Judicial feedback is good.  It can point out to judges where there are strengths in performance and where there are areas in need of improvement.  But, a fear many judges have is of bias that may show up in surveys.  That appears to be the case in a recent Las Vegas experience according to an article by Rebecca Gill in the Las Vegas Review Journal:

The results of the Review-Journal’s most recent “Judging the Judges” surveys are in. For women, they are not good.

The Judging the Judges survey is one of the main sources of information that Clark County’s voters have when they head to the polls to choose judges. Our nonpartisan judicial races are mostly low-key affairs that focus on generalities like integrity, experience and fairness. This provides very little useful information to voters.

Judicial performance evaluations such as the “Judging the Judges” survey were developed in part to provide voters with reliable, unbiased information about the quality of their judges. Similar evaluations are currently implemented by 22 states, as well as a large number of local bar associations and media outlets. These evaluations focus on things such as legal ability, communication skills and integrity. They are intended to capture specific information about the actions of the judges to keep them from being evaluated based on inappropriate criteria, including their wealth, political connections or immutable traits such as gender and race.

Unfortunately, it’s not clear that these well-intentioned performance evaluation instruments provide this kind of unbiased information. This year, as in the past, female judges did not fare well in the Review-Journal’s survey. The average retention score for women was 67 out of 100, which is significantly lower than the average score of 75 for men. Only one woman scored in the 90s, compared with seven men, despite the fact that there are nearly equal numbers of male and female judges.