Citizen participation vital in restoring Accountability and Transparency to the Colorado Supreme Court
For perhaps the first time in our state’s history, an increasing number of Colorado Citizens are taking an interest in the Colorado Supreme Court judicial retention elections – our only opportunity, as Citizens, to hold the officeholders in our 3rd branch of government (the judiciary) accountable (to the rule of law generally, to the Constitution specifically, and ultimately to We The People, in whom ultimate political authority is constitutionally vested).
Some voices – notably professional politicians such as Susan Thornton, as expressed in her Denver Post article (“Criticism of retiring Judge (sic) Mullarkey unfair“), or other legal professional advocacy groups (such as the Grueskin group formed to defend Colorado Supreme Court incumbents and oppose the growing influence of Clear The Bench Colorado) believe that Citizens have no place in the process. Their message? “Trust us, the elite political insiders, not your lying eyes. We know better.”
Others – spearheaded by Clear The Bench Colorado, but also including a large number of legal reform groups, transparency and good-government advocates – believe that Citizens not only have the right (as clearly expressed in the Colorado Constitution) but even the responsibility and duty to get informed and act (“vote “NO on unjust justices!“) accordingly. (Responding to Thornton’s attack on independent critiques of the judiciary – Accountability, Transparency apply to the Colorado Supreme Court, too – we defend the constitutional right of Colorado Citizen participation in the process).
The following article, published in the August edition of The Constitutionalist Today, expands upon that point:
Restoring Accountability and Transparency to Colorado Courts –
Why Citizen participation in judicial selection and retention is vitally necessary
A number of years ago, Colorado embarked upon an experiment in government that was touted as a great reform. Attempting to “take the judges out of politics” our state did away with direct, contested elections of judges in favor of the “merit selection and retention process” pioneered by the State of Missouri (the “Missouri Plan”), under which judges and supreme court justices are nominated by commissions, appointed by the governor, and only subjected to checks and balances by the citizens of the state in periodic “retention” elections (posed as a simple yes/no question on the ballot). For Colorado Supreme Court justices, the opportunity to hold them accountable comes around only once every TEN years, posed as a ballot question: “Should Justice [name] be retained in office?” (Yes/NO)
In theory, the system looked like a good idea; after all, selecting judges and supreme court justices on the basis of “merit” instead of “ability to win an election” – putting professional qualifications ahead of political ones – appeals to our common desire for fair play and “equal justice before the law” and removes some of the most direct and obvious temptations for corruption via “quid pro quo” campaign contributions.
In practice, however, the “Missouri Plan” systems in place in several states seem to have merely shifted the potential for undue influence to well-connected interest groups (particularly the “in-crowd” of bar associations, other attorney groups, lobbyists, and others directly involved with the courts) operating largely outside of public scrutiny. Lack of transparency – in both the up-front selection and back-end review & retention processes – has actually led to an utter lack of accountability for Colorado Supreme Court justices in Colorado.
A recent Wall Street Journal article (“Voters vs. George Soros – Taking judicial selection away from the lawyers guild“) highlighted some of the concerns with the judicial selection and retention process under the “Missouri Plan” used by Colorado:
“Designed to take politics out of the courtroom, the plan has in practice handed disproportionate influence over the judiciary to lawyers and bar associations. The effect has been to give a single profession control over a third of state government, with little political accountability.”
As with many things brought to us by the “good idea fairy”, the devil is in the details. Colorado’s Judicial Performance Review Commission (JPRC) “performance” reviews are heavily biased in favor of judicial incumbents (over the last several decades, issuing only 15 recommendations for non-retention resulting in only 7 judges being voted out of office) and provide little substantive information for citizens trying to decide how to vote on judges, especially supreme court justices. These JPRC review “narratives” (published at taxpayer expense in the “Blue Book” voter guides) focus almost exclusively on qualifications (essentially, have they checked all the right boxes) instead of performance (have supreme court justices, for instance, properly carried out their duties – and lived up to their oaths and obligations, or not). The most important judicial quality of all – upholding the law, as written (not fabricated or “interpreted” according to a personal or political agenda) – is given short shrift or even no consideration at all. (Additional information on the shortcomings of Colorado’s Judicial Performance Review process is available in a pair of Denver Post articles: “Demand accountability from judges, too” July 2nd CTBC guest commentary; and “Evaluating the performance of justices“, Feb. 13th [non-CTBC] guest commentary).
The recently announced impending retirement of Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey – who decided to quit rather than be held accountable by voters this November – has also raised interest in how Colorado appoints and evaluates judges (and particularly supreme court justices), in the first place. The process is not merely of “academic” interest. From an Institute for Legal Reform publication reviewing “merit selection” systems and best practices across several states:
“The procedures that determine how state judges are selected and placed on the bench, particularly those in the highest courts, are central to the ultimate quality of justice in our courts. Every American has a stake in the way state judges are chosen.(emphasis added) Some states that select their judges through a commission-based appointive system have been criticized for the absence of public input into the process, lack of transparency, secretiveness in their procedures, and the political cronyism that can occur when commissions and the governor operate in what is essentially a closed system.”
