judicial performance evaluation
Hickenlooper appoints Navarro to Colorado Court of Appeals
The second time was the charm for Anthony Navarro, who was just appointed to the Colorado Court of Appeals by Governor John Hickenlooper to replace outgoing Judge Robert Russel, a former contender for Colorado Supreme Court justice (Navarro had previously applied for consideration to join the state’s frontline appellate court in 2008, with the endorsement of the Colorado Hispanic Bar Association).
Governor Hickenlooper selected Navarro from a pool of 3 nominees (Robert T. Fishman of Denver, Russell H. Granger of Georgetown, and Anthony Navarro of Denver) picked by the State Judicial Nominating Commission last month.
Mr. Navarro (effective 3 November, Judge Navarro) will serve as one of 22 judges on the Colorado Court of Appeals (who rule on cases in 3-judge panels). His first term (considered a “provisional” term under the Colorado Constitution, Article VI Section 20) “expires” in 2014, when he will appear on the ballot for a “retention” vote:
A justice or judge appointed under the provisions of this section shall hold office for a provisional term of two years and then until the second Tuesday in January following the next general election.
Citizen participation in the judicial review and retention election process (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 – hold judicial office, instead of more politicians in black robes.
This is particularly important in reviewing the performance of statewide appellate court judges – many of whom all too frequently have exercised unrestrained power, in violation of constitutional limits on their authority, in order to advance a personal and/or political agenda.
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 judges are fulfilling their proper roles as referees upholding the rules rather than players attempting to score for their “team’s” agenda.
Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts. We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.
However, we can’t do it alone – we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions. Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.
Ultimately, though – it’s worth the effort.
Colorado judges seeking retention in office 2012
This week, the Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation (COJPE) released the names of those Colorado judges seeking to be retained in office (subject to voter approval) in 2012.
This year, the number of those judges seeking voter approval for another term (10, 8, 6, or 4 years depending on the level of court) is down slightly from last year. Colorado judges seeking retention in 2012 (appearing on the November general election ballot with a “Yes” or “No” vote option) are:
- 1 Supreme Court Justice
- 6 Court of Appeals judges
- 83 District & County judges
(View the comprehensive list of Colorado judges seeking to be retained in office in 2012)
The Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation (COJPE) simultaneously published the “judicial performance evaluations” (based predominantly on surveys of attorneys and other parties appearing before each judge). As usual, almost all of the judges “evaluated” received a “Retain” recommendation from the respective review commission (the single exception being a county judge in El Paso County,
4th Judicial District – who was given a “Do Not Retain” recommendation based on “Demeanor”).
Unfortunately, the survey methodology employed by the Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation and the resultant 5-paragraph “Judicial Performance Review” narratives fail to provide substantive information on which to base an informed decision on “should they stay or should they go.” (See: Evaluating the Performance of Justices, Denver Post Guest Commentary by former State Judicial Performance Commissioner William M. Banta, for a critique of JPE relevance and effectiveness)
For example, in the case of the single judge receiving a “Do Not Retain” recommendation this year, based predominantly on attorney responses to surveys: was the judge’s courtroom “demeanor” truly disrespectful and lacking in neutrality, or is she a “no-nonsense judge who follows the letter of the law… [who acts to] incarcerate dangerous drunk drivers for the protection of the public”? Are the “surveys” reliable, or the result of manipulation by disgruntled attorneys? Unfortunately, it’s difficult to tell from the data presented in the “judicial performance review” narratives.
Our View:
Colorado voters deserve better – a broader, more substantive evaluation based on “relevant, substantive and vigorous information” about how (and whether) the judge upholds the rule of law.
Most importantly, Colorado voters should receive information from a variety of truly independent sources. The quasi-official, government-appointed Commissions on Judicial Performance Evaluation are inherently prone to political bias, conflicts of interest (attorneys practicing before the very judges they “evaluate”) and groupthink. Most dangerously, in publishing and distributing (at taxpayer expense) a “recommendation” on judicial retention, these commissions represent the government telling the public how to vote on another branch of government – completely undermining the independent accountability mechanism at the heart of Colorado’s “merit selection & retention” system for the courts.
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.
Arapahoe County Court (18th Judicial District) Judge Nominees biographies released for public review
The names and short bios of 3 nominees to replace outgoing Arapahoe County Judge Valeria Spencer (resigning effective 10 August) have been released for public review and comment.
