Judicial evaluations appear too lenient

Published August 21, 2006 at midnight

Text size

More Editorials

Suppose you had a case pending before the Colorado Court of Appeals. Would you be pleased to learn that the state commission on judicial performance had said of one of the judges considering your case, "Although the commission recommends that Judge (Jose) Márquez be retained, several commissioners were disappointed with the variable quality of some of his opinions and sporadic departures from controlling law, especially given the length of time he has been on the bench"?

Probably not. The work of the commissions that evaluate judges standing for retention is important, yet those panels - one for state Supreme Court and Court of Appeals judges, and one for each of the state's 22 judicial districts - nearly always recommend retention. This year, they did for all of the 108 judges who will face retention elections in November.

In addition, nearly all of the recommendations are unanimous. And following along, voters nearly always favor retention.

That is all the more reason why voters should pay attention to the judges who draw any negative votes at all. The commission vote on Marquez was 6-4, while the other four appeals court judges on the ballot were all 10-0.

To be sure, some judges reportedly leave the bench rather than try to ride out an unfavorable review, so the commissions do have greater benefit than is apparent on the surface. Yet a few of the remaining cases are still puzzling.

Of El Paso County Judge Barney Iuppa, the Fourth District commission said, "Not withstanding the commission's recommendation that Judge Iuppa be retained, the commission is concerned with Judge Iuppa's courtroom demeanor. Many survey responses from attorneys noted Judge Iuppa was moody and rude at times." The vote on Iuppa was 9-1 in favor.

The 18th District commission said of Lincoln County Judge Truston Lee Fisher, "The commission is most concerned with Judge Fisher regarding his angry outbursts in the courtroom and toward his staff. The commission had addressed this concern with Judge Fisher four years ago." But nobody was concerned enough to vote no.

One member of the 20th District commission, the report said, "felt very strongly that Judge (Carol) Glowinsky, at times, does not follow the law, but clouds her decisions with interpretations." The commission vote was nine in favor and one "no opinion."

The commissions calculate a grade for judges based on the responses from attorneys who have appeared before them. The average is 3.4 (of a possible 4.0) and almost all the scores are very close to that figure. Just eight judges scored below 3.0. Only three drew any negative votes. Surely there ought to be more.

SOME JUDGES GET BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News