Home > Part One Table of Contents > Part Two Propositions Table of Contents > Part Three, Judges on the Ballot, Judicial Performance Review

Skip to any navigation link on this page to learn more about a judge's review. Judges are separated on ballots by county.

Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review (JPR)

JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS

Skip to Who Judges the Judges (about this section)

Statewide Arizona Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal

Skip to Judges Summary - Appellate Courts

Skip to Judges Details - Appellate Courts

Trial Courts by County

Pinal County
Skip to Judges Summary - Pinal County Superior Court

Skip to Judges Details - Pinal County Superior Court

Pima County
Skip to Judges Summary - Pima County Superior Court

Skip to Judges Details - Pima County Superior Court

Maricopa County
Skip to Judges Summary - Maricopa County Superior Court

Skip to Judges Details - Maricopa County Superior Court

Do not want to listen to this section? Skip back to Main Menu for this Guide

JPR Voter Checklist

WHO JUDGES THE JUDGES?  YOU DO!  WE CAN HELP.
Voters! Finish the Ballot! 
Use the following summary and report by the Commission on Judicial Performance Review (JPR) to Finish the Ballot! The JPR Commission was established by voters to evaluate judges’ performance during retention elections. While judges initially are appointed, this report can help you decide whether these judges meet judicial performance standards and should be retained. Which judges appear on your ballot depends on your county and the court on which the judge serves. By using this report to finish your ballot, you will help ensure Arizona’s strong and impartial judiciary!

Some Arizona judges are appointed through Merit Selection and rated by the JPR Commission.
Merit Selection and Retention
In 1974, Arizona voters decided that for Arizona’s Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, and Superior Courts in counties with populations over 250,000 (currently Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal) judges would be appointed by the Governor from a list of qualified candidates.  The Arizona Constitution directs commissions to nominate candidates based primarily on their merit, with consideration given to the diversity of Arizona’s population. Arizona voters then periodically vote whether to retain these judges as their terms expire. This system is known as Merit Selection and Retention.

JPR Commission Evaluations & Report 
Created by a constitutional amendment, the 30-member JPR Commission conducts standards-based performance evaluations of judges. Most of the JPR Commissioners are public members, not lawyers or judges. JPR reports its results to the public. This report provides JPR Commission findings, survey results, and states whether each judge in a retention election “meets” or “fails to meet” judicial performance standards.

Judicial Performance Standards
The JPR Commission evaluates each judge up for retention election to assess the judge’s: 

Legal Ability: Decides cases based on applicable law, demonstrating competent legal analysis.

Integrity: Free from personal bias. Administers justice fairly, ethically, and uniformly.

Communication Skills: Issues prompt and understandable rulings and directions.

Judicial Temperament: Dignified, courteous, and patient.

Administrative Performance: Manages courtroom and office effectively. Issues rulings promptly and efficiently.

Public Input Throughout the Process
This year, as every election year, the JPR Commission sought public input from citizens who have had direct experience with judges and made its decisions using that input. In 2013, 60,000 surveys on judges were distributed to attorneys, jurors, litigants and witnesses. The JPR Commission held public hearings open to anyone wishing to speak about the judges up for retention this year. The JPR Commission accepts signed, written comments about merit-appointed judges at any time.

Use JPR Results and Checklist
Every Voter can take an active role in this judicial review process. Use this JPR summary and report to guide your votes for judges up for retention. After reviewing a judge’s information, mark “Yes” or “No” next to the judge’s name on the Judges Checklist tear-off sheet in this pamphlet. Refer to your checklist to Finish Your Ballot!

Contact the Commission on Judicial Performance Review:  Visit www.AZJudges.info  for more information. (602) 452-3311 or email   [email protected]

Reading This Data
Judicial Performance Commission Results indicate how JPR Commissioners voted, whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial Performance Standards based on survey information as well as all other information submitted by the public or the judge. Judicial Performance Surveys percentages show results of surveys completed by respondents based on the averaged results of the survey respondents who rated the judge “satisfactory” or better in combined Judicial Performance Standards categories.