Public comments must be received no later than 20 August 2012 to be considered; submit comments via E-mail (subject: “Arapahoe County Court, Eighteenth Judicial District: Judicial Nominees”) to: judicial.appointments@state.co.us
As published in Law Week Online, the names of (and summary information on) the nominees are as follows:
The 18th Judicial District Nominating Commission named three candidates for a district court judgeship created by the resignation of Judge Valeria Spencer, effective Aug. 10, 2012. Nominees M. Paula Ashen of Centennial, Stephen Hensen of Littleton, and Theresa Slade of Elizabeth were selected by the commission on Aug. 6, 2012.
According to the State Supreme Court’s website, Ashen is a sole practitioner in Greenwood Village; Hensen practices with Murphy Decker Hensen & Cook-Olson; and Slade is a magistrate in the 18th Judicial District.
As required under the Colorado Constitution (Article VI, Section 20), vacancies for judicial office are filled by the governor from a list of nominees selected by the relevant judicial nominating commission (Colorado Constitution, Article VI, Section 24).
The Judicial Nominating Commissions – established by constitutional amendment in 1966 as a replacement for direct, contested elections of judges – are responsible for reviewing applications (and interviewing applicants) for those wishing to become judges under Colorado’s selection/retention system. As such, they are the first line of “vetting” prospective judicial officeholders – selecting nominees (usually a list of 3 names) from whom the governor picks to make the final appointment.
Unlike on the judicial review commissions – which are often heavily biased and politically unbalanced – there is a legal requirement for partisan balance on the nominating commissions: no more than 7 (at the statewide level) or 4 (at the judicial district level) may be registered as members of the same political party (there is no restriction on ideological leaning for unaffiliated or minor-party members), and at nominees for judicial office must receive at least one vote from commission members of a different party.
Once the nominating commissions have submitted their list of nominees to the governor,
The governor must select one of the nominees within 15 days after receiving the list of nominees. If the governor does not appoint someone within those 15 days, then the chief justice of the Colorado Supreme Court appoints one of those individuals to fill that vacancy. The judge so chosen serves an initial term of two years. The judge must then stand for retention at the next general election.
If retained by voters after serving an initial two-year term, state court judges serve the following terms: county court, four years; district court, six years; Court of Appeals, eight years; and Supreme Court, 10 years. All Colorado state judges must retire by age 72.
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 judicial office, instead of more politicians in black robes.
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.
Montrose County Court (7th Judicial District) Judge Nominees biographies released for public review
The names and short bios of 3 nominees to replace outgoing Montrose County Judge Jerry Montgomery (who resigned last month) have been released by the governor’s office for public review and comment.
Public comments must be received no later than 3PM on 2 August 2012 to be considered; submit comments via E-mail (subject line “Montrose County Court, Seventh Judicial District: Judicial Nominees”) to: judicial.appointments@state.co.us
As published in Law Week Online, the names (and short bios) of the nominees are as follows:
Bennet Morris:
Bennet Morris currently works as the Senior Assistant City Attorney for the city of Montrose. A position he has held since 2003. In his position Mr. Morris provides a range of legal advice to the City Council, senior staff, the Planning Commission, and other city boards. Prior to his work at the City Attorney’s Office Mr. Morris worked as an indemnity and claims evaluator at the Land Title Guarantee Company. As the examiner, Mr. Morris preformed chain of title searches and examined lender short form files. Mr. Morris received his undergraduate degree from the University of Cincinnati in 1997 and earned his Juris Doctorate from the University of Idaho in 2001.
Seth Ryan:
Seth Ryan currently works as the Deputy District Attorney in the Seventh Judicial District, a position he has held since 2007. Prior to his work at the District Attorney’s Office Mr. Ryan worked as a solo practitioner where he focused on real estate transactions and litigation, as a special assistant for the Jefferson County Attorney’s Office, and as corporate counsel for Swinging Door Liquors. Mr. Ryan received his undergraduate degree from Metropolitan State College in 1994, and earned his Juris Doctorate from the University of Denver in 1997.
Jason Wilson:
Jason Williams currently works as the Deputy District Attorney for the Seventh Judicial District, a position he has held since 2011. As Deputy District Attorney, Mr. Wilson focuses on misdemeanor criminal cases in the Montrose County Court. Prior to his time as Deputy District Attorney, Mr. Wilson worked for Delman & Hotsenpiller, a small general practice firm focusing on civil and criminal litigation. Mr. Williams received his undergraduate degree from Colorado State University in 1993, and he earned his Juris Doctorate from the Willamette School of Law in 1999.
