Speak Now, or Forever Hold Your Peace…

Governor Ritter has asked for public comment on the three nominees (he’ll pick one of the three) put forward by the Supreme Court Nominating Commission to replace outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who announced in June that she would retire rather than be held accountable by Colorado voters this November.

Send E-mails to judicial.appointments@state.co.us with your comments, concerns, or suggestions.

Our view is that 2 of the 3 nominees (Colorado Appeals Court Judge Robert Russel, and El Paso District Judge David Prince) appear to be qualified, while the 3^rd (Deputy Attorney General Monica Marquez) lacks any judicial experience and seems to have built her entire career on policy & political activism.  Marquez advocated in favor of the 2003 judicial takeover of legislative redistricting authority in the Salazar v. Davidson redistricting case, argued that “fees” are not taxes in the Barber v. Ritter case, and has sought to restrict the 1^st Amendment rights of citizens seeking to address ballot issues in recent and ongoing cases.  She appears to be Colorado’s version of Elena Kagan.

Although it may be possible to overcome a lifetime habit of political activism and advocacy to become a fair, impartial judge who upholds the rule of law, appointing someone without judicial experience to our highest court would only further erode public confidence in a Colorado Supreme Court already damaged by a decade of highly-politicized, anti-constitutional rulings.

Don’t let your opportunity to weigh in on this important issue slip away by failing to act when you had the chance - indeed, when you were asked to offer your opinion.  Write the governor today to express YOUR views on selecting our next Colorado Supreme Court justice…

We The People can (indeed, as citizens, we must) hold our public officials - both elected & appointed - accountable.  Be a citizen, not a subject - get informed, then express your opinion on which of these three nominees the governor should be appoint to become the next justice of the Colorado Supreme Court (it will be another 2 years before you’ll be able to weigh in at the ballot box, at the conclusion of their first - probationary - term of office).

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 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 contributions - and exercise your right to vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold called in to the Mike Rosen Show Wednesday following up on an interview with nationally syndicated analyst Michael Barone regarding Congressional redistricting and state-level reapportionment of legislative districts.

Michael Barone spoke broadly on the issue of redistricting nationwide - and was almost certainly unaware of the peculiarities of how the redistricting and reapportionment processes in Colorado are dominated by the Colorado Supreme Court (which ultimately has the final say on both).

After explaining how the reapportionment (state legislative districting) process works in Colorado, and how Congressional redistricting was hijacked by the Colorado Supreme Court following the 2000 census (and how the groundwork has been laid to do so again), the discussion shifted to Tuesday afternoon’s announcement of the three finalists to replace outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who announced in June that she would retire rather than be held accountable by Colorado voters this November.   After providing a brief overview of the judicial nomination process, the discussion concluded with some remarks on the potential replacements for the Colorado Supreme Court.

(Listen to the podcast here - the CTBC segment runs from about the 30 to the 38 minute marks)

An interesting addendum was provided by a follow-up caller, identifying herself as a former Supreme Court Nominating Commissioner named “Mary” from Longmont.

Her stated intent was to “rebut” the CTBC Director - but missed the mark by a bit (although she did provide some interesting insight into the nominating/selection process and commissioner mindset).

She stated that the nominating commission process was, quote, “the most nonpartisan activity I ever engaged in” (although, in response to Mike Rosen’s follow up question “Was it non-ideological?” she conceded “not exactly.”)

She stated that the commission was “more interested in not getting the ‘Black Robe Syndrome’, where judges think they’re above God almighty and can do whatever they want.”  (Rosen nailed it with his follow-up: “You mean like the liberal majority currently on the state Supreme Court?”  Couldn’t have said it better myself…)

After some more discussions along those lines, the caller veered away from reality to advance a ’strawman’ criticism of Clear The Bench Colorado:

Caller: “My plea… is that we don’t change the system… where judges…  don’t have to raise thousands of dollars to run…”

Rosen responds: “The system is not perfect - so the question is: would any changes make it better or worse?”

Caller: “If there can be a degree of public scrutiny… I wouldn’t be opposed to it.” [Ed: gracious of her to concede the point]

Rosen: “We have a retention [vote] option, but unfortunately that [has been] more theoretical than practical.”

Caller: “Maybe that needs to be beefed up…. maybe you need to do a better job of getting the opinions of existing judges before they go to the ballot”  [Ed: that is the point of Clear The Bench Colorado - informed citizens making informed choices on judicial officeholders, and holding them accountable]

Rosen: “The ‘Blue Book‘ just before an election, when this committee gives us the appraisal of judges… that is the most platitudinous, worthless appraisal ever… and rarely do they ever not recommend retention, so I find that of no value whatsoever.”

The caller then concluded by bemoaning that “the voting thing is so skewed with dollars…”  I think that people like my father would turn over in his grave if he knew there was some movement to have elected judges.”

(Listen to the podcast here - the call starts off the 11AM hour, and continues to the 11 minute mark)

Let me be clear on one point:  that concluding statement was either ignorant,  or a deliberate lie.  Either way, it is a gross mischaracterization.

Clear The Bench Colorado has not advocated for a return to contested elections for judges.  The entire point is to increase voter awareness of our rights within the system, provide some much-needed information (doing a “better job of getting the opinions of existing judges before they go to the ballot”, for example) - since, as Rosen correctly points out, the Blue Book summation of the Performance Review Commissions “evaluations” is “platitudinous, worthless… and of no value whatsoever” in providing substantive information with which voters can make an informed decision.