The common theme in critiques of the “Missouri Plan” system of “merit selection & retention” is the lack of transparency in commission deliberations (both during front-end judicial selection, and in back-end judicial performance review and retention) and lack of meaningful opportunity for public participation and comment. This lack of transparency leads to a lack of public confidence in our judiciary and ultimately to a lack of accountability for the increasingly active and powerful Third Branch of our government. Our judicial system depends more than any other branch of government on public trust and confidence that the law is being applied fairly and impartially for all citizens – that our supreme court justices are fulfilling their proper roles as referees upholding the rules rather than players attempting to score for their “team’s” agenda. In sports, referees who violate the rules and demonstrate a consistent bias for one team lose their jobs. In government, because Colorado Supreme Court justices wield so much power, the stakes are much more important than an athletic contest.
Of course, the biggest political “players” are well aware of this – they naturally prefer the closed-door, non-transparent, unaccountable, political insider-dominated process that allows them enormous influence behind the scenes. The usual suspects include the “lawyers guilds” and similar groups. The WSJ article also singles out another powerful and well-connected cabal:
“The system has powerful defenders, however, including groups connected to the George Soros-funded Justice at Stake.”
Soros’s group would be more aptly named “Justice put to the Stake”.
Here in Colorado, a new pressure group of apologists was recently formed by politically influential and well-connected attorneys (led by Democrat super-lawyer and frequent Colorado Supreme Court litigator, Mark Grueskin) specifically to counter the growing supreme court reform and accountability movement spearheaded by Clear The Bench Colorado. (Story broken by Law Week Colorado, “Group aiming to defend Colorado judiciary comes to light“, followed up in Westword and on Clear The Bench Colorado (“More details emerge on group formed to oppose accountability for Colorado Supreme Court incumbents“).
Along with articles published in mass media outlets (for example, a recent Denver Post article calling “Criticism of retiring Judge Mullarkey unfair“), these groups are attempting to maintain the crony system of political insiders picking and preserving in power supreme court justices who rule against the rights of the people in favor of big government – putting you in your place as a subject, not protecting your rights as a citizen. They can get away with it only as long as they succeed in keeping voters in the dark.
That is why public participation – not just by a select few politically connected individuals put on commissions, but by fully informed public discussion and debate – is so critically important to maintaining good government (and accountability) in our judiciary. Become an informed citizen – review sources such as Clear The Bench Colorado and get to Know Your Courts to get “the rest of the story”.
“The original purpose of using a commission-based merit selection system was to reduce the politicization of the judiciary system. As such, it is imperative that merit selection systems not simply hide the politics behind the closed doors of a Commission but drive out destructive influence through a system that is transparent and accessible to the public.”
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” – Abraham Lincoln
We The People can (indeed, as citizens, we must) hold our public officials – both elected and appointed – accountable. Be a citizen, not a subject – get informed, then exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four (er, three remaining) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority”- (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice – soon to be minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home or business against seizure via eminent domain abuse, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.” Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions – and exercise your right to vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!
TABOR, as a constitutional amendment, was one of the greatest mistakes the people in this State have ever made. Amendments of this ilk tie the hands of those who need to be able to respond to changing economic environments.
Clearing the bench is an oversimplified solution to the problems you outline. The legislature should write more specific laws so that Judges will not be able to interpret them according to some philosophy. Not all Judges have a “political agenda” and your tarring all of them with the same brush is wrong.
You have taken a very serious issue and coated it in emotional overtones to pursue your agenda. Your agenda seems to be eliminate any Judge that does not agree with you and your political philosophy.
Your interpretation of the resignation of Judge Mullarkey speaks volumes, and shows your bias.
I challenge you to publish my remarks.
Have a great day
GOD bless America.
TABOR, as a constitutional amendment, was one of the best decisions the people in this State have ever made – saving us from the fiscal fate of California, Michigan, and other economic basket-case states driven into economic ruin by out-of-control government spending.
Clearing the Bench is the proper solution to holding judges accountable to their sworn duty to uphold the law – as written – rather than substituting their personal, political agenda.
I would agree that not ALL judges have a “political agenda” – Colorado DOES have good judges, at all levels (along with BAD judges, at all levels). Removing the BAD judges – such as the incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices appearing on the ballot this year – will help to restore confidence in the judiciary and the possibility of fair, impartial courts.
Unfortunately, a few highly-politicized judges and justices – such as the “Mullarkey Majority” – make the remaining judges who DO seek to uphold the law come under a cloud of suspicion.
Indeed, I have taken a very serious issue – judicial usurpation of undue authority and violation of the constitutional rights of Colorado citizens – and brought it to the attention of a great many people this year.
As for my interpretation of the resignation of Chief Justice Mullarkey – it’s borne out by the facts, including comments she has made herself.
Your “challenge” to publish your remarks is rather childish – Clear The Bench Colorado has always welcomed comments, including those from an alternative or opposing viewpoint, as long as they are not offensive or pejorative in nature (sometimes I’ll allow those to be published, too, since they only serve to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the opposition).