Judicial Performance Standards include:

Legal Ability: Decides cases based on applicable law, demonstrating competent legal analysis.

Integrity: Free from personal bias. Administers justice fairly, ethically, and uniformly.

Communication Skills: Issues prompt and understandable rulings and directions.

Judicial Temperament: Dignified, courteous, and patient.

Administrative Performance: Manages courtroom and office effectively. Issues rulings promptly and efficiently.

JUDGES - SUMMARY - APPELLATE COURTS

RESULTS OF THE COMMISSION’S VOTE ON THE APPELLATE COURT JUSTICES AND JUDGES

The following judges DO NOT MEET Judicial Performance Standards

NONE

The following judges MEET Judicial Performance Standards

ARIZONA SUPREME COURT:
Scott Bales
Robert Brutinel

COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE:

Andrew W. Gould

Randall M. Howe

Diane M. Johnsen

Patricia A. Orozco

Samuel A. Thumma

COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO:

Garye L. Vasquez

 

Judge

JPR Votes “Meets” Judicial Standards

JPR Votes “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Did Not Vote

JPR Commission Member Did Not Vote on Self

Bales, Scott

29

0

0

0

Brutinel, Robert

29

0

0

0

Gould, Andrew

29

0

0

0

Howe, Randall

29

0

0

0

Johnsen, Diane

29

0

0

0

Orozco, Patricia

29

0

0

0

Thumma, Samuel

29

0

0

0

Vasquez, Garye

27

0

2

0

JUDGES - DETAILS - APPELLATE COURTS

BALES, SCOTT Appointed to Supreme Court: 2005

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Superior Court Judge Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

95 percent

96 percent

98 percent

98 percent

99 percent

100 percent

100 percent

N/A

N/A

100 percent

Next Judge

BRUTINEL, ROBERT Appointed to Supreme Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Superior Court Judge Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

90 percent

99 percent

97 percent

99 percent

90 percent

100 percent

100 percent

N/A

N/A

100 percent

Next Judge

GOULD, ANDREW Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2012

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Superior Court Judge Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

89 percent

99 percent

98 percent

98 percent

94 percent

99 percent

100 percent

N/A

N/A

100 percent

Next Judge

HOWE, RANDALL Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2012

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Superior Court Judge Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

94 percent

100 percent

100 percent

99 percent

94 percent

100 percent

100 percent

N/A

N/A

100 percent

Next Judge

JOHNSEN, DIANE Appointed to Court of Appeals Division 1: 2006

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Superior Court Judge Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

89 percent

98 percent

98 percent

98 percent

94 percent

94 percent

90 percent

N/A

N/A

95 percent

Next Judge

OROZCO, PATRICIA Appointed to Court of Appeals Division 1: 2004

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Superior Court Judge Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

89 percent

98 percent

98 percent

99 percent

91 percent

97 percent

98 percent

N/A

N/A

100 percent

Next Judge

THUMMA, SAMUEL Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2012

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Superior Court Judge Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

84 percent

100 percent

99 percent

100 percent

96 percent

100 percent

100 percent

N/A

N/A

100 percent

Next Judge

VASQUEZ, GARYE Appointed to Court of Appeals Division II: 2006

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

27 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

2 Commissioners Did Not Vote

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Superior Court Judge Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

88 percent

97 percent

97 percent

100 percent

99 percent

97 percent

98 percent

N/A

N/A

98 percent

JUDGES - SUMMARY - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

RESULTS OF THE COMMISSION’S VOTE ON THE PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES

