Colorado Judiciary Project

Colorado Congressional Redistricting goes to the courts

For the fourth consecutive decade, the ultimate decision on the shape of Colorado’s Congressional districts will fall to the courts.  Despite Colorado’s clear constitutional language assigning responsibility for Congressional redistricting to the General Assembly, the state legislature again failed to pass a redistricting bill and abdicated responsibility to the judicial branch – further politicizing the courts.

This intentional politicization of the judiciary – increasingly seen as acting as just another category of politician, distinguished from the other branches only by a unique mode of dress (black robes) – is corrosive to our institutions, and undermines the sanctity of the rule of law.

The Colorado Constitution, Article V Section 44, unambiguously assigns this responsibility to the legislative branch:

Text of Section 44:Representatives in Congress.
The general assembly shall divide the state into as many congressional districts as there are representatives in congress apportioned to the state by the congress of United States for the election of one representative to congress for each district. When a new apportionment shall be made by congress, the general assembly shall divide the state into congressional districts accordingly.

For the second consecutive decade, Colorado is treated to the sad spectacle of the state Senate majority blocking any possibility of compromise legislation and intentionally sending the issue to the courts.  The plan has apparently been in the works for at least a year – with the 2010 session closing out with the “Mary-mandering” bill (HB1408) enabling the courts to consider “non-neutral factors” such as partisan affiliation when evaluating redistricting plans.

The first step in the court battle over Colorado Congressional redistricting was taken even before the legislature had officially adjourned, with the filing of two lawsuits (one from the Democrats, one from the Republicans) on Tuesday, 10 May 2011, in Denver District Court (which has original jurisdiction).

As reported in Law Week Colorado,

Competing lawsuits over the redistricting of Colorado’s Congressional districts have been randomly assigned to Denver District Court Judge William Hood, who has been registered as an unaffiliated voter since April 2008. His previous political affiliation wasn’t immediately known.

Hood, a 2007 appointee of Democratic former Gov. Bill Ritter, was at the time of his appointment a lawyer with Denver law firm Isaacson Rosenbaum. Hood was retained in the 2010 judicial retention election [Ed. Note: Hood will therefore next be subject to a retention vote in 2016, since District Court judges serve a term of 6 years]

However, the case may not remain with Judge Hood, due to his past association (working together at the same law firm) with Democrat attorney Mark Grueskin, as also reported by Law Week online:

Denver District Judge William Hood, who was randomly assigned to hear Colorado congressional redistricting lawsuits filed Tuesday by Republicans and Democrats, once was a law-firm colleague of the lead attorney for the Democratic side.

Before his appointment to the Denver bench in 2007, Hood worked at Isaacson Rosenbaum, the firm that until recently employed Democratic Party lawyer Mark Grueskin.

Asked about a possible conflict between himself and the judge, Grueskin said, “Even before you get to the issue that he and I were formerly colleagues, he may have a docket that’s full.”

Astute observers of Clear The Bench Colorado (or of Colorado politics in general) may recall Mark Grueskin from his role in establishing a shadowy and well-funded special-interest group to counteract the Clear The Bench Colorado judicial accountability efforts during the 2010 judicial retention elections.

In any event, the case (combined cases, actually) bears careful watching as it plays out in court.

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 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.

Late-breaking news coverage of “Know Your Judge” consortium violations of Colorado campaign finance law

Arriving somewhat late to the party, but nonetheless providing decent coverage of the issue, the Denver Post joined in the coverage of the campaign finance complaint against the “Know Your Judge” consortium with an (online-only) article late Tuesday afternoon (“Clear the Bench files campaign finance violation claim“).  Following Monday’s Westword article (“Clear the Bench Colorado’s Matt Arnold on campaign complaint about KnowYourJudge.com“) and last Friday’s initial coverage of the blockbuster campaign finance complaint (at up to $500,000 in penalties and fines, potentially the largest in Colorado history) against the Know Your Judge consortium by Law Week Colorado and Face The State, the Denver Post article was the first to obtain a comment from any of the groups directly involved.

