When Coloradans go to the polls next Tuesday, or when they examine their mail-in ballot, they’ll notice that it’s a fairly long one this year. While neither of Colorado’s Senators are up for re-election, nearly everyone else is.
But it’s not just elections that are contributing to the length of the ballot this cycle. Coloradans will be asked to vote on 14 statewide ballot measures, in addition to their choices on representatives and local measures.
Several of the questions on the ballot involve the legal system, including proposals to change the judicial discipline process, proposals to change facets of bail and parole and a proposal to create a fund for police.
New Judicial Discipline Standards
Since the Colorado judicial scandal of 2021, the Colorado General Assembly has been weighing changes to the state’s judicial discipline procedures.
In August 2022, the legislature convened a special committee to discuss reforms, which led to the passage of House Bill 23-1019. That bill amended the judicial discipline committee and changed reporting requirements, but it was an incomplete version of the overhaul.
Now, voters will decide whether to complete the changes, with the bill’s complement, House Concurrent Resolution 23-1001. The measure is on the ballot as Amendment H.
If the resolution passes, an independent judicial adjudicative board will be created, which will be responsible for holding formal judicial disciplinary proceedings. The board will have four district court judges appointed by the Colorado Supreme Court; four attorneys licensed and residing in Colorado who are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Colorado Senate; and four citizens who aren’t judges or attorneys that are appointed by the governor and affirmed by the senate.
If an investigation determines a formal hearing necessary, a panel of the adjudicative board will be called to determine the removal, retirement, suspension, censure, reprimand or other discipline of a justice or judge. As it stands, a formal hearing is heard either before the Commission on Judicial Discipline or three special masters, appointed by the state’s high court, that hear and take evidence and report it to the commission.
A judge or justice will now also be able to appeal an order for informal remedial action to a panel of the adjudicative board.
The adjudicative board’s decision will be appealable, either to the state Supreme Court or to a tribunal composed of seven Colorado Court of Appeals and district court judges.
There are also certain circumstances that will trigger an automatic review of adjudicative board’s decision by a tribunal: when it involves a complaint against a Colorado Supreme Court justice, when a Colorado Supreme Court justice is a complainant or material witness, when a staff member or family member to a Colorado Supreme Court justice is a complainant or material witness or when circumstances exist that required more than two Colorado Supreme Court justices to recuse themselves from the proceeding.
The resolution also creates a rule-making committee for the judicial discipline process, consisting of four members appointed by the state Supreme Court, four by the adjudicative board, four by the commission and one victim’s advocate appointed by the governor.
While the resolution will keep proceedings against judges confidential, it does allow the commission to make public aggregate information about trends or patterns in complaints made to the commission. But it isn’t allowed to make public any information that identifies a specific person or complaint.
The measure is opposed by a nonprofit, the Judicial Integrity Project. According to the organization’s website, “[Amendment] H would actually create more proceedings behind closed doors that are aimed at helping judges remain unaccountable.”
Parole and Bail Changes
Two ballot questions this year will affect bail and parole. The first, Amendment I, will present to voters an issue that was created by a previous ballot initiative.
In the 2020 election, Colorado voters chose to repeal the death penalty. But, due to wording in the state’s constitution that only allowed a court to deny bail for death penalty cases, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that bail couldn’t be denied for a capital offense since the death penalty no longer exists in the state.
Amendment I, proposed by the Colorado Legislature in House Concurrent Resolution 24-1002, would again allow courts in Colorado to deny bail for individuals accused of first-degree murder “when proof is evident or presumption is great.”
The other proposal, Proposition 128, is an initiative spearheaded by Advance Colorado, an advocacy group that is “focused on reversing radical policies that are harming the state and restoring common sense values and principles in Colorado,” according to the organization’s website.
Coloradans for Smart Justice, an issue committee founded in July of this year and funded by the American Civil Liberties Union and Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, opposes the measure.
Coloradans for Smart Justice claim on their website that “Proposition 128 will extend prison sentences of elderly people who have already served long sentences, have aged out of crime, and who the parole board considers safe for release.” It also states that “If passed, this misguided measure would undermine Colorado’s current parole system and balloon the state prison budget without improving public safety.”
The measure, if passed, would change when offenders convicted of certain crimes of violence are eligible for parole. It would require someone sentenced for second-degree murder, first-degree assault, first-degree kidnapping, first- or second-degree sexual assault, first-degree arson, first-degree burglary or aggravated robbery to serve at least 75% of their sentence, less time served, before being eligible for parole if they committed the crime between July 1, 1985, and Jan. 1 2025.
Starting in 2025, it would require any person convicted of second-degree murder; first-degree assault; class 2 felony kidnapping; sexual assault under Section 18-3-404 of the Colorado Revised Statutes; first-degree arson; first-degree burglary; or aggravated robbery to serve 85% of their sentence before parole eligibility.
The proposition also institutes a three-strike rule for those crimes, with a third conviction for a crime of violence requiring an individual to serve their full imposed sentence without parole.
More Funding for Law Enforcement
Another initiative spearheaded by Advance Colorado, and opposed by Coloradans for Smart Justice, is Initiative 157. A simple majority on this proposition would create a new fund, specifically dedicated to recruit, train and support police officers.
It would require the legislature to appropriate $350 million to the fund. The new statute would limit that fund to “only be used for bona fide peace officer functions and not programs for other human services functions.” It would also create an additional death benefit of $1 million for the surviving spouse, children or estate of a police officer who is killed in the line of duty.
Alongside the death benefit, the fund would send money to law enforcement agencies to increase annual pay; provide hiring, retention or merit bonuses; hire additional law enforcement officers for specific geographic areas or specific types of criminal activity; and fund initial and continuing education for law enforcement officers.
Coloradans for Smart Justice noted on its website that “if passed, this measure would divert $350 million from the state general fund exclusively to fund more ‘peace officers,’ which is limited to traditional law enforcement officers only.” It also claims that the initiative, if passed, would force a budget cut equivalent to 5,758 teachers’ salaries, $41,194 per pupil spending or double the annual investment in Colorado’s affordable housing fund.