Colorado Amendment H, Independent Judicial Discipline Adjudicative Board Amendment (2024)

Colorado Amendment H
Election date November 5, 2024
Topic State judiciary
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature

Colorado Amendment H, the Independent Judicial Discipline Adjudicative Board Amendment, was on the ballot in Colorado as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 5, 2024. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported creating a new board, called the Independent Judicial Discipline Adjudicative Board, and creating rules for the judicial discipline process.

A "no" vote opposed creating the Independent Judicial Discipline Adjudicative Board and creating rules for the judicial discipline process.

Election results

Colorado Amendment H
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		2,150,820	73.05%
No		793,642	26.95%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What would Amendment H do?

See also: Text of measure and Measure design

The amendment created the Independent Judicial Discipline Adjudicative Board, consisting of four district court judges, four attorneys, and four citizens, which conducts disciplinary hearings and hear appeals relating to disciplinary actions from the Commission on Judicial Discipline. Under the amendment, judicial discipline cases become public once formal proceedings begin, rather than confidential until the process is complete.

What did supporters and opponents say about the measure?

See also: Support and Opposition

Rep. Mike Weissman (D-36), who sponsored the amendment in the state House, said, "Independent oversight is key to the maintenance of trust in any institution, especially public institutions. ... As members of the legislature, we found that Colorado’s decades-old judicial discipline system did not meet the modern standards of independence and public accountability necessary for public trust. ... Instead of remaining confidential and out of public view until near the end of the process, judicial discipline matters would be open (as most other court proceedings are) once formal proceedings commence. ... This new independent board would act like a 'court' for formal judicial discipline proceedings and determine what sanctions are appropriate. ... In situations when Colorado Supreme Court justices are potentially involved in disciplinary proceedings, they would be removed from their usual role in the appellate review process and replaced by seven randomly selected judges of the Colorado Court of Appeals. Finally, while preserving the confidentiality of complainants, witnesses, and judges not yet sanctioned through formal proceedings, our constitution would make it clear that the public has a right to know aggregate, non-identifiable data about what is going on in our judicial discipline system and that complainants have a right to be kept informed about ongoing investigations. These latter provisions are similar to the provisions of the Victims Rights Amendment to our state constitution, long ago approved by voters."

The Judicial Integrity Project, which opposes the amendment, said, "Amendment H makes minimal changes to the judicial discipline process when much more substantial change is needed. Amendment H inserts more conflicts of interest in the process by having the Supreme Court appoint judges to the proposed adjudicatory board and subsequent hearing panels when judges appointed by the Supreme Court are already on the discipline commission and rulemaking committee. The current judicial discipline process does not work, and Amendment H will not make it work. History shows that the procedures in Amendment H, including the minimal increase in transparency, affect less than 1% of complaints against judges and are not worthy of a constitutional amendment. If Amendment H passes, it will be almost impossible to obtain necessary reforms because legislators will allege they did the job with Amendment H. Empowering the state court administrator with a role in the judicial discipline process is a mistake."

Measure design

The amendment created the Independent Judicial Discipline Adjudicative Board within the Judicial Department, which can conduct disciplinary hearings and hear appeals relating to informal remedial action orders from the Commission on Judicial Discipline. The 12-member board was set to consist of four district court judges, four attorneys, and four citizens. Members are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate. In order to stagger terms, initial appointments for two members from each category and serve a five-year term and the other two members from each category serve three-year terms. After the initial terms, subsequent appointments were set to be for five-year terms. The board was given the authority to conduct formal judicial disciplinary proceedings and hear appeals on order from the Commission on Judicial Discipline.

The Commission on Judicial Discipline could dismiss a complaint, order informal remedial action, or order a formal hearing on the case by a panel of the adjudicative board. A randomly selected panel of the Adjudicative Board consisting of one judge, one attorney, and one citizen can conduct formal proceedings in a case. A respondent judge or justice could appeal a Commission's order for informal remediation to a panel of the Adjudicative Board for review of the order for abuse of discretion. The panel was given the authority to dismiss a complaint, impose formal sanctions, or impose informal sanctions.

