In late 2020, the seven justices of the Colorado Supreme Court decided on a new method of selecting the judicial branch’s top officer: The chief justice role would rotate among the members every three years.

The court announced Justice Brian D. Boatright would be the first chief under the new system, with Justice Monica M. Márquez on deck. Three-and-a-half years later, Márquez, the longest-serving member and the first Latina on the court, was sworn in to lead the 4,000-person Judicial Department last month.

Márquez grew up in Grand Junction and her father, Jose D.L. Márquez, was both a trial judge and a member of the Court of Appeals. Monica Márquez worked for the Colorado Attorney General’s Office representing state officials and agencies at the time Gov. Bill Ritter selected her for a Supreme Court vacancy in 2010. She was the first openly gay person appointed to the court.

In her time as a justice, Márquez has authored consequential opinions that upheld Colorado’s new congressional district boundaries after the 2020 census, made it easier for local governments to sue over state agencies’ decisions, and authorized the General Assembly to suspend its session as the COVID-19 pandemic unfolded.

Márquez spoke to Colorado Politics about her work within the judicial branch, the significance of her role and the process for choosing her successor.

Colorado Politics: You were just on the Western Slope for a listening tour. Why did you do that and what did you end up hearing?

Monica Márquez: My recent trip to the Western Slope was a continuation of the court’s listening tours, which we started in the fall of 2022. In our many conversations with employees across the state, people are mostly focused on having the resources they need to do their jobs well. We have heard about the need for better compensation, particularly for employees who live in areas of the state with a high cost of living and a shortage of affordable housing.

We have worked hard to begin to address these concerns with our new job classification and compensation initiative implemented this summer. Employees have also asked for more training and a focus on well-being. We have used that collective feedback from around the state to develop priorities for our Workplace Culture Initiative.

In my many conversations with branch employees, I am continually impressed by everyone’s dedication and commitment to excellence. We are a mission-oriented group of individuals committed to service. 

CP: I understand that before you became chief justice, you were focused on improving workplace culture within the judicial branch. Tell me about that.

Márquez: We launched our Workplace Culture Initiative in 2022 and have accomplished a great deal. We have a steering committee that includes a cross-section of chief judges, court executives, chief probation officers and clerks of court from across the state. Through an employee-driven process, we have established a new mission statement, a vision statement, and identified core values that bind us as a branch. We are now working to incorporate our MVV (mission, vision and values) into all areas of our work.

We have created a statewide training committee to better align our training offerings with the needs of judicial branch staff. With a focus group of employees across the state, we revised our Personnel Rule 20 regarding the employee code of conduct so that it is easier to understand. We created an online, on-demand training module for this content so that employees can receive this critical training right away.

In addition to our Judicial Well-Being Committee, we have launched a new statewide Employee Well-Being Committee. 

As I take over as chief justice, I have passed the baton to Justice (Melissa) Hart to continue leading the WCI. Culture change takes sustained commitment and engagement, and I plan to remain involved in those efforts as they take root across the branch. All of the justices are personally committed to this work. 

CP: You were not a judge prior to your service on the Supreme Court. Looking back, do you think it would have beneficial for this role to have been a trial or appeals judge first?

Márquez: Not necessarily. The court benefits from having seven justices who come from a variety of backgrounds, with a broad collection of professional and life experience. My professional experience with the attorney general’s office, my broad exposure to state government and, in particular, my specialized experience as an appellate litigator has been valuable to the court.

And while that’s great, you wouldn’t want seven of me — just as it would not be helpful to have only former trial judges or only former prosecutors or only civil litigators. All of the justices lean into our collective wisdom as a group.

CP: You are from the Western Slope, you are LGBTQ and a Latina. Do you feel any particular obligation to the legal profession and to the public given who you are and the communities you are a part of? And does your background affect how you approach your work?

Márquez: During my nearly 14 years on the court, countless community groups and schools have asked me to talk about my journey to the bench. That is apparently what happens when you are the young, gay, Catholic Latina from the Western Slope. In those face-to-face encounters, I am regularly reminded of the significance of my appointment to various communities.

These encounters also remind me that I stand on the shoulders of others. I didn’t get here alone; many others paved the way. I also recognize that I carry the hopes and dreams of many others, which is a weighty responsibility that I feel every day. Anyone who has ever been a “first” is familiar with that pressure.

That said — as a judge, my role is to be neutral, fair and impartial. I do not represent any constituency. Like all of my colleagues, I bring my professional and life experience to the table. Our collective experience helps us examine issues from a variety of vantage points. That variety of perspectives assists with identifying and addressing our blind spots as we strive to reach the best decision in each case.

CP: Chief Justice Brian Boatright once said that his onboarding for the job four years ago was that former Chief Justice Nathan Coats sat down with him 30 days before the transition and asked him, “What would you like to know?” Can you describe how your onboarding was different?

