hiding judicial discipline proceedings harms people

Dramatic testimony this week substantiated what we’ve been telling legislators for many years. Colorado’s judicial discipline commission is covering up misconduct and endangering the public.

The testimony related the harm the discipline commission caused a victim of sexual harassment by a judge. Perhaps legislators will listen now.

The legislative interim committee on judicial discipline, however, is being led down the wrong path by the current judicial discipline commission and judge-centric groups.

The person who controlled who the interim committee would hear from was its chair – Senator Sanford “Pete” Lee from Colorado Springs. He was indicted on a felony just before the August 10 hearing and was replaced on the committee.

The crime he was charged with involved claiming on voting records that he lived at an address where he did not live. He selected who could testify and the order in which they would testify.

So, the interim committee heard from the current discipline commission first and last. The commission received more time before the committee than any other group.

The commission hasn’t publicly disciplined a judge for anything related to a court case for more than 36 years. The commission has had a 97% dismissal rate of complaints against judges for almost 30 years.

But there wasn’t any focus on those statistics. The commission was successful in keeping the committee’s eyes and ears on the current judicial scandal and the judicial branch’s refusal to cooperate with its investigation. And of course there was no mention of the fact that the commission had no involvement in uncovering the current scandal.

So appearances are that the interim committee is actually going to allow the current discipline commission to remain in place. It seems likely the legislators will recommend a second tier above the commission that will perform the adjudicatory function in judicial discipline cases.

Although judges aren’t being prosecuted in Colorado, and although the judicial discipline commission rarely files a formal complaint, the commission and judge-centric groups have legislators thinking that judges need more due process.

The good thing is that legislators appear poised to allow the commission, through a new second tier, to be able to actually discipline a judge and remove the judge from the bench. This would be an improvement from the current system. But only if the commission actually filed formal complaints. History shows the commission has been reluctant to file formal complaints.

It also appears that more transparency will be recommended by legislators. But will it be enough? Why should any discipline, or any allegations of misconduct by judges, be hidden from public view? It appears legislators are going to recommend that some confidentiality remain in the system.

We believe public complaints regarding judicial misconduct should be public from the beginning. The investigation of the commission should be confidential just like a criminal action involving police work and a DA. But judge-centric groups have legislators believing that hiding information about judges inspires public trust.

Nonetheless, we are very grateful for the anonymous testimony that mirrors what we’ve been told over and over again over the years. Unfortunately, no one would testify publicly because they were still so scared of the discipline commission.

Let’s hope that judicial reform is actually on the way. But please understand, that a constitutional amendment regarding judicial discipline cannot appear on the ballot until 2024 and if passed won’t become law until 2025.
​
So judges still have years to be protected by a dark and troubled judicial discipline system.

---