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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RESTORE Integrity to Colorado Courts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold appeared on the Devil’s Advocate TV program (with host Jon Caldara) this past Friday, 22 October 2010 at 8:30 and again (rebroadcast) on Monday, 25 October at 1:30 PM, to discuss judicial retention elections and the drive to hold 3 incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, and Nancy Rice) who are seeking another 10-year term in office accountable to the voters in this year’s elections.

Despite the intent to have a debate on the issue, the other side failed to show up (despite numerous invitations, to all the usual suspects).  Apparently after CTBC’s Matt Arnold had the better of former Colorado Supreme Court justice (and current full-time activist) Jean Dubofsky, representing the “Colorado Judiciary Project” (a legal-establishment special-interest group formed by Democrat state party attorney Mark Grueskin) in their debate on Adam Schrager’s Your Show the previous Sunday (which was NOT originally scheduled as a debate; Dubofsky showed up with no advance notice to CTBC) they didn’t feel confident in their ability to win a fair fight.

Or perhaps they realized that the more information the voters have, the more they are likely to vote NO on the incumbent justices on the ballot (a fact validated in CTBC’s August survey).  These special-interest groups are counting on (and promoting) voter ignorance - pushing the rubber-stamp “reviews” (which again kept up their historical record of 100% “retain” recommendations for Colorado Supreme Court justices this year) of the performance review commissions.  That’s right; Colorado Supreme Court justices “reviewed” by the commissions have received a “retain” vote 100% of the time.

Fortunately, Colorado voters now have a more complete and substantive source of information about the performance of the incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices appearing on this year’s ballot: CTBC’s Evaluations of Judicial Performance scorecard, which breaks down the votes of each justice in key constitutional cases (along with complete references, analysis, and commentary on each case).

The discussion covered the voting records of the incumbent justices, the established selection and “review” process (along with the weaknesses in the current process & need for greater transparency and accountability reforms) and the massively funded electioneering effort by a consortium of legal-establishment special-interest groups to promote a “yes” vote for the judicial incumbents.

The video is broken into 3 10-minute segments, as follows:

For what may be the first time in Colorado history, voters have the opportunity to review substantive information on judicial performance and have the ability to make an informed decision about whether or not to hold incumbent justices (and judges) accountable for that performance as they seek an additional term of office (for the Colorado Supreme Court justices, they are asking the voters for another 10 YEARS on the bench).

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

Clear The Bench Colorado published nationally…

The following article was published in the 23 October edition of Human Events magazine.

Fighting the “Progressive” Takeover of State Courts

Citizens act to remove anti-constitutional Colorado Supreme Court justices

“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

The demand for a return to constitutional limits on government power, exemplified by millions of citizens across the country joining in rallies, events, and civic groups loosely under the banner of the “Tea Party Movement”, is NOT limited to the executive and legislative branches.  As more and more citizens have come to understand that “progressive” courts and judges have aided and abetted the growth of government power and the erosion of individual rights, they are pursuing the opportunity - and the right - to hold our judicial officeholders accountable at the ballot box.

In several states - most prominently, in Iowa, Kansas, and Colorado - the “normally sleepy” judicial elections are turning into some of the hottest issues on the ballot in this already critical election year.

Recently, the New York Times dedicated two lead editorials to attacking the right of citizens to vote out anti-constitutional state supreme court justices via the “retention vote” process (a simple yes/no, “should they stay or should they go” process that many states have adopted as an alternative to directly contested elections for judges).  The NYT editorials, citing a legal academic, decried citizen exercise of the right to vote ‘NO’ as “extreme.”

It has long been an open secret that the “progressive” movement - unable to persuade the public with the substance of their arguments - has exploited the courts to advance their agenda.  Unelected judges - particularly those at the highest level, the state supreme courts - have invented rights that don’t exist in law (in Iowa, the issue is court-invented rights to “gay marriage;” in Kansas, the issue is abortion) or serially violated constitutional rights that DO exist in law - including the state constitution.

In Colorado, the incumbent majority has repeatedly violated the rights of Colorado voters to constrain the growth of government, particularly government power to tax and spend without approval.  In 1992, Colorado voters approved a Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (”TABOR”) amendment to the state constitution that secured the right of voters to have a say on tax increases .  Yet not once in some 15 challenges and despite the clear language of the Constitution directing that its “preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government” has the Colorado Supreme Court upheld this section of the state constitution.

