By Cory Gaines | Commentary, Colorado Accountability Project
I’ll be dipped: the judicial retention system does sometimes NOT recommend retention.
The Colorado Politics article linked first below details a rarity in Colorado: three judges that the judicial evaluation committees (at least the local ones — more later) recommend that voters do not retain.
I say rarity, because I can only recall one other case in my time writing when this happened.
I’ll leave it to you to read the article if you’d like. I went to get the information straight from the horse’s mouth and thus the three judges who didn’t get a retain recommendation are listed in links 2 – 4 below.
Roughly speaking, the three are from the NE Plains, Crowley County, and Pueblo County.
The one that is local to me was (by both the article and the official evaluation page) the most dramatic, so I’ll focus there, though the Crowley County one was not without interest.
I say dramatic because there is some disagreement between the local evaluation committee, the state committee, and the judge herself.
Anyone that’s ever had to soften a blow knows when reading something like the opening paragraph that it’s coming. Quoting:
“The State Commission on Judicial Performance thanks the volunteers of the 13th Judicial District Commission and all Commissioners of Judicial Performance for their work evaluating Colorado Judges. We appreciate the time, diligence and concern the Commissioners put into this work. We especially appreciate the understanding of local needs and challenges courts face in districts across Colorado that the Commissioners bring to their work.”
And it doesn’t take long to land. Quoting again:
“However, as a result of a Rule 21 Complaint and independent review, the State Commission is taking the extraordinary step of issuing its own narrative and recommendation regarding Judge Dina M. Christiansen. The State Commission is not directing the District Commission to revise their evaluation narrative but offers this narrative to provide voters additional information to consider while voting.”
The issue seems to stem from the judge, and the state level judicial evaluation committee, crying foul that the local evaluation committee didn’t provide the judge a mid-way evaluation and a chance to fix the issues they raise in their later report.
The state level commission then proceeds to offer their own narrative about the judge’s performance, including this baffling combination of words (quoting with formatting intact):
“The State Commission on Judicial Performance agrees by a vote of 8-0 with one commissioner absent and two vacancies, that Judge Dina M. Christiansen MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The State Commission also recommends that Judge Christiansen participate in a Judicial Improvement Plan to address the issues identified by survey respondents and the District Commission.”
Meets standards but needs to undergo an improvement plan? At the very least, this feels like stretching the boundaries of meeting standards out farther than they should. I understand the fairness of not being offered a chance to improve before you put out in public, but while a chance to improve and see your criticisms in private is the decent thing to do, turning around and saying someone meets the standards due to missing that chance is too far.
The local commission’s report follows this which lists out the specific reasons for their do not retain recommendation. I’ll leave that to you.
Since this is a discussion of a specific individual, it only seems fair to include the statement by the judge herself. Last quote from this report with formatting and links left intact:
“Judge Dina M. Christiansen’s Response: I respectfully disagree with the commission’s narrative as it is not based on objective data contained in my 2026 evaluation showing 93% of attorneys and 82% of non-attorneys state that I DO meet performance standards. Surveys regarding my performance directly contradict the commission’s views. Attorneys rated my overall demeanor a 3.3 out of 4.0. Attorneys rated me a 3.3 for giving proceedings a sense of dignity, 3.4 for addressing individuals respectfully, 3.2 in reacting to incidents in the courtroom appropriately, and a 3.3 for doing the necessary homework and being prepared. These results are publicly available for review at www.judicialperformance.colorado.gov.”
One last niblet before ending. I want to offer you a quote from the Colorado Politics article regarding the judicial evaluations for the appellate level up to the state supreme court:
“All voters will decide whether to retain Justice William W. Hood III and six Court of Appeals judges. The statewide performance commission unanimously found all of them to meet performance standards and gave glowing narratives for each.”
Yeah, nope. Not voting to retain anyone at the appellate level and above.
Nope. My rule is that I give automatic “do not retains” to appellate level and above. Those justices are rubberstamps for liberal policy in this state. I can’t count the number of wrongheaded decisions coming from those groups.
For my local judge, I’m going to sit with it for a bit and make the decision on whether to vote to give her a second chance or not.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/08/04/3-colorado-judges-receive-unfavorable-retention-recommendation-as-one-performance-commission-violates-rules/
https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/christiansen-dina-m-2026-evaluation
https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/boyce-jeremy-p-2026-evaluation
https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/alexander-william-david-2026-evaluation
READ THE FULL COMMENTARY AT COLORADO ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.