An additional, hypocritical, gross mischaracterization advanced by the caller is the role of money in the judicial retention evaluation and election process.  Yes, the “voting thing” is skewed with dollars - in favor of retaining incumbents.  Not only are large amounts of taxpayer dollars spent on the whitewash judicial performance review “evaluations” (and subsequent printing & distribution in the “Blue Book”) which have ALWAYS (100%!) recommended retention for Colorado Supreme Court justices, but legal establishment special-interest groups have spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions, on incumbent-protection campaigns (including the “Grueskin Group” formed specifically to counter the judicial-accountability message of Clear The Bench Colorado and protect incumbents judging their cases).  Yet despite the obvious conflict of interest posed by attorneys spending to protect incumbent judges who will rule on cases in which the same attorneys take part, they are allowed to spend freely - since, by maintaining the status quo, they need only point to the judicial review commission’s “retain” recommendations and claim a purely “educational” mission free of direct advocacy.  These groups are also not subject to campaign finance law reporting and accountability, in contrast to grassroots organizations like Clear The Bench Colorado - allowing them to work outside of public scrutiny.  Corrupting influence?  Perish the thought!

Become an informed voter; conduct your own evaluation of the performance of these justices, based on how (and whether) they follow the Constitution and uphold the rule of law.  As an informed citizen, Yes, you can exercise your right to vote “NO” on the four (er, now three) ‘unjust justices’ of the Mullarkey Majority (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice; soon minus 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 homes and business from seizure by abuse of eminent domain, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of rule by activist, agenda-driven ‘justices.’  Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and your contributions - and vote “NO” on retaining these unjust justices in the November elections!

The front page of Wednesday’s Denver Post heralded the late-Tuesday announcement of the list of three names from which Governor Ritter will select the replacement for outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who announced in June that she would retire rather than be held accountable by Colorado voters this November.  The article (”Three finalists emerge for Colorado Supreme Court vacancy“) concludes with comments by Clear The Bench Colorado director Matt Arnold critiquing the lack of transparency and public accountability in the closed-door process for evaluating potential nominees to the Colorado Supreme Court, following up on an article earlier this week (”No More Secrecy in Colorado Supreme Court judicial hiring“) calling for improvements and reform in the selection/nomination process.

“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 next session.”

Unfortunately, Colorado citizens know more about the process of picking the Pope than about how our state selects nominees to judicial office.

This is unfortunate - because, despite some flaws (most importantly, a lack of transparency and public accountability - secrecy encouraged by the legal establishment, who are more interested in protecting their members and covering for their ‘buddies on the bench’ than allowing them to be called to account), the process does provide some level of front-end vetting of judicial applicants, filtering out the obviously unqualified and excessively partisan (weeding out the ‘worst of the worst’).

However, the lack of transparency and public understanding of the process leads to a general lack of confidence in our judiciary and undermines the right and ability of Colorado Citizens to hold our judicial branch officials accountable - leading to ignorant statements such as “why bother to vote out the bad ones?  They’ll just replace ‘em with more of the same.”  (That attitude reminds me of nothing so much as someone clinging to an abusive domestic relationship - putting up with the beatings because it’s what they know.  Step One: remove the source of the abuse.  Step Two: make better choices for the future…)

So how does the Supreme Court Nominating Commission try to make ‘better choices’ for replacing outgoing justices?

Clear The Bench Colorado published an overview of the judicial selection process (”Selecting the next Colorado Supreme Court justice(s) post-Mullarkey retirement and retention elections - who decides?“) both online and in print (next appearing in the September edition of The Constitutionalist Today, due out next week).  More information about the commission’s inner workings has since come to light, thanks to some former commissioners offering their views in response to our articles and comments earlier this week.  Some details (such as the current commission’s votes to select the just-announced nominees, any particulars on their deliberations, or the names of other applicants) will remain unknown unless any of the current commissioners step forward or otherwise release the information.

By the Numbers: How the Judicial Selection Process works

1. On announcement of the vacancy and solicitation for application, prospective nominees submit an extensive application packet (including a long questionnaire, writing sample, background information, resume of relevant professional experience, and references).
2. Commission members review the applications, and select from the total list (this year, 31 people applied for the impending vacancy) for interviews (a particular candidate will be interviewed if any commissioner expresses a strong desire to have them appear).  Commissioners consider the current makeup of the court, and may advocate for a specific constituency - a particular area of legal expertise - such as water or business law, or possibly a regional or ethnic representation in pursuit of court ‘diversity’).  Interviews are based on a common set of ‘core’ questions (for consistency of comparison & evaluation); each commissioner develops and uses their own evaluation criteria.
3. Following interviews, the commission deliberates/discusses the candidate, voicing comments or concerns to the group at large.
4. Following all of the interviews, the commission casts a ballot - three unranked votes per opening (for the Colorado Supreme Court or Court of Appeals - lower courts may only require 2-3 nominees).  The top vote-getters become the finalists - with the caveat that any finalist MUST receive a majority of total Commission votes (i.e. 8 of 15), irrespective of how many are actually present.  Multiple ballots may be (generally are) necessary.  (Note that the current makeup of the Nominating Commission - 7 Democrats, 5 Republicans, 3 Unaffiliated -  ensures that any finalists MUST receive at least one vote from multiple party affiliations).
5. The names of the three finalists are submitted for consideration by the governor, who has 15 days to make a selection from the list.

ALL of our sources (from differing party backgrounds) have stressed that the Nomination Commission deliberations are non-partisan (which is not to say, as our sources admit, that the deliberations and considerations do not reflect ideology or judicial philosophy - which is, in our view, entirely appropriate).

