Clear The Bench Colorado and this year’s Colorado judicial retention elections - along with the subsequent selection of Justice Michael Bender (who was retained in office with the lowest percentage approval in state history) as the next Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court - continue to garner significant media coverage in the weeks following this year’s historic elections.

Numerous articles across the country continue to weigh in on the subject of judicial retention elections in general, with mention of the successful effort to oust incumbent state supreme court justices in Iowa and coverage of other statewide efforts which fell short (including our neighbor to the east, Kansas, and of course in Colorado).

Many of the articles note that this year’s judicial retention elections may be the harbinger of a real paradigm shift in how the public views judges on the ballot, with a growing movement to hold judges - particularly the more politicized and politically-active state supreme court justices - accountable.

Clear The Bench Colorado noted several of the relevant articles in our Post-Election Media Review post just after the elections, and in our last week’s post (”A New Era for Judicial Retention Elections?“) and most recently “A Tale of Three States” (comparing the judicial retention elections and outcomes in Iowa, Kansas, and Colorado) last Friday.

Judicial retention elections this year may well have been the most significant underreported political story of the year, with opposition and accountability efforts mounted in more states than ever before - which has some defenders of the status quo legal establishment worried.

A recent article published in The Palm Beach Post News (”Florida judges may be on political hot seat“) profiled the campaign to unseat two Florida Supreme Court justices against the backdrop of similar efforts nationwide:

Using e-mails, websites and YouTube videos, conservative groups waged a stealth campaign against Florida Supreme Court Justices Jorge Labarga and James Perry.

And some legal watchers are worried.

Among the “worried” legal watchers quoted in the article: former Colorado Supreme Court justice Rebecca Love Kourlis (executive director of the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, IAALS, which is the subject of a campaign finance complaint for their electioneering activities in support of Colorado’s incumbent justices this year).

“I think we’re going to see it more and more,” she said. “Retention elections around the country are becoming the new battleground.”

Colorado Supreme Court Goes on a ‘Bender’

The other significant news in the aftermath of this year’s judicial retention elections was the selection of Justice Michael Bender as the next Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court.

As previously noted, Justice Bender - a close political ally and ideological inheritor of the mantle of outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who resigned rather than face the voters this year - retained his office by the narrowest margin in Colorado history for an incumbent state supreme court justice (along with his colleague, and ideological ally, Alex Martinez) less than a week earlier.  His retention in office was supported by an organization (the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, IAALS) in which he sits on the board (potentially violating the judicial code of conduct); the group is also the defendant in a pending campaign finance law violation case, which the group’s attorneys recently obtained a delay in bringing to a hearing (originally set for 12 November 2010).

Numerous media outlets around the state noted the selection of Bender for the Chief Justice slot with varying degrees of detail, including:

• Denver Post (”Michael L. Bender to lead Colorado’s top court“)
• Durango Herald (”Colorado Supreme Court names Michael Bender new chief justice“)
• Grand Junction Sentinel (”Bender to lead Colo. Supreme Court“)
• Pueblo Chieftain (”Bender to lead Supreme Court“)

An interesting addition to the list of mainstream media outlets commenting on the appointment was the left-wing political gossip site Colorado Pols.  Normally I wouldn’t credit this collection of closed-minded chatty-kathies (literally; outside comments on the gossipy back-and-forth snark that passes as political discussion on the site are not allowed) with a link, but the insight provided by their reaction to the news (and partisan spin on it) along with their take on the significance of Bender’s appointment for the upcoming legislative reapportionment and Congressional redistricting battles (the Pols consensus view, with which I agree, is that it bodes VERY well for their side) is illuminating.