A justice or judge could appeal an adjudicative panel's disciplinary order and the commission could appeal the adjudicative panel's dismissal or disciplinary order to the state supreme court. In the following circumstances, the appeal can made to a tribunal instead of to the state supreme court. A tribunal of seven randomly selected court of appeals and district judges are required to review the panel's decision if:

(a) the complaint is against a Colorado supreme court justice,

(b) a Colorado supreme court justice, a justice's staff member, or justice's family member is a complainant or witness in a proceeding; or

(c) more than two justices have recused themselves from the proceeding.

Under the amendment, the Commission on Judicial Discipline was allowed to release information about the status of an evaluation, investigation, or proceeding to a victim or complainant and make aggregate information publicly available. The amendment provided that a person is immune to any action for defamation based on papers filed or testimony given during a disciplinary proceeding.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot question was as follows:

“

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning judicial discipline, and, in connection therewith, establishing an independent judicial discipline adjudicative board, setting standards for judicial review of a discipline case, and clarifying when discipline proceedings become public?

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article VI, Colorado Constitution

The measure amended Section 23 of Article VI of the Colorado Constitution. The following struck-through text was deleted and underlined text was added. Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

Retirement and Removal of Justices and Judges

(1) On attaining the age of seventy­two a justice or judge of a court of record shall retire and his judicial office shall be vacant, except as otherwise provided in section 20 (2).

(2) Whenever a justice or judge of any court of this state has been convicted in any court of this state or of the United States or of any state, of a felony or other offense involving moral turpitude, the Supreme Court shall, of its own motion or upon petition filed by any person, and upon finding that such a conviction was had, enter its order suspending said justice or judge from office until such time as said judgment of conviction becomes final, and the payment of salary of said justice or judge shall also be suspended from the date of such order. If said judgment of conviction becomes final, the Supreme Court shall enter its order removing said justice or judge from office and declaring his office vacant and his right to salary shall cease from the date of the order of suspension. If said judgment of conviction is reversed with directions to enter a judgment of acquittal or if reversed for a new trial which subsequently results in a judgment of dismissal or acquittal, the Supreme Court shall enter its order terminating the suspension of said justice or judge and said justice or judge shall be entitled to his salary for the period of suspension. A plea of guilty or nolo contendere to such a charge shall be equivalent to a final conviction for the purpose of this section.

(3)

(a) There shall be a commission on judicial discipline. It shall consist of: Two judges of district courts and two judges of county courts, each selected by the supreme court, as provided by law; two citizens admitted to practice law in the courts of this state, neither of whom shall be a justice or judge, who shall have practiced in this state for at least ten years and who shall be appointed by the governor, with the consent of the senate; and four citizens, none of whom shall be a justice or judge, active or retired, nor admitted to practice law in the courts of this state, who shall be appointed by the governor, with the consent of the Senate. An appointing authority shall not appoint a member of the independent judicial discipline adjudicative board established in subsection (3)(c.5) of this section to the commission.

(b) Each member shall be appointed to a four­year term; except that one­half of the initial membership in each category shall be appointed to two­year terms, for the purpose of staggering terms. Whenever a commission membership prematurely terminates or a member no longer possesses the specific qualifications for the category from which he was selected, his position shall be deemed vacant, and his successor shall be appointed in the same manner as the original appointment for the remainder of his term. A member shall be deemed to have resigned if that member is absent from three consecutive commission meetings without the commission having entered an approval for additional absences upon its minutes. If any member of the commission is disqualified to act in any matter pending before the commission, the commission may appoint a special member to sit on the commission solely for the purpose of deciding that matter.

(c) No member of the commission shall receive any compensation for his services but shall be allowed his necessary expenses for travel, board, and lodging and any other expenses incurred in the performance of his duties, to be paid by the supreme court from its budget to be appropriated by the general assembly.

(c.5) (I) There is created the independent judicial discipline adjudicative board as an independent agency within the Judicial Department. The adjudicative board shall conduct formal judicial disciplinary proceedings. The adjudicative board also shall hear appeals of the commission's orders of informal remedial action appeals to the adjudicative board are confidential. The adjudicative board consists of four district court judges without any judicial or attorney disciplinary history, appointed by the Supreme Court; four attorneys without any judicial or attorney disciplinary history who are licensed to practice law in Colorado and who reside in Colorado, appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate; and four citizens who are not judges or attorneys licensed to practice law in Colorado, appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. An appointing authority shall not appoint a member of the commission to the adjudicative board. For the purpose of staggering terms, when making the initial appointments to the adjudicative board, the appointing authority shall designate two members from each category to a five-year term and two members from each category to a three-year term. All subsequent appointments are for a term of five years; except that in the event of a vacancy on the adjudicative board, the original appointing authority shall appoint, in the same manner as an original appointment, a replacement to serve the remainder of the term.

