You simply can’t rely on JPEC for judicial recommendations

If it weren’t so funny it would just be sad. Some status quo judicial advocates wrote an opinion piece in the Albuquerque Journal recently argued that the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission recently advocated for keeping ALL 35 judges evaluated. The opinion piece actually takes the Journal to task for arguing “discernment” in picking judges to retain (or not). You can read their editorial and recommendations here. 

But their arguments are dubious at best. One statement particularly caught our attention: “The Journal disregards sociological research and abundant other evidence that totally undermines the faulty premise that criminal court judges’ decisions have any meaningful impact on whether people commit crimes.”

Nobody has ever said that judges cause crime, but what is left unsaid is how judicial decisions can impact crime by either keeping crooks behind bars or letting them back on the streets. We had our own views on ONE judge (Cindy Leos). While we cited the JPEC in our analysis, they actually recommended retention despite numerous issues.

The opinion piece blindly supporting JPEC concludes with the following: “Asking (the Journal’s) readers to disregard the work of JPEC and substitute its own bias and unqualified opinion is irresponsible.” If voters’ opinions are to be ignored then why are they being asked to vote on judges in the first place? Do judges REALLY not have an impact on crime? How about reforming our judicial election system to allow judges to run for office the same way as other candidates for public office?