Colorado Supreme Court
Colorado State University follows University of Colorado lead in implementing “mini-Gun-Ban” via “waiver” of legal rights
Following the March 2012 Colorado Supreme Court ruling which rejected the University of Colorado’s ban of licensed concealed-carry of firearms on campus (the “CU Gun Ban”), the University of Colorado (after face-saving public meetings to solicit community input – the recommendations of which were ignored) implemented policies designed to end-run the court’s ruling and maintain as much of a “gun ban” in place as possible, under the guise of “contractual stipulations” in student housing and campus event ticketing policies.
Despite citizen input and legal advice advising the university against imposing a limited gun ban, the CU administration – supported by a majority of Regents on the governing oversight Board – proceeded with implementing policies in violation of the court’s ruling and state statute on the universal application of concealed-carry permits:
The court upheld the Colorado Court of Appeals April 2010 ruling that the CU gun ban policy violates “the clear letter and intent of the statute authorizing statewide standards and universal application for concealed-carry permits:”
18-12-214. Authority granted by permit – carrying restrictions.
(1) (a) A permit to carry a concealed handgun authorizes the permittee to carry a concealed handgun in all areas of the state, except as specifically limited in this section.
As Clear The Bench Colorado warned last summer, allowing CU’s “mini-Gun-Ban” policies to stand – getting people to sign away legal rights as a condition of receiving a good or service – sets a dangerous precedent likely to be copied by other institutions (and applied to other areas of activity).
Recent news of similar policies now being implemented at Colorado State University confirm the validity of that warning.
The CSU Health Network (providing healthcare services for CSU students, staff, and faculty) recently promulgated a set of policies seeking to impose a waiver of legal rights as a condition of receiving medical treatment:
All rights under any state or federal law or constitutional related to the use or possession of firearms (i.e. U.S. Constitution, Second Amendment) are voluntarily and expressly waived in exchange for treatment at the Health Network. Failure to comply with this prohibition may result in further action under applicable law or University disciplinary procedures.
The CSU policies follow the same model first promulgated by the University of Colorado – seeking to impose a waiver of legal rights under terms of a “service contract”, as “a condition of receiving services”:
All persons accessing services through the CSU Health Network engage in a treatment agreement with health care providers.
The CSU policies specifically target the legal rights of concealed-carry weapons permit holders:
This prohibition includes all weapons possessed by persons with a lawful permit to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to C.R.S. 18-12-201 et. seq.
Our state’s leading institutions of higher education – beneficiaries of both direct (via higher education general fund expenditures) and indirect (via student loan, grant, and College Opportunity Fund tuition subsidies) taxpayer spending – are violating state law and the legal rights of Colorado citizens.
Campus Gun Ban policies needlessly endanger the safety of students, staff, faculty, and visitors by putting them at greater risk of violence, as ”gun free zone” = “target-rich environment” for criminals.
Allowing responsible adults to exercise a fundamental constitutional right – affirming the right of licensed adult concealed-carry permit holders to responsibly exercise their inherent right of armed self-defense – is not only good law, it is good policy.
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 Chief Justice Bender delivers final ‘State of the Judiciary’ address before Colorado legislature
Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Michael Bender delivered his final ‘State of the Judiciary’ address before the Colorado legislature on Friday (11 January 2013).
[Justice Bender faces mandatory retirement as he reaches the age of 72 next year]
Justice Bender’s speech [read full text here] addressed 3 major themes:
- the importance of citizen’s trust in the rule of law in our democracy.
- the way in which the judicial branch in Colorado furthers the rule of law for our citizens.
- the importance for the courts and the legal community to understand the needs of the public they serve and to collaborate to create programs that address those needs.
Justice Bender’s opening remarks are notable for his nod to principle:
Trust in the rule of law distinguishes our society from many others around the world. When the blind Chinese lawyer and activist, Chen Guangcheng, was allowed to leave China to study in the United States, he noted that China does not lack laws, but it lacks the rule of law. The legitimacy of government depends on the fair, impartial, and reliable administration of the laws.
