Clear The Bench Colorado has more than once criticized the dearth of coverage provided by the Denver Post on the “long train of abuses and usurpations” perpetrated by the Colorado Supreme Court; we have on occasion been frustrated at the limited opportunity to respond in print to some of the most spurious accusations and misinformation purveyed by guest commentaries (particularly a June commentary attacking the right of citizens to criticize the courts, and most recently, last Sunday’s attack piece by former justice Jean Dubofsky which presented a litany of distortions, misrepresentations, and outright untruths in attacking the judicial accountability group Clear The Bench Colorado.

However, CTBC has not shirked in giving credit where credit is due - and today’s (Sunday) Denver Post editorial (Vincent Carroll’s “A magnificent abstraction“) not only noted:

Just days before the election, the Colorado Supreme Court has given voters yet another reason why two justices up for retention should be bounced from the bench. The high court, in one of those quirky rulings for which it is now notorious, reversed the conviction of a man who used another person’s Social Security number to obtain an auto loan.

The editorial went on to take former justice Dubofsky to task for making deliberately false “suggestions” in her previous week’s guest commentary:

Even the modest efforts of the group Clear the Bench, which urges a “no” vote on all three justices, has provoked charges from establishment figures that it seeks to “politicize” the judiciary. In a recent column in The Denver Post, former Supreme Court justice Jean Dubofsky repeatedly suggested that Clear the Bench promotes contested judicial elections - which simply isn’t the case. [Ed. emphasis added]

Dubofsky’s article, her appearance (without prior notice) to debate me on the ‘Your Show with Adam Schrager’ television program the previous week, and the massive ($85,000+) spending on numerous advertisements in support of judicial incumbents by a consortium of legal-establishment special-interest groups (in the process, committing several violations of Colorado campaign finance law) highlights the extent to which the legal/judicial complex has rallied to preserve their monopoly of control over the courts:

While Colorado’s judicial retention system is superior to electing judges, most voters know next to nothing about jurists up for retention, and the legal establishment does its best to keep us in the dark. Only a lavishly funded campaign to dislodge a justice would have a chance of success.

I’m somewhat more optimistic than the view expressed in the editorial about the 3 judicial incumbents maintaining their seats; all across the state, people “get it” that their rights have been serially violated by the incumbent majority on the Colorado Supreme Court.  CTBC has been absolutely flooded with online comments, E-mails, and even phone calls seeking more information on which to base a decision for voting on judges (at all levels); the distrust and dismissal of the review commission’s rubber-stamp “retain” recommendations published in the “Blue Book” is palpable.  Tuesday’s results will tell if the legal/judicial complex will have been able to buy their incumbent allies another term on the bench, or if a feisty and underfunded grassroots effort will succeed in dislodging a few “politicians in black robes.”

In related news…

Apparently the big spenders in the legal/judicial complex are not the only ones opposing the efforts of Clear The Bench Colorado to inform the voting public of our right to vote NO on unjust justices…

In addition to the ongoing theft of Clear The Bench Colorado yard signs (apparently fairly standard practice in campaigns) - reportedly among the most-stolen (hey, it’s nice to be popular), some of the larger CTBC signs were vandalized sometime on Halloween (I’m reasonably sure it wasn’t trick-or-treaters).  In what was apparently an orchestrated effort, vandals pulled down some 4×8 signs in the Southeast Metro area, damaging the mounting stakes (which took some effort).  Police reports have been filed; any witnesses are encouraged to contact CTBC to assist in locating the perpetrators.

(Reports of 3 black-robed suspects fleeing the scene are probably exaggerated, although the image of black-robed judges and/or pinstripe-suited lawyers sneaking away from the dirty deed is comical…)

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 minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey,  who’s resigning rather than face the voters ) 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.”  Continue to support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions - and vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

In a “fair and balanced” media universe (even in a world in which the concept of “journalistic integrity” still had any meaning), the violation of Colorado campaign finance laws by a consortium of some of the largest and most powerful legal-establishment special-interest groups in the state (headed by the Colorado Bar Association, joined by the Colorado Judicial Institute, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System and the Colorado chapter of the League of Women Voters) with potential fines and penalties approaching a half-million dollars would be BIG news.

Instead, the majority of the Colorado press and media remain asleep at the wheel…

However, two media outlets have been paying attention to the issue, and have each written a fair summation of the complaint.

