The Gazette editorial board recently approved Amendment H for the statewide vote this fall to strengthen the process for investigating judicial misconduct and disciplining judges. It is a reform that is long overdue.

The Gazette's investigative reporting in recent years uncovered a scandal at the highest levels of the state court system and showed a lack of transparency and accountability. Amendment H will give new impetus to the complicated process of rooting out judicial misconduct and ensuring that it is subject to public scrutiny.

Nevertheless, Amendment H is only a first step. Further changes to the courts are warranted beyond the scope of the current ballot proposal—and one of those changes should simply be to clean the house.

In particular, three of the Colorado Supreme Court justices who served during the Pay for Silence scandal several years ago and whose terms are now tainted should be removed from office.

Voters across the state will have the opportunity to make this happen and vote for Amendment H on the same ballot this fall.

Under Colorado law, all judges, including those who serve on the state's highest court, are appointed to their positions by the governor – but then voters must face a retention election to decide whether to keep them on board want.

State Supreme Court Justices Maria Berkenkotter, Brian Boatright and Monica Márquez face such a choice, along with numerous lower court judges serving across the state. The Gazette editorial board is calling for a “NO” vote to retain the three justices.

The scandal that unfolded under her watch involved then-Chief Justice Nathan Coats, now retired. Coats had approved a multimillion-dollar contract with a senior Justice Department official who was facing firing but threatened a full-scale gender discrimination lawsuit. The lawsuit promised to expose years of alleged judicial misconduct that went unpunished or was covered up.

It could never be conclusively clarified whether the consulting contract, which was later terminated, was a consideration. But an independent investigation conducted after the deal was made public found that Coats' lack of training as an administrator, his reliance on an untrustworthy subordinate and his poor judgment were partly to blame for the scandal. Last year, a special court handed down an unprecedented public censure against Coats over the affair.

Berkenkotter, Boatright and Márquez knew what had happened or should have happened, but did not intervene and may even have hindered the investigation. In any case, it happened under her supervision. They should now be held accountable by voters.

Generally speaking, judicial retention elections give Colorado's rank-and-file voters a special responsibility to hold the judiciary accountable to the public. And yet it is a power that voters rarely invoke – arguably underscoring the need for further reform.

The nature of presidential elections, in which voters have no alternative candidates to choose from, invites them to vote to keep the judge in question. Additionally, not much information about the performance of the justices who appear on the ballot is publicly available. Most voters are unaware of what information is available and how to access it. This makes a default vote to retain judges all the more likely.

This must change if Colorado is to have a truly accountable, ethical and competent judiciary.

Unfortunately, while voters have little basis in assessing most of the justices on the ballot, at least in the case of the three Supreme Court justices up for election, reporting has kept the public informed.

A vote against retaining Berkenkotter, Boatright and Márquez will not only hit the Supreme Court's necessary reset button, but will also serve as a reminder to our state's judiciary that it must ultimately be accountable to the people.

The Gazette editorial team