Amendment H: Vote NO
Seven reasons why Amendment H is bad for Colorado
Seven reasons why Amendment H is bad for Colorado
1. Amendment H makes it more difficult to discipline a judge by requiring more steps in the discipline process.
2. Amendment H creates more procedures that would allow judges to get complaints dismissed secretly. It sets up a confidential appellate process to help judges remain unaccountable.
3. Amendment H increases the Supreme Court's involvement in judicial discipline. H would give the Supreme Court a direct role in private discipline that it does not currently have. H also allows the Supreme Court to appoint judges to the adjudicatory board whose rulings can be appealed to the Supreme Court.
4. Amendment H retains too much secrecy. Since 1984, 7,157 complaints have been filed by the public against judges. These figures are from the annual reports of the discipline commission that would remain in effect under Amendment H. Of those complaints, 7,145 (more than 99% of the total complaints filed) were handled out of public view. H would continue to allow that.
5. Amendment H would reward the bad players in the judicial scandal. The state court administrator gets a direct role in judicial discipline and H makes it harder to discipline the chief justice.
6. The adjudicative board in Amendment H is not independent and this falsehood should not be placed in the state constitution.
7. If Amendment H passes, obtaining necessary reforms will almost be impossible because legislators will allege they did the job with Amendment H.
2. Amendment H creates more procedures that would allow judges to get complaints dismissed secretly. It sets up a confidential appellate process to help judges remain unaccountable.
3. Amendment H increases the Supreme Court's involvement in judicial discipline. H would give the Supreme Court a direct role in private discipline that it does not currently have. H also allows the Supreme Court to appoint judges to the adjudicatory board whose rulings can be appealed to the Supreme Court.
4. Amendment H retains too much secrecy. Since 1984, 7,157 complaints have been filed by the public against judges. These figures are from the annual reports of the discipline commission that would remain in effect under Amendment H. Of those complaints, 7,145 (more than 99% of the total complaints filed) were handled out of public view. H would continue to allow that.
5. Amendment H would reward the bad players in the judicial scandal. The state court administrator gets a direct role in judicial discipline and H makes it harder to discipline the chief justice.
6. The adjudicative board in Amendment H is not independent and this falsehood should not be placed in the state constitution.
7. If Amendment H passes, obtaining necessary reforms will almost be impossible because legislators will allege they did the job with Amendment H.
|
Amendment H won't change the fact that 99% of complaints against judges are dealt with in private. See this CBS4 Reality Check.
H Creates More Secrecy and Less Accountability
H creates a private appeal process for judges. Proponents of H have claimed it would provide more transparency. Not so. H would actually create more proceedings behind closed doors that are aimed at helping judges remain unaccountable.
If the discipline commission determines a judge should receive private discipline. H provides that a judge could confidentially appeal that finding to a 3-member panel of the adjudicatory board. It allows a judge a second chance at getting a complaint dismissed. Then, even if the discipline commission and the 3-member panel determine a judge should receive private discipline, H allows the judge to privately appeal the matter to the Supreme Court. H provides a judge with three chances to get a complaint dismissed out of public view. These appeals are not currently allowed. The appeals created in H are aimed at helping a judge remain unaccountable. H actually gives the Supreme Court more power than it currently has in judicial discipline proceedings. The Supreme Court is not currently involved in the private discipline process. H would change that and give the Supreme Court a direct role in private judicial discipline. H is not what proponents claim. It gives the Supreme Court more power in judicial discipline proceedings. It also provides for less transparency by allowing a whole lot of litigation that would take place covertly. If H passes, public confidence in the judiciary will decrease because it will become even harder to discipline a judge and more actions will take place in private. You have to read the actual language H would place in the state constitution to understand the private discipline appeal process.
The judicial scandal involved the state court administrator behaving badly.
What’s Amendment H do? It gives the state court administrator a direct role in judicial discipline. Scandalous
In 2021, a judicial scandal was revealed to the public. The scandal involved a state court administrator, the chief justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, and a former employee of the state court administrator’s office behaving very badly.
