2024 retention · County Court · Logan County
41 percentile · rank 28 of 47
composite 0100
42 percentile · rank 61 of 107
composite 0100
27 52nd percentile among peers · 35th percentile statewide
671
Composite index 44.68 among peers (44.70 statewide): the mean of the three percentiles below. Rank orders by it.
3.20 of 4 · 36.17 percentile
2.103.80
3.20 of 4 · 40.43 percentile
2.173.75
85.00% 57.45 percentile
27.00%100.00%
Attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 85.00%
Non-attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 69.00%
| Category | Score | Peer median | Peer range (dot is this judge, line is the median) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case Management | 3.30median 3.30 | 3.30 | |
| Application and Knowledge of Law | 3.10median 3.10 | 3.10 | |
| Communications | 3.20median 3.30 | 3.30 | |
| Diligence | 3.10median 3.30 | 3.30 | |
| Demeanor | 3.30median 3.30 | 3.30 | |
| Fairness | 3.20median 3.20 | 3.20 |
Commission: meets standards (7–0)
The Thirteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees 7-0, with two members absent and one vacancy, that Judge Ray Ann Brammer MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
Judge Brammer has long been recognized for her focus on treatment and rehabilitation and the dignity and respect she shows all parties, including persons with mental illness and substance abuse issues. She has always been an advocate for expanding treatment options for these problems in the community and has recently been involved in expanding treatment courts in the jurisdiction. There is little concern about Judge Brammer’s performance as a jurist; she is generally correct and just in her legal rulings. Judge Brammer believes the oath of innocent until proven guilty. Judge Brammer believes that access to mental health is the biggest challenge facing rural areas. This was echoed in many of the judge’s interviews that were conducted.
Judge Brammer addressed the Commission regarding past concerns regarding staff. Judge Brammer believes that many of the perceived problems were due in part to court staff’s relationship with law enforcement and reflects law enforcement’s discontent with some of her rulings. Judge Brammer acknowledged that she holds court staff to a high standard but believes this is appropriate given the magnitude of the work in which the courts are engaged. Judge Brammer has taken additional steps regarding communication with staff. The Commission spoke to Judge Brammer at length about the challenges that were faced and she believes for the most part, since the last interviews took place, communication and interaction with staff have improved. The Commission conducted a personal interview of Judge Brammer, observed her in court, reviewed her self-evaluation, and received input from Chief Judge McGuire.
Judge Brammer was sworn in as the part-time Logan County Court judge on April 30th, 2014. Prior to her appointment, Judge Brammer was in private practice, and she still maintains her practice when not performing her duties as a judge. Judge Brammer’s docket consists primarily of traffic cases and infractions (52%), misdemeanor cases (17%), and civil cases (20%). Judge Brammer received her undergrad degree from Concordia College in Moorhead Minnesota and her J.D. from the University of Wyoming. Judge Brammer has lived and practiced in Logan County since 1995.
2020 retention · County Court · Logan County
27 percentile · rank 27 of 37
composite 0100
32 percentile · rank 68 of 100
composite 0100
21 32nd percentile among peers · 17th percentile statewide
380
Composite index 35.59 among peers (34.67 statewide): the mean of the three percentiles below. Rank orders by it.
3.30 of 4 · 29.73 percentile
1.504.00
3.20 of 4 · 16.22 percentile
1.503.95
88.00% 60.81 percentile
0.00%100.00%
Attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 88.00%
Non-attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 50.00%
| Category | Score | Peer median | Peer range (dot is this judge, line is the median) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case Management | 3.20median 3.50 | 3.50 | |
| Application and Knowledge of Law | 3.40median 3.30 | 3.30 | |
| Communications | 3.40median 3.60 | 3.60 | |
| Diligence | 3.00median 3.40 | 3.40 | |
| Demeanor | 3.40median 3.50 | 3.50 | |
| Fairness | 2.80median 3.90 | 3.90 |
Commission: meets standards (6–0)
The Thirteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance finds that the Honorable Ray Ann Brammer MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Six members of the Commission voted that Judge Brammer meets performance standards; no members voted that she does not meet performance standards (three members did not participate and there is one vacancy on the Commission).
