Suppose they gave an election, and nobody (well, only a few) knew?

(Shamelessly paraphrasing Bertoldt Brecht’s epic quote, “Suppose they gave a war, and nobody came?“)

Sadly, we’ve just seen the question answered: the status quo wins - especially when the status quo is aided and abetted by big money.

Curiously (or perhaps not), there has been more extensive coverage of the failure to the oust three incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices on the ballot this year than coverage of the fact that they were up for a vote in the first place - much less coverage of their performance in office that gave rise to the call to remove them from the bench.

Although coverage of Colorado’s judicial retention elections picked up in recent weeks, for much of the last year awareness of the most consequential and far-reaching election on this year’s ballot was mostly restricted to the most active and observant portions of the electorate alone.  Colorado’s major regional media (especially network television, but also major “news” publications) perpetuated the managed lack of knowledge about the elections - and the issues at stake - in the general public.

A sample of news coverage of this year’s Colorado Supreme Court retention election results - which achieved the highest percentage of “NO” votes in state history - follows:

The Denver Post’s court/legal affairs beat reporter Felisa Cardona was likely the first to post on the results, late Tuesday/early Wednesday: (”Three Colorado Supreme Court justices appear to retain seats“) and scooped most other coverage with a relevant quote:

Throughout the campaign, Arnold was concerned that voters didn’t know enough about the justices or their legal opinions and said the state evaluation system doesn’t go far enough in judging performance.

“People are finally paying attention for the first time ever,” he said. Arnold believes the 60-40 split reflected the highest percentage of no votes for a Supreme Court justice.

The justices have declined to comment.

The George Soros funded “Justice At Stake Campaign” also closely followed results from various judicial retention elections around the nation, highlighting the ouster of three incumbent state supreme court justices in Iowa by a well-funded campaign while noting the triumph of status quo forces against judicial accountability efforts in Colorado and half a dozen other states.

An editorial in Wednesday’s Aurora Sentinel misrepresented the facts (and demonstrated remarkable historical ignorance) in trumpeting the narrowest retention in state history as a “rejection” of judicial accountability (”Voters were clear on this failed partisan attack“).  Although the writer is certainly entitled to an opinion (and in the Aurora Sentinel, the opinion is reliably left-wing), getting a few basic facts correct (such as characterizing CTBC as an “effort to oust members of the state’s supreme and appeals courts appointed by Democrats” when in fact CTBC did not recommend against ANY appeals court judges, and recommended a retain vote for both Democrat- and Republican-appointed appeals court judges, based on judicial performance and adherence to the law, not partisan affiliation) would have helped the writer’s credibility.  Oh, and misreporting the election results by about 10% to support an assertion that the final vote was “unaffected by the campaign” doesn’t help on the credibility front, either.

An interesting but as-yet unreported fact is the variance in the retention vote across various counties and regions in the state; as more complete results become available, look for a more detailed analysis.

Meanwhile, it’s been a long week (capping a long and, ultimately, disappointing year).

Although the campaign (and the election) is over, the fight to reform Colorado’s out-of-control legal/judicial complex continues.  In the near term, Clear The Bench Colorado is working to hold the consortium of legal-establishment special-interest groups who attempted (and may have succeeded in) buying the election for their buddies on the bench accountable for their violations of Colorado campaign finance law.  Longer term, Clear The Bench Colorado will work with legislators and others interested in reforming the systemic shortcomings of Colorado’s “merit selection & retention” system to increase transparency and accountability to the public.  For both of those endeavors, we would appreciate 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In related news…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only one more week to exercise your right to vote NO on 3 incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices seeking another 10-year term…

Over the last week or so, Clear The Bench Colorado and the judicial retention elections for the 3 incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices on this year’s ballot (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, and Nancy Rice) have been in the news a lot.

