Voters need to know judges’ records before elections

THE JOURNAL’S (April 14) editorial on bail reform was on target in urging the state Supreme Court to issue better guidance on releasing criminal suspects. But part of the problem is that local judges are using their discretion to set dangerous criminals free and are not being held accountable for their decisions.

We elect judges to decide each case on its merits and the law. If applying a set of rules is all they do, we can save a lot of money by replacing judges with an algorithm. So while the Supreme Court issues guidelines, individual judges are making decisions that sometimes put the community at risk.

Judges come up for retention in every election. But it’s hard for voters to hold judges accountable because nobody is informing the public about judicial performance.

The New Mexico Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission’s recommendations for retention amount to the judicial establishment evaluating itself. The commission’s process is based on surveys of attorneys and court employees and does not consult crime victims. Whether a judge uses his or her discretion to consistently free repeat offenders does not appear to figure in the commission’s recommendations.

The Journal reviews candidates for major judicial elections but, unfortunately, (often) relies on the commission’s recommendations for its own judicial retention endorsements.

The judicial retention ballot would actually mean something if voters knew more about each judge’s decisions. Before every election, it would be helpful if a third-party organization — or a couple of enterprising reporters — could review each judge’s record and alert voters to judges who pose a risk to public safety.

Without this kind of information, the only way voters can hold the state courts accountable is to vote against retention of every judge. Just to make sure.

JAMES A. MCCLURE Los Lunas