Contact
Judges in NM do face strong accountability measures
Hans Voss
This is in response to the recent column, It’s time for a review of how judges are held accountable, by State Rep. Dennis Kintigh.
As president-elect of the State Bar of New Mexico, I am responding to the recent attention focused on our judiciary on NMPolitics.net and in the Albuquerque Journal regarding checks and balances in the New Mexico judicial system. While this response is provided on behalf of the Board of Bar Commissioners (BBC), the elected body that represents New Mexico’s 8,000+ lawyers, any errors or omissions are my own.
I write because the BBC is dedicated to providing the public with more information about the role of the judiciary, and the article in question may have left its readers with the idea that the New Mexico judiciary is somehow above the law, lacking appropriate oversight or accountability. I am confident that a full consideration of the judicial appointment, election/retention system and the established regulatory process will show that there are many checks on the quality and performance of our courts and that the safeguards provided therein are employed when appropriate.
Safeguards in the appointment process and on the bench
Take as a starting point the process by which judges are initially appointed to the bench. A nonpartisan merit selection commission comprised of judicial, attorney and non-attorney members, each of whom are appointed by members of the three branches of government, screen applicants for an open judicial position to verify the qualifications of applicants before they can be considered by the governor for appointment. The names of those with sufficient qualifications are sent to the governor for further consideration.
During the next step of the process, beginning when the governor receives this list of potential appointees from a Judicial Selection Commission, the Governor’s Office further reviews the qualifications of the applicants. The governor then makes an appointment to bench.
The chosen appointee then serves as judge until the first election cycle after his or her appointment. As part of the election process, the judge must face a contest with any interested and qualified candidates in a primary and a general election. Once elected, a sitting judge must thereafter meet with the approval of the voters in retention elections.
Once on the bench, whether newly appointed or having been elected, each member of the judiciary is subject to the Code of Judicial Conduct, must answer inquires/complaints made before the Judicial Standards Commission, and is scrutinized by the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, which reports its findings and recommendations to the public before each election to help inform the electorate so that each voter can in turn make an educated decision about whether or not a judge should be retained.
Each of these three safeguards is in place to ensure that judges act appropriately and are held responsible for their actions. In addition to the safeguards addressed so far, the New Mexico Constitution provides for impeachment of a judge just as it does for any other elected official.
Judges are occasionally voted out or removed from office
Importantly, the Judicial Standards Commission is created by the New Mexico Constitution, not the Supreme Court. It is an independent, objective body that investigates and prosecutes charges against judges. While the Supreme Court is the final arbiter in maters involving complaints of judicial misconduct, the court does not play a role in the process regarding specific concerns with any individual judge prior to the issue being heard by the court.
Supreme Court justices are likewise subject to these same processes and procedures. They too are held accountable: Their qualifications are verified; they have to stand in a primary and a general election after their appointment; and they have to stand for retention elections every six years. The justices are subject to the Code of Judicial Conduct, must answer to the Judicial Standards Commission and are scrutinized by the Judicial Performance Commission.
Since the merit selection and evaluation process was created over 20 years ago, at least five district and metropolitan court judges have been rejected by voters in their retention elections. The Judicial Standards Commission process has resulted in the occasional removal of judges from every level of the New Mexico judiciary, including the Supreme Court itself.
The judiciary is made of fallible human beings. But for the most part, these human beings are hard-working, well-intentioned, ethical public servants who sacrifice everyday to meet their responsibilities and meet the expectations placed upon them.
Voss is president-elect of the State Bar of New Mexico.
17 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Jerry Lee on you comment about Brennan. He did not spend any time in jail and collects a great pension. So what punishment? Isn’t there a moral hazzard in not forcefully applying the law to those amongst us who are supposed to be above reproach?
Qui Tam:
As previously stated, it’s truly amazing that you only see things as personal attacks if they’re not coming from you. For that matter, disagreeing with things for which you provide no evidence or finding offense when you link to websites full of blatantly racist imagery does not make one a “liar”, and it is only the very petty who question the character of someone they don’t know simply because of differing opinion.
So how about it Hans Voss, do you think former Judge Francis Gallegos faced strong accountability measures or was losing her job enough?
Oh and IcarusPhoenix – I think it is you how has “personal problems” and anger issues. You don’t seem to get along with many people on this forum as thread after thread you are denounced by others – especially after you have been caught in a lie. You might want to think about that and your anger issues and name calling.
JusticeP – I respectfully disagree with your comment:
“I will say to TripleR and Qui Tam that it is not easy to let go of the anger over being wronged. However to prevail you must retain a level head and a respectful manner. Your angry words (spoken or written) in and out of the court room can be your greatest enemy.”
