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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Restoring Accountability and Transparency to Colorado Courts -

Why Citizen participation in judicial selection and retention is vitally necessary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The common theme in critiques of the “Missouri Plan” system of “merit selection & retention” is the lack of transparency in commission deliberations (both during front-end judicial selection, and in back-end judicial performance review and retention) and lack of meaningful opportunity for public participation and comment.  This lack of transparency leads to a lack of public confidence in our judiciary and ultimately to a lack of accountability for the increasingly active and powerful Third Branch of our government.  Our judicial system depends more than any other branch of government on public trust and confidence that the law is being applied fairly and impartially for all citizens - that our supreme court justices are fulfilling their proper roles as referees upholding the rules rather than players attempting to score for their “team’s” agenda.  In sports, referees who violate the rules and demonstrate a consistent bias for one team lose their jobs.  In government, because Colorado Supreme Court justices wield so much power, the stakes are much more important than an athletic contest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” - Abraham Lincoln

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clear The Bench Colorado wins!

Yes, it’s still more than three months until the judicial retention elections in November, when Colorado citizens will be able to exercise their right to vote “NO” on the three remaining ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s incumbent ‘Mullarkey Majority’ who have declared their intent to allow themselves to be held accountable (minus, of course, Chief Justice Mullarkey herself, who last month announced her intent to retire rather than be held accountable by voters in the November elections).

Earlier today, however, Clear The Bench Colorado won a stunning victory when Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer not only dismissed the frivolous, groundless, and vexatious “complaint” by self-proclaimed watchdog (actually, attack dog) “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) - which we have been predicting for weeks - but also ordered CEW to pay ‘tens of thousands’ in attorney’s fees to Clear The Bench Colorado because the complaint was so completely without merit.  Face The State broke the story earlier today (”Self-styled ethics watchdog ordered to pay ‘tens of thousands’ to judicial-reform campaign“):

For the second time in its four-year history, the group Colorado Ethics Watch has watched one of its trademark ethics complaints backfire after it was ordered to pay attorneys’ fees to one of its targets. An administrative law judge today threw out the group’s claims against Clear The Bench Colorado, an issue committee that seeks to oust three state Supreme Court justices on this November’s ballot.

The monumental nature of Clear The Bench Colorado’s victory in this case - particularly the award of attorney’s fees - is difficult to overstate.  It is rare (indeed, almost unheard of - though not totally unprecedented) for attorney’s fees to be awarded to the defendant in this type of case, as Face The State had pointed out in an earlier article (”Judicial-reform group lashes back at ‘frivolous, groundless’ complaint“):

Attorneys fees are awarded sparingly by Colorado judges, largely because those requesting the sanction must prove opposing counsel pursued legal action knowing they had little chance of prevailing or failed to do basic research before filing.

The award indicates that the judge not only thought that CEW’s case (or “complaint”) was bad - he thought it was SO bad that he took the unusual step of slapping CEW with the entire bill (which, as noted, runs into the ‘tens of thousands’).

CEW’s attacks against Clear The Bench Colorado fit an ongoing pattern of unsuccessful, politically motivated “ethics” complaints designed to distract, disorient, and sling mud in the (vain) hope that something might stick.  Ultimately, they don’t care if they win or lose the case (their lopsided loss-win ratio bears this out), since their priorities are (1) smear, (2) frame the media debate and gain attention, (3) divert resources & attention, (4) intimidate, and (5) maybe (if they get lucky) occasionally win a case.  As many publications noted at the time, CEW’s attack was just another cheap political stunt.  Even the Secretary of State’s office called CEW Director Toro’s statements “disingenuous” (which is a polite way of saying, ‘lying through your teeth’).

Sadly, “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) doesn’t seem to know when to quit.  Even after being definitively slapped down, CEW Director Luis Toro announced his intent to file an amended or “supplemental” complaint and continue CEW’s harassment of the judicial accountability group Clear The Bench Colorado.  And why not?  It’s not as if they’re spending their own money - not only are they well-funded by Colorado’s own “4 horsemen” - multi-billionaire activists Tim Gill, Jared Polis, Rutt Bridges, and Pat Stryker (as documented in the excellent book  The Blueprint by former Rep. Rob Witwer & 9News Reporter Adam Schrager) but also by their parent organization in Washington D.C. (with a reported 2008 revenue of $1.35M - that’s million).  That’s if they’re even spending money at all - apparently Toro’s co-attorney (Aaron Goldhamer of Sherman & Howard, LLC) is working the case pro bono (donating his time, and the firm’s resources, for free).  Perhaps Sherman & Howard clients might wish to ask about how their money is being spent?

