Source: http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:42:04+00:00

Document:
Some judges continue to hold themselves above the law - but they are not beyond accountability.
DID YOU KNOW that you have the right to vote "NO" on these unjust justices (and judges at all levels)?
It's true – judges - even Supreme Court justices - in Colorado ARE accountable to the people. Every two years, voters in Colorado have the opportunity to render their judgement on a portion of our appointed judiciary in "retention" elections ("should they stay, or should they go?" What makes a good judge?) YOU, the voter, get to decide - they NEED YOUR APPROVAL to be retained on the bench.
Do you Know Your Judge appearing on the 2016 Ballot?
As Coloradans enjoy the last month this 2016 election year before being bombarded with political ads and mailers, MOST voters have little to no information on up to a third of the people asking for their vote: our state’s 3rd Branch of government, the judges.
Unfortunately, the official, government-sanctioned incumbent-protection “performance reviews” produced by the state’s Commissions on Judicial Performance (published and disseminated, at significant taxpayer expense, in the “Blue Book”) fail to provide much (if any) substance behind the published “recommendations” (almost uniformly in favor of “retaining” judicial incumbents in office).
The Blue Book “reviews” are thus little more than (taxpayer-funded) political ads for incumbents.
A recent Denver 9News (NBC) story, “Colorado judges win elections despite bad reviews” converted the “official” performance review survey results into letter grades for each of the 108 judges appearing on the 2016 ballot. Amazingly, just like Lake Woebegone, all of the judges were graded “above average” (letter grades ranging from a high of “A-” to a low of “B-” with the vast majority receiving a “B+” grade).
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.
In any event, why do we have political appointees (commissioners are appointed by the governor, attorney general, state legislators and the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court – the latter certainly seeming to have a conflict of interest) telling Coloradans how to vote?
Colorado voters deserve better information on these unelected officials, who (usually with little notice) exert enormous influence over their lives. For a 4th straight election cycle, Clear The Bench Colorado is researching and evaluating the performance of the appellate court (statewide) judges appearing on the 2016 ballot (1 Supreme Court justice, 10 Court of Appeals judges), collected inputs on district and county judges from around the state, and will publish this information in an easy-to-read “scorecard” format as a resource for Colorado voters.
Five years ago today, the Denver-based Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) – “a national, non-partisan organization dedicated to improving the process and culture of the civil justice system” – hosted a National Conference on Evaluating Appellate Judges (on 11-12 August 2011) at the University of Denver (Sturm Hall, 2000 E. Asbury Avenue, Denver CO 80208).
The Colorado Court of Appeals rejected legal arguments filed by Colorado Ethics Watch (a state subsidiary of the Washington D.C. -based ‘Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington‘, or CREW) challenging the Colorado Republican Party’s establishment of a supposedly “independent” SuperPAC (Colorado Republican Party Independent Expenditure Committee, or ‘CORE IEC’) allowing the party to circumvent contribution limits otherwise applying to political parties.
Such “coordination” between the party and the IEC remains illegal, according to the ruling (Ruling at 9-13); however, because the legal challenge was “facial” (based entirely on theoretical application of the law) rather than “as-applied” (based on evidence of actual activity or conduct), the court did not review or consider any evidence or history of the IEC’s actual activities (more on that later).
Following the passage of Amendment 27 in 2002 (enacted as Article XXVIII, Colorado Constitution), contribution limits have applied to organizations supporting or opposing candidates in state elections –including political parties. Under current Colorado law, political parties may accept a maximum of $3,400 per year (state, county, local levels combined) in aggregate (total) contributions from any individual – and are prohibited from receiving contributions from corporations or labor organizations (unions).
The CORE IEC was formed at the specific direction of former COGOP Chairman Ryan Call (who publicly bragged that the IEC was his personal “brainchild”) and initially registered with the Secretary of State on 7 May 2014. Ryan Call filed a lawsuit in the name of the Colorado Republican Party in Denver District Court the next day seeking a ruling (Petition for Declaratory Order) “blessing off” on the IEC’s existence. Even before the District Court issued its decision, the CORE IEC collected (and spent, mostly to pay Executive Director Tyler Harber) tens of thousands of dollars – money that, had the party lost its challenge, would have subjected both the party and the donors to penalties of 2-5X the amount each contribution exceeded the limit ($3,400) applying to political parties.
