May 09, 2007 04:38 PM UTC

Introducing The Judicial Accountability Act of 2008

• 0 Comments
• by: riogrande

As faithful readers have undoubtedly noticed, victims of the current black-robed crime wave in Colorado have descended in force upon ColoradoPols to heighten public awareness of the problem of rampant judicial lawlessness — one with the potential to threaten the precious liberties of every Coloradan.  But we come not just to gripe, or tire you with truculent manifestos; rather, we come with a solution, and openly solicit the input of savvy ColoPols readers. 

Generically expressed, the problem was the same that it was in Jefferson’s day: power minus accountability equals tyranny.  As recent events have again proven beyond cavil, the mechanisms for controlling judicial misconduct in this state are as feckless as they were when Jefferson faced it.  Lawyers are cowed into silence by the spectre of politically-motivated investigations by our Office of Attorney Regulation.  District attorneys won’t prosecute out of a legitimate fear of professional retaliation.  The Commission on Judicial Discipline exists primarily to quash legitimate complaints of judicial misconduct.  Voters are shielded from the awful truth by a Commission on Judicial Performance that routinely sanitizes acts of malfeasance, and judges themselves circle the wagons around their brethren like a conclave of priests around their fellow pedophiles.

The system doesn’t work, and needs a major overhaul.  The proposed solution: The Judicial Accountability Act of 2008 (https://home.earthlin…).

In my former life as an accountant, I learned that the customer complaint was a powerful internal control.  Cashiers can’t steal from the customers, because they will always complain; a business only has to worry about employees stealing from it.  Likewise, if we furnish consumers of legal services with the power to complain effectively, our judges won’t be able to steal their rights with impunity.

This Amendment attempts to learn from the failures of John Andrews’ Amendment 40 and South Dakota’s J.A.I.L. Amendment. Andrews’ effort, while well-intentioned and certainly simple, was too indiscriminate, throwing out good judges with the bad.  Conversely, South Dakota’s J.A.I.L. cast too wide a net.  This Amendment targets the bad judges and implicitly rewards good ones, whose reputations are sullied by the misconduct of their brethren — which is currently only spoken of in hushed tones at cocktail parties. 

This Amendment is intended to be submitted to the voters in 2008 and as such, is in embryonic form.  But as we have seen with Amendment 41, well-intended legislation can often have unintended and even dire consequences, which are to be scrupulously avoided where possible.  It is in this spirit (and in deference to the combined expertise of ColoPols’ readers) that this subject is broached; your input is welcomed.