Colorado Governor
Hickenlooper appoints Navarro to Colorado Court of Appeals
The second time was the charm for Anthony Navarro, who was just appointed to the Colorado Court of Appeals by Governor John Hickenlooper to replace outgoing Judge Robert Russel, a former contender for Colorado Supreme Court justice (Navarro had previously applied for consideration to join the state’s frontline appellate court in 2008, with the endorsement of the Colorado Hispanic Bar Association).
Governor Hickenlooper selected Navarro from a pool of 3 nominees (Robert T. Fishman of Denver, Russell H. Granger of Georgetown, and Anthony Navarro of Denver) picked by the State Judicial Nominating Commission last month.
Mr. Navarro (effective 3 November, Judge Navarro) will serve as one of 22 judges on the Colorado Court of Appeals (who rule on cases in 3-judge panels). His first term (considered a “provisional” term under the Colorado Constitution, Article VI Section 20) “expires” in 2014, when he will appear on the ballot for a “retention” vote:
A justice or judge appointed under the provisions of this section shall hold office for a provisional term of two years and then until the second Tuesday in January following the next general election.
Citizen participation in the judicial review and retention election process (either at the district level or statewide) is essential to ensuring that good judges – who understand that their role is to fairly and impartially uphold and apply the law – hold judicial office, instead of more politicians in black robes.
This is particularly important in reviewing the performance of statewide appellate court judges – many of whom all too frequently have exercised unrestrained power, in violation of constitutional limits on their authority, in order to advance a personal and/or political agenda.
Our judicial system depends more than any other branch of government on public trust and confidence that the law is being applied fairly and impartially for all citizens – that our judges are fulfilling their proper roles as referees upholding the rules rather than players attempting to score for their “team’s” agenda.
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.
Lobato plaintiffs lobby Colorado Supreme Court in “Super Bowl of school funding litigation”
Plaintiffs in the ‘Lobato v. Colorado‘ school funding lawsuit filed a Motion last week urging the Colorado Supreme Court to uphold Denver District Judge Sheila Rappaport’s 9 Dec 2011 183-page ruling declaring Colorado’s system of school funding ”irrational and inadequate” in what a recent Denver Post article described as the ”Super Bowl of school funding litigation.”
With significant implications for the state budget, the case is a Super Bowl of school funding litigation [Ed: emphasis added] because if it can drastically change how lawmakers fund schools, or force the state to find additional revenue if the plaintiffs win. Their attorneys claim that schools are underfunded by an estimated $4 billion.
Governor Hickenlooper and Attorney General Suthers had earlier warned of “devastating” consequences for Colorado if the Lobato plaintiffs were successful in forcing additional school spending.
The lawsuit drew the bipartisan opposition of Governor Hickenlooper, Attorney General Suthers, and the State Board of Education (all joining in appealing Rappaport’s ruling last December).
The state Attorney General’s office has argued that Colorado has met its funding obligation. More than 40 percent of the general fund budget goes to K-12 education, and state attorneys argue that other departments will suffer if lawmakers are forced to allocate more money to schools.
The state’s response to the latest plaintiff’s filing is due in 3 weeks; the date for oral arguments has not yet been set.
Although the lawsuit (and Rappaport’s ruling) is likely to be overturned (thanks to the departure of former Chief Justice Mullarkey and the more recent resignation of Justice Alex Martinez, 2 of the original 4 votes keeping the Lobato lawsuit alive in 2009 are now gone), appealing the case will cost Colorado taxpayers plenty:
[Mike] Saccone [spokesman for the attorney general's office] said the legislature has appropriated up to $3.5 million to defend the state against the suit.
This educational-funding lawsuit (seeking to force even higher state educational spending by court order) represents yet another abuse of the courts for the pursuit of political ends – unfortunately aided and abetted by an all-too-complicit (and highly political) majority on the Colorado Supreme Court, which previously (October 2009) overturned two lower courts which had (correctly) dismissed the case (Lobato v. Colorado) as non-justiciable (meaning, a policy issue not to be decided by the courts).
If the courts are able to decide “the future of public education” by judicial fiat, Colorado citizens will have lost all control and accountability over our schools.