The former employee allegedly blackmailed the state court administrator and chief justice into awarding her a lucrative contract. Allegedly, she claimed she would reveal allegations of misconduct by judges that should have been disciplined. It was alleged that she was “the fixer” who could make such complaints against judges go away. Allegedly, she was awarded a contract by the state court administrator and the chief justice to keep her quiet. The state court administrator resigned as soon as the information went public. The chief justice resigned and was disciplined. The legislature felt prompted to take action. What does Amendment H do? It empowers the state court administrator with selecting the members of an adjudicatory panel who would hear a judicial discipline case. In other words, Amendment H would place in the state constitution greater power for the state court administrator – the position that behaved so badly that it was the impetus for Amendment H. Such power should not be given to the state court administrator. Such power should not be enshrined in the state constitution. |
Why would you vote to place a falsehood in the state constitution?
If you're going to amend the state constitution, the amendment should be perfect. Amendment H is far from perfect. Colorado could do so much better than Amendment H.
* We could have a discipline commission where a judge serves only in an advisory capacity.
* We could have 100% transparency of complaints against judges. * We could hold judges to a high standard of care by having the burden in judicial discipline proceedings be a preponderance of the evidence. * We could make it so the Supreme Court or rulemaking committees could not use gamesmanship in the rules to dismiss complaints that should be prosecuted. Send legislators back to the drawing board:
Vote NO on Amendment H. Amendment H would make the discipline system even worse than it currently is. Colorado Sun: Amendment H is a misleading step backward
Denver Post: Amendment H would make it harder to discipline judges Colorado Politics: H is a monster lurking Voters should question Amendment H - Aurora Sentinel Colorado Public Radio story on Amendment H Colorado Sun story on Amendment H Pagosa Daily Post story re: Blue Book and Amendment H Forsyth opinion on MSN/Boulder Daily Camera on Amendment H Atwood opinion on MSN/Boulder Daily Camera on Amendment H Ballotpedia page on Amendment H |
Why is Amendment H on the Ballot?
Judicial politics, conflicts of interest, and a drunk legislator all play a part.
Judicial politics, conflicts of interest, and a drunk legislator all play a part.
The Judicial Branch Scandal
|
It all started with what is loosely referred to as the judicial scandal. In February 2021, it was revealed in a Denver Post story that a lucrative contract ($2.5 million) had been awarded to a troubled former employee of the state court administrator’s office by the state court administrator and the chief justice. Allegedly, the contract was awarded to keep the former employee quiet.
The former employee had kept track of complaints against judges that should have been disciplined or reported. Allegedly, she threatened to reveal the incidents. She was referred to as “the fixer” within the judicial department when it came to complaints against judges. Apparently, she could make the complaints go away. After the story went public, the money wasn’t paid on the contract to the former employee. The state court administrator resigned when the story went public. The chief justice, Nathan B. Coats, had already resigned due to age. He was subsequently disciplined. It all made the news. The legislature felt backed into a corner to finally do something. |
$2.5 million contract awarded by chief justice and state court administrator to former employee allegedly to keep her quiet.
|
Investigations paid for by judicial branch
Brian Boatright, Justice on the Colorado Supreme Court and chief justice after the judicial scandal broke and the previous chief justice resigned. Boatright's strategies kept judicial branch documents from the public and from legislators.
|
The new chief justice, Brian Boatright, took action. He offered to pay for the investigators into the scandal if the legislature selected the investigators. This was a strategic move by Boatright. The judicial branch would go on to allege that because the investigators were paid by the judicial branch, the judicial branch held privilege over the investigations. It was a clever move on his part.
