Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold discussed the judicial accountability movement in Colorado - from CTBC’s launch in April 2009 through the present - in a wide-ranging interview with Michael Schaus on KFTM Radio on 27 April 2011.

Topics include the formation of Clear The Bench Colorado, examples of how the Colorado Supreme Court violated the constitutional rights of Colorado citizens (particularly the right to vote prior to imposition of any tax increase via elimination of Tax Credits & Exemptions or re-defining Taxes as Fees) and opened the door to legislative abuses (such as last year’s “Dirty Dozen” tax increases), and the continued influence of the Colorado Supreme Court over several issues, such as the ongoing battle over Congressional Redistricting and state legislative reapportionment.

Listen to the podcast here (recording cuts off the first couple of minutes)

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

The ongoing legislative battle over Congressional Redistricting remains the “hot” topic in the news - with an escalating “blame game” as to who “killed the bipartisan redistricting effort” and even disagreement on basic principles (“competitive” districts or communities of interest?).   Hint - only one of those is mandated by law - Colorado Constitution Article V, Section 47 Composition of Districts:

Composition of Districts.

(1) Each district shall be as compact in area as possible and the aggregate linear distance of all district boundaries shall be as short as possible. Each district shall consist of contiguous whole general election precincts. Districts of the same house shall not overlap.

(2) Except when necessary to meet the equal population requirements of section 46, no part of one county shall be added to all or part of another county in forming districts. Within counties whose territory is contained in more than one district of the same house, the number of cities and towns whose territory is contained in more than one district of the same house shall be as small as possible. When county, city, or town boundaries are changed, adjustments, if any, in legislative districts shall be as prescribed by law.

(3) Consistent with the provisions of this section and section 46 of this article, communities of interest, including ethnic, cultural, economic, trade area, geographic, and demographic factors, shall be preserved within a single district wherever possible.

Garnering less media attention, but of equal and parallel importance for the composition of Colorado’s state legislative districts (contrary to confused coverage, a completely separate process), the state Reapportionment Commission today took further shape with the publication of Governor Hickenlooper’s three appointments to the commission.  As reported by State Bill Colorado,

They are former state legislator, Gayle A. Berry, a Republican from Grand Junction, from the 3rd Congressional District; former Mayor of Denver, Wellington Webb, a Democrat from Denver, from the 1st Congressional District; and Arnold Salazar, a Democrat from Alamosa, from the 3rd Congressional District.

Governor Hickenlooper’s press release announcing the appointments noted that “[m]y three appointments have committed themselves to creating more competitive districts, which should therefore create more competitive elections wherever possible” and ”expressed hope” that the sum of appointments from all three branches of government “would result in a commission with precise partisan balance.”  He expounded on this “hope” in an ‘open letter’ statement to Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Michael Bender, who will make (and announce) the ‘final four’ commission picks by May 5th:

“When the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court makes the final four appointments to this Commission, I hope he will make sure that there is a precise balance between Democrats and Republicans,” Hickenlooper said. “That means appointing at least one unaffiliated voter to the Commission.  Neither political party should have a majority in this process and we ought to encourage consensus on the Commission.”

However, it should be clear to all but the most naive observers that the “partisan balance” on the commission is mere window-dressing.  Hickenlooper’s “Republican” appointment to the commission, former Grand Junction legislator Gayle A. Berry (R- HD55) has worked for the past several years as a lobbyist - for Governor Ritter’s Energy Office, among others (click here for a list of her major clients).  The Western Slope’s “representation” on the commission  is rounded out by Arnold Salazar (yes, brother of Ken and John), the Executive Director of Colorado Health Partnerships, LLC and a member of Governor Ritter’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Healthcare Reform.

Further, although it is possible that Chief Justice Bender will honor the letter of Governor Hickenlooper’s request to round out the commission with apparent partisan balance and appoint an “unaffiliated” member, it is all but certain that the token “unaffiliated” commissioner will be an INDO at best (Independent in Name, Democrat in Orientation), if not an outright Democrat in unaffiliated clothing.  In fact, the leading candidate for the token “unaffiliated” slot is reportedly none other than former Gunnison Democrat legislator Kathleen Curry, according to the Denver Post:

Former state Rep. Kathleen Curry said she’s in the running for an appointment to a commission redrawing legislative boundaries.