The issue of educational funding is NOT one for the courts, but rather for the legislature and/or local school boards. The Lobato lawsuit is a fiscal, legal, and political disaster in the making.
Read more about the Lobato school funding case in these articles:
- “Judicial Overreach” (Pueblo Chieftain editorial, 14 December 2011)
- “Judge Sets Constitution Aside in School Finance Ruling” (Audio, Education Policy Center, 12 December 2011)
- “Victory for Lobato Plaintiffs” (Education News Colorado, 9 December 2011)
- “Lobato case primer” (Education News Colorado, 11 August 2011)
- “Lobato lawsuit unfounded” (Denver Post, 11 August 2011)
- “In Lobato, might high court issue a ruling it can’t enforce?” (Colorado News Agency, 11 August 2011)
- “Lobato education-funding budget-buster aided & abetted by Colorado Supreme Court” (8 August 2011)
The Attorney General’s office has also compiled a full list of key pleadings and court decisions in the Lobato case.
Cases such as Lobato – particularly Rappaport’s biased ruling – highlight the importance of fair and impartial courts and of judges who exercise proper restraint (in accordance with the rule of law) in considering – let alone deciding – issues of policy more appropriate for the elected, representative branches of government. Our courts have an important – even vital – role to play in our society and system of government. This is not it.
* Governor Hickenlooper responded to a question at a 13 December 2011 town hall event about Lobato that he was leaning towards an appeal, since the court’s ruling “clearly violated TABOR” and Colorado voters had recently rejected a tax increase purportedly targeted for education funding (Prop. 103).
The Constitution says we can’t raise taxes without a vote of the people – the people just voted specifically on more revenues for education, and the people pretty clearly voted 2-to-1 that this was a bad idea. So how can the courts say that we should do it?
Governor Hickenlooper clearly disagreed with Rappaport’s ruling, and clearly expects to win on appeal, since the alternative would plunge the state into a constitutional crisis:
“Let’s say that the Supreme Court agrees with the district court – if that’s the case, then we’ve got the Constitution versus the Supreme Court.”
Listen to audio remarks on the Lobato appeal
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.
Colorado Supreme Court Judicial Nominating Commission names finalists for Colorado Court of Appeals vacancy
The Colorado Supreme Court Judicial Nominating Commission has named the three finalists to fill a pending vacancy on the Colorado Court of Appeals, due to the resignation of Judge Robert Russel (effective 3 Nov 2012), as reported by Clear The Bench Colorado last month.
The three finalists (from whom Governor John Hickenlooper will select one) are:
Robert T. Fishman of Denver, Russell H. Granger of Georgetown, and Anthony Navarro of Denver.
- Fishman is an appeals attorney at Ridley McGreevy & Winocur in Denver; his experience includes having clerked for (former) Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Luis D. Rovira
- Granger is a currently district judge in the 5th Judicial District (formerly a Clear Creek County judge), and was most recently reviewed (and retained) in 2008.
- Navarro currently works in the office of general counsel at the Social Security Administration; he previously applied for the Colorado Court of Appeals in 2008 (endorsed at the time by the Colorado Hispanic Bar Association).
The governor has 15 days from Wednesday to select one of the three. Comments regarding any of the nominees may be sent via e-mail to the governor at judicial.appointments@state.co.us
Citizen participation in the judicial nominating commissions (either at the district level or statewide) is essential to ensuring that good judges – who understand that their role is to fairly and impartially uphold and apply the law – are elevated to judicial office, instead of more politicians in black robes.
This is particularly important in selecting the next statewide appellate court judges – many of whom all too frequently have exercised unrestrained power in violation of constitutional limits on their authority.
Our judicial system depends more than any other branch of government on public trust and confidence that the law is being applied fairly and impartially for all citizens – that our judges are fulfilling their proper roles as referees upholding the rules rather than players attempting to score for their “team’s” agenda.
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.
Colorado Supreme Court Nominating Commission seeks applicants for pending Colorado Court of Appeals vacancy
The Colorado Supreme Court Nominating Commission is soliciting applicants to fill a pending vacancy on the Colorado Court of Appeals, due to the resignation of Judge Robert Russel (effective 3 Nov 2012).
