the effects of the modified assignment rules 1 through 5 below, it became a survey of all attorneys who had cases before either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals. Allowing an attorney to evaluate up to seven justices or judges, entailed slightly modifying the assignment rules: 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same justice or judge in a 24-month period. 2. Attorneys would only be asked to evaluate justices or judges who had written an opinion, concurrence or dissent in one of their cases. 3. The list of seven justices or judges could include both justices and judges. If an attorney had more than seven possible justices or judges he or she could potentially evaluate, Supreme Court justices were assigned to that attorney first. 4. If there were more than seven justices or judges who could be assigned to the attorney, the attorney was assigned the justices or judges with whom he or she had had the most cases with opinions issued during the sampling time frame. 5. If there were still more than seven justices or judges the attorney could evaluate, justices or judges were either randomly assigned to available list slots or were assigned to the justices or judges with the smallest sample sizes. Attorneys were first mailed a letter about the online survey to let them know that they would soon receive an email with a link to the survey. The Web address of the survey and a password were included in the letter if the attorney wanted to complete the survey immediately. A week after the first email was sent, a follow-up email was sent. Potential respondents who did not complete the survey after the second email were then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey then by phone, or to please complete it online. iii. In 2010 rule #2 above was changed so that an attorney would be asked to evaluate all seven justices if the case was heard by the Supreme Court, and the full three- judge panel if the case was heard by the Court of Appeals—not just the justices or judges who had written the opinion, concurrences or dissents. Because some of the survey questions refer specifically to the justice‟s or judge‟s legal writing, a question was added to the questionnaire asking “Would you say you are sufficiently knowledgeable about Justice/Judge„s legal writings to have formed an opinion about them?” If the respondent answered “No” or “Don‟t Know” to this question he or she was not asked about the justice‟s or judge‟s writings. A copy of the list of the Attorney Regarding Appellate Judges questions is reprinted in the last section of this report. In addition to attorneys who had cases before either the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, COA staff attorneys were also surveyed in 2010. 14 ## Page 18 The results shown in the 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report for the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges survey are based on the combined data collected from January 2005 through early February 2010 for those questions that have been consistently asked during that time period. Starting in 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, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge‟s survey results in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the data only affects the county judge sample in the 2010 reports. b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores 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. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, respondents were also asked what they considered to be the justice‟s or judge‟s strengths and what they considered to be the justice‟s or judge‟s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the justice or 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 justice or judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been asked in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. 15 ## Page 19 Most spelling and typographical errors have been fixed, but where the respondent entered a comment in all upper or all lower case, or without punctuation, the comment was not corrected. d. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don‟t know” responses. The next column to the 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—but including Supreme Court justices who are not eligible to stand for retention in 2010—and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all seven 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/undecided” 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 Appellate Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge‟s strengths and weaknesses. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall response rate for the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations (Supreme Court plus Court of Appeals) divided by the number of possible evaluations. An equivalent response rate for an individual justice or judge is computed as the number of completed survey- evaluations for that justice or judge divided by the number of possible evaluations that could have been completed for the judge or justice. A table of the overall response rate and the response rate for Justice Martinez is shown below. 16 ## Page 20 Requested No Undeliv- Completed Cooperation Evaluations Response erable Evaluations Rate Justice Martinez 884 719 155 17.5% All Supreme Court 3408 2693 25 689 20.4% Justice All Appellate Judges 5471 4430 43 997 18.4% (SC and COA) The cooperation rate in the table above is based on the percent of survey-evaluations completed, and not the percent of attorneys who responded with at least one completed evaluation. From 2005 to 2010 a total of 3,712 attorneys were asked to participate in the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey and on average to evaluate 4.6 justices or judges each—a total of 17,075 potential attorney evaluations. One thousand three hundred and eighty (1,380) attorneys responded (37.2%) with one or more survey evaluations. The average number of judges evaluated per attorney was 2.5. II District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges a. Sample: All district judges and appellate judges (Supreme Court and Court of Appeals) were sent a questionnaire in January 2010 asking them to evaluate the four Supreme Court justices and five Court of Appeals judges standing for retention in 2010. b. Questions: The questionnaire consisted of nine A through F questions plus the recommend retention question (see the next report section for the questionnaire). The A through F responses were converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, respondents were asked to write a comment about each justice and judge. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the justice or 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 justice or 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. 17 ## Page 21 d. Analysis: The District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don‟t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the justice‟s or judge‟s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for the other three retention Supreme Court justices‟ combined results, and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for the four Supreme Court retention justices are located at the end of this methodology section. 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. The first column of percentages is for the report-justice and the second column displays the percentages for the other three Supreme Court retention justices combined. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don‟t know/undecided” 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 Appellate Judges lists the comments district and appellate justices and judges wrote about the report-justice. e. Cooperation Rate: One hundred and eighty-eight (188) questionnaires were mailed (7 Supreme Court, 22 Court of Appeals and 159 district judges) and 137 were returned, though not all nine justices and judges were evaluated in every returned questionnaire. 