Colorado voters Tuesday approved sweeping changes to the state’s process for disciplining judges, creating an independent board to investigate complaints and enforce the state’s judicial ethics code.
The constitutional change takes the judicial discipline process largely out of the hands of the state Supreme Court, which has long served as the final arbiter of whether state judges should face sanctions for misconduct. Critics say this has effectively put judges in charge of policing their own profession, enabling a toxic workplace culture to take root with little accountability.
The measure also makes disciplinary proceedings against judges public when formal charges are filed. Such hearings have long been kept secret unless a state commission makes a formal recommendation for sanctions.
Amendment H, referred to the ballot by the state legislature in 2023, had 73% in favor at 8:41 p.m. when The Associated Press called the race. It needed 55% of the vote to pass.
The constitutional change emerged from an interim legislative committee created in response to an alleged cover-up of judicial misconduct, sexism and harassment first reported by The Denver Post.
The committee’s final report, released in 2022, found that many employees in the state Judicial Department feared they would be retaliated against if they reported judicial misconduct. Moreover, it found a widespread lack of trust in the process itself, which provided no way for whistleblowers to track their complaints.
The measure creates a new panel, the Independent Judicial Discipline Adjudicative Board, to preside over disciplinary hearings and impose sanctions against judges. Its members will be appointed by Colorado Supreme Court and the governor, and confirmed by the state Senate.
Under the new process, which begins April 1, the director of the existing Commission on Judicial Discipline will first screen complaints to make sure they qualify as potential misconduct. The commission then investigates the complaints and can still dismiss them or issue an informal punishment like it can now.
If the commission calls for a formal hearing, the new independent board would preside over the case and determine whether to issue punishment. The charges against the judge and any related documents become public at the start of the formal hearing, no matter the outcome.
The state legislature referred the amendment to the ballot with wide bipartisan support, voting 97 to 1 in favor of House Concurrent Resolution 1001.
Opponents, however, say the changes don’t go far enough to ensure transparency and accountability. Notably, it leaves the Commission on Judicial Discipline in charge of vetting complaints, the majority of which are dismissed before they receive a hearing.