(II) Upon order of a formal hearing pursuant to subsection (3)(e) of this section, a panel of the adjudicative board shall convene to conduct the hearing. A panel consists of one judge, one attorney licensed to practice law in Colorado, and one citizen. The state court administrator, or the administrator's designee, shall randomly select the panel from among the adjudicative board's membership. The random selection of a panel is a purely administrative function.

(d) A justice or judge of any court of record of this state, in accordance with the procedure set forth in this subsection (3), may be removed or disciplined for willful misconduct in office, willful or persistent failure to perform his duties, intemperance, or violation of any canon of the Colorado code of judicial conduct, or he may be retired for disability interfering with the performance of his duties which is, or is likely to become, of a permanent character.

(e)(I) The commission may, after such investigation as it deems necessary, dismiss a complaint, order informal remedial action; or order a formal hearing to be held before it a panel of the adjudicative board concerning the removal, retirement, suspension, censure, reprimand, or other discipline of a justice or a judge. or request the supreme court to appoint three special masters, who shall be justices or judges of courts of record, to hear and take evidence in any such matter and to report thereon to the commission. The respondent justice or judge may appeal the commission's order for the informal remedial action to a panel of the adjudicative board. The adjudicative panel shall review the commission's informal remedial action order for abuse of discretion. An appeal of an informal remedial action order is confidential consistent with subsection (3)(g) of this section.

(II) After a formal hearing, or after considering the record and report of the masters, if the commission finds good cause therefore, it the adjudicative panel may dismiss the charges before it; take informal remedial action, or it may recommend to the supreme court order the removal, retirement, suspension, censure, reprimand, or other discipline, as the case may be, of the justice or judge. The commission adjudicative panel may also recommend order that the costs of its the investigation and hearing be assessed against such justice or judge. The justice or judge may appeal an adjudicative panel's disciplinary order, and the commission may appeal an adjudicative panel's dismissal or disciplinary order, to the Supreme Court, or, when the circumstances described in subsection (3)(f)(II) are present, to the tribunal described in subsection (3)(f)(II) of this section.

(f)(I) Following receipt of a recommendation from the commission, the supreme court shall review the record of the proceedings on the law and facts and in its discretion may permit the introduction of additional evidence and shall order on appeal of an adjudicative panel's order for removal, retirement, suspension, censure, reprimand, or other discipline, as it finds just and proper, or wholly reject the recommendation. or a panel's dismissal of the charges, the Supreme Court, or the tribunal described in subsection (3)(f)(II) of this section if the tribunal is hearing the appeal, shall review the record of the proceedings on the law and facts. When reviewing the adjudicative panel's decision, the Supreme Court shall review matters of law de novo, review factual matters to determine whether the adjudicative panel's determination is clearly erroneous, and review any sanctions imposed by the adjudicative panel for abuse of discretion. Upon an order for retirement, the justice or judge shall thereby be retired with the same rights and privileges as if he retired pursuant to statute. Upon an order for removal, the justice or judge shall thereby be removed from office, and his salary shall cease from the date of such order. On the entry of an order for retirement or for removal of a judge, his office shall be deemed vacant.

(II) In proceedings in which the circumstances described in this subsection (3)(f)(ii) are present, a tribunal comprised of seven judges of the court of appeals and district court shall review the decision of the adjudicative panel or hear any other appeal in the same manner and use the same standards of review as the supreme court when it reviews decisions and hears appeals as described in subsection (3)(f)(I) of this section. The state court administrator, or the administrator's designee, shall randomly select members of the tribunal from among all district judges and court of appeals judges who do not have a current disciplinary investigation or proceeding pending before the commission or adjudicative board; have not received a disciplinary sanction from the commission, adjudicative board, or supreme court; and are not other wise required by law, court rule, or judicial canon to recuse themselves from the tribunal. A tribunal must not include more than one member who is a court of appeals judge and not more than one district judge from any one judicial district. The random selection of tribunal members is a purely administrative function. The tribunal shall review decisions and hear any other appeals in the following circumstances:

(A) When the proceedings involve a complaint against a Colorado Supreme Court Justice;

(B) When a Colorado Supreme Court Justice is a complainant Or a material witness in the proceeding;

(C) When a staff member to a Colorado Supreme Court Justice is a complainant or material witness in the proceeding;

(D) When a family member of a Colorado Supreme Court Justice is a complainant or material witness in the proceeding; or

(E) When any other circumstances exist due to which more than two Colorado Supreme Court Justices have recused themselves from the proceeding.

(III) Upon a determination that a sanction imposed by the adjudicative panel is an abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court or, if applicable, the tribunal, shall remand the proceedings to the panel that imposed the sanction with directions the court or tribunal deems necessary.

(IV) Upon an order for retirement, the justice or judge is tetired with the same rights and privileges as if the justice or judge retired pursuant to statute. Upon an order for removal, the justice or judge is removed from office and the justice's or judge's salary ceases from the date of the order. On the entry of an order for retirement or for removal of a justice or judge, the justice's or judge's office is deemed vacant.

(g)(I) Prior to the filing of a recommendation to the supreme court by the commission commencement of formal disciplinary proceedings against any justice or judge, all papers filed with and proceedings before the commission on judicial discipline or masters appointed by the supreme court, pursuant to this subsection (3), shall be are confidential, and the filing of papers with and the giving of testimony before the commission or the masters shall be privileged; but no other publication of such papers or proceedings shall be privileged in any action for defamation; except that the record filed by the commission in the supreme court continues privileged is confidential. A person is absolutely immune from any action for defemation based on papers filed with or testimony before the commission, the adjudicative board, the Supreme Court, or the tribunal, but no other publication of the papers or proceedings has absolute immunity in any action for defamation and a writing which that was privileged prior to its filing with the commission or the masters does not lose such privilege by such filing.

(II) Notwithstanding the confidentiality requirement described in this subsection (3)(g), the commission may:

(A) Release information about the status of an evaluation, investigation, or proceeding to the victim of misconduct or the complainant; (B) Release information about a complaint that resulted in informal remedial action or public discipline of a judge or justice to the state court administrator as necessary for the selection of a tribunal pursuant to subsection (3)f)(li) of this section; any relevant commission on judicial performance or judicial nominating commission, the office of attorney regulation counsel, and the office of the presiding disciplinary judge, or successors to each commission or office; the office of the governor, for the purpose of judicial appointments; the judicial department, for the purpose of reviewing applicants for the senior judge program and appointments to the adjudicative board pursuant to subsection (3)(c.5)(I) of this section; and other limited recipients consistent with the purposes of this section allowed by rule; and (C) Make publicly available aggregate information about trends or patterns in complaints made to the commission, but the commission shall not make public any information that identifies any specific person or complaint.

(III) A recipient of confidential information pursuant to subsection (3)(g)(il)(b) of this section shall preserve the confidentiality of the information subject to any sanctions for violation of confidentiality as may be provided by law.

(IV) the general assembly may provide by law for confidential reporting and complainant rights consistent with subsection (3)(g)(il) of this section.

(h)The supreme court shall by rule provide for procedures before the commission on judicial discipline, the masters, and the supreme court. The rules shall also provide the standards and degree of proof to be applied by the commission in its proceedings. A justice or judge who is a member of the commission commission, adjudicative board, tribunal, or supreme court shall not participate in any proceedings involving his the justice's or judge's own removal or retirement.

(k)(I) There is created a rule-making committee to adopt rules for the judicial discipline process. the rule-making committee consists of four members appointed by the Supreme Court; four members appointed by the adjudicative board; four members appointed by the commission; and one victim's advocate, as defined in law, appointed by the governor. members serve at the pleasure of their appointing authority. the rule-making committee shall elect a chair who is a member of the committee. the rules must include the standards and degree of proof to be applied in judicial discipline proceedings; confidential reporting procedures; and complainant rights during the evaluation, investigation, and hearing process. the general assembly may provide by law for confidential reporting and complainant rights.

