A single judge, not a pattern

Vote no on judge and on Amendment 40

Monday, October 30, 2006

Former state Sen. John Andrews is both right and wrong in his latest campaign: right that Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Jose Marquez should probably not be retained on the bench; wrong that Marquez is the poster child for why Amendment 40, Andrews' ballot initiative imposing term limits on appellate judges, should pass.

After an initial tryout period, Colorado judges face periodic retention elections - every eight years for judges on the Court of Appeals, every 10 years for Supreme Court justices. This year, five of the 19 appeals court judges are on the ballot.

Alas for Marquez, the statewide commission that evaluated his performance split six to four on whether he should be retained, and the capsule summary of their recommendations was unflattering.

In the remaining four appellate court elections, the commission unanimously recommended retention. (The complete evaluations are available at www.cojudicialperfor mance.com on the state's Web site.)

In regard to Marquez, the report said 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," since 1988.

We can't see why Coloradans should be satisfied reserving such a prestigious and powerful legal position for someone prone to "sporadic departures from controlling law." Voters who agree should reject his retention.

The broader picture, however, hardly helps Andrews' case for Amendment 40. Not only are the judges in question rarely appointed until they are well into middle age, they already are governed by a retirement deadline of 72.

There's also quite a lot of turnover on the bench as it is, with the average length of service less than the maximum of three four-year terms specified by the amendment. In fact, three of the other appellate judges with an election this year have been appointed since 2002.

At every general election, a significant number of judges who would face an election decide not to try for another term. Maybe the prospect of an unfavorable evaluation becoming public is a deterrent, in which case the evaluation process is doing its job indirectly. Or maybe judges are choosing to move on to other career opportunities, as state Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Love Kourlis did earlier this year.

All in all, Amendment 40 is an unnecessary solution to a barely discernible problem.