Hon. Jeff M. Brudie, District Judge (Ret.)
Executive Director, Idaho Judicial Council

In Idaho, judicial surveys fill a critical role in the appointment process of candidates for the Bench. In my seven years of Judicial Council work, I have found that many lawyers and even the candidates themselves are unaware of how the surveys are compiled and assembled. In this letter I will explain how our judicial candidate surveys work.

Bar surveys help the Governor fill judicial vacancies at the District and Appellate Courts. In 2023, the Idaho Legislature amended Idaho Code §1-2102 regarding Judicial Council operations. Comments from the Bar, previously confidential, are now available to applicants upon request after removal of “information that would identify the commenter.” Since this change, many lawyers have told me that they no longer will submit comments because they are no longer confidential. Other lawyers have asked about the editing process. The revised process, however, if lawyers participate, will ensure meaningful Bar input into the judicial selection process.

Surveys from the Judicial Council are sent to approximately 5,500 Bar members, using the State Bar database. Unfortunately, the average response rate is around 1 percent, often less. Sitting judges often approach 2 percent.  In my experience, the highest rate of participation I have seen is about 4 percent, slightly over 200 responses, but only on one occasion.

Bar survey results come to me with only the number of people participating, not identities. I trust somewhere within the bowels of Qualtrics they could tell me which Bar members logged in, but I do not and will not ask. The comments received for a candidate populate into a cumulative list, and do not include the name of the submitter.

Editing is therefore necessary only when some identifying characteristics are included within the comment itself. Some lawyers are unknowingly submitting comments that effectively disqualify the gist of their entire message. Common examples include identifying an office where the submitter worked with the applicant and for how long. Another example is using great specificity in discussing a particular case an applicant worked on, or a specific conversation or unique personal experience. Such comments are edited before the list is provided to the Council members, the applicants themselves, and ultimately the Governor. On occasion, I have had to eliminate an entire comment because it was simply too specific and could not be narrowed to any general statements. I think the Legislature meant to target only negative comments, but that is not what it said. I therefore perform the same editing for positive comments.

Comments from Bar members are highly valued by the Council and the Governor as part of our merit-based selection process. Selection generally focuses on themes that develop from the comments, especially in the areas of honesty, work ethic and temperament—not on any one comment. The more information received, the better the process works.

It is easy to feel over-surveyed. Nevertheless, please consider participating to the greatest extent possible when judicial surveys are involved. The quality of the future Bench depends upon the thoughtful input from the Bar.