“I applied and have been told by Justice Bender that I am being considered,” she said, in an email.

Republicans (and actual independents) may console themselves with what may appear to be a relatively close balance on the commission, but the reality is clear: once again, just like the last time around, Democrats will dominate the commission membership, with insurance picks provided courtesy of the Colorado Supreme Court.

On the bright side, the Republicans will be ably represented on the Reapportionment Commission by two of the sharpest and most knowledgeable minds available, thanks to inspired picks by both House leadership (Speaker Frank McNulty selected former Rep. Rob Witwer as his delegate) and Senate leadership (Senate Minority Leader Mike Kopp selected attorney Mario Nicolais as his delegate).  According to the Reapportionment Commission staff, “this is the first time that legislative leaders have not appointed serving legislators” to the commission; if so, the selections are a welcome break from tradition and demonstrate some fresh, “out-of-the-box” thinking.

Conversely, the Democrat selections are “politics as usual”: Senate President Brandon Shaffer selected ueber-partisan Senator Morgan Carroll (D-Aurora), and House Minority Leader Sal Pace picked Boulder Democrat Matt Jones (D-Boulder), who served on the 1991 Reapportionment Commission and also co-founded and co-chaired the Democratic House Majority Fund.

Unfortunately, we are once again witnessing in slow motion the erosion of our liberty - aided and abetted by the Colorado Supreme Court.

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work with legislators and others interested in reforming the systemic shortcomings of Colorado’s “merit selection & retention” system to increase transparency and accountability to the public, and to provide useful evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

The wheels of justice grind slooooooooowly…

Approaching the one-year anniversary of the initial “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) attack on Clear The Bench Colorado via filing a campaign finance complaint (a complaint which was later held to be “frivolous, groundless, and vexatious” - in other words, completely lacking legal merit - in court, although CEW tried again and got a judge to buy their argument a couple of months later), a final resolution on the many issues surrounding the case(s) - including the court’s award of legal fees payable by CEW to Clear The Bench Colorado, which they’ve so far refused to pay, despite owing us since July - drags on.

Several news articles last week picked up the story again when the Colorado Secretary of State - continuing his predecessor’s position that Clear The Bench Colorado rightfully relied on guidance to file as an Issue Committee, not a Political Committee as CEW alleged CTBC should have done instead, despite guidance to the contrary - filed an amicus brief in support of the appeal entered before the Colorado Court of Appeals.

Naturally, CEW cried foul - whining about the intervention and attempting to spin the story (with the aid of the Colorado not-so Independent media mouthpiece) to try to make Secretary of State Scott Gessler look bad.  However, even the left-wing spin machine Colorado Pols admitted not only that “Buescher’s staffers advised Clear the Bench to register as an issue committee” but also that

1. The Secretary of State’s office has an obligation to provide public interpretations of the campaign finance laws to the public, candidates, and committees. Here, the previous Secretary, Bernie Buescher, told Clear the Bench to register as an issues committee. The ALJ said he wasn’t bound by Secretary Buescher’s opinion, which the ALJ believed was wrong. The brief addresses only one issue, which is whether or not the ALJ was bound by the Secretary’s interpretation of the campaign finance laws.
2. Bernie Buescher is the supervisor of the attorney who filed the brief. That attorney is without a doubt the best and most ethical attorney in the State of Colorado. If you can find anyone who has ever been involved in a case with Maurie who disagrees, I will eat my laptop. That’s easy to say, because you won’t find anyone.
3. It’s common for an administrative agency or officer to file a brief defending the power and prerogative of that agency or officer. I don’t remember any cases where the officer previously represented the party that would benefit from the decision if the court decides the way the officer argued, though.
4. If Clear the Bench came before Secretary Gessler and Gessler participated in a decision involving CtB, then I would be all over that in a heartbeat. That would be a clear conflict of interest. That’s not what’s going on here, though. This is just a brief telling the Court of Appeals that the ALJ should have done what the previous Secretary said.

All spin aside, it is clear that “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) is desperately on the defensive in all aspects of this case - losing the judgment on the issue of attorneys’ fees, losing the attorney who successfully argued CEW’s round 2 complaint (working pro bono for CEW, Aaron Goldhamer of Sherman & Howard, LLC - as he dropped CEW as a client), and now likely to lose even that transitory “win” on appeal.  The organization has been discredited not only for transparently partisan bias, but for their lack of effectiveness in arguing cases (the former acceptable to their financial backers, but the latter - litigative and legal incompetence - the one inexcusable sin).