Courts serve the people of the state by resolving disputes, protecting individual rights, and delivering justice in criminal and civil cases. To ensure a just society Courts must tailor the fair, effective, and efficient delivery of justice to fit each individual case. This mission requires us not only to reach a fair and just outcome but also to do so in a way that is perceived as being fair to all sides. The perception of fairness is as important as the fairness of the outcome.
Clear The Bench Colorado not only embraces, but actively advances the principle of “rule of law” – but notes that Chen Guangcheng’s description of China (as a nation that “does not lack laws, but it lacks the rule of law”) might be taken to apply equally to what’s becoming of the United States.
Justice Bender claims that the Colorado judiciary “reflects [Daniel] Webster’s ideal” – that
“justice is the great interest of man on earth. It is the ligament which binds civilized beings and civilized nations together.”
As evidence, he cites “[T]hree features [that] distinguish our judiciary”
- strong bipartisan support from the General Assembly
- central financing of courts and probation systems
- non-partisan merit-based selection process and “rigorous” evaluation of judicial performance by “independent” commissions.
However, Bender presents a flimsy case for an “ideal” Colorado judiciary.
“Bipartisan” support and central financing are irrelevant to whether (or not) the judiciary achieves the standard of “fairness” and upholds the rule of law.
Moreover, Colorado’s “merit-based” judicial selection process falls short of achieving the standards of transparency and accountability we should expect from our vitally important 3rd branch of government, and remains controlled by legal-establishment special interests out of public view.
Even worse, Colorado’s official system of evaluating judicial performance is anything but “rigorous” – the evaluation commissions, having no requirement for partisan balance (in contrast to the judicial selection commissions) are not infrequently dominated by one party and/or by special-interest groups, giving rise to charges of bias, and more broadly panned for failure to provide substantive evaluations of judicial performance, as noted in this commentary by a former performance review commissioner:
There has been a failure of real performance evaluation and a lack of analytical content in the write-ups for the voters. If narratives provide meaningful information about how a justice has decided cases, there will be accountability and the system will work as it is designed to do. Too often in the past, narratives have amounted to complimentary resumes instead of job performance evaluations. Some commentators and observers have denigrated the narratives as a “rubber stamp” exercise for retaining judges.
Chief Justice Bender wrapped up his address by listing a number of initiatives that “tap into existing community resources and sometimes private dollars to leverage public funding,” including an increase of “problem-solving courts” (from 61 to 72), a “civil action pilot program” for resolution of business disputes, along with some personnel and administrative efficiencies achieved statewide (including a court-run civil e-filing system). He closed with effusive praise for the legislature’s “bipartisan support” for the new Colorado Judicial Center – funded by taxpayers to the tune of $258M by a combination of debt (er, “non-debt”) and new “fees” to access the courts.
Actions speak louder than words; and although Bender’s speech gives lip service to the primacy of the rule of law, his actions on the bench have demonstrated the opposite. Indeed, Bender has been one of the most egregious perpetrators of putting personal views (his own) above the letter of the law.
The contrast between rhetoric and reality is the true “State of the Judiciary” in 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.
2012 Year in Review: Colorado Courts Continue to Play Politics
Colorado Courts Continue to Play Politics in 2012…
Another tumultuous year has come and gone for the Colorado judiciary – and once again, Colorado Citizens and taxpayers have been hammered by the gavels of Colorado judges pounding their personal preferences over the will of the people – and the rule of law.
2012 saw the advancement of a frivolous, groundless, and vexatious politically-motivated lawsuit attempting to overturn a Colorado Constitutional Amendment (the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, colloquially known as “TABOR”) through the Federal courts (with oral arguments on a Motion to Dismiss in February, and proceeding to trial on a ruling in July). The District Court judge still has not issued a ruling in the case, but whatever the ruling, the case is almost certain to be appealed, and may ultimately end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Some good news came from the Colorado judiciary in March, as the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the Colorado Court of Appeals in striking down the CU Gun Ban. Unfortunately, the University of Colorado administration introduced policies designed to circumvent the ruling shortly thereafter, and the self-defense rights of Colorado citizens within the CU demesne continue to be threatened with the backing of many (if not most) of the CU Regents.
