Topeka ? Stephen Hill has an important job, and next November voters statewide will decide whether he keeps it.

But few of those voters will know who Hill is, let alone whether he’s been doing a good job as a judge on the Kansas Court of Appeals.

That’s why Hill and other judges, legislators, attorneys and members of the public are pushing for a proposal that would give voters an evaluation of judges who are up for retention elections.

“This is just good government,” Hill said. “It accomplishes something if it helps voters.”

The recommendation to the Legislature by the Kansas Judicial Council would implement a judicial performance evaluation program.

Because Kansas has two methods of selecting judges, there would be two different kinds of evaluations.

For judges who are selected and then stand for retention elections, the evaluations would provide information to voters on whether the judges should continue in office.

For judges who are elected in politically contested elections, the evaluations would be made to help the judge improve and wouldn’t be made public. Judicial Council officials said the reason for proposing to keep those evaluations confidential is that they didn’t want publicly funded evaluations used in political campaigns.

Randy Hearrell, executive director of the Judicial Council, said the evaluation for politically elected judges would be important to those judges.

“Most judges don’t get very direct feedback on how they are doing,” Hearrell said.

The sources for information for evaluation for both kinds of judges would remain anonymous and could include other judges, attorneys, jurors, litigants, witnesses and social service personnel.

The recommendations come at a time when the judicial branch has been under fire in some areas.

Recent Kansas Supreme Court orders overturning the death penalty and ordering the Legislature to increase school funding have prompted some lawmakers to propose measures that would limit the court and require legislative input in the selection of justices.

Across the state, several district judges have faced organized attempts to not retain them, including Judge Paula Martin in Lawrence, who was criticized for lenient sentences in a child-rape case.

None of these efforts have been successful, but the Legislature is expected to revisit some of these issues when the session starts Jan. 9.

But Hill and others involved in the judicial evaluation proposal say their recommendation has nothing to do with other efforts that may affect the judiciary.

Rep. Paul Davis, D-Lawrence, served with Hill on the advisory committee that made the recommendations for the evaluations.

“It’s something that is going to increase both the confidence that the public has in the judiciary and the judiciary’s accountability to the public,” Davis said.