On Sunday (October 17th), Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold appeared on the Your Show television program (moderated by Adam Schrager), debating former Colorado Supreme Court justice (and current full-time activist) Jean Dubofsky, representing the “Colorado Judiciary Project” (a legal-establishment special-interest group formed by Democrat state party attorney and  Mark Grueskin.

On Monday (October 18th), the Colorado Supreme Court took aim at gun rights in Colorado by accepting the CU Regents appeal of a Colorado Court of Appeals ruling overturning an illegal ban of licensed concealed-carry on CU property (a policy that is violating state law).

On Thursday (October 21st), Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold spoke at the Southern Colorado Tea Party, recorded and made available courtesy of FreedomTalkNet.

On Friday morning (Oct 22nd), Clear The Bench Colorado released our list of endorsements (which has since grown - and continues to grow)

On Friday evening, October 22nd (rebroadcast Monday afternoon, October 25th), Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold appeared on the Devil’s Advocate television program (hosted by Jon Caldara) in what was originally planned as a debate (but the other side chickened out).

On Saturday (October 23rd), Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold was published nationwide in Human Events magazine (”Fighting the “Progressive” Takeover of State Courts“)

On Sunday (October 24th), the Denver Post published a guest commentary by Jean Dubofsky (”Keep integrity of Colorado’s courts“) attacking Clear The Bench Colorado with a veritable litany of misleading insinuations and demonstrably false statements.  After requesting the opportunity  to respond or rebut the falsehoods (as has been the policy of the Post in the past when a person or group is directly attacked) but being refused, CTBC published our response (”RESTORE Integrity to Colorado Courts“) earlier today (Wednesday).

On Monday (October 25th), the Associated Press ran a story about Clear The Bench Colorado (”Clear The Bench Tests Judicial Retention System”) that was picked up in newspapers around the country, from San Francisco (Examiner) to Indiana (Daily Journal) to West Virginia (Charleston Gazette), to name the most geographically dispersed examples; nationally in USA Today; and yes, even in the Denver Post.

On Tuesday (October 26th), Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold appeared on the Luke Shilts Show (1310 AM KFKA) at 5-5:30 PM (podcast pending).

Later Tuesday evening, Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold appeared on the Michael Brown show (850 KOA) from 7-7:30PM - if you missed it (or just want to hear it again) Listen to the show.

What’s in store for the final week before elections close?  Stay tuned for more exciting news…

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

This last Sunday’s Denver Post ran a guest commentary by former Colorado Supreme Court justice Jean Dubofsky (”Keep integrity of Colorado’s courts“),  which was - at best - severely “reality-challenged” and at worst a blatant and libelous distortion of Clear The Bench Colorado’s stated positions.  Unsurprisingly, the Post refused to publish our response, which follows:

RESTORE Integrity to Colorado Courts

Former Colorado Supreme Court justice Jean Dubofsky’s guest commentary in Sunday’s Denver Post presented a litany of distortions, misrepresentations, and outright untruths in attacking the judicial accountability group Clear The Bench Colorado.

Dubofsky alleges that “secret and powerful special interests… would be lining up to dump their millions into ads picking our judges.”

Too late!  They already are - but the millions (well, hundred thousand or so) are being spent on behalf of the judicial incumbents, and to maintain the status quo lack of transparency and accountability.

A recent Law Week article counted over 4,000 TV & radio ads run by a consortium of legal establishment special-interest groups, spending just under $100,000 in August and September alone, promoting the recommendations to “retain”(vote yes) all of the Colorado Supreme Court justices on this year’s ballot.

It’s a fiction to claim that our current system is not already dominated by well-heeled special interest groups - only, these groups have spent their money secretly, away from the scrutiny put on “campaign” spending. (See “The Myth of Money-Free Merit Selection and Retention“).

The biggest whopper, though, is Dubofsky’s assertion that “Clear the Bench wants to destroy 40-plus years of integrity and impartiality in Colorado’s judicial system” setting up her insinuations that CTBC supports a return to contested elections for judicial office.