“We are having our attorneys look at it …. we will respond accordingly,” said Charles Turner, COBAR executive director. “I can say that the Bar Association has a relatively long history of pointing the public to public information about the retention process.”

The article joins other coverage in noting, however, that the “Know Your Judge” campaign (described as such by several of the involved organizations) does not limit itself to describing the retention process, but in fact does advocate for a vote:

The Know Your Judge website encourages voters to vote, rather than skip over judges on the ballot. “When judges are on the ballot, what do you do? Don’t skip them. Be informed. Get the simple, impartial, nonpartisan facts here,” the website says.

However, the “simple, impartial, nonpartisan facts” that are presented uniformly support a “retain” vote for the 3 incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices on the general election ballot – a completely one-sided advocacy that identifies this “campaign” as a political committee, under Colorado campaign finance law:

Colorado Constitution Article XXVIII, § 2(12)(a) defines a “political committee” as “any person, other than a natural person, or any group of two or more persons, including natural persons, that have accepted or made contributions or expenditures in excess of $200 to support or oppose the nomination or election of one or more candidates.”

Since the “Know Your Judge” consortium consists of a group of 4 “persons” (including organizations) that have made expenditures in excess of $200 (at least $85,000 to run over 4,000 advertisements in August and September alone) in support of one or more candidates – they are, by law, a “political committee” (just like Clear The Bench Colorado).

The same rules apply to both sides – but the “Know Your Judge” consortium arrogantly acted as if the rules don’t apply to them.

They’re lawyers; they should (and do) know better.

It’s more than a little bit ironic that a consortium of legal-establishment special-interest groups should spend so much money, without any transparency or accountability, to support the retention of Colorado Supreme Court justices against citizens wishing to hold them accountable for their performance.

The outcome of this case will be a strong indicator of whether or not the rule of law applies at all in Colorado; either the same rules apply to both sides, or we are living without law.

Unfortunately, the outcome of this case (in fact, coverage of the news of this case) will arrive too late to influence this election cycle; however, it remains part of the ongoing struggle to hold our officials and institutions accountable to the same laws imposed upon ordinary citizens.

Although the elections are over – the votes are in, and we’re awaiting the results – the fight for an accountable judiciary goes on.  Please continue to support Clear The Bench Colorado with comments (Sound Off!) and contributions – stand up for your rights as citizens.

More news coverage of “Know Your Judge” consortium violations of Colorado campaign finance law

Following last Friday’s initial coverage of the blockbuster campaign finance complaint (at up to $500,000 in penalties and fines, potentially the largest in Colorado history, by several orders of magnitude) against the Know Your Judge consortium by Law Week Colorado and Face The State, the consistently thorough and professional investigative journalist Michael Roberts of Westword weighed in today with an article (“Clear the Bench Colorado’s Matt Arnold on campaign complaint about KnowYourJudge.com“) gaining the first comment from supporters of the judicial incumbents.  Although Democrat Party attorney Mark Grueskin and his ‘Colorado Judiciary Project’ group are not part of the “Know Your Judge” consortium (and not named in this complaint), they are allied parts of the legal establishment united in opposing the upstart judicial reform and accountability movement led by Clear The Bench Colorado.

Grueskin echoes the position taken by the “Know Your Judge” consortium in dismissing the complaint by parroting the party line that ‘Know Your Judge’ is “simply educating voters about resources they can use in making their decisions” – but later gives the game away, admitting that the group has “urged voters to… be knowledgeable and vote.”

‘Urging a vote’ counts as “electioneering” – particularly when that ‘urging’ includes spending close to $100,000 to run over 4,000 ads on radio and TV – which these groups have done.

The groups, which include the Colorado Bar Association, the Colorado Judicial Institute and the League of Women Voters of Colorado, “violated Colorado campaign finance laws,” Arnold asserts. “And they’re lawyers, so they ought to know better.

