Judging the Judges

The Review-Journal this week reported the results of its biennial Judging the Judges survey. The performance review is based on the feedback of Clark County attorneys, who rate the judges they practice in front of.

The survey -- the 10th conducted by the Review-Journal -- is an election-year service to voters, who have access to little other information on judicial races. But it's also a constructive evaluation of sitting judges, who can use the anonymous responses of attorneys to help them improve their shortcomings -- and improve their future survey scores -- prior to running for re-election.

The most important component of the survey asks attorneys whether a judge should be retained by voters. Excellent judges will receive such a recommendation from 80 percent or more of attorneys. The valley's worst judges will receive a retention score of 50 percent or worse.

The survey holds some sway in state elections. Judges who receive high ratings typically will draw no opposition when they run for re-election. Judges who receive low ratings will draw challengers, or, in some cases, not seek re-election at all.

Next month's primary ballot features seven District Court races, with no candidates running unopposed, eight Family Court races (four unopposed) and nine Las Vegas Justice Court campaigns (four unopposed). Many of these races are for new judgeships, so the candidates won't appear in the Review-Journal's evaluations. And of the survey's 10 lowest rated judges, none is on the ballot in 2010.

Regardless, if you plan to vote in June's primary and November's general election, set the survey aside to use in marking your sample ballot (or visit reviewjournal.com). Coupled with the Review-Journal's forthcoming election guides, they are indispensable tools in casting an informed vote.