More good news in April, as a (Federal) court struck down Colorado’s unconstitutional “Amazon Tax” (as predicted by Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold in testimony before its passage in 2010).
In May, the Colorado Car Tax (a.k.a. FASTER vehicle registration “fee”) was challenged in court as a violation of the state Constitution (the case is still winding its way through the courts).
In September, the Colorado Supreme Court rejected Ward Churchill’s attempt to force the University of Colorado to reinstate him (Churchill recently announced his intent to appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court).
Clear The Bench Colorado helped Colorado voters to “Know Your Judge” with substantive evaluations of judicial performance prior to the November elections – the ONLY source of reliable, substantive information on judges appearing on the ballot.
Remaining statewide elections were significantly impacted (if not effectively pre-determined outright) by the results of the Colorado Supreme Court’s December 2011 rulings on the reapportionment of state legislative districts – leading to lopsided majorities for Democrats in both chambers of the state legislature, despite actually receiving fewer votes overall.
Colorado courts continued to be a central battlefield for Education policy, as the ‘Lobato’ case advanced to the Colorado Supreme Court in the “Super Bowl of school funding litigation” and the Douglas County school choice voucher program case advanced to the Colorado Court of Appeals. (Interestingly, the Denver District Court judges involved in each case – Judge Sheila Rappaport in the ‘Lobato’ case, and Judge Michael Martinez in the Douglas County school choice case – are both scheduled to appear on the 2014 ballot).
Cases such as Lobato (particularly Rappaport’s biased ruling) and the politicized nature of the court’s involvement in the congressional redistricting and state legislative reapportionment cases – 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. Deciding issues of policy – instead of fairly and impartially upholding the law – is not it.
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.
Merry Christmas from Clear The Bench Colorado!
Merry Christmas from Clear The Bench Colorado!
In the spirit of the season today, no commentary or analysis on Colorado Supreme Court rulings that have taken money out of your pocket, eroded your constitutional rights, or usurped the powers of other branches of government. No comparisons of the Mullarkey Majority to the Grinch Who Stole Christmas…
Matt and celebrity spokespup Nola (above) just want to wish everyone a happy time at their not-yet-seized-by-eminent-domain homes and a safe, painless drive in their FASTER-taxed cars to Grandma’s house (assuming she can still afford the increased taxes to live there, for now and in Christmas future). Be merry and don’t think about taxes for now (although they’ll beat you up if you don’t hand it over).
Enjoy your Christmas present, but please act to save your Christmas future -
Continue to support Clear The Bench Colorado with comments (Sound Off!) and contributions.
Freedom isn’t free – nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.
Ultimately, though – it’s worth the effort.
Friday Funnies: …and a Leftist Judiciary! (reprise, again)
Welcome to the 2012 Christmas edition of the Clear The Bench Colorado Friday Funnies!
Another tumultuous year has come and gone for the Colorado judiciary – and once again, Colorado Citizens and taxpayers have been hammered by the gavels of Colorado judges pounding their personal preferences over the will of the people – and the rule of law.
Last year closed with Colorado courts deciding the boundaries for Congressional districts (after the state senate reprised the 2000 playbook of abdicating responsibility to send it to the courts) and state legislative districts (following the Colorado Reapportionment Commission’s public hearings on re-setting the boundaries of our state legislative districts over the summer), both of which played a prominent role in determining Colorado’s electoral destiny in 2012.
Colorado courts were also a central battlefield for Education policy, as one Denver District judge threw out Douglas County’s attempts to enable greater school choice, and another Denver District judge declared the state system of funding schools “unconscionable” while advancing the power of the courts to determine “proper” levels of school funding (despite the Constitution’s delegation of that power to the legislative branch) – although that decision is likely to be overturned after an expensive – and long - appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court.
The first stages of the court appeal seeking to preserve school choice concluded last month (Nov 2012) with oral arguments before the Colorado Court of Appeals (a ruling by the 3-judge panel isn’t expected until early next year, most likely late January or February).