“They think they’re being clever to express advocacy to vote,” he continues. “But if you go to their website and click through” — to the page for the Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, “you get their recommendations — which are to retain all three Supreme Court judges on the ballot this year.”

Arnold concedes that the organizations “have the right to express their opinion, but they have to follow the same rules that I do. And instead, they’ve chosen to intentionally violate the rules and spend this money without the proper accountability.”

Another key difference in the “educational” activities of the ‘Know Your Judge’ consortium vs. the substantive Evaluations of Judicial Performance provided by Clear The Bench Colorado: CTBC presents information from both sides, whereas the only “educational information” provided by Know Your Judge points to a “retain” vote.

The activities of the consortium – and of each of the individual organizations funding those activities – are not conducted out of ignorance, but are willful violations of campaign finance law; the participants know the law, and know better.  As a result, the consortium (and the participating organizations individually)

could face huge penalties as a result of their failure to file as a political committee. “They’ve been closely following what happened with me, and they’ve been snickering about it,” he alleges. “But they’re subject to the same $525 per-person-per-cycle limits as I am. And if, as I understand, the Colorado Bar Association contributed $50,000 to this campaign, it’s about $49,475 over the limit. So you could see fines tacking up pretty high, pretty fast.”

As for Arnold’s feelings about tomorrow’s elections, he says he’s “cautiously optimistic” his message has gotten out, despite all the legal hurdles that have been placed before him over the past several months. He adds that “this is a case of the underdog taking on the giants — but they’re in the wrong. They’re violating the rules, and they’re not above the law.”

Be a citizen, not a subject – get informed, then exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four (er, three remaining) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority” – (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, soon minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey,  who’s resigning rather than face the voters ) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home or business against seizure via eminent domain abuse, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Continue to support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions – and vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

Halloween Recap: Dubofsky called out in Denver Post editorial, buddies of incumbent bench-sitters vandalize CTBC signs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In related news…

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

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

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

img_0432

Be a citizen, not a subject – get informed, then exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four (er, three remaining) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority” – (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, soon minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey,  who’s resigning rather than face the voters ) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home or business against seizure via eminent domain abuse, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Continue to support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions – and vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

Underdog fights back against Colorado legal establishment juggernaut; Clear The Bench Colorado files campaign finance complaint against legal-special-interest-group consortium

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be a citizen, not a subject – get informed, then exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four (er, three remaining) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority” – (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, soon minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey,  who’s resigning rather than face the voters ) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home or business against seizure via eminent domain abuse, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Continue to support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions – and vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

More details emerge on group formed to oppose accountability for Colorado Supreme Court incumbents

Initial reports in mid-May (story broken by Law Week Online) about a well-funded group formed specifically to counter the growing momentum and success of the grassroots judicial accountability organization Clear The Bench Colorado in raising public awareness about the issue of judicial accountability in Colorado were substantiated Tuesday (June 1st) with additional details on the key members and name of the organization.

Again, Law Week Online breaks the story (“Group Aiming To Defend Colo. Judiciary Comes To Light“):

Well-known figures in Colorado legal circles have quietly filed paperwork creating an organization to defend the state’s judiciary amid a campaign to force four state justices into retirement.

Former Colorado Public Defender David Kaplan and Berenbaum Weinshienk attorney James Kurtz-Phelan incorporated the Colorado Judiciary Project, briefly known as the Colorado Judicial Project, with the Colorado Secretary of State’s office in early April.

Trey Rogers, who only a month before the filing served as chief legal counsel to Gov. Bill Ritter, filed the group’s paperwork.

The effort comes as Clear the Bench Colorado, a local group, continues a campaign encouraging voters to vote against retaining Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey and justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice.

