On Friday, November 29, 2024, Dennis Maes, a retired chief district judge for Colorado’s 10th Judicial District, published an article on Colorado Politics addressing the recent passage of Amendment H. This amendment, which received overwhelming support from 73% of Colorado voters, modifies the state constitution to ensure more transparent and independent disciplinary processes for judges accused of misconduct.

Amendment H specifically removes the Colorado Supreme Court from overseeing judicial misconduct cases, a significant shift in the state’s judicial oversight. The amendment was introduced in response to a scandal involving former Chief Justice Ben Coats, who was found to have engaged in a controversial $2.5 million contract with a high-ranking court employee. This contract was aimed at suppressing allegations of judicial misconduct that had been previously hidden from public scrutiny. The contract was ultimately withdrawn after media exposure of the scandal.

Following the scandal, Coats faced public censure from a special panel, marking the first time a justice of the Colorado Supreme Court has been disciplined in this manner. By the time disciplinary actions were initiated, Coats had already retired, and Justice Brian Boatright succeeded him. It was understood that Justice Monica Marquez would take over from Boatright with his mentorship. Both Boatright and Marquez, along with other justices, were reportedly aware of the misconduct but took no action to report it, raising concerns about accountability within the court.

Investigations revealed that the Colorado Supreme Court was selective in its reporting of judicial misconduct to the Commission on Judicial Discipline (CJD), violating legal requirements for mandatory reporting. This selective reporting, coupled with retaliatory actions among judicial bodies—including the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (OARC)—fueled bipartisan legislative efforts to reform judicial oversight. The Interim Committee on Judicial Discipline was formed to address these issues and ultimately recommended the passage of Amendment H.

Notably, the campaign for Amendment H was not driven by organized political efforts; rather, public awareness was raised through various media channels, including newspapers, radio, television, and social media. Many media outlets endorsed the amendment, criticizing the Supreme Court for its failure to maintain integrity and transparency in handling judicial misconduct. The public’s support was clear, with over two million votes in favor of the amendment.

Despite the strong support for Amendment H, the performance evaluations for Justices Marquez, Boatright, and Maria Berkenkotter reflected lower approval ratings. These justices received less than 65% of the vote in their retention elections, with Marquez’s support dropping by 4% and Boatright’s by 6% compared to previous elections. Critics argue that the Judicial Performance Commission’s evaluations failed to adequately inform voters about the justices’ roles in the misconduct scandal, as no mention was made of the events that led to the need for Amendment H.

In light of the scandal, the judicial department has faced criticism for its training practices, particularly in domestic violence and child custody cases.

The passage of Amendment H signals a significant shift in how judicial discipline will be managed in Colorado, aiming to restore public confidence in the judiciary. As the state moves forward, the implications of this amendment will be closely monitored, particularly regarding its impact on the transparency and accountability of judicial processes in Colorado.

 

 

Source: Colorado Politics