Current Judicial Evaluation Ratings
The following are the LMBA judicial evaluations for the 2007-2008
year. The LMBA judicial evaluations shall be valid for a period of three
years.
LMBA Ratings Criteria
- SPECIFIC PROCEDURES FOR
RATING CANDIDATES IN CONTESTED
ELECTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
- All ratings shall be
based solely upon the merits
of a candidate which, if
available, may include a
candidate’s questionnaire,
resume, reference checks,
committee member
evaluations, and
demonstrated sensitivity to
the concerns of the
Black/minority committee.
- The Committee shall rate
applicants as follows:
- Exceptionally Well
Qualified
- Well Qualified
- Qualified
- Adequate
- Not Qualified
- Insufficient
Information to Rate
- Not Rated
- Definitions or rating
categories:
- A candidate may be
rated “Exceptionally
Well Qualified” if
he/she has consistently
demonstrated outstanding
accomplishment in
his/her professional
and/or judicial career,
singular accomplishments
in professional practice
and excellence in all of
the criteria which
support a “Well
Qualified” rating;
- A candidate may be
rated “Well Qualified”
if he/she has
demonstrated a level of
skill, experience, sound
judgment and excellence
in his/her professional
and/or judicial career
which will sustain or
improve the quality of
the judiciary. These
qualifications are
exemplified by the
following:
- Demonstrated
sensitivity to civil
rights issues and
issues affecting
Black and other
minority
communities;
- Experience in
trial and appellate
court cases and/or
administrative
procedures;
- The potential
for continued
professional
development and
leadership on the
bench;
- Maturity,
integrity and
courtesy;
- The courage and
ability to make
difficult decisions
under stress;
- Intellectual
honesty and courage;
- Distinction in
academic or
professional
achievements;
- Involvement in
community affairs
and activities;
- Fairness,
open-mindedness and
commitment to equal
justice under the
law; and
- Energy and
capacity for hard
work.
- A candidate may be
rated “Qualified” if
he/she has demonstrated
a majority of the ten
(10) characteristics of
a “Well Qualified”
candidate. No candidate
shall be considered
“Qualified” if he/she
fails to meet the
criterion of
Subparagraph VIII(C)(2)(a)
above.
- A candidate shall be
rated “Adequate” if
he/she satisfied the
basic criteria to a
degree sufficient to
consider him/her
minimally qualified for
the judicial position
sought.
- A candidate shall
receive a rating of “Not
Qualified” if he/she has
not demonstrated
qualifications
sufficient to receive a
rating of Adequate.
- A candidate shall be
placed in a category of
“Insufficient
Information To Rate”
only if the Committee
determines that there is
insufficient
information.
- A candidate shall be
placed in a category of
“Not Rated” if the
candidate declines to
appear or to submit
information necessary
for the Committee’s
deliberation.
|
|
|
VotingforJudges.org, P.O. Box 1460, Silverdale, WA
98383
Write to
[email protected].
As the election approaches, Votingforjudges.org will include ratings and endorsements from
numerous organizations. We provide this information so that voters will be
better informed about the candidates. We do not rate or endorse any candidates;
the ratings and endorsements of organizations included at this site reflect the
views of those individual organizations and not necessarily the views of votingforjudges.org or its sponsors.
|
|