The Eagle and Bar Association’s judicial survey has flaws

“Garbage In, Garbage Out” is a concept common to computer science and mathematics: the quality of output is determined by the quality of the input. Army Specialist William Mellin explained computers with “sloppily programmed” inputs have inaccurate outputs.

We submit that the principle is applicable to the Wichita Eagle/Wichita Bar Association judicial evaluation that appeared in Sunday’s Eagle.

Sedgwick County has two contested judicial elections in the Aug. 7 primary. While we understand the motivation — to provide the public information to aid in their choice of candidates — the methodology of this survey is deeply flawed.

The process was created in 2006, after the American Bar Association developed “Guidelines for the Evaluation of Judicial Performance” in February 2005. On May 25, 2006 the Commission on Judicial Performance was established by the Kansas Legislature. It expired on June 30, 2013.

The ABA guideline states, “Bar associations should develop and administer evaluation programs according to these guidelines.” Section 6 (methodology) states, “Multiple sources should be used … attorneys, jurors, litigants and witnesses who have appeared before the judge.… ” The Commission on Judicial Performance followed ABA guidelines.

Only attorneys are given the opportunity to participate in this survey, and a small number of them choose to. The rate of participation has been low — 362 attorneys in 2012, 235 in 2014, 222 in 2016 out of about 1,100 registered in Sedgwick County. Other bar associations follow up email invitations with mailed surveys to boost participation. This survey is email only.

The ABA guide states, “Sources should be limited to those with personal and current knowledge of the judge.” Participants in the Wichita Eagle-WBA survey are on their honor to only evaluate the judges with whom they have had professional experience.

While those who do well tend to praise the survey, others say it is little more than a popularity contest, or worse a means by which personal attacks may be made with the impunity due to anonymity. When a judge rules against the position taken by the lawyer, the temptation provided by this survey is obvious. The subjective nature of the process is a serious flaw.

Objective measures such as the number of appellant reversals vs. the number of appeals from rulings or the number of cases handled, and the age of those cases, would provide an objective source of insight.

Four years ago, a judicial candidate told The Eagle, “If I am unethical, why have I not heard any complaints or been reprimanded by the Supreme Court or been disbarred?” These subjective attacks often appear to be politically motivated.

The survey undermines the public’s confidence in our courts. While we certainly appreciate The Eagle and WBA’s motivation and efforts to bring information to the voters, they should be forthcoming about the survey’s shortcomings.