Utah Code § 78A-12-203 — Utah Code / Title 78A / Chapter 78A-12 / § 78A-12-203
§ 78A-12-203. Judicial performance evaluation.
Status: in_force

(1) The commission shall prepare a judicial performance evaluation for: (a) each judge in the third and fifth year of the judge's term if the judge is not a justice of the Supreme Court; and (b) each justice of the Utah Supreme Court in the third, seventh, and ninth year of the justice's term. (2) (a) Subject to Subsection (2)(b), the judicial performance evaluation for a judge under Subsection (1) shall consider only the following information: (i) the results of the judge's most recent judicial performance survey that is conducted by a third party as described in Section 78A-12-204; (ii) information concerning the judge's compliance with certification standards described in Section 78A-12-205; (iii) courtroom observation; (iv) the judge's judicial disciplinary record, if any; (v) public comment solicited by the commission; (vi) information from an earlier judicial performance evaluation concerning the judge; and (vii) any other factor that the commission: (A) considers relevant to evaluating the judge's performance for the purpose of a retention election; and (B) establishes by rule made in accordance with Title 63G, Chapter 3, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act. (b) The judicial performance evaluation for a judge under Subsection (1) shall give primary emphasis to the information that is gathered and relates to the performance of the judge during: (i) the period subsequent to the last judicial retention election of that judge; or (ii) the period applicable to the first judicial retention election if the judge has not had a judicial retention election. (3) The commission shall, in accordance with Title 63G, Chapter 3, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act, make rules concerning the conduct of courtroom observation under Subsection (2), including: (a) an indication of who may perform the courtroom observation; (b) a determination of whether the courtroom observation shall be made in person or may be made by electronic means; and (c) a list of principles and standards used to evaluate the behavior observed. (4) (a) As part of a judicial performance evaluation conducted under this section, the commission shall: (i) determine, by a vote of at least six members, that the judge meets or exceeds minimum performance standards; (ii) determine, by a vote of at least six members, that the judge does not meet or exceed minimum performance standards; (iii) determine, by a majority vote, that the information concerning the judge is insufficient to make a determination described in Subsection (4)(a)(i) or (ii); or (iv) fail to make a determination described in Subsection (4)(a)(i), (ii), or (iii) by the number of votes required for one of those determinations. (b) (i) If a judge meets the certification standards established in accordance with Section 78A-12-205, there is a rebuttable presumption that the judge meets or exceeds minimum performance standards. (ii) If a judge fails to meet the certification standards established in accordance with Section 78A-12-205, there is a rebuttable presumption that the judge does not meet or exceed minimum performance standards. (c) If the commission deviates from a presumption described in Subsection (4)(b), the commission shall provide a detailed explanation of the reason for that deviation in the commission's report under Section 78A-12-206. (d) If the commission makes the determination described in Subsection (4)(a)(iii) or fails to make a determination described in Subsection (4)(a)(i), (ii), or (iii) by the number of votes required for those determinations, the commission shall note that fact in the commission's report. (5) (a) If a judge is the subject of a performance evaluation and has not passed one or more of the certification standards for that performance evaluation, the commission shall grant the judge time to appear and speak at a commission meeting during which the judge's performance evaluation will be considered. (b) The commission may invite any judge to appear before the commission to discuss concerns about the judge's judicial performance. (6) (a) If the Utah Supreme Court issues a public sanction of a judge after the commission makes or fails to make a determination described in Subsection (4), but before the publication of the voter information pamphlet in accordance with Section 20A-7-702, the commission may elect to reconsider the commission's action. (b) The commission shall invite the judge described in Subsection (6)(a) to appear before the commission during a closed meeting for the purpose of reconsidering the commission's action. (c) The judge described in Subsection (6)(a) may provide a written statement, not to exceed 100 words, that shall be included in the judge's judicial performance evaluation report. (d) The commission shall include in the judge's judicial performance evaluation report: (i) the date of the reconsideration; (ii) any change in the action of the commission; and (iii) a brief statement explaining the reconsideration. (e) The commission shall: (i) submit revisions to the judge's judicial performance evaluation report to the lieutenant governor by no later than August 31 of a regular general election year for publication in the voter information pamphlet; and (ii) publish the revisions on the commission's website, and through any other means the commission considers appropriate and within budgetary constraints. (7) (a) The commission shall compile a midterm report of the commission's judicial performance evaluation of a judge. (b) The midterm report of a judicial performance evaluation shall include information that the commission considers appropriate for purposes of judicial self-improvement. (c) (i) The report shall be provided to the evaluated judge, the presiding judge of the district in which the evaluated judge serves, and the Judicial Council. (ii) If the evaluated judge is the presiding judge, the midterm report shall be provided to the chair of the board of judges for the court level on which the evaluated judge serves. (d) (i) The commission may provide a partial midterm evaluation to a judge whose appointment date precludes the collection of complete midterm evaluation data. (ii) For a newly appointed judge, a midterm evaluation is considered partial when the midterm evaluation is missing a respondent group, including attorneys, court staff, court room observers, or intercept survey respondents. (iii) A judge who receives partial midterm evaluation data may receive a statement in acknowledgment of that fact on the judge's voter information pamphlet page. (iv) On or before the beginning of the retention evaluation cycle, the commission shall inform the Judicial Council of the name of any judge who receives a partial midterm evaluation. (8) The commission shall identify a judge whose midterm evaluation: (a) fails to meet certification standards in accordance with Section 78A-12-205 or as established by rule; or (b) otherwise demonstrates to the commission that the judge's performance would be of such concern if the performance occurred in a retention evaluation that the judge would be invited to appear before the commission in accordance with Subsection (5)(b). (9) The commission may make rules in accordance with Title 63G, Chapter 3, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act, as necessary to administer the evaluation required by this section.