gardner complaint exposes judicial integrity issue

A complaint against State Senator Bob Gardner is being considered by a legislative ethics committee. Gardner admitted on the legislative record that he called the state court administrator on behalf of a colleague who was having problems with a judge. The result? A new judge.

Channel 7 story on Gardner complaint

The complaint was filed personally by the executive director of The Judicial Integrity Project based on information heard at a legislative committee hearing.

Gardner used his position to get a new judge on a friend's case. He admitted that if his friend didn't know someone on the Judiciary Committee, she might have needed to file a recusal motion. No one should be able to call someone and get a new judge on a case. The ability to do so exposes inequity in Colorado's judicial system.

Channel 9 story on Gardner Complaint

Senate leadership decided the complaint had sufficient merit to proceed. An ethics committee was formed. The executive director of The Judicial Integrity Project alleged some members of the committee had conflicts of interest because they are on the Senate Judiciary committee with Gardner. The Senate President removed Senator Pete Lee who is on Senate Judiciary with Gardner and who has co-sponsored a bill with Gardner regarding the senior judge program.

The senior judge program is at the center of the complaint because the state court administrator places retired judges under contract to work in the judicial branch. The senior judges are assigned to specific cases by the state court administrator and the chief justice. So the state court administrator, a position that is currently under investigation by the state auditor and the legislature, selects the judges who are hired as senior judges and then is involved with determining what cases those judges will hear. The judge on Gardner's friend's case was a senior judge. Gardner called the state court administrator and the judge was removed from the case and a new judge was assigned.

It's unknown whether the other party in that case knew that Gardner was involved or why the judge on the case changed. In a interview with Colorado Politics, Gardner claimed the judge committed clear violation of professional standards for attorneys and judges. It is unknown, however, whether Gardner contacted the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline. But Gardner admitted on the legislative record that he helped his friend avoid a recusal motion by contacting the state court administrator. A recusal motion is a motion where a party in the case requests a new judge. Such motions are decided by the judge hearing the case.

In other words, Gardner admitted he helped his friend circumvent the normal procedure in a court case. And he admitted his position was important for getting it done.

The legislative ethics committee is proceeding under a Senate rule that allows the committee to review only the complaint, the answer, and any information the committee requests. The only information the committee has requested is information from the current state court administrator regarding how often legislators and the public reach out to the administrator for help.

The next meeting for the ethics committee will be on July 12. The committee may determine on that date whether there is probable cause that an ethics violation was committed by Gardner. If so, the matter may proceed to an evidentiary hearing. If not, the complaint may be dismissed. It's also possible the committee will determine it needs more information. Gardner has not revealed the name of the attorney who he assisted. At this point, the ethics committee has failed to request any information to ascertain whether Gardner's version of the facts is correct. The ethics committee has not tried to obtain any information from the parties in the case where Gardner intervened. 

The state senators on the ethics committee are: Julie Gonzales, Faith Winter, Chris Hansen, Paul Lundeen and John Cooke.

No matter the result of the ethics investigation, Gardner's admission exposes a judicial integrity issue in Colorado. Judges aren't always accountable to the people and may be specifically assigned to a case for reasons unknown to the parties. Everyone should have the right to a judge who is accountable to the people and who is randomly assigned. No one should be able to change the judge who is hearing a case by simply making a phone call. The situation shows the improper, unaccountable power that is given to Colorado's state court administrator. Gardner has shown that judges can be tinkered with in Colorado, And simply put, that's not fair. As the great Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."