As required under the Colorado Constitution (Article VI, Section 20), vacancies for judicial office are filled by the governor from a list of nominees selected by a judicial nominating commission (Colorado Constitution, Article VI, Section 24).
The Judicial Nominating Commissions – established by constitutional amendment in 1966 as a replacement for direct, contested elections of judges – are responsible for reviewing applications (and interviewing applicants) for those wishing to become judges under Colorado’s selection/retention system. As such, they are the first line of “vetting” prospective judicial officeholders – selecting nominees (usually a list of 3 names) from whom the governor picks to make the final appointment.
Unlike on the judicial review commissions – which are often heavily biased and politically unbalanced – there is a legal requirement for partisan balance on the nominating commissions: no more than 7 (at the statewide level) or 4 (at the judicial district level) may be registered as members of the same political party (there is no restriction on ideological leaning for unaffiliated or minor-party members), and at nominees for judicial office must receive at least one vote from commission members of a different party.
Once the nominating commissions have submitted their list of nominees to the governor,
The governor must select one of the nominees within 15 days after receiving the list of nominees. If the governor does not appoint someone within those 15 days, then the chief justice of the Colorado Supreme Court appoints one of those individuals to fill that vacancy. The judge so chosen serves an initial term of two years. The judge must then stand for retention at the next general election.
If retained by voters after serving an initial two-year term, state court judges serve the following terms: county court, four years; district court, six years; Court of Appeals, eight years; and Supreme Court, 10 years. All Colorado state judges must retire by age 72.
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 judicial office, instead of more politicians in black robes.
Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts. We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.
However, we can’t do it alone – we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions. Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.
Ultimately, though – it’s worth the effort.
Colorado Governor fills Judicial Nominating Commissions
Colorado’s Governor filled vacancies on Colorado’s statewide and 3rd Judicial District Judicial Nominating Commissions earlier this week.
According to information released by the governor’s office,
The 3rd Judicial District Judicial Nominating Commission selects nominees for district and county judicial vacancies. The commission is chaired by a justice of the Supreme Court, who is a non-voting member of the commission and consists of seven citizens residing in that judicial district. The members appointed for terms expiring Dec. 31, 2017:
- James S. Colt of Trinidad, to serve as a non-attorney and as a Republican member from Las Animas County.
- Raymond M. McMillan of Trinidad, to serve as a non-attorney and as a Democrat member from Las Animas County.
- Sisto J. Mazza of Trinidad, to serve as an attorney and as a Democrat member from Las Animas County.
The Supreme Court Judicial 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. The member appointed for a term expiring Dec. 31, 2017:
- Scott C. Johnson of Greeley, to serve as an attorney and as an Unaffiliated member from the 4thCongressional District.
The Judicial Nominating Commissions – established by constitutional amendment in 1966 as a replacement for direct, contested elections of judges – are responsible for reviewing applications (and interviewing applicants) for those wishing to become judges under Colorado’s selection/retention system. As such, they are the first line of “vetting” prospective judicial officeholders – selecting nominees (2 or 3, depending on the level of court) from whom the governor picks to make the final appointment.
The Supreme Court Judicial Nominating Commission – which recommends candidates to serve as judges for the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals – consists of 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, for a total of 15 members. The commissioners serve 6-year terms.
Unlike on the judicial review commissions – which are often heavily biased and politically unbalanced – there is a legal requirement for partisan balance on the nominating commissions: no more than 7 (at the statewide level) or 4 (at the judicial district level) may be registered as members of the same political party (there is no restriction on ideological leaning for unaffiliated or minor-party members), and at nominees for judicial office must receive at least one vote from commission members of a different party.
Once the nominating commissions have submitted their list of nominees to the governor,
The governor must select one of the nominees within 15 days after receiving the list of nominees. If the governor does not appoint someone within those 15 days, then the chief justice of the Colorado Supreme Court appoints one of those individuals to fill that vacancy. The judge so chosen serves an initial term of two years. The judge must then stand for retention at the next general election.
If retained by voters after serving an initial two-year term, state court judges serve the following terms: county court, four years; district court, six years; Court of Appeals, eight years; and Supreme Court, 10 years. All Colorado state judges must retire by age 72.
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.
Friday Funnies – Sarcastic Supremes, and a “Cat Tax” upheld
“If we couldn’t laugh, we would all go insane.” Jimmy Buffet
Nowhere is this more true than dealing with Colorado’s consistently confusing and often arbitrary legal system and out-of-control judiciary – where the ruling majority on the Colorado Supreme Court recognizes no constitutional constraints, no limits to its untrammeled authority, no checks or balances to its power – in their view, the law means “just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.” This “Through the Looking Glass” worldview has precious little in common with the justices’ sworn duty to uphold the rule of law – and support (not dismantle) the Constitution.
