Curtis Lane Porter
Trial Court · Prowers · Prowers
Meets Standards3 cycles on record
Evaluation history
- 2026 retention cycleTrial Court · Prowers · ProwersMeets StandardsVotersOn the November 3, 2026 ballot· Coloradans vote on this judge’s retention on November 3, 2026; the outcome will appear here after the election.Retention Year: 2026Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: 2026 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2025 Interim Survey Report (PDF) The Fifteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance finds, based upon a unanimous vote of 6-0, with four commission vacancies, that Judge Curtis Lane Porter MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The Colorado judicial performance standards on which judges are evaluated are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Judge Porter serves on the County Court Bench and presides over misdemeanors, traffic, and civil matters in Prowers County, Colorado. The Commission finds that Judge Porter meets or exceeds expectations in all areas. Judge Porter treats everyone in his courtroom with respect, he applies the law consistently and fairly, and he has a strong knowledge of the law applicable to the cases over which he presides. His dockets continue to run smoothly and efficiently. Based upon previous feedback, Judge Porter has taken steps to improve on the delay in issuing written orders, so that his orders are now generally issued timelier, while still being well-written, organized, and thorough. It is based upon these findings that the Commission agrees that Judge Porter meets performance standards. In reaching its vote, the Commission reviewed Judge Porter’s self-evaluation and his written opinions, conducted a personal interview with Judge Porter, met with the Chief Judge of the district, considered comments from the District Attorney and Public Defender’s offices, conducted courtroom observations, and reviewed Judicial Performance Survey results. Generally, the Commission found the survey responses consistent with their own independent evaluations, with Judge Porter overall scoring above average in all areas according to survey responses. Judge Porter was appointed to the Prowers County Court bench in June of 2016. Before this appointment, Judge Porter served as a Deputy District Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial District, which is how he began his legal career. Judge Porter received his undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in 2005 and went on to earn his law degree from the Brandeis School of Law at the University of Louisville in 2008. In addition to his work on the bench as a judge in Prowers County Court, Judge Porter also serves as municipal court judge for both Wiley and Lamar, Colorado.
- 2022 retention cycleTrial Court · Prowers · ProwersCommission vote: 7 for · 0 againstMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 79.2% yes3,021 yes · 795 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2022 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard 2022 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2021 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Fifteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously finds that the Honorable Curtis “Lane” Porter MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS by a vote of 7 – 0. The Colorado statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. After conducting significant research on Judge Porter’s performance, the Commission finds that Judge Porter exceeds expectations in most areas. His dockets run smoothly and efficiently, he has a solid understanding and knowledge of the law, applies the law fairly and consistently, and he treats everyone who enters his courtroom with dignity and respect. The Commission notes that one area where Judge Porter could improve is how quickly he issues written orders. While his orders are well-written, organized, and thorough, they are often issued later than the parties expect. Judge Porter acknowledged that at times his orders are delayed due to complicated issues and taking time to thoroughly review the law before issuing his order. Judge Porter has demonstrated his willingness to work on improving in this area. Prior to holding its vote, the Commission reviewed the self-evaluation and written opinions authored by Judge Porter; the 2021 Interim and 2022 Judicial Performance Survey results; comments from the District Attorney and Public Defender’s Offices; and also conducted courtroom observations and a personal interview with Judge Porter. Based on 30 individuals who completed surveys, including both attorneys (9) and non-attorneys (21), Judge Porter’s performance scores ranked higher than the scores for all County Judges in all areas, which include case management, application and knowledge of law, communications, demeanor, diligence and fairness. In comparing responses from the 2022 Survey to those from the 2021 Interim Survey, the Commission noted that scores in the areas of Communications and Demeanor had increased from the Interim Survey to the 2022 Performance Survey, while scores in the areas of Case Management, Application and Knowledge of the Law, Diligence, and Fairness had slightly decreased but remain higher than the average score for all County Court Judges across the state. When asked in the survey if Judge Porter meets judicial performance standards, 86% of the attorneys responded that Judge Porter does meet judicial performance standards with 14% having no opinion. Of the non-attorneys who were asked the same question, 94% responded that Judge Porter meets judicial performance standards and 6% responded that he does not meet performance standards.
