Why are judges on your ballot?

As election season approaches, voters across Wyoming may notice judges’ names on their ballots and wonder why they are being asked to weigh in. This occurs because, in Wyoming, judges are subject to periodic voter approval as part of the state’s Constitutional merit selection system. 

All 57 judges in the Wyoming Judicial Branch, excluding municipal court judges, are selected and retained through a merit-based process established in 1972. This system, approved by Wyoming voters, emphasizes selecting judges based on their qualifications rather than their political views. However, it ensures public accountability by allowing citizens to vote on retaining judges through regular elections. 

A key element of Wyoming’s merit selection system is the retention vote. After serving one year following their appointment, judges must stand for retention in the general election. This process allows voters to decide whether a judge should continue to serve. Supreme Court Justices stand for retention every eight years, district court judges every six years and circuit court judges every four years. 

The retention vote is not a contested election; it simply asks whether the judge should be retained in their role. If voters choose not to retain a judge, the vacancy is filled through the same merit-based selection process. Judges do not campaign for these retention elections. Instead, voters can rely on their personal experiences or refer to the judicial performance assessments conducted by the Wyoming State Bar. These assessments include input from lawyers who have appeared before the judges and provide insight into their performance. 

The Judicial Performance Assessment 2024 offered the following insights on the judges who will be up for retention in Big Horn County:

•  John G. Fehn, supreme court judge, received “above adequate” ratings in case management, demeanor, diligence and   application and knowledge of law.  On the question of retention, 257 respondents indicated yes, 35 indicated no and 125 offered no opinion.

• Kate M. Fox, supreme court judge, received “above adequate” ratings in case management, demeanor, diligence and   application and knowledge of law.  On the question of retention, 292 indicated yes, 46 indicated no and 79 had no opinion.

• Bill Simpson, district court judge, received “above adequate” ratings in case management, demeanor, diligence and   application and knowledge of law.  On the question of retention, 45 indicated yes, nine indicated no and 10 had no opinion.

• S. Joseph “Joey” Darrah, circuit court judge, received “above adequate” ratings in case management, demeanor, diligence and   application and knowledge of law.  On the question of retention, 19 indicated yes, four indicated no and two had no opinion.

• Edward G. Luhm, circuit court judge, received “above adequate” ratings in case management, demeanor, diligence and   application and knowledge of law.  On the question of retention, 23 indicated yes, two indicated no and one had no opinion. 

Category: