For several years, The Jacksonville Bar Association has conducted a poll of its members regarding the local state and federal court judiciary. Last year, due to some scheduling issues, no judicial poll was conducted. Very few members of the Association (or the general public) seemed to notice the absence of the poll. For that reason, and other reasons that I will discuss, our Board of Governors is considering whether we should continue to conduct future judicial polls.
The stated purposes of the judicial poll are to provide candid evaluations and constructive comments to our judges and to be an aid to the public in the selection (by election or appointment) and retention of a qualified judiciary. The judicial poll is sent to all members of The Jacksonville Bar Association. The lawyers are asked to rate the individual judges in several areas, including “Diligence and Case Management,” “Knowledge of the Law” and “Judicial Demeanor.” The ratings are on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being “Excellent” and 1 being “Poor.”
The instructions for the poll provide that a lawyer may not rate a particular judge unless that lawyer has appeared before the judge at least once in the previous twelve months. The instructions further provide that the failure to provide written comments in connection with a rating of a 1 or 2, or the submission of written comments that cannot be reasonably construed as constructive, will result in that entire ballot being stricken. Lawyers are also encouraged to include any positive comments regarding the judges, where appropriate.
The ballots are anonymous. An outside data processing firm tabulates the results of the poll. After the results are tabulated, the Association furnishes them (together with the written comments) to the judiciary. The results are also furnished to local media so that they may be made available to the public.
There are several challenges in ensuring that the results of the poll are accurate and fair. There is no practical means of verifying that a lawyer has actually appeared before each of the judges that the lawyer has rated. Each year we receive many ballots on which lawyers have rated all of the state and federal judges. Whether this is the result of the failure to read the instructions, or the intentional failure to follow the instructions, it is highly unlikely that any lawyer has appeared before every judge in a twelve-month period. In addition, even if the lawyer has appeared before a particular judge within the last twelve months, it is impossible to know whether the ratings provided are (consciously or unconsciously) based on experiences that occurred more than 12 months ago, the judge’s “reputation” or other factors that should not be considered in the poll.
Several members of the judiciary have expressed concerns about the poll. Some believe that many of the comments that accompany the ballots are more in the nature of unwarranted attacks rather than constructive feedback. In addition, some have been concerned that ratings or portions of the ratings can be taken out of appropriate context for use in a judicial election. These feelings can undermine the positive relationship between the bench and the bar that the poll is intended to promote.
I believe that the negatives of the judicial poll far outweigh the positives. Although the poll does have the potential to provide constructive criticism to the members of the judiciary and useful information to the public, that potential is greatly diminished by the inherent inaccuracies of the poll. In addition, the cost of conducting the poll is in the neighborhood of $5,000 — not an inconsequential sum for an Association such as ours. Based upon the foregoing, I believe that we should not continue to have a judicial poll. There are certainly past and present members of our Board of Governors who favor having a judicial poll. It is interesting to note that a recent article in an American Bar Association publication indicates that other bar associations around the country are considering discontinuing their evaluations of judges in connection with judicial elections.
We want to know what you, our members, think about the judicial poll. I encourage you to send us your written thoughts and comments on whether we should continue to have a judicial poll. Please write to me at Bill Joel, c/o The Jacksonville Bar Association, 1301 Riverplace Blvd., Suite 730, Jacksonville, FL 32207, or e-mail me at [email protected].