Final Recommendation

Emilio Jacob Chavez
The Honorable

Emilio Jacob Chavez

District Court Judge
8th Judicial District --
Colfax, Taos, and Union Counties
General Jurisdiction Court

Year: 2020

Recommendation: Retain

Election Results:

Evaluation: Overall, Judge Emilio Chavez’s scores were positive. Attorneys rated him highly for being attentive to the proceedings, being courteous to all participants, and for ensuring his personal staff is professional, productive, and knowledgeable of court policies and procedures. The resource staff (e.g., law enforcement, probation/parole, etc.) rated him positively on all attributes. The court staff rated him positively for behaving in a manner that encourages respect for the courts and for respecting court employees regardless of position. However, the court staff rated him slightly lower when it comes to ensuring his personal staff is professional, productive and knowledgeable of court policies and procedures. In his interview, Judge Chavez acknowledged this and is working to improve through education, systems development and mindfulness.

Experience & Education: Judge Emilio Chavez was appointed as a District Court Judge in 2015 and subsequently elected the following year. He graduated in 2001 from Grinnell College and in 2004 received his law degree from the UNM School of Law. Judge Chavez was an Assistant Attorney for the 8th Judicial District Attorney’s office from 2006 to 2015, and an attorney for Slover and Loftus from 2004 to 2006. Judge Chavez is currently an assistant baseball coach.

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

Attorneys (n=56, 34% Response Rate)
Category Agree Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree Disagree
Exhibits Integrity 84% 9% 7%
Fair and Impartial 83% 9% 8%
Knowledgeable of Law 83% 7% 9%
Communication is Clear 84% 10% 7%
Appropriate Demeanor 87% 7% 7%
Properly Controls Proceedings 91% 7% 2%
Respects Court Employees N/A N/A N/A
Court Staff (n=17, 55% Response Rate)
Category Agree Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree Disagree
Exhibits Integrity 87% 7% 7%
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 73% 13% 13%
Jurors (n=38, 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 99% 0% 1%
Appropriate Demeanor 100% 0% 0%
Properly Controls Proceedings 100% 0% 0%
Respects Court Employees N/A N/A N/A
Resource Staff (n=24, 19% Response Rate)
Category Agree Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree Disagree
Exhibits Integrity 96% 0% 4%
Fair and Impartial 94% 2% 4%
Knowledgeable of Law N/A N/A N/A
Communication is Clear 96% 0% 4%
Appropriate Demeanor 96% 0% 4%
Properly Controls Proceedings 96% 0% 4%
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