Even with all that money, power, and legal talent (when mentioning “talent”, I’m talking about Goldhamer, and other attorneys working behind the scenes - not Toro, who’s pretty much a legal hack, not even capable of doing the most basic legal research before attacking) lined up against Clear The Bench Colorado -  we still win!

Comes from doing the right thing (as previously noted, CTBC registered in a timely manner, fulfilling all reporting requirements, in accordance with the Secretary of State’s guidance and established campaign finance regulations and procedures) - but still, score one for the underdog!

It should come as no surprise that the allies of those on the courts abusing the constitutional rights of Colorado citizens would themselves attempt to abuse the courts to achieve their goals.  What may have come as a surprise to CEW is that this time, the good guys fought back - effectively.

Fortunately, they can be stopped - by citizens with the courage to fight back.  Show your support today - stand up to unethical attorneys and sleazy solicitors, and contribute to help provide the resources for Clear The Bench Colorado to prevail against what are ultimately attacks on YOUR freedom.  Also, since sweet success is the best revenge - spread the word about why the four (er, three remaining) incumbent justices of the Mullarkey Majority (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and soon to be minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) deserve a “NO” vote in November (and why CEW has been sicced on Clear The Bench Colorado to cover for special interests who benefit from keeping them on the bench).  Remember, they 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!

All Colorado Supreme Court justices with terms ending in January who are not named Mary Mullarkey are officially running in November’s retention election.

Today’s Law Week Colorado broke the news that the roster of ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority” (minus, of course, Chief Justice Mullarkey herself, who last month announced her intent to retire rather than be held accountable by voters in the November elections) seeking retention in office for another 10-year term on the bench is now complete. Incumbent Colorado Supreme Court Justice Alex Martinez joined his colleagues (incumbent Justice Nancy Rice, who filed the week before last, and incumbent Justice Michael Bender, who filed at the end of May) in seeking voter approval for another ten years with which to further erode the constitutional rights of Colorado citizens.

The Colorado Supreme Court exercises enormous power over our lives - and in the case of these three incumbents, has consistently wielded this power at our expense.  The current majority has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not exercise its power with restraint or respect for your constitutional rights - repeatedly ruling against individual protections, growing the government’s ability to take away from citizens.  Upholding tax increases (such as the “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” property tax increase, or the “Dirty Dozen” new tax laws) imposed without the constitutionally required vote of the people, enabling taxes to be collected under the guise of “fees” (such as the Colorado Car Tax), expanding eminent domain abuse to seize people’s property, and grabbing the (legislative) power to draw up voting districts (aided by the recent “Mary-mandering” bill) - these Colorado Supreme Court incumbents are acting like rulers, with you as the subjects; re-writing the laws, instead of upholding them.

Fortunately, in Colorado, we retain the right of refusing to retain these ‘unjust justices’ in office; we can prevent them from taking away our rights with the stroke of a pen, by exercising our own rights with the push of a button.

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

The politically motivated attack (er, “complaint”) by complaint factory “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) against Clear The Bench Colorado reached a new low this week when CEW (pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) Director Luis Toro attempted to file a subpoena (appearance to testify) for a date on which he knew in advance of filing that the subject (Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold) would be unavailable due to performance of military service out of state.  Such behavior is utterly despicable and beneath contempt - and may constitute harassment and breach of legal ethical standards.

How did CEW (pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) Director Luis Toro know this in advance of filing?  Simple - because we told him, at the conclusion of nearly three hours of being harangued in a deposition this Monday (mentioning that I would be out of town the following week for my annual military training obligation).  Toro’s co-counsel Aaron Goldhamer (of Sherman & Howard, LLC) graciously expressed his thanks for my service, while Toro was conspicuously silent (apparently, my hearing was insufficiently acute to pick up on the gears grinding behind his beady little eyes as he devised his next opportunity for harassment).