- 2018 retention cycleTrial Court · Prowers · ProwersMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 80.5% yes2,928 yes · 711 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2018 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2018 Retention Survey Report The Fifteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees that Judge Curtis Lane Porter MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Porter was appointed to Prowers County Court June 9, 2016. Prior to his appointment, Judge Porter served as a Deputy District Attorney in the Fifteenth Judicial District beginning in 2009. Judge Porter earned his undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in 2005 and law degree from the Brandeis School of Law at the University of Louisville in 2008. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Porter, reviewed opinions he authored, observed him in court, reviewed comments received from interested parties during the evaluation, and reviewed survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who had experience with Judge Porter. Among the survey questions was “based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Porter meets judicial performance standards?” Of the attorneys responding to the survey, 100% answered, yes, meets performance standards. Of the non-attorneys responding to the survey, 89% answered yes, meets performance standards, 7% answered no, does not meet performance standards, and 4% had no opinion regarding whether Judge Porter meets or does not meet performance standards. A total of ten attorneys and thirty non-attorneys responded to the judicial performance surveys expressing their opinions of Judge Porter’s performance. Judge Porter’s caseload consists of misdemeanor, traffic, civil, small claims and less than 1% felony criminal matters. Based on the Commission’s overall evaluation Judge Porter has demonstrated he meets or exceeds performance standards in all categories. Attorneys responding to the surveys rated Judge Porter higher in all categories overall compared to all county judges. The one area in which attorney surveys ranked Judge Porter slightly lower was promptly ruling on pre-trial motions, where he scored 3.3 compared to 3.9 for all county judges. Non-attorneys responding to the survey scored Judge Porter substantially the same in comparison to all county judges in the application of law, diligence, communication, fairness, and demeanor. Non-attorney responses indicated Judge Porter exceeded all county judges in overall case management and scored equal to all county judges in using appropriate control of proceedings and language that everyone can understand. Judge Porter is described as being knowledgeable, professional, and treating all defendants and prosecutors in the same respectful manner. His courtroom is cited as a great balance between the dignity of the court and respect for the humanity of the people before him. Judge Porter’s opinions reflect his knowledge of the law and his logical and understandable communication style. Based on these findings the Commission unanimously agreed that Judge Porter meets judicial performance standards.
Surveys & reports
- 2026 cycle
- 2025 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Curtis Lane Porter 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor .10 Diligence .11 Fairness .13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Porter, 19 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 19 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.7 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Porter All County Judges Judge Porter All County Judges Overall Grade 3.7 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 80% 79% 80% 75% 60% 40% 25% 20% 14% 13% 8% 5% 0% Judge Porter All County Judges Judge Porter All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Porter Porter Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 75% 80% 100% 79% standards No, does not meet 25% 14% 0% 13% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 0% 8% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.7 Case Management 3.5 3.6 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.7 Communications 3.5 3.7 Diligence 3.4 3.6 Demeanor 3.4 3.9 Fairness 3.4 Judge Porter All County Judges Judge All County Porter Judges Case Management 3.7 3.5 Application and 3.6 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.7 3.5 Diligence 3.7 3.4 Demeanor 3.6 3.4 Fairness 3.9 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Number Percent with Response with Group Responses Sufficient Rate Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 4 15% 100% 4 Non-Attorneys 16 - - 15 *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Porter received 0 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Porter Overall 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Porter Attorneys 3.5 Judge Porter Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge Porter County Judges Judge Porter Judge Porter Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.9 3.5 4 3.8 15 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.7 3.4 3 3.9 16 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.8 3.4 3.8 3.8 15 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.7 3.4 3.3 3.8 16 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Porter Overall 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Porter Attorneys 2.8 Judge Porter Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge Porter County Judges Judge Porter Judge Porter Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Being able to identify and analyze 3.7 3.3 3 3.8 16 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 2.3 3.2 2.3 N/A 3 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 3 3.3 3 N/A 3 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 