I think you defensively mistake “angry” for a justifiable reaction(s) of the wronged. That’s a copout and excuse too frequently used. And I submit this sans anger. Nice words often do not work even after years of applying them and therefore seem to be the “greatest enemy”. I would also remind you that “nice guys finish last”. While I absolutely do not condone violence and angrily applied retribution or retailiation, it is frequently the only reported action that involves the wronged or otherwise is forgotten or swept under whatever is convenient for the wrongdoers and their what turns out to be accomplices. Often I have heard lawyers laugh at, seen judges ignore and the judicial be complicent to criminal behaviour.
Furthermore, “it is not easy to let go of the anger over being wronged” might also accknowledge the fact that the wronged sometimes can never replace what was stolen in regard to their time, reputation and/or well being. There is no compensation great enough to replace what cannot be replaced nor compensation equavilant to other damages to one’s life.
I type these words without anger, only truth and to those who may exclaim otherwise; I suggest only thankfulness for where they are and the situations which they have not experienced.
Qui Tam:
Why exactly is disagreeing with you automatically “endorsement” of criminal activity? Considering your demonstrated ignorance of what actually is or is not illegal, I hardly think you’re in a position of authority on that matter, and frankly, I doubt I’m the only one who is getting tired of having their character questioned for disagreeing with someone whose only debate tactic calling people names when they disagree with whatever unsubstantiated claim you’ve decided to make that day. For that matter, why do you see disagreement with you and advice to anyone as a personal attack (even when not directed at you), and why do you think your personal attacks are anything other than angry knee-jerk responses against people who have nothing to do with whatever imagined slight you’ve conjured up?
Pulitzer’s aren’t handed out to people who turn over their websites to the fringe of anonymous web-commenters who provide no evidence, insist that everyone agree with them without condition or explanation, and who automatically respond to every situation with misdirected anger and personal insults that have no bearing on the subject at hand. If Heath wants a Pulitzer, you are definitely not the route he’ll be taking.
JusticeP gives exactly the right advice – and, I might add, the same advice that I gave TripleR, before Qui Tam came bungling in to try and make this conversation about his personal problems; Anger makes you irrational, and once you’re pegged as someone who can’t respond rationally to a situation – even one that is deeply personal and admittedly hard to respond rationally to – it is very unlikely anyone will take you seriously, either then or in the future. It may not be fair, but then again, it’s also not unexpected.
I think the process for Judge Brennan worked as it was designed to work … I’ve been told by a dozen lawyers and two retired police officers that knowledge of Brennans indiscretions were known throughout the judiciary but it was ignored. Hardly a ringing endorsement for the process.
According to Erica J. Hashimoto, an assistant professor at the Georgia School of Law,: “After conducting an empirical study of pro se felony defendants, I conclude that these defendants are not necessarily either ill-served by the decision to represent themselves or mentally ill….In state court, pro se defendants charged with felonies fared as well as, and arguably significantly better than, their represented counterparts…of the 234 pro se defendants for whom an outcome was provided, just under 50 percent of them were convicted on any charge….for represented state court defendants, by contrast, a total of 75 percent were convicted of some charge…. Only 26 percent of the pro se defendants ended up with felony convictions, while 63 percent of their represented counterparts were convicted of felonies…in federal court…the acquittal rate for pro se defendants is virtually identical to the acquittal rate for represented defendants.”
I would say the success of the above percentage of pro se litigants can be attributed to their knowledge of the facts, the law and a respectful attitude.
I likewise had an instance that I could not get at attorney to take a wrongful prosecution after an acquittal and a strong reprimand to the government agents and the prosecutor by a judge in a federal trial, unless I paid a retainer large enough he would not have to continue practice to make a living. He explained to me, that a law suit against the government actors is frowned upon by the legal profession and he is a much respected successful lawyer.
I will say to TripleR and Qui Tam that it is not easy to let go of the anger over being wronged. However to prevail you must retain a level head and a respectful manner. Your angry words (spoken or written) in and out of the court room can be your greatest enemy.
I personally find it hard to respect a judge that comes from a prosecution background that retains the attitude that the government agents are truthful, have fully disclosed and the king’s men can do no wrong. This attitude, whether to a pro se or represented litigant does not lead to a fair judicial proceeding. Also, I would agree that a jury of their peers analyzing a judicial complaint is far better than the present Judicial Standards Commission ability that is ultimately controlled by the Supreme Court desire.
I also would like to add: Their are some very very good fair judges in New Mexico that could make five times the money in private practice, but their dedication is being a good judge. Also, I believe their are many judges in New Mexico that make more than they could make in private practice and really they are there for the retirement benefits and the power. And as it appears from recent actions they are given the option to retire with full benefits in lieu of discipline. It seems regardless of the wrong by a state actor, the retirement benefits are also guarded. I bring this into question.
