Keep Simpson and Darrah on the bench, lawyers say

Park County Circuit Court Judge Bill Simpson and District Court Judge Joey Darrah are doing good work and should remain on the bench, say attorneys who have practiced before the two.

Simpson and Darrah handle the vast majority of court cases in Park County and both are up for commissioning this year. That means voters in the Fifth Judicial District (Big Horn Basin) will have to decide whether the two local judges should keep their positions or be replaced by the governor.

If the results of a recent bar poll in the US state of Wyoming are any indication, Darrah and Simpson have little to worry about: dozens of lawyers who have appeared before the justices overwhelmingly support them both. They also gave the lawyers the highest rating — “extremely fair” — in more than two dozen categories related to their behavior, reasoning and more.

Judge Bill Simpson

id='h4'>

Simpson was first appointed to the bench by Gov. Matt Mead in 2017 and was retained by voters the following year.

Of the 54 attorneys who commented on his retention this time, 45, or 83%, said Simpson should remain in office; 87% had offered similar support in 2018.

As a district court judge, Simpson hears criminal cases, civil cases involving disputes over $50,000, divorces, probate cases and juvenile delinquency cases, among others.

Although voters are technically being asked to consider extending his term for six years, Simpson is expected to be 70 and enter mandatory retirement in 2027.

Judge Joey Darrah

id='h4'>

Meanwhile, this will be Darrah's first vote to remain in office since Gov. Mark Gordon appointed him to the bench in late 2021.

In the Bar Association's survey, 83% of responding attorneys – 19 of 23 – supported Darrah's retention. If voters across the basin approve, he can remain in office for another four years before running for re-election.

As a District Court Judge, Darrah handles a variety of misdemeanor criminal cases, debt collection cases, other minor civil actions, and protective orders, among other matters.

Judge Ed Luhm

id='h4'>

Park County voters will also join residents of Big Horn, Washakie and Hot Springs in evaluating the performance of District Judge Ed Luhm of Worland.

Luhm did particularly well in the Bar Association's survey: 92% of responding lawyers (23 of 25) supported his retention. Gordon benched Luhm in early 2019 and he was retained by voters the following year.

Judges Kate Fox and John Fenn

id='h4'>

Voters across Wyoming are also being asked to weigh in on two members of the Wyoming Supreme Court: Chief Justice Kate Fox and Justice John Fenn.

In a joint voter guide, the Park County Patriots and Conservative Roundup factions endorsed both Simpson and Darrah as good guys but did not call for votes for Fox and Fenn.

Park County Patriots secretary Troy Bray said the opposition to Fenn and Fox was largely due to a Supreme Court decision related to the state's abortion ban.

Wyoming lawmakers passed laws in 2022 and 2023 that would generally ban abortions in the state, but Teton County District Court Judge Melissa Owens put them on hold while pro-choice advocates challenge the legality of the restrictions. Both in 2022 and last spring, the Wyoming Supreme Court rejected Owens' invitation to intervene in the litigation and determine whether the new laws violate the constitutional rights of Wyoming residents.

“This Court recognizes that it will likely have to decide at some point on the constitutionality of Wyoming's abortion laws,” Fox wrote in the April order, but said the Supreme Court did not believe it could answer Owens' questions without further facts. The judge sent the case back to the district court so that Owens could rule on the parties' motions for summary judgment and potentially “clarify and narrow the issues with which this (Supreme) Court will consider.”

The court had also declined to comment on the abortion dispute in 2022.

Bray called it a bad decision. According to the Park County Patriots, both Fenn and Fox are “further left than we would like.”

The state's lawyers viewed the judges more favorably. Both received an “Exceedingly Fair” rating in the Bar Association’s survey, with 86% of responding attorneys supporting retention of Fox and 88% supporting retention of Fenn.

Strong support

id='h4'>

Of the 30 judges and justices who applied for retention, 29 received the support of a large majority of responding attorneys. The only exception was Laramie County Circuit Court Judge Antoinette Williams, who was supported by 44.4% of responding attorneys; Laramie County Circuit Court Judge Thomas Lee had the lowest approval rating in the poll, at about 35%, but announced his retirement in August.

Beyond ratings of support for retention, judges are rated on a scale of 10 to 100 in various categories covering their impartiality, integrity, expertise, promptness and more.

Judges are provided averages of their scores, but those numbers are “suppressed” or removed from the public report. The public version only reports whether a judge's average score was above fair (somewhere in the range of 70-100), fair (40-69), or below fair (10-39).

Of the 54 lawyers evaluated as part of the 2024 Judicial Performance Assessment, all but seven received an “Exceedingly Fair” rating in every category.

A total of 417 attorneys participated in this year's survey, representing approximately 25% of the Wyoming Bar Association's membership.

For more information about the retention process and reviewing survey results, visit tinyurl.com/3ywxr9x4.

(Editor's note: The original version of this story referred to the wrongful ruling by the Wyoming Supreme Court that contributed to the Park County Patriots' decision to oppose the convictions of Judges Kate Fox and John Fenn. The original version said the court's decision was to block two lawmakers and a pro-life organization from joining a pending lawsuit over Wyoming's new abortion restrictions. However, Park County Patriots secretary Troy Bray had actually accused the court of failing to take action in the case, which was a separate decision. The Tribune regrets the error.)