Meanwhile, the ‘Lobato’ school funding lawsuit – called the “Super Bowl of school funding litigation” – continues to slog its way through the courts as well.
Earlier in the year, after two years of legislative inaction failed to repeal or roll back the unconstitutional and unpopular tax increase, the ‘FASTER’ Colorado Car Tax was challenged in court as a violation of the Colorado state Constitution (specifically, Article X, Section 20 – Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, TABOR).
Another, wider-ranging challenge to TABOR is still being fought out in Federal court: the notorious “Fenster’s Folly” frivolous anti-TABOR lawsuit (which not only challenges TABOR in particular, but more generally citizens’ right to petition under a flawed reading of 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“) which multiple U.S. Supreme Court cases have ruled non-justiciable (meaning, not subject to determination by the courts).
One major ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court DID uphold the law – and the rights of Colorado citizens – when striking down the University of Colorado’s illegal gun ban (March 2012). Unfortunately, the CU administration (backed by the CU Board of Regents) moved almost immediately to circumvent the court’s ruling and continue to violate state law by promulgating policies banning guns in certain areas (not authorized by statute) and additional gun ban legislation (unfortunately backed by many on the CU Board of Regents) to further restrict and roll back hard-fought self-defense rights is coming.
Finally, to close out the year, the Colorado Supreme Court and Court of Appeals moved into the palatial new ‘Colorado Judicial Center’ (at significant taxpayer expense and incurring massive new “non-debt” debt, without required voter approval) just one week before closing for the holidays.
All of these issues were comprehensively documented by Clear The Bench Colorado over the last year – while the “mass media” and the majority of the state’s “news” organizations gave them short shrift.
Clear The Bench Colorado also continued the public service of providing comprehensive, well-referenced evaluations of judicial performance in 2012 – again, in contrast to the “official” taxpayer-funded “Blue Book” rubberstamp “reviews” disseminated at great expense (and, when put out at polling locations, in violation of state law) by the Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation.
Although remaining mindful that what’s at stake – holding our judiciary accountable for serial violations of our constitutional rights (to vote on taxes, even when taxes are called “fees”; defend our property against unjust seizure; bear arms in self-defense; and too many others to list) is serious business, all work and no play makes Matty a dull boy.
Although still awaiting payment over two year later after “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) was once again ordered to pay Clear The Bench Colorado thousands of $ in legal fees (owed since the judge’s original ruling in July 2010 found CEW’s complaint to be “frivolous, groundless, & vexatious”) brings a rueful chuckle, the following video (even if focused on the national level) elicited a hearty laugh:
…and a Leftist Judiciary!
While still afflicted with the (black-robed) ghosts of Christmas past in our Christmas present, we can still act to save our Christmas future. Continue to support Clear The Bench Colorado with comments (Sound Off!) and 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, Court of Appeals move into palatial new digs at the Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center
The Colorado Supreme Court and Colorado Court of Appeals take up residence in a brand-new, multi-million dollar facility a block away from the Colorado Capitol today (Wednesday, 19 December 2012) -
a mere two days before the “end of the world” supposedly “predicted” by the Mayan calendar.
The new “Judicial Center” is an impressive edifice (as shown in the picture below and in a photo gallery, both published by the Denver Post last week).
The demolition of the old court building in August 2010 was heralded by the Denver Post with another impressive front-page photo under the headline, “Make Room for Justice!“ along with a story inside (“Denver & The West” section – Colorado judicial building puts on show, disappears). Interestingly, although the Post article noted the cost of the demolition ($850,000) it completely failed to mention the cost of the replacement “judicial complex” (possibly out of concern for the sensibilities of the Post’s largest paying tenant – the Colorado Supreme Court paid the Denver Newspaper Agency $1.6 Million per year over the last three years for their temporary ‘digs’ while the new complex was being built).
Interestingly, almost every other contemporary news report DID mention the cost to taxpayers
($258 million).
“Make Room for Justice” or “Justice Held For Ransom?”
Unfortunately, NONE of the news coverage provided any information on just where all of this money to fund the massive new “judicial complex” came from (ultimately, of course, from your pockets – but the details are interesting).
