Washington, DC— Today, the nation's first comprehensive study of the systems that hold state and federal judges accountable ranked Idaho 38^th in the nation and issued the state's program a D+ grade. To shine a light on the typically secretive and toothless systems that often fail to remove abusive and incompetent judges from the bench, legal consumer watchdog group HALT, Inc. released its 2008 Judicial Accountability Report Card, analyzing programs in all 50 states, D.C. and the federal circuits.

"Idaho's system of judicial oversight is incredibly secretive," stated HALT Senior Counsel Suzanne M. Blonder, noting that, of the 23 cases in which there were preliminary investigations in 2007, Idaho's Judicial Council took remedial action in only four, addressing each judge's misconduct without the filing of formal charges. In one case, a judge was issued a private reprimand for engaging in an improper ex parte communication.

HALT's study found that Idaho officials are not allowed to release information about ethics complaints against judges unless and until the Judicial Council files a recommendation for discipline with the state's high court. Moreover, because Idaho rules allow dysfunctional judges to be sanctioned with private reprimands, in many circumstances the public never learns of the judge's history of misconduct.

Additionally, Idaho is one of only three states in the nation that does not require judges to file annual financial disclosure reports detailing their economic interests. As a result, litigants do not have the opportunity to determine if the judge presiding over their case has a financial conflict of interest.

The state also does not place meaningful limitations on the reimbursements and compensation that judges may accept in connection with corporate and special interest funded trips. "Idaho's laws unfortunately include massive loopholes that allow members of the judiciary to be wined and dined on the corporate dime," noted Blonder.

However, HALT's study did note that unlike many states that "gag" complainants, Idaho allows its citizens to speak publicly about their ethics complaints against judges. "To protect citizens' right to free speech and ensure that the disciplinary process is working as it should, states should follow Idaho's example and allow individuals to speak publicly about a judge's misconduct," stated Blonder.

None of the top five states-Washington, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Arizona and California-scored higher than a B average on HALT's Report Card. More than half of the states received grades in the C range and HALT issued D's to 14 jurisdictions. Two states-Maine and Mississippi-flunked outright.

"At a time when the American public has lost faith in the impartiality and fairness of the nation's judiciary, it's critical that we have an effective system of oversight for judges," stated Blonder. "We hope that Idaho's chief judicial officers will work to transform a mechanism marred by secrecy into a system dedicated to upholding the integrity of the judiciary."