First out the gate (which has often been the case when it comes to coverage of Colorado legal issues) was Law Week Colorado.  Their article, published online Friday (”Judicial-Ouster Group Files Complaint Against Colo. Bar Association, 3 Others“) notes that

[t]he four groups named in the complaint each contributed to the “Know Your Judge” campaign, which produced public service announcements urging voters not to skip judges up for retention on the ballot

and noted that the “Know Your Judge” campaign universally recommended a “retain” vote for the incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices on the ballot.

The article goes on to note the irony in the fact that

Clear The Bench’s complaint relies in part on an administrative law judge’s ruling in a campaign finance complaint brought against it this year by Colorado Ethics Watch. The ruling found that committees that advocate for or against a judge must register as political committees.

Law Week’s article also includes the full text of the complaint, as filed (excepting attached Exhibits).

The first news organization to actually actively seek information on the story (you know, what used to be called investigative journalism and reporting) was Face The State online/radio news.  Their article (”Complaint: Know Your Judge doesn’t know state campaign finance laws“) was also published Friday afternoon.  Face The State’s article notes the extent to which the special-interest groups named in the complaint have funded the “Know Your Judge” campaign, as well as the potential fines and penalties to which they may be subjected once the complaint is resolved in court:

According to an article in Law Week, the Colorado Bar Association paid $50,000 to produce the ad spots; the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System paid $25,000, and the Colorado Judicial Institute pitched in $10,000. The organizations, plus the League of Women Voters, are listed as sponsors on the Know Your Judge “About Us” page.  [Ed. the amounts for IAALS and CJI were switched in the FTS article - it should be $10,000 by IAALS, and $25,000 by CJI - which, BTW, is a 501(c)3 organization prohibited from contributing to campaign activities].

Had Know Your Judge registered with the Secretary of State as a political committee–Arnold believes it should have–it would be limited to receiving contributions no greater than $525 per contributor per election cycle. If the complaint is upheld, a judge can levy fines of $50 per day for late reporting, plus two to five times the amount of contributions. The latter fine would equal between $170,000 and $425,000.

“Collectively and as individual organizations, they have all violated the law,” Arnold said. “They should have had to come together to file as a committee, or they could have done so individually.”

These legal-establishment special-interest groups are not above the law; the same rules should (and do!) apply to these groups, and their political activities, as apply to anyone else.  They apparently consider themselves (along with the anti-constitutional incumbents they are working to keep in office) in a separate class - they seem to believe that laws only apply to the “commoners” (and not the legal-judicial “ruling class”).

Clear The Bench Colorado’s complaint serves notice that they - along with the judicial incumbents they are supporting - can and will be held 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 minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey,  who’s resigning rather than face the voters ) 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.”  Continue to support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions - and vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

Clear The Bench Colorado has been under sustained attack by a number of well-funded special-interest groups for a number of months; from the politically-motivated “campaign finance complaint” filed by “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) on 5 May 2010 (ruled to be “frivolous, groundless, and vexatious” on 21 July by a judge who also awarded CTBC thousands in legal fees - totaling $23, 712.50, which CEW is now refusing to pay), followed up by a second round of attacks in which they finally got a judge to see things their way (contrary to all logic, and even against the testimony by the Elections director of the Office of Secretary of State).

More recently, Clear The Bench Colorado has been falsely accused of wanting to scrap Colorado’s system of judicial selection & retention to push for partisan elections for judges (most prominently by former justice Jean Dubofsky, who insinuated as much in a televised debate and then, even after being corrected, proceeded to spread the false allegations in print).  We’ve even been accused of being a shill for “secret and powerful special interests” seeking to inject ‘big money’ into judicial elections (which is a total laugh, as anyone who’s seen CTBC’s campaign finance reports can attest).  CTBC’s finances are completely open and accessible to the public, by the way, in contrast to the ‘Colorado Judiciary Project’, a special-interest group which refuses to disclose finances, which is sponsoring Dubofsky’s appearances and publications).

In fact, pretty much all of the entrenched legal-establishment special-interest groups have brought out the big guns against Clear The Bench Colorado.

Why?

For reminding Colorado voters of our right to vote in judicial retention elections, providing a substantive evaluation of the performance of judicial incumbents at the highest levels (particularly for the incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices), and urging voters to exercise their rights on the ballot.

Over the last few months (since August), a consortium of the entrenched legal-establishment special-interest groups has been running advertisements in print, on the radio and on television to convince Colorado voters that “all is well” with our judicial incumbents; in fact, this special-interest-group consortium has spent over $85,000 to run over 4,000 ads on radio and television in September and August alone - in support of the incumbents at the top levels (pretty soon, you’re talking real money).