The role of the ‘ex officio’ chair of the commission - retiring Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who presides over the commission vetting applicants for her replacement, although she does not get a vote - is also worthy of comment.  Even though the chair does not get a vote in the process (the role is restricted primarily to running the meetings - although the chair can, in subtle or not-so-subtle ways, influence the discussion), there would certainly appear to be a strong potential for conflict of interest in presiding over the process of replacing one’s own position.  Propriety would strongly suggest (at a minimum) that the Chief Justice should have recused herself from participating.

Another interesting comment from one of the former commissioners regards the list of current finalists - noting that, although the best source of judges for the highest court should presumably be the next-lower court (the Colorado Court of Appeals), it has been 27 years since a judge has been elevated from the Court of Appeals to the Colorado Supreme Court.  (One of the three finalists is an appellate judge).

Finally - for the first time in the history of the Colorado Supreme Court Nominating Commission, more information concerning the finalists has been made available to the public than just a list of names.  Thanks to the increased attention on the Colorado Supreme Court this year, and the consistent efforts of the legal-affairs journal Law Week Colorado for longer than that, the public applications of the three finalists (complete except for removal of purely personal information shielded for privacy reasons - entirely appropriately) which include some relevant background on the candidates for judicial office - were made public.  The public applications may be viewed in their entirety on the Law Week website (”Governor’s Office Makes Public Applications Of Justice Finalists“) or downloaded for more leisurely perusal.

Most importantly, the governor’s office is soliciting public comment on the three nominees to become the next Colorado Supreme Court justice (send E-mails to judicial.appointments@state.co.us with your comments, concerns, or suggestions), along with providing contact information for the three nominees:

• Monica Marquez, 1525 Sherman Street 2nd Floor, Denver CO 80203, (303) 866-5163
• David Prince, 270 S. Tejon, Colorado Springs CO 80903, (719) 448-7507
• Robert Russel, 101 W. Colfax Avenue Suite 800, Denver CO 80202, (303) 837-3725

We The People can (indeed, as citizens, we must) hold our public officials - both elected & appointed - accountable.  Be a citizen, not a subject - get informed, then express your opinion on which of these three nominees the governor should be appoint to become the next justice of the Colorado Supreme Court (it will be another 2 years before you’ll be able to weigh in at the ballot box, at the conclusion of their first - probationary - term of office).

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 to be minus 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 contributions - and exercise your right to vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

“What’s good for the goose is good for the gander…”

We find ourselves in rare agreement with the Denver Post’s editorial board, as they seek greater transparency in the hiring process for government officials, calling for “No More Secrecy in Aurora hiring.”

But if “closed-door meetings to interview city manager candidates” is “disheartening” to the Denver Post editorial board, what of the similarly closed-door process for evaluating potential nominees to the Colorado Supreme Court, who will exert exponentially greater power over ALL of Colorado citizens, not just the residents of a single city?

A common critique of Colorado’s system of “merit selection & retention” for judges is the lack of transparency in commission deliberations (both during front-end judicial selection, and in back-end judicial performance review and retention) and lack of meaningful opportunity for public participation and comment.  This lack of transparency leads to a lack of public confidence in our judiciary and ultimately to a lack of accountability for the increasingly active and powerful Third Branch of our government.

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.

In sports, referees who violate the rules and demonstrate a consistent bias for one team lose their jobs.

In government, because Colorado Supreme Court justices wield so much power, the stakes are much more important than an athletic contest - or the hiring of a city manager for Aurora.

Of course, the biggest political “players” (especially in the ‘legal establishment’) are well aware of this - they naturally prefer the closed-door, non-transparent, unaccountable, political insider-dominated process that allows them enormous influence behind the scenes.

Our view: an informed citizenry and active citizen participation is vital in restoring accountability and transparency to the 3rd branch of state government, the judicial branch - most particularly for the Colorado Supreme Court.

We call upon the Denver Post editorial board to demonstrate some integrity and consistency in their position, and join Clear The Bench Colorado in requesting that the state Supreme Court Nominating Commission (meeting Monday and Tuesday behind closed doors, with NO opportunity for public review or input) release the names and relevant background of the 31 applicants to replace outgoing Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey (who opted to retire rather than face the voters in the upcoming November elections to fight for another 10-year term in office).

We The People can (indeed, as citizens, we must) hold our public officials - both elected and appointed - accountable.  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 to be minus 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 contributions - and exercise your right to vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

“Out with the old, in with the new” - or perhaps more appropriately in this case, “The Queen is dead - Long Live the Queen!”

Sunday’s demolition of the Colorado Supreme Court building to “make room” for a vast, sprawling new “judicial complex” of truly palatial proportions was heralded on the front page of Monday’s Denver Post under the headline “Make Room For Justice!”

Aside from the (admittedly spectacular) pictures accompanying the front-page headline, the Denver Post also ran a story inside (”Denver & The West” section - Colorado judicial building puts on show, disappears).  Interestingly enough, although the Post article mentioned 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 is paying the Denver Newspaper Agency $1.6 Million per year over the next three years for their temporary ‘digs’ while the new complex is constructed).

Fortunately, other media sources DID mention the cost of the new complex (in fact, EVERY other media source surveyed at least mentioned the cost of the new complex).  From the media websites:

KWGN/KDVR (Denver 2, 31): (Former Colorado Judicial building imploded, new judicial complex planned)

The space makes way for the $258 million, 600,000-sq-ft. Ralph L. Carr Judicial Complex.

CBS (Denver Channel 4): (”Crowds Gather To Say Goodbye To Landmark“)

The new building will cost $258 million.

NBC (9News.com): (”Parents take children to marvel at Colorado Judicial Building demolition“)

Construction for the new $258 million judicial complex has already started at 14th Avenue and Broadway. It is going to be 600,000 square feet, and will house the Colorado Supreme Court, the Colorado Court of Appeals, and the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, along with a number of other agencies.

