The new Kansas Commission on Judicial Performance is a worthy effort to try to give Kansans important insight on the state’s appointed judges and justices.

State legislators accurately believed that most Kansas voters know little or nothing about the judges who appear on their ballots every two years for retention votes. In the absence of any outstanding negative news about a judge, most voters will simply vote to retain them all. Some, based on a similar lack of knowledge, will vote to kick them all out just on general principles.

The new commission appointed last year is designed to provide some feedback that could give responsible voters a basis for a more informed vote.

Former Kansas Supreme Court Justice Fred Six, who is a Lawrence resident and a member of the commission, told the Journal-World, “the public’s expectation of the judiciary will be enhanced because they will know the individual.” Actually the process won’t allow most people to get personally acquainted with the judges, but it will give them better access to the opinions of people who are.

The commission will oversee a system that collects surveys from both attorneys and non-attorneys concerning the performance of district and appellate judges. Non-attorneys who have an opportunity to watch judges in action – social workers, jurors, court staff, law enforcement personnel and others – will be asked to score judges on such issues as communication skills, professionalism, temperament, integrity and impartiality. Surveys for attorneys who appear before the judges will cover the same issues plus an assessment of the judge’s legal ability.

The confidential surveys will be collected quarterly throughout a judge’s term and used by the commission to compile a midterm report as well as a retention recommendation before an election. Judges also will be asked to do self-evaluations, which will be considered by the commission.

All members of the Kansas Supreme Court and Kansas Court of Appeals, as well as about half of the state’s district judges, are appointed by the governor and subject to retention votes. The other district judges are elected in partisan elections. The commission’s involvement in elected races hasn’t been completely sorted out, but the group is required to publicly recommend whether judges subject to retention elections should be retained or not.

Such a recommendation would seem to carry significant weight with voters thereby giving the commission considerable power. The commission is made up of six attorneys and six non-attorneys with members from each of the state’s four congressional districts. The commission is dedicated to preserving the integrity and independence of the state’s judicial system, but it will, of course, be up to voters to decide how much weight to give to the body’s evaluation.

The goal of the commission is to work with judges to improve their performance as well as provide information to voters. The public evaluation of judges won’t be the same as knowing a judge personally, but some information clearly is better than none, which is what most voters have gotten up to now.