Legislators took Boatright’s offer and selected investigators. Meanwhile, changes to the judicial discipline system were threatened in public. The legislature decided to have an interim committee study the issue. A legislator admitted during a hearing on the bill to create the interim committee that the Boatright wanted a two-tier judicial discipline system. Two-tier means the prosecution and adjudication duties should be in separate entities. This was another strategic move by then Chief Justice Boatright. First, he took charge of the investigation by offering to pay for it. Second, he started lobbying legislators for what changes should be made to the judicial discipline process. Boatright knew that the best defense is often a strong offense. You see, Colorado already has a two-tier system -- it’s just not mandatory. So, Boatright was sending legislators on a chase to achieve the slightest tweak to Colorado’s judicial discipline system without holding judges any more accountable. In fact, the measure would ultimately make judges less accountable and increase the Supreme Court's involvement in judicial discipline. State Senator Pete Lee for the Democrats and State Senator Bob Gardner for the Republicans were taking the lead on all of this. They are long-time judicial branch allies who have both run legislation on behalf of the judicial branch. Boatright knew he was safe with them at the helm. |
Interim Committee created to propose Amendment H
|
The legislative interim committee was created and proceeded. Lee created the agenda for the interim committee. It was carefully orchestrated to come to the conclusion that the chief justice wanted. Lee invited certain specific people to speak and kept public input at the meetings to a bare minimum. The committee would meet on several occasions, but the agenda for each meeting was set by Lee to put forth the narrative he wanted.
After Lee created the agenda for the interim committee, criminal charges were filed against Lee alleging that he registered to vote at an address where he didn’t live. Lawmakers are required to live in the district they represent. He resigned and his involvement with the interim committee stopped. Representative Mike Weissman took over the duty of chairing the interim committee. Weissman is a licensed lawyer who has never practiced law. You would be hard-pressed to find someone more susceptible to doing exactly what the judicial branch wanted. Weissman followed the agenda set by Lee. Weissman talked repeatedly in hearings about the time he was spending talking on the phone with Representative Terri Carver, another lawyer legislator who never practiced in Colorado state courts. Meanwhile, Weissman kept public comments to a minimum and interrupted members of the public when they were going over short time limits. If the committee was looking to understand the problem and how to solve it, he would not have cut off the testimony. He would have listened. But that wasn’t the goal of the committee. The goal from the start was to propose the two-tier judicial discipline system requested by Boatright. |
Top: Former State Senator Pete Lee.
Bottom: State Representative Mike Weissman |
Information withheld based on judicial branch privilege
|
During the hearings, the investigators testified about their findings. The most shocking thing the investigators said was that they were not turning approximately 500 pages over to legislators. The investigators said the judicial branch held the privilege for the documents. So, Boatright’s offer to pay for the investigators paid off. It allowed the judicial branch to keep a lot of information from the legislature . . . and from law enforcement.
So, why didn’t the legislature fight for the documents? Why didn’t the legislature issue a subpoena? Legislators didn’t even issue subpoenas to any witnesses to testify. Neither the woman in the scandal nor the former chief justice were subpoenaed. Wouldn’t they be necessary witnesses if the legislature was really trying to figure out what happened and how to solve it? Why weren’t they questioned? |
Criminal charges avoided
|
Meanwhile, statutes of limitations on criminal violations were running. So, while the judicial branch was withholding documents, and the legislature was doing absolutely nothing to get the documents, Denver’s District Attorney was not getting documentation needed to criminally charge anyone. Those involved in the scandal, government employees, were getting help from other government employees to avoid accountability.
The hearings were simply a dog and pony show to get Boatright what he wanted: a two-tier system that would be a ridiculously minimal change from the current system. And legislators did exactly as Boatright wanted. The interim committee proposed a couple of bills along with a resolution to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to create the two-tier system requested by Boatright. Meanwhile, Lee’s case proceeded to court. He was a long-time judicial branch ally and was doing exactly what the chief justice wanted. Nevertheless, Lee was charged with registering to vote at an address where he didn’t live. Lawmakers are supposed to live in the district they represent. Lee’s case was being prosecuted in the 4th Judicial District – El Paso and Teller Counties. Lee’s case was dismissed by a judge based on attorney regulation admitting they gave incorrect information that was used by the grand jury to indict Lee. |
|
The resolution for Amendment H proceeds
Left: Representative Mike Lynch who had not disclosed he was on probation for a DUI at the time he placed himself on House Judiciary to get the resolution for Amendment H through committee.
