Rule 28-301 Judicial evaluations.

When a judge is up for review, a commission looks at several kinds of information to decide how well that judge is doing the job. They can use surveys about the judge, which are usually put together by outside experts in research, either from a private company or from a university in the state.

The commission also looks at practical numbers, like how much work the judge handles, whether the judge meets deadlines set by the courts, how often the judge steps aside from cases (excusals or recusals), and how many cases are still open versus finished. If the judge has had any past problems flagged by the Judicial Standards Commission or the Supreme Court for behavior outside the courtroom that made the judiciary look bad, that gets factored in too.

Beyond that, the commission can use its own observations of the judge, interviews with people connected to the judge's work, and any other surveys done under these rules. Finally, the commission has some flexibility to consider any other information it thinks is relevant. In short, judges are evaluated using a mix of public feedback, hard performance numbers, past conduct issues, and direct observation.