Although three more vacancies will open on Colorado’s Supreme Court Nominating Commission (along with 42 other vacancies on judicial district nominating commissions across the state) when the terms of several current commissioners expire, the appointment last week of Ira J. Paulin to fill the non-attorney slot from the 4th Congressional District fills the final vacancy before the commission begins reviewing applications (beginning October 3rd) to replace outgoing Justice Alex Martinez, who announced at the end of August that he is resigning to take the job of Denver Manager of Safety.

Another vacancy (the attorney slot from the 7th Congressional District) was recently filled (by joint action of Governor John Hickenlooper, Attorney General John Suthers, and Chief Justice Michael Bender) by Deputy District Attorney Charles Tingle of Jefferson County.

(H/T to Law Week Colorado for covering the news of these recent appointments and profiling the current members of the Commission (”Meet Those Who Will Help Select Colorado’s Next Justice“)

The resignation of Justice Alex Martinez, who was retained in office last November with 59.2% of the vote (the lowest percentage of “retain” votes received by an incumbent supreme court justice in state history) will provide Governor Hickenlooper with his first opportunity to select a state supreme court justice, once the commission pares down the list of applicants to three “finalists” from which he’ll make the final pick.  Governor Hickenlooper’s Colorado Supreme Court appointment will not only provide some insight into the governor’s views on judicial philosophy and the rule of law, but also provide a preview of the likely direction of the state’s highest court.

Will Governor Hickenlooper reinforce the stated desire of new Chief Justice Michael Bender to “de-politicize” the court (responding to criticism of the court’s performance by Clear The Bench Colorado and other observers) or will he succumb to the temptation to place another partisan, activist judge in the mold of disgraced former Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey on the bench?

Only time (and the announcement of the Nominating Commission’s selection of three “finalists”) will tell.

Citizen participation in the judicial nominating commissions (either at the district level or statewide) is essential to ensuring that good judges - who understand that their role is to fairly & impartially uphold and apply the law - are elevated to hold judicial office, instead of more politicians in black robes.

This is particularly important in selecting the next Colorado Supreme Court justices - who all too frequently have exercised unrestrained power in violation of constitutional limits on their authority.

Our judicial system depends more than any other branch of government on public trust and confidence that the law is being applied fairly and impartially for all citizens - that our supreme court justices are fulfilling their proper roles as referees upholding the rules rather than players attempting to score for their “team’s” agenda.

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.

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

The Colorado Reapportionment Commission (charged with drawing our state legislative districts) yesterday (19 September 2011) approved the final set of state legislative district maps for Colorado, having completed two rounds of hearing public testimony (meetings in Denver from 31 May to 25 July, followed by meetings around the state throughout the month of August) and a final commission meeting on 12 September.

The competing plans for put forward for consideration and public review by the major parties (Democrats and Republicans) over the summer were modified significant based on public testimony, but were ultimately all rendered irrelevant by the eleventh-hour introduction of an entirely new set of maps by the commission’s sole unaffiliated member (and chair) Mario Carrera - the maps that were, in the end, approved.

All of the Democrat commissioners joined Carrera in voting for the maps, along with Republican commissioners Gayle Berry, Robert Loevy and Rob Witwer voting yes on the Senate map (Republicans Mario Nicolais and Steve Tool voted no, for a 9-2 vote) and Barry & Loevy again joining Carrera and Democrats in voting yes on the House Map (Republican commissioners Nicolais, Tool and Witwer voted no, for a 8-3 vote).

Earlier today, the Colorado Reapportionment Commission staff issued a release announcing the new maps:

On September 19, 2011, the commission voted to adopt Final Plan Senate 003v1 [Senate map] and Final Plan House 003v1 [House map].   The commission instructed staff to renumber some of the districts.  The commission also authorized staff to make minor technical changes to the plans before the final plans are submitted to the Colorado Supreme Court.  Staff will send out another email once the final plans have been filed with the Colorado Supreme Court.  …

The page also contains a Google Earth map feature allowing the user to zoom in on a particular area of the approved final plans.  For this feature, the user must load the Google Earth application and then download the files of the approved final plans.

