Given the slew of high-profile slugfests we’re being treated to this election season, not to mention an impending economic meltdown, who has time to even think about judges?

But we ought to because New Mexico voters statewide will vote on “retaining” two appellate court judges and 74 district court judges. Apparently, they have to be approved for retention by 57 percent of the voters.

Fortunately for those who don’t follow how judges go about their business, there’s an official New Mexico Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission that evaluated all the judges up for retention.

You can see the evaluations on the commission Web site. Everyone got a passing grade except two: Thomas Rutledge on the 5th Judicial Court hasn’t been in his current position long enough to be evaluated, and John Pope of the 13th Judicial Court got a “no opinion.”

Pope received “positive ratings” from the Commission but was given the “no opinion” due to past alcohol abuse that the commission said may impact his future performance. Here is the evaluation:

Judge John W. Pope received positive ratings as a result of this evaluation. Attorneys rated Judge Pope well in the areas of knowledge of the law, maintaining proper control over proceedings, and courtesy. Resource staff (e.g. law enforcement officers, probation officers, etc.) scored Judge Pope highly for being clear, thorough and logical in his oral decisions and communications, and for having a dignified demeanor. Since Judge Pope’s last evaluation in 2005, his scores among court staff have significantly improved in almost every area. Judge Pope was formally reprimanded by the New Mexico Supreme Court in 2007 for his conduct resulting from alcohol abuse. He has taken full responsibility for his actions and has adhered to the requirements and discipline put forth by the Supreme Court and the Judicial Standards Commission. Judge John W. Pope has stated that his actions were wrong and that he is making every effort to address his issues on a daily basis. He has indicated a willingness to improve his performance on the bench and relationships with his fellow judges. Despite the formal public reprimand he received in June of 2007, which preceded this evaluation process, his scores from all survey groups were positive. The decision not to make a recommendation on retention was based on the possible impact this problem may have on Judge Pope’s future judicial performance.