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work with legislators and others interested in reforming the systemic shortcomings of Colorado’s so-called “merit selection & retention” system to increase transparency and accountability to the public, and to provide useful evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

“If we couldn’t laugh, we would all go insane.” Jimmy Buffet

Nowhere is this more true than dealing with Colorado’s consistently confusing and often arbitrary legal system and out-of-control judiciary - where the ruling majority on the Colorado Supreme Court recognizes no constitutional constraints, no limits to its untrammeled authority, no checks or balances to its power - in their view, the law means “just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”  This “Through the Looking Glass” worldview has precious little in common with the justices’ sworn duty to uphold the rule of law - and support (not dismantle) the Constitution.

Although remaining mindful of what’s at stake - holding our judiciary accountable for serial violations of our constitutional rights (to vote on taxes, even when taxes are called “fees”; keep your own property; bear arms in self-defense; and almost too many others to list); highlighting the judiciary’s dominant role in drawing up state legislative and congressional districts; and upholding the integrity of the judicial retention election process against the consortium of legal-establishment special-interest groups who attempted (and may have succeeded in) buying the election for their buddies on the bench in violation of Colorado campaign finance law - is serious business, all work and no play makes Matty a dull boy.

So - scouring the internet so you don’t have to - Clear The Bench Colorado presents another edition of the Friday Funnies.

From the reliably humorous (if often irreverent) Cracked magazine (online) comes the following list of   “5 Awesomely Sarcastic Supreme Court Decisions“:

5.  Bertman v. Kirsch (1964) - dealing with government shenanigans concerning notice of appeal (the government filed a notice of appeal late on the due date, leaving respondent no time to file a response within the statutory deadline).  What makes it funny? The Supreme Court justice invoking Superman:

“I am aware of the argument that an able, alert, ever-diligent lawyer could have, had he tried hard enough, discovered that the Government had appealed — even in the closing hours of the sixtieth day. I do not doubt that had Bertman’s counsel been Superman, his X-ray eyes would have told him that a notice of appeal was being filed blocks away in the courthouse, or had he been a lawyer with no clients but Bertman he could have spent the sixtieth day hovering at the clerk’s office to see whether the Government would file a notice of appeal. But Bertman’s counsel (so far as the record shows) is not Superman, nor should the law expect him to be.”

4.  PGA Tour v. Martin (2001) - in which a golfer sues to be able to use a golf cart instead of walking, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  What makes it funny? Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court’s funniest judge (as confirmed by a scientific study) waxes poetic on the “awesome responsibility… of determining the nature of golf.”

“We Justices must confront what is indeed an awesome responsibility. It has been rendered the solemn duty of the Supreme Court of the United States … to decide What Is Golf. I am sure that the Framers of the Constitution … fully expected that sooner or later the paths of golf and government, the law and the links, would once again cross, and that the judges of this august Court would some day have to wrestle with that age-old jurisprudential question, for which their years of study in the law have so well prepared them: Is someone riding around a golf course from shot to shot really a golfer? Either out of humility or out of self-respect (one or the other) the Court should decline to answer this incredibly difficult and incredibly silly question.”

(Scalia’s scathing wit highlights a basic fact: some issues are not - or should not be - justiciable; a fact acknowledged, in dissent, by a Colorado Supreme Court justice in the Lobato school funding case).

3.  Pottawatomie School Board v. Earls (2002) - in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld drug testing for ALL extracurricular school activities (including the marching band and chess club).  Why is this funny? Seriously - the chess club on crack?   Band geeks blowing bongs?  Freaked-out Future Farmers?

Notwithstanding nightmarish images of out-of-control flatware, livestock run amok, and colliding tubas disturbing the peace and quiet of Tecumseh, the great majority of students the School District seeks to test in truth are engaged in activities that are not safety sensitive to an unusual degree.”

2.  Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus (1987) - in which the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that (Surprise!) that “a resolution banning all ‘First Amendment activities’ at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) violates the First Amendment.”  Why is this funny? It’s not, really - except that the Los Angeles Airport Commissioners actually argued otherwise with a straight face.