TripleR – we should compare notes.
“I cannot find a lawyer in the state of New Mexico who will do so because they all are well aware that any lawyer who opposes a judge or tries to get a judge arrested or removed from the bench is subject to blacklisting, disbarment, or being jailed. I expect the bar association to represent me for free or you will return here and apologize to the people of New Mexico because the State Bar of New Mexico in fact does not encourage judicial accountability; they and their members are active participants in helping cover up judicial corruption. If you think I am calling your bluff; good sir, that is exactly what I am doing.” TripleR
So you have had the same/similar experience. I am not surprised, at all. My notes and documentation probably wouldn’t even raise your eyebrow as they probably just reflect a sick status quo.
Heath, this lil ole commentary has opened up a can of worms. Maybe TripleR should be able to discuss the topic at length(?) The result may be an accountable Judiciary in New Mexico. Who knows? Wouldn’t that be grand, an accomplishment deserving of a Pulitzer? I think it is the last thing that the old boy/girl criminal political network wants is for this to happen.
As usual IcarusPhoenix – your points are pointless and you attack another commenter with them. Sad, very sad. I hope you never become a victim of the criminal activity you seem to endorse.
TripleR:
I was referring to our judicial-selection process, not the standards and ethical-conduct processm which anyone actually reading my post – rather than skimming it in order to manufacture controversy – would have noticed, to say nothing of the fact that the organizations you refer to are elements of the people’s chosen government; your “us against them” mentality not only makes you difficult to take seriously, but is quite frankly the most primitive of behaviors when it comes to political involvement. Speaking as someone whose job requires me to listen to the public’s concerns, those who lack the ability to address situations rationally are usually those whom most citizens – and, for that matter, most elected officials – find it fairly safe to ignore, since their historical effectiveness is close to non-existent.
Quite frankly, I think you have allowed your personal situation to cloud your ability to be objective, to the point where you are exhibiting outright hostility towards anyone who is not fully onboard with whatever problem you have; this is likely understandable (though, not knowing your situation, I can not be certain), but the fact that you reflexively react with hostility to everyone, regardless of whether they are in any way involved in whatever your problem is – or, for that matter, if they even know about it – hardly makes any of us feel like taking you the least bit seriously. You are so blinded by your anger that you are coming across as just spouting whatever comes to mind; the statement “100% of judges get recommended for retention” is either hyperbole or proof that you aren’t paying attention, and calling all judges “wicked, inconsiderate, lying bastards on the face of the earth” – even couched in the unsubstantiated statement that “every citizen polled by the JPEC considered” them to be – crosses the border from an seeming-falsehood into downright libelous.
Assuming that people who don’t agree with you are ill-informed and responding to them with personal assaults on their character does nothing to further whatever your cause happens to be; as for representing yourself, considering the nature of your posts and the apparent absolute conviction that what you already believe must be true, I find this unsurprising, and I am uncharacteristically avoid the obvious quotation from Samuel Johnson in regards to pro se representation.
TripleR,
I am not “afraid of lawsuits and political backlash” – especially political backlash. The issue is that you make complex and criminal allegations against officials that can’t thoroughly be vetted in the comments section on NMPolitics.net; therefore, the comments section isn’t the place for them.
Icarus, your post is on the right path but you have one critical item wrong: “if we didn’t make the whole process meaningless“. The mistake is “we” did not render these processes meaningless. “We” as in “We the people” created these measures in to attempt to keep our legal system free from corruption. The point you and most others miss is that “We” didn’t make them meaningless “they” did. In other words, the lawyers, judges, and politicians hijacked the processes put in place and stole the ability for any citizen in NM to achieve justice or hold accountable any of “them”. In other words, they are immune and free to do whatever they want; which is just they way they want it. The real issue is that the most, including you apparantely, see that things like the JSC or JPEC exist and so therefore you think they function as one would reasonably expect. They don’t.
Have you ever investigated how the really JPEC works? Simply put, they refuse to accept input from the public. Really. The only input on judicial performance they consider is from other judges, their staff (no conflict of interest there), and attorney’s (no conflict of interest there either; especially if an attorney at some point would like to become a judge or would ever want a favorable ruling from a judge). The real truth is that every citizen polled by the JPEC considered judges to be the most wicked, inconsiderate, lying bastards on the face of the earth. So the JPEC had a split set of data to work with; every citizen HATED the judges being reviewed and every Judge/Attorney LOVED them. The JPEC’s solution? Refuse to accept input from the public. Every wonder why 100% of judges get recommended for retention? Its because they and their buddies vote themselves to be retained.