The following judges DO NOT MEET Judicial Performance Standards

NONE

The following judges MEET Judicial Performance Standards

Gilberto V. Figueroa

Steven J. Fuller

Brenda E. Oldham

Daniel A. Washburn

Kevin D. White

Judge

JPR Votes “Meets” Judicial Standards

JPR Votes “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Did Not Vote

JPR Commission Member
Did Not Vote on
Self

Figueroa, Gilberto

29

0

0

0

Fuller, Steven

29

0

0

0

Oldham, Brenda

29

0

0

0

Washburn, Daniel

27

1

1

0

White, Kevin

28

1

0

0

JUDGES - DETAILS - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Next Judge

FIGUEROA, GILBERTO Elected to Pinal County Superior Court: 1998

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

94 percent

97 percent

97 percent

95 percent

98 percent

N/A

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Next Judge

FULLER, STEVEN Elected to Pinal County Superior Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

100 percent

99 percent

100 percent

93 percent

100 percent

N/A

84 percent

74 percent

71 percent

83 percent

Next Judge

OLDHAM, BRENDA Elected to Pinal County Superior Court: 2007

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

93 percent

96 percent

95 percent

93 percent

93 percent

N/A

100 percent

94 percent

95 percent

93 percent

Next Judge

WASHBURN, DANIEL Elected to Pinal County Superior Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

27 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

1 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

1 Commissioner Did Not Vote

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

86 percent

97 percent

78 percent

84 percent

94 percent

N/A

95 percent

95 percent

91 percent

97 percent

Next Judge

WHITE, KEVIN Elected to Pinal County Superior Court: 2005

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

28 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

1 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

83 percent

87 percent

76 percent

75 percent

69 percent

N/A

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

JUDGES - SUMMARY - PIMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

RESULTS OF THE COMMISSION’S VOTE ON THE PIMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES

The following judges DO NOT MEET Judicial Performance Standards

Catherine M. Woods 

The following judges MEET Judicial Performance Standards

Jeffrey T. Bergin

Christopher Browning

Javier Chon-Lopez

Charles Harrington

Danelle B. Liwski

James E. Marner

Richard D. Nichols

Kathleen A. Quigley

Kenneth C. Stanford

Judge

JPR Votes “Meets” Judicial Standards

JPR Votes “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Did Not Vote

JPR Commission Member Did Not Vote on Self

Bergin, Jeffrey

29

0

0

0

Browning, Christopher

29

0

0

0

Chon-Lopez, Javier

29

0

0

0

Harrington, Charles

29

0

0

0

Liwski, Danelle

29

0

0

0

Marner, James

29

0

0

0

Nichols, Richard

29

0

0

0

Quigley, Kathleen

29

0

0

0

Stanford, Kenneth

29

0

0

0

Woods, Catherine

7

22

0

0

JUDGES - DETAILS - PIMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

BERGIN, JEFFREY Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

98 percent

99 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

N/A

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Next Judge

BROWNING, CHRISTOPHER Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1998

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

94 percent

93 percent

96 percent

90 percent

99 percent

N/A

98 percent

97 percent

98 percent

98 percent

Next Judge

CHON-LOPEZ, JAVIER Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2007

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

87 percent

100 percent

91 percent

96 percent

82 percent

N/A

99 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Next Judge

HARRINGTON, CHARLES Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1999

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

98 percent

99 percent

98 percent

97 percent

99 percent

N/A

96 percent

97 percent

94 percent

100 percent

Next Judge

LIWSKI, DANELLE Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

94 percent

90 percent

90 percent

94 percent

97 percent

N/A

86 percent

82 percent

82 percent

97 percent

Next Judge

MARNER, JAMES Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2012

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

100 percent

99 percent

99 percent

98 percent

100 percent

N/A

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Next Judge

NICHOLS, RICHARD Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1995

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

94 percent

98 percent

96 percent

97 percent

99 percent

N/A

97 percent

96 percent

98 percent

98 percent

Next Judge

QUIGLEY, KATHLEEN Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2012

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

100 percent

99 percent

100 percent

99 percent

100 percent

N/A

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Next Judge

STANFORD, KENNETH Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2012

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

88 percent

93 percent

93 percent

93 percent

99 percent

N/A

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

95 percent

Next Judge

WOODS, CATHERINE Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

7 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

22 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

80 percent

88 percent

76 percent

83 percent

82 percent

N/A

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

JUDGES - SUMMARY - MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

RESULTS OF THE COMMISSION’S VOTE ON THE MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES

The following judges DO NOT MEET Judicial Performance Standards

Benjamin R. Norris

The following judges MEET Judicial Performance Standards

MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT:

Mark F. Aceto

Aimee L. Anderson

Arthur T. Anderson

Bradley Astrowsky

Cynthia J. Bailey

Janet E. Barton

Edward W. Bassett

Dawn M. Bergin

James T. Blomo

Mark H. Brain

Roger E. Brodman

William L. Brotherton

Katherine M. Cooper

Janice K. Crawford

David O. Cunanan

Norman J. Davis

Sally S. Duncan

Boyd W. Dunn

Alfred M. Fenzel

Dean M. Fink

George H. Foster, Jr.

J. Richard Gama

Warren J. Granville

Hugh E. Hegyi

Michael J. Herrod

Bethany G. Hicks

Carey S. Hyatt

Brian K. Ishikawa

Joseph C. Kreamer

Daniel G. Martin

Rosa P. Mroz

Samuel J. Myers

Karen L. O’Connor

Susanna C. Pineda

Jay Polk

Gerald J. Porter

John C. Rea

Peter C. Reinstein

Emmet J. Ronan

Joan M. Sinclair

Pamela Hearn Svoboda

David M. Talamante

Danielle J. Viola

Randall H. Warner

Joseph C. Welty

Eileen S. Willett

Judge

JPR Votes “Meets” Judicial Standards

JPR Votes “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Did Not Vote

JPR Commission Member Did Not Vote on Self

Aceto, Mark

29

0

0

0

Anderson, Aimee

29

0

0

0

Anderson, Arthur

29

0

0

0

Astrowsky, Bradley

25

4

0

0

Bailey, Cynthia

29

0

0

0

Barton, Janet

29

0

0

0

Bassett, Edward

29

0

0

0

Bergin, Dawn

29

0

0

0

Blomo, James

29

0

0

0

Brain, Mark

29

0

0

0

Brodman, Roger

29

0

0

0

Brotherton, William

28

1

0

0

Cooper, Katherine

29

0

0

0

Crawford, Janice

29

0

0

0

Cunanan, David

29

0

0

0

Davis, Norman

29

0

0

0

Duncan, Sally

29

0

0

0

Dunn, Boyd

29

0

0

0

Fenzel, Alfred

29

0

0

0

Fink, Dean

29

0

0

0

Foster, George

28

0

0

1

Gama, J. Richard

29

0

0

0

Granville, Warren

29

0

0

0

Hegyi, Hugh

29

0

0

0

Herrod, Michael

29

0

0

0

Hicks, Bethany

29

0

0

0

Hyatt, Carey

29

0

0

0

Ishikawa, Brian

29

0

0

0

Kreamer, Joseph

29

0

0

0

Martin, Daniel

29

0

0

0

Mroz, Rosa

29

0

0

0

Myers, Samuel

29

0

0

0

Norris, Benjamin

3

25

1

0

O’Connor, Karen

29

0

0

0

Pineda, Susanna

29

0

0

0

Polk, Jay

29

0

0

0

Porter, Gerald

18

11

0

0

Rea, John

29

0

0

0

Reinstein, Peter

28

1

0

0

Ronan, Emmet

29

0

0

0

Sinclair, Joan

29

0

0

0

Svoboda, Pamela

29

0

0

0

Talamante, David

29

0

0

0

Viola, Danielle

29

0

0

0

Warner, Randall

29

0

0

0

Welty, Joseph

29

0

0

0

Willett, Eileen

29

0

0

0

JUDGES - SUMMARY - MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

ACETO, MARK Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1995

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

96 percent

99 percent

98 percent

97 percent

99 percent

N/A

97 percent

92 percent

95 percent

98 percent

Next Judge

ANDERSON, AIMEE Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2007

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

100 percent

100 percent

97 percent

92 percent

93 percent

N/A

84 percent

75 percent

80 percent

76 percent

Next Judge

ANDERSON, ARTHUR Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1999

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

90 percent

96 percent