With an 0-15 record of upholding the Constitution, they’re the 2008 Detroit Lions of jurisprudence!

Over the last couple of years, the incumbent majority’s assaults on the Constitution have become increasingly bold.  In 2009, they held that a massive property tax increase didn’t count as such by the semantic shenanigan of calling it a “rate freeze” (the notorious 2009 “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” case).  As part of the same ruling, the court inserted language enabling the legislature to raise more taxes under the pretense of “eliminating tax credits or exemptions”. Any way you slice it, this is a “tax policy change… resulting in a net revenue gain” and therefore should be subject to voter approval under the Constitution .  An earlier ruling likewise held that tax increases could be imposed under the guise of “fees” - once again circumventing that pesky constitutional requirement to ask first before taking people’s money.

Other constitutional violations perpetrated by the court include assaults on property rights (expanding the opportunity for governmental abuse of eminent domain), gun rights (a pending challenge before the Colorado Supreme Court seeks to overturn state law on concealed-carry permits), even overturning the death penalty for a convicted kidnapper/rapist/murderer because a pair of jurors were alleged to have quoted biblical passages in sentencing deliberations.

Even more importantly from a political and policy standpoint, the incumbent majority has usurped the political decision-making authority of the legislative branch in key areas.  Last year, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that judges, not elected legislators or school boards, have the ultimate authority to decide what constitutes “appropriate” levels of funding for schools (the “Lobato” case).  This decision not only grossly violates constitutional separation of powers, it is a looming fiscal train wreck.

On the political front, the Colorado Supreme Court in 2003 grabbed the power to draw up Colorado’s congressional districts from the legislature, where it belongs under clear constitutional language (Colorado Constitution Article V, Section 44: “…the General Assembly shall divide the state into congressional districts…”).  How did they accomplish this, despite clear constitutional limits?

Simple; they re-defined themselves as part of the General Assembly:

“In sum, the term ‘General Assembly’ in the first sentence of Article V, Section 44, broadly encompasses the legislative process, the voter initiative, and judicial redistricting.  Regardless of which body creates the congressional districts, these districts are equally valid.”

In her dissent, then-Justice Rebecca Love Kourlis summed up the judicial power grab:

“With its holding today, the court significantly alters our form of government.”

The Colorado Supreme Court recognizes no limits on its power.  This majority has arrogated to itself the ultimate power to decide all questions - legislative, executive, or judicial.  They believe their word to be literally “supreme”; the Constitution is what they say it is.  When they rule from the bench - they really mean to RULE from the bench.

It is time for the voters of Colorado - indeed, for voters across the country - to reclaim our heritage:

Be a Citizen, not a subject.

Defend your constitutional rights - your freedom depends on it.  Hold officials in ALL THREE BRANCHES of government accountable; this year, vote NO on unjust justices, and Clear The Bench, Colorado!

Matt Arnold is a Citizen (and a Citizen-Soldier, serving as a Captain in the Colorado Army National Guard) leading the state’s judicial accountability movement as founder and director of Clear The Bench Colorado - http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/)

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold appeared on the Your Show with Adam Schrager (9News reporter) TV program this past Sunday, 17 October 2010 at (broadcast on KTVD at 10:30 AM), to discuss judicial retention elections and the drive to hold 3 incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, and Nancy Rice) who are seeking another 10-year term in office accountable to the voters in this year’s elections.

CTBC’s Matt Arnold was joined in studio (not known in advance) by former Colorado Supreme Court justice (and current full-time activist) Jean Dubofsky, representing the “Colorado Judiciary Project” (a legal-establishment special-interest group formed by Democrat state party attorney and  Mark Grueskin, who may be attempting to curry favor with the incumbent justices before whom he frequently appears).  Dubofsky attempted to defend the embattled incumbents and promote the rubber-stamp “reviews” (which again kept up their historical record of 100% “retain” recommendations for Colorado Supreme Court justices this year) of the performance review commissions.  That’s right; Colorado Supreme Court justices “reviewed” by the commissions have received a “retain” vote 100% of the time.