Seems like the amount of money being ponied up by Colorado citizens might be a relevant datum, wouldn’t you think?

“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 this massive new “judicial complex” is coming 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) comes 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]

Last summer, 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

The extensive use of Certificates of Participation as a funding mechanism to finance construction of the Colorado Judicial Complex is even more interesting in the context of the state treasurer’s race and a ballot initiative to limit government borrowing both being on the ballot this year.

“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 yet-to-be-built “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 - by 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 Mullarkey Majority’s 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 - has the taint of self-interest.

Don’t let Justice continue to be held for ransom - exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four (er, now 3) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s incumbent “Mullarkey Majority” (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice; soon minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who’s retiring rather than face the voters ) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax (er, “fee”) increases, your right to defend your home and business from seizure by governments abusing eminent domain, 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 comments (Sound Off!), contributions, and spreading the word about your right to vote “NO” against retaining these unjust justices on the bench for another 10 years!

Clear The Bench Colorado has alerted Colorado citizens over the last several months to the Colorado General Assembly’s underhanded tactic (Colorado Politics at its worst) of circumventing the TABOR requirement to receive voter approval before imposing or increasing taxes by playing the word game of calling the charges “fees” instead, thanks to a ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court in November 2008.

The most universally despised use of this tactic - and the one affecting the greatest number of Colorado citizens - was 2009’s Colorado Car Tax (er, registration “fee”) increase with the “FASTER” bill (SB 108).

The most universally hated - and unjust - part of the so-called FASTER bill (SB 108) is the massive (and now mandatory) imposition of “late fees”.  How massive?  The Denver Post reports today that Colorado drivers

paid nearly $31.5 million in penalties the first year mandatory late fees were in effect.

Last summer - the first year that the new taxes (er, “fees”) were in effect, driver outrage boiled over to such an extent that many county clerks found it necessary to hire additional security (despite the fact that the increases were not their fault).  Some country clerks even took the unusual step of providing pre-addressed postcards (printed on recycled paper at little or no cost) to allow angry drivers to vent their anger at state officials (who passed the tax - er, “fee”) instead (for which they were roundly, and hypocritically, criticized by the Denver Post editorial board - which had no criticism for the thousands of taxpayer dollars wasted on propaganda in favor of the increases).

Many of the county clerks - who had previously had the discretion to impose late fees, which were usually minimal ($10, vs. $25-$100 thanks to “FASTER”) and frequently waived with proper justification, are not fans of the new “fees” despite increased revenue for their districts.  Today’s Denver Post article quotes one:

Weld was one of the counties that hadn’t charged a late fee. Clerk and Recorder Steve Moreno said Friday he was amazed to learn his office collected more than $2 million in late fees the first year.

Of that, $396,160 went to Weld County and the rest to the state. Despite the extra money, Moreno still believes the fees should have stayed at $10 to be imposed at the clerk’s discretion.

“It feels like an extra tax,” he said.

Feels like an extra tax? That’s putting it mildly…

My own county clerk - Arapahoe County Clerk Nancy Doty - also criticized the vehicle “fee” increases (particularly the often unjustifiable but now mandatory “late fee”) and the questionable constitutionality of how they were passed in an article (”County Clerks Required to Enforce Legislature’s New Fees“) published almost exactly a year ago:

It adds about $32 a year to the average registration fee to pay for “Road and Bridge Safety Surcharges”-none dare call it a tax. But wait, there’s more! You used to be able to get by with a $10 late fee if you exceeded the 30 day grace period when renewing your registration. Now, it’s $25 a month, month after month, up to a maximum $100. Got an old boat trailer you take out once or twice a year? Or a hauler you run to the dump with once in awhile. You’d better send that registration card in on time, or you may end up paying more than the vehicle’s worth to re-register if you are late.

…And are these new fees really taxes that should have been voted up or down by the taxpayers? [Ed. YES!  Yes, they are...]

“Why this, why right now and why no vote by the taxpayers?”

Good question.  The answer, of course, is that this “highway robbery” was aided and abetted by the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority” (Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who recently announced that she would retire rather than be held accountable by Colorado voters this November, along with her colleagues justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, and Nancy Rice who remain on the November ballot seeking another 10-year term of office).  The Colorado Car Tax (er, “vehicle registration fee”) increase could not have happened without the Colorado Supreme Court setting aside the Constitution to allow “fee” increases to dodge the constitutional requirement to get prior voter approval for tax increases.

Others have also noted the regressive nature of the tax (hurting most those who can least afford it) along with the multi-year increases built in to the law, saying “the pain of FASTER is just beginning.”

Adding insult to injury, much of the revenue collected by these increased “fees” is not even going to roads and bridges (the stated purpose of the legislation).  That’s right - state and county governments are playing the ol’ shell game with your money, diverting it from the intended purpose (”fix roads and bridges” - a worthy goal) and using it as a general-purpose (or other special-interest) slush fund.  For example, the Denver Post article points out that Jefferson County has

set aside the county’s share of more than $600,000 in late fees to be used for capital purchases and other expenses.

The “FASTER” legislation already explicitly provides for several categories of expenditure not related to “roads or bridges” - an unconstitutional diversion of funds collected as “fees” vice taxes - as noted earlier on this site and in other publications:

The dirty little secret of the FASTER bill is that many of the taxes (er, “fees”) collected don’t go towards the construction or maintenance of roads or bridges at all, but for “multi-modal and demand-side transportation solutions” - such as the desire of certain state Senators for streetcars in Denver - justified by other language in a following section (43-4-812):

43-4-812. Use of user fees for transit - legislative declaration.