2.2 3.2 2.2 N/A 4 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 2.3 3.2 2.3 N/A 3 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.8 3.3 N/A 3.8 12 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.8 3.4 N/A 3.8 12 pressure 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Porter Overall 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Porter Attorneys 3.3 Judge Porter Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge Porter County Judges Judge Porter Judge Porter Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Making sure all participants 3.9 3.5 4 3.8 16 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 2.7 3.3 2.7 N/A 3 reasoned Using language that everyone can 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 13 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 13 being said 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Porter Score 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Porter Attorneys 2.8 Judge Porter Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge Porter County Judges Judge Porter Judge Porter Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving proceedings a sense of 3.7 3.4 3 3.9 17 dignity Treating participants with respect 3.7 3.4 3.2 3.8 17 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.5 3.3 1.7 3.9 16 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 3.8 3.3 N/A 3.8 13 those who appear before him/her 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Porter Score 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Porter Attorneys 2.7 Judge Porter Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge Porter County Judges Judge Porter Judge Porter Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 2 3.2 2 N/A 3 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 2.7 3.3 2.7 N/A 3 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 3 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.9 3.5 N/A 3.9 12 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 12 Maintaining appropriate control 4 3.5 N/A 4.0 12 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.3 3.4 N/A 3.3 3 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 11 ## Page 12 Judge Porter County Judges Judge Porter Judge Porter Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Managing court proceedings so 3.8 3.4 N/A 3.8 12 that there is little wasted time 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Porter Score 3.9 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Porter Attorneys Judge Porter Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge Porter County Judges Judge Porter Judge Porter Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.8 3.4 N/A 3.8 12 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in 3.9 3.4 N/A 3.9 11 the case without bias Treating fairly people who 3.9 3.4 N/A 3.9 11 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.9 3.4 N/A 3.9 12 case 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Porter, 19 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 19 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Interim, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2021 administration, a total of 62,982 survey invitations were sent to 10,316 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2021. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 6.1 judges. In total 9,605 surveys were completed with an additional 7,234 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 15% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 27%. Non-attorneys The 2021 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 34,758 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 4,018 surveys were completed with an additional 1,590 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2021 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on May 28th, 2020. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first quarter of 2020 on May 28th, 2020. Reminders were sent on June 15th and July 8th, 2020. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2020 with email invitations sent on August 6th, 2020 and reminders was sent on August 25th, 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2020 on November 9th, 2020. Reminders sent on November 19th and December 16th, 2020. The final data collection took place in January 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020 on January 21st, 2021. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2021. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2020 and ran through the response deadline of February 15th, 2021. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email, but using a different process. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 14 ## Page 15 To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 15th, 2021. During this period 61 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 15thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2021 were held over for the 2022 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 34,758 4,018 12% Court Staff Email Invite 3,141 1,779 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 61 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 597 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2020 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 15 ## Page 16 The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on interim. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 26 4 0 4 100% Staff 9 0 9 - Others 132 7 0 6 - Total Non-Attorneys - 16 - 15 - Total Respondents - 20 - 19 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 17 - 2026 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)Structured scores pending
Full numeric extraction isn’t complete for this cycle’s layout yet. Open the source PDF above for the underlying data.