Clear The Bench Colorado has never advocated for a return to contested judicial elections in Colorado - and Dubofsky knows this.  I made CTBC’s position clear to her in person both during and after her debate with me a week before (on the Your Show TV program with Adam Schrager).

Alleging otherwise is a knowingly false statement, which highlights the desperate lengths to which Dubofsky and friends seek to distort the facts with strawman arguments.

Clear The Bench Colorado is working within the bounds of the existing system to provide substantive information to voters on which to base an informed decision - because the commission “reviews” have failed to hold the incumbents accountable to the Constitution and the rule of law.

Coloradans have a right to vote on judges - and deserve better information than the rubber-stamp “retain” recommendations the commissions and “Blue Book” provide.

Ultimately, it’s your choice - inform yourself (the CTBC website includes both our evaluations AND a link to the commission reviews - we invite the comparison).  Be a Citizen, not a subject… and vote! (NO!)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As noted by the judicial watchdog and accountability group KnowYourCourts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“First they ignore you; Then they ridicule you; Then they attack you; Then you win.”      Mohandas K. (Mahatma) Gandhi

Clear The Bench Colorado is firmly within the 3rd phase of Gandhi’s aphorism; following the filing earlier this month of an unfounded “campaign finance complaint” by notorious leftist attack group “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) “picked up” as “news” primarily by the left-wing propaganda outlet Colorado “not-so” Independent, the CEW/CnsI tag team continues to spin any related news developments into yet another attack on Clear The Bench Colorado.

The most recent example turned up in an article published earlier today by the Colorado “not-so” Independent previewing the scheduled signing by Governor Ritter of “three influential bills into law Tuesday” (”influential bills?”  where did the CnsI reporter learn to write?) in which the reporter really had to stretch to create a connection with which to attack Clear The Bench Colorado:

Another bill will require campaign issue committees to disclose the same donor information as candidate committees. Colorado Ethics Watch recently highlighted the topic in pointing out possible problems of mis-categorization, arguing that issue committee Clear the Bench Colorado, which is asking Coloradans to vote supreme court justices off the bench, is about candidates not any one issue, and that it should be confined to candidate finance restrictions. Ethics Watch says the practice of non-disclosure of large donations to judicial campaigns could allow criminals to purchase safe judicial havens. The new bill would require disclosure.

One problem: the bill in question (HB10-1370) does not mean what the reporter thinks it means. (Inconceivable!)  ”Donor information” is NOT a subject of the bill at all; the “Disclosure Requirements” included in the bill simply refer to formalization of a mandate to include the name of the sponsoring Issue Committee on any communications in order to avoid “perception of purposefully anonymous interests attempting to influence the outcome of the election”:

1-45-108.3. Issue committees - disclaimer.  (1) AN ISSUE COMMITTEE MAKING AN EXPENDITURE IN EXCESS OF ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ON A COMMUNICATION THAT SUPPORTS OR OPPOSES A STATEWIDE BALLOT ISSUE OR BALLOT QUESTION AND THAT IS BROADCAST BY TELEVISION OR RADIO, PRINTED IN A NEWSPAPER OR ON A BILLBOARD, DIRECTLY MAILED OR DELIVERED BY HAND TO PERSONAL RESIDENCES, OR OTHERWISE DISTRIBUTED SHALL DISCLOSE, IN THE COMMUNICATION PRODUCED BY THE EXPENDITURE, THE NAME OF THE ISSUE COMMITTEE MAKING THE EXPENDITURE.

Clear The Bench Colorado has ALWAYS - even in the absence of any formal requirement to do so - included the name of the organization (along with contact information, including our website) on all of our communications, because we believe in and practice transparency and integrity (full disclosure). Clear The Bench Colorado has never felt the need to hide behind “anonymous interests attempting to influence the outcome of elections… through the expenditure of large sums of money.”

