DAR File No. 43920

Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, Administration

Rule R597-4

Justice Courts

Notice of Proposed Rule

(Repeal and Reenact)

DAR File No.: 43920
Filed: 07/26/2019 09:29:54 AM

RULE ANALYSIS

Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:

The changes to this rule are mostly clerical and organizational in nature. The purpose of this rule remains the same, which is to address Justice Courts in the evaluation process.

Summary of the rule or change:

The changes to this rule are mostly clerical and organizational in nature.

Statutory or constitutional authorization for this rule:

• Sections 78A-12-201 through 78A-12-206

Anticipated cost or savings to:

the state budget:

There are no anticipated costs or savings to the state budget.

local governments:

There are no anticipated costs or savings to local governments.

small businesses:

There are no anticipated costs or savings to small businesses.

persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local governmental entities:

There are no anticipated costs or savings that are expected to affect persons other than small business, business, or local governments.

Compliance costs for affected persons:

There are no anticipated compliance costs for affected persons.

Comments by the department head on the fiscal impact the rule may have on businesses:

There are no anticipated fiscal impacts that this rule may have on businesses.

Jennifer Yim, Executive Director

The full text of this rule may be inspected, during regular business hours, at the Office of Administrative Rules, or at:

Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission
Administration
Room B-330 SENATE BUILDING
420 N STATE ST
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114

Direct questions regarding this rule to:

• Jennifer Yim at the above address, by phone at 801-538-1652, by FAX at , or by Internet E-mail at jyim@utah.gov

Interested persons may present their views on this rule by submitting written comments to the address above no later than 5:00 p.m. on:

09/16/2019

This rule may become effective on:

09/23/2019

Authorized by:

David Roth, Chair

Appendix 1: Regulatory Impact Summary Table*

Fiscal Costs	FY 2020	FY 2021	FY 2022
State Government	$0	$0	$0
Local Government	$0	$0	$0
Small Businesses	$0	$0	$0
Non-Small Businesses	$0	$0	$0
Other Person	$0	$0	$0
Total Fiscal Costs:	$0	$0	$0
Fiscal Benefits
State Government	$0	$0	$0
Local Government	$0	$0	$0
Small Businesses	$0	$0	$0
Non-Small Businesses	$0	$0	$0
Other Persons	$0	$0	$0
Total Fiscal Benefits:	$0	$0	$0
Net Fiscal Benefits:	$0	$0	$0

 

*This table only includes fiscal impacts that could be measured. If there are inestimable fiscal impacts, they will not be included in this table. Inestimable impacts for State Government, Local Government, Small Businesses and Other Persons are described above. Inestimable impacts for Non-Small Businesses are described below.

 

Appendix 2: Regulatory Impact to Non-Small Businesses

There are no anticipated regulatory or fiscal impact that the changes to this rule will have on non-small businesses.

 

 

R597. Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, Administration.

R597-4. Justice Courts.

[R597-4-1. Classification of Justice Court Judges.

(a) As used in this section, a qualified attorney is an attorney with at least one trial appearance or three total appearances before the evaluated judge during the evaluation cycle.

(b) Classification Determination. Each judge's classification shall be made by the commission following the judge's retention election, except that newly-appointed judges shall be classified upon appointment.

(c) Basis of classification.

(1) Classification shall be based on weighted caseload data and attorney appearance data provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts for the 12 months preceding the judge's most recent election or appointment.

(2) Notwithstanding section R597-4-1 (b) and (c)(1), for judges standing for retention in 2018, classification shall be based on weighted caseload data and attorney appearance data provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts for the calendar year 2013.

(3) If the data specified in subsection R597-4-1(c)(1) is unavailable or inapplicable, classification shall be based on the best data available from the Administrative Office of the Courts.

(d) Once classified, the judge retains the classification for the judge's term of office.

(e) Judicial classification categories. Justice court judges shall be classified into one of three categories for purposes of judicial evaluation, based on the timeframes specified in section R597-4-1(c).

(1) Full Evaluation Judges must have a total of 50 or more qualified attorneys in the combined jurisdictions in which they serve.

(2) Mid-level Evaluation Judges must have fewer than 50 qualified attorneys in the combined jurisdictions in which they serve and a weighted caseload, as defined by the Administrative Office of the Courts, of .2 or more in at least one jurisdiction.

(3) Basic Evaluation Judges must not qualify for full evaluation and must have a weighted caseload of less than .2 in every jurisdiction in which they serve.

 

R597-4-2. Justice Court Judges Serving in Multiple Courts.

(a) For judges serving in multiple courts:

(1) Once a judge is classified, the judge may be evaluated in any court in which the judge serves, regardless of retention year.

(2) Evaluation data gathered from different courts served by a single judge shall be aggregated into a single midterm evaluation and a single retention report.

(b) For judges serving in multiple courts who stand for retention election in multiple years:

(1) Each judge shall be assigned to a single controlling evaluation cycle.

(2) The retention evaluation report compiled pursuant to the controlling evaluation cycle shall be used for all other subsequent retention elections for which that judge stands within the controlling cycle.]

R597-4-1. Classification of Justice Court Judges.

(1) Each judge's classification shall be made by the commission following the judge's retention election, except that newly-appointed judges shall be classified upon appointment.

(2) Classification shall be based on:

(a) the dates of required retention elections for the court or courts in which the judge serves and;

(b) the weighted caseload data and attorney appearance data provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts for the 12 months preceding the judge's most recent election or appointment.

(3) If the data specified in subsection R597-4-1(2)(b) is unavailable or inapplicable, classification shall be based on the best data available from the Administrative Office of the Courts.

(4) Justice court judges shall be classified into a single controlling cycle for the purposes of evaluation timing.

(5) Justice court judges shall be classified into one of three categories for purposes of judicial evaluation, based on the timeframes specified in sections R597-4-1(2)(b) and R597-4-1(3):

(a) full evaluation judges must have a total of 50 or more attorneys with at least one trial appearance or three total appearances in the combined jurisdictions in which they serve;

(b) mid-level evaluation judges must have fewer than 50 attorneys with at least one trial appearance or three total appearances in the combined jurisdictions in which they serve and a weighted caseload, as defined by the Administrative Office of the Courts, of .2 or more in at least one jurisdiction; and

(c) basic evaluation judges must not qualify for full evaluation and must have a weighted caseload of less than .2 in every jurisdiction in which they serve.

(6) Once classified, the judge retains the classification for the duration of the judge's controlling cycle term of office.

(7) Once classified, the judge may be evaluated in any court in which the judge serves, regardless of retention year.

(8) Evaluation data gathered from different courts served by a single judge shall be aggregated into a single midterm report and a single retention report.

(9) For judges who stand for retention election in multiple years, the retention report compiled pursuant to the controlling cycle shall be used for all other subsequent retention elections for which that judge stands within the controlling cycle.

 

KEY: justice court evaluations, justice court multiple jurisdictions, justice court classifications, justice court multiple election years

Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: [June 12, 2014]2019

Notice of Continuation: March 22, 2019

Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 78A-12-201 through 78A-12-206