Part of the funding for the project (authorized back during the 2008 legislative session under SB08-206 State Justice Center) came from an unprecedented expansion in use of “Certificates of Participation” (in the words of a state legislator who shall remain nameless, “debt pretending not to be debt”). In fact, the legislative language specifies that the debt is simply re-defined as ‘not-debt’ by declaring that
the obligations shall not be deemed or construed as creating an indebtedness of the state within the meaning of any provision of the state constitution or the laws of the state of Colorado concerning or limiting the creation of indebtedness by the state of Colorado and shall not constitute a multiple fiscal-year direct or indirect debt or other financial obligation of the state within the meaning of section 20 (4) of article X of the state constitution. [SB08-206, Section 2, (2) (b), page 5]
Former Colorado Treasurer Cary Kennedy was so proud of the ‘not-debt’ incurred to finance the construction of the new judicial complex (and new state history museum) that she trumpeted the great ‘success’ in a press release:
The successful financing of over $338 million in Certificates of Participation earlier today to build the new Colorado History Center and the Ralph L. Carr Justice Complex completed one of the largest sales of Build America Bonds to date, announced State Treasurer Cary Kennedy
“Crazy on Court Fees”
However, by far the greatest proportion of funding for the new judicial complex comes in the form of increasing the cost of access to justice by Colorado citizens due to substantial increases (including the creation of an entirely new category – the “Justice Center Fund” fee) in court fees.
Want to file a case in civil court, defend yourself against a claim, petition to change your name, or request a civil protection order? It’ll cost you an extra $37 for the “Justice Center Fund” – per filing. Small claims court filings? An extra $11 for the “Justice Center Fund”, thank you.
Oh, and that’s just in your local county court – which may be hundreds of miles away from the recently completed “Mullarkey Monument” (actually, even the legislature reportedly balked at naming the center after Mullarkey when some legislators dug in their heels and insisted upon another name; honoring former Republican Governor Ralph L. Carr – truly, a principled politician – but naming the center after him is a rather ironic twist). Need access to justice at the District Court level or higher? Be prepared to cough up even more in “fees” for the ”Justice Center Fund” – most actions in District Court now cost an additional $68 for the fund, some as much as another $136 or even $204 each, at any of the various District Courts (22 in all) across Colorado, still miles from the as-yet unbuilt Colorado Judicial Complex.
Even “domestic relations” cases across the state are now more expensive thanks to the ”Justice Center Fund” fees – legal separation, annulment, divorce will each cost another $26; child custody registration or child support order, another $15 just for financing the construction of the massive new judicial complex.
Death in the family? That’ll cost you extra, too – another $15 ”Justice Center Fund” fee for probate filings, estate fees, conservatorship, etc. etc. Anywhere in the state – all of Colorado now enjoys the privilege of contributing to this marvelous new edifice.
Even an “insufficient funds” return check fee for court payments (already $40, which is double what any private entity is allowed to charge) gets another $10 fee tacked on for the ”Justice Center Fund” (truly, adding insult to injury).
Need to fight a case up to a higher court? Pretty much ANY actions at the Colorado Court of Appeals now costs an additional $68 fee for that ”Justice Center Fund.” Water Court? Same story – almost every activity listed incurs an additional $68 for the ”Justice Center Fund” (some activities, such as applying for Change of Water Right or Plan for Augmentation, cost double – $136).
Ironically, the ONLY court where you WON’T have to pay an extra ”Justice Center Fund” fee to pursue justice? You guessed it – the Colorado Supreme Court, who’s “home” is being financed by all these “fees” in the first place.
(View the full list of Colorado Court Fees – featuring the ”Justice Center Fund” fee)
It has been said that “if you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.” Since “fees” are only supposed to be charged to offset the cost of providing or administering a voluntarily accessed good or service, the proliferation of new “fees” to finance the construction of palatial new digs for the Colorado Supreme Court – holding the administration of justice at county and District courts across the state hostage to this massive new monument to judicial supremacy – is questionable at best, particularly at a time when state resources are already strained and Colorado Citizens are being forced to cut back on personal spending. Aren’t we supposed to be asked before the government in Colorado can take more of our hard-earned dollars? Perhaps that’s why the Colorado Supreme Court’s majority decision in the 2008 Barber v. Ritter “Fees aren’t really taxes” case – expanding the use of “fees” by government entities across the state as a means of evading constitutional protections against tax increases – carries the taint of self-interest.
