Is Aurora State Rep. Mike Weissman representing your interests?
He’s running for state senate in north Aurora’s state Senate District 28 after serving as a state representative for Aurora. He’s also the chief proponent for an issue on your ballot: Amendment H.
Perhaps looking at H will help you decide whether Weissman deserves your vote.
Amendment H regards judicial discipline. If someone believes a judge has violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, they can file a complaint with the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline. Weissman recommends changing the process for how complaints are handled.
Weissman alleges an additional step in the judicial discipline process – an adjudicatory board – is “independent” and that H would modernize Colorado’s judicial discipline system. Some claim H scraps the current judicial discipline commission and replaces it with a new “independent” board. Some claim that H would hold judges more accountable. H is, at best, misleading.
The current judicial discipline commission would remain in place under H. Since 1984, 7,157 complaints have been filed by the public against judges. These figures are from the annual reports of the discipline commission. Of those complaints, 7,145 were handled out of public view. H would continue to allow that. Almost all the complaints were dismissed with private discipline being issued in the rest.
Weissman’s H would also provide for additional undercover proceedings to help judges remain unaccountable. It would allow judges to appeal private discipline to a panel of three selected from a twelve-member adjudicatory board. It’s a second chance for a judge to get a complaint dismissed out of public view. Then a third chance is provided by H because the panel’s ruling could privately be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Weissman’s H would create more actions that can take place in private. That’s not an increase in transparency.
A public hearing would be required under H when an accused judge and the commission don’t agree regarding public discipline and the commission desires a formal hearing. Historically, this happens in less than 1% of complaints filed by the public.
At this point, the discipline commission could not proceed on its own in private as it currently does. H would require the commission to refer the matter to a three-member panel, selected from the twelve-member adjudicatory board, where a public hearing would be held. H provides, however, that the board’s ruling can be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Under H, the Supreme Court would review issues of law “de novo.” That means the Supreme Court would still be the ultimate authority on interpreting the Code of Judicial Conduct. Facts would not constitute a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct unless the Supreme Court interprets the Code to say the facts constitute a violation.
Members of the adjudicatory board created by H would be selected by the Supreme Court and the governor. The Supreme Court would also appoint members to a rulemaking committee whose rules the adjudicatory board would have to obey under H. And the three-member adjudicatory panels that are selected from the adjudicative board to hear a formal judicial discipline proceeding under H?
They would be selected by the state court administrator who is hired by, and reports to, the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court already appoints members to the discipline commission that remains in effect under H.
Weissman’s allegations of an “independent” adjudicatory board in H are completely unfounded. Why would anyone vote to place that falsehood in the state Constitution? Why would he urge you to do that?
H even rewards the bad actors in the judicial scandal by giving the state court administrator power in judicial discipline proceedings and making it harder to discipline a Supreme Court justice like other judges.
Weissman is a licensed attorney who has never practiced law. He’s the most susceptible individual imaginable to a manipulative and predatory judicial branch dead set on keeping judges unaccountable. The Legislature is to keep checks and balances on the judicial branch. H makes it harder to discipline judges, creates more proceedings that are held out of public view, and makes it more likely that judges will remain unaccountable.
Why isn’t Weissman telling you all of this? Why is he so concerned about judges? Is Mike Weissman representing your interests?
Chris Forsyth has practiced law in Colorado for 30 years and is the Executive Director of The Judicial Integrity Project, a statewide watchdog group.