Colorado judicial reform bill advances after “significant overhaul”

Katie R. Ochoa

Colorado lawmakers advanced a bipartisan bill aimed at reforming the state’s system for disciplining judges Thursday evening after making numerous changes to the original proposal.

The revised version of SB22-201 passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously after the bill’s sponsors in the Senate said the three major players in the effort — the Colorado Judicial Department, the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline, and the lawmakers — were able to work together to reach a consensus.

The committee heard hours of testimony about the bill’s original language last week, then delayed action until various concerns could be addressed.

The revised bill now reduces the amount of information that the Judicial Department will have to provide the Commission on Judicial Discipline regarding complaints about judges, and enshrines some confidentiality — but requires the Judicial Department to provide an explanation and summary of information it withholds from the commission.

It also establishes that the Colorado Attorney General’s Office will provide an attorney to the commission, among other changes.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Pete Lee, D-El Paso County, Sen. Bob Gardner, R-El Paso County, and Rep. Mike Weissman, D-Arapahoe County, still earmarks independent funding for the Commission on Judicial Discipline, though the overall reform push for full independence is constrained by the state’s constitution, which gives only the Colorado Supreme Court the power to remove, censure or suspend judges — and blankets the process in secrecy.

Lawmakers cannot change the Colorado Constitution; any amendments would need to be put to voters. The revised bill still establishes a special committee to consider such an amendment, which Gardner on Thursday said was needed.

“We feel like the interim committee needs to bring forth a constitutional provision,” he said.

The amended bill also explicitly says the longer-term reform effort should be open to input from a variety of stakeholders, including members of the public, attorneys and bar associations, Lee said. The process should consider how to include victims of judicial misconduct in the disciplinary process, he added.

Next Post

Amazon’s Union Busting Is Subsidized by the Government

In the wake of a historic labor victory at one of its Staten Island warehouses earlier this month, Amazon is reportedly ramping up its union-busting operations across New York and beyond. Those attempts to crush a union are effectively subsidized by government money in states whose politicians portray themselves as pro-labor. […]