 Color shouldn't matter.
Justice should.
0 Comments
 Colorado’s judicial performance system is a mess.
The legislature recently passed a law that will have its first effect in the 2020 election. The law eliminated the performance standard that Colorado’s commissions on judicial performance are supposed to use to evaluate a judge. If you recall, the recommendations the commissions make to voters changed in the last election from “retain” or “do not retain” to “meets” or “does not meet performance standards.” So don’t you think that means there must be a standard the commissions use to evaluate a judge? Think again. SB19-187 removed the previous statutory language that required the state commission on judicial performance to adopt a “clear description of the thresholds for the recommendations of ‘meets performance standard’ or ‘does not meet performance standard’ and how that information will be made available to the public.” The language meant the commissions were supposed to have a standard by which to judge a judge. If a commission is going to tell voters that a judge meets a performance standard, that’s the way it should be. There should be a threshold standard. But the performance commissions were caught in 2018 making some questionable recommendations. That's because the state commission refused to adopt a specific standard as required by the previous law. The refusal resulted in inconsistent recommendations by district commissions. In 2018, Phillip Douglass, a judge in the 18th Judicial District, received a performance score of 83% yet received a “does not meet performance standard” recommendation. Thirty-three judges had lower scores and only one of them also had an unfavorable recommendation. Compare that with Cindy Dang, an Adams County Court judge, who received a performance score of 59% yet received a “meets performance standard” recommendation. A 59% score on a test would be a failing grade, yet the commission determined that Dang passed muster. Dang was retained. Douglass was not retained. If there was a standard which the performance commissions used, there would not have been inconsistent results. The commissions were criticized for inconsistent results and for failing to adopt a standard. Instead of working to comply with the law, the state performance commission successfully lobbied the legislature to remove the language requiring a specific standard. Meanwhile, however, the performance commissions still claim to voters that a judge meets or does not meet a performance standard. Crazy, huh? Arizona uses the “meets” or “does not meet performance standard” recommendation to voters and uses a scorecard to determine whether a judge meets the standard. If 25% of any group of people who respond regarding the judge rate the judge as unacceptable, then the judge does not meet the threshold standard. If a judge receives 2.0 or less from any group of respondents, then the judge does not meet the threshold standard. Not so in Colorado because Colorado has no standard. As shown in 2018, a judge can receive a 59% score, out of 100%, and still receive a favorable recommendation. To sum up, the state commission defied the law in the last election and did not adopt a standard. Then the state performance commission successfully lobbied a reckless legislature to allow performance commissions to tell voters that judges meet a performance standard that does not exist. Wouldn’t you call that fraud? These commissions don’t know whether the judges they’re evaluating have been disciplined. And now they don’t even have a standard to guide them. Colorado needs a new state commission and a new executive director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation. If you haven’t already, please sign our petition to create a new state commission. But know this: No matter what any performance commission claims, Colorado’s judges have no standards. |
Judicial IntegrityA nonpartisan nonprofit seeking to improve the justice system by advocating for laws that increase transparency, enhance accountability and remove conflicts of interest. Archives
October 2024
Categories |
RSS Feed