(2) THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HEREBY FINDS AND DECLARES THAT THE FUNDING OF TRANSIT-RELATED PROJECTS AUTHORIZED BY SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION CONSTITUTES MAINTENANCE AND SUPERVISION OF STATE HIGHWAYS BECAUSE IT WILL HELP TO REDUCE TRAFFIC ON STATE HIGHWAYS AND THEREBY REDUCE WEAR AND TEAR ON STATE HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES AND INCREASE THEIR RELIABILITY, SAFETY, AND EXPECTED USEFUL LIFE.

In fact, the bill MANDATES state spending of $10 Million per year on “transit-related projects.”

It’s an outrageous semantic shell game - and a blatant violation of your constitutional rights.

Don’t get taken for a ride any longer - exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four (er, now 3) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority” (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and soon to be minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax (er, “fee”) increases, your right to defend your home and business from seizure by governments abusing eminent domain, 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!), your contributions, and your “NO“ vote against retaining these unjust justices on the bench for another 10 years!

Colorado Secretary of State Bernie Buescher yesterday failed in his duty to provide legal clarity and forestall an ongoing series of harassing attacks (er, campaign finance “complaints”) launched by his roundly rebuked ideological ally “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) against judicial accountability organization Clear The Bench Colorado.  Rather than formalize the adoption of a draft rule circulated over a year ago (and on which Clear The Bench Colorado has relied, along with other guidance issued by the Secretary of State’s office, for over a year - the legal term is “estoppel“), Secretary of State Buescher’s decision not to back the reasoned conclusions of his own professional staff and allow a flagrant attempt by CEW to retroactively change the rules “in the middle of the game” to go forward undermines reliance on the rule of law by individuals and grassroots groups participating in civic activity, and calls his professional qualifications and integrity into question.

The Secretary of State’s letter denying Clear The Bench Colorado’s request for legal clarity by merely formally adopting the draft rule previously discussed and recommended by the office’s professional staff over a year ago even (again) documented the fact that the SOS office had issued specific guidance to file as an Issue Committee (the CEW complaint alleges that Clear The Bench Colorado should have filed as a Political Committee instead and should be held retroactively liable for fines despite reliance on the Secretary of State’s guidance):

… the Secretary of State provided informal guidance to Clear The Bench that the group might more appropriately register as an issue committee.

Clear The Bench submitted another [amended] committee registration in June of 2009, registering as an issue committee.  This registration was accepted by the Secretary of State, and Clear The Bench has since been registered as an issue committee. [emphasis added]

If citizens and grassroots groups wishing to participate in the civic and political process cannot rely on the guidance issued by the Secretary of State - either due to ignorance, incompetence, or ideological leanings - and are left open to “frivolous, groundless, and vexatious” attacks by groups such as CEW which exist solely to tie up their resources, who will be left able to participate?  Only the entrenched special-interest groups and “big-money” political groups that are tied in with established incumbents - leaving the average citizen out in the cold.

We The People can (indeed, as citizens, we must) hold our public officials - both elected and appointed - accountable.  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 to be minus 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 contributions - and exercise your right to vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

For perhaps the first time in our state’s history, an increasing number of Colorado Citizens are taking an interest in the Colorado Supreme Court  judicial retention elections - our only opportunity, as Citizens, to hold the officeholders in our 3rd branch of government (the judiciary) accountable (to the rule of law generally, to the Constitution specifically, and ultimately to We The People, in whom ultimate political authority is constitutionally vested).

Some voices - notably professional politicians such as Susan Thornton, as expressed in her Denver Post article (”Criticism of retiring Judge (sic) Mullarkey unfair“), or other legal professional advocacy groups (such as the Grueskin group formed to defend Colorado Supreme Court incumbents and oppose the growing influence of Clear The Bench Colorado) believe that Citizens have no place in the process.  Their message?   ”Trust us, the elite political insiders, not your lying eyes. We know better.”

Others - spearheaded by Clear The Bench Colorado, but also including a large number of legal reform groups, transparency and good-government advocates - believe that Citizens not only have the right (as clearly expressed in the Colorado Constitution) but even the responsibility and duty to get informed and act (”vote “NO on unjust justices!“) accordingly. (Responding to Thornton’s attack on independent critiques of the judiciary -  Accountability, Transparency apply to the Colorado Supreme Court, too - we defend the constitutional right of Colorado Citizen participation in the process).

The following article, published in the August edition of The Constitutionalist Today, expands upon that point:

Restoring Accountability and Transparency to Colorado Courts -

Why Citizen participation in judicial selection and retention is vitally necessary

A number of years ago, Colorado embarked upon an experiment in government that was touted as a great reform. Attempting to “take the judges out of politics” our state did away with direct, contested elections of judges in favor of the “merit selection and retention process” pioneered by the State of Missouri (the “Missouri Plan”), under which judges and supreme court justices are nominated by commissions, appointed by the governor, and only subjected to checks and balances by the citizens of the state in periodic “retention” elections (posed as a simple yes/no question on the ballot).  For Colorado Supreme Court justices, the opportunity to hold them accountable comes around only once every TEN years, posed as a ballot question: “Should Justice [name] be retained in office?” (Yes/NO)

In theory, the system looked like a good idea; after all, selecting judges and supreme court justices on the basis of “merit” instead of “ability to win an election” - putting professional qualifications ahead of political ones - appeals to our common desire for fair play and “equal justice before the law” and removes some of the most direct and obvious temptations for corruption via “quid pro quo” campaign contributions.

In practice, however, the “Missouri Plan” systems in place in several states seem to have merely shifted the potential for undue influence to well-connected interest groups (particularly the “in-crowd” of bar associations, other attorney groups, lobbyists, and others directly involved with the courts) operating largely outside of public scrutiny.  Lack of transparency - in both the up-front selection and back-end review & retention processes - has actually led to an utter lack of accountability for Colorado Supreme Court justices in Colorado.