The minor technical changes (mostly re-numbering districts) will likely be completed in the next few days, and the maps will be submitted to the Colorado Supreme Court for review of how constitutional criteria have (or have not) been met no later than October 7th.  Legal challenges can (and probably will) be filed with the court once they are submitted for review.  If the Colorado Supreme Court rules that the maps meet Colorado’s constitutional requirements, barring any unresolved legal challenges), the maps will be filed as final with the office of Secretary of State on 14 December.

The following quick-reference summary of constitutional provisions controlling how Colorado’s legislative districts are drawn is provided with a view towards informing public comprehension of what are sure to be both contentious and complex discussions.

Colorado Constitutional Requirements:

• Equal population (with no more than 5% deviation;  ideal district size - Senate: 143, 691, House: 77,372) (Colorado Constitution Article V, Section 46)
• Counties cannot be split unless necessary to achieve equal population between districts

Except when necessary to meet the equal population requirements of section 46, no part of one county shall be added to all or part of another county in forming districts.  Article V, Section 47(2)

• Municipalities may not be split unless necessary to achieve equal population between districts (Article V, Section 47(2))
• Districts must be as compact and contiguous as possible, and consist of whole precincts

(1) Each district shall be as compact in area as possible and the aggregate linear distance of all district boundaries shall be as short as possible. Each district shall consist of contiguous whole general election precincts. Districts of the same house shall not overlap. (Article V, Section 47(1))

• Finally, communities of interest - ethnic, economic, cultural, demographic, trade area and geographic - are to be preserved whenever possible

(3) Consistent with the provisions of this section and section 46 of this article, communities of interest, including ethnic, cultural, economic, trade area, geographic, and demographic factors, shall be preserved within a single district wherever possible. (Article V, Section 47(3))

Note that per a previous Colorado Supreme Court ruling (In re: Reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly), these criteria are listed in order of priority - i.e. there’s a hierarchy of constitutional criteria which must be satisfied in order for district maps to pass constitutional review.

Additional references:

• Additional information is also available on the Reapportionment Commission website.
• Constitutional Provisions Controlling Reapportionment/Redistricting (state website listing relevant legal language on Congressional redistricting & legislative reapportionment)

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

The Colorado Reapportionment Commission (charged with drawing our state legislative districts) votes today on the final set of state legislative district maps for Colorado, having completed two rounds of hearing public testimony (meetings in Denver from 31 May to 25 July, followed by meetings around the state throughout the month of August) at the Legislative Services Building (Hearing Room A) on 200 East 14th Avenue Denver 80203 (located just across the street to the south of the Colorado state Capitol building) starting at 11.  (Click here for meeting agenda)

The final plans for consideration have undergone significant changes in the last week alone; since the commission met last Monday to discuss what were then two competing sets of “semi-finalist” maps (below), the field of potential map finalists has expanded considerably (including revisions to previously introduced maps by both Democrats and Republicans, and the introduction of an entirely new set of maps by the commission’s sole unaffiliated member and chair Mario Carrera).

The most current set of proposed state legislative district maps can be viewed here.

Last week’s proposed State House legislative district maps:

• Semi-Final Statewide House Map (Democrat)
• Semi-Final Statewide House Map (Republican)

Last week’s State Senate legislative district maps:

• Semi-Final Statewide Senate Map (Democrat)
• Semi-Final Statewide Senate Map (Republican)

Following Monday’s meeting, at which the commission will adopt a single set of legislative district maps by majority vote, the commission must submit the final, approved maps to the Colorado Supreme Court for review of constitutionality no later than October 7th.

It is likely that much of Monday’s discussion, and the final vote, will center around how each map meets (or fails to meet) Colorado’s constitutional criteria for drawing state legislative districts.

The following quick-reference summary of constitutional provisions controlling how Colorado’s legislative districts are drawn is provided with a view towards informing public comprehension of what are sure to be both contentious and complex discussions.

Colorado Constitutional Requirements:

• Equal population (with no more than 5% deviation;  ideal district size - Senate: 143, 691, House: 77,372) (Colorado Constitution Article V, Section 46)
• Counties cannot be split unless necessary to achieve equal population between districts

Except when necessary to meet the equal population requirements of section 46, no part of one county shall be added to all or part of another county in forming districts.  Article V, Section 47(2)

• Municipalities may not be split unless necessary to achieve equal population between districts (Article V, Section 47(2))
• Districts must be as compact and contiguous as possible, and consist of whole precincts

(1) Each district shall be as compact in area as possible and the aggregate linear distance of all district boundaries shall be as short as possible. Each district shall consist of contiguous whole general election precincts. Districts of the same house shall not overlap. (Article V, Section 47(1))

• Finally, communities of interest - ethnic, economic, cultural, demographic, trade area and geographic - are to be preserved whenever possible

(3) Consistent with the provisions of this section and section 46 of this article, communities of interest, including ethnic, cultural, economic, trade area, geographic, and demographic factors, shall be preserved within a single district wherever possible. (Article V, Section 47(3))

Note that per a previous Colorado Supreme Court ruling (In re: Reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly), these criteria are listed in order of priority - i.e. there’s a hierarchy of constitutional criteria which must be satisfied in order for legislative districts to pass constitutional review.  Note also that “competitiveness” - however defined - is NOT a constitutional criterion and should not guide the court’s review of the proposed legislative district maps.

Additional references:

• Additional information is also available on the Reapportionment Commission website.
• Constitutional Provisions Controlling Reapportionment/Redistricting (state website listing relevant legal language on Congressional redistricting & legislative reapportionment)

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

The Colorado Judicial Branch, “[o]n behalf of Gov. John Hickenlooper, Attorney General John Suthers and Chief Justice Michael L. Bender,” recently announced “the opening of the application period for 45 vacancies on judicial nominating commissions across the state of Colorado.”  (Colorado Judicial Branch press release, 15 September 2011)

Some positions are open now; the majority of vacancies will occur when current commissioners’ six-year terms end Dec. 31. All commissioners serve as volunteers. Applications are due on or before October 14, 2011.

Under Colorado’s “merit selection and retention” system of filling judicial offices, the judicial nominating commissions - at either the district level, or statewide - represent one of the few opportunities for Colorado citizens to have a say in the composition of our courts.  In essence, the commissions are the means by which Citizens can become involved in choosing our judges.

At the district level (Colorado is divided into 22 judicial districts),

Each judicial district nominating commission consists of seven citizens residing in that judicial district. No more than four members can be from the same political party, and there must be at least one voting member from each county in the district. [Source: Colorado State Courts,  Judicial Nominating Commissions]

At the statewide level (including both the Colorado Supreme Court and Court of Appeals),

The Supreme Court Nominating Commission recommends candidates to serve as judges for the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. The chief justice of the Supreme Court chairs the commission and is a non-voting member. This commission includes one citizen admitted to practice law in Colorado and one citizen not admitted to practice law residing in each of the state’s seven congressional districts, and one additional citizen not admitted to practice law in Colorado.  [Total of 15 commissioners] (Source: Judicial Nominating Commissions)

According to the state courts website (Judicial Nominating Commissions), there is one current vacancy on the Supreme Court Nominating Commission (a non-attorney who must reside in the 4th Congressional District); another position until recently vacant was filled with Jeffco Chief Deputy DA Charles Tingle (a Republican) for the 7th Congressional District attorney slot.  An additional 3 seats on the commission (one attorney, from the 5th Congressional District, and a non-attorney each from the 2nd and 7th Congressional Districts) are opening when the currently serving commissioners (all Republicans) term expires.  All commissioners serve as volunteers. Applications are due on or before October 14, 2011.