Stay tuned for more on that subject…

Although this year’s campaign (and election) is over, the fight to reform Colorado’s out-of-control legal/judicial complex continues.  In the near term, Clear The Bench Colorado is working to hold the consortium of legal-establishment special-interest groups who attempted (and may have succeeded in) buying the election for their buddies on the bench accountable for their violations of Colorado campaign finance law.  Longer term, Clear The Bench Colorado will work with legislators and others interested in reforming the systemic shortcomings of Colorado’s “merit selection & retention” system to increase transparency and accountability to the public.  For both of those endeavors, we would appreciate your continued support - via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions. Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

This year’s judicial retention elections were not just a hot topic in Colorado, but also in numerous states across the country.  Judicial incumbents faced opposition to their continued retention in office in states ranging from Alaska (where an anti-retention movement against one of the incumbent state supreme court justices got off to a late start and fell short of success) to Illinois (where the state’s Chief Justice came under fire by business groups fed up with consistent anti-business rulings) in states following the “merit selection & retention” model.

Perhaps the most interesting comparisons are among neighboring states Iowa (which succeeded, thanks to a well-funded, resourced, and politically supported effort, in ousting three incumbent state supreme court justices), Kansas (which failed to oust 4 incumbent state supreme court justices) and Colorado (which succeeded in  encouraging the reigning Chief Justice to resign, but fell short in removing the remaining three incumbent state supreme court justices on the November ballot).

An article entitled “A Judicial Tidalwave?” related the results of the Iowa ouster of three incumbent state supreme court justices to similar judicial-accountability movements in these neighboring states.  After covering the results of the Iowa vote (removing the three incumbents at the supreme court level while retaining some lower-court judges with similar voting records), the article addressed efforts in Kansas and Colorado, ascribing the difference in results to lack of support from existing organizations and groups (including the state party hierarchy, ‘business’ groups, & other ideologically-allied associations:

But despite their efforts, the Republican Party in particular, and even conservatives in general, failed to make this an election issue.

and lack of resources, particularly funding:

[in Colorado] all three justices were retained, though with only about 60% of the vote rather than the usual 70% plus. Unlike the effort in Iowa, Clear the Bench was hampered in its ability to conduct radio and television advertising by only raising $45,000 for its efforts.

The article concludes by noting:

In the end, though a good year for conservatives, the 2010 tsunami was powerless to sweep the judicial retention elections as it did other races. Time will only tell whether the successful anti-retention campaign against Iowa’s Supreme Court justices was an anomaly, or whether it can be duplicated here and elsewhere in the future.

Although this year’s campaign (and election) is over, the fight to reform Colorado’s out-of-control legal/judicial complex continues.  In the near term, Clear The Bench Colorado is working to hold the consortium of legal-establishment special-interest groups who attempted (and may have succeeded in) buying the election for their buddies on the bench accountable for their violations of Colorado campaign finance law.  Longer term, Clear The Bench Colorado will work with legislators and others interested in reforming the systemic shortcomings of Colorado’s “merit selection & retention” system to increase transparency and accountability to the public.  For both of those endeavors, we would appreciate your continued support - via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions. Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

In a development which bodes ill for the rule of law in Colorado (but which was eminently predictable - in fact, predicted by Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold in numerous appearances and presentations) the Colorado Supreme Court earlier today announced the impending takeover of the Chief Justice’s position by Michael Bender, who must be viewed as the handpicked heir and ideological inheritor of outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey.

Justice Bender retained his office by the narrowest margin in Colorado history for an incumbent state supreme court justice (along with his colleague, and ideological ally, Alex Martinez) less than a week earlier; his retention in office was supported by an organization (IAALS) in which he sits on the board (potentially violating the judicial code of conduct) which is also under the cloud of a pending campaign finance law violation case, which may be heard as early as this Friday (12 November 2010).

As remarked in the Law Week article covering the announcement (”Bender Will Be New Colo. Supreme Court Chief Justice“),

Bender, like Mullarkey, is considered a member of the court’s liberal wing. He and fellow justices Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice earlier this month survived an effort by a political group, Clear The Bench Colorado, to oust them. The effort failed, but citizens in some rural counties voted to reject one or more of the three justices.

