Evaluations 2012

Evaluations of Judicial Performance – 2012

Colorado does not elect judges to office in contested elections (they are appointed by the governor from a list of 3 nominees selected by a judicial nominating commission), but they are required to receive voter approval to retain office (on a 4, 6, 8, or 10 year schedule based on the level of the court).

(NOTE: click here for 2014 Evaluations of judicial performance)

The Colorado judges seeking retention in 2012 (appearing on the November 2012 general election ballot with a “Yes” or “No” vote option) are:

• 1 Supreme Court Justice
• 6 Court of Appeals judges
• 83 District & County judges

Colorado Supreme Court:

The following judicial performance review scorecard summarizes some of the Colorado Supreme Court cases over the last decade which have had the greatest impact on the largest number of Colorado Citizens, and how the incumbent justice appearing on the November ballot voted in each case.

Clear The Bench Colorado realizes that it is impossible to present an analysis of every case on which these justices voted; we have selected those cases addressing important constitutional questions.  Our methodology closely tracks that supposedly used by the state Commission on Judicial Performance (reviewing cases as the benchmark for assessing judicial performance).

The difference is that we actually publicize the decisions and votes in each case…

For information on each case, click the link (case name) for a brief analysis of the constitutional issues and impact, a link to the ruling’s full text, and links to related commentary for additional information.

(Information on judges from other levels of court are below the Supreme Court matrix)

(Some viewers may wonder why we include the recommendations and rubber-stamp “reviews” of the State Commission on Judicial Performance, since their conclusions often vary from what our analysis indicates. Quite simply, we welcome the comparison – look at their “evaluations”, then compare them with our analysis. We think that discerning readers will agree: the “Blue Book” narratives lack substance and provide little or no useful information on which to base an informed decision).

Colorado Court of Appeals:

The following matrix lists the Colorado Court of Appeals judges appearing on the November ballot, with a representative sample of consequential cases decided by each judge.    Click the link (case name) for  the ruling’s full text; links to related commentary for additional information are included where relevant.

(Click the judge’s name for a link to their “official” government judicial performance evaluation)
CTBC’s summary rating for each Colorado Court of Appeals judge appears below their picture.
Ratings Code: X=strike against rule of law; O=upheld rule of law; M=Mixed

