Proponents of Amendment H believe that making it harder to discipline judges, as Amendment H would do, would strengthen Colorado's courts. I and many others disagree.

The editorial published in The Post claimed that a board appointed by H would have final authority on disciplinary matters. This claim is incorrect. Under H, the Supreme Court would have much more power in disciplinary cases than it does now, and it would have final decision-making power.

Currently, the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline has the authority to discipline a judge privately and independently. When disciplinary action occurs, which is rare, it is almost always private disciplinary action. H would deprive the Disciplinary Commission of this independence and create a private appeals process for judges to challenge private disciplinary actions.

If a judge appeals disciplinary proceedings, the Supreme Court would always have the final say in disciplinary proceedings. You see, H would give the Supreme Court appeal power over the board created by H.

The Supreme Court would consider legal questions “de novo.” This means that the Supreme Court would interpret the Code of Judicial Conduct, which is loosely worded. Facts would not constitute a violation of the Code unless the Supreme Court says so. And H would allow the Supreme Court to decide any disciplinary case.

What about the jury touted by H's proponents? You wouldn't have access to it. No member of the public could appeal to the board, which H wants to include in the state constitution.

Only judges could appeal a disciplinary commission's decision regarding private discipline to the adjudicatory body. The Disciplinary Commission's annual reports show that it has dismissed more than 97% of complaints filed by the public over the past 40 years. In H there are no changes to the termination procedure. And nothing in H creates an appeal process for complaints dismissed by the Commission.

The Disciplinary Commission has handled 99.8% of complaints privately over the last 40 years. Nothing in H would change this privacy.

H would create a board that would have different functions depending on whether the disciplinary committee is seeking private or public disciplinary action. It would serve an intermediary appellate function in cases involving private disciplinary action. Disciplinary sanctions have been imposed 182 times in the last 40 years.

If the disciplinary commission wants public discipline, the new board would serve as a court. In the last 40 years, only ten judges have been publicly punished. Only two of these cases had a hearing. The rest were requirements. However, if the board were to act with public discipline in mind, its actions would be public.

H creates much more secrecy than transparency. In most cases, a panel of the panel meets privately when a judge attempts to avoid issuing a private disciplinary sanction. These secret appeals would reduce public trust in the system.

People were misled by H's proponents, who continued to claim in the editorial that the new board had the authority to conduct its own investigations. This is not in the language that H would include in the state constitution. The claim is inconsistent with the functions of the panel set out in H. And again, the public would not have access to the board.