Jean E Dubofsky’s scientific contributions

Judicial performance review in Colorado is the most sophisti-cated method in the nation for providing information to voters in judicial retention elections. 1 Colorado has had a commission-based appointive system for judges––with the judges subject to periodic non-contested retention elections––for forty years. In the mid-1980s, some in Colorado thought that retention elections did not provide voters with enough information to hold judges accounta-ble, and they sought to return the selection of judges to contested partisan elections. The performance review concept was a re-sponse to the call for more public accountability. But public ac-countability in Colorado––advanced by a commission without partisan balance––may encroach on judicial independence. 2 This Article focuses on the role of judicial performance commis-sions that provide information to voters before non-contested re-tention elections for appointed judges. A performance commission might serve as a substitute for retention elections. But given the political climate in Colorado, where judges are subject to frequent public criticism, it is highly unlikely that retention elections, en-shrined in the state constitution, will be replaced with periodic commission review. Questions that this Article will address in-clude the following:legalinstitute/docs/jpe-final-report.pdf. 2. The 2006 training manual for the commissions on judicial performance de-clares that Colorado's judicial merit selection and evaluation system "helps ensure judicial independence" and "promote[s] the judiciary's accountability to the public." According to the manual, judicial independence "provides a check and balance on the political (the legislature and the executive) branches of government." STATE OF COL-ORADO, COMMISSIONS ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE: TRAINING 2006, at 6-7 (2006) [hereinafter TRAINING 2006].