91 percent

90 percent

88 percent

N/A

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Next Judge

ASTROWSKY, BRADLEY Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2012

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

25 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

4 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

92 percent

92 percent

91 percent

77 percent

83 percent

N/A

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Next Judge

BAILEY, CYNTHIA Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

96 percent

96 percent

96 percent

93 percent

98 percent

N/A

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Next Judge

BARTON, JANET Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2000

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

93 percent

100 percent

N/A

0 percent

0 percent

0 percent

0 percent

Next Judge

BASSETT, EDWARD Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2008

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

95 percent

100 percent

100 percent

96 percent

100 percent

N/A

94 percent

87 percent

94 percent

97 percent

Next Judge

BERGIN, DAWN Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2007

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

90 percent

99 percent

93 percent

94 percent

95 percent

N/A

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Next Judge

BLOMO, JAMES Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

94 percent

96 percent

90 percent

76 percent

89 percent

N/A

100 percent

98 percent

99 percent

99 percent

Next Judge

BRAIN, MARK Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

92 percent

99 percent

96 percent

96 percent

99 percent

N/A

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Next Judge

BRODMAN, ROGER Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2007

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

95 percent

98 percent

96 percent

96 percent

99 percent

N/A

92 percent

94 percent

87 percent

89 percent

Next Judge

BROTHERTON, WILLIAM Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2007

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

28 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

1 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

88 percent

90 percent

89 percent

74 percent

95 percent

N/A

95 percent

97 percent

99 percent

98 percent

Next Judge

COOPER, CATHERINE Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

93 percent

99 percent

92 percent

98 percent

98 percent

N/A

98 percent

83 percent

88 percent

92 percent

Next Judge

CRAWFORD, JANICE Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

98 percent

99 percent

97 percent

98 percent

99 percent

N/A

88 percent

86 percent

80 percent

82 percent

Next Judge

CUNANAN, DAVID Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2012

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

92 percent

96 percent

88 percent

92 percent

96 percent

N/A

97 percent

75 percent

75 percent

79 percent

Next Judge

DAVIS, NORMAN Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1995

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judge Davis is the Maricopa County Presiding Judge and was reviewed on administrative duties.

