The measure would create an independent board to preside over ethical misconduct hearings involving judges and hand down consequences. It would also increase public access to judicial discipline proceedings and records.
Because it changes the state constitution, Amendment H will require at least 55 percent of the vote to pass.
Here’s the language you’ll see on your ballot:
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning judicial discipline, and in connection therewith, establishing an independent judicial discipline adjudicative board, setting standards for judicial review of a discipline case, and clarifying when discipline proceedings become public?
How would Amendment H work?
The measure would amend the Colorado constitution as it relates to judicial discipline, updating a system that has been in place since the 1960s.
Currently, judges accused of official misconduct go before the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline, which is composed of four judges who are appointed by the Chief Justice of the state supreme court, along with two lawyers and four other citizens appointed by the governor.
When it finds a complaint has merit, the commission can privately admonish the judge, or, in more serious cases, recommend things like public censure, retirement or removal. The final determination of what to do, though, rests with the state supreme court. Misconduct cases only become public when the commission files a recommendation for official discipline.
Amendment H would take the power to discipline judges away from the supreme court and give it to a new body, the Independent Judicial Adjudication Board.
The board would be composed of four district court judges, four attorneys, and four citizens appointed by the supreme court and the governor, with state Senate confirmation. It would take the recommendations of the Judicial Discipline Commission and decide on punishments. Those decisions then could be appealed to the supreme court.
In situations where the complaint involves a supreme court justice, appeals would follow a different route, instead going to an independent tribunal to review. The tribunal would involve seven randomly selected appeals and district court judges.
Disciplinary proceedings against a judge would become public when formal charges are filed.
Who’s for Amendment H?
Proponents of the measure argue that the judicial discipline process needs to be more independent from the Colorado Supreme Court. The issue has received more scrutiny in recent years, after investigative journalist David Migoya revealed evidence of a possible cover up of misconduct at the highest levels of the Judicial Department.
After reviewing the issue, state lawmakers voted unanimously to place Amendment H on the ballot. The effort was supported by the state bar association.
Democratic Rep. Mike Weissman, chair of the House Judiciary Committee and sponsor of the resolution, said these changes are needed to help the public have confidence in the courts.
“(What) the last number of years revealed is that we need to make some modernizations in terms of how the process goes to make sure that there is sufficient independence in the process and to make sure that there's information that is more readily available to interested members of the public,” said Weissman.
Proponents also argue that the measure would bring more transparency to the process because complaints would become public when the new board starts its work.
“That's new,” Rep. Weissman said. “The fact that things are public at the beginning rather than all the way at the end of formal proceedings, that's in the interest of public transparency.”
Jim Carpenter, a citizen member of the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline since 2019, also supports the change. He said the new system would match national best practices in judicial discipline by ensuring that complaints are investigated and ruled on by separate entities.
“By setting up this new adjudicative body that will be randomly selected from a group of people appointed, we will help that criticism of the independence — that the court was too close to (the process), that the court shouldn't be disciplining their own,” Carpenter said.
Who’s against Amendment H?
Opposition comes from both directions on this initiative: some critics argue that the current system works well and that judges, whose job it is to hold hearings and understand the law, are best suited to preside over discipline cases involving other judges.
But others fear Amendment H won’t meaningfully increase judicial accountability or transparency, and instead will let the state claim it’s solved the problem and avoid making more significant reforms.
“The word independent is a marketing term used by the legislature to try to get the public to adopt the garbage that is Amendment H,” said Chris Forsyth, head of the Judicial Integrity Project, a watchdog organization.
Forsyth and other critics believe Amendment H makes minimal tweaks to the judicial discipline process when much more substantial change is needed, and that it leaves the state supreme court and the state court administrator with too much sway in the process.
“Having judges in roles on the discipline commission, on adjudicatory panels, and on the rulemaking board leaves too many conflicts of interest in the process,” wrote Forsyth in a statement to CPR News. “The current judicial discipline process does not work… If Amendment H passes, it will be almost impossible to obtain necessary reforms because legislators will allege they did the job with Amendment H.”
Forsyth notes that the vast majority of complaints against the judges are dismissed at the outset by the judicial discipline commission and so would never reach this new board. And that under the new system, those complaints would remain sealed.
