An unprecedented public censure handed down Monday to the former chief justice of Colorado’s Supreme Court represents another important step toward long-overdue reforms at the top of Colorado’s judiciary. It reaffirms the need for transparency and accountability in the state Judicial Department, long cloaked in secrecy and lacking independent oversight.

The censure of former Chief Justice Nathan Coats, who was the state’s top justice from 2018 through 2020, follows years of investigative reporting by The Gazette and other media into allegations of top-level improprieties. The censure was issued by a special judges’ tribunal.

The upshot of Monday’s development is that Coats admitted to violating the Code of Judicial Conduct’s requirement that judges competently and diligently perform their administrative duties.

As head of the judicial branch, Coats had authorized a multimillion-dollar contract with Mindy Masias, a high-ranking employee at the time, despite evidence suggesting she had falsified documentation. She previously had faced dismissal but threatened a tell-all sex-discrimination lawsuit. The suit promised to reveal years of alleged judicial misconduct that went unpunished or was covered up. Nevertheless, investigators weren’t able to establish a quid pro quo in which Masias was given the consulting contract as hush money to dissuade her from filing suit.

Stay up to speed: Sign-up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

Coats’ censure could have been anticipated. A June 2022 independent inquiry had found Coats’ lack of training as an administrator, his reliance on an untrustworthy subordinate and his poor judgment were partly to blame for the Masias scandal. And the censure follows a May 3 recommendation by the state Judicial Discipline Commission in favor of a censure of Coats given his role in awarding the contract and violations of the judicial code of conduct.

As so often is the case with incidents of government malfeasance, the Masias controversy wound up shedding light on a wide-ranging pattern of poor accountability at the Judicial Department – and of an ineffective discipline process governing judges and court staffers. It all set off calls for broader reforms, some of which were enacted by the Colorado Legislature earlier this year.

Lawmakers approved a proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution in which the current, decades-old process of judicial discipline would be shelved for one of greater transparency and accountability. The proposal makes a host of changes to the process. It now will go on the ballot before voters statewide.

Lawmakers also approved a companion measure that sets out in law the procedures by which the new judicial discipline system will work. Another measure approved by the Legislature establishes an ombudsperson’s office to help anyone with concerns about misconduct in the Judicial Department. The office’s function is to help guide victims through the complaint process, should the victim choose to proceed with a formal filing, or be an advocate for the victim and seek resolution of any matters brought forth.

In the light of the legislation as well as various investigations – including hearings conducted by a special legislative committee last summer – this week’s action against Coats amounts to a vindication of long-standing allegations about the Judicial Department and of the reforms themselves. And, in a sense, even that only scratches the surface.

There are yet other facets of Colorado’s judicial system – most notably, the way judges are reviewed and retained in office and the need for greater transparency in that process – that merit a reassessment.

Perhaps Coats’ censure will embolden policymakers to look into other policy reforms. Let’s hope so.

Denver Gazette Editorial Board