Now, there’s nothing wrong with spending money on advertisements; but this special-interest group hasn’t been following the rules…

Other groups (including Clear The Bench Colorado) engaging in political advocacy or electioneering communications (talking about candidates on the ballot) must file as a political committee with the Office of Secretary of State.  These organizations - either individually or collectively - have NOT filed the required registration, nor have they filed the required reports.  They have also collected and spent money FAR above the $525 contribution limit that applies to contributions for political committees.

The rules apply to both sides in any contested issue or campaign.

Tens of thousands of dollars have been spent by these organizations with no accountability or transparency, in sharp contrast to Clear the Bench Colorado - which has followed the ever-changing law to the letter (despite all the changes) - while conducting similar political advocacy activities.

In a clear case of “what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander,” Clear the Bench Colorado simply wants these organizations held to the same legal standard as is everyone else in the state.

To that end, we have filed a campaign finance complaint against this consortium of entrenched legal-establishment special-interest groups (collectively and as individual organizations) to ensure that they follow the same rules as everyone else.

If Clear the Bench receives a favorable judgment, these organizations will be subject to fees ($50 per day that they didn’t file) as well as fines of 2-5 times the contribution totals above and beyond the $525 contribution limit for a political committee (which, since these groups spent at least $85,000, will add up to a hefty sum).

These groups, with armies of accountants and lawyers at their beck and call, should (and do) know better.  Apparently, they thought that they could get away with violating the law, since CTBC’s resources (and ability to challenge their activities) have been strained almost to the breaking point.  However, they messed with the wrong guy…

Clear The Bench Colorado may be the underdog in this fight - but it’s not the size of the dog in the fight that matters, but the size of the fight in the dog.  CTBC doesn’t have armies of attorneys and accountants on call - but CTBC is… an Army of One.

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 minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey,  who’s resigning rather than face the voters ) 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.”  Continue to support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions - and vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

Only one more week to exercise your right to vote NO on 3 incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices seeking another 10-year term…

Over the last week or so, Clear The Bench Colorado and the judicial retention elections for the 3 incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices on this year’s ballot (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, and Nancy Rice) have been in the news a lot.

On Sunday (October 17th), Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold appeared on the Your Show television program (moderated by Adam Schrager), debating former Colorado Supreme Court justice (and current full-time activist) Jean Dubofsky, representing the “Colorado Judiciary Project” (a legal-establishment special-interest group formed by Democrat state party attorney and  Mark Grueskin.

On Monday (October 18th), the Colorado Supreme Court took aim at gun rights in Colorado by accepting the CU Regents appeal of a Colorado Court of Appeals ruling overturning an illegal ban of licensed concealed-carry on CU property (a policy that is violating state law).

On Thursday (October 21st), Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold spoke at the Southern Colorado Tea Party, recorded and made available courtesy of FreedomTalkNet.

On Friday morning (Oct 22nd), Clear The Bench Colorado released our list of endorsements (which has since grown - and continues to grow)

On Friday evening, October 22nd (rebroadcast Monday afternoon, October 25th), Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold appeared on the Devil’s Advocate television program (hosted by Jon Caldara) in what was originally planned as a debate (but the other side chickened out).

On Saturday (October 23rd), Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold was published nationwide in Human Events magazine (”Fighting the “Progressive” Takeover of State Courts“)

On Sunday (October 24th), the Denver Post published a guest commentary by Jean Dubofsky (”Keep integrity of Colorado’s courts“) attacking Clear The Bench Colorado with a veritable litany of misleading insinuations and demonstrably false statements.  After requesting the opportunity  to respond or rebut the falsehoods (as has been the policy of the Post in the past when a person or group is directly attacked) but being refused, CTBC published our response (”RESTORE Integrity to Colorado Courts“) earlier today (Wednesday).

On Monday (October 25th), the Associated Press ran a story about Clear The Bench Colorado (”Clear The Bench Tests Judicial Retention System”) that was picked up in newspapers around the country, from San Francisco (Examiner) to Indiana (Daily Journal) to West Virginia (Charleston Gazette), to name the most geographically dispersed examples; nationally in USA Today; and yes, even in the Denver Post.

On Tuesday (October 26th), Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold appeared on the Luke Shilts Show (1310 AM KFKA) at 5-5:30 PM (podcast pending).

Later Tuesday evening, Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold appeared on the Michael Brown show (850 KOA) from 7-7:30PM - if you missed it (or just want to hear it again) Listen to the show.