1.  Kyles v. Whitney (1995) - in which defense attorneys argued that testimony of four witnesses against a convicted murderer should be thrown out because “all clearly saw his face but hadn’t all agreed on his exact height and build. Why? One of them had seen Kyles only after he got into his getaway car.”  Why is this funny? Once again, it’s the Supreme Court’s funniest justice (Scalia) bringing on the humor with a ‘Lone Ranger’ reference (a metaphorical “silver bullet”, if you will):

To assert that unhesitant and categorical identification by four witnesses who viewed the killer, close-up and with the sun high in the sky, would not eliminate reasonable doubt if it were based only on facial characteristics, and not on height and build, is quite simply absurd. Facial features are the primary means by which human beings recognize one another. That is why … bank robbers wear stockings over their faces instead of floor-length capes over their shoulders; it is why the Lone Ranger wears a mask instead of a poncho; and it is why a criminal defense lawyer who seeks to destroy an identifying witness by asking ‘You admit that you saw only the killer’s face?’ will be laughed out of the courtroom.”

Finally, demonstrating that government’s claim to authority to tax every living creature earning a living is quite literal comes this story of a court upholding the power to impose an occupational tax - on a cat.

Yes, that’s right - in the 1982 case of Blackie the talking cat (Miles v. City Council, 1982), the courts upheld the authority of the city of Augusta, Georgia to “impose an “occupation tax” on the plaintiffs [Blackie and his human "guardians"].

Sadly, judicial abuses of your constitutional rights are no laughing matter.  Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work with legislators and others interested in reforming the systemic shortcomings of Colorado’s “merit selection & retention” judicial review process to increase transparency and accountability to the public, and to provide substantive and useful evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

As the battle over redistricting Colorado’s Congressional districts dominates the state’s political news this week, the general lack of knowledge about how district boundaries are determined (and the very different processes for deciding Congressional versus state legislative district boundaries) is striking.

The confusion is not restricted to the general populace alone (who might be excused for having better things to do with their time than research an esoteric process that occurs but once a decade), but - disturbingly - is shockingly common among many political “experts” and permeates many of the resources on which an interested observer might rely.

Many “resources” get it wrong (such as this April 15th BallotNews article which mixes up Colorado’s redistricting and reapportionment processes); the following is a well-referenced start at getting it right.

First, it is important to understand that there are two separate and distinct processes for determining legislative district boundaries in Colorado:

• Redistricting - which refers to Congressional districts
• Reapportionment - which refers to state legislative districts

The most publicly visible and contentious battles concern Congressional Redistricting - for which constitutional authority rests with the Colorado General Assembly (state legislature).  Under the Colorado Constitution (Article V, Section 44)

The general assembly shall divide the state into as many congressional districts as there are representatives in congress apportioned to this state by the congress of the United States for the election of one representative to congress from each district. When a new apportionment shall be made by congress, the general assembly shall divide the state into congressional districts accordingly.

The Colorado General Assembly has until the end of the current legislative session (which must end by 11 May 2011) to enact legislation setting the new boundaries for the state’s Congressional districts; if the state legislature is unable to pass legislation through both chambers (the Republican-controlled House AND the Democrat-controlled Senate) during the regular session, a special session may be convened over the summer to make another attempt.

Once (if!) the legislature passes a redistricting bill, the governor may sign the bill into law - or veto the bill, sending it back to the state legislature.  Often the threat of a gubernatorial veto is sufficient to force a compromise on pending redistricting legislation (a tactic employed by former Governor Roy Romer in 1990, for example).

Finally, if and when the redistricting legislation is passed and signed into law, it must survive the inevitable legal challenges.  Each of the last several decades has seen the eventual Congressional redistricting map decided by the courts - following the 1980 and 1990 census in Federal court, and most recently (following the 2000 census) by the Colorado Supreme Court, when the court essentially ruled itself ‘part of the General Assembly’ (in the Salazar v. Davidson case) in order to usurp the legislature’s exclusive constitutional authority to “divide the state into congressional districts.”

Unfortunately, the state legislature expanded the opportunity for judicial mischief in 2010 with late-session legislation expanding the court’s discretion in considering “non-neutral factors” (such as party affiliation and voter demographics and trends) when reviewing redistricting plans - enacting the so-called “Mary-mandering” bill, which removed from state law several factors designed to ensure fair and impartial review by courts concerning legislative district boundaries.

