Relating to the collection and publication of judicial officer performance information

Sponsored by the House Judiciary Committee

Topics:Courts & civil law

Same legislation: HSB 631

Write your legislators about it

Official bill page Lobbyist declarations One-pager to print

Where it is now

Done: IntroducedJanuary 28, 2026
Done: SubcommitteeJanuary 28, 2026
Done: House committeeFebruary 19, 2026
Done: Passes the HouseMarch 4, 202673–19
Stopped: Senate committeeDied when the General Assembly ended
Next: Passes the Senate
Next: To the Governor
Next: Signed into law

Died when the session ended The 2026 session adjourned on May 3, 2026, the General Assembly’s last regular session. Bills that didn’t pass both chambers died. What’s a funnel?

What’s in it

AI summary Each year, the state court administrator will collect and publish data about how district court judges are performing in their courtrooms. This information will cover things like sentencing, how quickly they handle cases, and how often their decisions are changed by higher courts. The judicial branch will also build a website where people can search for a specific judge to see these statistics and read the judge's own personal statement.¹

Read the official explanation

This bill relates to the collection and publication of judicial officer performance information. The bill requires the state court administrator to annually collect and publish performance information for district court judges. The performance information must include information relating to pretrial discretion, sentencing outcomes, appellate review, and courtroom efficiency. The judicial branch must create and maintain an internet site that includes a county and name search interface, performance information, average performance statistics for each judicial district, and a space for each judge’s personal statement.

Why it matters. District court judges would be subject to annual performance reporting regarding sentencing, pretrial discretion, courtroom efficiency, and appellate reviews. The judicial branch would create a searchable website for the public to access this data and judge statements, resulting in an estimated one-time cost of between $1.3 million and $2.1 million and estimated annual ongoing costs of $350,000 to $700,000.²

Changed since by amendment H-8115; see Amendments.

Full bill text³

Senate subcommittee

Named March 10, 2026. It hasn’t reported yet.

Three legislators hear a bill first and recommend what the committee should do; it’s the best time to weigh in. How to take part

Fiscal note

Cost: up to $700,000 Compare with other bills

AI summary This bill requires the State Court Administrator to collect and publish annual performance data for various district court judges and create a searchable website for that information. The Judicial Branch would face an estimated one-time cost of between $1.3 million and $2.1 million for system modifications, website development, and training. Additionally, the Judicial Branch would incur estimated annual ongoing costs of $350,000 to $700,000 for staffing and maintenance.⁴

Read the fiscal note

Description

House File 2719 requires the State Court Administrator to annually collect and publish specified performance information for each district court judge, district associate judge, full-time associate juvenile judge, and full-time associate probate judge.

Performance information must include data relating to pretrial discretion such as bond-setting and release decisions, sentencing outcomes, appellate reversals, and courtroom efficiency metrics. The Bill also requires the Judicial Branch to create and maintain a website that includes county and name search functionality, individual judge performance data, judicial district average statistics, and personal statements for each judge.

Background

The Judicial Branch collects case data through the Electronic Document Management System (EDMS), but the system is designed for document management and case tracking, not for statistical or data analysis for visualization or publishing. Reports are periodically published with combined statistical information, including the Iowa Judicial Branch Annual Report, which provides statewide and judicial district data.

Judicial officers are subject to retention elections. The Judicial Branch makes the retention election voter’s guide available to voters, which includes judicial officer biographical information, and the Iowa State Bar Association prepares performance evaluation summaries. Detailed judge-specific performance metrics relating to bond-setting practices, sentencing variance, appellate reversal rates, or time-to-ruling statistics are not currently required to be compiled and published. The Judicial Branch provides online resources like court opinions and summary caseload statistics, but it does not provide a searchable dashboard for judge-specific performance.

Assumptions

Sentencing recommendations and statutory sentencing guidelines are not centrally captured in EDMS.
Additional programming would be required to standardize bond, sentencing, and appellate outcome data across judicial districts.
Case assignment practices differ across judicial districts. Case statistics are not consistently tracked or attributed to individual judges because cases may be handled by multiple judges between case inception and disposition.
Total implementation of HF 2719 will take approximately 2.5 to 4 years:
System design and requirement gathering: 6-9 months
EDMS modifications and testing: 12-18 months
Pilot program in select districts: 6-12 months
Statewide rollout and training: 6-9 months
The Judicial Branch proposed implementing the Bill in three phases.
Phase one, the pilot program, will select two to three judicial districts with differing methods of assignment, and implement a subset of performance metrics.
Phase two will refine data collection requirements based on pilot findings and implement EDMS modifications.
Phase three will assess the quality and consistency of statewide data, and make system refinements to develop and employ the website and searchable performance dashboard.

Fiscal Impact

House File 2719 is expected to result in increased costs to the Judicial Branch. The estimated one-time cost is between $1.3 million and $2.1 million, with an estimated implementation timeline from 2.5 to 4 years. These costs would include the following:

Modification to the EDMS – $1.0 million to $1.5 million.
Website development – $100,000 to $250,000.
Training and process administration – $150,000 to $300,000.

The annual ongoing costs are estimated to be $350,000 to $700,000 per year. These costs include the following:

Additional staffing for data analysis and web support – $200,000 to $400,000 annually.
Ongoing maintenance – $150,000 to $300,000 annually.

Source

Judicial Branch

Judicial Performance Information · March 3, 2026 · $700,000

Reading a fiscal note⁵

Iowa Code it changes

Creates§602.1219

How the Code works⁶

Lobbying

2 for · 2 against · 9 undecided · Who →

Family tree

Study bill

HSB 631Renumbered

91st General Assembly

HF 2719Passed a chamberfrom HSB 631

Notes

The summary is written by an AI model from the official explanation. It can miss details; the explanation and the bill are what count. ↩
Written by an AI model from the official explanation and fiscal note only, for bills that passed a chamber, drew heavy lobbying or carry a large cost. It doesn’t weigh whether the bill is a good idea. ↩
The explanation is printed with the bill as introduced and written by the Legislative Services Agency, the Legislature’s nonpartisan staff. ↩
Written by an AI model from the newest fiscal note. It can miss details; the note itself is what counts. ↩
Fiscal notes are nonpartisan cost estimates from the Legislative Services Agency’s Fiscal Services Division. The newest is listed first. ↩
Code sections are read from the bill as introduced. Each links to every bill touching that chapter of the Iowa Code. ↩