Oh, just in case anyone wants to tell me that isn’t how it works; go to hell because I know it for a fact because I personally spoke to members of the JPEC and asked to volunteer feedback on a judge because I had represented myself in court before that judge. I was told, in more diplomatic terms of course, what I just recounted above. They won’t take any input from the public and, yes, I was told about the split in the data and why the public’s input was eliminated.
SV: Yes, I speak in generalities. Heath knows some of my situation. I have attempted to post details here but he is afraid of lawsuits and political backlash should I use this site to expose some of the ugliness that goes on.
My hope is that if Mr. Voss and the State Bar refuse to help expose corruption within their midst (most judges are licensed attorney’s), then perhaps Heath will publish the details of my situation.
Oh, SV, you sound like an attorney so if you have contacts with the Bar perhaps you could have Mr. Voss contact me or Mr. Haussamen. The email address he has on the NMBar web site is a gmail one and he has not responded. Thanks.
For the second time today, I find myself not entirely disagreeing with Dr. J; while we certainly disagree about the magnitude of the problem, we certainly do not disagree about its existence. By the same token, I think Mr. Voss has the beginnings of a point here; for the above article to reflect reality, a better headline would have been, “Strong Judicial Accountability Measures Exist in New Mexico, but Judges Rarely Have to Face Them.” My opinion still remains that while the Judicial Standards Commission is weak – both from a statutory and actuary point-of-view – and the Performance Evaluation Commission is generally ignored, the judicial selection and retention process laid out in our Constitution is, by far the best in the country… or it would be, if we didn’t make the whole process meaningless by selecting judges through a completely bipartisan and rigorous selection process, only to put them through a partisan race that has nothing to do with qualification on their very first election.
Dear Triple R:
Please share with us the facts and legal claim for your intended lawsuit against members of the judiciary. Your post talks in generalities, please tell us who in the judiciary you intend to sue and what is the basis for your lawsuit? Maybe no single attorney in New Mexico will take your case because it lacks merit?
A second question? Why should the NM Bar Association represent you for free?
I am amazed to see anyone, even a biased insider, say things like this given the state of our banana republic’s sorry excuse for a judiciary.
Dear Mr. Voss,
I will be contacting you to see if you will put you and your organization’s money where your mouth is. I would like someone in the state bar to represent me in a lawsuit against members of the judiciary. I cannot find a lawyer in the state of New Mexico who will do so because they all are well aware that any lawyer who opposes a judge or tries to get a judge arrested or removed from the bench is subject to blacklisting, disbarment, or being jailed. I expect the bar association to represent me for free or you will return here and apologize to the people of New Mexico because the State Bar of New Mexico in fact does not encourage judicial accountability; they and their members are active participants in helping cover up judicial corruption. If you think I am calling your bluff; good sir, that is exactly what I am doing.
Furthermore, I request that Mr. Haussamen post a periodic update on the status of this issue; particularly if Mr. Voss disavows any accountability even though he is President of the State Bar. Mr. Voss if you so strongly believe in your organizations is in support of judicial accountability I suggest that you personally handle my case. I will contact you at your legal office because you apparently have no email address published at the state bar. Furthermore, if you are not in a position at the bar to support this then I fully expect your cooperation in reaching the appropriate personnel and will personally assist me in securing legal counsel.
Any judicial reform strategy that doesn’t involve meaningful citizen oversight is more a reshuffling of power than judicial reform. National Forum On Judicial Accountability (NFOJA) is a legislative initiative to vest randomly selected, trained, and rotating panels of private citizens with responsibility for state judicial disciplinary processes.
NFOJA launched in 2009 and has grown to approximately 1400 members, spread among three (3) online networks with the main network at http://50states.ning.com
Rather than judicial misconduct or public corruption, NFOJA focuses on restoring the balance of power between America’s judiciary and its sovereign citizens. Yet it recognizes and advocates the need to encourage, protect, and help vindicate judges and lawyers who expose judicial misconduct and corruption.
NFOJA strives to get past debates on judicial integrity with workable solutions to help ensure America’s judiciary is unbiased, remains faithful to the Constitution, and follows the rule of law.
Mr. Hans Voss:
Without providing exact details that I do not believe Heath would allow, I would like to state plainly that if the complaints that were filed against a judge would be public record and in one of the issues (the written sanctions to the judge that I was not allowed to have a copy of and further I was warned by the commission against referring to the action) remains a secret the public does not get to know. The complaints and actions of the Judicial Standards Commission needs to be a matter of public record.
Judges sitting with absolute immunity raises a serious question.