What’s in store for the final week before elections close?  Stay tuned for more exciting news…

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 minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey,  who’s resigning rather than face the voters ) 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.”  Continue to support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions - and vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

This last Sunday’s Denver Post ran a guest commentary by former Colorado Supreme Court justice Jean Dubofsky (”Keep integrity of Colorado’s courts“),  which was - at best - severely “reality-challenged” and at worst a blatant and libelous distortion of Clear The Bench Colorado’s stated positions.  Unsurprisingly, the Post refused to publish our response, which follows:

RESTORE Integrity to Colorado Courts

Former Colorado Supreme Court justice Jean Dubofsky’s guest commentary in Sunday’s Denver Post presented a litany of distortions, misrepresentations, and outright untruths in attacking the judicial accountability group Clear The Bench Colorado.

Dubofsky alleges that “secret and powerful special interests… would be lining up to dump their millions into ads picking our judges.”

Too late!  They already are - but the millions (well, hundred thousand or so) are being spent on behalf of the judicial incumbents, and to maintain the status quo lack of transparency and accountability.

A recent Law Week article counted over 4,000 TV & radio ads run by a consortium of legal establishment special-interest groups, spending just under $100,000 in August and September alone, promoting the recommendations to “retain”(vote yes) all of the Colorado Supreme Court justices on this year’s ballot.

It’s a fiction to claim that our current system is not already dominated by well-heeled special interest groups - only, these groups have spent their money secretly, away from the scrutiny put on “campaign” spending. (See “The Myth of Money-Free Merit Selection and Retention“).

The biggest whopper, though, is Dubofsky’s assertion that “Clear the Bench wants to destroy 40-plus years of integrity and impartiality in Colorado’s judicial system” setting up her insinuations that CTBC supports a return to contested elections for judicial office.

Clear The Bench Colorado has never advocated for a return to contested judicial elections in Colorado - and Dubofsky knows this.  I made CTBC’s position clear to her in person both during and after her debate with me a week before (on the Your Show TV program with Adam Schrager).

Alleging otherwise is a knowingly false statement, which highlights the desperate lengths to which Dubofsky and friends seek to distort the facts with strawman arguments.

Clear The Bench Colorado is working within the bounds of the existing system to provide substantive information to voters on which to base an informed decision - because the commission “reviews” have failed to hold the incumbents accountable to the Constitution and the rule of law.

Coloradans have a right to vote on judges - and deserve better information than the rubber-stamp “retain” recommendations the commissions and “Blue Book” provide.

Ultimately, it’s your choice - inform yourself (the CTBC website includes both our evaluations AND a link to the commission reviews - we invite the comparison).  Be a Citizen, not a subject… and vote! (NO!)

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold appeared on the Devil’s Advocate TV program (with host Jon Caldara) this past Friday, 22 October 2010 at 8:30 and again (rebroadcast) on Monday, 25 October at 1:30 PM, to discuss judicial retention elections and the drive to hold 3 incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, and Nancy Rice) who are seeking another 10-year term in office accountable to the voters in this year’s elections.

Despite the intent to have a debate on the issue, the other side failed to show up (despite numerous invitations, to all the usual suspects).  Apparently after CTBC’s Matt Arnold had the better of former Colorado Supreme Court justice (and current full-time activist) Jean Dubofsky, representing the “Colorado Judiciary Project” (a legal-establishment special-interest group formed by Democrat state party attorney Mark Grueskin) in their debate on Adam Schrager’s Your Show the previous Sunday (which was NOT originally scheduled as a debate; Dubofsky showed up with no advance notice to CTBC) they didn’t feel confident in their ability to win a fair fight.

Or perhaps they realized that the more information the voters have, the more they are likely to vote NO on the incumbent justices on the ballot (a fact validated in CTBC’s August survey).  These special-interest groups are counting on (and promoting) voter ignorance - pushing the rubber-stamp “reviews” (which again kept up their historical record of 100% “retain” recommendations for Colorado Supreme Court justices this year) of the performance review commissions.  That’s right; Colorado Supreme Court justices “reviewed” by the commissions have received a “retain” vote 100% of the time.

Fortunately, Colorado voters now have a more complete and substantive source of information about the performance of the incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices appearing on this year’s ballot: CTBC’s Evaluations of Judicial Performance scorecard, which breaks down the votes of each justice in key constitutional cases (along with complete references, analysis, and commentary on each case).

