Colorado Voter Guide: 2024 General Election

Voters in this election will decide whether to modify Colorado’s current system of judicial discipline through a proposed constitutional measure, Amendment H, intended to increase the transparency and independence of the disciplinary process.

The legislature referred the amendment to the ballot following a series of committee hearings. It has the support of the Colorado Judicial Institute, a nonprofit that advocates on behalf of the judiciary, informs the public about the courts and supports the continuing education of judges.

Although there is no coordinated opposition, the Judicial Integrity Project argues the amendment continues to preserve too much secrecy in the disciplinary process and too little independence from the judiciary.

The director of the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline, Anne Mangiardi, has not expressed a position on the measure, although she told Colorado Politics recently that it is important to balance the need for transparency with privacy for the victims of judicial misconduct.

If enacted, Amendment H would do the following:

• An adjudicative board would preside over formal disciplinary proceedings, with 12 members appointed by the governor and state Supreme Court and confirmed by the Senate. Adjudications would occur through three-member panels — one judge, one attorney and one non-lawyer. The Supreme Court would sit only as an appellate body, with the standards of review explicitly listed.

• The amendment would require other judges to review disciplinary appeals in instances where a Supreme Court justice is the subject or is involved in the underlying matter.

• Currently, formal disciplinary filings are made public after a case has been adjudicated by the discipline commission and the Supreme Court receives a recommendation. The new method would trigger disclosure upon any filing of formal charges.

• The commission would be able to release information about discipline, even informal discipline that remains confidential, to judicial performance commissions, attorney regulators and other entities.

• Rulemaking would come from a 13-person committee consisting of four Supreme Court appointees, four named by the adjudicative board, four by the commission and a victim advocate appointed by the governor. Currently, the Supreme Court has the authority to make the rules.

• The commission would be authorized to release information about the status of an investigation or proceeding to the complainant.

The amendment would not likely alter the fact that the vast majority of disciplinary complaints are dismissed because they do not implicate judicial misconduct. For example, almost 50% of complaints in 2023 fell into the category of disputes over judges’ rulings — which are mostly handled through the appeals process — and nearly 7% were “sovereign citizen/generalized conspiracy” complaints.

Reporter David Migoya contributed to this story.