Final Recommendation

Francis J. Mathew
The Honorable

Francis J. Mathew

District Court Judge
1st Judicial District --
Los Alamos, Rio Arriba, and Santa Fe Counties
Civil Court

Year: 2020

Recommendation: Retain

Election Results:

Evaluation: Judge Francis Mathew received a very positive overall evaluation. For example, he received high ratings from attorneys for being attentive to the proceedings, being courteous to all participants, and for demonstrating appropriate demeanor on the bench. Judge Mathew received very positive ratings on all attributes from court staff. Judge Francis Mathew received positive ratings among court staff for respecting court employees regardless of position and for behaving in a manner that encourages respect for the courts. In addition, the resource staff (e.g., law enforcement, probation and parole officers, interpreters, etc.) rated him positively on all attributes.

Experience & Education: Judge Francis Mathew received his Bachelor of Business Administration in 1974 from the University of Notre Dame and received his law degree from the University of Notre Dame in 1979. He was appointed as a District Judge in 2013 and was subsequently elected in 2014. Judge Francis Mathew’s community involvement includes serving on the Saint Francis Cathedral Basilica Finance Council from 1992 to 2019.

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

Attorneys (n=303, 41% Response Rate)
Category Agree Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree Disagree
Exhibits Integrity 91% 6% 3%
Fair and Impartial 82% 12% 6%
Knowledgeable of Law 82% 13% 5%
Communication is Clear 87% 8% 5%
Appropriate Demeanor 96% 2% 2%
Properly Controls Proceedings 94% 5% 1%
Respects Court Employees N/A N/A N/A
Court Staff (n=30, 40% Response Rate)
Category Agree Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree Disagree
Exhibits Integrity 100% 0% 0%
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 100% 0% 0%
Jurors (n=10, 29% 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
Resource Staff (n=48, 10% 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. ‡

Attorney Retain Recommendation Bar ChartCourt Staff Retain Recommendation Bar ChartResource Staff Retain Recommendation Bar Chart

‡ 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.

 

Privacy Policy

Back to top