The discussion covered the voting records of the incumbent justices, the established selection and “review” process (along with the weaknesses in the current process & need for greater transparency and accountability reforms) and the massively funded electioneering effort by a consortium of legal-establishment special-interest groups to promote a “yes” vote for the judicial incumbents.

The video is broken into 3 10-minute segments, as follows:

For what may be the first time in Colorado history, voters have the opportunity to review substantive information on judicial performance and have the ability to make an informed decision about whether or not to hold incumbent justices (and judges) accountable for that performance as they seek an additional term of office (for the Colorado Supreme Court justices, they are asking the voters for another 10 YEARS on the bench).

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 minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey,  who’s resigning rather than face the voters ) 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.”  Continue to support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions - and vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

Clear The Bench Colorado published nationally…

The following article was published in the 23 October edition of Human Events magazine.

Fighting the “Progressive” Takeover of State Courts

Citizens act to remove anti-constitutional Colorado Supreme Court justices

“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

The demand for a return to constitutional limits on government power, exemplified by millions of citizens across the country joining in rallies, events, and civic groups loosely under the banner of the “Tea Party Movement”, is NOT limited to the executive and legislative branches.  As more and more citizens have come to understand that “progressive” courts and judges have aided and abetted the growth of government power and the erosion of individual rights, they are pursuing the opportunity - and the right - to hold our judicial officeholders accountable at the ballot box.

In several states - most prominently, in Iowa, Kansas, and Colorado - the “normally sleepy” judicial elections are turning into some of the hottest issues on the ballot in this already critical election year.

Recently, the New York Times dedicated two lead editorials to attacking the right of citizens to vote out anti-constitutional state supreme court justices via the “retention vote” process (a simple yes/no, “should they stay or should they go” process that many states have adopted as an alternative to directly contested elections for judges).  The NYT editorials, citing a legal academic, decried citizen exercise of the right to vote ‘NO’ as “extreme.”

It has long been an open secret that the “progressive” movement - unable to persuade the public with the substance of their arguments - has exploited the courts to advance their agenda.  Unelected judges - particularly those at the highest level, the state supreme courts - have invented rights that don’t exist in law (in Iowa, the issue is court-invented rights to “gay marriage;” in Kansas, the issue is abortion) or serially violated constitutional rights that DO exist in law - including the state constitution.

In Colorado, the incumbent majority has repeatedly violated the rights of Colorado voters to constrain the growth of government, particularly government power to tax and spend without approval.  In 1992, Colorado voters approved a Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (”TABOR”) amendment to the state constitution that secured the right of voters to have a say on tax increases .  Yet not once in some 15 challenges and despite the clear language of the Constitution directing that its “preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government” has the Colorado Supreme Court upheld this section of the state constitution.

With an 0-15 record of upholding the Constitution, they’re the 2008 Detroit Lions of jurisprudence!

Over the last couple of years, the incumbent majority’s assaults on the Constitution have become increasingly bold.  In 2009, they held that a massive property tax increase didn’t count as such by the semantic shenanigan of calling it a “rate freeze” (the notorious 2009 “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” case).  As part of the same ruling, the court inserted language enabling the legislature to raise more taxes under the pretense of “eliminating tax credits or exemptions”. Any way you slice it, this is a “tax policy change… resulting in a net revenue gain” and therefore should be subject to voter approval under the Constitution .  An earlier ruling likewise held that tax increases could be imposed under the guise of “fees” - once again circumventing that pesky constitutional requirement to ask first before taking people’s money.

Other constitutional violations perpetrated by the court include assaults on property rights (expanding the opportunity for governmental abuse of eminent domain), gun rights (a pending challenge before the Colorado Supreme Court seeks to overturn state law on concealed-carry permits), even overturning the death penalty for a convicted kidnapper/rapist/murderer because a pair of jurors were alleged to have quoted biblical passages in sentencing deliberations.

Even more importantly from a political and policy standpoint, the incumbent majority has usurped the political decision-making authority of the legislative branch in key areas.  Last year, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that judges, not elected legislators or school boards, have the ultimate authority to decide what constitutes “appropriate” levels of funding for schools (the “Lobato” case).  This decision not only grossly violates constitutional separation of powers, it is a looming fiscal train wreck.

On the political front, the Colorado Supreme Court in 2003 grabbed the power to draw up Colorado’s congressional districts from the legislature, where it belongs under clear constitutional language (Colorado Constitution Article V, Section 44: “…the General Assembly shall divide the state into congressional districts…”).  How did they accomplish this, despite clear constitutional limits?

