What are the ratings?

The definition of the ratings of judicial candidates to be used by the commission in reporting to the Governor's office are:

Definition of Ratings - vary by candidate type :

Candidates for the Superior Court:

Exceptionally Well Qualified: Possessing qualities and attributes of remarkable or extraordinary superiority that enable them to perform the judicial function with distinction.

Well Qualified: Possessing qualities and attributes indicative of a superior fitness to perform the judicial function with a high degree of skill and effectiveness.

Qualified: Possessing qualities and attributes sufficient to perform the judicial function adequately and satisfactorily.

Not Qualified: Possessing less than the minimum qualities and attributes.

Candidates for the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court:

Exceptionally Well Qualified: Possessing qualities and attributes of remarkable or extraordinary superiority that enable them to perform the appellate judicial function with distinction.

Well Qualified: Possessing qualities and attributes indicative of a superior fitness to perform the appellate judicial function with a high degree of skill, effectiveness, and distinction.

Qualified: Possessing qualities and attributes sufficient to perform the appellate judicial function with a high degree of skill and effectiveness.

Not Qualified: Possessing less than the minimum qualities and attributes.

• Superior Court candidates are expected to have the qualities of decisiveness, oral communication skills, and patience.
• Court of Appeal candidates are expected to have the qualities of collegiality, writing ability, and scholarship.
• Supreme Court candidates are expected to have the qualities of collegiality, writing ability, scholarship, distinction in the profession, and breadth and depth of experience.