← All judges

Anthony J. Navarro

Court of Appeals

Meets Standards(Retain)1 cycle on record

Evaluation history

  • 2016 retention cycle
    Court of Appeals
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    VotersRetained· 65.5% yes
    1,374,286 yes · 723,073 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 2016 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2016 Retention Survey Report 2015 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 by a vote of 9 to 0, with one recusal, recommends that Judge Anthony J. Navarro BE RETAINED. Judge Navarro was sworn in as a Judge of the Colorado Court of Appeals on January 18, 2013.  He received his undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in 1993 and his law degree from Yale Law School in 1996.  He worked as an Assistant Attorney General in the Consumer Protection Section and the Appellate Division of the Colorado Attorney General’s Office.  He then worked at Holland & Hart LLP in Denver where he focused on the appellate aspect of commercial litigation.  Prior to his appointment, he served for five years as a Supervisory Attorney in the Social Security Administration’s Office of the General Counsel in Denver where he supervised litigation before federal courts.  Judge Navarro is the Court’s Liaison to the 10th Judicial District and has served as a judge for the Colorado Marshal-Brennan Constitutional Literacy Moot Court Competition.  He has also served as a judge in the We the People program for the 4th Congressional District, and he presents in a number of continuing legal education programs. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Navarro, read opinions that he authored, reviewed his self-evaluation, observed him in court, and reviewed survey responses from attorneys and other judges regarding his performance.  Survey participants were asked “How strongly do you recommend that Judge Navarro be retained in office?”  Of attorneys completing the survey and responding to this question 65% recommended to retain, 25% not to retain, and 9% made no recommendation regarding retention.  Of judges completing the survey  100% recommended to retain. Judge Navarro’s scores from attorneys were strong in the area of treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or economic status and in being prepared for oral argument.  His scores were below average for being fair and impartial toward each side of the case, making reasoned decisions based upon law and facts, and refraining from issues that need not be decided.  These issues were also raised with Judge Navarro at his interim evaluation last year.  Judge Navarro has been addressing these issues in a variety of ways over the past year.  Based on observations of Judge Navarro in court and review of a number of his opinions, the Commission believes that he is making progress in improving these areas.  The survey responses of district and other appellate judges rated relative strengths for Judge Navarro in the areas of being fair and impartial toward each side of the case and writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court’s decision.  The Commission is impressed with Judge Navarro’s commitment to improvement and supports his continued efforts at improving his writing.