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 Court of Appeals to hear oral arguments in Douglas County school voucher program case Monday (19 Nov 2012)
The Colorado Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments Monday afternoon (19 November 2012) on the Douglas County school voucher program that was stopped (via permanent injunction) by Denver District Court Judge Michael Martinez in a controversial ruling (Larue v. Douglas County) in August 2011.
In that ruling, Judge Martinez decreed that the Douglas County Choice Scholarship Program violated multiple sections of the Colorado Constitution (Article IX, Section 7 Aid to Private Schools, Churches, Sectarian Purpose, Forbidden, Article IX, Section 8 Religious Test and Race Discrimination Forbidden Sectarian Tenets, and Article II, Section 4, Religious Freedom) as well as the state school financing act.
Martinez appears to have disregarded governing constitutional precedent established in the 2002 Zelman v. Simmons-Harris case, which established the constitutionality of school vouchers even for schools with a religious component if the choice is up to the parent:
This Court’s jurisprudence makes clear that a government aid program is not readily subject to challenge under the Establishment Clause if it is neutral with respect to religion and provides assistance directly to a broad class of citizens who, in turn, direct government aid to religious schools wholly as a result of their own genuine and independent private choice. See, e.g., Mueller v. Allen, 463 U. S. 388. Under such a program, government aid reaches religious institutions only by way of the deliberate choices of numerous individual recipients. The incidental advancement of a religious mission, or the perceived endorsement of a religious message, is reasonably attributable to the individual aid recipients not the government, whose role ends with the disbursement of benefits.
A contemporaneous Colorado Springs Gazette editorial (“Backward voucher ruling favors oppression“) was a scathing indictment of Denver District judge Michael Martinez’ ruling to stop the Douglas County school choice program via permanent injunction, calling it “a decision to segregate and oppress,” also noting that voucher programs do NOT violate the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause:
In Colorado, education money attaches to children. With each child who enrolls, a public school gets more than $6,000 for the year.
Vouchers issue the money to parents. At that point, the money belongs to the parent and child. They are free to spend it at almost any accredited school, religious or otherwise.
The key point – that educational choice belongs to the parent, not to the government (especially, not to the courts) – bears repeating:
Once state money is converted to a voucher and given to a child, it’s no longer the government’s. It belongs to the child, who is subject to the will of a parent or guardian. Parents and guardians have the right to choose whether their children are schooled in secular or religious settings.
Bottom Line:
The Douglas County case also touches upon important constitutional issues such the separation of powers between branches and levels of government, establishment of religion, and collection and allocation of tax dollars, but ultimately comes down to a very basic and fundamental issue:
who decides how to educate Colorado’s children?
Clear The Bench Colorado believes that the decision should be in the hands of parents – NOT in the hands of the courts.
Cases such as this 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.
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.
Districting, not Demographic Shifts, Determines Colorado’s Electoral Destiny
The influence of district boundaries on electoral results has long been recognized (adding new words to the political lexicon) – making the fight for control of the decennial redistricting process (for both state legislative and Congressional districts) both bitterly partisan and hard-fought.
In Colorado, the process for determining both Congressional and state legislative district boundaries has, for decades, been dominated by the courts – specifically, the perennially and predictably partisan Colorado Supreme Court.
Ultimately, no other factor better explains the relative electoral successes of both parties in Colorado over the last decade (or longer) in gaining legislative seats than the (re)districting process, nor more strikingly highlights the role of Colorado’s courts in “playing” (instead of refereeing) electoral politics.
The following article was published as a guest commentary in the Colorado Springs Gazette on Wednesday, 14 November 2012.