The District Court ruled in September that, so long as the CORE IEC did not coordinate activity or spending with the Colorado Republican Party (inclusive officers, including Chairman Call) that it could be established and operate as an independent entity. The District Court (as, later, the Court of Appeals) relied almost exclusively on the representations of the IEC’s Bylaws – holding that the bylaws provided sufficient separation (and “firewalls”) against coordination.
CEW filed an appeal of the District Court’s decision on 6 October 2014 – seeking to overturn the judgment on purely facial (theoretical) grounds rather than seek to prosecute the IEC for “as-applied” violations of campaign finance law (including the “coordination” issue). The case dragged through the Spring and into the Summer of 2015 (during which time it became a hot potato in internal party politics), before ultimately leading to yesterday’s ruling.
Meanwhile, the CORE IEC was successfully prosecuted for violations of state campaign finance law – along with a dozen-odd big-money donors, when the IEC failed in its above-cited obligations to “assist donors to the IEC to fulfill their reporting requirements” – in a series of complaints filed in late 2014 (resulting in a ‘guilty plea’ entered by COGOP Chairman Ryan Call on behalf of the IEC) and early 2015 (again resulting in a stipulated judgment against the CORE IEC negotiated and authorized by the new COGOP Chairman Steve House). Part of that settlement agreement negotiated by COGOP Chairman House included a commitment to terminate the CORE IEC within 150 days – or pay a suspended penalty of $23, 125 as mandated by statute. The state party (and Chairman House) along with the IEC have failed to honor that obligation.
Additionally, a dozen deep-pocketed Colorado Republican donors have been assessed penalties for failing to “fulfill their reporting requirements under the independent expenditure statute” (thanks to the failure of Ryan Call and the IEC to “assist” the donors in fulfilling their legal obligations) – including such luminaries as former Colorado Governor Bill Owens, along with former IEC managing board member Keven Kauffman, to name just a few of the most prominent – although the party actually paid the penalties on behalf of the donors.
Furthermore, the IEC does in fact “retain or utilize any common consultant or common vendor with the Colorado Republican Committee” – namely, the same campaign finance management firm, the Utah-based McCauley & Associates PC (owned and operated by former Utah Republican Party Treasurer Mike McCauley) – who took over as the CORE IEC’s Registered Agent and Designated Filing Agent on 9 February 2015 from the departing Tyler Harber, who entered a guilty plea for federal felonies a few days later (12 February 2015) – ironically, for illegal campaign coordination.
Consequently, although the CORE IEC (and its sponsor, the Colorado Republican Party) can celebrate a court victory – they’re not out of the woods just yet.
Clear The Bench Colorado generally opposes the imposition of contribution limits or other restrictions on free speech in the civic and political arena (see, Speaking Out on Reforming Colorado’s Campaign Finance Laws) as unconstitutional abridgments of the 1st Amendment; in particular, the excessively complex and convoluted nature of campaign finance laws in Colorado challenge the Constitution, chill free speech, and curtail civic participation. Any such laws that do remain in effect, however, must be fairly and equitably applied to everyone – with no “special exemptions” for favored entities. It is our view that the CORE IEC is an attempt to create just such a “special exemption” and violates the spirit (and, if “coordinating” activities) letter of the law.
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) kicked back a challenge to Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) constitutional amendment (Article X, Section 20) to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, vacating the 10th Circuit’s previous judgment and remanding the case for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U. S. (2015).
The frivolous, groundless, and politically-motivated lawsuit attempting to overturn a Colorado Constitutional Amendment (the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, colloquially known as “TABOR”) was initially filed in Federal court in May 2011 – and, after several rounds of motions and counter-motions, allowed to proceed to trial in July 2012 (despite clear constitutional precedent disallowing challenges based on the “Guarantee Clause”) prior to the interlocutory appeal filed with the 10th Circuit. After a 3-judge panel on the 10th Circuit ruled that the case could proceed, and a requested en banc hearing was rejected, albeit with several strong dissents) by the court, the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court before being sent back earlier today.
the electorate shares lawmaking authority on equal footing with the Arizona Legislature. The voters may adopt laws and constitutional amendments by ballot initiative, and they may approve or disapprove, by referendum, measures passed by the Legislature. Ariz. Const., Art. IV, pt. 1, §1. “Any law which may be enacted by the Legislature . . . may be enacted by the people under the Initiative.” Art. XXII, §14.
As Clear The Bench Colorado noted at the very outset of this litigation, the two relevant SCOTUS cases on the “Guarantee Clause” have held the “Republican form of government” language to be non-justiciable.
In Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849), the Supreme Court rejected an attempt to put the “republican character” of state government subject to judicial review, holding that “it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State … as well as its republican character.” The court, properly exercising judicial restraint, held the “Guarantee Clause” to be a political question, not a judicial one – and therefore not subject to review by the courts (i.e. non-justiciable).
Id. art. V, § 1 (“The legislative power of the state shall be vested in the general assembly . . . but the people reserve to themselves the power . . . at their own option to approve or reject at the polls any act or item, section, or part of any act of the general assembly.”).
The attorneys general of Texas, Idaho, Arizona, Indiana, Ohio and Wyoming submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of Colorado’s defense against the lawsuit.
If “We The People” cannot set constitutional limits on government power, then the very founding principles of this nation – indeed, the foundations of Liberty itself – are at risk.
A more detailed (and highly informative) discussion of the constitutionality of the citizen initiative and referendum processes may be found in the Texas Law Review article, “A Republic, Not a Democracy? Initiative, Referendum, and the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause” by Professor Robert G. Natelson.
The Colorado Supreme Court, in a stunning reversal of the Colorado Court of Appeals ruling from February 2013, declared the Douglas County School Choice Voucher Program a violation of the Colorado Constitution, in a ruling released earlier today (Monday, 29 June 2015).
The unusual plurality ruling (essentially, a 3 +1 vs. 3 judgment) in the case (13SC233, Taxpayers for Public Education v. Douglas County School District) split along the issues of whether the plaintiffs even had standing to bring the case on statutory grounds (a 6-1 majority held that they did not) and on whether the Choice Scholarship Program (CSP) violated the Colorado Constitution, Article IX Section 7 (prohibiting expenditure of public funds “to help support or sustain” certain schools). Three of the Colorado Supreme Court justices (Chief Justice Rice, Justice Hobbs and Justice Hood) held that the CSP violated the Colorado Constitution; one (Justice Marquez) held that the CSP violated the School Finance Act on statutory grounds, and joined in the judgment. Three justices (Justice Eid, joined by Justice Boatright and Justice Coats) agreed that the plaintiffs lacked standing on statutory grounds, and disagreed that the CSP was in violation of the Constitution.
The legal battle over the constitutionality of the Douglas County “Choice Scholarship Program” – which allows K-12 students who reside in the Douglas County School District and have been enrolled in a Douglas County public school for at least one year to apply for a Choice Scholarship to attend the private or charter school of their choice – has gained national attention as the “ground zero” in the fight for school choice across the country.
Justice Marquez also held that the CSP violated the School Finance Act on statutory grounds alone, and thus would not rule on the constitutional issues, ensuring that only a plurality (rather than an actual majority) held the CSP in violation of the Colorado Constitution, concurring in the judgment only.
A mere plurality of three justices – Chief Justice Nancy Rice, retiring Justice Gregory Hobbs, and recently-appointed Justice William Hood III – held the Choice Scholarship Program violates the Colorado Constitution (specifically, Article IX Section 7 Aid to Private Schools, Churches, Sectarian Purpose, Forbidden).
As a side note: Clear The Bench Colorado raised the issue of a potential conflict of interest with Hood ruling in cases brought by his former law partner, Marc Grueskin, at the time of Hood’s appointment to the Colorado Supreme Court by Governor Hickenlooper. Grueskin was the attorney for amicus curiae National Education Association in this case, which should have at least raised the potential for Hood’s recusal, in whole or part, from the proceedings. Not that ethical considerations hold much weight in Colorado courts.
Americans United Grant Program Distinguishable?
The plurality proceeded to note a number of other distinctions between CSIP (the college grant program at issue in Americans United) and the CSP, from the obvious (CSIP is for college, while CSP is for primary education) to the irrelevant (CSIP includes grants for tuition at public universities, a condition that does not apply to public primary schools) to the programmatic (CSIP bars reduction of college funds spent on students to offset grant money, while CSP has no explicit prohibition on offsets) to, finally, conditions on a university governing board’s membership (applying under CSIP, but not a CSP requirement).
First Amendment Issues Inapplicable to Choice Scholarship Program?
Similarly, the plurality held that previous federal First Amendment case law applying to school choice programs – specifically, the 2002 U.S. Supreme Court Zelman case and the 2008 10th Circuit Colorado Christian University v. Weaver case – are not “availing” in this case.
As occurs far too often in Colorado jurisprudence, to find the law one must read the dissent. Justice Allison Eid authored a strong dissent, joined by Justices Boatright and Coats.