UPDATE: Law Week Colorado profiles the current members of the Supreme Court Nominating Commission (”Meet Those Who Will Help Select Colorado’s Next Justice“)

(For a full list of district commission openings, view the Judicial Nominating Commissions and scroll to the bottom)

From the press release:

Application forms for vacancies on the various commissions may be found on the Colorado Judicial Department web site at http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Nominating.cfm. Completed application forms may be mailed to Romaine Pacheco, Governor’s Office of Boards and Commissions, 136 State Capitol Bldg., Denver, CO 80203.  They also may be faxed to 303-866-6368 or sent by e-mail to boards@state.co.us.

Article VI, Section 24 of the Colorado Constitution requires that for any nominating commission, “no more than one-half of the commission members plus one, exclusive of the Supreme Court justice serving as ex officio chair, shall be members of the same political party.” The Constitution also requires that at least one commissioner reside in each of the counties of the district. Applicants must reside in the judicial district - or, for the Supreme Court Nominating Commission, the Congressional District - to which they are applying for appointment.

Citizen participation in the judicial nominating commissions (either at the district level or statewide) is essential to ensuring that good judges - who understand that their role is to fairly and impartially uphold and apply the law - are elevated to hold judicial office, instead of more politicians in black robes.

This is particularly important in selecting the next Colorado Supreme Court justices - who all too frequently have exercised unrestrained power in violation of constitutional limits on their authority.

Our judicial system depends more than any other branch of government on public trust and confidence that the law is being applied fairly and impartially for all citizens - that our supreme court justices are fulfilling their proper roles as referees upholding the rules rather than players attempting to score for their “team’s” agenda.

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.

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

The Lobato v. Colorado school funding lawsuit concluded its fifth and final week in trial court in Denver last Friday - with plaintiffs seeking

billions of dollars of additional funding for schools, though it’s unclear where that extra money would come from. (Denver Post, “Colorado school funding trial enters likely final week“)

This educational-funding lawsuit (seeking to force even higher state educational spending by court order) represents yet another abuse of the courts for the pursuit of political ends - unfortunately aided and abetted by an all-too-complicit (and highly political) majority on the Colorado Supreme Court, which previously (October 2009) overturned two lower courts which had (correctly) dismissed the case (Lobato v. Colorado) as non-justiciable (meaning, a policy issue not to be decided by the courts).

Plaintiffs scored a major victory when Denver District Judge Sheila Rappaport ruled to exclude evidence on the state’s budget and fiscal situation, as well as evidence on relevant constitutional provisions including the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) and the Gallagher Amendment (restricting property tax collections).

According to an article in last weekend’s Pueblo Chieftain (”State’s pocketbook won’t figure in schools suit“),

Kathy Gebhardt, a lawyer for plaintiffs in Lobato v. the state of Colorado, told the education collective Colorado School Finance Project on Friday that exclusion of evidence related to the state’s budget condition was a key victory for her side in five-week trial that concluded last week.

Gebhardt said her legal team filed the motion “thinking that we probably had a 5 or 10 percent chance of winning on that, and we won, which pretty much I think gutted a big part of the state’s defense.”

In lawsuits challenging the adequacy of school funding in other states, plaintiffs rarely have sought similar rulings.

Although Judge Rappaport “does not expect to rule on the case for at least another month” the preliminary rulings do not bode well for the state, which “cannot afford to lose.”

A court ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could not only precipitate a constitutional crisis, but lead to a fiscal and budgetary train wreck of epic proportions.  Indeed, as Governor Hickenlooper correctly points out, the consequences for Colorado would be “devastating.”

If the courts are able to decide “the future of public education” by judicial fiat, Colorado citizens will have lost all control and accountability over our schools.

