The pursuit of true justice sometimes means judicial officials need to be investigated. Amendment H would create a new board to investigate judicial complaints.
At its simplest, passing Colorado Amendment H would create a new state Independent Judicial Discipline Adjudicative Board to conduct disciplinary hearings and to hear appeals of informal remedial action orders from the Commission on Judicial Discipline. However, there’s much more to this broader issue than what’s in this one-sentence description. This is a Constitutional amendment and would require 55% voter approval to pass.
The Colorado General Assembly referred what is now Amendment H to the ballot by passing House Concurrent Resolution 23-1001. The resolution passed both the state House and state Senate on unanimous votes.
Why Is The New Board Considered Necessary?
There has been a long history of at least trying to establish systems of checks and balances in governments. This creates opportunities for individuals or entities to try rectifying mistakes or injustices committed by other individuals or entities, and to offer some protections against power imbalances. For a super-brief editorial comment, nobody should really blindly trust anybody, even if they’re in a position of public trust, so there are good reasons to have checks and balances.
Colorado voters already established the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline, back in 1966 as a constitutional amendment. The 10-person CCJD is still in existence, and it’s made up of four judges, two attorneys, and four citizens who aren’t lawyers or judges. The Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court appoints the four judges, while the Governor of Colorado appoints the two attorneys and four citizens.
In short, complaints and disciplinary actions regarding the judicial system happen. According to the 2023 CCJD annual report, the commission received 344 Requests For Evaluation, although 251 were dismissed on initial evaluations, with RFEs filed in every Colorado judicial district. The report also included three cases of public discipline:
- Former Chief Justice Nathan B. Coats was publicly censured for failure to “perform judicial and administrative duties competently and diligently” in relation to a contract controversy.
- Former Mesa County District Court Judge Lance Timbreza was publicly censured for sexually harassing an attorney at a Colorado Bar Association event.
- Former Fifth Judicial District Court Judge Mark Thompson was publicly censured for exhibiting poor temperament toward attorneys at a hearing.
The new Independent Judicial Discipline Adjudicative Board, if Amendment H passes, would have 12 members: four district judges with no disciplinary history, appointed by the state Supreme Court; four attorneys appointed by the Governor; and four citizens appointed by the Governor. Two members from each of the three categories would initially be appointed to five-year terms, and the other six members would be appointed for three-year terms to help set up a staggered system where the terms of all members don’t expire at the same time. The next round of appointments would be for five-year terms.
Supporters say Amendment H would also have an element of independence from the Colorado Supreme Court, in part because it would establish a seven-person “tribunal” system to hear complaints involving Supreme Court members, their staff or their family members. The state Court Administrator (or a designee) would select tribunal members from statewide district judges and Court of Appeals judges who aren’t currently involved in disciplinary hearings pending before the Board or the Commission on Judicial Discipline, or disciplinary hearings involving themselves.
Passing Amendment H would also make records involving procedures against a judge public “when formal charges are filed,” per the state’s Blue Book.
While the General Assembly and all its committees passed HCR 23-1001 unanimously, a member of the Judicial Integrity Project testified against the resolution in committee. The Judicial Integrity Project’s website includes blog posts and statements against Amendment H, partially because it claims it will “only make minimal changes to the judicial discipline process when much more substantial change is needed.” It also claims Amendment H would insert “more conflicts of interest” because the Supreme Court would appoint members to the new Board while the Supreme Court is already appointing members to the existing Commission.
The fiscal note for HCR 23-1001 assumed fairly minimal state spending if Amendment H passes – about $55,000 in FY 2024-25 and $41,000 in FY 2025-26. The expenditures would be for new compensation to non-judge members of the board, travel expenses, and training.
Richard’s Take
I will vote “yes” on Amendment H. Judicial misconduct complaints in Colorado have unfortunately been in the news relatively often during recent years, and the public deserves greater assurances that the state can and will investigate complaints when they’re reported.
People often rightly complain about new laws establishing “more bureaucracy,” but in this case Amendment H would basically create volunteer positions, except for minimal expense for reimbursements and training, which means state taxpayers won’t need to pony up more money.
