Of the 123 Colorado judges standing for retention on the November ballot, citizen-led performance commissions found that three did not meet the required performance standards.

However, in an unprecedented move, the commission charged with evaluating Supreme Court and Court of Appeals members stepped in to issue its own narrative after it concluded the local performance commission in northeastern Colorado violated the rules in a “serious” manner when it gave an unfavorable review to one judge.

Under Colorado’s system of selecting judges, the governor appoints new judges from a short list created by citizen-led nominating commissions that screen and interview applicants. Judges serve for at least two years before voters decide whether to retain them to terms of varying lengths. Supreme Court justices, for instance, serve 10-year terms, while county court judges serve for only four years.

To aid voters in making retention decisions, performance commissions in the 23 judicial districts — plus a statewide commission and one focused on the Denver County Court — issue narratives about each judge’s performance. The members rely on responses from attorneys, litigants, other judges, and jurors. They also observe the judges and speak with them to determine whether each meets established standards for demeanor, case management, and other metrics.

This year, three trial judges received unfavorable recommendations from their local commissions. In one instance, the commission unanimously found the judge failed to meet performance standards.

13th Judicial District

By 5-2, the performance commission for the 13th Judicial District found District Court Judge Dina M. Christiansen does not meet performance standards. The jurisdiction covers northeastern Colorado, including Kit Carson, Logan, Morgan, Phillips, Sedgwick, Washington, and Yuma counties.

However, in an extraordinary move, the statewide performance commission issued its own narrative on top of the local commission’s.

“This is the first instance that has occurred,” said Kent J. Wagner, the director of the Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation.

This spring, the local commission concluded that Christiansen did not meet performance standards and it provided its draft review to her. In response, Christiansen submitted a complaint under the judicial performance rules, alleging the commission failed to conduct the legally required initial evaluation.

“The initial evaluation is an important part of Colorado’s judicial performance system. It gives a District Commission the chance to review a judge’s early work, identify concerns, and, if needed, require the judge to take part in a Judicial Improvement Plan,” the state commission wrote. “A Judicial Improvement Plan gives clear feedback, support, and guidance so a judge can improve before the retention year evaluation.”

Instead, Christiansen received no initial feedback or plan for improvement, which “left her without a fair chance to address concerns before her retention year evaluation,” the state commission continued.

“This failure is considered a ‘serious infraction of the rules and statutes,’ and it requires the State Commission to issue its own narrative,” it concluded.

While the state commission did not alter the local commission’s conclusion, it voted by 8-0 to find that Christiansen met performance standards under the circumstances. It also recommended that she participate in a performance improvement plan.

The local commission’s narrative identified “significant concerns” about Christiansen’s temperament, legal analysis, and courtroom management. It found that attorneys had reported Christiansen as being dismissive or “unnecessarily confrontational.” Finally, commissioners were concerned about rulings that were rushed, insufficiently researched or “unsupported by adequate legal authority.”

In her response, Christiansen characterized the local commission’s narrative as “not based on objective data contained in my 2026 evaluation showing 93% of attorneys and 82% of non-attorneys state that I DO meet performance standards.”

Crowley County

The performance commission for the 16th Judicial District unanimously found that Crowley County Court Judge Jeremy P. Boyce does not meet performance standards after three years on the bench.

“Through feedback, direct observations, and other reports, the Commission found that Judge Boyce was highly inefficient, failed to issue orders in a timely manner, improperly involved himself in plea negotiations, and disregarded established law,” the commissioners wrote. “Moreover, when the Commission interviewed Judge Boyce and provided feedback during the interim period, he made only one minor adjustment and, rather than demonstrating improvement, appeared to regress.”

The commission also wrote that Boyce “exhausted the support of two mentors without meaningful improvement.” Moreover, “by all accounts, his performance had deteriorated.”

The commission did not publish survey responses from lawyers and nonlawyers, calling the data “insufficient.”

In his response, Boyce appeared to concede the problems with his performance.

