The 20th Judicial District (Boulder) Judicial Performance Commission held a public hearing May 15, 2018 to receive comments about judges. They’re not required to hold a hearing. And after recent statutory revisions, public hearings aren’t recommended anymore. The judges up for retention this year are: District Court Judges Thomas Mulvahill and Norma Sierra, and County Court Judges David Archuleta and Elizabeth Brodsky.

May 20, 2018 by Lulu

The commission held a public hearing on May 15, 2018, from 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. in Courtroom F at the Boulder County Justice Center, 1777 Sixth Street, Boulder, CO 80302, to take input on 20th Judicial District Judges eligible for retention in the 2018 general election. The judges to be evaluated this year are: District Court Judges Thomas Mulvahill and Norma Sierra, and County Court Judges David Archuleta and Elizabeth Brodsky.
The Judicial Integrity Project

Hope?

1 of Colorado’s 23 judicial performance commissions chose to do something incredibly important this week – the commission chose to listen.

The 20th Judicial District (Boulder) Judicial Performance Commission held a public hearing Tuesday evening to receive comments about judges. They’re not required to hold a hearing. And after recent statutory revisions, public hearings aren’t even recommended anymore. So give them a standing ovation.

The performance commissions are the commissions that recommend to you whether judges should be retained in office. But the commissions receive very little information about judges. And the sad thing is, 22 of the commissions haven’t held a public hearing to simply listen.

A lot of the members of the performance commissions don’t realize that most of the info they receive about a judge is provided to them by the judge who’s being reviewed.

Wouldn’t you love to control your own job review?

The commissions don’t receive:
1) Judicial discipline information. Why? It’s confidential.
The commissions don’t see any complaints that have been filed.
They don’t even know if the judge under review has been disciplined.

2) Background checks on judges. The commissions don’t know if a judge has law enforcement contacts or a boatload of traffic tickets or a DUI. If you think judges are above such sort of thing, think again. Other states often have judges who get into trouble with the law. The public finds out about it because those states have more transparency than Colorado.

3) Verification that a judge’s financial disclosures are accurate. Judges are required to file financial disclosures. They aren’t incredibly thorough, but they are disclosures. But what’s the point if no one checks to see if they are accurate? Verification of the disclosures would be a simple way to ensure a judge is honest and forthright and give us all a little more peace of mind.

We have a lot of changes to make to our judicial performance commission system to ensure the recommendations they issue have merit.

Hopefully, the Boulder commission will start moving us in the right direction. And hopefully, the pic is not of the last public hearing in Colorado.

If you’d like the performance commissions to receive more information about judges, and in turn give you more information, please sign our petition. To change the system, we have to change the law. And to change the law, we need to let legislators know the people want judicial reform.

Be a part of the solution by signing our petition.

https://www.gopetition.com/…/colorado-needs-judicial-reform…

Image may contain: 4 people, people smiling, people sitting and indoor
The Judicial Integrity Project
Nonprofit Organization

Recent Posts