The issue of educational funding is NOT one for the courts, but rather for the legislature and/or local school boards. The Lobato lawsuit is a fiscal, legal, and political disaster in the making.

Read more about the Lobato school funding case in these recent articles:

• “Lobato case primer” (Education News Colorado, 11 August 2011)
• “Lobato lawsuit unfounded” (Denver Post, 11 August 2011)
• “In Lobato, might high court issue a ruling it can’t enforce?” (Colorado News Agency, 11 August 2011)

These cases highlight the importance of fair and impartial courts and of judges who exercise proper restraint (in accordance with the rule of law) in considering - let alone deciding - issues of policy more appropriate for the elected, representative branches of government.  Our courts have an important - even vital - role to play in our society and system of government.  This is not it.

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

The Colorado Reapportionment Commission (charged with drawing our state legislative districts) has completed the semi-final set of legislative district maps for Colorado, having heard public testimony in meetings around the state throughout the month of August, and will be discussing competing versions for both state House and state Senate legislative districts in hearings today, at the Legislative Services Building (Hearing Room A) on 200 East 14th Avenue Denver 80203 (located just across the street to the south of the Colorado state Capitol building) starting at 11.  (Click here for meeting agenda)

The maps are only semi-final at this stage because the commission’s membership is split nearly equally between Republican and Democrat appointments (5 each) with an unaffiliated chair, Mario Carrera, as the 11th (and frequently tie-breaking) member, and each side has submitted their own version of a proposed “final” map (one each for House and Senate state legislative districts) which will be discussed in the Monday meeting.

Colorado’s state legislative district map semi-finalists:

State House legislative districts:

• Final Statewide House Map (Democrat)
• Final Statewide House Map (Republican)

State Senate legislative districts:

• Final Statewide Senate Map (Democrat)
• Final Statewide Senate Map (Republican)

Following Monday’s meeting, at which these maps will be discussed, the commission will have one more week to make any final adjustments to “tweak” the maps before holding a final vote at another public meeting next Monday, the 19th.  The commission must submit the final, approved maps to the Colorado Supreme Court for review of constitutionality no later than October 7th.

It is likely that much of Monday’s discussion, and next Monday’s final vote, will center around how each map meets (or fails to meet) Colorado’s constitutional criteria for drawing state legislative district boundaries.

The following quick-reference summary of constitutional provisions controlling how Colorado’s legislative districts are drawn is provided with a view towards informing public comprehension of what are sure to be both contentious and complex discussions.

Colorado Constitutional Requirements:

• Equal population (with no more than 5% deviation;  ideal district size - Senate: 143, 691, House: 77,372) (Colorado Constitution Article V, Section 46)
• Counties cannot be split unless necessary to achieve equal population between districts

Except when necessary to meet the equal population requirements of section 46, no part of one county shall be added to all or part of another county in forming districts.  Article V, Section 47(2)

• Municipalities may not be split unless necessary to achieve equal population between districts (Article V, Section 47(2))
• Districts must be as compact and contiguous as possible, and consist of whole precincts

(1) Each district shall be as compact in area as possible and the aggregate linear distance of all district boundaries shall be as short as possible. Each district shall consist of contiguous whole general election precincts. Districts of the same house shall not overlap. (Article V, Section 47(1))

• Finally, communities of interest - ethnic, economic, cultural, demographic, trade area and geographic - are to be preserved whenever possible

(3) Consistent with the provisions of this section and section 46 of this article, communities of interest, including ethnic, cultural, economic, trade area, geographic, and demographic factors, shall be preserved within a single district wherever possible. (Article V, Section 47(3))

Note that per a previous Colorado Supreme Court ruling (In re: Reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly), these criteria are listed in order of priority - i.e. there’s a hierarchy of constitutional criteria which must be satisfied in order for legislative districts to pass constitutional review.