Any qualified elector of the state of Colorado who is not a convicted felon and has been licensed to practice law in the state for 5 years may apply to become a judge (Colorado Constitution, Article VI Section 8, Qualifications of Judges).
From the vacancy announcement, as reported by Law Week Colorado:
Application forms are available from the office of the ex-officio chair of the nominating commission, Chief Justice Michael L. Bender, 101 W. Colfax, Suite 800, Denver, CO 80202; and the office of the district administrator of any of the 22 judicial districts. Applications also are available at www.courts.state.co.us/Careers/Judge.cfm.
One original, signed application form, along with an identical copy of the application stored as a PDF file must be received by the ex-officio chair by 4 p.m. Tuesday, Aug. 28. Late applications will not be considered.
Any person wishing to suggest a candidate to fill the vacancy may do so by letter to be submitted to any member of the nominating commission, with a copy to the ex-officio chair, no later than Aug. 21.
Applications will be kept confidential, except that the nominating commission shall disclose the names, work addresses, and work telephone numbers of the three nominees submitted to the governor.
The Colorado Supreme Court Nominating Commission will convene 24-25 September 2012 to review all applications, interview selected applicants, then vote to select 3 nominees who will be submitted to the governor for appointment to the Court of Appeals. Once the 3 nominees have been selected, a public review and comment period is typically observed. (Current example: Montrose County Court vacancy)
Citizen participation in the judicial nominating commissions (either at the district level or statewide) is essential to ensuring that good judges – who understand that their role is to fairly and impartially uphold and apply the law – are elevated to judicial office, instead of more politicians in black robes.
This is particularly important in selecting the next statewide appellate court judges – many of whom all too frequently have exercised unrestrained power in violation of constitutional limits on their authority.
Our judicial system depends more than any other branch of government on public trust and confidence that the law is being applied fairly and impartially for all citizens – that our judges are fulfilling their proper roles as referees upholding the rules rather than players attempting to score for their “team’s” agenda.
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.
Federal judge allows “Fenster’s Folly” frivolous anti-TABOR lawsuit to progress to trial
The frivolous, groundless, and vexatious politically-motivated lawsuit attempting to overturn a Colorado Constitutional Amendment (the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, colloquially known as “TABOR”) filed in Federal court in May 2011 will now progress to trial on the basis of today’s ruling by U.S. District Court Judge William Martinez.
Judge Martinez dismissed the last attempt by the state’s attorneys to dismiss the lawsuit, filed by 33 plaintiffs who are mostly Democrats, before going to trial (and sparing Colorado taxpayers significant expense). Judge Martinez rejected the state’s argument that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue; as reported in the Denver Post,
Martínez disagreed, writing in a 73-page ruling, “The court holds that the plaintiffs who are current members of the Colorado General Assembly have standing to bring this action.”
His ruling added, “The Court also holds that plaintiffs’ claims are not barred by the political question doctrine.”
The judge’s hostility to TABOR (and the state’s arguments to dismiss, based on clear constitutional precedent) has been evident for some time; indeed, we predicted back in February (following the initial hearing on oral arguments to dismiss the lawsuit) that Judge Martinez appeared “disinclined to honor the Supreme Court precedent” making it “likely that the case will continue to trial, and may ultimately end up before the United States Supreme Court.”
Reference state’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Substitute Complaint (which was filed back in August by Governor Hickenlooper and Attorney General Suthers – also, analysis of the state’s Motion to Dismiss).
Unfortunately, although the lawsuit is lacking in legal merit, and constitutional case law precedent (including two relevant Supreme Court of the United States [SCOTUS] decisions) has repeatedly ruled that the “Republican form of government” language in the Constitution’s “Guarantee Clause” (United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 4 – “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government“) is non-justiciable (meaning, not subject to determination by the courts), and constitutional constraints on government are, by definition, constitutionally allowed – now that the lawsuit is proceeding to trial, it will cost Colorado taxpayers hundreds of thousands in legal fees and costs, and will almost certainly ultimately end up before the United States Supreme Court since overturning a state constitutional amendment by judicial fiat would have immense implications for the citizens’ initiative process and the right of the people to limit government power by constitutional limits nationwide.
