Colorado Term Limits for Judges, Amendment 40 (2006)

From Ballotpedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Colorado Constitution
Image:Book128.png
Articles
Preamble • I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • XI • XII • XIII • XIV • XV • XVI • XVII • XVIII • XIX • XX • XXI • XXII • XXIII • XXIV • XXV • XXVI • XXVII • Schedule

Contents

The Colorado Term Limits for Judges, Amendment 40 appeared on the November 2006 ballot in Colorado as a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment, where it was defeated.
  • Yes: 648,199 (43%)
  • No: 862,349 (57%) Defeated

Impact

The measure would have limited the number of terms for Supreme Court justices and appellate court judges, reduced the term of Supreme Court justices from 10 to 4 years and appellate court judges from 8 to 4 years, required appellate court judges who have already served 10 years or more to leave their position in Jan. 2009, and allowed appellate court judges still eligible for another term to appear on the Nov. 2008 ballot for retention.

Ballot wording

The official ballot title read:

An amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning term limits for appellate court judges, and, in connection therewith, reducing the terms of office for justices of the supreme court and judges of the court of appeals to four years, requiring appellate judges serving as of January 1, 2007, to stand for retention at the next general election, if eligible for another term, prohibiting an appellate judge from serving more than three terms, specifying that a provisional term constitutes a full term, and making any appellate judge who has served ten or more years at one court level ineligible for another term at that level.

Supporters

Groups supporting the measure included Limit the Judges, Colorado Term Limits Coalition, and the Colorado Family Action Issue Committee.

Supporters argued that by creating more turnover in office, Amendment 40 would provide new perspectives and opportunity for more judges to serve on the state's two highest courts. They added that the amendment would extend the same kinds of benefits that come from legislative term limits, which Colorado voters have already approved, to the judiciary.

They noted that options available to remove a judge from office are inadequate. No Supreme Court justice or Court of Appeals judge in Colorado has ever been removed in a retention election, impeachment of judges is almost never used, and there is no process to recall a judge.

Supporters said that requiring appellate judges to stand for retention every four years would allow the public to evaluate the performance and decisions of these judges more often. All other judges in Colorado stand for retention every four to six years; Amendment 40 would make the terms of appellate judges more similar to the other courts.[1]

Opponents

Groups opposing the amendment included Citizens To Protect Colorado Courts, the Bell Ballot Action, and People For The American Way Voters Alliance of Colorado.

Opponents argued that Amendment 40 will force five current Supreme Court justices and seven Court of Appeals judges to step down in January 2009, before serving the full term that voters previously approved. In 2009, the governor will appoint new judges to the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, including a majority of the justices of the Supreme Court, giving one political party disproportionate influence over the state's two highest courts. Ans every ten years thereafter, the governor may have the ability to appoint a large number of judges to the Court of Appeals and a super-majority to the Supreme Court.

Opponents also claimed that limiting the terms of Supreme Court and Court of Appeals judges was unnecessary. Judges are already held accountable through performance evaluations, retention elections, oversight by a state judicial discipline commission, possible impeachment, and mandatory retirement at age 72. Further, Amendment 40 may discourage the best candidates from pursuing judgeships on the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.

Judges gain knowledge from years of serving on the court, opponents pointed out. With the limit on terms, judges will be required to step down when their experience is most beneficial.[1]

Campaign finance

Donors for the campaign for the measure:[2]

  • Limit the Judges: $1,243,408
  • Colorado Family Action Issue Committee: $1,027,777
  • Colorado Term Limits Coalition: $1,156
  • Total: $2,272,341

Donors for the campaign against the measure:

  • Citizens to Protect Colorado Courts: $1,281,599
  • Bell Ballot Action: $5,000
  • People for the American Way Voters Alliance of CO: $100
  • Total: $1,286,699
  • Overall Total: $3,559,040

See also

External links

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 2006 Colorado Blue Book
  2. ↑ Follow the Money, "Donors"
Retrieved from "http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Colorado_Term_Limits_for_Judges,_Amendment_40_(2006)"
Personal tools