Rule 5 - Judicial Performance Review Process(a) Judicial Performance Standards. The Commission must evaluate judicial performance according to the following standards: (1) command of relevant substantive law and procedural rules;(3) clarity of oral and written communications;(4) judicial temperament and professionalism upholding public confidence in the legal system and demonstrating appropriate respect for everyone; and(5) possession of the administrative and management skills and work ethic necessary to be productive and efficient.(b) Tools for Evaluating Performance.(1)Surveys.(A) Purpose. The Commission must conduct periodic surveys of those with knowledge of a judge's performance to elicit information about whether a judge meets the judicial performance standards in (a).(B) Survey Periods and Public Vote; Superior Court Judges. (i) A "mid-term survey" is conducted from February through May of odd-numbered years for judges who were retained at the preceding regular general election.(ii) A "retention election survey" is conducted from February through May of odd-numbered years for judges eligible for retention at the next regular general election who will be the subject of the Commission's election-year meeting under Rule 6.(iii) A "special survey" is conducted from August through November of odd-numbered years for judges appointed from July through the general election date of the preceding even-numbered year and the subject of the Commission's election-year meeting under Rule 6.(iv) In its discretion, the Commission may extend the length of any survey period.(C) Survey Periods and Public Vote; Appellate Judges. Appellate judges are surveyed on a continuing basis but are the subject of the Commission's electionyear meeting only in the even-numbered year in which the appellate judge is eligible for retention. The Commission may review only those surveys that are applicable to the judge's current term.(D) Respondents. The Commission may exercise its discretion as to the method and frequency of survey distribution, but it must conduct periodic surveys of those with knowledge of a judge's performance including, as applicable:(i) attorneys who appear before the judge for any argument or proceeding, whether in person or by means of a telecommunication system or remote connection, during the survey period; file a motion, request, response, or reply on any issue that is fully briefed during the 60-day period before the survey period begins; receive a minute entry, ruling, order, opinion, or other communication issued by the judge in any proceeding or matter taken under advisement during the survey period; or receive a minute entry, ruling, order, or other communication issued by the judge during the survey period;(ii) jurors, except that jurors are surveyed year-round;(iii) parties, including criminal defendants;(v) victims in criminal cases who have appeared before the judge being surveyed during the survey period;(vi) court employees, including clerks and the judge's staff, who have been in direct contact with the judge being surveyed during the survey period; and(vii) other judicial officers as provided in (b)(1)(E); and(viii) other persons who have been in direct contact with the judge being surveyed during the survey period, regardless of the form of that contact, and who have first-hand knowledge of the judge's judicial performance during the survey period.(E)Judicial Officer Respondents. (i) As the Commission deems appropriate, the Commission must provide for survey evaluation of superior court judges by commissioners, full-time judges pro tempore, other superior court judges, and appellate judges who participated in deciding any appellate matter heard and decided by the superior court judge. In determining other judicial officers to survey, the Commission should consider the size and structure of the superior court of the county in which the judge serves and any department or calendar to which the judge is assigned.(ii) As the Commission deems appropriate, the Commission must provide for survey evaluation of appellate judges by other appellate judges on the same bench; appellate judges who participated in judicial review of the appellate judge's written opinion; and appellate or superior court judges whose written, opinions, decisions, or orders were the subject of an appellate matter decided by the appellate judge being reviewed.(F) Development. The Commission must supervise the preparation and evaluation of survey instruments developed according to the best practices in survey design and administration in the area of performance evaluations.(G) Narrative Comments. To the extent the survey allows anonymous respondents to include narrative comments:(i) the narrative comments must be extracted, and redacted as necessary to preserve anonymity, before being provided to the judge, the judge's Conference Team, presiding judge or chief judge, or the Chief Justice;(ii) narrative comments, extracted and redacted under (i), may be provided to the Administrative Office of the Courts for use in development of judicial education programs; and(iii) narrative comments, even if extracted and redacted under (i), must remain confidential and not disclosed except as provided under (i) and (ii). (2)Public Comments. The Commission must consider oral and written comments received during the relevant survey period under Rule 4(b)(1) and Rule 4(e).(3)Disciplinary Record. The Commission must obtain information from the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct about whether discipline has been imposed on any judge being reviewed. If discipline has been imposed on any judge being reviewed, the Commission must obtain and review the judge's disciplinary file to the extent allowed by the rules of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct.(4)Video and Audio Recordings of Courtroom Proceedings. If the Commission or a Commission member expresses concern about a judge's demeanor, the Commission or Commission member should review a representative sample of video and audio recordings of courtroom proceedings during the judge's current term. The judge also may request such a review in these circumstances.(5)Other Evaluation Tools. To obtain additional, reliable information about whether a judge who is invited to the executive session under Rule 4(b)(2) meets the performance standards for retention, the Commission may consider the following: (A) courtroom observation, including review of video and audio recordings;(B) the number of notices of change of judge;(C) review of written opinions or orders; or(D) case management statistics.(c) Data Report. In April of each statewide general election year:(1)Preparation. The Commission must prepare a data report on each judge being reviewed consisting of compiled survey data (excluding data from surveys of court employees), any narrative comments extracted and redacted under Rule 5(b)(1)(G); any public and written comments received under Rule 5(b)(2); any disciplinary information received under Rule 5(b)(3); and any information obtained under Rule 5(b)(4) using the other evaluation tools.(2)Dissemination. (A) The data report is confidential but must be provided to: (i) to the judge being reviewed, the judge's presiding judge or chief judge, and the Chief Justice; and(ii) to the Commission members but only after encoding the report by a number randomly assigned to the judge.(B) Unless good reason exists for not doing so, the Commission must disclose the compiled survey data under Rule 7(b)(2)(A)(i).Ariz. R. P. Jud. Perfor. Rev. 5
Adopted Aug. 24, 2023, effective 10/1/2023.