(II) The rule-making committee may promulgate specific rules governing proceedings before a panel of the adjudicative board. the Colorado rules of evidence and colorado rules of civil procedure, as amended, apply to proceedings before a panel of the adjudicative board until and unless the rule-making committee promulgates rules governing panel proceedings. rules promulgated pursuant to this subsection (3)(k)(il) apply to formal proceedings initiated on or after April 1, 2025.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2024

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The state legislature wrote the ballot language for this measure.

The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 26, and the FRE is -19. The word count for the ballot title is 39.

Support

Supporters

Officials

• Gov. Jared Polis (D)
• State Sen. Bob Gardner (R)
• State Sen. Julie Gonzales (D)
• State Rep. Mike Lynch
• State Rep. Emily Sirota (D)
• State Rep. Mike Weissman (D)

Political Parties

• Green Party of Colorado

Organizations

• Independence Institute

Arguments

• Colorado Judicial Branch Legislative Liaison Terry Scanlon: "There will be earlier disclosure that a discipline case exists. We will still preserve the confidentiality of complainants, witnesses, and judges in judicial discipline cases, as we protect the confidentiality of anyone in our court system. However, we will give the public better access to data about our judicial discipline system. We have always had a robust discipline system with teeth, but this new process will provide more transparency, ensure due process, and modernize the process. The improvements are a good thing for our state."
• State Rep. Mike Weissman: "Independent oversight is key to the maintenance of trust in any institution, especially public institutions. ... As members of the legislature, we found that Colorado’s decades-old judicial discipline system did not meet the modern standards of independence and public accountability necessary for public trust. ... First, instead of remaining confidential and out of public view until near the end of the process, judicial discipline matters would be open (as most other court proceedings are) once formal proceedings commence. This change would move Colorado out of a small minority of states whose judicial discipline proceedings are as closed as ours are now. Second, a new Independent Judicial Discipline Adjudicative Board would be created, consisting of equal numbers of judges, lawyers, and non-lawyers. This new independent board would act like a 'court' for formal judicial discipline proceedings and determine what sanctions are appropriate. The Adjudicative board would largely replace the role of 'special masters' – judges appointed by the Colorado Supreme Court – and the supreme court itself in imposing sanctions. Other states have long since enacted similar approaches to create more separation between those potentially subject to discipline and those imposing discipline. Third, in situations when Colorado Supreme Court justices are potentially involved in disciplinary proceedings, they would be removed from their usual role in the appellate review process and replaced by seven randomly selected judges of the Colorado Court of Appeals. Finally, while preserving the confidentiality of complainants, witnesses, and judges not yet sanctioned through formal proceedings, our constitution would make it clear that the public has a right to know aggregate, non-identifiable data about what is going on in our judicial discipline system and that complainants have a right to be kept informed about ongoing investigations. These latter provisions are similar to the provisions of the Victims Rights Amendment to our state constitution, long ago approved by voters."

Opposition

Opponents

Organizations

• Judicial Integrity Project

Arguments

• The Judicial Integrity Project: "Amendment H makes minimal changes to the judicial discipline process when much more substantial change is needed. Amendment H inserts more conflicts of interest in the process by having the Supreme Court appoint judges to the proposed adjudicatory board and subsequent hearing panels when judges appointed by the Supreme Court are already on the discipline commission and rulemaking committee. The current judicial discipline process does not work, and Amendment H will not make it work. History shows that the procedures in Amendment H, including the minimal increase in transparency, affect less than 1% of complaints against judges and are not worthy of a constitutional amendment. If Amendment H passes, it will be almost impossible to obtain necessary reforms because legislators will allege they did the job with Amendment H. Empowering the state court administrator with a role in the judicial discipline process is a mistake."

Media editorials

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

• Colorado Springs Gazette and Denver Gazette Editorial Board: "Amendment H is a an overdue reform to our state’s courts. It puts some teeth into the procedure for investigating, reviewing, disciplining and publicly disclosing judicial misconduct. It is a solid first step toward a higher ethical standard for judges in the wake of malfeasance uncovered by The Gazette at the highest level of Colorado’s judiciary."