State legislative district boundaries are determined by a completely different process - one in which the legislature has an extremely limited - almost inconsequential - role.  Following adoption of a ballot measure (Colorado Amendment 6 (1974), which was approved on November 5, 1974), the constitutional authority for drawing up state legislative districts was shifted from the legislature to a Reapportionment Commission with members appointed from each of the three branches of Colorado government.

Composition and timelines for the Reapportionment Commission are specified in Colorado Constitution Article V, Section 48, the key language of which follows:

The four legislative members shall be the speaker of the house of representatives, the minority leader of the house of representatives, and the majority and minority leaders of the senate, or the designee of any such officer to serve in his or her stead, which acceptance of service or designation shall be made no later than April 15 of the year following that in which the federal census is taken. The three executive members shall be appointed by the governor between April 15 and April 25 of such year, and the four judicial members shall be appointed by the chief justice of the Colorado supreme court between April 25 and May 5 of such year.

Thus the legislative appointments to the commission result in a nearly automatic 2:2 tie, irrespective of the balance of power in the General Assembly (there is no difference between having 1 representative or 64 in the House, or 1 senator or 34 in the Senate - either way, or anywhere in between, each major party in the state legislature gets a single appointment from each chamber).

Even the Governor’s 3 appointments are not enough to gain a majority of commission membership, even added to the 2 legislative members.

However, the Chief Justice’s 4 picks - the decisive ‘final four‘ - are enough to secure a majority for one party, even in the face of complete dominance by the other side.  (Exactly that situation occurred in 2000, when Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey appointed 4 Democrats to secure a 6:5 advantage on the Reapportionment Commission, despite Republican control of the governor’s office and half of the state legislature.  Many observers - including the Denver Post - have noted that Mullarkey’s successor in the top judicial slot Chief Justice Michael Bender holds the balance of power with this year’s appointments to the commission).  The Post’s post-election coverage (”Who holds the key on redistricting“) noted:

Put simply: Democrats have the edge in the capitol and the courts on congressional redistricting, and have an overwhelming 9-2 advantage in appointing members to the committee that will oversee legislative redistricting.

It gets worse - since the Colorado Supreme Court is not only the ultimate arbiter of any legal challenges to Congressional redistricting (the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected most challenges on redistricting as a matter of state, not Federal, responsibility - which is appropriate) but also reviews the work product of the Reapportionment Commission - the very commission dominated by the Chief Justice’s appointments!

One need not have an overly suspicious or cynical mind to discern the potential for corrupting and politicizing influence on the courts, an unhealthy concentration of political power in the judicial branch, and a potential conflict of interest for the Chief Justice.

Reapportionment Timeline:

• 15 April 2011: legislative appointments to Reapportionment Commission due
• 25 April 2011: gubernatorial appointments to Reapportionment Commission due
• 5 May 2011: Chief Justice’s appointments to Reapportionment Commission due
• 15 May 2011: Reapportionment Commission convenes
• 5 September 2011: preliminary plan for reapportionment due (113 days after Commission convenes)
• 11 September 2011: “the commission shall finalize its plan and submit the same to the Colorado supreme court for review and determination” Article V, Section 48, (1)(e)
• 20 October 2011: due date for public hearings on reapportionment (”within 45 days of publication”)
• October 2011: “the commission shall finalize its plan and submit the same to the Colorado supreme court for review and determination” no later than 123 days prior to the date established in statute for the event commencing the candidate selection process” (which will be March 2012)
• 14 December 2012: due date for filing reapportionment plan with Secretary of State - IF the plan has been approved by the Colorado Supreme Court (”no later than ninety days prior to the date established in statute for the event commencing the candidate selection process”).

And that’s if everything proceeds according to plan…

Additional references:

• Constitutional Provisions Controlling Reapportionment/Redistricting (official Colorado state website, which collates relevant constitutional language on Congressional redistricting and state legislative reapportionment)
• Redistricting in Colorado (Ballotpedia site - although the site contains several errors, some of which are being corrected, it does provide useful context and historical background on past restricting battles.  As with any Wiki site - contributions come from a variety of sources and are frequently edited - proceed with some skepticism)

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work with legislators and others interested in reforming the systemic shortcomings of Colorado’s “merit selection & retention” system to increase transparency and accountability to the public, and to provide useful evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

“No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.” - Mark Twain (1866)

Occasionally, however, the legislature can succeed in undoing previous acts putting one’s life, liberty, or property at risk…

State legislators made some progress this week towards repealing one of last year’s “Dirty Dozen” tax increases (which exploited a Colorado Supreme Court ruling to take more of your money without asking, as is required under the Colorado Constitution).