Simple; they re-defined themselves as part of the General Assembly:

“In sum, the term ‘General Assembly’ in the first sentence of Article V, Section 44, broadly encompasses the legislative process, the voter initiative, and judicial redistricting.  Regardless of which body creates the congressional districts, these districts are equally valid.”

In her dissent, then-Justice Rebecca Love Kourlis summed up the judicial power grab:

“With its holding today, the court significantly alters our form of government.”

The Colorado Supreme Court recognizes no limits on its power.  This majority has arrogated to itself the ultimate power to decide all questions - legislative, executive, or judicial.  They believe their word to be literally “supreme”; the Constitution is what they say it is.  When they rule from the bench - they really mean to RULE from the bench.

It is time for the voters of Colorado - indeed, for voters across the country - to reclaim our heritage:

Be a Citizen, not a subject.

Defend your constitutional rights - your freedom depends on it.  Hold officials in ALL THREE BRANCHES of government accountable; this year, vote NO on unjust justices, and Clear The Bench, Colorado!

Matt Arnold is a Citizen (and a Citizen-Soldier, serving as a Captain in the Colorado Army National Guard) leading the state’s judicial accountability movement as founder and director of Clear The Bench Colorado - http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/)

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold appeared on the Your Show with Adam Schrager (9News reporter) TV program this past Sunday, 17 October 2010 at (broadcast on KTVD at 10:30 AM), to discuss judicial retention elections and the drive to hold 3 incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, and Nancy Rice) who are seeking another 10-year term in office accountable to the voters in this year’s elections.

CTBC’s Matt Arnold was joined in studio (not known in advance) by former Colorado Supreme Court justice (and current full-time activist) Jean Dubofsky, representing the “Colorado Judiciary Project” (a legal-establishment special-interest group formed by Democrat state party attorney and  Mark Grueskin, who may be attempting to curry favor with the incumbent justices before whom he frequently appears).  Dubofsky attempted to defend the embattled incumbents and promote the rubber-stamp “reviews” (which again kept up their historical record of 100% “retain” recommendations for Colorado Supreme Court justices this year) of the performance review commissions.  That’s right; Colorado Supreme Court justices “reviewed” by the commissions have received a “retain” vote 100% of the time.

Fortunately, Colorado voters now have a more complete and substantive source of information about the performance of the incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices appearing on this year’s ballot: CTBC’s Evaluations of Judicial Performance scorecard, which breaks down the votes of each justice in key constitutional cases (along with complete references, analysis, and commentary on each case).

The discussion covered the voting records of the incumbent justices, the established “review” process (along with the weaknesses in the current process & need for greater transparency and accountability reforms) and the massively funded electioneering effort by the Colorado Bar Association and other legal-establishment special-interest groups to promote a “yes” vote for the judicial incumbents.

The video is broken into 2 10-minute segments, as follows:

Segment 1:

Segment 2:

For what may be the first time in Colorado history, voters have the opportunity to review substantive information on judicial performance and have the ability to make an informed decision about whether or not to hold incumbent justices (and judges) accountable for that performance as they seek an additional term of office (for the Colorado Supreme Court justices, they are asking the voters for another 10 YEARS on the bench).

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 minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who’s resigning rather than face the voters ) 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.”  Continue to support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions - and vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

“No man’s life, liberty, property, or constitutional rights are safe while the Colorado Supreme Court is in session.”  (With apologies to Mark Twain)

Clear The Bench Colorado has tracked the threat posed by the Colorado Supreme Court to our constitutional right to keep and bear arms in Colorado for some time (including attempts to levy what amounts to an unconstitutional poll tax on firearms sales and permits, the CU Regents ban on responsible and licensed concealed-carry and the more recent attempted CSU campus ban on concealed carry, along with debates and recent developments in both cases).  After the CU Board of Regents voted to appeal the ruling by the Colorado Court of Appeals which in April struck down the University of Colorado ban on licensed permit-holders carrying firearms on campus (Court tosses CU gun ban), we warned Coloradans that another attack on our constitutional and statutory rights was coming.

On Monday, the opening salvo of that attack arrived, as the Colorado Supreme Court agreed to consider the CU Regents appeal of last April’s ruling by the Colorado Court of Appeals (which upheld state law and the rights of Colorado citizens against CU’s illegal concealed carry ban covering all campus areas).

The CU Board of Regents legal brief to the Colorado Supreme Court is due in approximately 40 days; the brief of the respondents (SCCC, represented by the Mountain States Legal Foundation) along with any amicus curiae (”friend of court”) briefs are due 30 days after that.

