Colorado voters have signed off on changes to the way state judges are investigated and disciplined, favoring Amendment H by a margin of 73% to 27%, according to the initial, unofficial tally on Tuesday night. 

As an amendment referred by the legislature that adds language to the constitution, the measure requires 55% support to pass.

Amendment H will make the following changes to the process for disciplining judges, apart from the separate appellate procedure for reviewing judicial opinions:

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

• The amendment requires 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 triggers disclosure upon any filing of formal charges.

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

• Rulemaking will 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 will be authorized to release information about the status of an investigation or proceeding to the complainant.

The amendment will 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.