The “Dirty Dozen” was the name given to a package of twelve legislative bills which sought to increase tax revenues by eliminating existing tax credits or exemptions - an end-run around the constitutional requirement (in Article X, Section 20 - colloquially known as the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR) for “voter approval in advance for… any new tax, tax rate increase, or… tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain to any district.”

Last year’s legislative majorities (Democrats dominated both chambers of the state General Assembly) were emboldened in their assault on the constitutional rights (and wallets) of Colorado citizens by an interpretation of the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling in the notorious “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” case (another unconstitutional tax increase, sanctioned by the court under the pretense that a rate “freeze” which collects more revenue doesn’t count as a tax increase for triggering that pesky constitutional requirement to receive “voter approval in advance”).  Solid legislative majorities, a compliant governor, and a complicit supreme court allowed them to take a bigger bite of your money without first (or ever) asking for permission.

Since the 2010 elections resulted in a shift of control of one legislative chamber (the state House of Representatives) and many members of the new majority campaigned on a promise to seek the repeal of these unconstitutional tax increases, progress towards the elimination of any one of these unconstitutional (and economy-killing) tax increases is welcome news.  Last week, HB 11-1005, Reinstate Tax Exemption for Ag Products (Sonnenberg/Brophy), which would repeal the 2.9 percent state sales and use tax on agricultural compounds, bull semen and pesticides that was (unconstitutionally) imposed by last year’s HB10-1195, Suspend Ag Sales & Use Tax Exemption (Ferrandino/Heath), passed the House with a bipartisan 48-17 vote and appears likely to pass the state Senate as well, according to this article (”Ag tax repeal passes state House“).

Repealing last year’s (unconstitutional) agricultural tax increase is a win both for the rule of law and Colorado consumers - since the tax indirectly raised the price of all food grown, raised, or otherwise produced in Colorado.  Noticed your grocery bill creeping up?  Last year’s tax increase is partially to blame; projected revenue gains of $1.5M have not been realized, while higher food costs are shifted to consumers.

Of course, had the Colorado Supreme Court stuck to its sworn duty to uphold the Colorado Constitution and the rule of law in the first place (instead of legislating from the bench), none of the “Dirty Dozen” would have been proposed, much less passed - and we wouldn’t need to pass more laws to repeal bad laws already enacted.

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work with legislators and others interested in reforming the systemic shortcomings of Colorado’s “merit selection & retention” system to increase transparency and accountability to the public, and to provide useful evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

The hotly contested Wisconsin Supreme Court elections - pitting incumbent and self-described “judicial conservative” David Prosser against union-backed challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg - put Wisconsin back into the political spotlight as “Ground Zero” in the ongoing fight to control an increasingly powerful and unchecked one-third of state governments.

At stake in Wisconsin  was (and remains) more than the single state supreme court seat up for a vote.  The election was not only “seen as a referendum on Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s efforts to curb union power in Wisconsin” - hence the massive infusion of union resources (people, advocacy efforts, and money - reportedly some $5 million) supporting Kloppenburg - but also a clear and blatant example of the “progressive” Left’s attempts to advance policy by taking over state courts.

The ongoing “progressive” takeover of the courts is the greatest single threat to individual liberty and our system of government that exists today.

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold discussed the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court elections - and the implications for other states and nationwide - on last Sunday’s Backbone Radio broadcast (710 AM KNUS) filling in as guest host for Ross Kaminsky.

Listen to the podcast of the show - Segment One (recording cuts in a bit late) and Segment Two - of the 10 April 2011 Backbone Radio broadcast.

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado (and, working with allied groups, nationwide) judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work with legislators and others interested in reforming the systemic shortcomings of Colorado’s “merit selection & retention” system to increase transparency and accountability to the public, and to provide useful evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

The hotly contested Wisconsin Supreme Court elections - pitting incumbent and self-described “judicial conservative” David Prosser against union-backed challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg - put Wisconsin back into the political spotlight as “Ground Zero” in the ongoing fight to control an increasingly powerful and unchecked one-third of state governments.