The article went on to describe some of Bender’s most controversial (and anti-constitutional) opinions, including two of the cases highlighted in Clear The Bench Colorado’s Evaluation of Judicial Performance for Justice Bender, the Barber v. Ritter “fees don’t count as taxes” case (which opened the door for the Colorado Car Tax - er, vehicle registration fee - increase) and the Lobato v. Colorado “judges get to decide school funding levels” case:

Bender is the author of some of the high court’s most controversial recent opinions. In November 2008, he wrote the opinion in the 4-3 Barber v. Ritter decision, which held that the transfer of special cash funds to the state general tax fund is not subject to voter approval under the state’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or TABOR. This has been criticized by conservatives as giving the state legislature free rein to circumvent TABOR by increasing fees instead of increasing taxes.

Bender also wrote the October 2009 opinion in Lobato v. Colorado, another 4-3 decision, which revived a lawsuit that alleges the state’s current funding scheme for public education violates the constitutional requirement that funding be “thorough and uniform.” If the lawsuit is successful, the state could be held liable for an additional $2.9 billion a year for public schools. Republican Attorney General John Suthers publicly came out against the decision, which he said “is not good news for the Colorado taxpayer.”

The article concluded with the most recent controversial decision penned by Bender, in the weeks leading up to the election (which Denver Post columnist Vincent Carroll described at the time as “yet another reason why two justices up for retention should be bounced from the bench“:

In a decision last month that gained national attention, Bender authored the opinion in Montes-Rodriguez v. Colorado, which held that a person’s use of another’s social security number is not criminal impersonation. The court split 4-3 on the decision.

Now-Chief Justice Bender is also highly likely to follow in outgoing Chief Justice Mullarkey’s partisan footsteps in determining the boundaries of Colorado’s legislative and Congressional districts (via his appointment powers on the state-level reapportionment commission, and by continuing along the path set in the notorious Salazar v. Davidson redistricting case upholding a judicial power grab to decide Congressional redistricting).

Unfortunately, Bender’s contempt for the Colorado Constitution and disregard for the rule of law is likely to continue to define the out-of-control Colorado Supreme Court for years to come; an already discredited court truly “going on a Bender” as we enter the second decade of the 21st Century.

The most recent edition of the Colorado Statesman uncharacteristically missed the boat entirely in highlighting the election results for the three incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices on this year’s ballot (possibly allowing the quest for quotable verbiage to overcome accuracy in reporting).

The article (”‘No!’ was on voters’ minds when it came to weighing in on ballot measures - But Supreme Court judges rate ‘thumbs up‘”) published last Friday (5 November 2010) began with the following lede:

Voters Tuesday night gave a resounding “no!” to eight of the nine measures on the 2010 ballot, but an enthusiastic “thumbs up” to retaining Supreme Court and appeals court judges.

An “enthusiastic “thumbs up” to retaining Supreme Court” justices on the ballot?

Hardly.

The percentage of “NO” votes recorded (approximately 40%, with some minor differences between each justice, and significant variation across different counties) was the highest ever recorded for any incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justice since unopposed retention elections were instituted in Colorado in the mid-1960’s; the incumbents’ retention in office was due much more to inertia (along with the taxpayer-funded incumbent-protection “retain” recommendations promulgated in the taxpayer-funded “Blue Book” pamphlets distributed to every Colorado voter) than to any “enthusiasm” for retaining these consistently anti-constitutional unjust justices in office for an additional 10-year term.

The electioneering activities of a consortium of legal-establishment special-interest groups attempting to (and possibly succeeding in) buying the election for their buddies on the bench in violation of Colorado campaign finance law may have contributed to the outcome as well (it would certainly be ironic if the judicial branch incumbents were retained in office due to the illegal activities of their supporters in the legal community).

