In 1966, Colorado voters passed a constitutional amendment that abolished partisan elections for state court judges and established a new merit selection system for the nomination, appointment, and retention of state court judges. The constitutional amendment provides that state court judges be appointed rather than elected on a political ticket. The system eliminates the influence of partisan politics, striking a balance between an independent judiciary, while maintaining public accountability.
Each time a vacancy occurs, the Governor selects a new judge from a list of two or three highly qualified nominees chosen by a judicial nominating commission. The judge serves a two-year provisional term before his or her name is on the ballot for retention. Once retained, the judge serves a fixed term – four years for county court judges, six years for district court judges, eight years for court of appeals judges, and ten years for supreme court justices – before his or her name is on a retention ballot again. There is no limit on the number of terms a judge may serve, but the mandatory retirement age is 72.
State court judges are county court judges, district court judges, court of appeals judges, and supreme court justices. The following judges are not state court judges: Denver County judges (appointed by the Mayor of Denver); municipal court judges serving the cities and towns throughout the state of Colorado; administrative law judges located in the executive branch of government; federal judges and magistrates; and state court magistrates. Although the Denver County judges are not state court judges, the local district judicial performance commission also evaluates the Denver County judges.
All judges stand for retention election after serving a two-year provisional term. County court judges then stand every four years, district court judges every six years, court of appeals judges every eight years, and Supreme Court justices every ten years.
Commissions on judicial performance provide voters with fair, responsible, and constructive evaluations of judges and justices seeking retention in general elections. The results of the evaluations also provide judges with information that can be used to improve their professional skills as judicial officers.
There is one commission in each of the 22 judicial districts and one state commission.
District commissions evaluate the county and district judges in the judicial district. A state commission evaluates the justices of the Supreme Court and judges of the Court of Appeals.
The State Commission is comprised of eleven citizen volunteer commissioners: six non-attorneys and five attorneys. Each District Commission consists of ten citizen volunteer commissioners: six non-attorneys and four attorneys.
Commissioners are appointed from one of six appointing authorities: The Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, the Governor of Colorado, the Colorado Speaker of the House, the Colorado President of the Senate, the House Minority Leader, and the Senate Minority Leader.
The Chief Justice appoints two attorneys to the State and District Commissions. The Governor appoints one attorney and two non-attorneys to the State Commission, and two non-attorneys to the District Commissions. The Speaker of the House and President of the Senate appoint one attorney and one non-attorney to the State and District Commissions. The House Minority Leader and Senate Minority Leader each appoint one non-attorney to the State and District Commissions.
Yes. Unlike nominating commissions, commissions on judicial performance are non-partisan.
Commissions prepare a narrative that includes the recommendation to voters on the retention of the judge. To evaluate the overall performance of a judge, commissions are required to use the following information:
- Results from surveys sent to persons who have sufficient experience with a judge: attorneys (including prosecutors, public defenders, and private attorneys), jurors, litigants, law enforcement personnel, employees of the court, court interpreters, employees of probation offices, employees of local departments of social services, victims of crime, and other judges and justices.
- Information from observing the judge in the courtroom
- Information furnished by the judge in a self-evaluation
- Review of decisions/opinions
- Review of individual judge statistics
- Interview with the judge
- Completion of a standards matrix
- In addition, commissions may use the following information:
- Information and documentation from interested persons
- Information from interviews with justices and judges and other persons
- Information from public hearings
The state commission contracts with an independent research company to develop a survey process and identify individuals to be sent judicial performance surveys. When people are involved in a case in a state court, their names are entered into the court’s case management system. From the courts data individuals are identified who have a case with a scheduled event that would likely provide an opportunity observe and interact with the judge assigned their case. These individuals are qualified to receive performance surveys for judges eligible to stand for retention election in the next general election. In some areas, a random sample of individuals are selected for surveying when the overall sample has more than 500 potential respondents. In cases where a small number of individuals are identified, all identified individuals will be sent a survey.
The completed surveys are returned to the independent research company conducting the survey. That company compiles the results of all the completed questionnaires it receives into a composite report to be supplied to the commissions on judicial performance and judges. Individual survey questionnaires, including written comments, remain confidential. Judges and commissioners do not know the names of the people who make comments or what ratings specific individuals give the judges.
No. Judges and commissioners will not see individual questionnaires. They will only be able to see the composite report that compiles the results of all returned questionnaires. That report will include written comments provided by people being surveyed.
Yes. Survey results and Commission narratives for those judges standing for retention are published on the OJPE website each August of an election year. You may also review past evaluation results of judges who stood for retention from 1990 through the present.
Yes, anyone can complete an online survey for a state court judge on the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation website. Respondents will be asked to provide contact information prior to taking the survey in case we need to contact you regarding your survey responses. Contact information will not be published. Completed survey responses will be included in a survey report with all collected responses for a given judge and used by the performance commission during their next evaluation. Individuals can also make written comments about a judge, by completing the appropriate form on the ojpe.org website. Written submissions outlining performance feedback on a judge may also be mail to the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Ralph L. Carr Judicial Center, c/o Kent J. Wagner, Executive Director, 1300 Broadway, Suite 220, Denver, CO 80203, at any time. The letter must include the senders name and address and the judge will receive a copy of the letter.
Commissions do review some decisions of the judge as part of the overall evaluation of the judge’s legal knowledge, reasoning, and communication skills. However, commissions have no authority to second guess, change, or reverse any judge’s decision in any case.
In 1966, the people of Colorado passed a constitutional amendment that abolished partisan elections of state court judges and established a new merit selection system for the nomination, appointment, and retention of judges. Colorado's merit selection system provides that judges are selected based on their ability to know and apply the law fairly and impartially. They serve a provisional term during which they are evaluated, and after which the voters decide whether each judge should continue to serve.
In a merit selection and retention system, judges stand for retention election and therefore do not run against an opponent. The question on the ballot is: “Shall Justice (Judge) … of the Supreme (or other) Court be retained in office?” Yes/No.
In fact, under the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct, judges are prohibited from campaign activity unless there is active opposition to his or her retention in office. This removes partisan politics and political campaigns from the retention process.
No. Commissions on Judicial Performance evaluate the overall performance of judges.
The Commission on Judicial Discipline has separate responsibility for judicial disciplinary matters.
No. Since, state court magistrates are employees of the judicial district, they are evaluated yearly along with all other employees. Complaints about the job performance of a magistrate may be made to the cistrict administrator.
Since magistrates are attorneys, complaints should be directed to the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel.
The Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel investigates complaints against attorneys.