October 2006 AMENDMENT 40 B A MISGUIDED PROPOSAL FOR TERM LIMITS FOR COLORADO JUDGES We encourage everyone to participate in the political processes in our country. Although It is the policy of our firm not to express private political views as a firm, we are currently compelled to speak our against Amendment 40 that will be on the November ballot to limit the length and terms of Colorado's appellate judges. Colorado already has the option for voters to limit a judge's term. Judges are selected on a merit system from which the Governor selects an appointee. After appointment, the judge is on the ballot within two years. Then the people vote to retain or not retain every 8 years for Court of Appeals judges and every 10 years for Supreme Court judges. District and County Court judges are part of this system. No Colorado state court judge is appointed for life without periodic review and a chance for removal. Colorado's judges are evaluated by independent commissions (composed of non-lawyers and lawyers) that give recommendations to retain or not to retain. Lawyers are surveyed as to the competence of judges. The evaluations are printed in the Blue Book that goes to every Colorado voter prior to an election. The evaluations can be obtained on the internet. There is a Judicial Disciplinary Commission that disciplines judges, removes them from the bench, or encourages them to retire if any of those are appropriate. In our system of government, the judiciary plays an important role in keeping both the legislative and the executive branches of the government within Constitutional bounds. An independent judiciary has long been believed to be the best judiciary for that purpose. It is part of the balancing of powers and interests within the government. Alexander Hamilton wrote, AThe complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. Term limiting judges is a bad idea. Proposed Amendment 40 is especially bad as written. Some suggest term limits would make judges more accountable. Accountable to whom? Judges are currently accountable to the public through the retain/not retain elections. If a judge knows he or she will only be on the bench for a specified term, would an activist judge not be more likely to push a personal agenda than if the judge knows he or she will need to be accountable to the voters in the present system? Will bright, capable people give up careers to be a judge if they know they would need to start a new professional life after the terms of a judgeship are over? We think not. Term limits also destroy institutional knowledge as is now being seen in the Colorado legislature. If passed, Amendment 40 would immediately remove some 5 of 7 Supreme Court Justices and 7 of 19 appellate court justices. The Amendment provides no way of dealing with the vacancies. To replace these judges and bring them up to speed is likely to take at least a year. The Supreme Court could barely function in that period. This would all happen again every ten years. Even if one favors term limits for judges, this amendment could cripple Colorado's higher courts and deny Colorado's citizens access to judicial resolution of disputes.. As professionals in the legal system, we believe it is appropriate for us to let our clients and friends know we think a vote NO on Amendment 40 is the right way to vote. We have a professional obligation to do so.
This Newsletter is provided for information purposes only. Accordingly, the information is general in nature and is not intended to address a specific issue or problem. The reader should seek legal counsel of his or her choice for specific problems. The receipt of this Newsletter does not create an attorney-client relationship with the author or the law firm of Dean, Dunn & Phillips LLC.
| 
