Support Amendment H: Judicial discipline procedures and confidentiality

By Editorial Board | Editorial, Rocky Mountain Voice

Ballot language: Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution concerning judicial discipline, and, in connection therewith, establishing an independent judicial discipline adjudicative board, setting standards for judicial review of a discipline case, and clarifying when discipline proceedings become public?

How it reached the ballot: House Continuing Resolution 23-1001, supported by a 60-3 vote of the House and 35-0 vote of the Senate. An overwhelming bipartisan majority of both legislative chambers sponsored the measure. Three Republicans in the House opposed the measure.

Background: The measure amends Section 23 of the Colorado Constitution, pertaining to judicial discipline. Under existing law, proceedings of the state commission on judicial discipline are confidential. The measure would create a more transparent, new board to hear ethical misconduct complaints against state court judges. That board would include a balanced makeup of district court judges, attorneys and citizens, 12 in total, appointed by the governor and state supreme court. Members of the board may not serve on the commission, and vice versa. Amending language to the Colorado Constitution requires a 55% vote of support.

Our take: In reaction to a litany of judicial scandals, this measure was created by legislators to regain public trust. It increases the public transparency into judicial discipline, and not just the final outcome. That’s a good thing. While we hold some reservations related to those appointing the members and the apparent exclusion of district attorneys in that process; the geographic representation of those placed on the board; and also the element of first-step measures, we support the effort to increase transparency into the process of judicial discipline. A no vote would mean the commission would get to continue what many deem clandestine disciplinary hearings often without ever resulting in any or much public transparency.

Our guidance: Yes.

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.