Additional references:

• Additional information is also available on the Reapportionment Commission website.
• Constitutional Provisions Controlling Reapportionment/Redistricting (state website listing relevant legal language on Congressional redistricting & state legislative reapportionment)

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

“It is Tuesday morning, the 11th of September… and you will not forget this date.”
(TV reporter, unknown, reporting from NYC as events unfolded on the morning of 9/11…)

10 years ago today, the most horrific attack ever carried out on American soil claimed the lives of thousands of Americans, making clear that “there’ll be no shelter here - front lines are everywhere.”

Looking back, it occurred to me that I’ve since spent most anniversaries of that fateful Tuesday morning - forever burned into the American psyche as, simply, 9/11 - on duty away from home.

2002: Afghanistan; 2003: Fort Benning, Georgia; 2005: Operation Katrina (hurricane disaster relief/recovery operations); 2006: Fort Bragg, North Carolina; 2009: Camp Williams, Utah; and now this year, 2011: Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania.

My experience in this regard is hardly unique - indeed, I’ve spent less time on duty away from home than many others who proudly wear the uniform - a mere token of service willingly rendered in defense of our nation, and the Constitution we are sworn to support and defend.

Sadly, many of the men and women in uniform serving on that day and since - military, NYC Police & Port Authority, and FDNY - are not “invited” to the 10th anniversary of 9/11 at Ground Zero ’due to “lack of room”. Funny - they weren’t “invited” on that fateful day in 2001 either - they just “showed up” and did what needed to be done.

However, America isn’t about the politicians, officials, and various muckety-mucks who’ll be pontificating at that “official” event and others.

America is about the brave people - often bearing only the proud title of “Citizen” - who just “show up” to do what needs doing.

Defending the Constitution - Why 9/11 still matters today (10 years later)

Clear The Bench Colorado joins millions of Americans across the country in somber remembrance of the 9/11 attacks on our nation.

What does this have to do with holding our Colorado Supreme Court justices accountable to the rule of law and the Colorado Constitution?  Quite a lot, actually…

As a proud veteran of the U.S. military (including service in the Colorado Army National Guard), I take my oath of enlistment - “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of Colorado [emphasis added] against all enemies, foreign and domestic”  - seriously; very seriously.

Many of our elected (and unelected) officials seem to have a much more cavalier attitude towards their own oath of office.

Colorado Supreme Court justices also swear a similar oath on taking office, which begins:
“I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Colorado.”

Note that the judicial oath of office does not state “I will support only those parts of the Constitution that I like or with which I personally agree or empathize.”

Yet the Mullarkey Court has consistently ruled against the Colorado Constitution’s Article X, Section 20 (TABOR) in every case it has heard - despite the clear intent and letter of the law that “[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government.”

The Mullarkey Majority (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) are oathbreakers - and dishonor the service of the men and women of the United States military and law enforcement agencies who put their lives on the line to support and defend our Constitution.  They have proven themselves unworthy of the high office they occupy.

Another important lesson of 9/11 is that individuals matter - and fighting to defend your rights, and your lives, is the only way to preserve your rights (and your life, in extremis) when under attack.  The true heroes of that day were not only the firefighters but also the ordinary citizens who acted to save lives - and the brave passengers on Flight 93 who fought back against the hijackers on the 4th plane and died not as victims, but as American heroes.

We can no longer be under any illusion - as the passengers on Flight 93 discovered - that our rights and lives are NOT under attack; we are threatened by enemies both foreign and domestic.   The nature of the threat (and appropriate response) is different, but the need to take action, to defend your rights - remains the same.

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

The Colorado Reapportionment Commission (charged with drawing our state legislative districts) has completed the final set of preliminary legislative district maps for Colorado, having heard public testimony in meetings in Denver from 31 May to 25 July and bringing the maps to a vote in committee.

This week, the commission wraps up its road show, traveling around the state to solicit additional public testimony and feedback on the preliminary legislative district maps, with hearings in Greeley (Aug 29th), Castle Rock (Aug 30th), back in Denver (Aug 31st), and Broomfield (Sept 1st).