“I have reflected on my failure to fulfill my obligations to the citizens of Crowley County. I have no excuse and deeply regret the decision of the Commission. I take full responsibility for my errors and recognize that my actions impacted court staff and those who appeared in my courtroom. I understand the frustration I caused and acknowledge I violated your trust,” he wrote.

“If you provide me the opportunity, I will regain your trust,” Boyce continued. “I admit I was wrong and will make things right.”

Pueblo County

Commissioners for the 10th Judicial District in Pueblo County, by 7-3, found that longtime District Court Judge William Alexander does not meet performance standards.

While the commission acknowledged Alexander’s experience and understanding of the law, it heard concerns that he could be rude and potentially biased.

“In criminal cases there seems to be general knowledge by the attorneys who appear in front of him that he tends to treat defense more favorable in sentencing decisions, which inhibits the prosecution in negotiating what they feel is a more appropriate disposition,” the commission wrote.

The commission also was alarmed at allegations that Alexander participated in “ex parte” communications, meaning those without all sides present.

“When asked about various concerns during the interview process, the Judge’s responses reflected limited acknowledgment of personal responsibility and tended to emphasize external factors and the conduct and actions of others,” the commission concluded.

Although Alexander was entitled to submit a brief response to the commission’s findings, he did not do so.

The performance commission for the 10th Judicial District gave the harshest reviews of any local commission. It found District Court Judge Allison P. Ernst meets performance standards by an 8-2 vote, and that District Court Judge Tayler Thomas meets the standards by a 7-3 vote.

Both judges, plus Alexander, are former public defenders. The performance commission believed Thomas “continues to lack impartiality” and Ernst gives “more lenient” sentences at times. In contrast, the commission unanimously found that District Court Judge Michelle Chostner, a former prosecutor, met performance standards.

Mesa County

In Mesa County, the performance commission for the 21st Judicial District deadlocked 4-4 about whether District Court Judge JenniLynn E. Lawrence met performance standards. By law, Lawrence received a favorable recommendation because of the tie.

Lawrence was a longtime county court judge who received a district court appointment in 2024. The commission had concerns about her knowledge of the law, communication, and “due diligence.”

Other developments

All voters will decide whether to retain Justice William W. Hood III and six Court of Appeals judges. The statewide performance commission unanimously found all of them to meet performance standards and gave glowing narratives for each.

However, the commission relayed concerns about Judge Elizabeth L. Harris and her processing of appeals.

“Lawyers noted the length of time required for Judge Harris to issue an opinion as a weakness,” the commission wrote. “Judges also noted Judge Harris’ timeliness in issuing decisions as a weakness.”

The local commission for El Paso County disclosed that County Court Judge Samorreyan Burney underwent a performance improvement plan based on “deficiencies” identified in her courtroom administration and communications skills. Commissioners voted unanimously that she meets performance standards after concluding the improvement plan “has been satisfactorily completed.”

The same commission also heard concerns that County Court Judge Ann Rotolo “may overstep her judicial role and become overly involved in case resolution prior to trial.” Rotolo responded that she encourages litigants to negotiate settlements sometimes because, “When two elephants fight, it’s the grass that suffers.”

In their narrative for Eagle County Court Judge Inga H. Causey, commissioners recommended that she “continue to find ways for self-health despite the busy schedule.” They also noted that Causey’s evaluations reflected “the need for a second County Court Judge to address the large docket and improve case management.” The legislature created a second county court judgeship last year, and the governor filled the seat this spring.

Finally, the performance commission for Costilla County Court Judge Tamara Sullivan took the unusual step of clarifying in its narrative that Sullivan was not responsible for the sheriff’s office, after the elected sheriff and three subordinates were criminally indicted this year.

“This separation of powers ensures that her role remains focused on the fair and neutral administration of justice within the courtroom,” commissioners wrote about Sullivan. “Consequently, she is not involved in the administrative decisions or broader law enforcement activities currently occurring within Costilla County.”