A recent Wall Street Journal article (”Voters vs. George Soros - Taking judicial selection away from the lawyers guild“) highlighted some of the concerns with the judicial selection and retention process under the “Missouri Plan” used by Colorado:

“Designed to take politics out of the courtroom, the plan has in practice handed disproportionate influence over the judiciary to lawyers and bar associations. The effect has been to give a single profession control over a third of state government, with little political accountability.”

As with many things brought to us by the “good idea fairy”, the devil is in the details. Colorado’s Judicial Performance Review Commission (JPRC) “performance” reviews are heavily biased in favor of judicial incumbents (over the last several decades, issuing only 15 recommendations for non-retention resulting in only 7 judges being voted out of office) and provide little substantive information for citizens trying to decide how to vote on judges, especially supreme court justices. These JPRC review “narratives” (published at taxpayer expense in the “Blue Book” voter guides) focus almost exclusively on qualifications (essentially, have they checked all the right boxes) instead of performance (have supreme court justices, for instance, properly carried out their duties - and lived up to their oaths and obligations, or not).  The most important judicial quality of all - upholding the law, as written (not fabricated or “interpreted” according to a personal or political agenda) - is given short shrift or even no consideration at all.  (Additional information on the shortcomings of Colorado’s Judicial Performance Review process is available in a pair of Denver Post articles: “Demand accountability from judges, too” July 2nd CTBC guest commentary; and “Evaluating the performance of justices“, Feb. 13th [non-CTBC] guest commentary).

The recently announced impending retirement of Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey - who decided to quit rather than be held accountable by voters this November - has also raised interest in how Colorado appoints and evaluates judges (and particularly supreme court justices), in the first place.  The process is not merely of “academic” interest.  From an Institute for Legal Reform publication reviewing “merit selection” systems and best practices across several states:

“The procedures that determine how state judges are selected and placed on the bench, particularly those in the highest courts, are central to the ultimate quality of justice in our courts. Every American has a stake in the way state judges are chosen.(emphasis added) Some states that select their judges through a commission-based appointive system have been criticized for the absence of public input into the process, lack of transparency, secretiveness in their procedures, and the political cronyism that can occur when commissions and the governor operate in what is essentially a closed system.”

The common theme in critiques of the “Missouri Plan” system of “merit selection & retention” is the lack of transparency in commission deliberations (both during front-end judicial selection, and in back-end judicial performance review and retention) and lack of meaningful opportunity for public participation and comment.  This lack of transparency leads to a lack of public confidence in our judiciary and ultimately to a lack of accountability for the increasingly active and powerful Third Branch of our government.  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.  In sports, referees who violate the rules and demonstrate a consistent bias for one team lose their jobs.  In government, because Colorado Supreme Court justices wield so much power, the stakes are much more important than an athletic contest.

Of course, the biggest political “players” are well aware of this - they naturally prefer the closed-door, non-transparent, unaccountable, political insider-dominated process that allows them enormous influence behind the scenes.  The usual suspects include the “lawyers guilds” and similar groups.  The WSJ article also singles out another powerful and well-connected cabal:

“The system has powerful defenders, however, including groups connected to the George Soros-funded Justice at Stake.”

Soros’s group would be more aptly named “Justice put to the Stake”.

Here in Colorado, a new pressure group of apologists was recently formed by politically influential and well-connected attorneys (led by Democrat super-lawyer and frequent Colorado Supreme Court litigator, Mark Grueskin) specifically to counter the growing supreme court reform and accountability movement spearheaded by Clear The Bench Colorado.  (Story broken by Law Week Colorado, “Group aiming to defend Colorado judiciary comes to light“, followed up in Westword and on Clear The Bench Colorado (”More details emerge on group formed to oppose accountability for Colorado Supreme Court incumbents“).

Along with articles published in mass media outlets (for example, a recent Denver Post article calling “Criticism of retiring Judge Mullarkey unfair“), these groups are attempting to maintain the crony system of political insiders picking and preserving in power supreme court justices who rule against the rights of the people in favor of big government - putting you in your place as a subject, not protecting your rights as a citizen.  They can get away with it only as long as they succeed in keeping voters in the dark.

That is why public participation - not just by a select few politically connected individuals put on commissions, but by fully informed public discussion and debate - is so critically important to maintaining good government (and accountability) in our judiciary.  Become an informed citizen - review sources such as Clear The Bench Colorado and get to Know Your Courts to get “the rest of the story”.

“The original purpose of using a commission-based merit selection system was to reduce the politicization of the judiciary system. As such, it is imperative that merit selection systems not simply hide the politics behind the closed doors of a Commission but drive out destructive influence through a system that is transparent and accessible to the public.”

“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

We The People can (indeed, as citizens, we must) hold our public officials - both elected and appointed - accountable.  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 to be minus 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 contributions - and exercise your right to vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

After Sunday’s Denver Post editorial (”Unintended consequences in judicial push“) missed the point of Clear The Bench Colorado (hint: it’s not about selecting replacements for the incumbent justices; it’s about holding the current justices accountable to the Colorado Constitution, the rule of law, and the citizens whose rights they are sworn to uphold) and ended up by spinning an implausible scenario of justices “retiring” after being voted out this November (the ol’ “you can’t fire me; I quit! routine), the remainder of the week brought out more serious news coverage related to Clear The Bench Colorado and the Colorado Supreme Court.  (Unfortunately, none of the actual news appears to have been covered by the Denver Post - although they did publish the important stories such as the “supporting roles” of Romanoff’s family on his campaign, Bennet’s time spent with his daughters, and the theft of “more than 100 gnomes” in Arvada.  Yep, hard-hitting investigative reporting and “serious” journalism…)

Meanwhile, other more topically substantive publications have been following the unraveling of the “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) “frivolous, groundless, and vexatious” campaign finance “complaint” against Clear The Bench Colorado.