Most importantly, Justice Eid notes that “Americans United mirrors long-standing Establishment Clause doctrine, under which a program “of true private choice, in which government aid reaches religious schools only as a result of the genuine and independent choices of private individuals” is “not readily subject to challenge” because the “circuit between government and religion [has been] broken.” Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 652 (2002).
Indeed, as Justice Eid suggests, such an expansive interpretation would readily lead to the absurd result that any expenditure of public funds whatsoever – including, as noted above, any public infrastructure such as roads or bridges which could indirectly benefit such institutions – would be prohibited.
Plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of proving the unconstitutionality of the CSP beyond a reasonable doubt, or by any other potentially applicable standard. None of them have standing to assert a claim under the Act. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment cannot stand.
The Colorado Supreme Court plurality stretched the prohibitions on government spending to “support or sustain” sectarian schools past the point of absurdity; applying the same logic found in their ruling, every conceivable expenditure of public funds could be challenged on the basis of providing “incidental or indirect” support to sectarian schools (which could certainly make for interesting fodder for anyone opposing any given state government program).
Sadly, this latest Colorado Supreme Court ruling reaffirms the court’s status as a judicial hellhole lacking respect for the rule of law and the constitutional rights of Colorado citizens.
Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper announced his pick for the next Colorado Supreme Court Justice Tuesday afternoon, 23 June 2015: Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Richard L. Gabriel, who will succeed retiring Justice Gregory Hobbs effective 1 September 2015.
Governor Hickenlooper had until this Thursday to announce his selection from among the three finalists (Judge Gabriel, Judge Prince, and University of Colorado Law Professor Melissa Hart) nominated by the state judicial nominating commission, according to the timeline set forth under the Colorado Constitution.
Judge Gabriel has served on the Colorado Court of Appeals since his 30 April 2008 appointment by former Governor Bill Ritter; he was most recently retained in office in 2010 (Clear The Bench Colorado had no recommendation on his retention at that time, as the record on his performance was limited due to few rulings in his short time on the court).
Judge Gabriel appears to be a consensus compromise pick by Governor Hickenlooper; according to the Denver Post and the Denver Business Journal, the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry (CACI) and other business interests had lobbied for Prince’s appointment, along with the Colorado Springs Gazette’s editorial board; while “progressives” lobbied for Leftist law professor Melissa Hart.
According to Clear The Bench Colorado sources in the legal community, Judge Gabriel is generally well-regarded, and considered a capable appellate court judge. He is considered approachable, reasonable, thoughtful and thorough in his legal opinions. Some sources have opined that Judge Gabriel, although well versed in various aspects of statutory application, is not among the more strict constructionists on constitutional issues (which is, perhaps unfortunately, not atypical of a majority of judges and lawyers).
Judge Gabriel was considered a consensus-builder during his time on the judicial liaison committee, and has worked well with various commissions interfacing with the judicial branch.
On a personal note (not to toot his own horn), Judge Gabriel plays trumpet (for fun) and has kept in practice.
Although Judge Gabriel has authored only a few published opinions, some of those have been particularly noteworthy. He wrote the opinion in the Colorado Ethics Watch v. Senate Majority Fund case, perhaps the most important ruling on campaign finance law (particularly, the issue of “express advocacy” in regulation of political speech), rejecting CEW’s attempt to expand the definition of “express advocacy” to include the “functional equivalent” thereof. Judge Gabriel also wrote a special concurrence in the Gray v. University of Colorado Hospital Authority case, which affirmed public entity immunity from liability for tort claims based on allegations that the entity or the entity’s employees acted in a willful and wanton manner.
Our View: Judge Gabriel is likely to be a fairly middle-of-the-road jurist, who will likely contribute to a significantly more impartial and balanced Colorado Supreme Court (the court has advanced leaps and bounds from the blatantly partisan “Mullarkey Majority” days from as recently as five years ago). Clear The Bench Colorado looks forward to providing more detailed analysis of Judge Gabriel’s performance on the Colorado Supreme Court over his “probationary term” prior to his scheduled retention vote in 2018.
Citizen participation in the judicial review and retention process (either at the district level or statewide) is essential to ensuring that good judges – who understand that their role is to fairly and impartially uphold and apply the law – are elevated to judicial office, instead of more politicians in black robes.
This is particularly important at the appellate court level – many of whom all too frequently have exercised unrestrained power in violation of constitutional limits on their authority.