For those of our readers who have never experienced the dubious pleasure of being the subject of a legal ‘deposition’ (hopefully most of you), allow me to briefly describe the process (somewhat akin to an EPW interrogation, but without forced sleep deprivation (other than any prep time) or stress positions, (other than wearing a coat & tie).

Like an interrogator, the opposing attorney gets to ask all the questions.  Often the attorney will ask the same question, repeatedly (perhaps changing the phrasing, or putting it in a different context) in an attempt to catch (or create) an inconsistency in the response.  The respondent is not allowed to challenge the line of questioning, or ask “why do you want to know?” (although the respondent’s attorney may raise objections as to relevance and scope of particular questions or line of argument).  Also like an interrogation, the respondent can be compelled to answer (albeit by legal, rather than physical, force).

Going through CEW’s interrogation (er, deposition) was an interesting experience. CEW (pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) Director Luis Toro did indeed spend a lot of time asking questions to which he already knew (or had previously received) the answer; over the course of the deposition, his frustration with my consistent responses (including documented references) became increasingly apparent.  Toro then resorted to the ol’ “restate the answer the way I want it” game (”So what you said was X” when the actual statement was Y or Z).  I called him on this trick on several occasions and stated my objections to his attempts to put (false) words in my mouth (wonder how Toro’s tactics will sit with the judge reviewing the transcript?). Toro also attempted on several occasions to “go fish” for information outside the scope of what was allowable in the deposition. When he did, my attorney (I have possibly the best campaign law attorney team in the state - Scott Gessler and Mario Nicolais - in my corner) challenged Toro, who backed down each time he was invited to “call the judge” to resolve the dispute. (In poker, that’s referred to as “calling his bluff”).

The bigger picture here, however, is the abuse of campaign finance rules and regulations via suits and “complaints” by a secretly funded attack group (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do), unaccountable to the public, with a pattern of filing frivolous, groundless, and vexatious lawsuits and “complaints” against grassroots groups and citizen initiatives in an attempt to deny popular participation in civic activity.  Attacks such as these - abusing the courts and the legal “complaint” process to drive up the cost of civic participation - further tilts the balance in favor of entrenched big-money interests and violates the constitutional rights of citizens to exercise free speech (particularly in the political arena, where those protections are most precious).

CEW’s attacks against Clear The Bench Colorado fit an ongoing pattern of unsuccessful, politically motivated “ethics” complaints designed to distract, disorient, and sling mud in the (vain) hope that something might stick.  Ultimately, they don’t care if they win or lose the case (their lopsided loss-win ratio bears this out), since their priorities are (1) smear, (2) frame the media debate and gain attention, (3) divert resources & attention, (4) intimidate, and (5) maybe (if they get lucky) occasionally win a case.  As many publications noted at the time, CEW’s attack was just another cheap political stunt.  Even the Secretary of State’s office called CEW Director Toro’s statements “disingenuous” (which is a polite way of saying, ‘lying through your teeth’).

So why is “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) still in business, despite their abysmal success rate in winning judgments? Shouldn’t they have run out of (other peoples) money by now?

Not when the “other people” funding CEW (pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) include multi-billionaire activists Tim Gill, Pat Stryker, Jared Polis, and Rutt Bridges - facilitated by political operatives Al Yates and Mark Grueskin - and a host of other well-heeled  attorneys and politically-connected powerhouses who’s identities are kept secret because CEW won’t open their financial records to public scrutiny (in contrast to the open financial records of citizen-led accountability efforts such as Clear The Bench Colorado). Operating at the edges of public awareness (skirting transparency, public accountability, and the ragged edges of campaign finance and other laws), groups like CEW (pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) 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 & 9News Reporter Adam Schrager) for an analysis of the success of these groups in Colorado - and beyond).

Unfortunately, even when they lose, they win - by tying up time & talent, diverting resources, and discouraging honest people from participation in the civic arena.  Groups such as the grossly misnamed “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) are a blight on the body politic, an insult to everyone who believes that citizens should be able to speak freely.

