Impeach Colorado judges

0 have signed. Let’s get to 100!


We the people of Colorado have the right to a state Supreme Court that complies with the Code of Judicial Conduct. Justices on our Supreme Court must act with integrity to ensure the public’s trust.

As shown in this petition, justices on Colorado’s Supreme Court have used judicial power to help themselves. Such actions lack integrity, and are contrary to the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Colorado’s Constitution states that judicial officers may be impeached for malfeasance in office, and that justices may be removed from office for any violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Absent impeachment, the state court administrator can contract with any retired or former justice and return them to the bench.

We the people of Colorado must stand up to those who abuse judicial power.

PETITION

We the people of Colorado demand that the House of Representatives convene impeachment proceedings pursuant to Article XIII of the Colorado Constitution for the following judicial officers: Brian Boatright, Nathan Coats, Allison Eid, Richard Gabriel, William Hood, Monica Marquez, and Nancy Rice. These individuals committed malfeasance in office by adopting selfish rules that eroded the public’s trust in the judicial branch:

1. On or about April 20, 2017, the above judicial officers adopted changes to Rule 2 of the Colorado Rules of Judicial Discipline. In response to criticism that the discipline commission has a 97% dismissal rate of complaints against judges over a 20-year period, the named individuals, in their official capacity, changed the definition of the word “complaint” to make it look like, going forward, the discipline commission would not have such a high dismissal rate. There was no other reason to change the definition.

According to the revised definition, a complaint is no longer a complaint when filed with the commission. A complaint is now not a complaint until the discipline commission decides to proceed against a judge. The rule change was specifically devised to eradicate the 97% dismissal rate.

Rather than research and investigate the substantive concerns regarding why so many complaints have been dismissed, these judicial officers adopted an esoteric rule that personally benefits justices and judges, including themselves, by making it look like not so many complaints against judges are dismissed going forward. Judicial discipline proceedings, unlike lawyer discipline proceedings, are not public in Colorado. The public cannot look into the substance of complaints against judges because such records are confidential. Therefore, the dismissal rate provides an important, public glimpse by which to judge the actions of the discipline commission.

--          The adoption of the rule change did not promote public confidence in the integrity or impartiality of the judiciary, violating Rule 1.2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

--          The adoption of the rule change did not avoid impropriety or the appearance of impropriety, violating Rule 1.2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

--          By adopting the rule change, the above named individuals did not perform the duties of their office fairly and impartially, violating Rule 2.2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

--          The adoption of the rule change improperly advanced the personal interests of the named judicial officers, violating Rule 1.3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

--          The adoption of the rule change did not constitute an appropriate response to judicial misconduct, violating Rule 2.15 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

--          Any violation stated above, or any combination thereof, constitutes malfeasance in office. 

2.         On or about October 30, 2015, the above judicial officers adopted amendments to judicial branch rules regarding Public Access to Information and Records. After hearing public outcry regarding inaccessible judicial branch records, the named individuals responded by adopting a selfish rule contrary to CORA – Colorado’s Open Records Act. CORA weighs the public interest to determine whether documents become public. The named individuals, in their official capacity, adopted a speculative rule that would weigh their purported interests, as opposed to the public interest, to determine whether documents become public. Rule 2, Section 3 (a) (4) of the Supreme Court’s Public Access to Information and Records requires records to be kept from public view if inspection “could compromise the safety or security of a Judicial Branch employee.” 

--          The adoption of the rule did not promote public confidence in the integrity or impartiality of the judiciary, violating Rule 1.2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

--          The adoption of the rule did not avoid impropriety or the appearance of impropriety, violating Rule 1.2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

--          By adopting the rule, the above named individuals did not perform the duties of their office fairly and impartially, violating Rule 2.2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

--          The adoption of the rule improperly advanced the personal interests of the named judicial officers, violating Rule 1.3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. 

--          Any violation stated above, or any combination thereof, constitutes malfeasance in office.



Today: The Judicial Integrity Project is counting on you

The Judicial Integrity Project needs your help with “Colorado House of Representatives: Impeach Colorado judges”. Join The Judicial Integrity Project and 86 supporters today.