Fortunately, Colorado voters now have a more complete and substantive source of information about the performance of the incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices appearing on this year’s ballot: CTBC’s Evaluations of Judicial Performance scorecard, which breaks down the votes of each justice in key constitutional cases (along with complete references, analysis, and commentary on each case).

The discussion covered the voting records of the incumbent justices, the established “review” process (along with the weaknesses in the current process & need for greater transparency and accountability reforms) and the massively funded electioneering effort by the Colorado Bar Association and other legal-establishment special-interest groups to promote a “yes” vote for the judicial incumbents.

The video is broken into 2 10-minute segments, as follows:

Segment 1:

Segment 2:

For what may be the first time in Colorado history, voters have the opportunity to review substantive information on judicial performance and have the ability to make an informed decision about whether or not to hold incumbent justices (and judges) accountable for that performance as they seek an additional term of office (for the Colorado Supreme Court justices, they are asking the voters for another 10 YEARS on the bench).

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!

Why judicial incumbents Bender, Martinez, and Rice deserve a “NO” vote at the polls

The following commentary was published over the last weekend (in slightly modified form, according to the editorial whims of the various publications) in most of the major newspapers in Colorado:

• Denver Post (published Thursday as “You can reject judges“)
• Grand Junction Sentinel (published Thursday as “Justices Bender, Martinez and Rice deserve a ‘No’ vote“)
• Boulder Daily Camera (published Sunday as “The case against three justices“)
• Pueblo Chieftain (published Sunday as “Making the case against retaining 3 justices on state Supreme Court“)

The Pueblo Chieftain also endorsed the recommendations of Clear The Bench Colorado as the paper’s editorial position in this year’s judicial retention voting: (”The Judges“):

Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice, the only Supreme Court members up this year, ought to be removed from the bench. The voter needs only to choose “no” on the ballot. These justices consistently have upheld tax increases without requiring voter approval, in direct defiance of the TABOR amendment to the Colorado Constitution.

We recommend a “no” vote on the retention of Supreme Court Justices Bender, Martinez and Rice.

Here’s the article in its baseline form:

The Case Against 3 Colorado Supreme Court Justices

Why judicial incumbents Bender, Martinez, and Rice deserve a “NO” vote at the polls

Since Colorado changed from contested elections for judicial office to a “merit selection & retention” system (appointing judges followed by periodic votes to keep or remove them), no Colorado Supreme Court justice has been voted out of office.  Although some have left the bench voluntarily (Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey resigned so she will not have to face the voters this year), the people of Colorado have yet to exercise their right or responsibility to “vote ‘em out.”

To a great extent, this is because of a lack of public awareness - both about the right to vote itself (a recent survey showed that only 65% of the population knew that judges could be voted out of office) and about the incumbents’ record of performance in office (the same survey showed that only 35% of voters knew anything about the three incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices - Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, and Nancy Rice - seeking another 10-year term this November).

Inexplicably, the State Commission on Judicial Performance (a 10-member group of political appointees charged with evaluating and reporting on the job performance of statewide judicial incumbents) has routinely failed to conduct a rigorous evaluation and provide substantive information to the public on which to base an informed decision.  The commission’s “reviews” (published and distributed at great taxpayer expense in the “Blue Book”) pretty much limit themselves to summarizing the incumbent’s resume and tabulating the results of surveys sent out to a select group of lawyers - and other judges.  The “reviews” contain next to no information about actual job performance.

Over the decades the system has been in place, the commission’s “reviews” have always recommended a yes (”retain”) vote on incumbent supreme court justices - that’s 100% of the time!

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

(Although Colorado has plenty of good judges, at many levels - they’re not all that good).

Most importantly, the “reviews” provide NO information on how the justices actually voted in important constitutional cases - rulings which have had an increasingly negative impact on Colorado law and upon Colorado citizens.