If “We The People” cannot set constitutional limits on government power, then the very founding principles of this nation – indeed, the foundations of Liberty itself – are at risk.
Additional references:
A more detailed (and highly informative) discussion of the constitutionality of the citizen initiative and referendum processes may be found in the Texas Law Review article, “A Republic, Not a Democracy? Initiative, Referendum, and the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause” by Professor Robert G. Natelson.
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.
Colorado Supreme Court Nominating Commission position open for 3rd Congressional District (attorneys only need apply)
The Colorado Judicial Branch, “[o]n behalf of Gov. John Hickenlooper, Attorney General John Suthers and Chief Justice Michael L. Bender,” recently announced
opening of the application period for a vacancy on the Supreme Court Nominating Commission.
Applications for the volunteer position, which must be filled by an attorney residing in the 3rd Congressional District, will be accepted until Aug. 3, 2012. There is no political party affiliation requirement for this vacancy.
Under Colorado’s “merit selection and retention” system of filling judicial offices, the judicial nominating commissions – at either the district level, or statewide – represent one of the few opportunities for Colorado citizens to have a say in the composition of our courts. In essence, the commissions are the means by which Citizens can become involved in choosing our judges.
At the district level (Colorado is divided into 22 judicial districts),
Each judicial district nominating commission consists of seven citizens residing in that judicial district. No more than four members can be from the same political party, and there must be at least one voting member from each county in the district. [Source: Colorado State Courts, Judicial Nominating Commissions]
At the statewide level (including both the Colorado Supreme Court and Court of Appeals),
The Supreme Court Nominating Commission recommends candidates to serve as judges for the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. The chief justice of the Supreme Court chairs the commission and is a non-voting member. This commission includes one citizen admitted to practice law in Colorado and one citizen not admitted to practice law residing in each of the state’s seven congressional districts, and one additional citizen not admitted to practice law in Colorado. [Total of 15 commissioners] (Source: Judicial Nominating Commissions)
From the press release:
Article VI, Section 24 of the Colorado Constitution requires that for any nominating commission, “no more than one-half of the commission members plus one, exclusive of the Supreme Court justice serving as ex officio chair, shall be members of the same political party.” The Constitution also requires that at least one commissioner reside in each of the counties of the district. Applicants must reside in the judicial district – or, for the Supreme Court Nominating Commission, the Congressional District – to which they are applying for appointment.
Application forms may be found on the Colorado Judicial Department web site at http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Nominating.cfm. Completed application forms may be mailed to Cheryl Stevens, Colorado Supreme Court, 101 W. Colfax, Suite 800, Denver, CO 80202. They also may be sent via email to cheryl.stevens@judicial.state.co.us.
Citizen participation in the judicial nominating commissions (either at the district level or statewide) is essential to ensuring that good judges – who understand that their role is to fairly and impartially uphold and apply the law – are elevated to judicial office, instead of more politicians in black robes.
This is particularly important in selecting the next Colorado Supreme Court justices – who all too frequently have exercised unrestrained power in violation of constitutional limits on their authority.
Our judicial system depends more than any other branch of government on public trust and confidence that the law is being applied fairly and impartially for all citizens – that our supreme court justices are fulfilling their proper roles as referees upholding the rules rather than players attempting to score for their “team’s” agenda.
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 Colorado Car Tax – er, ‘FASTER’ “vehicle registration fee” increase – challenged in court as violation of state Constitution
The Colorado Car Tax (er, “vehicle registration fee”) increase passed in 2009 (SB108, the so-called “FASTER” bill) is quite possibly THE most unpopular tax increase in Colorado history – made all the more repugnant by how it became law (exploiting a 2008 Colorado Supreme Court ruling which declared that “fees” don’t count as “taxes” to circumvent the constitutional requirement (under Colorado Constitution Article X, Section 20 – Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, a.k.a. TABOR) to receive prior voter approval for any ‘policy change resulting in net revenue gain’ to the state).