Strangely enough, all of the “well-known figures” mentioned in the article  are prominent advocates for the Democrat Party – according to OpenSecrets.org, Kaplan has contributed a couple thousand to Democrat candidates, Kurtz-Phelan shelled out almost $15,000 to Democrat candidates in recent years, Trey Rogers was Gov. Ritter’s chief legal counsel, former Colorado Supreme Court justice (and current full-time activist) Jean Dubfsky contributed over $16,000 to Democrats, and of course Democrat Party attorney Mark Grueskin contributed over $12,000 cash and countless hours of “pro bono” and paid legal work to the Democrat Party, candidates, and causes.

Yet we are supposed to believe that this group’s efforts are oriented towards nonpartisan “public education” about the courts and the “judicial retention process”?

The Judiciary Project won’t directly advocate for voters to retain the four justices. Instead, it will educate voters about Colorado’s judicial-retention process, which includes lengthy judge performance evaluations, Kaplan said. Local performance commissions only rarely recommend a judge not be retained.

Puh-LEEZ! What a bunch of mullarkey!  Surely they don’t think that Colorado voters are THAT stupid?

As noted by the judicial watchdog and accountability group KnowYourCourts:

If we are to take them at their word, the mission seems rather redundant. It is one also claimed by the Colorado Judicial Institute and the “Our Courts” indoctrination program.

The judicial retention “process” is quite simple: those incumbent justices wishing to remain declare their intention to do so; the question of whether or not they keep their jobs appears on the ballot in the form of a question: “Should Justice [name] be retained in office?”  ( Yes/NO ) Colorado voters, based on available information and their best judgement as citizens, decide and vote accordingly, exercising their rights as citizens to do so.  What part of the “process” is unclear?

What HAS been lacking, in all previous retention elections, is a source of substantive information (including commentary, evaluations, and even analysis and the full text of significant cases) on which to base an informed decision – a deficit now filled to a large extent by Clear The Bench Colorado.

Grueskin’s claim that his group was not formed in response to the growing momentum and awareness generated by the judicial accountability organization Clear The Bench Colorado (Grueskin characterized the assertion as “self-aggrandizing” and “ego-driven” – sure, attack the messenger, not the message) was also exposed as a rather less than honest statement (“baldfaced lie” is perhaps a bit harsh) by a message he sent out (leaked to our sources) back in February when “brainstorming” on what to do:

You may have read about the so-called “Clear the Bench” effort, a campaign for the non-retention of Justices Mary Mullarkey, Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, and Nancy Rice at the 2010 election. The Denver Post wrote about it recently. See www.tinyurl.com/ClearTheBench.

(Grueskin’s attempt to spin the facts after being caught red-handed, along with the entire text of the message – and our response, calling him on it – is ably chronicled in a mid-May Westword article, “Mark Grueskin, Matt Arnold tangle over judge retention: Should they stay or should they go?“)

Unfortunately – and in marked contrast to the highly transparent and publicly accountable grassroots organization Clear The Bench Colorado, which operates under the disclosure requirements of Colorado campaign finance law, providing transparency of funding and expenditures – the 501(c)4 organization formed by this cabal of activist Democrat lawyers does NOT have to disclose sources of funding to the public. They are completely unaccountable to Colorado citizens:

The Colorado Judiciary Project is organized as a 501c4, which covers civic leagues, social welfare organizations and local employee associations.

“Civic leagues” and “social welfare organizations?”  Well, perhaps “local employee associations” is appropriate, since this group will be looking out for their buddies on the bench (before whom many, including Grueskin, frequently argue cases).   Perhaps – perhaps – there is no formal quid pro quo, but there would certainly appear to be, at the very least, a perception of possible corruption.  A strong case could be made that each of the attorneys involved in the group should be excused from arguing any case before the Colorado Supreme Court justices they are seeking to defend, in order to dispel any such perception of undue influence.

What IS abundantly clear is that this new group will collect and spend exorbitant amounts of money in an attempt to “educate” the public that “all is well” with the Colorado Judiciary, when the evidence to the contrary is abundantly clear:

Be an informed citizen – exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority”- (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home or business against seizure via eminent domain abuse, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.” Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off! ) and your contributions – and vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

Recent Comments
Archives