The composition of the court (and thus, the likelihood of the law being followed in ruling on this case) may experience a change as a result of the intervening elections…

As Clear The Bench Colorado noted at the time, the Court of Appeals ruling was both legally sound and clear in its rejection of the CU Board’s assertion of extra-constitutional authority:

The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the University of Colorado has no authority to bar students or visitors from lawfully carrying guns on campus. [Ed. emphasis added]

Note that the CU Board of Regents is asserting its authority to ban licensed concealed carry not just by students, but by ANY responsible adult who has undergone the background checks and training (and mounds of paperwork) to apply for and receive a license to carry concealed - on ANY CU property.

The Colorado Court of Appeals ruling in the case highlights the critical importance of judges who rule in accordance with the law (especially the Constitution, which exists to protect the rights of individuals and limit the power of government) and underlines the fact that Colorado does have many such judges at various levels (including Judge Christine Habas, who ruled - correctly - that the Mill Levy Tax Freeze” was unconstitutional before being overturned by the Mullarkey Majority).  Unfortunately, we just don’t have enough of them (good judges, that is) on the Colorado Supreme Court.

The Colorado Court of Appeals ruling in the case also substantiated our assertion that the CU and CSU bans violate “the clear letter and intent of the statute authorizing statewide standards and universal application for concealed-carry permits”

18-12-214. Authority granted by permit - carrying restrictions.

(1) (a) A permit to carry a concealed handgun authorizes the permittee to carry a concealed handgun in all areas of the state, except as specifically limited in this section.

The Colorado Court of Appeals could not have been more clear in upholding that view, and went further in upholding the constitutional right of Colorado citizens to bear arms in self-defense:

Because the statute expressly applies to “all areas of the state,” we conclude that plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief under the CCA. We further conclude that plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief under Colorado Constitution article II, section 13, which affords individuals the right to bear arms in self-defense.

The Colorado Supreme Court decision to hear the CU Regents appeal of this ruling puts another set of Coloradans’ constitutional rights at risk.

There is a great deal more at stake than the relatively narrow issue of whether responsible adults can be denied the exercise of their rights (licensed concealed-carry pursuant to state law) - as if that wasn’t important enough.  In hearing the case, the Colorado Supreme Court will also rule on whether state law, as a matter of principle and precedent, can be ignored by certain quasi-governmental entities (such as the CU Board of Regents).  Most importantly, the Colorado Supreme Court will rule on the standard of review for laws regulating the right to bear arms (or any constitutional rights) in Colorado.

The Colorado Court of Appeals held (correctly, in my view and the view of most legal scholars) that the standard of review for assessing the law, and CU’s attempt to ignore state law via an illegal gun ban (and for reviewing any law regulating any constitutional right) is the ”reasonable exercise” standard (in other words, is the law a “reasonable exercise” of the government’s authority to restrict a constitutional right).  The CU Regents argue (and the Colorado Supreme Court’s Mullarkey Majority has in the past agreed) that the standard for legal review should be the ”rational basis” standard of review (which gives virtually unlimited deference, and leeway, to the ability of government to pass laws restricting the ability of individuals to exercise their constitutional rights).  Adoption of that standard in this case would set a very dangerous precedent, and would effectively nullify the Colorado Constitution’s recognition of an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.

This case - and so many others of this nature - isn’t about guns; it’s about freedoms.  Allowing the government to pass laws further restricting our rights (or allowing courts to unilaterally impose new laws or restrictions by re-writing or interpreting our rights out of existence) runs counter to the very foundations and ideals of this country.

Our Constitution is the Citizens’ rulebook for government - restricting the powers and authority of government to rule our lives.  It is what distinguishes us as Americans from the historical example of every other nation on earth: we are Citizens, not subjects.

Our courts - sworn to uphold our Constitution and act as protectors of our constitutional rights - must occasionally be reminded of that fact.

Stick to your guns - Defend YOUR constitutional and statutory rights, and exercise YOUR right to vote “NO” on retaining the 4 (er, 3 remaining) ‘unjust justices’ of the Mullarkey Majority (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right of self-defense, your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home or business from government abuse of eminent domain powers, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, not rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”

Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!), your contributions, and your “NO” vote in November 2010 to keep these unjust justices from returning for another 10-year term!

