← All judges

Ted C. Tow III

Court of Appeals

Meets Standards2 cycles on record

Evaluation history

  • 2020 retention cycle
    Court of Appeals
    Commission vote: 11 for · 0 against
    Meets Standards
    VotersRetained· 70.8% yes
    1,874,419 yes · 773,366 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 2020 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2020 Retention Survey Report The State Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Judge Ted C. Tow III MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, by a vote of 11-0.  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. Judge Tow has been on the Colorado Court of Appeals for just over two years and this is his first retention evaluation as a court of appeals judge.  Judge Tow issues opinions in a timely manner.  The Commission finds his opinions to be concise, well organized, logical, and understandable to the general public.  Judge Tow skillfully applies case law in his decisions.  The Commission does urge him to remain mindful of the mechanical aspects of writing and to engage in a robust editing process.  At oral argument, Judge Tow displays an appropriate demeanor, uses self-deprecating humor, and asks insightful and succinct questions.  The Commission believes that Judge Tow is a valuable addition to the Colorado Court of Appeals. To conduct our evaluation, the Commission interviewed Judge Tow, reviewed his self-evaluation, observed oral arguments, read a selection of his legal opinions, and considered survey responses from attorneys and judges.  One survey question asked whether Judge Tow met judicial performance standards.  Of the attorneys who responded to that question, 66% answered yes, 31% answered no, and 3% had no opinion.  Of the judges who responded to that question, 96% answered yes and 4% expressed no opinion.  A total of 31 attorneys and 63 judges responded to the survey.
  • 2014 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Adams · Adams
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    VotersRetained· 63.6% yes
    79,372 yes · 45,502 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 2014 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2014 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2013 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Seventeenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Ted C. Tow III BE RETAINED. Judge Ted C. Tow III received his Bachelor of Arts from the University of Kansas, attended Wayne State University Law School, practiced law in Chicago and Denver, and was named District Director for the Colorado District Attorneys’ Council prior to being appointed to the District Court in the fall of 2010.  During the past term Judge Tow’s case load consisted of 100% domestic relations.  He is now assigned to the Court’s civil docket as a result of the District’s biennial assignment rotation. The evaluation used by the Commission included a review of Judge Tow’s survey results, courtroom observations by Commissioners, legal opinions authored by Judge Tow, his self-evaluation and a personal interview with the Commission.  Surveys distributed to both attorneys and non-attorneys associated with cases assigned to Judge Tow provided broad statistics in assessing his effectiveness.  Judge Tow received a strong approval rating by those with whom he has interacted in his courtroom.  Judge Tow’s ratings from attorneys are higher than the state-wide average for all District Court judges standing for retention in 2014.  Of attorneys responding to the survey, 90% recommended to retain, 8% not to retain, and 1% made no recommendation regarding retention.  Of non-attorneys responding to the survey, 57% recommended to retain, 31% not to retain, and 12% made no recommendation regarding retention. (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding).   However, because of the small sample size of non-attorney respondents (44 total), the Commission believes it is appropriate to moderately discount the significance of those survey results.  The Commission also notes that the non-attorney survey results were comparatively low in large measure because of Judge Tow’ domestic relations docket. Judges with exclusive domestic relations dockets typically receives lower ratings from non-attorney participants than other kinds of court dockets. Judge Tow indicated that a prevailing premise in his courtroom is to treat everyone with respect, fairness and dignity, to guarantee that everyone is treated equally under the law.  Judge Tow noted that during his handling of domestic relations cases, he did his utmost to advance the best interests of the children involved in those cases.  In addition, Judge Tow instituted an effective system of telephone conferences with counsel to handle routine or short-notice matters, thereby avoiding scheduling delays.  The Commission notes that at the last check of Judge Tow’s caseload, he had no cases that remained open past the State’s benchmark period.  Based on its review, the Commission unanimously recommends that Judge Ted C. Tow III BE RETAINED.