After two years of legislative inaction failed to repeal or roll back the unconstitutional and unpopular tax increase, the ‘FASTER’ Colorado Car Tax is being challenged in court as a violation of the Colorado state Constitution (specifically, Colorado Constitution Article X, Section 20 – Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, TABOR).
Despite being a central issue in the 2010 elections (Democrat Governor Bill Ritter chose not to seek re-election in large part because of the tax increase’s unpopularity; Senate sponsor Dan Gibbs also chose not to seek re-election; and House Sponsor Joe Rice was defeated by now-Representative Kathleen Conti largely on the strength of her campaigning on the Car Tax issue), the legislature has failed to overturn the clearly unconstitutional tax (or address other unconstitutional aspects of the legislation, including establishment of unaccountable “government-owned enterprises” to administer the tax – er, “fee” – collections and revenues).
It has long been clear that the proper venue for overturning this highly unpopular, regressive, and unconstitutional tax increase is NOT via the legislature (which is unwilling or unable to act) but via a court challenge. Unfortunately, as long as the actively anti-TABOR “Mullarkey Majority” (and its successors) ruled the Colorado Supreme Court, prospects for a reasonable hearing on the merits (and interpretation actually based on the Colorado Constitution, as written) have been bleak.
However, due to recent changes in the composition of the state’s highest court (blatantly partisan and anti-TABOR Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey quit rather than face voters in 2010 and Mullarkey ally Justice Alex Martinez quit the court to take a Denver city job last Fall), along with the impending retirement of Mullarkey’s heir as Chief Justice (Michael Bender), a lawsuit challenging the ‘FASTER’ Colorado Car Tax (er, “vehicle registration fee”) increase might now have a chance.
Apparently judging the time to be ripe, the TABOR Foundation – represented by the Mountain States Legal Foundation – filed suit today (21 May 2012) challenging the constitutionality of the 2009 ‘FASTER’ Colorado Car Tax. From the organization’s press release:
“In clear violation of TABOR, the General Assembly enacted and CDOT implemented a scheme to levy taxes and raise revenues without a vote of the people of Colorado,” William Perry Pendley of the Mountain States Legal Foundation, said in a statement.
The lawsuit targets not only the over $100 Million in (unconstitutionally-imposed) new taxes levied, but also the $300 million in new government bonds imposed by the Colorado Bridge Enterprise (one of the constitutionally dubious quasi-government “enterprises” established under the ‘FASTER’ law).
The Foundation seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and an order requiring refund of all revenues collected, along with the payment of interest, as required by TABOR.
The TABOR Foundation’s lawsuit highlights the fact that legislative action alone is frequently inadequate in preserving rights and freedoms – bad laws can (and should) be struck down by citizens (working alone or in groups) defending their rights in court. The fact that it took years before the conditions were conducive to a court challenge also highlights the fact that elections to legislative or executive office are not the only votes that matter – underlining the critical importance of the judicial accountability movement spearheaded beginning in 2009 by Clear The Bench Colorado.
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.
Frivolous anti-TABOR lawsuit (“Fenster’s Folly”) gets hearing before Federal judge, who questions Supreme Court precedent
The frivolous, groundless, and vexatious politically-motivated lawsuit attempting to overturn a Colorado Constitutional Amendment (the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, colloquially known as “TABOR”) filed in Federal court last May got its day in court yesterday (Wednesday, 15 February) before U.S. District Court Judge William Martinez, in oral arguments on the state’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Substitute Complaint (actually filed back in August by Governor Hickenlooper and Attorney General Suthers – read more for analysis of the state’s Motion to Dismiss).
Legal precedent – including two relevant Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decisions – is clear; Fenster’s lawsuit is frivolous, the “Republican form of government” language in the Constitution’s “Guarantee Clause” (United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 4 – “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government“) has been repeatedly ruled non-justiciable (meaning, not subject to determination by the courts), and constitutional constraints on government (such as the TABOR amendment) are, by definition, constitutionally allowed.
The two relevant SCOTUS cases on the “Guarantee Clause” have unambiguously held the “Republican form of government” language to be non-justiciable:
In Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849), the Supreme Court rejected an attempt to put the “republican character” of state government subject to judicial review, holding that “it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State … as well as its republican character.” The court, properly exercising judicial restraint, held the “Guarantee Clause” to be a political question, not a judicial one – and therefore not subject to review by the courts (i.e. non-justiciable).