Judge Brammer has been serving as the Logan County Court Judge for more than six years, with a docket consisting primarily of traffic, misdemeanor, criminal, and civil cases. This is a part-time position in a county with a high caseload. While the Commission finds that Judge Brammer meets performance standards, she is not without critics. Some have complained about her case management, specifically her system for setting jury trials. Because speedy trial guidelines require certain cases to be heard within a designated period of time, and a large number of scheduled jury trials settle prior to trial, Judge Brammer has implemented a system where more than one trial is scheduled on a given day, with the expectation that not all of them will actually proceed to trial. Judge Brammer has expressed that it would be impossible for her, as a part-time judge, to meet speedy trial requirements and perform her normal docket duties without double setting or triple setting jury trials. She believes her system to be the most efficient use of court time and notes that none of her critics have proposed a better solution. Judge Brammer appears to be doing her best to effectively manage a full-time docket as a part-time judge. During the interim evaluation, there were complaints about Judge Brammer’s judicial philosophy with regard to bond setting and sentencing. At that time, the Commission felt she articulated a rationale which was within the bounds of judicial discretion, grounded in empirical research, and driven by a genuine desire for improved long-term outcomes for the community. Those complaints were largely absent from the more recent survey and, in fact, a number of respondents commended Judge Brammer’s leadership in the area of bond reform. Judge Brammer has worked to engage community resources to address underlying issues which may cause individuals to interact with the court system, such as mental illness, substance abuse, and homelessness. The Commission was impressed by Judge Brammer’s proactive efforts in this regard and believes it speaks to her commitment to the community she serves.
The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Brammer. It also reviewed recordings of court proceedings; written materials, including a self-evaluation and orders issued; and survey responses from 17 attorneys and 4 non-attorneys who had interaction with Judge Brammer in court. The Commission placed limited weight on the numerical scores from non-attorney respondents, due to the small sample size. However, overall, Judge Brammer scored highly among attorney respondents. Survey comments were mixed, with criticism primarily relating to the case management complaints identified above.
In addition to her role as Logan County Court Judge, Judge Brammer maintains her private practice as an attorney.
2016 retention · County Court · Logan County
43 percentile · rank 21 of 36
composite 0100
43 percentile · rank 62 of 108
composite 0100
61 37th percentile among peers · 37th percentile statewide
5140
Composite index 39.81 among peers (40.90 statewide): the mean of the three percentiles below. Rank orders by it.
3.51 of 4 · 45.83 percentile
3.113.84
3.41 of 4 · 34.72 percentile
3.023.84
75.00% 38.89 percentile
50.00%100.00%
Attorneys
- Overall grade
- 3.18
- Say “meets standards”
- 75.00%
Non-attorneys
- Overall grade
- 3.62
- Say “meets standards”
- 84.00%
| Category | Score | Peer median | Peer range (dot is this judge, line is the median) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case Management | 3.26median 3.50 | 3.50 | |
| Application and Knowledge of Law | 3.23median 3.49 | 3.49 | |
| Communications | 3.55median 3.65 | 3.65 | |
| Diligence | 3.30median 3.50 | 3.50 | |
| Demeanor | 3.45median 3.62 | 3.62 | |
| Fairness | 3.67median 3.66 | 3.66 |
Commission: meets standards (9–0)
The Thirteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (9-0, with one Commissioner absent) recommends that Judge Ray Ann Brammer BE RETAINED.
Judge Brammer received her Bachelor’s Degree from Concordia College, in Moorhead, Minnesota, in 1984 and her Juris Doctorate from the University of Wyoming in 1987. She has maintained a private law practice since 1990, and continues to do so and to speak to groups across the country on issues related to water. She serves on the Board of the RE 1 Valley Foundation and the Sterling Urban Renewal Authority. She was appointed as Logan County Court Judge on April 30, 2014 and handles mostly traffic, civil, and criminal matters.
The Commission reviewed completed surveys from sixteen attorney and forty-five non-attorney respondents familiar with Judge Brammer. Of those sixty-one respondents, 75% of the attorneys and 84% of the non-attorneys recommended retention; 12% of the attorneys and 12% of the non-attorneys recommended not to retain; and 12% of the attorneys and 5% of the non-attorneys had no opinion. (Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.) The Commission also reviewed the Judge’s Self-Evaluation, a sampling of her written rulings, and conducted courtroom observations and an interview with the Judge.
Survey scores reflected strength in the areas of fairness and communication, with many comments that Judge Brammer was compassionate and understanding in her interactions with litigants, communicated effectively with those who did not have an attorney, and treated defendants with dignity and respect. Some survey comments expressed concerns about Judge Brammer’s knowledge of criminal law and procedure and her ability to properly analyze and apply the law to the specific facts of each case. In her interview Judge Brammer indicated that she believed these responses were based upon decisions she made shortly after her appointment, at a time when she was less familiar with criminal law, and that since then she has become better versed in these areas. The Commission noted that several people responding to the survey referenced concern about the judge’s lack of appropriate demeanor on some occasions, although the Judge denied the validity of these complaints. There were a significant number of comments expressing concern about Judge Brammer’s philosophy regarding bond and sentencing determinations and their potential impact on the community. While survey comments indicate that not everyone embraces Judge Brammer’s philosophy, it is nonetheless evident from her statements during her interview that she formulated her philosophy on bonds and sentencing in a conscious and deliberate manner, based on research regarding long-term outcomes and criminal justice trends. Judge Brammer employs an approach grounded in public policy considerations and that she is acutely aware of the potential impacts of her decisions on the community.