At stake in Wisconsin  was (and remains) more than the single state supreme court seat up for a vote.  The election was not only “seen as a referendum on Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s efforts to curb union power in Wisconsin” - hence the massive infusion of union resources (people, advocacy efforts, and money - reportedly some $5 million) supporting Kloppenburg - but also a clear and blatant example of the “progressive” Left’s attempts to advance policy by taking over state courts.

The dramatic ups and downs of the vote counts - from Kloppenburg’s next-day declaration of victory (based on a reported 204 vote lead) to the following day’s discovery of a large number of unreported votes swinging the lead the other way (to a nearly 7,500 vote lead for Prosser) added to the emotional impact (on both sides), but the typical horse-race coverage of the vote largely obscured the larger issues at stake, in Wisconsin and beyond.

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.  Nowhere has this been laid bare more clearly than the recent Wisconsin state supreme court race - as the losers in the recent state legislative battles openly expressed hopes that “a Kloppenburg victory would set the stage for the high court to strike it down.”

As another article (Prosser vs. Kloppenburg: Wisconsin Supreme Court battle royale) indicates, the organized Left is very much aware of what’s at stake: the importance of judicial elections in Wisconsin, and in other states, in securing the legal high ground:

And unions are excited.  In fact, a letter sent out by the American Federation of Teachers states that: “a Kloppenburg victory will swing the balance to our side.  A vote for Prosser is a vote for Walker.  It’s time to ‘get even.’”

Colorado blogger Rossputin summed it up nicely in his contemporaneous coverage of the Wisconsin supreme court elections (”Wisconsin State Supreme Court Election Update“):

What does it say about the role of the judiciary in America today that the left will work so hard to elect a judge?  Do they believe that once elected the judge will be so beholden to them that she’ll make political rather than law-based decisions?  And is there any good reason, given what we’ve seen in recent years including at the federal Supreme Court, to believe they’re wrong to assume that?  We no longer live under the rule of law, or at least we’re quickly moving in that direction.

So while it’s possibly emotionally satisfying (and even correct) to ridicule Kloppenburg for prematurely declaring victory with an unconfirmed 204 vote lead (which subsequent vote counts showed was ephemeral, at best),  it’s equally correct to criticize many conservatives for prematurely declaring victory in the overall battle for control of our courts.

Just because Prosser appears to have won in Wisconsin, the war is far from over; in fact, Prosser’s win in Wisconsin is one of the very few “victories” in the war for the courts over the last several years (with the exception of Iowa last year, the “progressives” have won in a litany of states, from Alaska, Florida, Illinois, Kansas - and yes, Colorado too - in recent years).

The ongoing “progressive” takeover of the courts is the greatest single threat to individual liberty and our system of government that exists today.

The battle lines are clear; and the fight is unrelenting.  Those who would use the courts to advance a partisan political agenda - instead of insisting that the courts maintain their proper role of defending the Constitution and the rule of law - are ruthless, well-organized, well-funded, and pervasive.  Although it is an uphill battle - they must be stopped.

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado (and, working with allied groups, nationwide) judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work with legislators and others interested in reforming the systemic shortcomings of Colorado’s “merit selection & retention” system to increase transparency and accountability to the public, and to provide useful evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

The “Colorado Model” progressive “Blueprint” is being aggressively exported to other states…

An essential element of the “Colorado Model” used to facilitate a “progressive” takeover of our state was missed in the eponymous Weekly Standard article (The Colorado Model by Fred Barnes, July 2008) and the otherwise excellent (and highly readable) book, The Blueprint (by former Rep. Rob Witwer and former 9News Reporter Adam Schrager): the backstop (and occasional door-opener) provided by the progressive-left dominance of the Colorado Supreme Court.  Former Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey reliably advanced the progressive agenda, or blocked conservative or liberty-oriented policies and legislation, from her position on the high court.  Continued dominance of the court by her chosen successor, newly-elected Chief Justice Michael Bender, is carrying out much the same tradition.

“Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.” (Military aphorism, variously attributed)

Translating from the military vernacular to the political, “amateurs” focus on short-term electoral gains (transitory shifts in legislative majorities or changes in who holds political office) while “professionals” focus on building long-term institutional and philosophical shifts - and there are few institutions with more (and more enduring) power to impact public policy than the states’ highest courts.

