A local Democratic leader and 2024 presidential elector. A legislative aide and leader in the Young Republicans. An incoming county court judge freshly appointed by the governor.

They are among the eight members of the northeastern Colorado judicial performance commission that committed a “serious infraction of the rules and statutes” when it failed to give a new judge an initial evaluation and a chance to improve, according to the statewide judicial performance commission.

This week, citizen-led commissions for the 23 judicial districts, plus commissions with jurisdiction over the appellate courts and the Denver County Court, released evaluations of the 123 judges who are standing for retention in the November general election.

Voters in the 13th Judicial District, which covers Kit Carson, Logan, Morgan, Phillips, Sedgwick, Washington, and Yuma counties, will see an unprecedented two-narrative race for District Court Judge Dina M. Christiansen. One narrative contends that she does not meet performance standards, while the other concludes that she does.

The statewide performance commission, which evaluates Supreme Court and Court of Appeals members, wrote that it was “taking the extraordinary step of issuing its own narrative and recommendation” about Christiansen.

“The State Commission is not directing the District Commission to revise their evaluation narrative but offers this narrative to provide voters additional information to consider while voting,” it continued.

The commission’s narrative explained that under Colorado law, performance commissions must conduct an initial evaluation of a new judge within two years of their appointment. Christiansen’s appointment to her current position took effect in October 2024, and 2026 is her first retention election.

The law also requires the commission to communicate its findings, “including any recommendations for improvement plans,” to the newly appointed judge and the chief judge of their district. There are further mandatory steps for the chief judge and commission to take for a performance improvement plan. Finally, the commission must give the judge “the opportunity to meet with the commission or otherwise respond to the initial or interim evaluation no later than ten days following the justice’s or judge’s receipt of the initial or interim evaluation.”

That did not happen with Christiansen.

According to the state commission’s narrative, the local commission completed an evaluation of Christiansen in the spring of 2026 and concluded that she did not meet performance standards.

“In response, Judge Christiansen submitted a Complaint under Rule 21 of the Rules Governing Commissions on Judicial Performance,” the statewide commissioners wrote. “In conducting an independent review, the State Commission found the District Commission had failed to complete the required ‘initial interim evaluation,’ which is mandated by both statute and rule.”

Under Rule 21, a judge may file a complaint with the statewide commission regarding alleged violations of the law or rules. The local commission must respond. Although the statewide commission cannot reverse a local commission’s ultimate decision, it can “provide remedial instruction” to the local commission, order a revision to the retention narrative, or publish its own narrative alongside the local commission’s.

In Christiansen’s case, the statewide commission chose the third option.

“Judge Christiansen did not receive early feedback or the opportunity for improvement through a structured plan. This left her without a fair chance to address concerns before her retention year evaluation,” the statewide commission wrote. “This failure is considered a ‘serious infraction of the rules and statutes,’ and it requires the State Commission to issue its own narrative under Rule 21.”

Although Rule 21 permits the statewide commission to disclose the underlying materials with any necessary redactions, the director of the Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation said the commission would not be doing so.

“Rule 21 gives the State Commission the discretion to publicly disclose a complaint, a response thereto, and the State Commission’s decision. Again, the State Commission is not releasing the complaint or district response. Their narrative is their decision in this matter,” Kent J. Wagner told Colorado Politics.

The statewide commission’s narrative seemingly summarized the local commission’s response, writing that it “understands that District Commissions operate on tight timelines, and that due to time constraints, this interim review did not occur.”

However, the statewide commission ultimately voted 8-0 to find that Christiansen meets performance standards under the circumstances, with a recommendation that she undergo a performance improvement plan. In doing so, it mentioned that it carried out the responsibilities of the local commission, including reviewing Christiansen’s decisions and observing her in court.

Judicial performance commissions are composed of a mix of lawyers and nonlawyers, appointed by the chief justice, the governor, and legislative leaders from both parties. The commissions’ work is almost entirely confidential.

For the local commission’s 5-2 vote that Christiansen does not meet performance standards, there is no indication of who voted which way, or which of the eight commissioners recused from the vote.

Colorado Politics attempted to contact all eight members of the 13th Judicial District’s performance commission, as well as Christiansen, to seek their perspectives on the commission’s violation of the law. Of those who responded to Colorado Politics, none was willing to comment.

However, the commission’s roster contains multiple people with elevated profiles in politics or law.

Jeffrey M. Cure, a Burlington attorney and municipal judge, recently became a finalist for a Kit Carson County Court judgeship. On Friday afternoon, three days after the comission’s violations became public, the governor appointed him to the vacancy over the other other finalist.

The commission also includes Jarrod Munger, who has held leadership positions in the Democratic Party and was one of Colorado’s 2024 presidential electors for Democratic candidate Kamala Harris. Another member, Jake Hettinger, is in a leadership role with the Colorado Young Republicans and served as a legislative aide to Sen. Rod Pelton, R-Cheyenne Wells.

Finally, the roster includes nonlawyers working in the private sector, as well as assistant Morgan County attorney David W. Bute and public defender employee Brian Landry.

District Attorney Travis Sides, whose office has no members on the performance commission, said he previously spoke with commissioners about his concerns that newly appointed judges who came from a civil law background were insufficiently trained in criminal cases.

“Some of them come from just a more civil background or a more criminal background, one or the other,” he said. “It took me about a decade, I thought, of practice to get a good feel for, I could look at the facts of a criminal case and I could be like, ‘Hey, here’s what the Colorado Supreme Court, Court of Appeals would likely say.’

“It might be addressed with some more regular training,” Sides added. “I’ve always thought it kind of unfair to a judge. ‘Sure, you’ve had a mostly civil background. Here, you’re gonna handle serious criminal cases.’ … And they’re just expected to have a good working knowledge of applying Colorado Supreme Court precedent.”