The Colorado Statesman article similarly erred in stating that the efforts of Clear The Bench Colorado advocated for the non-retention of the four incumbent Colorado Court of Appeals judges appearing on this year’s ballot; even the most superficial review of the CTBC Evaluations of Judicial Performance page would have confirmed CTBC’s recommendation for a ‘Yes’ vote on 2 of the 4, and no recommendation for or against the remaining two incumbents.  The mischaracterization is at worst malicious, more likely evidence of sloppy journalism.

However, the article at least concludes with otherwise accurate information and quotes on the subject from Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold:

The effort to oust the judges was led by Clear the Bench Colorado. Executive Director Matt Arnold said Wednesday the “other side” had spent money illegally to support the judges, and his resources got tied up in “frivolous lawsuits.” He attacked an editorial run in The Denver Post from former Supreme Court Justice Jean Dubofsky that supported the judges, which Arnold said was full of “falsehoods.”

However, Arnold said his efforts got more people to pay attention to the issue of judicial retention than had ever happened before. Justices and judges got the most “no” votes on retention in history, with most around 40 percent. “It shows what can be done with raising awareness,” Arnold said. “If nothing else, what I’ve done is sparked attention to the issue, and I’m encouraged by it and by those who paid attention.” But in the end, “David didn’t have enough stones against Goliath.”

Although this year’s campaign (and election) is over, the fight to reform Colorado’s out-of-control legal/judicial complex continues.  In the near term, Clear The Bench Colorado is working to hold the consortium of legal-establishment special-interest groups who attempted (and may have succeeded in) buying the election for their buddies on the bench accountable for their violations of Colorado campaign finance law.  Longer term, Clear The Bench Colorado will work with legislators and others interested in reforming the systemic shortcomings of Colorado’s “merit selection & retention” system to increase transparency and accountability to the public.  For both of those endeavors, we would appreciate your continued support - via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions. Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The justices have declined to comment.

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

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

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

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

Although the campaign (and the election) is over, the fight to reform Colorado’s out-of-control legal/judicial complex continues.  In the near term, Clear The Bench Colorado is working to hold the consortium of legal-establishment special-interest groups who attempted (and may have succeeded in) buying the election for their buddies on the bench accountable for their violations of Colorado campaign finance law.  Longer term, Clear The Bench Colorado will work with legislators and others interested in reforming the systemic shortcomings of Colorado’s “merit selection & retention” system to increase transparency and accountability to the public.  For both of those endeavors, we would appreciate your continued support - via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions. Freedom isn’t free - nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a “fair and balanced” media universe (even in a world in which the concept of “journalistic integrity” still had any meaning), the violation of Colorado campaign finance laws by a consortium of some of the largest and most powerful legal-establishment special-interest groups in the state (headed by the Colorado Bar Association, joined by the Colorado Judicial Institute, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System and the Colorado chapter of the League of Women Voters) with potential fines and penalties approaching a half-million dollars would be BIG news.

Instead, the majority of the Colorado press and media remain asleep at the wheel…

However, two media outlets have been paying attention to the issue, and have each written a fair summation of the complaint.

First out the gate (which has often been the case when it comes to coverage of Colorado legal issues) was Law Week Colorado.  Their article, published online Friday (”Judicial-Ouster Group Files Complaint Against Colo. Bar Association, 3 Others“) notes that

[t]he four groups named in the complaint each contributed to the “Know Your Judge” campaign, which produced public service announcements urging voters not to skip judges up for retention on the ballot

and noted that the “Know Your Judge” campaign universally recommended a “retain” vote for the incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices on the ballot.

The article goes on to note the irony in the fact that

Clear The Bench’s complaint relies in part on an administrative law judge’s ruling in a campaign finance complaint brought against it this year by Colorado Ethics Watch. The ruling found that committees that advocate for or against a judge must register as political committees.

Law Week’s article also includes the full text of the complaint, as filed (excepting attached Exhibits).