Reading the commission “evaluations” alone, voters would have no knowledge of the fact that the three incumbent justices appearing on the ballot voted to allow:

• Unconstitutional Property Tax Increases (Mill Levy Tax Freeze)
• Unconstitutional elimination of Tax Credits & Exemptions (tobacco tax, “Dirty Dozen” taxes)
• Unconstitutionally re-defining Taxes as Fees (Colorado Car Tax, Ritter Gun Tax)
• Unconstitutional expansion of eminent domain property seizures (Telluride Land Grab)
• Unconstitutional usurpation of legislative power (judicial redistricting, school funding)
• Unconstitutional deprivation of Citizen Initiative rights (denying voters a say on illegal alien entitlements)

(Complete references, including the votes of each justice, case analysis, commentary, and the full text of the rulings, are available at the Clear The Bench Colorado website in an easy-to-read “scorecard” matrix: http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/evaluations/)

These three appointed (and, due to a managed lack of public awareness, practically unaccountable) supreme court justices have assumed political power, to which the court is NOT constitutionally entitled.  These incumbents have consistently exerted this power without restraint or consideration for your constitutional rights - ruling consistently against individual rights and protections in favor of expanded government power, in violation of what the Colorado Constitution allows.

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.  The ultimate responsibility - and authority - still rests with the voters.

Clear The Bench Colorado urges Colorado voters to exercise their rights on the ballot this November.

“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

Stand up for your rights - vote “NO” on these unjust justices, and Clear The Bench, Colorado!

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 retiring 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 subjected to a barrage of big-money, special-interest advertising on judicial retention elections this year - as decried in editorials from the New York Times and other media sources across the country, as well as in other news coverage statewide.

Special-interest groups are spending tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars attempting to influence Coloradans to vote their way on the question of whether to retain incumbent judges (including three incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices facing “stiff opposition” as they seek an additional 10-year term in office).

There’s just one problem with this narrative - and why you haven’t heard about it in the mass media.

All of this special-interest money is being spent in Colorado to prop up the judicial incumbents…

Legal establishment special-interest groups are spending tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars to convince Colorado voters that “all is well” with state courts - promoting the farcical rubber-stamp “reviews” conducted and published by the commissions on judicial “performance.”

Why are the “reviews” not a reliable source of information on judicial performance?

1. The “reviews” do not distinguish between good and bad judicial performance - and almost ALWAYS recommend a “retain” vote for the judges ‘reviewed.’ Colorado Commission on Judicial Performance Evaluations (CCJPE) Executive Director Jane Howell confirms that, over the decades-long history of the review process, Colorado Supreme Court justices “reviewed” by the commissions have received a “retain” vote 100% of the time.

(Similarly, Court of Appeals judges have also received a 100% “retain” recommendation, while all judges at other levels have received “retain” recommendations 99% of the time).

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

(Although Colorado has plenty of good judges, at many levels - they’re not all that good.)

2. The “reviews” - published as a 5-paragraph narrative, only one paragraph of which even pretends to address actual judicial “performance” - provide very little substantive information on which to base an informed decision. The review criteria are shallow (”timeliness”, ‘orderliness’ and “demeanor”) rather than substantive and performance-based. The level of “evaluation” is more like a kindergarten report card (“Benny is punctual, keeps his area neat & tidy, and plays well with others”) rather than a serious look at judicial performance.

A Denver Post guest commentary written by a former State Judicial Performance Commissioner provided an insightful critique of the current process several months ago.

3. The “reviews” provide NO information on how the justices actually voted in important constitutional cases - rulings which have had a tremendous (and highly negative) impact on Colorado citizens.

Where can voters get substantive analysis of the performance of Colorado Supreme Court justices?

Clear The Bench Colorado has conducted an exhaustive analysis of Colorado Supreme Court decisions addressing important constitutional issues of interest to the greatest number of Colorado voters.

We invite voters to compare and contrast our Evaluations of judicial performance with the “reviews” perpetrated by the ‘performance’ commissions (and foisted upon voters, at great taxpayer expense and without opposing views, as is otherwise required by law for other ballot questions) in the “Blue Book.”

We are confident that discerning voters will find our Evaluations of much greater value.

Voters deserve to be provided with more extensive, informative, and useful information on which to base their voting decisions.  “The high marks received by each justice through the system of evaluation in place” are NOT an endorsement of the justices, but rather an indictment of the weakness and inadequacy of the judicial performance review process.  Despite the genuinely hard work and good intentions of the majority of the judicial performance review commissioners, the process (and end-products) are perhaps endemically flawed.