18 ## Page 22 Projectability Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre- election poll of 500 likely Colorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for Candidate A versus Candidate B on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%-confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of-error. Neither the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges nor the District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges is projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a self-selecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. Commercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples-the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a justice or judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge being evaluated, and who most often - albeit not always - are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state's judicial system. 19 ## Page 23 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges All Supreme Court Justices Sample Size = 2162 Average A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 56% 20% 9% 6% 6% 3% 3.16 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 60% 21% 8% 3% 2% 6% 3.43 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 68% 9% 4% 2% 3% 14% 3.59 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 65% 19% 6% 3% 2% 5% 3.51 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 57% 4% 2% 1% 1% 36% 3.79 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 58% 19% 7% 2% 2% 10% 3.44 Question 2 Average Grade 3.49 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 49% 28% 14% 6% 4% 1% 3.14 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 48% 27% 12% 7% 5% 1% 3.09 Court's decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 50% 25% 9% 2% 3% 11% 3.32 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 55% 18% 11% 4% 4% 8% 3.27 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 48% 19% 14% 9% 10% 0% 2.85 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 42% 20% 14% 6% 8% 10% 2.90 Question 3 Average Grade 3.10 Overall Average Grade: 3.29 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 20 ## Page 24 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges All Supreme Court Justices Sample Size = 2162 Average Grade 6. How strongly do you recommend that the Justice be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 64% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 9% Strongly recommend not retain 11% Total Retain 80% Total Not Retain 20% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 59% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Undecided or Don't Know 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 8% Strongly recommend not retain 10% Total Retain 74% Undecided/Don't Know 6% Total Not Retain 18% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 21 ## Page 25 Survey of District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges All 2010 Supreme Court Retention Justices Average Sample Size = 137 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. 56% 21% 7% 5% 0% 10% 3.41 2. Writing opinions that are clear. 52% 28% 10% 4% 1% 6% 3.35 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 58% 24% 9% 3% 1% 6% 3.43 Court's decision. 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 33% 25% 5% 4% 0% 32% 3.28 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 63% 14% 3% 2% 2% 15% 3.58 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 52% 26% 8% 5% 1% 8% 3.34 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 43% 24% 9% 4% 1% 19% 3.28 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 72% 7% 3% 2% 1% 16% 3.73 economic status. 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 46% 3% 1% 0% 1% 49% 3.79 Overall Average Grade: 3.47 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 22 ## Page 26 Survey of District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges All 2010 Supreme Court Retention Justices Sample Size = 137 Average Grade 10. Recommend retain/not retain. [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 74% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 7% Strongly recommend not retain 3% Total Retain 90% Total Not Retain 10% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 70% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Undecided or Don't Know 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 3% Total Retain 86% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 9% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 23 ## Page 27 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 28 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 justice, please check DK/NS for Don't Know/Not Sure. 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 Justice Roy Bean 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 (Last Name)’s strengths? __________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ## Page 29 5. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 6. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend the judge be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend the judge be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend the judge not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend the judge not be retained in office . 1 ## Page 30 Please answer the enclosed questions about each of the four Supreme Court justices and the five Court of Appeals judges who are eligible to stand for retention in November 2010. For questions 1 through 9 please grade each of the judges using a grade scale where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail. If, for a specific question, you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge on the task, or for some reason feel that you cannot grade him or her on the item, please circle the number that indicates “no grade.” Thank you. Page 12 ## Page 31 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. H. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge No Nancy J. Lichtenstein in the space below. If you would like A B C D F Grade to make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach Justice Michael L. Bender . 4 3 2 1 0 6 a sheet with additional comments. Justice Alex J. Martinez . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Mary J. Mullarkey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Nancy E. Rice . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sean Connelly. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ Judge John Daniel Dailey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Richard L. Gabriel . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Nancy J. Lichtenstein . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge David J. Richman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ I. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge David J. Richman in the space below. If you would like to 2. Writing opinions that are clear. make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a No sheet with additional comments. A B C D F Grade _ Justice Michael L. Bender . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Alex J. Martinez . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Mary J. Mullarkey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Nancy E. Rice . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sean Connelly. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John Daniel Dailey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Richard L. Gabriel . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Nancy J. Lichtenstein . