Amendment H: Judicial Discipline Procedures and Confidentiality

Alright folks, let’s talk about Amendment H, the latest gem on Colorado’s 2024 ballot. If you’ve ever thought, “Gee, I wonder if there’s a better way to keep judges in check?”—well, this one’s for you. Let’s dive into what it’s all about, why it matters, and whether it’s worth your vote.

What is Amendment H, Anyway?

Amendment H aims to shake up how Colorado handles judicial discipline by creating an independent adjudicative board. Translation? We’re talking about a new committee made up of citizens, lawyers, and judges to oversee cases where judges may have misbehaved. Currently, it’s mostly judges judging other judges (you can already imagine how well that works). This new system would also make some proceedings more transparent—meaning the public could get a peek at what goes on behind the curtain.

Here’s the actual amendment text if you feel like reading through legalese:

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?

What’s It Supposed to Do?

Right now, judicial misconduct hearings are handled internally by other judges—sounds cozy, right? Amendment H proposes a more independent process where non-judges can have a say, supposedly making the system fairer and more transparent. Oh, and the public would actually know about these cases earlier, instead of waiting until the end when sanctions are handed down (if they ever are).

The Pros

1. More Transparency: Finally, the public gets to know about judicial discipline cases earlier in the process, instead of being kept in the dark until it’s all over. So, yay for a little more sunshine in the judicial world!
2. Independence: Judges won’t have the sole authority to discipline their own anymore. Having citizens and attorneys involved means fewer backroom deals… hopefully.
3. Modernization: The system is outdated, and this could bring Colorado in line with modern standards for accountability.

The Cons

1. Judges Know Best?: Critics argue that judges, because they understand the unique pressures and ethics of the job, are best suited to discipline their peers. Bringing in non-judges, they say, might not improve things and could even complicate matters.
2. More Bureaucracy: Let’s be real—any time you create a new board or committee, things don’t exactly speed up. If you love red tape, this might be for you. If not, well… brace yourself.
3. Not Exactly Revolutionary: Some are grumbling that this amendment is more of a Band-Aid than a real solution. They argue that it doesn’t address deeper issues in judicial accountability, and might just be a superficial fix.

The Bottom Line

So, should you vote for Amendment H? If you like the idea of holding judges more accountable and want the public to have more insight into judicial discipline, then this one’s a no-brainer. If you think judges should continue policing their own, or if you’re allergic to more committees, maybe you’ll want to pass.

Either way, make sure you actually know what you’re voting for. For a deeper dive, check out more details from Ballotpedia and BallotReady.

Let your yes be yes and your no be no…

From the Colorado Blue Book:

A YES vote on Amendment H creates an independent adjudicative board made up of citizens, lawyers, and judges to conduct judicial misconduct hearings and impose disciplinary actions, and allows more information to be shared earlier with the public.

A NO vote on Amendment H means that a select panel of judges will continue to conduct judicial misconduct hearings and recommend disciplinary actions, and cases remain confidential unless public sanctions are recommended at the end of the process.

Objectivity be damned, here’s how we’re voting…

We’re voting YES. The Colorado Judicial Branch has deservedly taken its lumps over a string of scandals as of late. This would be a positive first step in regaining trust in one of the governmental institutions where trust should have never been lost to begin with.