(Details on meeting times and locations available here)

The preliminary state legislative district maps approved by the Colorado Reapportionment Commission may be viewed in their entirety via the following links:

Statewide House district maps (overview and detail)

Statewide Senate district maps (overview and detail)

The point of testifying before the commission in these public hearings is both to sway the voting members of the commission to alter the preliminary maps due to prevailing sentiment on how people in a given area wish to be represented, and to build the record for the Colorado Supreme Court’s review of the constitutionality of the adopted maps.

The following quick-reference summary of constitutional provisions controlling how Colorado’s legislative districts are drawn is provided with a view towards informing public testimony - remember to keep your testimony succinct and know your facts to be more effective.

Colorado Constitutional Requirements:

• Equal population (with no more than 5% deviation;  ideal district size - Senate: 143, 691, House: 77,372) (Colorado Constitution Article V, Section 46)
• Counties cannot be split unless necessary to achieve equal population between districts

Except when necessary to meet the equal population requirements of section 46, no part of one county shall be added to all or part of another county in forming districts.  Article V, Section 47(2)

• Municipalities may not be split unless necessary to achieve equal population between districts (Article V, Section 47(2))
• Districts must be as compact and contiguous as possible, and consist of whole precincts

(1) Each district shall be as compact in area as possible and the aggregate linear distance of all district boundaries shall be as short as possible. Each district shall consist of contiguous whole general election precincts. Districts of the same house shall not overlap. (Article V, Section 47(1))

• Finally, communities of interest - ethnic, economic, cultural, demographic, trade area and geographic - are to be preserved whenever possible

(3) Consistent with the provisions of this section and section 46 of this article, communities of interest, including ethnic, cultural, economic, trade area, geographic, and demographic factors, shall be preserved within a single district wherever possible. (Article V, Section 47(3))

Note that per a previous Colorado Supreme Court ruling (In re: Reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly), these criteria are listed in order of priority - i.e. there’s a hierarchy of constitutional criteria which must be satisfied in order for legislative districts to pass constitutional review.

Additional references:

• Additional information is also available on the Reapportionment Commission website.
• Constitutional Provisions Controlling Reapportionment/Redistricting (state website listing relevant legal language on Congressional redistricting & state legislative reapportionment)

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

The Lobato v. Colorado school funding lawsuit enters its fifth and (likely) final week in trial court in Denver this Monday - with plaintiffs seeking

billions of dollars of additional funding for schools, though it’s unclear where that extra money would come from. (Denver Post, “Colorado school funding trial enters likely final week“)

This educational-funding lawsuit (seeking to force even higher state educational spending by court order) represents yet another abuse of the courts for the pursuit of political ends - unfortunately aided and abetted by an all-too-complicit (and highly political) majority on the Colorado Supreme Court, which previously (October 2009) overturned two lower courts which had (correctly) dismissed the case (Lobato v. Colorado) as non-justiciable (meaning, a policy issue not to be decided by the courts).

Despite the lack of correlation between spending and performance - and despite the failure of court-imposed school funding increases in several states (including Colorado neighbors Kansas and Wyoming) to achieve increased school performance, despite revenue and spending increases -

In Colorado, where per-pupil spending was $8,782 in 2008-09, students often outperformed students in Wyoming, where funding - following a school finance lawsuit - was $14,268 per pupil.

plaintiffs continue to seek additional money that the state simply does not have.  A court ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could not only precipitate a constitutional crisis, but lead to a fiscal and budgetary train wreck of epic proportions.  Indeed, as Governor Hickenlooper correctly points out, the consequences for Colorado would be “devastating.”

If the courts are able to decide “the future of public education” by judicial fiat, Colorado citizens will have lost all control and accountability over our schools.

The issue of educational funding is NOT one for the courts, but rather for the legislature and/or local school boards. The Lobato lawsuit is a fiscal, legal, and political disaster in the making.

