The Discipline Commission reports that it has taken "corrective action" with more than 250 judges. Few of these judges needing "correction" are ever revealed to the public. Every now and then, the Discipline Commission will describe a disciplined judge by misconduct but not name them. Are you about to vote for that judge? You have no way of knowing. Annual Report "Did you vote to retain the judge [disciplined last year] who promoted extensive drinking among court staff, which led to a sexual relationship with a staff member?" Expose the records of Colorado's judges, Gazette Commentary by Chris Forsyth, October 28, 2020 Link to Commentary Did this judge decide sexual harassment cases when they were involved in this workplace affair gone bad? Are those decisions tainted by the judge's personal interests? Did the parties ever receive notice of a possible basis for appeal?

Ethics Enforcement: Commission on Judicial Discipline The Colorado constitution created a commission on judicial discipline and made it responsible for investigating allegations that a judge violated ethics rules. The commission investigates allegations and prosecutes these charges. Membership Commission members are drawn from judges, lawyers, and non-lawyers selected by the governor and the supreme court. Recommendations The commission makes recommendations about discipline to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court makes the final decision on whether and how to discipline a judge. Secrecy Discipline Commission proceedings are secret. If a judge is found to have violated the ethics rules, their discipline can be public or private. If private, the violation remains a secret. Only if the Supreme Court approves public discipline will it be known to voters. How effective is the discipline process? "For 28 continuous years, there was no public judicial discipline in Colorado." The Judicial Integrity Project commentary Go To Story 2019-2023: The Discipline Commission issued 3 times as many sanctions as in all of the prior half-century. SMART Hearing SMART Hearing Testimony, Discipline Commission, 1/18/23 Go To Story Go To Story Go To Story Go To Story Go To Story Go To Story Go To Story Go To Story Go To Story For more information about the process, visit the Discipline Commission's website Link to Discipline Commission Website

Justices Gabriel and Hart Justices Gabriel and Hart were accused of racial discrimination in hiring for the courts. The Colorado Supreme Court promised the People of Colorado to investigate this allegation and the others in the Memo. In the end, the Supreme Court prohibited its investigators from looking at the racial discrimination allegations against two of its own. "The people of Colorado deserve a judiciary that they know is being held accountable ... regardless of title or position." - Chief Justice Boatright 2/16/2021 To Story To Story To Story February 2021 "we are retaining the services of an outside investigator to conduct an independent review of all of the allegations mentioned in the memo ." - Colorado Supreme Court 2/8/2021 July 2022 "[Memo Item 5] 'Current pending EEOC complaint against two justice [Hart and Gabriel]' [Judiciary's Investigator] ILG was instructed not to investigate this matter" -Chief Justice Boatright 7/11/2022

Supreme Court Justice Melissa Hart said: "Hold us accountable." September 27, 2023, Access to Justice presentation Cases & Controversies Read about examples of misconduct by individual judges and high-profile controversies involving Colorado's judiciary. Consider how well our current system deals with misbehaving judges. Cases & Controversies Culture of Silence within Colorado's Judiciary Learn about how witnesses of judge misconduct have been silenced, and understand the challenges whistleblowers, victims of judicial misconduct, and proponents of reforming our judiciary face in Colorado. Culture of Silence Merit Selection Learn how Colorado selects, evaluates, and disciplines our judges. How Colorado selects, evaluates, and disciplines judges Opinions & Reforms Review commentaries published by thought leaders of Colorado about reforming our systems for judicial accountability, reform proposals, and the latest reform legislation. Opinions & Reforms Resources Review original reports of investigations and other source documents. Resources

Silencing the Watchdogs: Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline, the legislative investigators, and other critics. Press reports reveal that the Colorado Supreme Court obstructed and delayed the investigation of the judicial ethics watchdog through 2021 and 2022. An office of the Supreme Court was complicit in creating false evidence which was used to indict the chairman of the legislative committee investigating corruption at the Court. A judge later dismissed that indictment. As the delayed investigation neared its end, the press reported that the watchdog members faced intimidation tactics in the spring of 2023. Shortly after the commission disciplined the former chief justice, many of the watchdog's members were removed. The new commission members then fired the executive director who had been involved in disciplining the chief justice. To see how this story developed, follow the links provided below. Also, refer to the link to the "Transparency" section. Link to Transparency section Obstruction More Obstruction Membership Changed Threats Intimidation Opposition from Sen. Pete Lee Chief Justice Disciplined Public Censure of Chief Justice Director Removed More at Transparency

