The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced a bill to establish 29 new Colorado judgeships by a vote of 6-1 on Wednesday, with supporters and opponents both cautioning that their positions could change based on the availability of money.

The committee heard testimony from numerous witnesses in support of the bill, including from sitting judges. Chief Justice Monica M. Márquez indicated she was willing to discuss the possibility of prioritizing some new judgeships over others or rolling out the positions over a longer period in order to address lawmakers’ heartburn over the price tag.

“It certainly strikes me as a priority item in the overall budget,” said Sen. John Carson, R-Highlands Ranch, who voted against the bill. “But right now, until I get a better handle on the overall budget situation for the state, I’m not gonna be able to support it.”

“I’m gonna set my budget questions aside,” said Sen. Julie Gonzales, D-Denver, who chairs the judiciary committee and is also a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. “I really do want to reiterate that my vote today is a vote in support of the policy goals that I think we all share.”

Senate Bill 24 would create 26 new trial court judgeships and three new slots on the Court of Appeals over a two-year period. The request from the Judicial Department comes in the wake of multiple workload studies, finalized in 2023 and 2024, confirming the state’s court system is understaffed. Based on the time required to process cases, the studies estimated Colorado needs approximately 43 more district judges, 20 more county judges and six appellate judges.

Márquez acknowledged SB 24, which is the judiciary’s legislative priority this year, suffers from “bad circumstances” because of an estimated $672 million state budget deficit.

“Our need for judges has been palpable for some time. But our sense of it was largely anecdotal,” she testified, noting the proposal was still a half-measure given the studies’ findings. “The timing for bringing this bill this year is somewhat unfortunate, but it coincides with the data that we finally had available to us to pinpoint where, precisely, we need the judges.”

‘I have to wing everything’

During the “State of the Judiciary” address earlier this month, Márquez warned that judges are leaving because of unsustainable workloads and the stresses of the job, stemming in part from pandemic-era developments and legislative changes that imposed new obligations.

Her comments echoed findings by the National Center for State Courts, a Virginia-based organization that tracked the time spent at work by county, district and appeals judges over multiple weeks. Researchers developed weighted caseload models based on that information, and also solicited free responses from judicial officers — a category that includes judges, magistrates and water referees. 

For the district courts — which have 272 judicial officers and see an average of 205,000 cases filed annually — researchers found some matters took substantially more time than others. Those included homicide, child neglect and family cases in problem-solving court. More than two-thirds of judges reported having insufficient time to get their work done, with the percentage being highest among juvenile judges at 81%.

Download PDF

County courts — with approximately 144 full-time and part-time judicial officers handling almost 391,000 filings annually — generally spent the most time on drunk driving, domestic violence and small claims cases. Researchers shared several pages of anonymous free responses in which county court judicial officers warned that the administration of justice is hanging by a thread in some courtrooms:

• “There is no time for reviewing the case before trial. I have to wing everything. I look at a case only as I begin the trial”

• “Right now it is more of a cattle call (for eviction cases) … people are losing their homes and a judge is not even explaining why”

• “These cases are rushed. The volume I am expected to handle is inhuman”

• “I frequently went without water, food and bathroom breaks to run the docket to ensure clerks get a lunch. I have taken fewer than 30 lunch breaks in the last three years”

• “(I)t doesn’t matter what case type I am preparing for hearing. They are all under-prepared because I don’t have the time to actually sit down and do more than skim the motions and responses and briefly prepare for the hearing”

Download PDF

Costs are daunting

When fully implemented, the cost of SB 24 would be $26.1 million annually. The General Assembly’s staff analysis noted only $18.1 million would go directly to the Judicial Department for judges and staff. An additional $7 million would be needed for a corresponding increase in public defenders, plus $10 million for district attorneys’ offices, which are funded by counties.

At the time of the committee hearing, lawmakers and the judiciary had already heard criticism from some members of the Joint Budget Committee that funding increases would be virtually impossible this year. 

Nonetheless, judiciary committee members were not ready to deem SB 24 dead on arrival.

“I always reflect on the role of government, the proper role of government, when I’m deciding how to vote,” said Sen. Lisa Frizell, R-Castle Rock, who is sponsoring SB 24. “It was very clear to me when I was having these conversations that providing a judicial system that works, functions well for our citizens, is the role of government.”

“I want to do as much of this as possible,” added Sen. Mike Weissman, D-Aurora. He suggested narrowing the scope of the bill “in the most data-informed way possible” if it would preserve at least some of the new judgeships.

Judges pressed for time

Among the witnesses, Chief Judge Erin Sokol of El Paso and Teller counties warned criminal cases are at risk of dismissal if they cannot reach trial by the legal deadline. For civil matters, she said both sides may be financially motivated to reach a resolution, even an unsatisfactory one, if judges are unable to hear the case within a reasonable time.

Denver District Court Judge Marie Avery Moses shared her calendar with the committee from one week in the summer, in which she heard 16 domestic relations cases. Only four litigants had attorneys, meaning nearly 88% of litigants were representing themselves.

“My litigants can’t resolve their disputes without my time and attention,” she said. Moses described one dispute in which she had an hour to hear from a pair of spouses before finalizing the order for their divorce case. After she heard the spouses’ positions on issues ranging from parenting time to child support, the mother told Moses she was scared because a child allegedly died in the father’s care.

“I have 10 minutes left in my hearing,” Moses said, “and I have to figure out why a child died in his care. And there are no attorneys and there are no orders in place. So, I have 10 minutes to try to save a child’s life.”

Lawmakers also heard testimony in support of SB 24 from the director of the Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation and the director of the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline, who described a trend of complaints about judges’ delays in making decisions and the dangers of burnout.

Cynthia D. Mares, a retired judge from the 18th Judicial District in suburban Denver, testified that she cut ties with most of her community organizations and curtailed the time she spent with her ailing father because she needed to keep up with her workload during her tenure on the bench.

Finally, George Brauchler, a Colorado Politics opinion contributor and the district attorney for the newly established 23rd Judicial District in Douglas, Elbert and Lincoln counties, said that the state’s elected district attorneys support the bill.

“Sometimes you need judges to rule on motions that will make a case end right then and there because the DA was just wrong on the charges. Or they were just wrong about how the police acquired the evidence,” he said. “Less judges means those things do not happen at the same pace. Sometimes it means that dark cloud that hangs over victims and defendants in a case hangs there longer.”

The bill will now move to the Senate Appropriations Committee.