Opposition

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Colorado ballot measures

If you are aware of a committee registered to support or oppose this measure, please email editor@ballotpedia.org.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Oppose	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00

Background

Colorado Commisssion on Judicial Discipline

The Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline was created following voter approval of a citizen initiative, Amendment 3, in 1966. Voters approved the initiative by a vote of 53% to 47%. The commission is composed of two county court judges and two district court judges who are appointed by the chief justice of the state supreme court; two lawyers appointed by the governor; and four citizens who are not currently lawyers or judges that are appointed by the governor.

Grounds for disciplinary actions

Under Colorado law, grounds for disciplinary action against a judge is warranted in instances including:

• willful misconduct or misconduct that brings the reputation of the judicial office into question or is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
• wilful or persistent failure to perform judicial duties;
• intemperance, including immoderate or extreme personal behavior, recurring loss of temper of control, abuse of alcohol or medications, the use of illegal narcotics or other drugs; or
• violations of the Canons (the code of judicial conduct).

Remedial action can result in a confidential private disposition including an admonition, reprimand, or censure; or a diversion program that could include training designed to improve the judge's conduct.

Code of Judicial Conduct

The four Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct in Colorado are as follows:

• Canon 1: A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety;
• Canon 2: A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently;
• Canon 3: A judge shall conduct the judge’s personal and extrajudicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with the obligations of judicial office; and
• Canon 4: A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary.

Commission statistics (2015-2021)

The following table shows the number of complaints (Requests for Evaluation of Judicial Conuct, or RFE) received by the Commission from 2015-2021. From 2015 through 2021, an average of 180 complaints were received.

Year	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021
Number of RFEs	175	152	154	200	221	199	200

In 2021, 183 of the 200 complaints were dismissed. The 17 other complaints were investigated by the Commission and the Commission ultimately dismissed eleven additional complaints. Six complaints were recognized and additional proceedings were held. In 2021, the Commission’s dispositions included one public censure, three private disciplinary orders, and six dismissals with concerns.

In its 2021 annual report, the Commission on Judicial Discipline included the following list of examples of conduct that resulted in private disciplinary action over recent years:

“ • failure to respond to Commission letters and disciplinary measures • ex parte communications about a pending matter outside the presence of other parties or attorneys • lack of diligence in docket management, for example, a substantial delay in issuing a decision or a pattern of being late in opening court • unprofessional demeanor, including impatience, loss of temper, or inability to control the courtroom • disrespectful remarks to the media or through e-mails regarding the conduct of a litigant, a witness, an attorney, or another judge • intemperance or verbal abuse toward a court employee, a person dealing with court staff, or a customer of a business establishment • undue reliance on staff for matters in which the judge should be fully competent • driving while impaired or under the influence of alcohol • sexual harassment or other inappropriate personal conduct involving a court employee, witness, attorney, or litigant • irrelevant, misleading, or incoherent statements during arraignments and sentencing • rulings from the bench involving unprofessional terminology, including expressions that are viewed as offensive in civilized discourse • a pattern of errors in handling trials or issuing rulings that indicated a lack of competence • making public statements about another judge’s case • arbitrary rulings in contempt proceedings involving improper demeanor toward an attorney or incarceration of a defendant without due process • use of computers, staff, and other court resources for personal or financial matters, except for incidental usage that did not significantly interfere with judicial responsibilities • disclosing non-public information in non-judicial activities • involvement in partisan politics • failure to comply with rules applicable to retention elections • disregard of court-imposed gag orders • lack of cooperation with judicial colleagues • prohibiting a process server from subsequent cases without affording the process server an opportunity to be heard • inappropriate remarks to litigants and lawyers during trials or recesses • discourtesy toward judicial colleagues, administrative staff, and sheriff deputies • prejudice displayed by a judge’s disparagement of a defendant’s reputation and position in the community during a meeting with prosecution and defense counsel • failure to follow applicable procedural rules and Canon Rules in considering whether the judge should disqualify (recuse) from presiding • delays in docket management or other behavior that the judge may not recognize as a symptom of a medical condition that affects judicial performance • advocating for a self-represented party by providing legal advice or failing to treat all self-represented parties to a case impartially. ”

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Colorado Constitution

To put a legislatively referred constitutional amendment before voters, a two-thirds (66.67%) vote is required in both the Colorado State Senate and the Colorado House of Representatives.

The amendment was introduced as House Concurrent Resolution 23-1001. After amendments, on May 8, 2023, the final conference report was adopted by the House in a vote of 60-3 and in the Senate by a vote of 35-0.

