Evaluations of Judicial Performance

The following matrix 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 each of the incumbent justices 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…

The following judicial evaluations scorecard lists key Colorado Supreme Court cases and how each of the incumbent justices seeking retention (for another 10-year term) voted in 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 and recommendations on other judges are below the Supreme Court matrix)

KEY COLORADO SUPREME COURT CASES


JUSTICE BENDER


JUSTICE MARTINEZ


JUSTICE
RICE

Summary of Judicial Performance		 Voted 7-0 against the Constitution.

Recommendation:

Do NOT Retain

(Vote NO)

 Voted 7-0 against the Constitution.

Recommendation:

Do NOT Retain

(Vote NO)

 Voted 4-2-1 against the Constitution.

Recommendation:

Do NOT Retain

(Vote NO)

LOBATO V. COLORADO (October 2009) (Judicial control of school funding case)

The majority ruling in this case usurped the authority of the legislative branch to decide questions of policy (vs. law) in educational funding.

 Voted Yes

(against the Constitution)

 Voted Yes

(against the Constitution)

 Voted No

(upholding the Constitution)

MESA COUNTY V. COLORADO (March 2009) (”Mill Levy Tax Freeze” property tax increase case)

The court upheld an unconstitutional property tax increase (”tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain“) and deprived Colorado citizens of their constitutional right to a vote on tax increases. The ruling also eliminated constitutional protections for existing tax credits and exemptions.

The Colorado Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling that the tax increase violated the Colorado Constitution: District Court ruling by Judge Christina M. Habas (30 May 2008)

 Voted Yes

(against the Constitution)

 Voted Yes

(against the Constitution)

 Voted Yes

(against the Constitution)

BARBER V. RITTER (November 2008)
(”Fees” are not taxes case)

The majority ruled that fees collected for one specific purpose, but transferred later to other (general) purposes - like funds collected from a tax - are not in violation of the TABOR requirement to receive prior voter approval for “any tax policy change… resulting in a net revenue gain.”

Ergo, “fees” don’t count as taxes.

 Voted Yes

(against the Constitution)

 Voted Yes

(against the Constitution)

 Concurred in judgement

(* 3 justices did not uphold the plaintiff’s challenge due to lack of ’standing’)

TELLURIDE V. SAN MIGUEL VALLEY CORP. (June 2008) (”Telluride Land Grab” case)

The majority ruling in this case upheld the exercise of eminent domain by the town of Telluride over property OUTSIDE the town limits.  The upshot of the ruling is that ANY home rule entity (municipality) can exercise eminent domain ANYWHERE in the state.  Also, the ruling ignored a law passed by the Colorado Legislature expressly limiting extraterritorial condemnations and abusive ‘takings.’

 Voted Yes

(against the Constitution)

 Voted Yes

(against the Constitution)

 Voted Yes

(against the Constitution)

CEA V. RUTT (May 2008)

Court ruled that a union could coordinate campaign activities with candidates, in violation of Colorado campaign finance law

 Voted Yes

(contrary to Colorado campaign laws)

 Voted Yes

(contrary to Colorado campaign laws)

 Voted Yes

(contrary to Colorado campaign laws)

Initiative 55 (banning services to Illegals) case (June 2006)

The Colorado Supreme Court threw out the ballot initiative for violating the “single subject” rule, overturning the Title Board. Even the Denver Post (which vehemently opposed the initiative) decried the ruling.

Former Governor Dick Lamm panned the court as “Politicians in Black Robes“, saying “This is not justice; it is politics - of the worst kind.”

 Voted Yes

(against the Constitution)

 Voted Yes

(against the Constitution)

 Voted No

(upholding the Constitution)

SALAZAR V. DAVIDSON (2003)
(Congressional Re-Districting case)

The Colorado Supreme Court essentially declared itself part of the General Assembly in order to redraw congressional districts to its own liking - despite the clear words of the Colorado Constitution declaring this the exclusive power of the legislature (”General Assembly shall… reapportion districts”).  The court broke the law by declaring that its word was law - what I say goes, in a stunning power grab.  (See also:

Supremes use semantic gymnastics)

 Voted Yes

(against the Constitution)

 Voted Yes

(against the Constitution)

 Voted Yes

(against the Constitution)

Other Views

State Commission on Judicial Performance “evaluations” (published in the “Blue Book”)		 Bender’s “evaluation” Martinez’ “evaluation” Rice’s      ”evaluation”

(Some viewers may wonder why we include the recommendations and “reviews” of the State Commission on Judicial Performance, since their conclusions are the opposite of 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).

Evaluations and Recommendations on other Colorado Judges:

Colorado Court of Appeals:

Four judges on the Colorado Court of Appeals are also appearing on the statewide ballot seeking retention in office (the term of office for Colorado Court of Appeals judges is 8 years, contrasted with terms of 10 years for Colorado Supreme Court justices).

The names of the four judges seeking retention to the Colorado Court of Appeals are:

Judge John Daniel Dailey, Judge Richard L. Gabriel, Judge Nancy Lichtenstein, and Judge David J. Richman.

Based on our analysis of the cases which have come to our attention, Clear The Bench Colorado makes the following recommendations on Colorado Court of Appeals judges, with the caveat that our research has not been nearly as comprehensive as at the supreme court level:

  • Judge John Daniel Dailey: CTBC recommends a yes (”retain”) vote
  • Judge Nancy Lichtenstein: CTBC recommends a yes (”retain”) vote

CTBC has no recommendation (either for or against) on Judge Richard L. Gabriel and Judge David J. Richman, due to lack of data (these two judges have only been on the Court of Appeals since 2008).

District and County Judges:

On judges in district and county courts, we’ve received some input from people across the state, and have collected those in a separate page below.   Anyone wishing to comment on any judges on this year’s ballot are welcome to submit comments and responsible, documented articles of reasonable length (please, no rants or diatribes) to our Know Your Judge: Citizen Input page, or our Sound Off! page - but in general, unless we receive compelling, documented evidence, CTBC takes no official position on any of the 100+ district and county court judges seeking retention this year.

One exception: CTBC has recommended a “NO” vote on Larimer County judges Blair and Gilmore (who, as prosecutors, are reported to have conspired to hide evidence which may have sent an innocent man to jail for ten years).  Ask yourself whether the unanimous recommendation of “retain” by the district performance review commission undermines the credibility of the “evaluation” process.

Opposition to these judges is led by the Committee on Judicial Justice (http://www.judicialjustice.org/).

For information on District and County judges provided by input from other citizens organized by judicial district, visit our “Know Your Judge: Citizen Input on District/County Judges” page

This page has the following sub pages.