Although remaining mindful of what’s at stake – holding our judiciary accountable for serial violations of our constitutional rights (to vote on taxes, even when taxes are called “fees”; keep your own property; bear arms in self-defense; and almost too many others to list); highlighting the judiciary’s dominant role in drawing up state legislative and congressional districts; and upholding the integrity of the judicial retention election process against the consortium of legal-establishment special-interest groups who attempted (and may have succeeded in) buying the election for their buddies on the bench in violation of Colorado campaign finance law – is serious business, all work and no play makes Matty a dull boy.
So – scouring the internet so you don’t have to – Clear The Bench Colorado presents another edition of the Friday Funnies.
From the reliably humorous (if often irreverent) Cracked magazine (online) comes the following list of “5 Awesomely Sarcastic Supreme Court Decisions“:
5. Bertman v. Kirsch (1964) – dealing with government shenanigans concerning notice of appeal (the government filed a notice of appeal late on the due date, leaving respondent no time to file a response within the statutory deadline). What makes it funny? The Supreme Court justice invoking Superman:
“I am aware of the argument that an able, alert, ever-diligent lawyer could have, had he tried hard enough, discovered that the Government had appealed — even in the closing hours of the sixtieth day. I do not doubt that had Bertman’s counsel been Superman, his X-ray eyes would have told him that a notice of appeal was being filed blocks away in the courthouse, or had he been a lawyer with no clients but Bertman he could have spent the sixtieth day hovering at the clerk’s office to see whether the Government would file a notice of appeal. But Bertman’s counsel (so far as the record shows) is not Superman, nor should the law expect him to be.”
4. PGA Tour v. Martin (2001) – in which a golfer sues to be able to use a golf cart instead of walking, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). What makes it funny? Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court’s funniest judge (as confirmed by a scientific study) waxes poetic on the “awesome responsibility… of determining the nature of golf.”
“We Justices must confront what is indeed an awesome responsibility. It has been rendered the solemn duty of the Supreme Court of the United States … to decide What Is Golf. I am sure that the Framers of the Constitution … fully expected that sooner or later the paths of golf and government, the law and the links, would once again cross, and that the judges of this august Court would some day have to wrestle with that age-old jurisprudential question, for which their years of study in the law have so well prepared them: Is someone riding around a golf course from shot to shot really a golfer? Either out of humility or out of self-respect (one or the other) the Court should decline to answer this incredibly difficult and incredibly silly question.”
(Scalia’s scathing wit highlights a basic fact: some issues are not – or should not be – justiciable; a fact acknowledged, in dissent, by a Colorado Supreme Court justice in the Lobato school funding case).
3. Pottawatomie School Board v. Earls (2002) – in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld drug testing for ALL extracurricular school activities (including the marching band and chess club). Why is this funny? Seriously – the chess club on crack? Band geeks blowing bongs? Freaked-out Future Farmers?
Notwithstanding nightmarish images of out-of-control flatware, livestock run amok, and colliding tubas disturbing the peace and quiet of Tecumseh, the great majority of students the School District seeks to test in truth are engaged in activities that are not safety sensitive to an unusual degree.”
2. Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus (1987) – in which the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that (Surprise!) that “a resolution banning all ‘First Amendment activities’ at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) violates the First Amendment.” Why is this funny? It’s not, really – except that the Los Angeles Airport Commissioners actually argued otherwise with a straight face.
1. Kyles v. Whitney (1995) – in which defense attorneys argued that testimony of four witnesses against a convicted murderer should be thrown out because “all clearly saw his face but hadn’t all agreed on his exact height and build. Why? One of them had seen Kyles only after he got into his getaway car.” Why is this funny? Once again, it’s the Supreme Court’s funniest justice (Scalia) bringing on the humor with a ‘Lone Ranger’ reference (a metaphorical “silver bullet”, if you will):
To assert that unhesitant and categorical identification by four witnesses who viewed the killer, close-up and with the sun high in the sky, would not eliminate reasonable doubt if it were based only on facial characteristics, and not on height and build, is quite simply absurd. Facial features are the primary means by which human beings recognize one another. That is why … bank robbers wear stockings over their faces instead of floor-length capes over their shoulders; it is why the Lone Ranger wears a mask instead of a poncho; and it is why a criminal defense lawyer who seeks to destroy an identifying witness by asking ‘You admit that you saw only the killer’s face?’ will be laughed out of the courtroom.”
