Amendment H would make it harder to discipline judges

Proponents of Amendment H believe that making it more difficult to discipline judges, which Amendment H would do, would strengthen Colorado’s courts. I and many others disagree with this.

article published in The Post argued that the board established by X would have final authority in disciplinary matters. This statement is incorrect. Under H, the Supreme Court will have much more power in disciplinary cases than it does now, and it will have final authority.

Currently Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline has the right to independently apply disciplinary measures against a judge in private. If disciplinary action occurs, which is rare, it is almost always personal in nature. H would strip the disciplinary commission of this independence and create a private appeal procedure for judges to challenge private disciplinary action.

Provided that the judge appeals the disciplinary action, the Supreme Court always has the final say in the disciplinary case. You see, H would have given the Supreme Court appellate powers over the panel H created.

The Supreme Court will review questions of law “de novo.” This means that the Supreme Court will interpret the Code of Judicial Conduct, which is formulated in general terms. The facts will not constitute a violation of the Code unless the Supreme Court says so. And H will allow the Supreme Court to rule on any disciplinary matter.

What about the panel of judges that H supporters are touting? You will not have access to it. No member of the public can appeal to the council that X wants you to put in the state constitution.

Only judges could appeal the decision of the disciplinary commission regarding a private disciplinary sanction to the panel of judges. The disciplinary commission’s annual reports show it has rejected more than 97% of complaints made by the public over the past 40 years. Nothing in H changes the termination process. And nothing in H creates an appeal process for complaints rejected by the commission.

The Disciplinary Commission has dealt with 99.8% of complaints privately over the past 40 years. Nothing in H will change that privacy.

H will create a board that will have different functions depending on whether the disciplinary panel seeks private or public disciplinary action. He will serve as an interlocutory appellate function in private disciplinary matters. Over the past 40 years, private foreclosure has been used 182 times.

When a disciplinary panel desires discipline, the new board will serve as the court of first instance. Over the past 40 years, only 10 judges have been subject to public disciplinary action. Only two of these cases received a hearing. The rest were reservations. But if the council acted on public discipline, its actions would be public.

H creates much more secrecy than transparency. Most often, the panel meets in camera when a judge attempts to circumvent the imposition of a private disciplinary sanction. These secret calls will reduce public confidence in the system.

People were misled by H’s supporters who continued to claim in their article that the new board would have the power to conduct its own investigations. This is not language that X would put in a state constitution. The application does not comply with the functions of the council as specified in paragraph H. And, again, the public will not have access to the council.