There has been a failure of real performance evaluation and a lack of analytical content in the write-ups for the voters.  If narratives provide meaningful information about how a justice has decided cases, there will be accountability and the system will work as it is designed to do.  Too often in the past, narratives have amounted to complimentary resumes instead of job performance evaluations.  Some commentators and observers have denigrated the narratives as a “rubber stamp” exercise for retaining judges.

The ultimate responsibility - and authority - rests with the voters.  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.

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 Colorado voters to exercise their rights on the ballot this November.

Clear The Bench Colorado continues to gain coverage in both statewide and national news - since last weekend’s dozen-and-a-half articles (including a New York Times lead editorial and AP/UPI wire stories picked up nationwide) and additional articles earlier last week (including another New York Times editorial and a Wall Street Journal entry), this last weekend has seen another boost in coverage (including several radio and television interviews).

Our weekend started early on Thursday morning with a radio interview on 850 KOA at 6:30AM which was excerpted in news clips throughout the day (as CTBC was on the road to Grand Junction).

Along the way, I also called in to the Mike Rosen Show discussing the attempt by the George Soros-funded “Justice At Stake Campaign” to extend their influence over state Supreme Courts (including Colorado) - spending MILLIONS (reportedly, $45 Million) to advance their cause.  (Our on-air discussion starts at the 21:30 minute mark)

Arriving in Grand Junction, I was interviewed by the local ABC affiliate (KJCT-8, Grand Junction) which aired the story in that evening’s (Thursday, 30 September) broadcast (which can also be viewed online).

Following the television interview, I sat down for an extended (and interestingly wide-ranging) interview with Grand Junction Sentinel reporter Charles Ashby - which may have been one of the most enjoyable (and entertaining) to date (it’s fun to engage in banter with an interested, intelligent, and knowledgeable reporter - a real rarity).  The Grand Junction Sentinel ran an article the next day (lead story inside, Friday 1 October) based on the interview (”Group wants voters to kick out three judges“).

On Sunday, even the Denver Post finally broke radio silence with an article on the subject of opposition to the incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices seeking another 10-year term in the upcoming retention elections (”Three Colorado high court justices face stiff retention opposition“).

On Sunday evening, Clear The Bench Colorado was featured on a Brushfire TV television broadcast (available for viewing online).  Interestingly enough, the Brushfire TV broadcast was picked up and featured by Law Week Colorado locally, and the Huffington Post nationally.

Nationally, the issue of judicial retention elections - and organized opposition to incumbent justices seeking an additional term in several states - is gaining attention.  A hotly contested (and, in sad contract to Clear The Bench Colorado, extremely well-funded) campaign to remove three incumbent state Supreme Court justices in Iowa has drawn references to the constitutionally-based Colorado judicial accountability movement.  A recent Des Moines Register article (Monday) noted that a recent poll shows “Retention of justices a tossup” in that state, and mentions the Clear The Bench Colorado effort as an example of the growing trend to challenge judicial incumbents perceived as acting outside the role of referees, fairly and impartially applying the law as written.

(As a side note - it would be interesting to see if our August polling results, showing that Colorado voters would overwhelmingly reject another term for the three incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices on the ballot if aware of the issues were validated by another independent statewide poll).

On Tuesday, the Fort Collins Coloradoan also discussed the Clear The Bench Colorado effort in the context of an article on judicial retention elections (”Group possibly violates campaign laws“), focusing on the confusion created in campaign finance law created by Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer’s surprise decision to side with “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) in throwing out documentary evidence and the office of Secretary of State testimony in ruling to change the year-and-a-half-plus status of Clear The Bench Colorado at the same time that ballots are mailed.

Also on Tuesday, USA Today covered Clear The Bench Colorado and the issue of judicial retention elections (largely focusing on the larger-profile Iowa campaign to oust three state supreme court justices there). The issue of judicial retention elections - YOUR right to hold unelected, appointed judges accountable by the simple act of casting a “NO” vote if, as a citizen, you believe that they have NOT properly honored their oath to “support the Constitution” and uphold the rule of law - is increasingly prominent; Colorado is at the forefront of the judicial accountability movement now gaining traction nationwide.

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 retiring 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!