JUDGE BOORAS X-O-M	In 10CA1409, HENDERSON v. CITY OF FORT MORGAN, ruled that city council votes are NOT subject to Colorado open records laws in conducting official (public) business. See also: Colorado appeals court upholds Fort Morgan city council’s secret ballots	In 08CA2689 and 09CA0384, COLORADO ETHICS WATCH v. SENATE MAJORITY FUND LLC, ruled that campaign finance limitations apply only to “express advocacy” activity and “express exhortations” to take action pro/contra candidates.	In 09CA1713 CHURCHILL v. UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER, ruled that the University of Colorado had quasi-judicial immunity against wrongful-firing claims by ex-CU Prof Ward Churchill See also: Colorado Supreme Court rejects Ward Churchill appeal – University of Colorado not forced to re-instate to faculty
JUDGE CASEBOLT O-O-O	In 11CA1005 COLORADO MEDICAL SOCIETY v. HICKENLOOPER, ruled that Colorado law permits certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) to administer anesthesia without supervision by a physician (ruling reduces burdensome licensing and regulatory requirements)	In 08CA2689 and 09CA0384, COLORADO ETHICS WATCH v. SENATE MAJORITY FUND LLC, ruled that campaign finance limitations apply only to “express advocacy” activity and “express exhortations” to take action pro/contra candidates.	In 06CA0733 Lobato v. State of Colorado, ruled to dismiss claim to force higher state spending on education as a non-justiciable political question. See also: Colorado Supreme Court Usurps Legislature’s Role and Authority (again!), claims power to set ‘proper’ school funding amounts
JUDGE GRAHAM M-O-O	In 09CA1713 CHURCHILL v. UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER, ruled that the University of Colorado had quasi-judicial immunity against wrongful-firing claims by ex-CU Prof Ward Churchill See also: Colorado Supreme Court rejects Ward Churchill appeal – University of Colorado not forced to re-instate to faculty	In 08CA1784 LAMBERT v. RITTER INAUGURAL COMMITTEE INC, ruled to overturn an earlier ALJ (Administrative Law Judge) ruling which had improperly dismissed a campaign finance complaint.	In 04CA2169 PACIFIC LIFE ANNUITY COMPANY v. COLORADO DIVISION OF INSURANCE, ruled to reverse a trial court ruling that backed a Division of Insurance strong-arming a private insurer to pay more for services contrary to law and contract.
JUDGE MILLER M-X-X	In 11CA0892 CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS v. COLORADO ETHICS WATCH, ruled in favor of Colorado Ethics Watch against city motion to have campaign finance complaint reviewed by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).	In 10CA2291 COLORADO ETHICS WATCH v. CLEAR THE BENCH COLORADO, ruled in favor of Colorado Ethics Watch that judges are “candidates for election” in applying campaign finance rules (despite phrasing of vote as yes/no ballot question).	In 11CA1041 GRAY v. UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, ruled that the University of Colorado Hospital Authority is immune from liability even for willful and wanton actions resulting in death under Colorado’s Government Immunity Act (GIA), § 24-10-101
JUDGE TAUBMAN O-M-X	In 09CA1230 STUDENTS FOR CONCEALED CARRY ON CAMPUS LLC v. REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, voted to overturn the CU Gun Ban (upholding Colorado state statute for concealed carry vs. University of Colorado) Commentary/News: Colorado Supreme Court upholds Colorado Court of Appeals rejection of CU Gun Ban	In 07CA1151 INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE v. COFFMAN, ruled to uphold constitutionality of campaign finance law reporting and  disclosure requirements, restricting political free speech.	In 04CA0078 DALEY v. UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, ruled that the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center was entitled to immunity from claims of of invasion of privacy, extreme and outrageous conduct, and civil theft for circulating private medical records w/o authorization under Colorado’s Governmental Immunity Act (GIA), § 24-10-101
JUDGE WEBB O-O-O	In 09CA0132 COLORADO MINING ASSOCIATION LLC LLC LLC v. HUBER, ruled to strike down a severance tax increase as a violation of the Colorado Constitution, Art. X Section 20 (TABOR) See also: Colorado Supreme Court prepares additional assault on taxpayer rights	In 09CA1396 J.S. v. Chambers, reversed district court ruling appointing special prosecutor, upholding prosecutorial discretion in pursuing criminal charges in highly politicized case.	In 06CA0733 Lobato v. State of Colorado, ruled to dismiss claim to force higher state spending on education as a non-justiciable political question (properly role of the legislature, not courts). See also: Colorado Supreme Court Usurps Legislature’s Role and Authority (again!), claims power to set ‘proper’ school funding amounts

For those interested in reviewing the full listing of Colorado Court of Appeals rulings, the FindLaw website (with searchable database of court rulings) is a valuable resource.

District/County Judges:

Since District/County judges rule on a much larger number of cases, many (if not most) of which do not result in published opinions – and as there are a great deal more of them appearing on the ballot – the methodology employed by Clear The Bench Colorado in reviewing judicial performance at this level relies primarily upon inputs from concerned citizens and knowledgeable parties (including attorneys, court-watchers, and sources in law enforcement) and lists specific cases only by exception.

Our Know Your Judge: Citizen Input on District/County Judges 2012 page lists comments on each judge organized by judicial district.

Anyone wishing to comment on any of the judges on this year’s ballot are welcome to submit comments and responsible, documented articles of reasonable length (please, no rants, slams, or diatribes) to our Know Your Judge: Citizen Input page, or our Sound Off! page.

Comments on any of the judicial performance evaluations are welcome, below.