Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Judges face voters' judgment

Amendment 40 would place limits on judicial terms

Sara Burnett, Rocky Mountain News

Published October 10, 2006 at midnight

Text size  

More Airlines & Aerospace

More stories »

John Sternberg was disappointed but not really surprised when the state Supreme Court failed to overturn Denver's gun laws.

One justice abstained from the ruling because, as an attorney, she had argued the case before being named to the Supreme Court.

Three sided with the state, which argued that gun control laws should be uniform throughout Colorado.

The other three, in Sternberg's opinion, made their opposing decision based on personal opinion and politics - not precedent.

The 3-3 ruling effectively upheld a district court decision that Denver could ban so-called "Saturday night specials" and assault weapons and enforce a variety of other gun laws, which Sternberg, a Denver resident and gun owner, believes are unconstitutional.

That decision is fueling Sternberg's support for Amendment 40, the ballot initiative that would limit state Supreme Court justices and appellate court judges to 10 years on the bench.

If the amendment becomes law, five of the seven Supreme Court justices and seven of 19 appellate court judges would be replaced in January 2009 then again at least every 10 years.

Opponents of the measure say that would create a backlog of cases that could last months. It would delay justice, they say, allowing criminals who are out on bail to wander the streets longer than they otherwise would and postponing everything from contract-mediation to child-custody decisions.

Sternberg, however, thinks the turnover would bring in new justices who might rule differently, not just on gun laws but on other issues as well - and that the "fresh blood" could be a good thing.

Coloradans already have approved term limits for the governor's office and legislature.

"Why in the world should the judiciary be free from term limits?" Sternberg said. "It makes no sense to me."

A 'terrible' measure

Opponents of the measure - including the Colorado Bar Association, three former governors, Gov. Bill Owens and all but two of the state's district attorneys - say there's a good reason judges shouldn't be subjected to term limits.

Limiting a judge's service to 10 years would discourage top candidates from wanting to serve, they say.

It also would allow whoever is governor to appoint a majority of the Supreme Court and a near-majority of the state Court of Appeals once every decade - allowing the chief executives to "stack the deck" with judges who agree with them politically.

"Clearly there is a reason why no other state has subjected their citizenry to such a terrible measure," former U.S. Attorney Bob Miller said Monday.

Miller called the initiative "the most serious attack on Colorado's judicial independence since the 1960s."

Currently, judges and justices must stand for retention after a two- year provisional term then again every eight years for Court of Appeals judges and every 10 years for Supreme Court justices.

They may serve until age 72 if voters retain them.

Amendment 40 would require judges to stand for retention after the first two years then again every four years until they hit the maximum of 10 years.

The fact that Amendment 40 would be retroactive - kicking off those who've already hit the 10-year limit, even if voters retained them in their last election - ignores the will of voters who cast ballots to keep those judges, opponents say.

But proponents of the measure say it is far too rare that bad judges get kicked off the bench.

Since 1998 the state's judicial review commissions - a panel of attorneys and nonattorneys who interview judges and others involved in the legal system then issue recommendations - have recommended that 478 of 485 judges be retained.

This year, 23 of 131 eligible judges opted not to stand for retention. That may be because they got negative reviews, although the reviews are not made public.

Cries of 'activists judges'

Former state Senate President John Andrews calls those numbers laughable.

Andrews, a Republican and a staunch supporter of term limits, has tried for several years to extend the limits to judges.

His efforts have gotten boosts from high-profile cases like the Denver gun law ruling and another decision that shut down a school voucher plan.

Both cases are mentioned in television and radio ads by Andrews' pro-Amendment 40 group, Limit the Judges.

But no case has generated as much support for the issue as the Supreme Court's decision this year to keep a measure off the Nov. 7 ballot that would have asked voters whether the state should prohibit illegal immigrants from getting many state services.

The ruling prompted cries about "activist judges" and helped Amendment 40 supporters gather enough signatures to put the measure on the ballot.

Former El Paso County district attorney Bob Russell said Monday he can understand the frustration. He, too, has disagreed with court rulings over the years, namely death-penalty and search-and-seizure cases.

But for every case he disagreed with, there were 10 with which he agreed, Russell said. -And no case, he added, is reason enough to throw out Colorado's current system - one that has earned praise recently from groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Institute for Legal Reform.

"Just because you don't like one decision, you don't throw the baby out with the bath water," he said.

Amendment 40

Would amend the constitution to limit state Supreme Court justices and appellate court judges to 10 years on the bench.

• Who supports it: Limit the Judges, a group led by former Senate President John Andrews. The group has received the bulk of its funds from Colorado At Its Best, a Golden-based group that supports term limits. Campaign co-chairmen include state. Sen. Tom Wiens, R-Castle Rock; state Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray; and state Rep. Ted Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch.

• Who opposes it: Citizens to Protect Colorado Courts, a group that has received most of its funding from the Colorado Bar Association and individual attorneys. Gov. Bill Owens and former governors Roy Romer, Dick Lamm and John Vanderhoof, Attorney General John Suthers, Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey, former U.S. Attorney Bob Miller.

• For more information: Citizens to Protect Colorado Courts, ; Limit the Judges,

or 303-954-5343