Our judicial system depends more than any other branch of government on public trust and confidence that the law is being applied fairly and impartially for all citizens – that our judges are fulfilling their proper roles as referees upholding the rules rather than players attempting to score for their “team’s” agenda.
Bottom Line: an informed citizenry and active citizen participation is vital in restoring accountability and transparency to the 3rd branch of state government, the judicial branch.
The Colorado Supreme Court Judicial Nominating Commission has named the three finalists to succeed retiring state supreme court justice Gregory Hobbs (his retirement is effective 31 August 2015).
The Supreme Court Nominating Commission met in Denver on June 8 and 9, 2015, to interview and select three candidates for a vacancy on the Colorado Supreme Court created by the retirement of the Hon. Gregory Hobbs, Associate Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court. The vacancy is effective 31 August 2015. The nominees are Richard L. Gabriel, Melissa Hart and David Prince.
Under the Colorado Constitution, the governor has 15 days from June 10, 2015, within which to appoint one of the nominees as a justice on the Colorado Supreme Court.
Comments regarding any of the nominees may be sent via e-mail to the governor at gov_judicialappointments@state.co.us.
Judge Prince was also a finalist to succeed retiring former chief justice Mary Mullarkey in 2010; he was profiled by Denver Post courts reporter Felisa Cardona (“Colorado Supreme Court finalist Prince applies diligence to his cases – and his barbecue“) in an article appearing 4 September 2010. He was again a finalist to succeed retiring former chief justice Michael Bender in 2012. Perhaps the third time will be the charm for Judge Prince?
The Law Week Online article, “Finalists Announced for CO Supreme Court Vacancy” (10 June 2015) summarizes additional background information on the three finalists.
Unfortunately, Colorado citizens know more about the process of picking the Pope than about how our state selects nominees to judicial office.
This is unfortunate – because, despite some flaws (most importantly, a lack of transparency and public accountability – secrecy encouraged by the legal establishment, who are more interested in protecting their members and covering for their ‘buddies on the bench’ than allowing them to be called to account), the process does provide some level of front-end vetting of judicial applicants, filtering out the obviously unqualified and excessively partisan (weeding out the ‘worst of the worst’).
So, how does the Supreme Court Nominating Commission try to make ‘better choices’ for replacing outgoing justices?
On announcement of the vacancy and solicitation for application, prospective nominees submit an extensive application packet (including a long questionnaire, writing sample, background information, resume of relevant professional experience, and references).
Commission members review the applications, and select from the total list (this year, 31 people applied for the impending vacancy) for interviews (a particular candidate will be interviewed if any commissioner expresses a strong desire to have them appear). Commissioners consider the current makeup of the court, and may advocate for a specific constituency – a particular area of legal expertise – such as water or business law, or possibly a regional or ethnic representation in pursuit of court ‘diversity’). Interviews are based on a common set of ‘core’ questions (for consistency of comparison & evaluation); each commissioner develops and uses their own evaluation criteria.
Following interviews, the commission deliberates/discusses the candidate, voicing comments or concerns to the group at large.
Following all of the interviews, the commission casts a ballot – three unranked votes per opening (for the Colorado Supreme Court or Court of Appeals – lower courts may only require 2-3 nominees). The top vote-getters become the finalists – with the caveat that any finalist MUST receive a majority of total Commission votes (i.e. 8 of 15), irrespective of how many are actually present. Multiple ballots may be (generally are) necessary. (Note that the current makeup of the Nominating Commission – 7 Democrats, 5 Republicans, 3 Unaffiliated – ensures that any finalists MUST receive at least one vote from multiple party affiliations).
The names of the three finalists are submitted for consideration by the governor, who has 15 days to make a selection from the list.
ALL of our sources (from differing party backgrounds) have stressed that the Nomination Commission deliberations are non-partisan (which is not to say, as our sources admit, that the deliberations and considerations do not reflect ideology or judicial philosophy – which is, in our view, entirely appropriate).
Citizen participation in the judicial nominating commissions (either at the district level or statewide) is essential to ensuring that good judges – who understand that their role is to fairly and impartially uphold and apply the law – are elevated to judicial office, instead of more politicians in black robes.
This is particularly important in selecting the next statewide appellate court judges – many of whom all too frequently have exercised unrestrained power in violation of constitutional limits on their authority.
Our view: an informed citizenry and active citizen participation is vital in restoring accountability and transparency to the 3rd branch of state government, the judicial branch.

References: v. 
 §1
 §14
 v. 
 § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.