The first news organization to actually actively seek information on the story (you know, what used to be called investigative journalism and reporting) was Face The State online/radio news.  Their article (”Complaint: Know Your Judge doesn’t know state campaign finance laws“) was also published Friday afternoon.  Face The State’s article notes the extent to which the special-interest groups named in the complaint have funded the “Know Your Judge” campaign, as well as the potential fines and penalties to which they may be subjected once the complaint is resolved in court:

According to an article in Law Week, the Colorado Bar Association paid $50,000 to produce the ad spots; the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System paid $25,000, and the Colorado Judicial Institute pitched in $10,000. The organizations, plus the League of Women Voters, are listed as sponsors on the Know Your Judge “About Us” page.  [Ed. the amounts for IAALS and CJI were switched in the FTS article - it should be $10,000 by IAALS, and $25,000 by CJI - which, BTW, is a 501(c)3 organization prohibited from contributing to campaign activities].

Had Know Your Judge registered with the Secretary of State as a political committee–Arnold believes it should have–it would be limited to receiving contributions no greater than $525 per contributor per election cycle. If the complaint is upheld, a judge can levy fines of $50 per day for late reporting, plus two to five times the amount of contributions. The latter fine would equal between $170,000 and $425,000.

“Collectively and as individual organizations, they have all violated the law,” Arnold said. “They should have had to come together to file as a committee, or they could have done so individually.”

These legal-establishment special-interest groups are not above the law; the same rules should (and do!) apply to these groups, and their political activities, as apply to anyone else.  They apparently consider themselves (along with the anti-constitutional incumbents they are working to keep in office) in a separate class - they seem to believe that laws only apply to the “commoners” (and not the legal-judicial “ruling class”).

Clear The Bench Colorado’s complaint serves notice that they - along with the judicial incumbents they are supporting - can and will be held 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 minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey,  who’s resigning rather than face the voters ) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home or business against seizure via eminent domain abuse, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Continue to support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions - and vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

The end is nigh…

Well, the end of this election cycle, anyway.  Mail-in ballots for the November elections - including the important question of whether to retain three incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices facing “stiff opposition” as they seek an additional 10-year term in office - went out on Tuesday, and may have already arrived in your mailbox by the time you read this article.

Most voters have also already received the “Blue Book” - containing, among other things, the “reviews” of judicial incumbents published by the commissions on judicial performance, which this year again continued a decades-long tradition of recommending a “retain” vote for every Colorado Supreme Court justice on the ballot (that’s right; Colorado Supreme Court justices “reviewed” by the commissions have received a “retain” vote 100% of the time).  Can you say “rubber-stamp?”

Fortunately, Colorado voters have an alternative (and far more substantive) source of information this year: Clear The Bench Colorado’s Evaluations of Judicial Performance matrix, which provides a summary of how the incumbent justices on the ballot voted in key constitutional cases, along with references on the cases, commentary, and analysis of the impact of these decisions on Colorado voters.

Law Week Colorado provided an overview of the CTBC Evaluations page (including a snapshot of the page) in an article Thursday, Oct. 7 (”Clear The Bench Offers Its Own Judicial Performance Evaluations“), which was also picked up nationally by the Huffington Post.  The article was complimentary on the substantive content and easy-to-read “scorecard”-style layout.  Closing with a quote from the director of the state  judicial performance office provided an illuminating glimpse into the attitude of the status-quo types:

Voters are charged with making informed decisions based on the wealth of information gathered from attorneys, court participants, other judges, and the public, by the commissions and posted in-depth on the judicial performance website and in the Blue Book. [emphasis added]

Um - voters are charged with making decisions based on what’s published on the commission website and in the Blue Book?

Don’t voters have a right to make up their own minds, based on whatever sources they choose?