Fortunately, they can be stopped - by citizens with the courage to fight back.  Show your support today - stand up to unethical attorneys and sleazy solicitors, and contribute to help provide the resources for Clear The Bench Colorado to prevail against what are ultimately attacks on YOUR freedom.  Also, since sweet success is the best revenge - spread the word about why the four (er, three remaining) incumbent justices of the Mullarkey Majority (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and soon to be minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) deserve a “NO” vote in November (and why CEW has been sicced on Clear The Bench Colorado to cover for special interests who benefit from keeping them on the bench).  Remember, they 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!

Media coverage of the issues of judicial retention (both the performance review process and the upcoming November elections) and the process for reviewing and nominating applicants for judicial appointments (particularly for the Colorado Supreme Court opening created by Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey’s announcement of her intent to retire rather than be held accountable by voters in the November elections) has picked up considerably following the Denver Post’s recent publication of our response (“Demand accountability from judges, too”) to an earlier article bemoaning critiques of the courts (“Criticism of retiring Judge (sic) Mullarkey unfair”).

The Denver Post kicked off the week by acknowledging in print for the first time since February (”Four Colorado Supreme Court justices face a tough vote in elections“) that “four state Supreme Court justices [may not] survive an attempt to remove them from the bench this election” - and obliquely credited Clear The Bench Colorado with raising awareness of the issue:

This election, the group Clear the Bench Colorado is advocating voters reject all four Supreme Court justices up for retention because of rulings it believes are unconstitutional.

(Technically, only three Colorado Supreme Court justices are likely to be subject to a retention vote following Chief Justice Mullarkey’s announced intent to retire, but we’re not going to quibble).  The Denver Post story was also picked up by a number of media outlets across the state, both print and online.

Throughout the week, Law Week Colorado reported on a seeming epidemic of judges at various levels who have announced their intent to leave office rather than stand for retention this year - beginning with Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Sean Connelly (after only 2 years on the bench), followed by Larimer County Court judge Cynthia M. Hartman (also after only 2 years in office) joining the earlier announced retirement of Douglas County Court judge Michelle Ann Marker, bringing the number of announced retirements to four total (including Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey).  Although four announced retirements in one cycle may not seem to indicate an avalanche of impending judicial vacancies, the pace and timing of the announcements has struck several seasoned observers of the Colorado judiciary as unusual.

Curiously enough, embattled former prosecutors (and current Larimer County District Court judges) Jolene Blair and Terrence Gilmore have NOT elected to leave office, filing paperwork last week declaring intent to run for retention, and will face the voters in November.  Likewise, Colorado Supreme Court Justice Nancy Rice also announced (today) her intent to seek retention in office for another 10-year term.

Another national observer of legal news and affairs (Chicago-based Legal Newsline, a self-described “Internet-based newswire dedicated to 24/7 coverage of state supreme courts and state attorneys general”) joined in with coverage of the upcoming Colorado Supreme Court retention elections from afar (”Group wants lineup of Colorado Supreme Court radically changed“) - demonstrating the national scope of interest in the issue.  (Not to mention that Clear The Bench Colorado has been on the radar of the left-wing Huffington Post and the George Soros funded and “progressively” oriented ‘Justice At Stake’ group for several months already).

Finally, an analyst critiquing a column in yesterday’s Boulder Daily Camera (“Gunning for Guns” by Mike Ellis), which at least presented a defense of constitutional rights by someone admittedly “nervous around guns,” correctly points out (as we have indicated numerous times) that the campus gun bans at Colorado State University and the University of Colorado are matters of state law involving concealed carry (NOT, strictly speaking, 2nd Amendment issues, even following the McDonald v. Chicago “incorporation” decision) and therefore subject to ultimate decision by the Colorado Supreme Court (and not the Supreme Court of the United States).  Lose these cases here in Colorado, and you’ve lost for good.  The commenter notes:

People on both sides of the gun rights/gun control debate (and even people who aren’t particularly interested in the gun rights/gun control debate) need to be clear on what the Supreme Court’s incorporation of the Second Amendment does and doesn’t mean.  In many ways, what it does mean is something that must now be sorted out by the lower courts.  But what it doesn’t mean is very clear-it doesn’t mean that all restrictions on the possession of firearms are now null and void.