Surveys & reports

  • 2016 cycle
    • 2015 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full interim survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 The Honorable Anthony J. Navarro 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report Court of Appeals ## Page 2 May 29, 2015 The Honorable Anthony J. Navarro Colorado Court of Appeals 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Dear Judge Navarro: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This report is based on a survey of attorneys who have had cases heard before a Court of Appeals panel of 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 attorney questionnaire. 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 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 Judge Anthony J. Navarro an overall average grade of 2.98. Average Attorney Grades by Year Judge Navarro Average Sample Score Size Year 2007 NA NA 2008 NA NA 2009 NA NA 2010 NA NA 2011 NA NA 2012 NA NA 2013 NA NA 2014 2.98 57 All Years 2.98 57 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected from 2007 through 2014. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) The table above shows Judge Navarro's overall average grades from attorneys for up to eight years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. 1 ## Page 4 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Judge Anthony J. Navarro (Sample Size 57) ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Anthony J. Navarro All COA Judge Judges* Navarro Sample Size = 57 A B C D Fail DK/NA Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 44% 16% 9% 12% 12% 7% 2.72 3.22 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 46% 21% 12% 4% 11% 7% 2.94 3.44 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 60% 9% 4% 7% 4% 18% 3.38 3.55 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 54% 18% 11% 4% 5% 9% 3.23 3.50 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 47% 5% 2% 0% 0% 46% 3.84 3.81 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 46% 23% 7% 5% 7% 12% 3.08 3.47 Question 2 Average Grade 3.20 3.50 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 41% 16% 22% 9% 9% 3% 2.71 3.20 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 41% 19% 19% 6% 16% 0% 2.63 3.13 Court's decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 41% 19% 16% 3% 3% 19% 3.12 3.38 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 44% 9% 9% 9% 9% 19% 2.85 3.26 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 38% 13% 16% 19% 16% 0% 2.38 2.92 facts. 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 34% 16% 13% 3% 9% 25% 2.83 3.10 decided. Question 3 Average Grade 2.75 3.17 Overall Average Grade: 2.98 3.33 * Includes only the Court of Appeals judges 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. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 2 ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Percentage Judge Anthony J. Navarro All COA Judge Judges* Navarro How strongly do you recommend that Judge Navarro be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 32% 48% Recommend retain 25% 27% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 18% 12% Recommend not retain 9% 7% Strongly recommend not retain 18% 6% Total Retain 57% 75% Neither 18% 12% Total Not Retain 27% 13% * Includes only the Court of Appeals judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 3 ## Page 7 Judge Anthony J. Navarro Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Average Grades 2.98 Overall average grade 3.33 3.20 Question 2 average grade 3.50 2.72 2a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 3.22 2b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and 2.94 answer questions. 3.44 2c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 3.38 economic status. 3.55 3.23 2d. Being courteous toward attorneys. 3.50 3.84 2e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.81 3.08 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 3.47 2.75 Question 3 average grade 3.17 2.71 3a. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.20 3b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the 2.63 basis of the Court's decision. 3.13 3.12 3c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.38 2.85 3d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.26 2.38 3e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 2.92 2.83 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.10 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Judge Navarro All Court of Appeals Judges* * Includes only the Court of Appeals judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 4 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 8 Judge Anthony J. Navarro Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Navarro be retained or not retained in office? 32% Strongly recommend retain 48% 25% Recommend retain 27% Judge Navarro All COA Judges* 18% Neither retain nor not retain Total Retain 57% 75% 12% Neither 18% 12% Total Not Retain 27% 13% 9% Recommend not retain 7% 18% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Judge Navarro All Court of Appeals Judges* * Includes only the Court of Appeals judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 5 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 9 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 10 Methodolgy The results shown in the 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report are based on the survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges. Below is a description of the methodologies used for this survey. Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges a. Sample: The Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges sample comes from a list of Court of Appeals opinions provided by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. This list 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. Only judges and justices that are due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015 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 2015. 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 Court of Appeals judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for eight years. After eight years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool will be deleted. 7 ## Page 11 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 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. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges 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 next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all Court of Appeals judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all Court of Appeals judges 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-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all Court of Appeals judges. 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 Court of Appeals Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the 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 judge 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: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals 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 30.2% for Judge Navarro. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. Looking at only the 2014 results, the cooperation rate for Judge Navarro is 30.2% (not shown below). A table of Judge Navarro’s cooperation rate is shown below. This cooperation rate is based on data collected from 2014 through 2014. Undeliv- Requested No erable/Not Completed Cooperation Evaluations Response Applicable Evaluations Rate Judge Navarro 373 132 184 57 30.2% 9 ## Page 13 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges All Court of Appeals Judges* Average Sample Size = 2268 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% 20% 9% 6% 5% 5% 3.22 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 57% 19% 6% 3% 2% 12% 3.44 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 62% 10% 4% 3% 3% 19% 3.55 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 61% 16% 6% 3% 2% 12% 3.50 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 53% 4% 2% 0% 1% 40% 3.81 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 56% 16% 6% 2% 2% 17% 3.47 Question 2 Average Grade 3.50 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 50% 26% 11% 4% 4% 4% 3.20 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 50% 24% 11% 7% 4% 4% 3.13 Court's decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 54% 25% 9% 2% 2% 8% 3.38 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 51% 17% 9% 5% 4% 15% 3.26 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 49% 19% 13% 10% 8% 1% 2.92 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 47% 18% 11% 5% 6% 14% 3.10 Question 3 Average Grade 3.17 Overall Average Grade: 3.33 * Includes only the Court of Appeals judges 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. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges All Court of Appeals Judges* Average Grade (0.0 to 4.0 scale) How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 48% Recommend retain 27% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 12% Recommend not retain 7% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 75% Neither 12% Total Not Retain 13% * Includes only the Court of Appeals judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 11 ## Page 15 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirree ## 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
    • 2016 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 The Honorable Anthony J. Navarro 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report Appellate Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 206 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Retention Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Respondent Characteristics . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Retention . 7 General Evaluation . 8 Writing .10 Survey of District and Appellate Judges .11 Methodology and How to Read Results .11 Retention .14 Individual Questions .15 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Anthony J. Navarro, 212 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 120 agreed they had worked with Judge Navarro enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 120 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F for fail scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Combined 3.49 Attorneys 3.14 District and Appellate Judges 3.68 Table 1 Judge Anthony J. Navarro Overall Scores District and Combined Attorneys Appellate Judges Overall Grade 3.49 3.14 3.68 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony J. Navarro 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Combined 87% Attorneys 65% District & Appellate Judges 100% Table 2 Judge Anthony J. Navarro Overall Retention Scores District & Combined Attorneys Appellate Judges % Recommending 87% 65% 100% Retention 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony J. Navarro 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Anthony J. Navarro Overall Category Scores District and Area Attorneys Appellate Judges General 3.26 3.68 Writing 3.02 N/A 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony J. Navarro 3 ## Page 6 Respondent Characteristics Table 4: Response Rates % Without Undeliverable or Group Total Sent Complete Response Rate sufficient Not Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 249 16 43 39% 52% District and Appellate 211 0 77 58% 37% Judges *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased **The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony J. Navarro 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Navarro, 90 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 43 agreed they had worked with Judge Navarro enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 43 responses. The survey results are divided into two sections: General Evaluation and Writing. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “Appellate Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, a total of 13,709 survey invitations were sent to 5,482 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2016. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.5 judges. 3,738 surveys were completed with an additional 1,818 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 42% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 67%. A total of 161 invitations were sent to 27 staff attorneys working in the appellate courts. Of these, 81 surveys were completed and an additional 11 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 57% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 88%. b. Methodology The 2015 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16, 2015 and closed on February 22nd 2016. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16, 2015 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on September 24th, September 30th, and October 14th. Reminder calls were placed to the offices of selected attorneys in an attempt to increase response rates between November 12th and December 1st. Additional invitations were sent upon request during the reminder calls. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony J. Navarro 5 ## Page 8 Appellate staff attorneys received the same survey as other attorneys, but were invited separately with a series of email invitations starting with the initial invite on October 5th, 2015 and followed with reminders on October 14th and 22nd. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2016. Invitations were e-mailed to attorneys who had appeared before judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. The initial invitations were sent on January 19th and reminders were sent on January 29th and February 3rd. c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 6 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Those that indicated that they were familiar with the Judge’s written opinions were asked to rate the judge in an additional six areas related to the Judge’s writing skills. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge or justice be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “Don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. d. Analysis: Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge or justice’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony J. Navarro 6 ## Page 9 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Navarro be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Anthony J. Navarro Total Retain 65% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 25% Figure 3 100% 80% 59% 60% 51% 40% 20% 14% 17% 16% 9% 9% 9% 9% 6% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Navarro All Appellate Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony J. Navarro 7 ## Page 10 General Evaluation Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Navarro on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 3.43 Appellate General Overall Average 3.26 3.55 Being prepared for oral argument 3.57 3.94 Not engaging in ex parte communications 4 3.47 Being courteous toward attorneys 3.05 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or 3.67 economic status 3.62 Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 3.48 questions 3.31 3.22 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.02 0 1 2 3 4 All Appellate Judges Judge Navarro 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony J. Navarro 8 ## Page 11 Table 6 Appellate General Judge Anthony J. Navarro All Overall A B C D Fail DK/NA Appellate Number of Responses: 43 Average Judges Being fair and impartial toward 56% 12% 14% 9% 7% 2% 3.02 3.22 each side of the case Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 58% 16% 7% 5% 5% 9% 3.31 3.48 questions Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or 65% 5% 5% 2% 2% 21% 3.62 3.67 economic status Being courteous toward 53% 12% 7% 14% 5% 9% 3.05 3.47 attorneys Not engaging in ex parte 47% -- -- -- -- 53% 4 3.94 communications Being prepared for oral 63% 12% 9% 2% -- 14% 3.57 3.55 argument Appellate General Overall Average 3.26 3.43 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony J. Navarro 9 ## Page 12 Writing Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Navarro on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 3.18 Appellate Writing Overall Average 3.02 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 3.13 decided 2.84 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 2.98 facts 2.72 3.39 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.16 3.45 Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.39 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 3.16 Court's decision 3 3.22 Writing opinions that are clear 3.17 0 1 2 3 4 All Appellate Judges Judge Navarro 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony J. Navarro 10 ## Page 13 Table 7 Appellate Writing Judge Anthony J. Navarro All Overall A B C D Fail DK/NA Appellate Number of Responses: 36 Average Judges Writing opinions that are clear 53% 22% 11% 8% 3% 3% 3.17 3.22 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 47% 22% 14% 8% 6% 3% 3 3.16 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 50% 28% 14% -- -- 8% 3.39 3.45 Making decisions without regard to 50% 14% 14% 3% 6% 14% 3.16 3.39 possible criticism Making reasoned decisions based 44% 19% 11% 14% 11% -- 2.72 2.98 upon the law and facts Refraining from reaching issues 36% 28% 11% 3% 11% 11% 2.84 3.13 that need not be decided Appellate Writing Overall Average 3.02 3.18 Survey of District and Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Navarro, 122 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 77 agreed they had worked with Judge Navarro enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 77 responses. a. Response rates For the inter-appellate evaluation, invitations were sent via email to all 28 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Judges and justices not standing for retention in 2016 were invited to evaluate all their appellate peers standing for retention. Appellate Judges and Justices standing for retention in 2016 were invited to evaluate their fellow judges up for retention, but not themselves. Of these, 23 responded and 21 completed the survey. The response rate was 82% and the completion rate was 91%. District judges were invited to evaluate their peers standing for retention on the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court via email. For this survey all district judges were sent invitations to evaluate the 11 Court of Appeals judges or Supreme Court justices standing for retention. A total of 1,983 survey invitations were sent and 613 responded and 611 completed the survey. The overall response rate was 31% and the completion rate was 99%. b. Methodology 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony J. Navarro 11 ## Page 14 Both District Judges and fellow members of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals were asked to evaluate the appellate judges and justices standing for retention in 2016. The evaluation of appellate judges and justices standing for retention by their peers in the appellate courts began with an email invitation sent on January 6th. A reminder email was sent on January 13th to those who had not yet responded. The evaluation of appellate judges and justices by their peers in the district courts began with an email invitation sent on November 10th. A reminder email was sent on November 23rd to those who had not yet responded. c. Questions Both groups of judges providing appellate evaluations answered the same questions. The survey consisted of a series of 9 questions where the respondent was asked to rate the judges performance with an A through F letter grade. They were then asked how strongly they do or do not recommend the judge or justice for retention and given an opportunity to provide any written comments. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony J. Navarro 12 ## Page 15 d. Analysis Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony J. Navarro 13 ## Page 16 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Navarro be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 8 Judge Anthony J. Navarro Total Retain 100% Neither 0% Total Not Retain 0% Figure 6 100% 78% 80% 75% 60% 40% 25% 20% 20% 2% 1% 0% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Navarro All Appellate Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony J. Navarro 14 ## Page 17 Individual Questions Using a grade scale, where "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the following appellate judges on each aspect by selecting the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don't have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please select "No Grade". Figure 7 Appellate Judge Overall Average 3.69 3.68 Not engaging in ex parte communications 3.92 3.92 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or 3.84 economic status 3.81 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.74 3.78 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 3.53 decided 3.57 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 3.61 facts 3.56 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.77 3.73 Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.64 3.66 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 3.59 Court's decision 3.61 Writing opinions that are clear 3.58 3.53 0 1 2 3 4 All Appellate Judges Judge Navarro 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony J. Navarro 15 ## Page 18 Table 9 Appellate Individual Questions Judge Anthony J. Navarro All Overall A B C D Fail DK/NA Appellate Number of Responses: 77 Average Judges Writing opinions that are clear 63% 31% 3% 3% -- -- 3.53 3.58 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 68% 26% 6% -- -- -- 3.61 3.59 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 69% 13% 9% -- -- 9% 3.66 3.64 Making decisions without regard to 72% 19% 3% -- -- 6% 3.73 3.77 possible criticism Making reasoned decisions based 69% 19% 13% -- -- -- 3.56 3.61 upon the law and facts Refraining from reaching issues that 59% 28% 6% -- -- 6% 3.57 3.53 need not be decided Being fair and impartial toward each 84% 9% 6% -- -- -- 3.78 3.74 side of the case Treating parties equally regardless of 81% 13% 3% -- -- 3% 3.81 3.84 race, sex, or economic status Not engaging in ex parte 72% 6% -- -- -- 22% 3.92 3.92 communications Appellate Judge Overall Average 3.68 3.69 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony J. Navarro 16

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