A more recent case, Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118 (1912) dealt specifically with a challenge to the use of citizen initiatives in states (such as Colorado’s TABOR Amendment). In that case, the Court also held that challenges to a state’s “republican character” are non-justiciable political questions:
The enforcement of the provision in § 4 of Art. IV of the Constitution that the United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government is of a political character, and exclusively committed to Congress, and as such is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts.
However, Judge Martinez appears disinclined to honor the Supreme Court precedent, based on his statements during the hearing. As reported in the Denver Post,
U.S. District Judge William Martinez – while not ruling Wednesday – disagreed with key arguments presented by Colorado Attorney General John Suthers’ office in its defense of TABOR. Martinez flatly opposed the notion that a century-old Oregon decision settled issues around the present-day case.
On what grounds? After all, as the state’s attorney (Assistant Attorney General Megan Paris Rundlet) argued, ”The (Oregon) case does present almost precisely the same issues that are before this court.”
The Denver Post article (Judge questions precedent cited to defend Colorado’s TABOR) continues:
“That’s not how I see it,” Martinez replied, saying the Oregon case involved a challenge of the initiative process itself, while the lawsuit before his court was a challenge of an initiative’s result – in this case TABOR.
“It’s clear the plaintiffs are not challenging the citizens’ initiative ballot process in Colorado,” Martinez said. “If your argument is this case is the same case as (in the Oregon ruling) … I don’t see it that way.”
However, Judge Martinez – either intentionally or erroneously – appears to be misreading the case, since (as noted above) the Oregon ruling did NOT simply deal with the issue of the initiative process, but with the larger question of judicial review of the “Guarantee Clause” and the “republican character” of state government more generally.
Unfortunately, although it may be weeks or even months before Judge Martinez issues his ruling on the state’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Substitute Complaint, based on his comments and statements during the hearing, it appears likely that the case will continue to trial, and may ultimately end up before the United States Supreme Court – since overturning a state constitutional amendment by judicial fiat would have immense implications for the citizens’ initivative process and the right of the people to limit government power by constitutional limits nationwide.
If “We The People” cannot set constitutional limits on government power, then the very founding principles of this nation – indeed, the foundations of Liberty itself – are at risk.
Additional references:
A more detailed (and highly informative) discussion of the constitutionality of the citizen initiative and referendum processes may be found in the Texas Law Review article, “A Republic, Not a Democracy? Initiative, Referendum, and the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause” by Professor Robert G. Natelson.
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.
Governor Hickenlooper selects JeffCo Judge Brian Boatright as next Colorado Supreme Court justice
Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper announced this morning his selection of Jefferson County District Court Judge Brian Boatright (1st Judicial District) to become the next Colorado Supreme Court justice. Judge Boatright replaces departing Justice Alex Martinez, who is resigning to take a “city job” as Denver Manager of Safety (after being retained in office only last year, albeit with the lowest – 59% – percentage of “retain” votes ever received by an incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justice).
Governor Hickenlooper selected Judge Boatright from among three finalists selected by the Colorado Supreme Court Nominating Commission (announced earlier this month). Judge Boatright was the only one of the three with any judicial experience (having served as a trial court judge for the over a decade) and will be only one of two Colorado Supreme Court justices with experience as a trial court judge once he joins the state’s highest court.
Judge Boatright comes to the Colorado Supreme Court with a broad range of experience, respect from both peers and other persons coming before his court, and strong endorsements from his application packet’s letters of reference and recommendation.
Most encouragingly, Judge Boatright’s statements at this morning’s press conference announcing his appointment, and in a previous interview (published only yesterday in the Denver Post) appear to indicate that he understands that the proper role of the judiciary is to uphold the law as written and “gets it” when it comes to the qualities that make a “good” judge.
Yesterday’s Denver Post, “Colorado Supreme Court justice finalists from diverse political backgrounds” included the following:
“Your job is to follow the law and apply the law regardless of how you personally feel,” he said. “You can’t have decisions based on personal whims of the judges. It’s got to be based on what the law is. It gives predictability to society; it gives confidence in the system.”
