Colorado’s Commission on Judicial Discipline is compiling “in-depth” information on more than 120 judges who The Denver Gazette recently revealed had not filed personal financial disclosure reports to the state this year despite a law requiring it, according to emails obtained by the newspaper.

More than two dozen of the judges haven’t had a disclosure on file as mandated with the Colorado Secretary of State’s office in several years, and dozens more senior judges haven’t done so either, some for more than a decade, the Gazette investigation found.

The Gazette found that about one in every six of the state’s full-time judges did not have the disclosures on file this year. Senior judges instead have been filing the disclosures with the Judicial Department as part of a contract they sign to remain on the bench in a limited manner, the investigation found.

The list includes chief judges — one was named to the position the day after The Gazette’s story was published — members of the Colorado Court of Appeals, and district court and county court judges from virtually every judicial district in the state. Two judges serve on discipline commissions that punish judges for their misconduct and another serves on the Supreme Court’s ethics advisory board. 

The commission has asked the secretary of state to provide detailed information about each judge’s history of disclosure filings, some of it dating back several years, according to copies of commission emails obtained by The Gazette through open-records requests.

The commission’s emails directly cited The Gazette’s work as the reason for its questions.

The disclosures are required to be filed each January even if a judge’s financial situation remains unchanged from the year before, and the Judicial Department annually sends a six-page reminder to judges statewide to comply.

Judges who responded to Gazette questions about any explanation for missing the filing deadlines — better than half of them did not respond to the newspaper — included excuses that ranged from having forgotten about it to overriding personal events such as illness or a death in the family. Still others said they merely sent the information to the wrong email address.

The Secretary of State’s office says it’s not responsible for confirming the receipt of the disclosures or reminding those who missed the deadline or misfiled the paperwork.

The commission by law cannot disclose or discuss any investigation it’s conducting, but its emails to the secretary of state’s office lay out the panel’s line of inquiry.

Commission Executive Director Christopher Gregory refused to comment on the emails or the nature of the commission’s query.

Secretary of State spokesman Jack Todd told The Gazette that conversations with the discipline commission were “ongoing” and that his staff has been asked to provide “more encompassing information, more in-depth details” about the disclosure filings described in the newspaper’s story.

Although the law requiring the disclosures says willfully not filing them is a misdemeanor, the commission’s authority is limited to violations of the state’s judicial code of conduct. Any prosecution of the criminal statute would be taken up by the attorney general following a complaint by the secretary of state’s office.

A provision of the judicial code requires all judges to comply with the annual disclosure law and makes no exception for senior judges.