Vote in the Colorado House of Representatives May 8, 2023
Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 44  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	60	3	2
Total percent	92.30%	4.62%	3.08%
Democrat	44	0	2
Republican	16	3	0

Vote in the Colorado State Senate May 8, 2023
Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 24  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	35	0	0
Total percent	100.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Democrat	23	0	0
Republican	12	0	0

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Colorado

See below to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in Colorado.

How to vote in Colorado

Poll times

In Colorado, polls are open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. local time for those who choose to vote in person rather than by mail. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.

Registration

Check your voter registration status here.

In Colorado, an individual can pre-register to vote if they are at least 15 years old. Voters must be at least 18 years old to vote in any election. A voter must be a citizen of the United States and have established residence in Colorado to vote.

Colorado voters can register to vote through Election Day. However, in order to automatically receive a absentee/mail-in ballot, a voter must register online, through the mail, at a voter registration agency, or driver's license examination facility at least eight days prior to Election Day. A voter that registers through a voter registration drive must submit their application no later than 22 days before the election to automatically receive an absentee/mail-in ballot. A voter can register online or submit a form in person or by fax, email, or mail.

Automatic registration

See also: Automatic voter registration

Colorado automatically registers eligible individuals to vote through the Department of Motor Vehicles and certain other state agencies.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

Colorado has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Same-day registration

See also: Same-day voter registration

Colorado allows same-day voter registration for individuals who vote in person.

Residency requirements

Colorado law requires 22 days of residency in the state before a person may vote.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Colorado does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. An individual applying to register to vote must attest that they are a U.S. citizen under penalty of perjury.

All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters.

Verifying your registration

The site Go Vote Colorado, run by the Colorado Secretary of State office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online.

Voter ID requirements

Colorado requires voters to present non-photo identification when voting in person. If voting by mail for the first, a voter may also need to return a photocopy of his or her identification with their mail-in ballot. Click here for more information.

The following list of accepted forms of identification was current as of August 2025. Click here for the most current information, sourced directly from the Office of the Colorado Secretary of State.

“

The following documents are acceptable forms of identification: A valid Colorado driver’s license or valid identification card issued by the Colorado Department of Revenue. (Note: documents issued to not lawfully present and temporarily lawfully present individuals under Part 5 of Article 2 of Title 42, C.R.S. are not acceptable forms of identification.) A valid U.S. passport. A valid employee identification card with a photograph of the eligible elector issued by any branch, department, agency, or entity of the U.S. government or of Colorado, or by any county, municipality, board, authority, or other political subdivision of Colorado. A valid pilot’s license issued by the federal aviation administration or other authorized agency of the U.S. A valid U.S. military identification card with a photograph of the eligible elector. A copy of a current (within the last 60 days) utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the elector. A Certificate of Degree of Indian or Alaskan Native Blood. A valid Medicare or Medicaid card issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. A certified copy of a U.S. birth certificate for the elector. Certified documentation of naturalization. A valid student identification card with a photograph of the eligible elector issued by an institute of higher education in Colorado, as defined in section 23-3.1-102(5), C.R.S.. A valid veteran identification card issued by the U.S. department of veterans affairs veterans health administration with a photograph of the eligible elector. A valid identification card issued by a federally recognized tribal government certifying tribal membership. Any form of identification listed above that shows your address must show a Colorado address to qualify as an acceptable form of identification. The following documents are also considered acceptable forms of identification for voting: Verification that a voter is a resident of a group residential facility, as defined in section 1-1-104(18.5), C.R.S. Verification that a voter is a person committed to the department of human services and confined and eligible to register and vote shall be considered sufficient identification of such person for the purposes of section 1-2-210.5, C.R.S. Written correspondence from the county sheriff or his or her designee to the county clerk indicating that a voter is confined in a county jail or detention facility.

”

• Note: SB 1, signed into law on May 12, 2025, specified that tribal IDs issued by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service, or another federal agency were also valid identification.

See also

2024 measures

• 2024 ballot measures
• State judiciary on the ballot
• 2024 petition deadlines

Colorado

• Colorado ballot measures
• Colorado initiative laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls
• Ballot measure signature costs

External links

• Colorado House Concurrent Resolution 23-1001