The Honorable Douglas R. Driggers
3rd Judicial District
Doña Ana County
Evaluation: Overall, Judge Douglas Driggers’ scores were somewhat mixed. For example, attorneys rated him highly for being punctual in commencing proceedings, being prompt in scheduling hearings and trials, for rulings on motions or cases in a timely manner, and for his ability to decisively rule on procedural and substantive matters. However, attorneys gave him somewhat lower ratings when it comes to treating all courtroom participants with respect and maintaining professional demeanor in the courtroom. His scores among resource staff (e.g. law enforcement, probation/parole, CASA volunteers, CYFD, interpreters, etc.) are low and have declined since his previous evaluation in 2023. The court staff gave him generally positive ratings, and the jurors rated him highly in all areas. In addition, observers in Judge Driggers’ courtroom noted his professionalism and measured approach to courtroom management.
Experience & Education: Judge Douglas Driggers was appointed to the District Court in October of 2003 and elected in November of 2004. He served two years as Assistant District Attorney from 1974 to 1976 in the Third Judicial District Court. He went into private practice from 1977 to 1985 and then served as District Attorney from 1985 to 1992. He went back into private practice from 1993 to 2003 prior to his appointment to the District Court in October of 2003. Judge Driggers received his law degree from the University of New Mexico in 1974.
PERCENTAGE THAT AGREE OR DISAGREE THAT THE JUSTICE EXHIBITS POSITIVE QUALITIES IN EACH CATEGORY
The “Agree” columns are comprised of the strongly agree and agree responses. Similarly, the “Disagree” columns are comprised of the strongly disagree and disagree responses. The combined percentage of “Agree”, “Disagree”, and “Partly Agree/Partly Disagree” for each category may not equal 100% due to rounding error. Some of the percentages that are reported in the above categories are an average of more than one question that appeared on the survey.
| Attorneys (n=33, 47% Response Rate) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Agree | Partly Agree / Partly Disagree | Disagree |
| Exhibits Integrity | 67% | 9% | 24% |
| Fair and Impartial | 67% | 11% | 22% |
| Application/Knowledge of Law | 78% | 11% | 11% |
| Communication Is Clear | 83% | 8% | 9% |
| Professional Demeanor | 55% | 18% | 27% |
| Preparation and Attentiveness | 85% | 12% | 3% |
| Court Staff (n=29) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Agree | Partly Agree / Partly Disagree | Disagree |
| Professional Demeanor | 66% | 24% | 10% |
| Respects Court Employees | 59% | 31% | 10% |
| Jurors (n=52, 26% Response Rate) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Agree | Partly Agree / Partly Disagree | Disagree |
| Fair and Impartial | 96% | 4% | 0% |
| Communication Is Clear | 95% | 4% | 1% |
| Professional Demeanor | 98% | 0% | 2% |
| Preparation and Attentiveness | 100% | 0% | 0% |
| Resource Staff (n=13) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Agree | Partly Agree / Partly Disagree | Disagree |
| Fair and Impartial | 18% | 18% | 64% |
| Communication Is Clear | 15% | 15% | 69% |
| Professional Demeanor | 8% | 23% | 69% |
| Preparation and Attentiveness | 21% | 36% | 44% |