Could’ve sworn we still live in a free country…

Over the weekend, the Colorado Springs Gazette published an Op-Ed by resident lefty columnist Barry Noreen, who’s now working feverishly to avoid paying off his beer bet.  Despite a cordial interview which at least in theory formed the basis of his editorial (much like those “based on a true story” biopics, though, his piece strayed a bit off-course from the facts), Noreen’s article (”Rabid anti-judiciary fervor has little basis“) demonstrates a somewhat different definition of “objective reporting” of facts (he’s certainly entitled to his own opinions) than mine.

Noreen constructs a strawman argument by inserting terms I did NOT use (I dislike, for example, the term “activist judges” - which has been so misused as to be nearly meaningless.  I’ve stated repeatedly that my standard is judges who uphold and apply the law, as written - Noreen’s earlier use of another term, constructionist, is more accurate).  Why use the term ‘activist?’  Simple - because it is emotionally charged and vague, and can be used to muddy the waters.

Noreen then goes off on a partisan rant (while hypocritically mixing a constitutional issue with a partisan one) in attacking my critique of the court’s ruling in the Salazar v. Davidsion case, in which the Colorado Supreme Court usurped the power of the legislative branch in order to impose it’s own preferred redistricting plan.  Noreen applauds the Colorado Supreme Court for “throwing out the brazenly political re-drawing of political districts in 2003, which the GOP rammed through in the last three days of the legislative session” (conveniently forgetting that the GOP plan was revising a blatantly political Democrat plan imposed by a Denver judge as an interim measure in the previous session).  Newsflash: legislative redistricting is frequently “brazenly political.”  The difference is that in 2003, the Colorado Supreme Court was not only “brazenly political” itself, but acted unconstitutionally in doing so, since the Colorado Constitution (Article V, Section 44) reserves the power of Congressional redistricting exclusively to the General Assembly.

Sorry, Barry - it ain’t about partisanship; it’s about the Constitution (and the proper role of judges in upholding the law, not re-writing it).

On Monday, Colorado Public Radio aired a discussion on judicial retention elections in Colorado, featuring Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold, on the Colorado Matters show (”Judges on the Ballot“) which was excerpted on the news segment at 7:50 AM and aired in full at 10AM and 7PM.

On Tuesday, Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold taped an upcoming appearance on Your Show with Adam Schrager (airing this coming Sunday, Channel 9, at 10:30 AM) with surprise guest former Colorado Supreme Court justice Jean Dubofsky defending judicial incumbents and promoting the judicial performance “review” process on behalf of the Colorado Judiciary Project (another well-funded legal establishment special-interest group started by Democrat Party lawyer Mark Grueskin).

Rounding out the past week, the Wednesday Denver Post published an excellent editorial by the always insightful Vincent Carroll representing the Post’s published viewpoint on the Colorado Supreme Court judicial retention votes on the November ballot (the full editorial board declined to interview me, as they have with other statewide candidates and issues - perhaps they were afraid I’d stink up the joint.  Sacre bleu!).  Carroll’s editorial (”No clean sweep of justices“) disagrees with CTBC’s conclusions and recommendations on Justice Rice (a case of reasonable people in mild disagreement, I’d say) but endorses CTBC’s “compelling indictment of Michael Bender and Alex Martinez” and complimented the level of analysis & information provided in our Evaluations of Judicial Performance and other articles:

In every election, voters go to the polls with virtually no knowledge of the judges up for retention - thanks to the nearly useless evaluations issued by the state’s judicial performance commission. So voters do owe Clear the Bench Colorado their thanks for actually offering substantive analysis.

I’ll take that as an endorsement - now, if they’d only include the website link…

As a Citizen, you DO have the right to vote “NO” on these incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices as they seek an additional 10-year term this November.  Clear The Bench Colorado urges all Colorado citizens to become informed about how the Colorado Supreme Court has aided and abetted assaults on their rights (and wallets!) with a consistent pattern of not following the Constitution where it doesn’t agree with their own personal agenda - and drawing the necessary and logical conclusions.