In Colorado last year, the elections with the greatest and most long-lasting implications for the future of the state were not the votes for legislative or executive office, but the once-in-a-decade opportunity to hold an increasingly powerful and expansive judicial branch accountable to the public and to their sworn duty to uphold the Colorado Constitution and the rule of law.  Unfortunately, the bad guys won.

Many of the “leaders” on the center-right in Colorado have still failed to grasp this fact, and its implications (starting with continued domination of the Congressional redistricting and state-level legislative reapportionment process).  However, the ongoing battle (which will be decided in elections today) in Wisconsin over a single state supreme court seat shows that the powers-that-be in that state (on both sides) “get it” - and “the national implications of the contest are even greater,” according to a Newsmax article (‘Filthy, Dirty’ Tricks Alleged in Pivotal Wisconsin Election):

Prosser is part of the Wisconsin high court’s 4-to-3 conservative majority. The court ultimately is expected to rule on the legality of Walker’s efforts to rein in the power of public-sector unions.

So if Democrats and their union allies can push Kloppenburg over the top, they stand an excellent chance of blocking key reforms Republicans say are necessary to plug a $3.6 billion budget deficit without resorting to massive layoffs.

But the national implications of the contest are even greater. Most analysts say defeating Prosser will send an unmistakable signal that Republicans who stand up to the forces pushing for the continual expansion of big government may have to pay for it with their political careers.

With so much at stake - “[b]oth sides are describing Wisconsin as ground zero in the national battle over how to address the nation’s fiscal woes” - it should come as no surprise that resources (people - particularly national union organizers and cohorts - and money) are pouring in to the race:

Sources report that about $2.5 million already has been spent on the race, and projections are that expenditures on both sides could tally more than $5 million when the smoke finally clears.

By comparison, costs in a normal election cycle for a state Supreme Court race in Wisconsin probably would amount to less than $400,000.

Sad (and sobering) to think that a mere fraction of that amount could have changed a state supreme court majority for the better right here in Colorado.

However, even with a significant influx of money, the campaign against Colorado’s incumbent ‘unjust justices’ would have remained clean (if occasionally irreverent), in marked contrast to the “dirty tricks” and personal attacks that have characterized the Wisconsin state Supreme Court elections.  As noted in this BigGovernment article,

We all know Democrats and public unions plays dirty. That’s not the question. The question is only how dirty, and in their bid to get Kloppenburg on the court, they played it as dirty as anyone can — going so far as to exploit a victim of sexual abuse. Here’s a disgusting smear that’s been airing non-stop in Wisconsin for a week now:

The ad buy was for a full $3 million but immediately upon release the victim, Troy Merryfield, asked Kloppenburg to call for the ad to be taken down, calling it “offensive, inaccurate, and out of context.” Incredibly, Kloppenburg refused, and residents of my home state tell me that as of yesterday the smear was still airing ad nauseum on every channel.

Obviously disgusted with the Left shamelessly exploiting what was obviously as traumatic and painful an experience anyone can go through, Merryfield bravely took to the airwaves today with a devastating ad that Milwaukee talk radio host Charlie Sykes has learned is part of a massive buy:

The dueling TV ads are merely the most visible part of a dirty, high-stakes campaign by Wisconsin and national progressives to seize control of that state’s supreme court (as the Left has seized control of state supreme courts in Colorado and many other states in order to fortify or expand their hold on government power).  As another article (Prosser vs. Kloppenburg: Wisconsin Supreme Court battle royale) indicates, the organized Left is very much aware of what’s at stake - and the importance of judicial elections in Wisconsin, and in other states:

And unions are excited.  In fact, a letter sent out by the American Federation of Teachers states that: “a Kloppenburg victory will swing the balance to our side.  A vote for Prosser is a vote for Walker.  It’s time to ‘get even.’”

The battle lines are clear; and the fight is unrelenting.  Those who would use the courts to advance a partisan political agenda - instead of insisting that the courts maintain their proper role of defending the Constitution and the rule of law - are ruthless, well-organized, well-funded, and pervasive.  Although it is an uphill battle - they must be stopped.

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado (and, working with allied groups, nationwide) judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work with legislators and others interested in reforming the systemic shortcomings of Colorado’s “merit selection & retention” system to increase transparency and accountability to the public, and to provide useful evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.