The Masias Contract Affair Mindy Masias was a high-ranking administrator in the Colorado judicial branch. She was terminated for financial misdealings and then given a two-million-dollar no-bid contract. The judicial department's top administrator would later allege the contract was part of an effort to cover up allegations of judicial misconduct. Years of investigations would follow. The Colorado Supreme Court would repeatedly be accused of obstructing them and would launch its own. Some allegations would be confirmed. The judicial department's investigators would argue that some were unfounded. After everything was said and done, the Masias contract was clearly improper but the investigations left responsibility for it muddy. The final result also seemed to confirm widespread and continuing efforts by the judicial branch to cover up allegations of misconduct that are made against judges. 2019 "The seven Supreme Court Justices, including Chief Justice Coats, approved of Masias' contract, as well as its cancellation" "[Controller Dukes resigned] out of disgust for this whole thing." Link to Story Story The investigation would start in July 2019, but the Justices and their lawyers would withhold the infamous Memo until February 2021 when the Denver Post first revealed its existence to the public. Story 2020 Link to Editorial The Masias contract "degrades the public trust" and "gives the appearance of impropriety and appears to be a violation of the Judicial Code of Conduct." Story The Auditor reached these 2020 conclusions without the Judiciary revealing the existence of the now infamous Memo, which had been known to the justices since 2019 Nine judicial department employees received buyouts totaling $518,000. Story 2021 Story Story "Any other person present ... isn't talking. Two have non-disclosure agreements" Ethics Rule 2.10 A judge shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court As a result of this apparent violation of judicial ethics, an ethics complaint was filed. Link to Ethics Complaint Eventually, the complaint was dismissed without a hearing. Colorado Supreme Court Justices publicly stated at the outset of the investigation into the Masias Contract Affair: "The notion that former Chief Justice Coats and his counsel Andrew Rottman -- both dedicated public servants -- would ever authorize the use of state resources to silence a blackmailer is simply false." Story "The Judicial Department has refused to release the memo [listing examples of alleged coverups]" Story "Destruction of evidence, payoffs to keep harassment victims silent and repeated efforts to simply look the other way ... permeated ... Judicial ... for years." By the time the Justices decided to release the Memo to investigators in 2021, the Justices had been keeping it secret from investigators for about 1.5 years. Story "These allegations must be investigated in full view of the public until trust in our judiciary is no longer in question," stated State Senate and House leaders "If you didn't have these whistle-blowers and ... press ..., where might this have landed?" - quoting State Senate President Garcia Story "We [the Colorado Bar Association] urge the Colorado Judicial Department to be fully transparent and to take the necessary steps to redress these issues promptly, in order to maintain the public's faith in the administration of justice in Colorado." February 11, 2021 Story One of these lawyers fighting to keep the secrets of the Memo would later be put on the court of appeals through a committee chaired by the Chief Justice, his client. Story "The memo paints a picture of a broken system. Judges ... operated with impunity - which is rich coming from those we trust with doling out justice. ... The memo itself was secret for almost two years." Story Story "The [discipline commission] says it was in the dark about the claims of ... misbehavior and harassment from judges going ... uninvestigated." Story Story Story Story But, once selected, the investigators would be directed and controlled by the Justices. Story Justice Gabriel Story Story Later, behind closed doors, the Justices would overrule the committee and restrict the investigators, barring examination of some critical topics. The Constitution of Colorado assigns investigation of judge misconduct complaints to the Discipline Commission. By assigning their own lawyers to investigate the allegations, the Justices replaced the Constitutional process with investigators they would control. Reporting over the coming years would reveal that, at the same time, the Justices and their people were blocking the Constitutional investigators. Learn More Story Story Story Story Story Story "the most important question is ... whether the public can trust that the Judicial Department is taking this problem seriously" Story 2022 Story "This ... is an epic clash ... a critical showdown of Constitutional authority." Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Report of Judicial Department's Lawyer, RCT RCT's Report Story Story Investigators agree goal of the contract was to "keep Mindy happy" Story Story Story Story "Judicial was in full control of the investigations." Story 2023 Story Story Chief Justice Nathan "Ben" Coats was Publicly Censured for his Role in the Masias Contract Affair. Read the details here: 2023-08-07 People v. Coats - 23SA114.pdf Shortly after the recommendation to publicly censure the former chief justice, the membership of the Discipline Commission was changed. Story