Exercise your right to vote - and this year, don’t forget the incumbent judges down the ballot

Colorado voters are being bombarded with a series of ads (on radio, television, and online) promoting the “evaluations” of incumbent judges and justices conducted by the various “Commissions on Judicial Performance Evaluation” at both district and state levels.  This so-called “education campaign” funded by legal establishment special-interest groups is spending tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars to convince Coloradans that “all is well” with the judicial system in Colorado.

Over the decades-long history of the “performance review” commissions, they have NOT ONCE recommended a “do not retain” vote for a Colorado Supreme Court justice (historically, that’s a 100% endorsement of the incumbent); the commissions have NOT ONCE recommended a “do not retain” vote for any Colorado Court of Appeals judge (again, a 100% endorsement); and the commissions have only very rarely (16 times, counting this year) recommended a “do not retain” vote for ANY judge at ANY level (an astounding 99% endorsement rate).  According to these “evaluations” there is no need to remove ANY of the incumbent judges or justices appearing on the ballot this year.  ”Move along - nothing to see here.”

Even Fidel Castro or the late Saddam Hussein didn’t receive that level of “retain” votes…

Clear The Bench Colorado has previously noted deficiencies in the “evaluations” generated by the “judicial performance review” process; the State Commission on Judicial Performance (the commission “reviewing performance” of Colorado Supreme Court justices and Colorado Court of Appeals judges) this year continued their decades-long pattern of 100% “retain” recommendations by endorsing incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices Bender, Martinez, and Rice despite their consistent pattern of disregarding clear constitutional language in a succession of rulings, and many of the other commissions have similarly failed in their duty to provide substantive, useful information on which Colorado voters can base an informed decision.

A recent Law Week article highlighted the failure of the 8th Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance to hold two Larimer County judges - guilty of conspiring to hide evidence which sent an innocent man to jail for 10 years - accountable for their past performance:

On Aug. 3, Blair and Gilmore were unanimously recommended for retention by the Larimer County Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission. The commission acknowledged the concerns over the Masters case, including the public censure both judges received from the state Supreme Court’s presiding disciplinary judge for failing to ensure Masters’ defense counsel received potentially helpful evidence, but stated that “the community is well served” by the judges continued presence on the bench.

“Well-served” by the continued presence on the bench of judges who have demonstrated a lack of integrity and ethical behavior which resulted in sending an innocent man to jail for 10 YEARS?

Defense attorney Erik Fischer (who had defended Tim Masters) commented:

I think we would be better served by having them continue to serve in a different capacity than as judges.”

Perhaps having them “serve” in the “different capacity” of making license plates might be more appropriate…

According to the language of the so-called “evaluations” included in the commission reports,

The Commission was charged with evaluating Judge Blair [and Judge Gilmore] on integrity [emphasis added], legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance and service to the legal profession and the public.

Read for yourself the commission’s “performance evaluation” of Judge Blair along with the commission’s “performance evaluation” of Judge Gilmore - then decide for yourself if the commission recommendation to “retain” these judges in office passes the “smell” test.

Colorado voters have been ill-served by the lack of critical review and evaluation of judicial performance for decades.  The Colorado Commissions on Judicial Performance Evaluation, in failing to provide substantive information that differentiates between judges who rule consistently in accordance with the law (and Colorado DOES have many GOOD judges) and those who don’t - or who demonstrate other serious deficiencies in character or performance - are contributing to increased citizen skepticism about our judges, our courts, and the rule of law generally.  Undermining citizen confidence in the rule of law is corrosive to a society - if we are not reasonably assured that ALL citizens will receive fair, equal, and impartial treatment by our courts - applying the law, as written (not making it up as they go along, to suit the judge’s personal preference or political agenda) people will pursue justice by other means.

Clear The Bench Colorado calls upon attorneys of integrity (we know you’re out there somewhere), journalists with a sense of justice, and other people of principle to Sound Off! in true defense of our system of justice - by holding accountable those judges and justices who have failed in their duty to support the Constitution and uphold the rule of law.

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