The judiciary has the power and duty to hear cases challenging the actions of the other two branches. This natural tension arising from our system of checks and balances expects the courts to serve as an independent and impartial branch of government. At the same time, our democratic system requires some degree of citizen oversight and accountability from all branches of government. Judicial performance evaluation programs are one way to strike a balance between independence and accountability and to improve the sitting judiciary. States with such programs collect and analyze information about the judges’ on-the-bench performance and make recommendations about judges to the voters. This is seen as a better tool over bar association polls of attorneys that may inappropriately place judges in a competitive order of preference or that may suffer from biases, sensationalism, hearsay, or a lack of survey methodology that ensures reliable results.
The American Bar Association (ABA) approved guidelines for judicial performance evaluation in 1985. The purpose of the guidelines is the development of programs whose primary goal is the self-improvement of individual judges and the judiciary as a whole. Emphasis is also placed on implementing programs that do not infringe on judicial independence. The guidelines provide a road map for structuring programs by discussing planning issues and offering guiding principles.