Judge Boatright’s statement this morning, as reported by the Post’s Jessica Fender (“Boatright brings family law expertise, “intangibles” to Colorado Supreme Court“) continues in the same vein:
“I will always do my best to serve the citizens and apply the law as written,” Boatright said.
Of course, even the best of people can succumb to the temptations of power (which is why elected and appointed officials must be held accountable by a watchful citizenry), but initial indications are that Governor Hickenlooper chose wisely, and that Judge Boatright will likely continue to serve Colorado well as Justice Boatright.
In any event, Clear The Bench Colorado will be watching.
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.
Colorado Supreme Court Justice Nominees Profiled
The three nominees selected a week ago by the Colorado Supreme Court Nominating Commission (Judge Brian Boatright, attorneys Frederick Martinez and Patrick O’Rourke) were each interviewed Friday by Governor John Hickenlooper, and earlier today (Monday) by Lt. Governor Joe Garcia. Governor Hickenlooper, who has the final say on which of the three will be appointed as the next Colorado Supreme Court justice (replacing resigning Justice Alex Martinez, resigning to take a “city job” as Denver Manager of Safety) is expected to announce his pick later in the week (no later than Friday October 28th, or the pick will fall to Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Michael Bender, according to the provisions of Colorado Constitution, Article VI (Judiciary), Section 20).
If the governor shall fail to make the appointment (or all of the appointments in case of multiple vacancies) from such list within fifteen days from the day it is submitted to him, the appointment (or the remaining appointments in case of multiple vacancies) shall be made by the chief justice of the supreme court from the same list within the next fifteen days.
The selection of three finalists by the Colorado Supreme Court Nominating Commission after reviewing applications and interviewing candidates over the last couple of weeks represents the sole “check” or “balance” to the power of the governor to select and appoint judges in our state (unlike the system for appointing federal judges, there is no “advise & consent” function exercised by the state legislature).
(Click here to know more about how individuals are selected & appointed to judicial office in Colorado)
Governor Hickenlooper, to his credit, followed the precedent recently established by former Governor Bill Ritter in accepting public input on the 3 nominees to become the next Colorado Supreme Court justice (soliciting E-mails to judicial.appointments@state.co.us with your comments, concerns, or suggestions).
Also following recently established precedent (established for the first time earlier this year), the Denver Post published a profile of the nominees for this important public office (Sunday edition 23 October, “Hickenlooper to choose new Supreme Court justice“).
Until recently, the most information available to the public would have been the names of the finalists – a situation lacking in the transparency and accountability the public has every right to expect in relation to holding public office. Clear The Bench Colorado has been among the leaders calling for reform in the judicial selection and nomination process (”No More Secrecy in Colorado Supreme Court judicial hiring“), as noted in last year’s Denver Post article on replacing Mullarkey:
These are people who are auditioning to become government employees occupying some of the highest offices in the state about which there is no knowledge or public input or transparency or accountability,” Arnold said. “I would certainly urge the legislature to take a look at this…
For only the second time in state history, additional information on the nominees (including the public portion of their applications) is available to the public for review. Law Week Colorado has again made the applications available for view (”State Releases Applications Of Finalists For Colorado’s High Court“).
Unfortunately, although the Denver Post profile of the nominees provides a (brief) overview of the respective professional accomplishments of each of the nominees, and some anecdotal insights into their personalities, it does little to illuminate the qualifications each brings to the state’s highest judicial office. Although one of these three individuals will be elevated into a position of “supreme” power to interpret and apply the law, the public is provided no insight into their judicial philosophy or decision-making process. Particularly when only one of the nominees has ever served as a judge at any level, do they understand and will they exemplify the qualities that make a good judge? Will they exercise judicial power fairly and impartially, and with appropriate restraint?
The governor’s decision – which of these three nominees he ultimately appoints to the Supreme Court – will have deep and lasting implications for the state, perhaps greater than any other decision he makes. May he choose wisely…
In any event, Clear The Bench Colorado will be watching.
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.