I states where judges are appointed for life, it seems to me that the public has little of no idea of how well a given judge performs his/her job. The only thing you can do is read newspaper accounts of trial…or delve into the state court records.
My idea is that there should be impartial citizen review boards, which would track judge’s performance, in terms of such things as:
-speed in conducting trials
-impartiality
-respect for defendents, plaintiffs
-adhernce to accepted judicial standards
At least, such ratings could be used to weed out the really bad judges. At the present time, no such panel exists in my state (MA). I really think this is a good idea-what say you?
In states that elect judges, what data is available to the voters?
Isn’t the legislature charged with that responsibility? What’s wrong with that?
How are the citizens in question supposed to know what “accepted judicial standards” are, and whether or not the judge is adhereing to them?
Maybe I’m misunderstanding the phrases you’re using – can you give me an example of accepted judicial standards? Of a violation of impartiality? In other words, if a judge rules that a particular statement is hearsay, and thus inadmissible, is that a potentially impartial ruling? How would the citizens know? If a judge ruled that a particular search was legal, and the fruits thereof admissible, is that a potential violation of accepted judicial standards? How would the citizens determine the answer?
I’m talking about simple measures of a judge’s efficiency: time to trial, courtroom productivity, curteous behavior , etc. It seems that there are very few benchmarks for a judges performance…and there ought to be. For example, a certain judge in Dedham District Court was fond of speedy divorces (he like to play golf). It was common of him to issue divorce decrees without even reading anything presented. This is the kind of judge that could use the attention of a review board.
Plus, the public pays judges salaries…we the people have a right to evaluate their job performance. 
I repeat:
I think the judiciary should be kept as far out of the publics control as is possible. Look at some of the things elected jurists have gotten us…
Well, I agree that a judge that does not ever read the filings of the parties before issuing a ruling is suspect.
But what about the questions I asked? HOW, specifically, would the citizens evaluate their performance? If you mean to limit review to such things as not reading any filings, I’m with you. But it seems to me that that would be an extreme case, and I asked questions about more common sorts of events.
Here in Illinois, there is a non-partisan group called voteforjudges.org that gives the recommendations and information from the different bar associations in Cook County (Chicago). It’s meant to help voters get an idea about how the judges are doing. I would imagine that a majority of bar associations around the county do the same.
Doesn’t really matter, though. A vast majority of judges are retained anyway, because voters just don’t seem to care enough to educate themselves.