A proposal to open judicial evaluations to the public is running into resistance, from the judges themselves.
Three judges who serve or have served in New Hampshire’s circuit and family courts told lawmakers on Tuesday that making performance reviews public would undermine judicial independence. They argued it could pressure judges to align decisions with public opinion rather than the law.
Circuit Court Administrative Judge Ellen Christo warned the Senate Judiciary Committee that even the perception of that kind of pressure is a problem. She stressed that judges decide cases based on law and facts alone.
Retired Judge Susan Carbon, who still hears cases in Manchester Circuit Court, was more direct. She called the bill a misguided attempt that would do more harm than good.
Supporters say accountability is overdue
Not everyone sees it that way. The bill has notable backers, including Rep. Bob Lynn of Windham — a former chief justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Lynn argued there’s a clear need for accountability, pointing out that judges are effectively the only people in the state system appointed for life.
He also noted that the bill was developed in consultation with the current chief justice, Gordon MacDonald.
Lyn Schollett, executive director of the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, supported the measure as well. She said she has personally witnessed the harm that ineffective judges can cause. She also pointed out that a dozen other states already make judicial evaluations public by law, while others disclose them through state bar associations.
Rank-and-file judges say they were left out
Retired Judge David King raised a different concern. He acknowledged that the Supreme Court’s chief justice was consulted during the drafting process. However, he said the circuit court — the level most directly affected by the bill — was not.
King, who stepped down as the circuit court’s administrative judge in 2024 but still hears cases, suggested the bill would have benefited from broader input. His comments hinted at a disconnect between the judiciary’s leadership and the judges who handle cases day to day.
What the bill would change
Under the proposal, all judges would be evaluated at least every three years. That includes part-time judges and retired judges who occasionally hear cases. The evaluations would involve courtroom observations.
Currently, judicial performance reviews are kept confidential. They only become public if a judge receives two consecutive subpar evaluations. The bill would change that by making the results accessible to the public as a default.
A backdrop of tension
The proposal arrives during a period of friction between New Hampshire’s judiciary and its lawmakers. Recent court rulings have found the state falling short on school funding obligations, drawing criticism from some legislators.
Separate concerns about judicial branch spending and management have also surfaced. Senator Bill Gannon, a Republican from Sandown, referenced several recent controversies during the hearing. Among them: the criminal conviction of now-retired Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi and a controversial $50,000 payout to a judicial branch staffer last year, which Gannon called a “little shell game.”
“Just little things that the public perceives as not above board,” Gannon said.
