HALT's 2008 Judicial Accountability Report Card issued grades to all 50 states, D.C. and the federal circuits. HALT gave systems overseeing federal judges a D+. More than half of the state programs received marks below C. Mississippi and Maine flunked outright. No state earned an A. Washington state took top honors, but was only graded a B.

To produce the Report Card, HALT interviewed judicial conduct administrators, analyzed statistics from the American Judicature Society and the Center for Public Integrity, evaluated judicial conduct Web sites and rules of disciplinary procedure, and studied state and federal statutes that govern judicial financial disclosure and gift receipt. In determining grades, HALT considered the following factors:

Transparency—In an era that embraces principles of sunshine, the nation's system of judicial accountability maintains a closed-door structure that evades oversight. A transparent system would release information about an ethics complaint to the public at the conclusion of a preliminary investigation. Unfortunately, no state or federal circuit publicly discloses information at that stage in the proceedings. Jurisdictions including Delaware, D.C. and Hawaii wait until public discipline is ordered by the highest court before officials divulge information about a complaint.

Availability of Meaningful Sanctions—To successfully deter judges from abusing their positions of power and to provide citizens with access to a judge's complete disciplinary history, all sanctions must be formal and public. Today, only nine states—including Arizona, Iowa, Oregon and Washington states—have eliminated private, closed-door discipline. A judicial conduct commission should have the authority to publicly censure, reprimand, fine, suspend and remove disreputable judges. But many lack these powers. District of Columbia officials, for example, are only authorized to remove judges; consequently, D.C. judges are disciplined in only the most extraordinary circumstances.

Consumer Friendliness—Litigants are often reluctant to bring a judge's misconduct to the attention of a local judicial discipline body because the rules of many jurisdictions "gag" individuals from disclosing information about an ethics complaint they have filed against a judge. To respect the rights of ordinary citizens, conduct commissions should allow complainants to speak freely. Unfortunately, 16 states, such as Massachusetts, Ohio and Kentucky, continue to prohibit consumers from discussing complaints against judges. Conduct systems in some states go as far as Georgia's Judicial Qualifications Commission, which informs individuals on its Web site that "all Commission investigations are confidential and [a]ny violation of this rule may result in a citation for contempt by the Supreme Court."

Online Outreach—In today's Internet-driven culture, most individuals look for information online. Shockingly, eight states, including Colorado, Maine, New Jersey and Oklahoma, fail to host a Web site with any information about the judicial discipline process in their states. While these states are the exception to the rule, most jurisdictions provide meager online resources. "Every judicial conduct body should host a site that includes a clear explanation of the disciplinary process, a downloadable complaint form, past commission rulings, links to ethics standards and other critical resources," stated HALT Senior Counsel Suzanne M. Blonder. "Connecticut, Michigan, Nevada and Washington state are the only jurisdictions in the country that satisfy this standard."

Public Participation—One way to ensure impartiality and to increase public confidence in the judicial oversight system is to include meaningful participation by ordinary citizens, yet judges and lawyers typically dominate judicial conduct commissions. HALT's research found that 42 states and the federal circuits give ordinary citizens only a token role in the process at best. Laypersons outnumber judges and lawyers in only six states: California, Hawaii, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Washington state.

Financial Disclosure—To determine whether a judge possesses an economic conflict of interest in a case, citizens should have the right to review annual financial disclosure reports. Filings should be comprehensive and public access to them must be convenient and affordable. While most states require annual reporting from judges, Idaho, Montana and Utah have no such regulations, and judges' reports in Alabama and Georgia are not publicly available.

Gift Restrictions—In need of the most reform, HALT's study found, are the state and federal ethics rules that allow judges to accept compensation from private groups wishing to influence case rulings. "Corporations and special interests frequently use expense-paid trips to lavish settings in a thinly-veiled attempt to lobby judges," explained Blonder. "Rigorous ethics rules would place caps on the funds that judges may accept from private entities, but unfortunately most conduct codes and statutes continue to permit members of the judiciary to accept these gifts with few limitations." No state in the country or federal circuit places a monetary cap on the compensation and reimbursements judges may receive for attending privately-funded trips.

"At a time when the American public has lost faith in the impartiality and fairness of the nation's judiciary, effective oversight of state and federal judges is vital," stated Blonder. "It's now incumbent on our legislators as well as state and federal high courts to transform a mechanism marred by indifference and secrecy into a system dedicated to upholding the integrity of our nation's judiciary."