Ruling renews push to limit judges' terms

High-court decision on ballot proposal ignites more support

Lynn Bartels, Rocky Mountain News

Friday, June 16, 2006

The Colorado Supreme Court's controversial ruling this week on an illegal immigration ballot measure couldn't have come at a better time for the supporters of judicial term limits.

Term-limits backers had already planned to start collecting signatures today to put their measure on the November ballot.

The judicial measure, if successful, likely will mean five of the current seven Supreme Court justices will be gone within two years.

Former state Senate President John Andrews, who is spearheading the term-limits proposal for appellate judges, said he has been bombarded with calls of support since Monday's ruling that disqualified the immigration issue from the ballot.

"Our concern that courts are out of control was perfectly illustrated by this outrageous ruling," said Andrews, a Centennial Republican.

"This is as shocking an abuse of power as we have seen in some time."

The justices - in a 4-2 decision with four Democrats in the majority - claimed the immigration measure dealt with more than one distinct subject, a violation of the state's single-subject law. The proposal would have restricted government from providing services to illegal immigrants unless the services are mandated by the federal government.

Critics say the ruling contradicted earlier Supreme Court decisions on ballot proposals.

Republicans were outraged, and prominent Democrats, such as gubernatorial candidate Bill Ritter, also disagreed with the ruling.

But imposing term limits on judges is not the answer, said retired Supreme Court Chief Justice William Erickson, a Republican.

"Unpopular decisions are one of the things that are going to happen in the justice system," Erickson said.

Currently, appellate judges in Colorado are not term-limited. The judges are appointed by the governor, and after serving two years on the bench are up for retention at the next general election. Voters simply decide "yes" or "no" on whether the judge should stay.

Supreme Court justices serve 10-year terms; Court of Appeals judges eight-year terms.

Under Andrews' proposal, the terms would be reduced to four years and judges could serve only two, four-year terms on top of the time they serve after initially being appointed.

In addition, Andrews said the measure was meant to be retroactive, so any judge with 10 years on the bench is out.