Home Table of Contents

Rule 2. Commission on Judicial Performance Review

Arizona Revised Statutes AnnotatedRules of Procedure for Judicial Performance Review in the State of Arizona

Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated
Rules of Procedure for Judicial Performance Review in the State of Arizona (Refs & Annos)
17C A.R.S. Rules of Proc. for Jud. Perf. Review, Rule 2
Rule 2. Commission on Judicial Performance Review
A system of periodic review of the performance of each judge and justice subject to retention shall be administered by the Commission on Judicial Performance Review. The activities and operations of the Commission shall be governed by the following provisions:
(a) Composition of the Commission. The Commission shall be composed of not more than 34 members appointed by the Supreme Court. The Commission shall be composed of members of the public, attorneys, and judges. The majority of the members of the Commission shall be members of the public who are not attorneys or judges, and there shall be no more than 7 judges and 6 attorneys on the Commission.
(b) Chairperson. The Chief Justice of Arizona shall select either an attorney member or a public member as the Chairperson of the Commission. The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the Commission. The Chairperson shall select either an attorney member or a public member as Vice Chairperson. If the Chairperson is an attorney member, the Vice Chairperson must be a public member. The Vice Chairperson shall preside at all meetings in the Chairperson's absence.
(c) Terms. Each member of the Commission shall serve for a term of four years and be eligible for reappointment. In the case of a vacancy which occurs before expiration of a term, the member appointed to fill such vacancy shall serve for the duration of the unexpired term.
(d) Meetings; Quorum; Majority. The Commission shall meet at the call of the Chairperson not less than two times each year and shall conduct no business except upon the attendance of a quorum of the commission members. A quorum is constituted by 1/2 + 1 of the total Commission membership in office at the time of the meeting and eligible to vote. Members shall be permitted to attend and participate in meetings by telephone or video-conference. All meetings shall be open to the public except as provided in paragraph (e) below. Except as otherwise provided by these rules and Rule 6(e)(3), all actions shall require a majority vote of 1/2 + 1 of those present and eligible to vote.
(e) Executive Session. The Commission shall meet in executive session with respect to any agenda item which would involve disclosure of matters made confidential by these rules, any other court rules, or by law. In addition, in order to promote open and frank discussion and accuracy in the performance evaluation process, the Commission shall meet in executive session at the time of: (1) discussion (not including voting) of the Commission's finding as to whether a judge or justice “meets” or “does not meet” judicial performance standards; (2) presentation and discussion of a judge's or justice's written comment submitted in response to a finding that the judge or justice “does not meet” judicial performance standards; and (3) a judge's or justice's appearance before the Commission, provided, however, that an executive session in which a judge or justice appears shall be held prior to the public vote meeting. The Commission may meet in executive session at any other time upon a majority vote of the Commission members then in attendance. The substance of deliberations in executive session shall not be disclosed. All voting shall be in public session.
(f) Membership on Conference Teams. Any member of the Commission may be a member of a Conference Team as described in Rule 4 below.
(g) Powers and Duties of the Commission. The powers and duties of the Commission shall be as follows subject to approval by the Supreme Court:
(1)(a) To develop, review and recommend amendments on written performance standards, to be approved by the Supreme Court and made available to the public, by which judicial performance is to be evaluated; (b) to formulate policies and procedures for collecting information and conducting reviews; and (c) to create and supervise a program of periodic review of the performance of each judge and justice who is subject to the merit selection system. The Commission shall directly review the performance of justices of the Supreme Court, judges of the Court of Appeals, and judges of the Superior Court subject to retention. Before retention elections, the Commission shall publicly announce whether each judge or justice standing for retention “meets” or “does not meet” judicial performance standards, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6 below.
(2) To identify key areas where improvement is needed and work with the Committee on Judicial Education and Training to prioritize areas and offer required courses to meet educational needs.
(3) To request public comment and hold public hearings on the performance of all judges and justices subject to retention at announced times prior to the public vote meeting. Public comment by anyone other than a member of the Commission regarding a judge or justice under review shall be prohibited at the public vote meeting.
(h) Minutes/Correspondence. The Chairperson shall assure that minutes are kept and approved at each subsequent meeting. Minutes of meetings of the Commission shall be made available to the public. Either the Chairperson or Vice Chairperson at the direction of the chairperson shall sign all correspondence for the Commission.
(i) Spokesperson. The Chairperson of the Commission may select a member of the Commission to serve as a spokesperson to speak for the Commission in any of its contacts with the media concerning actions it has taken regarding reviewed judges or justices.
(j) Failure to Attend Meetings. Any member who fails to attend fifty per cent (50%) of the scheduled meetings during a calendar year may be removed from the Commission on recommendation of the Chairperson at the discretion of the Chief Justice.

Credits

Promulgated on an emergency basis effective May 26, 1993, adopted in final form July 8, 1993. Amended Feb. 27, 1996, effective Feb. 9, 1996; Oct. 6, 1997, effective Dec. 1, 1997; Jan. 26, 2004, effective June 1, 2004. Amended and effective April 27, 2004. Amended April 27, 2004, effective June 1, 2004; Jan. 20, 2006, effective June 1, 2006; Aug. 27, 2015, effective Jan. 1, 2016.

Editors' Notes

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
[Adopted Effective January 26, 1994. Amended Effective December 1, 1998]
Introduction
Once judges take the bench, the public expects them to be good judges. The Commission on Judicial Performance Review has the duty of providing meaningful and accurate information to the public for its use in reaching decisions regarding retention. Thus, a carefully designed method of disseminating clear and accurate information about each judge to the voting public is needed. As an initial step, a workable description of trial and appellate judge standards must be considered when reviewing a judge's performance.
Performance Standards for Trial and Appellate Judges
The judge shall administer justice fairly, ethically, uniformly, promptly, and efficiently. The judge shall be free from personal bias in decision making, shall decide cases based on proper application of law and procedure to the facts, and shall issue prompt, clear rulings and decisions that demonstrate competent legal analysis. The judge shall act with dignity, courtesy, and patience. The judge shall effectively manage the courtroom and discharge the administrative responsibilities of the office.
Factors to be Considered by the Commission on Judicial Performance Review
The Commission on Judicial Performance Review shall carefully consider:
(1) statistical reports of the survey results;
(2) comments from public hearings, Rule 6 (d);
(3) written comments from the public, Rule 6 (d);
(4) written or oral comment to the Commission submitted by the judge or justice being reviewed, Rule 6 (e);
(5) its own factual report relating to a judge or justice, Rule 6 (e);
(6) the information obtained from the Commission on Judicial Conduct;
(7) the assignment of the judge (civil, criminal, domestic relations, juvenile, administrative, probate, special assignment, etc.); and
(8) a comparison of the judge's scores with the mean scores of all judges or justices reviewed, Rule 6 (e).
17C A. R. S. Rules of Proc. for Jud. Perf. Review, Rule 2, AZ ST J PERF REVIEW Rule 2
Current with amendments received through 08/15/19
End of Document© 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.