- 2022 cycle
- 2021 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Curtis Lane Porter 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor .10 Diligence .11 Fairness .13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Porter, 19 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 19 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.7 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Porter All County Judges Judge Porter All County Judges Overall Grade 3.7 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 80% 79% 80% 75% 60% 40% 25% 20% 14% 13% 8% 5% 0% Judge Porter All County Judges Judge Porter All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Porter Porter Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 75% 80% 100% 79% standards No, does not meet 25% 14% 0% 13% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 0% 8% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.7 Case Management 3.5 3.6 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.7 Communications 3.5 3.7 Diligence 3.4 3.6 Demeanor 3.4 3.9 Fairness 3.4 Judge Porter All County Judges Judge All County Porter Judges Case Management 3.7 3.5 Application and 3.6 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.7 3.5 Diligence 3.7 3.4 Demeanor 3.6 3.4 Fairness 3.9 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Number Percent with Response with Group Responses Sufficient Rate Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 4 15% 100% 4 Non-Attorneys 16 - - 15 *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Porter received 0 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Porter Overall 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Porter Attorneys 3.5 Judge Porter Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge Porter County Judges Judge Porter Judge Porter Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.9 3.5 4 3.8 15 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.7 3.4 3 3.9 16 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.8 3.4 3.8 3.8 15 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.7 3.4 3.3 3.8 16 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Porter Overall 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Porter Attorneys 2.8 Judge Porter Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge Porter County Judges Judge Porter Judge Porter Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Being able to identify and analyze 3.7 3.3 3 3.8 16 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 2.3 3.2 2.3 N/A 3 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 3 3.3 3 N/A 3 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 2.2 3.2 2.2 N/A 4 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 2.3 3.2 2.3 N/A 3 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.8 3.3 N/A 3.8 12 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.8 3.4 N/A 3.8 12 pressure 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Porter Overall 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Porter Attorneys 3.3 Judge Porter Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge Porter County Judges Judge Porter Judge Porter Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Making sure all participants 3.9 3.5 4 3.8 16 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 2.7 3.3 2.7 N/A 3 reasoned Using language that everyone can 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 13 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 13 being said 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Porter Score 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Porter Attorneys 2.8 Judge Porter Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge Porter County Judges Judge Porter Judge Porter Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving proceedings a sense of 3.7 3.4 3 3.9 17 dignity Treating participants with respect 3.7 3.4 3.2 3.8 17 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.5 3.3 1.7 3.9 16 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 3.8 3.3 N/A 3.8 13 those who appear before him/her 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Porter Score 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Porter Attorneys 2.7 Judge Porter Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge Porter County Judges Judge Porter Judge Porter Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 2 3.2 2 N/A 3 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 2.7 3.3 2.7 N/A 3 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 3 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.9 3.5 N/A 3.9 12 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 12 Maintaining appropriate control 4 3.5 N/A 4.0 12 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.3 3.4 N/A 3.3 3 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 11 ## Page 12 Judge Porter County Judges Judge Porter Judge Porter Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Managing court proceedings so 3.8 3.4 N/A 3.8 12 that there is little wasted time 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Porter Score 3.9 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Porter Attorneys Judge Porter Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge Porter County Judges Judge Porter Judge Porter Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.8 3.4 N/A 3.8 12 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in 3.9 3.4 N/A 3.9 11 the case without bias Treating fairly people who 3.9 3.4 N/A 3.9 11 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.9 3.4 N/A 3.9 12 case 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Porter, 19 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 19 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Interim, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2021 administration, a total of 62,982 survey invitations were sent to 10,316 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2021. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 6.1 judges. In total 9,605 surveys were completed with an additional 7,234 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 15% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 27%. Non-attorneys The 2021 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 34,758 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 4,018 surveys were completed with an additional 1,590 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2021 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on May 28th, 2020. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first quarter of 2020 on May 28th, 2020. Reminders were sent on June 15th and July 8th, 2020. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2020 with email invitations sent on August 6th, 2020 and reminders was sent on August 25th, 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2020 on November 9th, 2020. Reminders sent on November 19th and December 16th, 2020. The final data collection took place in January 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020 on January 21st, 2021. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2021. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2020 and ran through the response deadline of February 15th, 2021. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email, but using a different process. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 14 ## Page 15 To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 15th, 2021. During this period 61 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 15thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2021 were held over for the 2022 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 34,758 4,018 12% Court Staff Email Invite 3,141 1,779 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 61 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 597 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2020 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 15 ## Page 16 The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on interim. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 26 4 0 4 100% Staff 9 0 9 - Others 132 7 0 6 - Total Non-Attorneys - 16 - 15 - Total Respondents - 20 - 19 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 17 - 2022 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)Overall score3.6judge rating, 0–4 scaleAttorneys recommend86%17 respondentsNon-attorneys recommend94%respondent count not on record
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Curtis Lane Porter 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor . 10 Diligence . 11 Fairness . 12 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 13 Methodology and How to Read Results . 13 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 16 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Porter, 30 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 30 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.6 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Porter All County Judges Judge Porter All County Judges Overall Grade 3.6 3.4 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 94% 86% 83% 83% 80% 60% 40% 20% 14% 13% 12% 4% 6% 6% 0% Judge Porter All County Judges Judge Porter All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Porter Porter Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 86% 83% 94% 83% standards No, does not meet 0% 13% 6% 12% performance standards No opinion 14% 4% 0% 6% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.6 Case Management 3.4 3.4 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.8 Communications 3.5 3.6 Diligence 3.4 3.8 Demeanor 3.4 3.6 Fairness 3.3 Judge Porter All County Judges Judge All County Porter Judges Case Management 3.6 3.4 Application and 3.4 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.8 3.5 Diligence 3.6 3.4 Demeanor 3.8 3.4 Fairness 3.6 3.3 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 17 20% 47% 8 Non- 26 - - 22 Attorneys *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Porter received 0 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Porter Overall 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Porter Attorneys 3.9 Judge Porter Non-Attorneys 3.5 County Judge Porter Judge Porter Judge Porter Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.7 3.5 3.8 3.6 23 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.6 3.4 3.9 3.5 28 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.6 3.5 3.8 3.5 24 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.5 3.5 3.9 3.4 28 cases 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Porter Overall 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Porter Attorneys 3.6 Judge Porter Non-Attorneys 3.4 County Judge Porter Judge Porter Judge Porter Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.5 3.3 3.9 3.4 25 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.4 3.3 3.4 N/A 7 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.4 3.3 3.4 N/A 7 similar Consistently applying laws and 3.6 3.3 3.6 N/A 7 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.3 3.3 N/A 3.3 19 Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 3.5 3.3 N/A 3.5 19 outside pressure 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Porter Overall 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Porter Attorneys 3.7 Judge Porter Non-Attorneys 3.8 County Judge Porter Judge Porter Judge Porter Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.7 3.5 3.7 3.7 26 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.6 3.4 3.6 N/A 5 thorough and well- reasoned Using language that everyone 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 19 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.8 3.7 N/A 3.8 19 what’s being said 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Porter Score 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Porter Attorneys 3.7 Judge Porter Non-Attorneys 3.8 County Judge Porter Judge Porter Judge Porter Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.8 3.4 3.7 3.9 26 Treating participants with respect 3.7 3.4 3.7 3.7 26 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.7 3.3 N/A 3.7 18 appear before him/her 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Porter Score 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Porter Attorneys 3.5 Judge Porter Non-Attorneys 3.7 County Judge Porter Judge Porter Judge Porter Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 7 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.6 3.4 3.6 N/A 5 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.7 3.4 3.7 N/A 7 for cases Beginning court on time. 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 19 Maintaining appropriate control 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 19 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 19 cases Being prepared for cases. 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 19 Managing court proceedings so 3.8 3.4 N/A 3.8 19 that there is little wasted time 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Porter Score 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Porter Attorneys 3.4 Judge Porter Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Porter County Judge Porter Judge Porter Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.6 3.4 N/A 3.6 18 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.7 3.3 N/A 3.7 18 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.6 3.4 N/A 3.6 17 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.6 3.4 N/A 3.6 16 case Conducting their courtroom in a neutral 3.7 3.3 3.4 3.8 25 manner. Being fair and impartial 3.4 3.3 3.4 N/A 7 to both sides. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Porter, 30 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 30 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the administration, a total of 89,078 survey invitations were sent to 10,845 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving reports in 2022. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 8.2 judges. In total 9,005 surveys were completed with an additional 9,895 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 10% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 21%. Non-attorneys The 2022 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 86,758 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 5,463 surveys were completed with an additional 2,466 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2022 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on June 15th, 2021. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first quarter of 2021 on June 15th, 2021. Reminders were sent on June 30th and July 9th, 2021. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2021 with email invitations sent on August 23rd, 2021 and reminders was sent on September 2nd, 2021 and September 14th, 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2021 on November 9th, 2021. Reminders sent on November 18th and December 2nd, 2021. The final data collection took place in January 2022. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2021 on January 19th, 2022. Reminders were sent on January 28th, February 2nd and 12th, 2022. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2021 and ran through the response deadline of February 28th, 2022. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email but using a different process. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 13 ## Page 14 To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 28th, 2022. During this period 938 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 28th or for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2022 were held over for the 2023 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 90,845 6,068 7% Court Staff Email Invite 3,471 1,861 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 220 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 938 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence and fairness. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2021 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 23 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 14 ## Page 15 The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Rate Attorney 87 17 8 47% Staff - 8 8 - Others 324 18 14 78% Juror - 0 0 - Citizen Feedback - 0 0 Total Non-Attorneys - 26 22 - Total Respondents - 43 30 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Lane Porter 16
- 2018 cycle
- 2018 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)Overall score—judge rating, 0–4 scaleAttorneys recommend92%respondent count not on recordNon-attorneys recommend89%respondent count not on record
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Curtis Lane Porter 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Performance Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Case Management . 8 Application and Knowledge of Law . 9 Communications .10 Demeanor .11 Diligence .12 Performance Score.13 Survey of Non Attorneys .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Demeanor .17 Fairness .18 Communications .19 Diligence .20 Application of Law .21 Performance Score.22 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Curtis Porter, 50 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 40 agreed they had worked with Judge Porter enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 40 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 4 3.87 3.49 3.48 3.50 3 2.76 2 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other* Table 1 Judge Curtis Porter Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.49 3.48 3.50 3.87 2.76 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Porter 1 ## Page 4 Performance Scores Figure 2 100% 100% 100% 92% 89% 80% 67% 60% 40% 22% 20% 11% 6% 7% 3% 4% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Table 2 Judge Curtis Porter Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance 92% 100% 89% 100% 67% standards No, does not meet performance 6% 0% 7% 0% 22% standards No opinion 3% 0% 4% 0% 11% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Porter 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Curtis Porter Overall Category Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Area Attorneys Total Jurors Attorneys Other Case Management 3.50 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.38 3.38 3.88 2.30 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.50 3.63 3.92 3.17 Diligence 3.50 3.52 3.73 2.92 Demeanor 3.52 3.47 4.00 2.55 Fairness N/A 3.49 3.83 2.85 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Porter 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 33 0 15 45% 33% Total Non- 462 115 35 10% 14% Attorneys Staff 11 0 8 73% 0% Jurors 37 2 13 37% 8% Other Non- 414 113 14 5% 29% Attorneys *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. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Porter 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Porter, 15 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 10 agreed they had worked with Judge Porter enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 10 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. 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 “County Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2017 administration, a total of 20,283 survey invitations were sent to 6,391 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2018. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3.2 judges. In total 3,983 surveys were completed with an additional 1,943 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 29% 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%. b. Methodology The 2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on August 8th, 2017. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2017 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on August 8th, 2017 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 August 10th, August 29th, and September 21st. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2017 beginning with a pre-notification letter sent on November 10th, 2017. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on November 20th, December 4th, and December 12th. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in February 2018. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2017. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on February 12th, followed up by email invitations sent on February 15th, and February 19th. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. 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 December 14th and followed by a reminder on January 10th, 2018. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Porter 5 ## Page 8 c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2016 administration with only minor changes to make the survey gender neutral. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Survey Attorney Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each categ ory by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Porter 6 ## Page 9 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Porter 7 ## Page 10 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Porter 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 3 0 1 2 3 4 3.5 Case Management Overall Average 3.39 3.67 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.55 3.56 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.38 3.33 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.39 3.44 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.34 Judge Porter All County Judges Table 5 Case Management Judge Curtis A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Porter Promptly issuing a decision on the 6 3 -- -- -- -- 9 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 6 2 1 -- -- -- 9 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 5 3 -- 1 -- -- 9 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 6 1 2 -- -- -- 9 cases *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Porter 8 ## Page 11 Application and Knowledge of Law Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Porter 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 0 1 2 3 4 3.38 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.16 3.44 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.24 3.33 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.10 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.17 are similar 3.15 3.33 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.11 3.44 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.11 Judge Porter All County Judges Table 6 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Curtis Porter A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Being able to identify and -- -- -- -- -- -- analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence -- -- -- -- -- -- and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3 1 2 -- -- 1 7 similar Being fair and impartial to both -- -- -- -- -- -- sides of the case Consistently applying laws and -- -- -- -- -- -- rules *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Porter 9 ## Page 12 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Porter 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 0 1 2 3 4 3.5 Communications Overall Average 3.38 3.56 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.46 3.5 Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned 3.30 Judge Porter All County Judges Table 7 Communications Judge Curtis Porter A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants 5 4 -- -- -- -- 9 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 5 2 1 -- -- 1 9 thorough and well reasoned *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Porter 10 ## Page 13 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Porter 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 6 0 1 2 3 4 3.52 Demeanor Overall Average 3.28 3.44 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.36 3.67 Treating participants with respect 3.30 3.44 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.18 Judge Porter All County Judges Table 8 Demeanor Judge Curtis Porter A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of 6 1 2 -- -- -- 9 dignity Treating participants with respect 6 3 -- -- -- -- 9 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 5 3 1 -- -- -- 9 neutral manner *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Porter 11 ## Page 14 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Porter 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 7 0 1 2 3 4 3.5 Diligence Overall Average 3.18 Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.22 rules 3.14 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.56 for cases 3.22 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.71 they are complicated and time consuming 3.23 Judge Porter All County Judges Table 9 Diligence Judge Curtis Porter A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Using good judgment in application of relevant 5 2 1 1 -- -- 9 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 6 2 1 -- -- -- 9 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 5 2 -- -- -- 2 9 consuming *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Porter 12 ## Page 15 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Porter meets judicial performance standards? Table 10 Judge Curtis Porter Yes, meets performance 100% standards No, does not meet 0% performance standards No opinion 0% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Porter 13 ## Page 16 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Curtis Porter, 35 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 30 agreed they had worked with Judge Porter enough to evaluate their performance. This report reflects these 30 responses. a. Response rates During the 2017 administration, 5,130 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 100,869 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 1,334 complete surveys have been received and an additional 569 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 30% and the completion rate is 70%. Among other non-attorneys, 2,824 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,549 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys was 6% and the completion rate was 74%. b. Methodology The 2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning August 17th, 2017 and ending on February 20th, 2018. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on December 5th and a reminder sent on December 13th. Other non-attorneys with court experiences in the first and second quarters of 2017 where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on August 17th informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. This was followed up with a second mailing that also included the information to access the survey online, as well as a full printed survey booklet and postage-paid return envelope. This second mailing was sent on September 18th, 2017. This process for other non-attorneys was repeated for those who had experience with judges during the third quarter of 2017. For this cycle the pre-notification letter was sent on November 14th, and the survey booklet on December 13th. For respondents with court experiences during the 4th quarter of 2017, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 29th, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 20th. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Porter 14 ## Page 17 In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey opened on August 20th, 2017 and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2018. During this period 54 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20th or for judges not standing for retention in 2018 were held over to be included in the 2019 evaluation cycle. The core questions of this survey matched the regular non-attorney survey with additional demographic questions to identify both the judge and the respondent leaving feedback. When leaving feedback, respondents were required to leave their name and contact information as well as pass a captcha verification check to prevent automated responses. During analysis, these responses were screened so that each respondent could only evaluate each judge or justice once during the cycle and to remove responses for those that provided false or incomplete contact information. c. Questions Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. Question Category Areas* Court Staff Other Non-attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each catego ry by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Porter 15 ## Page 18 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the respondent with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the meets performance standards question. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exception noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and allowed to leave open ended responses to each. 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. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Porter 16 ## Page 19 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 8 0 1 2 3 4 3.47 Demeanor Overall Average 3.56 3.52 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.61 3.5 Treating participants with respect 3.60 3.47 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.54 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.37 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.51 Judge Porter All County Judges Table 11 Demeanor Judge Curtis Porter A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 22 4 1 -- 2 -- 29 Treating participants with respect 23 4 -- 1 2 -- 30 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 22 4 2 -- 2 -- 30 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 21 4 2 1 2 -- 30 him/her *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Porter 17 ## Page 20 Fairness Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 9 0 1 2 3 4 3.49 Fairness Overall Average 3.56 3.57 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.59 3.47 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.53 3.43 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.54 3.5 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.59 Judge Porter All County Judges Table 12 Fairness Judge Curtis Porter A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving participants an 24 3 1 -- 2 -- 30 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 21 6 1 -- 2 -- 30 case without bias Treating fairly people who 20 4 2 -- 2 2 30 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 23 3 2 -- 2 -- 30 to present his or her case *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Porter 18 ## Page 21 Communications Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 10 0 1 2 3 4 3.63 Communications Overall Average 3.69 3.6 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.65 3.7 Using language that everyone can understand 3.70 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.6 what’s being said 3.72 Judge Porter All County Judges Table 13 Communications Judge Curtis Porter A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants understand the 22 6 1 -- 1 -- 30 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 25 3 1 -- 1 -- 30 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 23 4 2 -- 1 -- 30 hear what’s being said *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Porter 19 ## Page 22 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 11 0 1 2 3 4 3.52 Diligence Overall Average 3.59 3.4 Beginning court on time 3.53 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.59 for cases 3.64 3.67 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.67 3.52 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.60 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.43 wasted time 3.55 Judge Porter All County Judges Table 14 Diligence Judge Curtis Porter A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Beginning court on time 21 5 1 1 2 -- 30 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 24 2 1 -- 2 1 30 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 24 4 1 -- 1 -- 30 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 21 3 1 -- 2 3 30 Managing court proceedings so that there is 22 4 1 1 2 -- 30 little wasted time *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Porter 20 ## Page 23 Application of Law Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 12 0 1 2 3 4 3.38 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.52 3.39 Giving reasons for rulings 3.52 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.46 outside pressure 3.55 3.5 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.52 Judge Porter All County Judges Table 15 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Curtis Porter A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving reasons for rulings 21 3 1 -- 3 1 29 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 19 4 1 -- 2 3 29 pressure Being able to identify and 20 3 1 -- 2 3 29 analyze relevant facts *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Porter 21 ## Page 24 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Porter meets judicial performance standards? Table 16 Judge Curtis Porter Yes, meets performance 89% standards No, does not meet 7% performance standards No opinion 4% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Curtis Porter 22
Score cards render where the PDF extractor found numeric fields (partial is shown with “—” for missing tiles). “Read full survey text” surfaces the complete report transcription for every survey on file. Source PDFs on OJPE are always linked above for fidelity. Coverage note on Sources.
Sources
- 2026 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Aug 5, 2026
- 2022 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
- 2018 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026