Right: Mike Lynch's brother, Thomas Lynch, who is a Larimer County Court Judge. |
The resolution to create Amendment H was introduced in the legislature (HCR23-1001). The resolution was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. Representative Mike Lynch was House Minority Leader. Lynch was not on the House Judiciary Committee. Lynch’s brother, Thomas Lynch, is a county court judge in Larimer County.
Apparently, there were still concerns that the resolution for Amendment H wouldn’t go through smoothly. Representative Lynch used his leadership position to place himself on the House Judiciary Committee for HCR 23-1001 (Amendment H) to ensure it would get through. He removed another member of House Judiciary so he could sit on the committee. It would subsequently be revealed that Lynch was on probation for a DUI that he had not disclosed to the public. So not only was Lynch’s brother a judge, Lynch had a case in the court system at the time he removed a member of House Judiciary and placed himself on the committee to ensure the passage of HCR 23-1001. Lynch’s efforts paid off. The resolution sailed through House Judiciary and the rest of the legislature as well. Boatright and the rest of the judicial branch are thrilled. |
Amendment H is on the ballot
|
Now, Amendment H is on the 2024 ballot. None of Amendment H addresses the scandal. None of it prevents the state court administrator from working with the chief justice to award a lucrative contract to a former employee to keep her quiet. None of it prevents the state court administrator's office from ensuring a judge won't be disciplined. None of it would prevent the scandal from happening again. None of it would hold any judge more accountable. It would actually make judges less accountable.
What does Amendment H do? It makes it harder to discipline judges by creating more steps in the discipline process. It creates more opportunities for judges to get complaints dismissed out of public view. It gives the Supreme Court more power in judicial discipline by allowing it to be involved in the private discipline process. The Supreme Court currently does not have a role in private discipline. H also gives the state court administrator – the position involved in the scandal – direct power in judicial discipline proceedings. H also would reward the chief discipline by making it more difficult to discipline him. The result of H will be less transparency and less accountability. H is perfect for judicial branch members who want to be even more unaccountable while making it look like something was done. Boatright successfully manipulated the legislature to put Amendment H on the ballot. Boatright got the legislature to give the Supreme Court more power in judicial discipline proceedings. Boatright got the legislature to allow more proceedings in private to help judges remain unaccountable. |
|
A missed opportunity
The Ralph L. Carr Judicial Center in downtown Denver where the Supreme Court resides.
|
Could Colorado have done better? Absolutely. We could have created a truly independent discipline commission where a judge serves only in an advisory capacity. We could have 100% transparency of complaints filed against judges. We could actually have a system that holds judges to a high standard of care by making the burden in judicial discipline proceedings a preponderance of the evidence as in other states. In Colorado, complaints against a judge have to be proven by clear and convincing evidence, which is a very difficult burden to prove. In other words, Colorado judges are held to a low standard of care and will continue to be held to that low standard under Amendment H.
The above solutions were provided to the interim committee by the Executive Director of The Judicial Integrity Project. But the interim committee wasn't interested. The legislators weren't trying to hold judges more accountable. The goal of the interim committee was not to listen. The legislators were trying to appease the public with a show. While their goal was to do what the then chief justice, Boatright, wanted. And Boatright's move was critical for making the Colorado Judicial Branch even more unaccountable. The current discipline commission was adopted by a constitutional amendment that became effective in 1967. That's 57 years ago. Boatright is justifiably counting on the fact that the judicial branch will keep the discipline commission from being amended for another 57 years no matter how troubled it is. If there are issues, the judicial branch will claim we need to wait to see if Amendment H works. Indeed, legislators will claim they did the job with Amendment H. Amendment H is a strategic move by the judicial branch to avoid the responsible judicial reform Colorado desperately needs. Boatright is up for retention in 2024. Should the political mastermind behind Amendment H, who orchestrated the denial of documents to legislators and law enforcement, be retained in office? Rep. Mike Weissman is also on the 2024 ballot. He is running for the State Senate in Senate District 28 (North Aurora). |