Márquez: I think Justice Boatright’s statement was somewhat in jest. He did participate in an onboarding process, but it was informal and condensed into a few months prior to being sworn in as chief justice. We recognize that our earlier process was not ideal.

We have made several significant changes in the past few years. In addition to shifting to a rotational three-year term for chief justices and establishing liaison roles for all of the justices with various divisions within the State Court Administrator’s Office and district leadership constituencies, we have also developed a formal onboarding process for incoming chief justices.

Collectively, these changes have made me better prepared to take on this role than any chief in recent history, and I am very grateful for that. Our liaison roles have exposed all of the justices to the breadth of the administrative work and allows all of us, well in advance of taking on the chief justice role, to forge relationships both with SCAO (HR, IT, Financial Services, Court Services, etc.) and with district leadership (chief judges, court executives, chief probation officers, clerks of court, etc.).

The year-long formal onboarding process has allowed me to shadow the chief, sit in on critical meetings, undergo a series of HR and management trainings and get to know key constituencies across the state. I know that this process will also allow for a smooth transition a few years from now.

CP: Compared to four years ago, when the Supreme Court announced that Justice Boatright would be chief and you would be the chief who was next in line, this time the court hasn’t said who will succeed you. Why is that?

Márquez: The court has decided that going forward, our chief justice transitions will take place during the summer (around Aug. 1), when things are quieter. The next incoming chief justice will be announced at the time that individual starts the year-long onboarding process. So, approximately two years from now, in the summer of 2026, we will announce the incoming chief who will take over in the summer of 2027.

CP: What are your goals for the judicial branch as chief justice?

Márquez: Broadly speaking, I want to continue the momentum we have begun with our Workplace Culture Initiative, implementing our mission, vision and values, continuing with our job classification and compensation project, improving communication internally and externally, supporting employee well-being, and making sure our judicial officers and court and probation staff have the training and resources they need to do their jobs well.

I want to ensure that the judiciary has the judges and staff necessary to efficiently administer justice across the state. Delays that stem from shortages of judges or staff unnecessarily harm litigants, attorneys and the public. Keeping those broad goals in mind, I also recognize that we often confront unexpected challenges that require us to shift and adapt our plans. I intend to continue our listening tours across the state so that we hear directly from employees what is working and where we can make improvements.

CP: Colorado Politics recently reported that there is support in the legal community for a couple of basic transparency moves on the Supreme Court. The first is for you all to disclose your reasons for not participating in an appeal and the second is to announce the appeals directly from the trial courts that you turn down. How do you feel about that?

Márquez: I won’t provide my own opinion regarding suggested policy changes.

CP: In June, you wrote a concurring opinion in a pair of cases that dealt with racial bias in jury selection. You suggested the more meaningful reform is to eliminate peremptory strikes, which only the legislature can do. The critics of that move would say the legislature isn’t going to do that, so your call to action is really a hollow one that allows the Supreme Court to avoid doing anything. What is your response?

Márquez: I cannot comment on the court’s opinions or still-pending proposed rule amendments.

CP: Your court was involved in a first-of-its-kind controversy about the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause as applied to a former president. Stepping back from the case itself, how do you feel about the Colorado Supreme Court being the first to address that legal and historical question? Do you wish it had been another state supreme court that had gone first?

Márquez: No comment.

CP: There has been much focus on the U.S. Supreme Court’s more ideological decisions and the atypical conduct by some of its members in their personal lives. Do you feel the U.S. Supreme Court’s depiction in the public eye reflects on you all and affects how you do your job?

Márquez: I think many members of the public do not understand the difference between our federal and state court systems and often conflate the two. Under our merit selection system in Colorado, state court judges are not appointed for life, but are chosen through a process that involves citizen-led nominating commissions. Our state court judges also undergo a performance evaluation process that allows voters to have input on whether judges should be retained in office.

We have one of the best systems of judicial selection and retention, and the more the public knows how this process works, the more confidence they have in our judges and our court system.

CP: What is the latest understanding of how long it will take to repair the Carr Center and the cost for doing so?

Márquez: The damage to the Ralph Carr Judicial Center last January was extensive and caused significant disruption to not just SCAO operations but to all tenants in the building. Decontamination, renovation and repair work is ongoing. Barring unforeseen complications or delays, we hope to reopen the least damaged floors (8-12) later this fall. Floors that sustained the greatest fire and water damage (5-7) will not be reopened until well into 2025, as they must be essentially gutted and rebuilt.

CP: Is there a movie or TV show that depicts the work you or other judges do realistically?

Márquez: I can’t think of any that captures what our work is like at the appellate court. Justice Boatright has joked that if there were a reality TV show about the Supreme Court, it would be really boring because everyone just works hard and gets along really well. As for trial court work, I know that a number of my trial court colleagues enjoyed “Jury Duty” and found it entertaining, if not exactly realistic.