Colorado’s Election Outcome Was Determined Years Ago
(By Matt & Sarah Arnold)
A veritable plethora of pundits, former state party and elected officials, and other political operatives have been weighing in on the (to them, surprising) results of the 2012 elections in Colorado – which not only saw GOP losses in the two statewide races (President and CU Regent At-Large) but also ended the tenuous Republican majority in the State House, maintained the Democrat numbers in the State Senate, giving Democrats control of all branches of state government.
Many of them have “explained” the outcome (and their failure to predict election results) in Colorado as resulting from demographic shifts, gender gaps, or superior technology and tactics.
They are all wrong.
While the statewide candidates failed due to their inability to inspire support beyond straight party-line voters, the outcome of state legislative races was largely determined years ago. The seeds of the 2012 Republican defeat were planted in 2010, germinated in December 2011, and were only harvested in November 2012 – all due to how district lines were drawn. (For more information on this topic, search “reapportionment” on www.clearthebenchcolorado.org).
State legislative district reapportionment set the stage for Democrats to pick up seats in the State House, and hold their majority in the State Senate. If anything can be said to have “determined” the outcome of the 2012 state legislative elections, this was it.
In fact, the state legislative election results were not only predictable – they were actually predicted. Sarah Arnold, in her Elections 2012 forecast (published on 15 October 2012), correctly predicted the outcome of 91 out of 94 Colorado races (an additional 4 races were rated as “tossups”) based on a combination of numbers-crunching, knowledge of the candidates/campaigns, and political intuition (see PolitiGuru Elections 2012 on http://politigurugop.blogspot.com/p/2012-election.html).
As far back as 2009, Matt Arnold (Director of Clear The Bench Colorado) noted the importance of the former Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey’s appointments to the 2001 commission in setting the stage for the Democrat takeover of both legislative chambers through most of last decade; although in 2010, Republicans got more votes in all state House/Senate races combined (58% and 54%, respectively), those votes did not translate to actual seats (33/65 and 15/35, respectively). Unfortunately for GOP electoral fortunes in Colorado, Republican Party “leadership” failed to grasp the strategic implications of this fact in 2010.
State legislative election results this year demonstrate the same trend. In the 2012 state Senate races, GOP candidates garnered 43.5% of the total votes cast; proportional to the number of seats contested, this would have equaled 8.7 seats. Instead, Republicans won only 7 seats (of 20). In the House, GOP candidates received 48.5% of total votes cast; proportional to the number of seats contested, this would have equaled 32 seats: instead, Republicans won only 27 seats (of 65).
(Based on 8 Nov SOS numbers).
Clearly, there are other factors involved in the GOP’s performance (or lack thereof) in Colorado this year (ranging from individual candidate appeal to general messaging to media bias to technology lag to party organizational & leadership deficiencies, etc); however, demographic shifts (such as the growing percentage of Hispanic voters in Colorado) fail to explain the consistently abysmal GOP performance at the state level (total GOP vote % in state legislative races has consistently hovered at the 48%/44% level for several electoral cycles, with the notable exception of the 10% spike to 58%/54% in the “Tea Party surge” of 2010).
If 2010 was an anomalous year, basing reapportionment on the numbers achieved that year would skew results, making districts appear more “Republican” than they have performed historically.
Bottom Line: even WITH the stars aligning for the GOP in 2010, due to state legislative (re)districting, seats won has lagged the percentage of votes received. Because of the way the district lines are drawn, even “good-performance voting” years are bad (in seats won), and “bad-performance” years are worse. The 2012 state legislative electoral results are simply a reflection of, and return to, that reality.
Lack of leadership, and a dearth of strategic vision, has enabled the creation of an uneven playing field and led to a decade-long minority status in a state with more registered Republicans than Democrats, and a fairly right-of-center leaning block of unaffiliated voters – not impersonal (and inexorable) “demographic” changes.
(Matt Arnold is the founder and executive director of Clear The Bench Colorado, the state’s premier judicial accountability organization; Sarah Arnold is a political strategist and campaign consultant.)
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.