The Colorado Supreme Court may very well rule against CU’s gun ban, but it won’t be on the basis of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; it’ll be on the basis of Colorado state law.

Indeed, a large number of issues are “sorted out” by state-level courts (far more than ever ultimately make it to the Supreme Court of the United States). The Colorado Supreme Court - and particularly, the Chief Justice - exercises enormous power (”clout”) over the lives of Colorado citizens.  The current majority has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not exercise this power with restraint or consideration for your constitutional rights - ruling consistently against individual protections and in favor of expanded government power.  Upholding tax increases (such as the “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” property tax increase, or the “Dirty Dozen” new tax laws) imposed without the required vote of the people, enabling taxes to be collected under the guise of “fees” (such as the Colorado Car Tax), expanding eminent domain abuse to seize people’s property, and grabbing the (legislative) power to draw up voting districts (aided by the recent “Mary-mandering” bill) - this court is acting like rulers, with you as the subjects; re-writing the laws, instead of upholding them.

Be a citizen, not a subject - 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!

The politically motivated attack (er, “complaint”) by leftist lawsuit machine “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) against Clear The Bench Colorado hit a snag this week when the administrative law judge refused to hear CEW’s motion for summary judgement in isolation (which was an underhanded move by CEW attempting to put only their side of the story before the judge).

Instead, both CEW’s motion and the Clear The Bench Colorado cross motion for summary judgement (used, as in this case, “where no genuine issues of material fact exist and the the moving party is entitled to judgement as a matter of law”) will be considered together, one argument set against the other.  (For those interested in the legalese, the competing motions - along with a brief synopsis - were published by Law Week Colorado Wednesday, “Clear The Bench Asks Judge To Dismiss Complaint“).

Caught flatfooted, CEW has asked for an additional 10 days to prepare their response, and has also requested to “depose” (basically, question or interview) Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold as well.  Since the facts of the case are not in dispute, CEW’s request for deposition is obviously just a “fishing expedition” for more information and another attempt to waste my time - no problem, I’ll be sure to charge them my full billable rate for however much time they consume.

Yesterday’s Face The State profiled the case and provides an excellent overview and context of the complaint, our response, the perspective of the Secretary of State’s office, and the record of “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) of filing (and frequently losing) attacks disguised as “ethics” complaints.  The article (”Judicial-reform group lashes back at ‘frivolous, groundless’ complaint“) notes that Clear The Bench Colorado has scrupulously followed all campaign finance rules, regulations, and guidance issued by the Secretary of State’s office, citing in our defense

memos dated over a year ago from the Secretary of State’s Office that advised the group to file as an issues committee. CEW alleges judges standing for retention are similar to candidates seeking elected office; but the Secretary of State and CTBC agreed since the voters are asked a yes or no question on keeping a judge, retention is a political issue, not a contested election involving candidates. The motion for dismissal says Ethics Watch pursued the complaint entirely for political gain and to gin up bad press, with a disregard for the law and the facts.

“[Ethics Watch] absolutely didn’t do any homework, and that’s why we’re asking for sanctions,” said attorney Mario Nicolais, who represents Clear The Bench. “There are very basic things you have to do as a lawyer before you file a complaint.”

As previously noted, the Secretary of State’s office slammed CEW’s complaint and CEW Director Luis Toro as “disingenuous” (basically, a polite way of saying “lying through your teeth”) since they were well aware of the fact that Clear The Bench Colorado had been ruled an Issue Committee (not, as CEW would prefer, a “political” committee subject to much more stringent fundraising limitations), confirming

Ethics Watch had a seat at the table throughout the summer, including at meetings where judicial retention committees were discussed. “Either Toro just plain forgot about this advisory panel meeting or he’s being disingenuous in his comments because Ethics Watch was represented at [the June 18, 2009] meeting and participated in this discussion.”

So why - when CEW clearly knows better that the law is not on their side - file the complaint at all?

“They’re using a lawsuit as an offensive weapon against Clear The Bench Colorado to drain their resources, to tie them up in court, to divert them,” [CTBC attorney] Nicolais said.