Judicial Performance Surveys

All Respondents

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

N/A

97 percent

98 percent

98 percent

98 percent

Next Judge

DUNCAN, SALLY Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2004

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

92 percent

95 percent

90 percent

93 percent

94 percent

N/A

95 percent

67 percent

90 percent

76 percent

Next Judge

DUNN, BOYD Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

90 percent

90 percent

84 percent

84 percent

84 percent

N/A

90 percent

91 percent

89 percent

88 percent

Next Judge

FENZEL, ALFRED Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1999

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

94 percent

98 percent

95 percent

95 percent

97 percent

N/A

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Next Judge

FINK, DEAN Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2007

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

93 percent

98 percent

95 percent

99 percent

99 percent

N/A

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Next Judge

FOSTER, JR., GEORGE Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2003

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

28 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

1 JPR Commission Member-Did Not Vote on Self

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

89 percent

94 percent

86 percent

86 percent

91 percent

N/A

79 percent

68 percent

74 percent

73 percent

Next Judge

GAMA, J. RICHARD Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2000

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

96 percent

99 percent

99 percent

98 percent

95 percent

N/A

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Next Judge

GRANVILLE, WARREN Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2000

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

99 percent

99 percent

100 percent

99 percent

100 percent

N/A

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

97 percent

Next Judge

HEGYI, HUGH Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2007

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

77 percent

97 percent

86 percent

86 percent

90 percent

N/A

94 percent

78 percent

82 percent

78 percent

Next Judge

HERROD, MICHAEL Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

95 percent

98 percent

96 percent

99 percent

97 percent

N/A

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Next Judge

HICKS, BETHANY Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1999

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

94 percent

95 percent

94 percent

95 percent

98 percent

N/A

90 percent

88 percent

91 percent

93 percent

Next Judge

HYATT, CAREY Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2000

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

96 percent

98 percent

94 percent

92 percent

98 percent

N/A

98 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Next Judge

ISHIKAWA, BRIAN Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1995

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

95 percent

99 percent

95 percent

98 percent

97 percent

N/A

100 percent

99 percent

99 percent

100 percent

Next Judge

KREAMER, JOSEPH Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2007

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

96 percent

100 percent

100 percent

99 percent

99 percent

N/A

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Next Judge

MARTIN, DANIEL Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2007

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

90 percent

90 percent

91 percent

91 percent

94 percent

N/A

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Next Judge

MROZ, ROSA Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2004

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

100 percent

100 percent

99 percent

97 percent

100 percent

N/A

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Next Judge

MYERS, SAMUEL Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2007

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

97 percent

100 percent

96 percent

100 percent

99 percent

N/A

99 percent

96 percent

96 percent

100 percent

Next Judge

NORRIS, BENJAMIN Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2008

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

3 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

25 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

1 Commissioner Did Not Vote

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

75 percent

87 percent

67 percent

59 percent

84 percent

N/A

93 percent

86 percent

89 percent

90 percent

Next Judge

O’CONNOR, KAREN Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2000

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

92 percent

91 percent

94 percent

94 percent

98 percent

N/A

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Next Judge

PINEDA, SUSANNA Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2007

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

86 percent

99 percent

98 percent

96 percent

90 percent

N/A

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Next Judge

POLK, JAY Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

95 percent

98 percent

94 percent

94 percent

96 percent

N/A

88 percent

80 percent

73 percent

67 percent

Next Judge

PORTER, GERALD Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

18 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

11 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

93 percent

96 percent

88 percent

90 percent

95 percent

N/A

77 percent

66 percent

66 percent

70 percent

Next Judge

REA, JOHN Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2004

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

97 percent

100 percent

98 percent

99 percent

99 percent

N/A

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Next Judge

REINSTEIN, PETER Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1998

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

28 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

1 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

94 percent

92 percent

89 percent

80 percent

94 percent

N/A

98 percent

86 percent

89 percent

88 percent

Next Judge

RONAN, EMMET Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2000

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

96 percent

98 percent

96 percent

97 percent

96 percent

N/A

99 percent

96 percent

99 percent

97 percent

Next Judge

SINCLAIR, JOAN Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2012

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

94 percent

99 percent

98 percent

99 percent

84 percent

N/A

100 percent

98 percent

98 percent

99 percent

Next Judge

SVOBODA, PAMELA Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2012

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

N/A

92 percent

92 percent

92 percent

100 percent

Next Judge

TALAMANTE, DAVID Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1999

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

98 percent

96 percent

94 percent

96 percent

98 percent

N/A

92 percent

86 percent

89 percent

91 percent

Next Judge

VIOLA, DANIELLE Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

98 percent

98 percent

98 percent

98 percent

98 percent

N/A

83 percent

75 percent

83 percent

86 percent

Next Judge

WARNER, RANDALL Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2007

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

98 percent

99 percent

99 percent

99 percent

100 percent

N/A

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Next Judge

WELTY, JOSEPH Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2007

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

99 percent

100 percent

N/A

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Next Judge

WILLETT, EILEEN Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1999

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS

29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards

0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys

Attorney Responses

Litigant/Witness Responses

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

97 percent

100 percent

98 percent

99 percent

100 percent

N/A

92 percent

91 percent

94 percent

94 percent


Skip back to Main Menu for this Guide