Whether to reform the state’s system for disciplining judges, an issue brought to public attention after a recent payoff scandal, is among the questions on this year’s general election ballot.
Proposition H, if approved, would establish an independent panel to address ethical lapses by members of the state judiciary.
Under current law, complaints that judges have violated applicable rules of conduct are heard by the Commission on Judicial Discipline. The members of that panel, who are not paid a salary, include four trial court judges chosen by the chief justice of the state supreme court and two lawyers and four other individuals selected by the governor. The commissioners serve four-year terms.
Only in cases resolved by a private admonishment does the CJD decide the outcome. The state supreme court decides on a sanction if the CJD recommends censure, suspension, removal, or retirement under.
And the public often does not learn about complaints against judges because they are publicized only if a penalty more severe than a private admonition is recommended. That is a consequence of language added to the state constitution after voters approved an amendment to it in Nov. 1966.
“Prior to the filing of a recommendation to the supreme court by the commission against any justice or judge, all papers filed with and proceedings before the commission on judicial discipline or masters appointed by the supreme court . . . shall be confidential,” according to the governing charter of Colorado. In general, that document continues, “the filing of papers with and the giving of testimony before the commission . . . shall be privileged.”
A new Independent Judicial Adjudication Board would be created if Proposition H becomes part of the state constitution. The IJAB would be composed of four attorneys, four judges of the state’s district courts, and four citizens appointed by the chief justice and the governor, subject to state senate confirmation.
The new tribunal would have the authority to decide whether to accept the CJR recommendations, a power the state’s high court would lose. The IJAB’s decision could, however, be appealed to the Denver-based supreme court unless a supreme court justice is the target of the complaint. In that instance a panel of appellate and trial judges from lower courts would decide any appeal.
All complaints against judges would be made public once filed.
State legislators unanimously referred Proposition H to voters during the 2023 General Assembly Session. The decision to do so followed a Denver Post investigation that uncovered an effort to induce an alleged sexual harassment victim to keep quiet about her experiences.
That investigation eventually led to the censure of former chief justice Nathan B. Coats.
Rep. Mike Weissman, D-Arapahoe County and chair of the state House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee, said in a March 2023 statement following committee approval of the measure that it would ‘increase transparency.”
“Independent oversight will hold the judicial branch accountable when misconduct occurs,” Weissman continued. “Our bipartisan measures will modernize judicial discipline in our state and create a simpler process for filing judicial complaints. These measures set in motion a much-needed overhaul of the state’s judicial discipline process to ensure Coloradans can seek justice when inappropriate conduct occurs, increase the transparency of disciplinary actions, and restore trust in our courts.”
The then-minority leader of the chamber, Republican Mike Lynch of Wellington, said in the same statement that the General Assembly’s aim in referring Proposition H to the voters was to “focus both the sunlight and transparency into our state’s too often mysterious judiciary.”
No political committees opposed to Proposition H have registered with the secretary of state’s office.
Under Amendment 71, added to the state constitution in 2016, Proposition H requires at least 55% of the electorate to vote “yes” in order to be adopted.
Another 2023 law established an ombudsman for the state’s judicial branch. That office is responsible, among other duties, for maintaining an anonymous reporting mechanism for complaints against judges and assuring that the authorities who regulate attorneys and law enforcement are kept informed in appropriate cases.
The CJD’s rules of procedure specify that Colorado judges can be disciplined for “[w]willful misconduct in office, including misconduct which, although not related to judicial duties, brings the judicial office into disrepute or is prejudicial to the administration of justice,” “willful or persistent failure to perform judicial duties, including incompetent performance of judicial duties,” “intemperance, including extreme or immoderate personal conduct; recurring loss of temper or control; abuse of alcohol, prescription drugs, or other legal substances; or the use of illegal or non-prescribed narcotic or mind-altering drugs;” and “any conduct that constitutes a violation of the Code [of Judicial Conduct].”
Judges are also subject to suspension and removal from office if convicted of a felony, according to a mandate included in Article Six of the Colorado Constitution.
The Estes Valley Voice 2024 Voter Guide has information about all the candidates and ballot issues that registered voters in the Estes Valley will see on their ballot. We welcome Letters to the Editor (400 words or less) and longer, opinion editorials (typically 700-800 words, but sometimes longer) about election issues of interest and concern to voters in our area. Please send them to news@estesvalleyvoice.com.