This election, voters will decide whether to change Colorado’s current system of judicial discipline through a proposed constitutional measure, Amendment H, that would increase the transparency and independence of the disciplinary process.

Lawmakers referred the amendment for a vote after a series of committee hearings. It is supported by the Colorado Judicial Institute, a nonprofit organization that advocates for the judiciary, informs the public about the courts and supports continuing education for judges.

Although there is no coordinated opposition, the Judicial Integrity Project argues that the change continues to preserve too much secrecy in the disciplinary process and too little independence from the judiciary.

Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline Director Anne Mangiardi has not commented on the measure, although she recently told Colorado Politics that it is important to balance the need for transparency with the privacy of victims of judicial misconduct bring.

If passed, Amendment H would:

• A judicial panel would preside over formal disciplinary proceedings, with 12 members appointed by the governor and state Supreme Court and confirmed by the Senate. Decisions would be made by three-member panels – a judge, a lawyer and a non-lawyer. The Supreme Court would serve only as an appellate body, with standards of review explicitly stated.

• The change would require other judges to review disciplinary complaints in cases where a Supreme Court justice is the subject or is involved in the underlying matter.

• Currently, formal disciplinary requests are published after a case has been decided by the Disciplinary Commission and has received a recommendation from the Supreme Court. The new method would trigger disclosure whenever formal charges are filed.

• The Commission would be able to share information about disciplinary actions, even informal disciplinary actions that remain confidential, with judicial performance commissions, bar regulators, and other agencies.

• Decision-making would be done by a 13-member committee comprising four Supreme Court appointees, four of whom would be appointed by the tribunal, four by the commission and one victim advocate appointed by the governor. Currently, the Supreme Court has the authority to make the rules.

• The Commission would have the power to communicate to the complainant information about the status of an investigation or procedure.

The change likely would not change the fact that the vast majority of disciplinary complaints are dismissed because they do not implicate judicial misconduct. For example, almost 50% of complaints in 2023 fell into the category of disputes over judges’ rulings – which are largely handled on appeal – and almost 7% were “sovereign citizen/general conspiracy” complaints.

Reporter David Migoya contributed to this story.