Hmmm… sounds pretty much ‘frivolous, groundless, and vexatious’ to me.  Will the judge agree?

Attorneys fees are awarded sparingly by Colorado judges, largely because those requesting the sanction must prove opposing counsel pursued legal action knowing they had little chance of prevailing or failed to do basic research before filing. Nicolais believes those criteria are met here.

If the administrative judge does order Ethics Watch to pay up, it wouldn’t be the first time: In 2007, CEW, then operating as Colorado Citizens for Ethics in Government, was ordered to pay attorneys fees to the Committee for the American Dream as a result of filing what the court called “groundless” litigation. In that case, as is alleged in the current complaint against Clear The Bench, the judge concluded CCEG “engaged in no other pre-filing investigation” than a cursory review of online records. The judge rebuked CCEG attorney Chantell Taylor for filing the bare-bones complaint in hopes she would uncover additional evidence in depositions and discovery. The fees were awarded “in the absence of any evidence to support CCEG’s key allegations.”

Will history repeat itself?  We think it might - stay tuned for breaking developments!

Meanwhile - Colorado voters can prepare to make their own history this November.  Inform yourself about why the four (er, three remaining) incumbent justices of the Mullarkey Majority (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and soon to be minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) deserve a “NO” vote in November (and why CEW has been sicced on Clear The Bench Colorado to cover for special interests who benefit from keeping them on the bench).  Remember, they 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!

Media coverage of the pending opening  on the Colorado Supreme Court (due to Justice Mary Mullarkey’s announcement of her intent to retire rather than be held accountable by voters in the November elections) along with more coverage of Chief Justice Mullarkey as she begins a “farewell tour” (and the role of the judicial accountability movement spearheaded by Clear The Bench Colorado in precipitating that tour) continued over the last week.

Handicapping the list of potential replacements for the opening that will be created by Chief Justice Mullarkey’s announced retirement (which is set to go into effect November 30th), Law Week Colorado has set up a “justice tracker” listing potential applicants to become the next Colorado Supreme Court justice.  As of press time, the latest updates to the list include some current judges on the Colorado Court of Appeals, some lower court judges, a pair of district attorneys, a law professor, attorneys in private practice, and even a former state representative.

Chief Justice Mullarkey’s “farewell tour” kicked off with an appearance on Colorado Public Radio on Wednesday.  Law Week also published a synopsis (Chief Justice Gives Radio Interview On Retirement, Controversial Cases), which is revealing for showcasing the disdain displayed by the Chief Justice towards an otherwise friendly interviewer who dared question her ruling in the “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” case:

The conversation turned to the controversial 5-2 “mill-levy freeze” decision that Mullarkey authored last year, creating a few moments of tension.

Warner: Would you tell me just a little bit about that decision, for which the court came under some criticism?

Mullarkey: What we were doing there was construing a statute that had been passed by the General Assembly and signed by the governor. So we were construing a law and the question was whether that was consistent with the state constitution.

Warner: And specifically TABOR, the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.

Mullarkey: And what it amounted to was a change in the state law in the way that property taxes had been administered, particularly with respect to the schools. The choice and the change in law was made by the legislature, and the question was whether they could make that change. And we said that they could, that they had the discretion to decide to make that change in the law.

Warner: Without a vote of the people.

Mullarkey: That’s what representative government is: you vote for those legislators and they made that change.

Warner: Well let me say this: without a vote under TABOR.

Mullarkey: Well, I guess.

Warner: And you felt that that was within their discretion?

Mullarkey: Of course.

Warner: You didn’t see that, for example, as a new tax?

Mullarkey: It wasn’t a tax. I really don’t want to… I mean if this is the way you want to do the interview, let’s just end it now. I don’t want to get into an argument about this.

Warner: Oh, not at all - I’m just interested in the philosophy behind it.

Mullarkey: Well, it’s pretty simple. The question was whether the statute that was passed was valid, whether the legislature had the ability to pass the statute that they did, and we thought they did. That’s about it.

The tone of her reply to being questioned can only be fully appreciated by listening to the audio.

