On Jan. 19, the Virginia General Assembly scrubbed from the state judiciary the name of Judge Birdie Hairston Jamison, who was up for reappointment to the Richmond General District Court.

Judge Jamison, 57, is chief judge of the city’s busy traffic court, having served on the bench for more than 23 years. She is the longest serving traffic court judge in the state.

She has been a mentor to young lawyers and received accolades in the past. In 2010, the Virginia Lawyers Weekly, a respected publication, named her to its list of 50 influential women in the legal profession.

All of this makes it so much more difficult to understand why Judge Jamison was not reappointed by state lawmakers. What adds insult to injury is that their decision to toss her — made on the hallowed King holiday — was based on something other than the content of her character.

Members of the Senate and House Courts of Justice committees justified their action by stating that Judge Jamison scored poorly on a survey of judges overseen by the state Supreme Court.

The survey was completed anonymously by 133 lawyers who claim to have practiced before her in the previous 12 months. Based on the survey results, she was rated below average in several categories, including her overall performance, her knowl- edge and faithfulness to the law, latitude allowed to lawyers to present their cases, respect shown to court participants, dignity and courtesy, patience and lack of bias.

Many people who have appeared in her court have taken issue with the scores. In signed letters and petitions delivered to lawmakers and in testimony before the Senate and House joint committees, they said the scores in no way reflect Judge Jamison’s even judicial temperament, consistency, fairness and adherence to the law — all of which are hallmarks of her court.

Others have said privately that the low marks are retribution because Judge Jamison refused to kowtow to special interests or the legal crowd that expects her to bend the rules for well-heeled, West End clients with DUIs who believe they are above the law.

Through this process of using anonymous surveys and per- formance scores, the Virginia Supreme Court has turned the process of evaluating judges for re-election into little more than a popularity contest akin to prom queen or class president.

But this goes deeper and is more serious.

We understand well the biases that occur in a male-dominated sector such as the law, and the attendant hubris born of jealousy and insecurity of those who may practice before her.

We also note with great interest the number of women — and people of color — who have been removed from the bench in Virginia in recent years. Judge Jamison is one of five sitting judges ousted by state lawmakers in January. Three of them are women.

The surveys — to which no critic has pinned his or her name — are simply tools behind which cowards with a vendetta can cover themselves, and their tracks, in seeking to remove fair- minded people from the bench.

Judge Jamison noted during a hearing before lawmakers that she never has been the subject of an official complaint before the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission, which investigates complaints of misconduct against all state court judges. Since her appointment in 1991, she also repeatedly has been found qualified by judges who have reviewed her work in court.

There was no way for Judge Jamison to defend herself before the panel of lawmakers against baseless claims.

When Judge Jamison clears out her chambers and exits the court on Dec. 1, when her term ends, she can walk out with her head held high.

We hope she will join the efforts of others to revamp a system of judicial re-election that is deeply flawed.