A bill that would make it easier for the public to see evaluation reports of the state’s judges is getting pushback from several members of the judiciary itself.
Three judges who serve on or have served in New Hampshire’s circuit and family courts told lawmakers Tuesday that releasing judicial reviews to the public would make it harder for judges to do their jobs and for the public to receive impartial treatment.
“We decide cases based on the law and facts before us and nothing else,” Circuit Court Administrative Judge Ellen Christo told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “If evaluations become public, there is a risk that judges could feel pressure to align their decisions with public opinion. Even the perception of that pressure is a problem.”
“This is a misguided attempt that will do more harm than good,” said Susan Carbon, a retired judge who still hears cases in Manchester Circuit Court.
The bill’s backers, who include Rep. Bob Lynn of Windham, a former chief justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and Lyn Schollett, executive director of the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, said the new requirements could improve judicial performance.
“I have seen the traumatizing harm that ineffective judges can have,” Schollett said, noting that a dozen states make judicial evaluations public by law, while others disclose them though state bar associations.
“There is a need for accountability,” Lynn said.
“Judges are the only people in the state system who are effectively appointed for life,” he added, emphasizing that the bill was developed in consultation with the state Supreme Court’s current chief justice, Gordon MacDonald.
But Judge David King, who retired as the circuit court’s administrative judge in 2024 but still hears cases, told lawmakers he believes the bill would have benefited from more input from rank-and-file judges.
“It’s interesting that the Supreme Court’s chief justice was consulted. Well, the circuit court was not consulted in the drafting of the bill, and they are the ones who are affected by it the most,” King said.
Under the bill, all judges — including part-time judges and retired judges who occasionally hear cases — would be evaluated at least every three years. Evaluations would include courtroom observations. Currently, judicial performance reviews remain confidential unless a judge receives two consecutive subpar evaluations.
The proposal comes at a time of tension between members of the state’s judicial branch and lawmakers. That includes recent court rulings in which judges have determined that the state is falling short on school funding obligations, and by judicial branch spending and management practices, some of which came up during the hearing.
“There is just a lot of stuff in the news lately,” said Sen. Bill Gannon, a Republican from Sandown. Gannon was alluding to the criminal conviction of now-retired Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi, and the controversial $50,000 payout to a judicial branch staffer last year, which Gannon called a “little shell game.”
“Just little things that the public perceives as not above board,” Gannon said.