This week’s coverage of the story opened up with Monday’s radio news segment on 1310AM KFKA with Face The State managing editor Brad Jones discussing how “liberal litigation shop Colorado Ethics Watch is ordered to pay up for a misfired lawsuit.”  (The “Colorado Ethics Watch” - CEW, pronounced “sue”, it’s what they do - segment begins at 10:45 on this audio clip).  A few highlights:

“Colorado Ethics Watch in particular exists solely to tie up conservative causes in court… and that is an established campaign tool.  Mark Grueskin, a major Democratic attorney who takes up a lot of these kinds of cases… basically admits as such.  Litigation is now an expense, both in prosecution and defense, for campaigns…

The part that’s really important to note here is that… in Colorado, an attorney being forced to pay the opposing counsel’s attorneys fees is a very rare event indeed, because under Colorado’s judicial rules, when a lawyer signs that complaint, they are certifying that it is a legitimate question of law… and in this case, the judge said that ‘you have no business filing this complaint because you knew that the facts were not with you and that you had no chance of prevailing, but you pursued it anyway…

On Tuesday, Law Week Colorado picked up the story of last week’s ruling by Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer which not only dismissed CEW’s frivolous, groundless, and vexatious “complaint” against Clear The Bench Colorado but also took the rare step of directing CEW to pay thousands in legal fees because the “complaint” was so completely without merit.  Law Week’s article (”Denver Administrative Judge Upbraids Colorado Ethics Watch“) noted that the judge soundly rebuked ”Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) in his written order (published Monday), which the article also included in full.  Some excerpts:

An administrative law judge has chastised a Denver-based ethics-watchdog group, calling a recent complaint filed by the group “substantially groundless and frivolous.”  …

In the written order, Spencer said Ethics Watch “was in possession of facts putting it on notice that its claim was groundless but at no time did it seek to voluntarily dismiss its claim.”

Today, Law Week also covered Clear The Bench Colorado’s request (filed Tuesday) for the Secretary of State’s office to provide legal clarity (and foreclose CEW’s plans for an endless cycle of additional “complaints” in their ongoing efforts to harass our grassroots movement) by issuing a definitive ruling which codifies the guidance issued by that office to Clear The Bench Colorado over a year ago:

Clear The Bench wants the Secretary of State to adopt a rule that says “a committee whose purpose is the support or opposition of the retention of a judicial seat shall register as an issue committee…” The group, which all state Supreme Court justices now up for retention, registered as an issue committee on the advice of the Secretary of State’s office.

Clear The Bench Colorado also received coverage in the context of the controversy currently surrounding the Colorado governor’s race.  In addition to the Denver Post editor’s misguided assumptions about what constitutes a “good outcome” for CTBC’s efforts to hold our incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices accountable to the law (hint: it’s not dependent on who’s governor), Clear The Bench Colorado received national exposure in the latest Human Events article by Colorado correspondent Ross Kaminsky (”GOP in Disarray in Colorado Governors Race“) which highlights the importance of the Colorado Supreme Court vote in upholding the principles of constitutional limits on government power, in Colorado and beyond:

In addition to the redistricting following the results of this year’s census, there is also a grassroots movement called Clear the Bench Colorado which aims to get Coloradoans to vote out three ultra-liberal state Supreme Court justices.

CTBC has put enough pressure on the judges that the chief justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, a woman who has demonstrated no respect for the rule of law or the will of the people, announced her retirement a few weeks ago rather than face the voters.  If CTBC is successful in causing the removal of one or more justices, the next governor will appoint the replacement(s).  As important as Kagan or Sotomayor is on a national level, these vacancies will be at least as important within our state. [emphasis added]

Also today, the Face The State radio minute (broadcast on a variety of stations across Colorado) focused on the unethical practices of “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) conducting legal harassment of opposing groups.  The broadcast segment (entitled “Names can be deceiving”) called CEW to task for its habit of filing harassing “complaints” without legal merit:

Would a group called Colorado Ethics Watch ever do something out-of-bounds? Names can be deceiving…

Political attack ads are often funded by some group with a name like, “Coloradans for fluffy bunnies” or “The campaign for rainbows and sunshine.” Names can be deceiving. Take for example Colorado Ethics Watch, which purports to use the courts to pursue unethical political behavior. Well, so long as the target is a conservative, that is. Despite their intentions, the group has every right to access the legal system. But last week, CEW was slapped with attorneys fees for filing a complaint it knew had no merit. In Colorado, fees are assessed sparingly, and only in clearcut cases like this. It’s the second time in four years CEW has been rebuked like this. Legal harassment doesn’t sound very “ethical” to me.

Finally, in news breaking later in the day, Law Week also published the number of applicants (31 people applied) for the impending vacancy on the Colorado Supreme Court that will be created once the announced retirement of Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey (who announced her intent to retire rather than be held accountable by voters in the November elections) becomes effective (currently scheduled for November 30th).  In keeping with current practice and tradition (but not as a statutory requirement), the Judicial Nominating Commission has NOT released the names of the would-be Colorado Supreme Court justices to the public.  (Clear The Bench Colorado is pursuing that information in the interest of public accountability and government transparency - stay tuned for upcoming announcements).

We The People can (indeed, as citizens, we must) hold our public officials - both elected and appointed - accountable.  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 to be minus 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 contributions - and exercise your right to vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

A few days ago - following the announcement of Clear The Bench Colorado’s resounding win against the frivolous, groundless, and vexatious “complaint” filed by the legal attack group “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do), with the judge even going the extra mile and awarding Clear The Bench Colorado ‘tens of thousands’ in legal fees payable by CEW attorneys - Editor Dan Haley of the Denver Post left me a cryptic message stating that he “had a question” for me (unrelated to ‘this’).  On returning to my computer that evening, I replied with my cellphone number and asked for the question - but didn’t hear back.

Today’s (Sunday) Denver Post provided some clues as to what Dan Haley’s question(s) might have been: his editorial in the “Perspective” section purports to address “Unintended consequences in judicial push” (meaning, of course, Clear The Bench Colorado).

Unfortunately, Haley probably would have benefited from first getting the answer(s) to his question(s) of Clear The Bench Colorado, as his editorial contains a few errors of both fact and interpretation.

Although Haley starts out with a reasonably accurate summation of the “judicial push” (to vote “NO” on the unjust justices of the Colorado Supreme Court subject to voter approval this November) he misses the mark on “unintended consequences”:

A conservative group called Clear the Bench Colorado wants Coloradans to clear the Supreme Court bench this November and oust three Supreme Court justices who are up for retention.

(They originally had four justices in their sights, but earlier this summer Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey announced her retirement as of Nov. 30.) [Ed. quitting rather than facing voters]

In Colorado, judges and justices are appointed by the governor, but they must be retained every few years by voters.

The justices’ crimes, according to the group’s website, include “aiding and abetting . . . unconstitutional property tax increases; the unconstitutional elimination of tax credits and exemptions; and unconstitutionally re-defining taxes as fees,” among other things.

Those three rulings, of course, came after controversial decisions by Gov. Bill Ritter - decisions many on the right derided as unconstitutional but the court upheld nonetheless.

Actually, those were only two rulings (the “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” property tax increase ruling also created the loophole the legislature exploited with the “Dirty Dozen” new tax laws; another ruling enabling taxes to be collected under the guise of “fees” led to the Colorado Car Tax and other “fees”) among many.  Other key rulings expanded eminent domain abuse to seize people’s property, grabbed the (legislative) power to apportion legislative district boundaries (aided by the recent “Mary-mandering” bill) and set the state up for fiscal disaster by grabbing the power to set school funding levels (Lobato v. Colorado) for unelected judges away from elected legislators and school boards.

The Denver Post editorials have been appropriately critical of these rulings (neatly summarized in Vincent Carroll’s excellent piece, “Mary Mullarkey’s Troubling Legacy - Mullarkey Court altered Constitution’s true meaning“) so it is unfortunate that, until recently, the Post has given scant coverage to the very important issue of judicial retention elections for the authors of those rulings.

Where Haley most seriously misses the mark (and misstates the facts) in his editorial (which could have been avoided with that follow-up message or phone call) comes in his review of the process in the aftermath of a “NO” vote for the incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices in the upcoming elections.  Although he starts out on solid ground,

If voters choose not to retain a justice, and the judge finishes out his term, the next governor would appoint the successor.

Haley then veers off into some tenuous territory:

Here’s the rub: Should a justice decide to resign after not being retained, it would trigger a 30-day clock for the Supreme Court nominating commission to propose replacements.

Three names would then be sent to Ritter for each vacancy, and he would have 15 days to appoint someone. If he failed to appoint someone, the Supreme Court chief justice would appoint someone within 15 days.

That strict timeline is laid out in the Colorado Constitution. So if an ousted justice resigns within nine days of the retention vote, Ritter would appoint the successor.

This is an implausible and, frankly, silly scenario.  Once voted out, the justices have no office to resign - like any other lame-duck politician, they would serve out their terms (which, for the incumbent justices up for a vote this NOvember, expire the 2nd Tuesday in January) but lack authority to dispose of their office in such fashion.  Otherwise, every officeholder losing a vote would “retire” instead…

Any attempt to repudiate the will of the voters in such blatant fashion would not only “look nakedly political” - it would likely trigger a constitutional crisis, if not “torches & pitchforks.”

Haley’s mention of such a ridiculously implausible scenario is most likely an attempt to “poison the well” for those few Republican backers of Clear The Bench Colorado who might allow a narrowly partisan view to cloud their judgement.  It won’t work - Colorado voters are smarter than that.  The prospect of ten more years of “the devil you know” - three Colorado Supreme Court justices with a consistent record of violating the constitutional rights of Colorado citizens, who would lock in a Democrat majority via their lock on the state-level legislative reapportionment and congressional redistricting process IF (but only if) the current majority remains in power to elect the next Chief Justice after that office comes vacant following retirement of the current chief - balanced against the chance to give a new governor the chance to appoint three replacements who will be subject to another vote in only TWO years (instead of TEN) will serve to remind Colorado voters that the MOST important votes on this year’s ballot are “NO” votes on the remaining three ‘unjust justices” who seek their approval for another decade’s leave to violate their rights.  No matter who becomes governor, Clearing The Bench of these three incumbents is a net win for Colorado.

“Unintended consequences?”  No.  ”Intentional disinformation?”  Perhaps.

It’s nice to know, at least, that the Denver Post and editor Dan Haley “have no problem with groups like Clear the Bench trying to educate voters about judges and justices” - we’re looking forward to our opportunity to discuss these vital votes with the Denver Post editorial board and express the hope that they will (finally!) step up their coverage of this critically important issue on the news pages as well.

We The People can (indeed, as citizens, we must) hold our public officials - both elected and appointed - accountable.  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 to be minus 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 contributions - and exercise your right to vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!