Resources Speaking Out to Defend the Rule of Law Professor of philosophy Gerald Postema notes that everyone talks today about the "rule of law" but few seem to know what it is. He provides an engaging discussion of its meaning and importance. Prof. Postema also presents a compelling case for the necessity of holding people in power, like judges and our institutions charged with upholding law, accountable to the rule of law--a responsibility that is "almost sacred." Link to Prof. Postema's Article The Memo View the "Memo" that started it all. The "Memo" had been compiled by senior judicial department executives. They laid out instances of judicial misconduct which they alleged had been covered up in Colorado's Judiciary. Link to the Memo The Judicial Department's Version The Colorado Judiciary hired two law firms to investigate under its control. They were Robert Troyer ("RCT") and the Investigative Law Group ("ILG"). Primary accusers were not available to them and some topics were placed off-limits. Read their reports of the Judiciary's version of events: RCT's Report ILG's Report Judicial coverups as documented in this report: "Preparing for the Next Scandal: Valuable Insights from the 2019-2023 Judicial Corruption Scandal" To Report In January of 2024, the Colorado legislature held annual SMART Act hearings. At that time it heard a summary report on lessons from the Masias allegations and their handling. Judicial Integrity Project Report Colorado's longest-term advocate for reforming judicial accountability is the Judicial Integrity Project. Read its report to the legislature here. To Report Judicial Department Cooperation? Colorado's constitution vests the power to investigate judicial misconduct in the Judicial Discipline Commission. Did the Judicial Department cooperate with the official investigation by the Judicial Discipline Commission? Reports from the two entities highlight major controversies. Judicial Dept's Report Discipline Commission Report Appx 1 Appx 2 Designing Accountability into the Judicial Discipline System How can systems be designed to enhance judicial accountability? A former member of Colorado's Judicial Discipline Commission examines this topic in an article published in the American Judges Court Review . To Report Colorado Legislative Interim Committee on Judicial Discipline In 2022, Colorado's Legislative Interim Committee on Judicial Discipline held hearings to examine the judicial ethics accountability system. It considered legislative remedies. The Committee received many informative reports and proposals available here. To Materials Original Intent of Colorado's Merit Selection For the 40th anniversary, a justice of the Colorado Supreme Court wrote a history of the system and discussed its intent. Consider whether today's system is achieving its goals. To Article

Constitutional Amendment H HCR 23-1001 Related Reforms HB 23-1205 Go To Go To Go To Constitutional Amendment to Raise Judicial Retention Threshold Advances Go To

Judge Kiesnowski's case is similar to Judges Woods and Scipione. The Judge engaged in long-term harassment of an employee and enjoyed the protection of the judiciary for years. Despite these years of harassing an underling, in his last evaluation, the Judicial Performance Commission recommended that voters retain Judge Kiesnowski. To Story To Story To Story To Evaluation

Hear from a Victim of a Judge's Sexual Harassment In August of 2022, a committee of the Colorado legislature was investigating the judiciary. The Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault (CCASA) presented written testimony from a young survivor of sexual harassment by a judge. Fearing retaliation, she remained anonymous. Her story of being victimized by the system after she reported being victimized by the judge explains why. You can read her testimony by following the link below: Her Testimony To News Story - Denver Gazette

Financial Disclosures Colorado judges, like other public office holders, are required to make annual public disclosures about their financial interests. This is to allow accountability on conflicts of interest. Failing to file these disclosures is a crime. In 2023, reporters revealed that large numbers of judges, maybe over 100, were not filing the required disclosures. The discipline commission started investigations of these reports and, as of the date of this writing, the public has heard nothing more. How is a voter to make an informed decision about a judge in this system? How to find a judge's financial disclosure: Follow this link to the Colorado Secretary of State's website - fill out this online form: https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/CampaignFinance/requestCopy.html Story Judges the Gazette reported as failing to file. Is your judge on the list? Are you about to vote for a judge on the list? Has the judge faced any accountability for breaking the disclosure law? Did a legitimate investigation clear the judge of wrongdoing? To Story Story As this is written and an election approaches, we voters in Colorado have no idea ho w these investigations came out. Story Story Story "Two different district court judges - each with four years of missing disclosures ... - sit on judicial discipline commissions whose job it is to punish jurists for their misconduct." Denver Gazette, August 10, 2023 Story Story Story Story

How do we hold judges accountable? What mechanisms for accountability are available? Can we do a better job of holding our judges accountable? Perhaps a Request for Evaluation (RFE) made to the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline regarding judges' misconduct? Public scrutiny by investigative journalists and opinion columnists? The recent Masias Contract scandal (2019-2023) exposed Colorado's judicial system to scrutiny - and revealed flaws. Our haphazard efforts at accountability encountered dogged resistance from an entrenched bureaucracy that resisted. Colorado Supreme Court Justice Hart told an audience, "Hold us accountable." But are the judges being held accountable? As you read through the examples in press reports of cases that the judiciary obstructed, the victims that were re-victimized by the judiciary, those that lost their jobs or were threatened, ask yourself if you can find any reports of someone in the judiciary being held accountable for this obstruction or this abuse of regular people trying to do the right thing. At the same time, the scandal provided an opportunity to learn how our judicial administration operates and lessons for future scandals. Here is an analysis of accountability for this scandal and the investigation: "Preparing for the Next Scandal - Valuable insights from the 2019-2023 Judicial Corruption Scandal" Request for Evaluation (RFE) with the Colorado Commission on Judicial Conduct This is an example of an attempt to hold judges accountable by filing a formal Request for Evaluation (RFE) with the Colorado Commission on Judicial Conduct. As stated in the RFE, the allegations arise out of the Masias Contract Affair and resulting judical scandal of 2019-2023. The RFE is well-documented. Request for Evaluation 2024-10-20 Anonymous RFE 2024-10-20 Appendices to Anonymous RFE