A bill that would add elements to judicial performance evaluations for all state judges and make those evaluation reports public, cleared the New Hampshire House along party lines Thursday.
The bill’s backers, including Rep. Bob Lynn of Windham, former Chief Justice of New Hampshire Supreme Court, promoted the new requirements as a way to “invigorate” judicial performance, and said fully disclosing the reports is crucial.
“I have to emphasize this provision in the bill as well as the other provisions of the bill were adopted in consultation with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,” Lynn said
Under the bill, which was written with input from Supreme Court Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald, all judges – including part-time judges and retired judges who sometimes hear cases – would undergo evaluation at least every three years. Evaluations would include courtroom observations and analyses of how efficiently they process cases. Right now, judicial performance reviews remain confidential unless a judge receives two consecutive subpar evaluations.
The proposal comes at a time of tension between the judicial branch and lawmakers, spurred by recent court rulings finding the state isn’t meeting school funding obligations, and by judicial branch spending and management practices.
Democrats who criticized the new judicial evaluation bill say it goes too far and that the legislature should resist the urge to meddle in court operations.
“Many of us have been frustrated by recent activities coming out of the judicial branch – this is probably a bipartisan sentiment,” said Rep. Mark Paige of Exeter. “But to the extent that this bill appeals as a means to scratch your judicial frustration itch, consider other available remedies.”
Democrats also argued that making judicial reviews public could pose safety risks in an era of increased political violence including against judges.
“Publication would do real harm, inviting harassment of judges as violent threats against U.S judges have surged 327 percent since last year,” said Rep. Catherine Rombeau of Bedford, citing research from the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism.
But Republicans disputed such arguments, and said public reviews are also one of the few tools lawmakers have to make sure judges are performing their duties effectively.
“Judges are appointed once and serve until the age of 70,” said Rep. Ken Weyler of Kingston.
“All employees, including judges, benefit from constructive evaluation.”