Why judicial incumbents Bender, Martinez, and Rice deserve a “NO” vote at the polls

The following commentary was published over the last weekend (in slightly modified form, according to the editorial whims of the various publications) in most of the major newspapers in Colorado:

• Denver Post (published Thursday as “You can reject judges“)
• Grand Junction Sentinel (published Thursday as “Justices Bender, Martinez and Rice deserve a ‘No’ vote“)
• Boulder Daily Camera (published Sunday as “The case against three justices“)
• Pueblo Chieftain (published Sunday as “Making the case against retaining 3 justices on state Supreme Court“)

The Pueblo Chieftain also endorsed the recommendations of Clear The Bench Colorado as the paper’s editorial position in this year’s judicial retention voting: (”The Judges“):

Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice, the only Supreme Court members up this year, ought to be removed from the bench. The voter needs only to choose “no” on the ballot. These justices consistently have upheld tax increases without requiring voter approval, in direct defiance of the TABOR amendment to the Colorado Constitution.

We recommend a “no” vote on the retention of Supreme Court Justices Bender, Martinez and Rice.

Here’s the article in its baseline form:

The Case Against 3 Colorado Supreme Court Justices

Why judicial incumbents Bender, Martinez, and Rice deserve a “NO” vote at the polls

Since Colorado changed from contested elections for judicial office to a “merit selection & retention” system (appointing judges followed by periodic votes to keep or remove them), no Colorado Supreme Court justice has been voted out of office.  Although some have left the bench voluntarily (Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey resigned so she will not have to face the voters this year), the people of Colorado have yet to exercise their right or responsibility to “vote ‘em out.”

To a great extent, this is because of a lack of public awareness - both about the right to vote itself (a recent survey showed that only 65% of the population knew that judges could be voted out of office) and about the incumbents’ record of performance in office (the same survey showed that only 35% of voters knew anything about the three incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices - Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, and Nancy Rice - seeking another 10-year term this November).

Inexplicably, the State Commission on Judicial Performance (a 10-member group of political appointees charged with evaluating and reporting on the job performance of statewide judicial incumbents) has routinely failed to conduct a rigorous evaluation and provide substantive information to the public on which to base an informed decision.  The commission’s “reviews” (published and distributed at great taxpayer expense in the “Blue Book”) pretty much limit themselves to summarizing the incumbent’s resume and tabulating the results of surveys sent out to a select group of lawyers - and other judges.  The “reviews” contain next to no information about actual job performance.

Over the decades the system has been in place, the commission’s “reviews” have always recommended a yes (”retain”) vote on incumbent supreme court justices - that’s 100% of the time!

Even Fidel Castro and the late Saddam Hussein didn’t receive that level of “retain” votes!

(Although Colorado has plenty of good judges, at many levels - they’re not all that good).

Most importantly, the “reviews” provide NO information on how the justices actually voted in important constitutional cases - rulings which have had an increasingly negative impact on Colorado law and upon Colorado citizens.

Reading the commission “evaluations” alone, voters would have no knowledge of the fact that the three incumbent justices appearing on the ballot voted to allow:

• Unconstitutional Property Tax Increases (Mill Levy Tax Freeze)
• Unconstitutional elimination of Tax Credits & Exemptions (tobacco tax, “Dirty Dozen” taxes)
• Unconstitutionally re-defining Taxes as Fees (Colorado Car Tax, Ritter Gun Tax)
• Unconstitutional expansion of eminent domain property seizures (Telluride Land Grab)
• Unconstitutional usurpation of legislative power (judicial redistricting, school funding)
• Unconstitutional deprivation of Citizen Initiative rights (denying voters a say on illegal alien entitlements)

(Complete references, including the votes of each justice, case analysis, commentary, and the full text of the rulings, are available at the Clear The Bench Colorado website in an easy-to-read “scorecard” matrix: http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/evaluations/)

These three appointed (and, due to a managed lack of public awareness, practically unaccountable) supreme court justices have assumed political power, to which the court is NOT constitutionally entitled.  These incumbents have consistently exerted this power without restraint or consideration for your constitutional rights - ruling consistently against individual rights and protections in favor of expanded government power, in violation of what the Colorado Constitution allows.

As a Citizen, you DO have the right to vote “NO” on these incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices as they seek an additional 10-year term this November.  The ultimate responsibility - and authority - still rests with the voters.

Clear The Bench Colorado urges Colorado voters to exercise their rights on the ballot this November.

“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

Stand up for your rights - vote “NO” on these unjust justices, and Clear The Bench, Colorado!

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 minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who’s retiring rather than face the voters ) 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.”  Continue to support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions - and vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!