Ironically, the integrity and transparency of the Clear The Bench Colorado movement to restore accountability to our judiciary contrasts markedly with “the practice of non-disclosure of large donations to judicial campaigns [which] could allow criminals to purchase safe judicial havens” exemplified by the recent formation of the 501(c)4 organization formed by former justice Dubofsky and Democrat lawyer Grueskin to defend incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices in response to the growing momentum and resonance of Clear The Bench Colorado, as that organization does NOT have to disclose sources of funding to the public.  They are completely unaccountable.

Strangely, “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) seems to have no issue with the “expenditure of large sums of money” to influence judicial elections by such anonymous, unaccountable organizations.

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

Coming close on the heels of a spurious “campaign finance complaint” by notorious leftist attack yap dogs “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) against the grassroots judicial accountability organization Clear The Bench Colorado, the announcement this weekend (at the Colorado Bar Association board of governors meeting) of a well-funded group formed specifically to counter the growing momentum and success of Clear The Bench Colorado in raising public awareness of the issue of judicial accountability in Colorado provides a nice ironic twist.

(The COBAR even claimed - with a straight face - to be “neutral” on the Clear The Bench Colorado campaign, despite placing “Item No. 13, [Executive Director] Chuck Turner’s report on the status of the “Clear the Bench” campaign on the agenda.”)  Neutral?  Rrriiiiiiggghhhttt…

The story was broken in an article posted by Law Week Colorado earlier today (”Dubofsky said to plan response to Colo. Judge Non-Retention Campaign“):

Former Colorado Supreme Court Justice Jean Dubofsky and Democratic Party lawyer Mark Grueskin are forming a nonprofit group to educate voters about the judicial performance evaluation process in light of an anti-retention campaigned led by Clear The Bench.

Dubofsky’s and Grueskin’s move to form a 501(c)4 organization was disclosed Saturday at the semi-annual meeting of the Colorado Bar Association board of governors. The name of the group wasn’t revealed.

The formation of this organization is certainly an interesting development in light of the baseless complaint filed by “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) bemoaning the “potentially unlimited funds” that could flow to Clear The Bench Colorado due to the Secretary of State’s office having designated Clear The Bench Colorado as an Issue Committee.

Unlike Issue Committees - which must operate under the disclosure requirements of Colorado campaign finance law, providing transparency of funding and expenditures - the 501(c)4 organization formed by Dubofsky and Democrat lawyer Grueskin does NOT have to disclose sources of funding to the public. They are completely unaccountable.

Will “Colorado Ethics Watch” file a complaint against this shadowy organization for the “corrupting influence” of the huge sums of money it will expend in support of the retention of incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices?

Don’t hold your breath.

“Colorado Ethics Watch”, the “Colorado Independent” (which is an anything but “independent” left-wing propaganda mouthpiece, tasked with providing a veneer of “news” coverage respectability to political spin and mudslinging attacks), and now the latest (as yet un-named) addition of the shadowy Dubofsky/Grueskin Colorado Supreme Court incumbent protection group, are all part of the network of left-wing (”progressive”) organizations known as the “Colorado Democracy Alliance” (CoDA), formed to dominate all aspects of Colorado government. Operating at the edges of public awareness (skirting transparency, public accountability, and the ragged edges of campaign finance and other laws), these groups coordinate their actions towards advancing the “progressive” agenda statewide (with significant success so far; read The Colorado Model (by Fred Barnes) and, more recently, The Blueprint (by former Rep. Rob Witwer & Reporter Adam Schrager) for an analysis of the success of these groups in Colorado - and beyond).

In a way, I suppose it’s flattering - all of these groups and resources (and massive amounts of money) arrayed against little ol’ me: Underdog (er, Clear The Bench Colorado).

Not bird nor plane nor even frog…

Now more than ever - stand with Clear The Bench Colorado in defense of your constitutional rights. Exercise your right to vote “NO” on the 4 ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority” (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home or business from against eminent domain abuse, your right to fair representation in government, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.” Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and your contributions - and exercise your right to vote “NO” on retaining these unjust justices on the bench for another 10-year term!