Clear The Bench Colorado helps Colorado voters “Know Your Judges” with substantive evaluations of judicial performance
[Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold's article, below, was published Friday 26 October as a Guest Commentary by the Denver Post ("Evaluate the performance of Colorado judges before voting" in the Idea Log online opinion section, and in the Colorado Springs Gazette, in the Sunday 28 October print edition]
“Know Your Judges” with substantive evaluations of judicial performance
We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.
— Abraham Lincoln
As Coloradans prepare to cast their ballots in the 2012 elections, despite being bombarded with political ads, MOST voters have little to no information on up to a third of the people asking for their vote: our state’s 3rd Branch of government, the judges.
The official, government-sanctioned incumbent-protection “reviews” produced by the state’s Commissions on Judicial Performance (published and disseminated, at taxpayer expense, in the “Blue Book”) fail to provide much (if any) substance behind the published “recommendations” (almost uniformly in favor of “retaining” judicial incumbents in office). In that respect, the Blue Book “reviews” are little more than (taxpayer-funded) political ads for incumbents.
The Commissions on Judicial Performance (groups of political appointees charged with evaluating and reporting on the job performance of judicial incumbents) routinely fail to actually evaluate judicial job performance or provide adequate information sufficient for voters to base a decision. Summarizing an incumbent’s resume and tabulating the results of surveys sent out to a select group of lawyers and other judges fails to answer the question posed to voters, “do they deserve another term – and why?”
A Denver Post guest commentary by a former Judicial Performance commissioner (February 2010) noted,
There has been a failure of real performance evaluation and a lack of analytical content in the write-ups for the voters.
If narratives provide meaningful information about how a justice has decided cases, there will be accountability and the system will work as it is designed to do. Too often in the past, narratives have amounted to complimentary resumes instead of job performance evaluations. Some commentators and observers have denigrated the narratives as a “rubber stamp” exercise for retaining judges.
Why do we have political appointees (commissioners are appointed by the governor, attorney general, state legislators and the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court – the latter seeming to have a conflict of interest) telling Coloradans how to vote?
Colorado voters deserve better information on these unelected officials, who (usually with little notice) exert enormous influence over their lives. For the second straight election cycle, Clear The Bench Colorado has researched and evaluated the performance of the appellate court (statewide) judges appearing on the 2012 ballot (1 Supreme Court justice, 6 Court of Appeals judges), collected inputs on district and county judges from around the state, and published this information in an easy-to-read “scorecard” format as a resource for Colorado voters.
Our courts rule on important issues that seriously impact all Colorado citizens, including:
- Tax increases without constitutionally-required voter approval (property taxes, vehicle registration taxes – er, “fees”, energy taxes, and the so-called “Dirty Dozen” tax increases on everything from candy to doggy bags)
- Free Speech issues (including both academic and political speech rights)
- School funding and school choice issues
- Self-protection or “gun” rights (including overturning an illegal ban on concealed-carry by the University of Colorado)
- Healthcare issues (including insurance coverage, medical records privacy and liability for malpractice resulting in death)
- Congressional and state legislative redistricting and reapportionment, setting Colorado’s district boundaries for a decade
View Clear The Bench Colorado’s Evaluations of Judicial Performance 2012 for substantive evaluations of judicial performance – to better “know your judges” before casting your vote this year. (http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/evaluations-2012/)
Clear The Bench Colorado helps Colorado voters to “know your judges” with substantive evaluations of judicial performance
As Coloradoans prepare to cast their ballots in the 2012 elections, despite being bombarded with political ads, MOST voters have little to no information on up to a third of the people asking for their vote: the 3rd Branch of government in our state, the judges.
Clear The Bench Colorado has researched and evaluated the performance of the appellate court (statewide) judges appearing on the 2012 ballot (1 Supreme Court justice, 6 Court of Appeals judges), collected inputs on district & county judges from around the state, and published this information in an easy-to-read “scorecard” format (with linked case references) as an informational resource for Colorado voters.
View Clear The Bench Colorado’s Evaluations of Judicial Performance 2012 for substantive evaluations of judicial performance – to better “know your judges” before casting your vote this year.
UPDATE:
listen to Clear The Bench Colorado‘s “Know Your Judges: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly” radio spot
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.