Chief Justice Mullarkey also neatly sidestepped the host’s question about the impact of Clear The Bench Colorado on her decision to retire rather than be held accountable by voters in the upcoming elections:

She was also asked about the Clear the Bench Colorado campaign, which urges voters to vote against Mullarkey and Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice.

Warner: There’s a movement afoot called Clear the Bench, and they have a campaign not to retain you on the court and other members of the state Supreme Court. Did that affect your decision to step down?

Mullarkey: I just decided to retire. And that’s just a simple decision. I’m 66 years old and I wanted to do all the things a retired person does.

A substantial majority of press coverage in the week following the Chief Justice’s announcement that she intended to retire would indicate that the decision was at least influenced, if not precipitated outright, by the “tough vote” facing her (and the remaining 3 justices subject to a non-retention vote) in November to retain her office.

Another article of interest appeared in the Pueblo Chieftain (”House, Senate Lines up for grabs again“), discussing the impact of Chief Justice Mullarkey’s impending retirement on the critical issue of the reapportionment of Colorado’s legislative districts.  The article does a superb job of explaining the process and timelines for creating the 11-member Reapportionment Commission, and notes that the next Chief Justice will have the decisive “final four” appointments who will determine how Colorado’s districts are drawn up (and how you will be represented in the General Assembly) for the next decade.

The next chief justice of the Colorado Supreme Court will be determined by the majority on the court following Mullarkey’s retirement - which further underlines the importance of the need to finish the job and Clear The Bench, Colorado! 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, 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!

Last week, Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey - facing a “tough fight” to retain her office in the upcoming retention elections this November - announced that she intended to retire, effective November 30th, rather than be held accountable by a vote of the people.

Yesterday’s Law Week Colorado online (which has done a generally excellent job of covering the story) commented on the curious choice of November 30th as an effective retirement date (”Chief Justice’s Nov. 30 Final Day?  It’s Still A Mystery“):

Colorado’s retiring chief justice picked Nov. 30 for her final day in office instead of during the court’s current summer hiatus or at the constitutionally mandated end of her current term in early January 2011. But she’s not saying why.

“The chief justice has nothing to add beyond what she discussed at the news conference,” courts spokesman Rob McCallum said in an e-mail this week to Law Week Colorado.

Mullarkey did not submit a resignation letter at the time of last week’s announcement, McCallum clarified. She merely publicly stated her decision not to file a “Declaration of Intent to Run for Retention,” which must be filed by early August. Ordinarily, a decision not to file would trigger an early January departure, but McCallum indicated, “She will submit a retirement letter indicating that she will step down Nov. 30.”

A Mystery? Clear The Bench Colorado immediately put a crack investigative crew on the case:

Searching for clues

Our intrepid sleuths got right to work; reading the rest of the Law Week article, they discovered:

A departure during the mid-summer [or] anytime during the fall would enable current Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter to designate her successor. If she chose to step down in December, there’s a greater chance that the state’s merit-selection process would throw the selection to Ritter’s successor.

A CLUE!

Could it be that Chief Justice Mullarkey’s choice of retirement date was (gasp!) motivated by politics?

Perhaps she wished to ensure that her successor would be appointed by fellow lame-duck Democrat Governor Ritter?

Hot on the trail, the sleuths investigated further:

Since Chief Justice Mullarkey sidestepped the constitutional process by which vacancies are created via judicial retention elections (under Article VI, Section 25 of the Colorado Constitution) by choosing to retire instead of facing the voters, how does the process work for retirement, instead?

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

(1) A vacancy in any judicial office in any court of record shall be filled by appointment of the governor, from a list of three nominees for the supreme court…  The list shall be submitted by the nominating commission not later than thirty days after..  retirement

Mystery Solved!

Chief Justice Mullarkey chose to retire, and picked the Nov. 30 date, in order to ensure that fellow Democrat Gov. Ritter (and not Ritter’s successor, whoever that may be) would select her replacement. Case closed!

“I would have gotten away with it, too - if it hadn’t been for those meddling kids and their dog!”

Chief Justice Mullarkey’s announced retirement does not change the fact that We The People retain the right to Clear the Bench - we can still exercise our 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, 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.”  Continue 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!