Surveys & reports

  • 2020 cycle
    • 2020 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Ted C. Tow, III 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report Appellate 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 General Evaluation Questions . 7 Appellate Writing . 8 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney . 10 Methodology and How to Read Results . 10 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology – Inter Judge Evaluations . 12 Methodology and How to Read Results . 12 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 14 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Tow, 32 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 32 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 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Tow Judge Tow Overall Grade 3.4 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ted C. Tow, III 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 96% 80% 66% 60% 40% 31% 20% 3% 4% 0% 0% Judge Tow Judge Tow Attorneys Judges Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Judges Yes, meets performance 66% 96% standards No, does not meet 31% 0% performance standards No opinion 3% 4% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ted C. Tow, III 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 General 3.1 Writing 2.8 Inter-Judge Evaluation 3.6 Judge Tow Judge Tow General 3.1 Writing 2.8 Inter-Judge Evaluation 3.6 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ted C. Tow, III 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 101 32% 31% 31 Judges 63 29% - - In addition to the responses above, Judge Tow received 0 responses via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ted C. Tow, III 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report General Evaluation Questions 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Tow Overall 3.1 Judge Tow Overall Number of Responses Being fair and impartial toward each side of 2.9 31 the case Allowing parties to present their arguments 3.1 31 and answer questions Treating parties equally regardless of race, 3.3 27 sex, or economic status Being courteous toward attorneys 3.0 31 Not engaging in ex parte communications 3.9 19 Being prepared for oral argument 3.4 27 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ted C. Tow, III 7 ## Page 8 Appellate Writing 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Tow Overall 2.8 Number of Judge Tow Overall Responses Writing opinions that are clear 3 22 Writing opinions that adequately explain the 2.9 23 basis of the Court's decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.4 25 Making decisions without regard to possible 2.9 27 criticism Making reasoned decisions based upon the 2.6 29 law and facts Refraining from reaching issues that need 2.5 26 not be decided 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ted C. Tow, III 8 ## Page 9 Inter-Judge Survey Questions 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Tow Overall 3.6 Judge Number of Tow Responses Overall Writing opinions that are clear 3.6 53 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 3.5 53 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.7 48 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.6 49 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts 3.5 53 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided 3.4 51 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.6 51 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or economic status 3.7 48 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ted C. Tow, III 9 ## Page 10 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Tow, 32 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 32responses. The survey results are divided into five sections: Performance, General Evaluation, Appellate Writing, Strengths and Weaknesses a. Response rates During the 2020 administration, a total of 57,819 survey invitations were sent to 9,958 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving retention reports in 2020. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 5.8 judges. In total 10,433 surveys were completed with an additional 6,536 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 18% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 29%. b. Methodology The 2020 attorney survey was conducted in 3 cycles online beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2019 were sent a series of email invitations beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Reminders were sent on September 24th and October 9th, 2019. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2019 with email invitations sent beginning November 25th, 2019. Reminders were sent on December 4th and December 11th, 2019. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020. This cycle included email invitations sent on January 29th, 2020. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2020. A final email informing respondents of the cycle closing was sent on February 18th, 2020. invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. c. Questions In the core of the survey, appellate judges were rated on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2019 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. 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. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ted C. Tow, III 10 ## Page 11 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 question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ted C. Tow, III 11 ## Page 12 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology – Inter Judge Evaluations Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates This portion of data collection consisted of two parts. The first involved district judges being invited to evaluate the appellate judges and justices receiving retention reports in 2020. All 190 district judges were invited via email to evaluate each of the 4 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges receiving retention reports for a total of 760 invitations sent. A total of 250 responses were received for a response rate of 33%. The second phase of data collection was the inter-appellate evaluation where appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate their peers receiving retention reports in 2020. Appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate all 5 of their peers receiving reports with the exception that no judge was invited to evaluate themselves for a total of 116 survey invitations sent. A total of [NUMRESP] responses were received for a response rate of [RR}. b. Methodology The evaluation of appellate judges and justices by district judges was conducted online using the Voxco research suite. Invitations were sent to district judges via email on January 27th, 2020. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 20th, 2020. The inter-appellate evaluation was also conducted online using online using the Voxco research suite. A single email invitation was sent on January 28th, 2020. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 20th, 2020. c. Questions In the core of the survey, appellate judges were rated on 8 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2019 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ted C. Tow, III 12 ## Page 13 Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ted C. Tow, III 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 313 101 0 31 31% Judges 217 63 0 63 29% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they had sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ted C. Tow, III 14
  • 2014 cycle
    • 2013 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Structured scores pending

      Full numeric extraction isn’t complete for this cycle’s layout yet. Open the source PDF above for the underlying data.

    • 2014 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.

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