Finally, demonstrating that government’s claim to authority to tax every living creature earning a living is quite literal comes this story of a court upholding the power to impose an occupational tax – on a cat.
Yes, that’s right – in the 1982 case of Blackie the talking cat (Miles v. City Council, 1982), the courts upheld the authority of the city of Augusta, Georgia to “impose an “occupation tax” on the plaintiffs [Blackie and his human "guardians"].
Sadly, judicial abuses of your constitutional rights are no laughing matter. 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 unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts. We will continue to work with legislators and others interested in reforming the systemic shortcomings of Colorado’s “merit selection & retention” judicial review process to increase transparency and accountability to the public, and to provide substantive and useful 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.
Friday Funnies: …and a Leftist Judiciary!
Welcome to the 2010 Christmas edition of the Clear The Bench Colorado Friday Funnies!
In all of the tumult, toil, and trouble of the weeks leading up to the 2010 judicial retention elections (and in the weeks following), Clear The Bench Colorado has been far too serious, falling short in our mission to amuse, in addition to our successful mission to educate & inform (as 9News reporter Adam Schrager recently commented at a forum evaluating this year’s election coverage, “the information was there if voters chose to get it” (referring in particular to Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold’s appearance on the Your Show television program) and CTBC’s Evaluations of Judicial Performance. Sadly, it’s been almost three months since the last edition of the CTBC Friday Funnies!
Although remaining mindful of what’s at stake – holding our judiciary accountable for serial violations of our constitutional rights (to vote on taxes, even when taxes are called “fees”; keep our own property; bear arms in self-defense; and almost too many others to list); highlighting the judiciary’s dominant role in drawing up state legislative and congressional districts; and upholding the integrity of the judicial retention election process against the consortium of legal-establishment special-interest groups who attempted (and may have succeeded in) buying the election for their buddies on the bench in violation of Colorado campaign finance law – is serious business, all work and no play makes Matty a dull boy.
While receiving the news earlier this week that “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) was again ordered to pay Clear The Bench Colorado thousands of $ in legal fees (owed since the judge’s original ruling in July found their complaint “frivolous, groundless, and vexatious”) brought a smile, the following video clip (although targeting the national level) elicited a hearty laugh:
…and a Leftist Judiciary!
While still afflicted with the (black-robed) ghosts of Christmas past in our Christmas present, we can still act to save our Christmas future. Continue to support Clear The Bench Colorado with comments (Sound Off!) and contributions. Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.
Ultimately, though – it’s worth the effort.
Colorado Supreme Court ruling produces plaintiff windfall
Last week’s Colorado Supreme Court ruling in the Volunteers of America v. Gardenswartz case created a windfall win for personal injury trial lawyers (the “ambulance-chaser” set) and incidentally, some of the clients they represent, in collecting damage reimbursements above and beyond amounts actually paid.
The Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority” (yes, Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey wrote the opinion, in what may be her last parting shot at the Colorado Constitution and the rule of law) in a 4-3 decision (joined by usual suspects Michael Bender, Greg Hobbs and Alex Martinez forming the hard core of the “make it up as we go along” crowd) overturned both a lower court and clear statutory language (13-21-111.6. Civil actions – reduction of damages for payment from collateral source) limiting double-dipping damage recovery.
In plain language, the court ruled that plaintiffs (and their lawyers, who typically collect about a third or more of the total “recovered damages”) are entitled to the amount of medical costs originally billed, even if subsequent bargaining or other arrangements reduces the amount actually paid.
As commented in former State Treasurer Mark Hillman’s blog article (“Phantom damages defy law, common sense“), which was also published in today’s Denver Post (as “Damages ruling illogical“):
As Justice Nancy Rice noted in her dissent, the majority fortified its opinion by selectively misquoting a key co-sponsor of the bill, Sen. Al Mieklejohn, who argued, “I don’t think a person ought to collect more than once . . . for hospital costs and things like that.”
Mieklejohn argued that the victim’s insurer should “be allowed to collect” from the at-fault party “to get their money back.” That is, the insurer should be allowed to recover the costs it actually paid. Nowhere did the legislature suggest that the victim had a legitimate claim to a greater amount simply by virtue of buying insurance.
The dissenters, also including justices Allison Eid and Nathan Coats, noted that the majority’s opinion is contrary to “the legislature’s clear intent, the statute’s plain language and sound public policy.”