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge David J. Richman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Please mail the completed questionnaire in the enclosed postage-paid envelope. Thank you. Page 2 Page 11 ## Page 32 F. Please write comments you would like to make about 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Judge John Daniel Dailey in the space below. If you Court’s decision. would like to make more comments than space allows, feel No free to attach a sheet with additional comments. A B C D F Grade _ Justice Michael L. Bender . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Alex J. Martinez . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Mary J. Mullarkey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Nancy E. Rice . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sean Connelly . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John Daniel Dailey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Richard L. Gabriel . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Nancy J. Lichtenstein . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge David J. Richman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. G. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge Richard L. Gabriel in the space below. If you No A B C D F Grade would like to make more comments than space allows, feel Justice Michael L. Bender . 4 3 2 1 0 6 free to attach a sheet with additional comments. _ Justice Alex J. Martinez . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Mary J. Mullarkey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Nancy E. Rice . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sean Connelly . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John Daniel Dailey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Richard L. Gabriel . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Nancy J. Lichtenstein . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge David J. Richman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ Page 10 Page 3 ## Page 33 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. D. Please write comments you would like to make about Justice Nancy E. Rice in the space below. If you would like to make No more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a sheet A B C D F Grade with additional comments. Justice Michael L. Bender . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Alex J. Martinez . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Mary J. Mullarkey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Nancy E. Rice . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sean Connelly. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John Daniel Dailey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Richard L. Gabriel . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Nancy J. Lichtenstein . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ Judge David J. Richman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ E. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and Sean Connelly in the space below. If you would like to make facts. more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a sheet No with additional comments. A B C D F Grade _ Justice Michael L. Bender . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Alex J. Martinez . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Mary J. Mullarkey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Nancy E. Rice . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sean Connelly. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John Daniel Dailey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Richard L. Gabriel . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Nancy J. Lichtenstein . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge David J. Richman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Page 4 Page 9 ## Page 34 S5 B. Please write comments you would like to make about Justice 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be Alex J. Martinez in the space below. If you would like to make decided. more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a sheet No with additional comments. A B C D F Grade _ Justice Michael L. Bender . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Alex J. Martinez . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Mary J. Mullarkey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Nancy E. Rice . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sean Connelly . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John Daniel Dailey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Richard L. Gabriel . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Nancy J. Lichtenstein . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge David J. Richman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ C. Please write comments you would like to make about Justice Mary J. Mullarkey in the space below. If you would like to 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a economic status. sheet with additional comments. No _ A B C D F Grade _ Justice Michael L. Bender . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Alex J. Martinez . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Mary J. Mullarkey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Nancy E. Rice . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sean Connelly . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John Daniel Dailey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Richard L. Gabriel . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Nancy J. Lichtenstein . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge David J. Richman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Page 8 ## Page 35 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 10. [Continued] No Judge Judge Judge 6 A B C D F Grade Connelly Dailey Gabriel Justice Michael L. Bender . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Strongly recommend to retain . 5 5 5 Somewhat recommend to retain . 4 4 4 Justice Alex J. Martinez . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Undecided or don’t know enough Justice Mary J. Mullarkey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 to make recommendation . 3 3 3 Justice Nancy E. Rice . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Somewhat recommend not retain . 2 2 2 Judge Sean Connelly. 4 3 2 1 0 6 Strongly recommend not retain . 1 1 1 Judge John Daniel Dailey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Judge Judge Richard L. Gabriel . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Lichtenstein Richman Judge Nancy J. Lichtenstein . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Strongly recommend to retain . 5 5 Judge David J. Richman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Somewhat recommend to retain . 4 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 3 Somewhat recommend not retain . 2 2 10. Recommend to be retained/not retained in office. Strongly recommend not retain . 1 1 Justice Justice A. Please write comments you would like to make about Justice Bender Martinez Strongly recommend to retain . 5 5 Michael L. Bender in the space below. If you would like to Somewhat recommend to retain . 4 4 make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a sheet with additional comments. Undecided or don’t know enough _ to make recommendation . 3 3 _ Somewhat recommend not retain . 2 2 Strongly recommend not retain . 1 1 _ _ _ Justice Justice _ Mullarkey Rice Strongly recommend to retain . 5 5 _ Somewhat recommend to retain . 4 4 _ Undecided or don’t know enough _ to make recommendation . 3 3 _ Somewhat recommend not retain . 2 2 Strongly recommend not retain . 1 1 Page 6 Page 7

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