Does Aurora State Rep. Mike Weissman represent your interests?

He is running for Senate in North Aurora State Senate District 28 after serving as a state representative for Aurora. He's also the lead proponent of an issue on your ballot: Amendment H.

Maybe taking a look at H will help you decide whether Weissman deserves your vote.

Amendment H concerns judicial discipline. If someone believes a judge has violated the Judicial Code of Conduct, they can file a complaint with the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline. Weissman recommends changing the complaint handling process.

Weissman contends that an additional step in the judicial disciplinary process – an adjudicatory panel – is “independent” and that H would modernize Colorado's judicial disciplinary system. Some claim that H is abolishing the current disciplinary commission and replacing it with a new “independent” body. Some claim that H would hold judges more accountable. H is misleading at best.

The current disciplinary committee would remain in place under H. Since 1984, 7,157 complaints have been filed against judges by the public. These figures come from the annual reports of the Disciplinary Commission. Of these complaints, 7,145 were processed in camera. H would continue to allow this. Almost all complaints were dismissed, and private disciplinary punishment was imposed in the remaining cases.

Weissman's H would also provide for additional undercover procedures to help judges avoid being held accountable. It would allow judges to appeal private disciplinary actions to a three-member panel selected from a 12-member jury panel. It's a second chance for a judge to dismiss a lawsuit without the public seeing it. Then H offers a third chance, as the panel's decision could be appealed privately to the Supreme Court.

Weissman's H would create more actions that can take place privately. This is not an increase in transparency.

A public hearing would be required under H if an accused judge and the Commission disagree on public discipline and the Commission desires a formal hearing. Historically, this occurs in less than 1% of complaints filed by the public.

At this point, the disciplinary committee could not proceed privately as it currently does. H would require the commission to refer the matter to a three-member panel selected from the 12-member jury panel, where a public hearing would be held. However, H provides that the panel's decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Under H, the Supreme Court would consider legal questions “de novo.” This means that the Supreme Court would still be the ultimate authority for interpreting the Code of Judicial Conduct. Facts would not constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct for Judges unless the Supreme Court interprets the Code to mean that the facts constitute a breach.

The members of the jury panel appointed by H would be selected by the Supreme Court and the Governor. The Supreme Court would also appoint members of a rule-making committee, whose rules the adjudicatory committee would have to follow under H. And the three-member adjudicatory panels selected from the adjudicatory committee to hear formal disciplinary proceedings under H?

They would be selected by the state court administrator, who is appointed by and reports to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is already appointing members of the Disciplinary Commission, which remains in force under H.

Weissman's claims about an “independent” arbitration panel in H are completely unfounded. Why would anyone vote to add this falsehood to the state constitution? Why would he pressure you to do this?

H even rewards the bad actors in the judicial scandal by giving the state court administrator power in disciplinary proceedings and making it harder to discipline a Supreme Court justice like other judges.

Weissman is a licensed attorney who has never practiced law. He is the most vulnerable person imaginable to a manipulative and predatory justice system determined not to hold judges accountable. The legislature's job is to maintain the checks and balances of the judiciary. H makes disciplining judges more difficult, causes more trials to take place out of public view, and increases the likelihood that judges will not be held accountable.

Why doesn't Weissman tell you all of this? Why is he so worried about judges? Does Mike Weissman represent your interests?

Chris Forsyth has practiced law in Colorado for 30 years and is executive director of the Judicial Integrity Project, a statewide watchdog group.

Related