Judge4Yourself’s flawed assessment process needs urgent reform: Emanuella Groves, Cassandra Collier-Williams and Ronald B. Adrin

Almost 25 years ago, Judge4Yourself (J4Y) was formed under the auspices of a number of Cleveland bar associations. The idea was to simplify and homogenize the process of evaluating and ranking candidates for election to state judicial office. There are currently 60-80 volunteer attorneys representing the six organizations and their members dedicating their time, experience and passion to helping ordinary citizens better understand the qualifications required of those who would seek to judge them.

However, over the years, many candidates have raised questions about the reliability and impartiality of the J4Y process. While many of those raising these issues were minority candidates, they were by no means alone.

Concerns came to a head earlier this year when six candidates for contested judicial positions decided not to participate in the J4Y evaluation process, including a candidate for the Ohio Supreme Court. Even if J4Y has supported an equal number of Republican and Democratic candidates in the past, we believe that the questions raised about the J4Y process represent legitimate concerns that must be addressed if its ultimate target audience (the general public) is to have any confidence in your work product.

The CEO of the Cleveland Bar Association has criticized judicial candidates who chose not to subject themselves to the J4Y evaluation process, which rates candidates as excellent, good, adequate or not recommended. It can be argued that the way in which these definitions are made is subjective rather than objective.

A candidate who receives a less than favorable rating has no way of knowing why the rating was received and therefore has no opportunity to challenge it. The unfavorable rating is widely reported. By definition, J4Y’s recommendations are intended to influence voter behavior in judge races. Unfavorable ratings thus expose candidates to potential short- and long-term damage to their professional reputations, damage that may extend beyond any judicial election.

But where is the responsibility of Judge4Yourself?

Almost 10 years ago, J4Y management faced much of the same criticism of the assessment process that underlies the current objections to the process.

In 2018, Brown and Associates (Brown) evaluated J4Y. While the report acknowledged that the data was limited, based on the available data, Brown questioned whether the process was too subjective and did not allow too much freedom for both the participating J4Y raters and their respective bar associations in assigning rating scores. In addition, it was discovered that the J4Y questionnaire and its rating system were based, at least in part, on a combination of subjective factors that introduced implicit cultural bias into the candidate rating process.

Brown recommended that J4Y create tools to translate quantitative data into qualitative data. Unfortunately, despite some changes being made, Brown’s recommendation was not implemented.

The Ohio Black Judges Association was founded to give a voice to judges who strive to improve the administration of justice. Of course, any process that aims to help voters by evaluating candidates for judicial office can affect the quality and fairness of our judicial system. Thus, J4Y must focus on its reform efforts to ensure an objective assessment.

However, developing an objective methodology for evaluating judicial candidates is so difficult that bar associations in Columbus and Dayton that previously tried to do so have abandoned the attempt. If J4Y is to continue to exist, its ability to provide objective, reliable and balanced results is essential to its credibility. Until such changes are implemented, candidates cannot reasonably be criticized for refusing to participate in a flawed process that is based in part on using unreliable findings to make decisions that may be less than fair.

The Honorable Emanuella Groves, Cassandra Collier-Williams and Ronald B. Adrine (Ret.) on behalf of the Ohio Association of Black Judges.

Have something to say on this topic?

* Write a letter to the editorwhich will be considered for print publication.

* General questions about our editorial board or comments or corrections to this opinion column should be sent to Elizabeth Sullivan, director of opinion, at [email protected].