Why should you care?
Those of us with respect for the rule of law as a matter of principle are outraged at yet another blatant example of judicial “legislating from the bench” in overturning clear statutory language to achieve a desired outcome.
Those of us who believe in a truly independent judiciary free from conflict of interest and potential quid pro quo corruption are concerned that this ruling, by handing over a windfall to the trial lawyers who supported the incumbent judicial majority in retaining office (violating Colorado campaign finance law in the process), further undermines confidence in the courts and the rule of law in our state by raising a perception of potential legal-judicial collusion and quid pro quo corruption).
ALL of us who might receive medical care at some point in our lives (particularly those of us who actually bother to pay for medical insurance) should be concerned about the ruling’s impact on insurance costs (they’ll be going up) and enhanced potential for abusive lawsuits (they’ll increase).
Colorado’s out-of-control state supreme court continues to cost our populace millions (from upholding unconstitutional tax increases, re-defining other tax increases as “fees”, abuse of property rights, and now one more example of civil tort abuse run amok).
Unfortunately, Colorado voters failed to take advantage of their once-in-a-decade opportunity to hold these particular ‘unjust justices’ accountable for the actions – but the fight to reform Colorado’s corrupt legal/judicial complex continues. 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 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.
Judicial Performance Review Commission charged with bias
In a development which should come as no shock to astute observers of Colorado’s “judicial merit selection and retention” system, the state’s 10th Judicial District performance review commission has been charged with bias in conducting “reviews” of judges in the district, as reported in a Pueblo Chieftain newspaper article (“Officials stand behind performance commission“) earlier this week.
Also unsurprisingly, as reported in the same story,
The powerful entities atop state government that appointed members of the 10th Judicial District judicial performance commission are standing behind their appointees…
Who are the “powerful entities” in question?
House Speaker Terrance Carroll, D-Denver, appointed Karn. Outgoing Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey appointed Naranjo and Esquibel. Senate President Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont, appointed Vigil.
The 10th Judicial Commission members in question – all Democrats, appointed by Democrats (including Mullarkey) voted to recommend against retention for Judge Jill Mattoon (a Republican, although appointed by Democrat Governor Bill Ritter – who has actually appointed several good judges).
Although it is possible that “There is no reason to believe that this recommendation was the result of anything but the conscientious work and sound judgment of the commission as a whole,” there is conversely no reason not to believe otherwise. Without evidence either way, it’s a matter of dueling opinions.
Since the deliberations of the commission, and basis for their recommendation, are not transparent to the public, suspicions of partisan or institutional bias (in addition to being Democrats, the commissioners in question “have or have had ties to the public defender’s office and another is a criminal defense lawyer”) have been raised by numerous individuals – including Judge Mattoon herself (who, incidentally, was retained in office).
Overall, the “judicial performance review commissions” (at both the district and state level) demonstrate a consistent ‘pro-incumbent’ (pro-”retain”) bias; over the entire history of the existence of the “review” commissions, only 16 judges have EVER been recommended for a “do not retain” vote (that’s an endorsement of over 99% for judicial incumbents), ALL at the district level or below. At the state level, the commission has recommended to “retain” the incumbent every single time they’ve issued a review (a 100% “retain” recommendation that would make even Fidel Castro or Saddam Hussein envious).
Allegations of bias have been raised in nearly every instance in which the commissions have issued a “do not retain” recommendation.
The main problem with the judicial performance review commissions is a lack of transparency and accountability along with a lack of substantive, documented evaluation. Voters are simply urged to accept at face value whatever recommendations the commissions put forth, without any insight into the process or possible bias of any commissioners (indeed, most often lacking any substantive information whatsoever on which to base an informed decision).
Clear The Bench Colorado has long been critical of the lack of substantive information provided by the “Judicial Performance Review” commissions (c.f. Accountability, Transparency apply to the Colorado Supreme Court, too) as have other independent analysts (for example, this article published by the Denver Post, “Evaluating the performance of justices“, back in February).
Colorado Citizens deserve better. Most importantly, Clear The Bench Colorado agrees with critics of the commission “reviews” (see “Judging Colorado’s Supreme Court justices” letter to the editor) that voters need “relevant, substantive and vigorous information” – based on “the written decisions of the court” – in order to make an informed decision on whether to retain, or NOT to retain, judges (at all levels) on the ballot.
Perhaps it’s time for the legislature – or citizen initiative – to address much-needed system reform in our judiciary.
The fight to reform Colorado’s corrupt legal/judicial complex continues. 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 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.