Final Recommendation

The Honorable

Julie N. Altwies

Metropolitan Court Judge
Bernalillo County

Year: 2010

Recommendation: Retain

Election Results: Retained

Evaluation: Overall, Judge Julie N. Altwies's scores are generally positive. Her scores among attorneys and court staff have improved since her last evaluation. Attorneys rated her positively for ensuring personal staff is professional and knowledgeable, ruling decisively on procedural and substantive matters, maintaining proper control over the proceedings, and for being attentive to the proceedings. She also scored highly in all areas among the court staff and jurors. Some attorneys feel that Judge Altwies does not always display fairness and impartiality toward each side of the case, that she does not always treat all participants equally, and that she sometimes comes across as arrogant. However, all of these scores have improved since her previous evaluation in 2008. In addition, prosecutors rate her significantly higher than defense attorneys. After considering the survey results, the court observations, and her interview, the Commission concluded that Judge Altwies is committed to improving her judicial performance.

Experience & Education: Judge Altwies was appointed to the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court in 2005 and elected in 2006. She was a member of the statewide Ignition Interlock Task Force, Violence Against Women Implementation Team, and is one of three judges who preside over the Metropolitan Court DWI Drug Court Program. She also speaks at Neighborhood Watch Programs and judges and teaches mock trial students. Judge Altwies received both her undergraduate and law degrees from the University of New Mexico.

PERCENTAGE THAT AGREE OR DISAGREE THAT THE JUDGE EXHIBITS POSITIVE QUALITIES IN EACH CATEGORY *

Attorneys (n=182, 76.2% Response Rate)
Category Agree Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree Disagree
Exhibits Integrity 79% 8% 13%
Fair and Impartial 54% 22% 25%
Knowledgeable of Law 67% 21% 12%
Communication is Clear 68% 21% 11%
Appropriate Demeanor 61% 24% 15%
Properly Controls Proceedings 78% 18% 4%
Respects Court Employees N/A N/A N/A
Court Staff (n=69, 62.2% Response Rate)
Category Agree Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree Disagree
Exhibits Integrity 94% 3% 3%
Fair and Impartial N/A N/A N/A
Knowledgeable of Law N/A N/A N/A
Communication is Clear N/A N/A N/A
Appropriate Demeanor N/A N/A N/A
Properly Controls Proceedings N/A N/A N/A
Respects Court Employees 93% 1% 6%
Jurors (n=8, 23% Response Rate)
Category Agree Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree Disagree
Exhibits Integrity 100% 0% 0%
Fair and Impartial 100% 0% 0%
Knowledgeable of Law N/A N/A N/A
Communication is Clear 100% 0% 0%
Appropriate Demeanor 100% 0% 0%
Properly Controls Proceedings 100% 0% 0%
Respects Court Employees N/A N/A N/A

* On the tables above, 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. "N/A" indicates that the category is "not applicable" because some populations were not asked certain questions.

 

PERCENTAGE THAT RECOMMEND THE JUDGE BE RETAINED OR NOT BE RETAINED IN OFFICE. ‡

‡ On the charts above, the "Retain" columns are comprised of the strongly recommend retain and somewhat recommend retain responses. Similarly, the "Do Not Retain" columns are comprised of the strongly recommend not retain and somewhat recommend not retain responses.

 

Back to top