Read more about the Lobato school funding case in these recent articles:

• “Lobato case primer” (Education News Colorado, 11 August 2011)
• “Lobato lawsuit unfounded” (Denver Post, 11 August 2011)
• “In Lobato, might high court issue a ruling it can’t enforce?” (Colorado News Agency, 11 August 2011)

These cases highlight the importance of fair and impartial courts and of judges who exercise proper restraint (in accordance with the rule of law) in considering - let alone deciding - issues of policy more appropriate for the elected, representative branches of government.  Our courts have an important - even vital - role to play in our society and system of government.  This is not it.

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

Wednesday’s surprise announcement by Colorado Supreme Court Justice Alex Martinez that he intends to resign from the bench (in order to become Denver Manager of Safety) brings renewed focus to the judicial selection and retention system in Colorado.  Unlike other states, many of which either elect judges or appoint them without any form of popular accountability, Colorado’s mixed system of appointment and accountability via retention elections is not well understood by the general public.

Misconceptions, misunderstanding, and misinformation about the process for selecting the judicial branch officeholders in Colorado is (unfortunately) all too common. Part of Clear The Bench Colorado’s mission is to contribute to informing the electorate about their constitutional rights to hold the judiciary accountable via the retention election process, and the process for selecting replacements for outgoing judges.  Since We The People do not vote for their replacements, who gets to decide?

Unfortunately, most Colorado citizens know more about the process of picking the Pope than about how our state selects nominees for 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’).

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?“) last year; this article is an updated version, incorporating insights gained from discussions with former Nominating Commission members.

How Colorado selects individuals for judicial office:

Under the Colorado Constitution, Article VI (Judiciary), Section 20:

First, although the governor has the final say in the process (making the final pick), he does not have an entirely free hand.  Unlike the process for selecting Federal judges, there is NO role under Colorado’s “merit selection” process for the legislative branch to provide a check or balance to executive power via “advice and consent.”  The legislature does not weigh in on the process in any formal or legal way (although individual legislators may make their thoughts known to the governor, who has the final say).

Instead, the “front-end” check is provided by an appointed Judicial Nominating Commission, as described in this entry in the Judgepedia website:

The Supreme Court Nominating Commission recommends candidates to serve as judges for the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. The chief justice of the Supreme Court chairs the commission and is a non-voting member. This commission includes one citizen admitted to practice law in Colorado and one citizen not admitted to practice law residing in each of the state’s seven congressional districts, and one additional citizen not admitted to practice law in Colorado.^[1]

Commission members serve six-year terms. Non-lawyers, who are the majority of every nominating commission, are appointed by the governor. Lawyer members are appointed by joint action of the governor, attorney general, and chief justice.

Not noted in the Judgepedia article, but specified under the constitutional language (Article VI, Section 24 Judicial nominating commissions) is a requirement for some partisan balance on the commission:

(2) The supreme court nominating commission shall consist of the chief justice or acting chief justice of the supreme court, ex officio, who shall act as chairman and shall have no vote, one citizen admitted to practice law before the courts of this state and one other citizen not admitted to practice law in the courts of this state residing in each congressional district in the state, and one additional citizen not admitted to practice law in the courts of this state. No more than one half of the commission members plus one, exclusive of the chief justice, shall be members of the same political party.

The commission has 30 days from when the vacancy is announced to meet, review applications, conduct interviews, and select three finalists to submit to the governor, who then has 15 days to make a selection (if the governor fails to make a pick, then the Chief Justice selects instead).

Newly appointed justices “shall hold office for a provisional term of two years and then until the second Tuesday in January following the next general election” after which they enjoy 10-year terms:

Section 7. Term of office. The full term of office of justices of the supreme court shall be ten years.

By the Numbers: How the Judicial Selection Process actually 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, summary of relevant professional experience, and references).
2. Commission members review the applications, and select from the total list (last 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 his/her 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).

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.

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.

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.