May 11, 2010 07:08 PM UTC

A Sane Reply Would Really Help

•  
• by: Colorado Pols

The Colorado Independent has the latest chapter in the strange, angry little spectacle that is John Andrews’ perennial judiciary disparagement tour. Keeps them busy:

Clear the Bench Colorado, a group seeking to replace Supreme Court justices at the ballot this November, was advised by Secretary of State Bernie Buescher’s office to register last spring as an issues committee even though the group originally filed as a political action committee, according to documents obtained by the Colorado Independent. Clear the Bench last week was the subject of a complaint filed by Colorado Ethics Watch, which is arguing that the organization is mis-categorized and, as a result, can collect unlimited funds in its effort to target the justices. It’s a reality that works against the specific wishes of Colorado citizens who voted to restrict the flow of money into judicial elections to limit the chance for corruption, according to Ethics Watch…

Secretary of State Spokesman Richard Coolidge said the election division office provides guidance to all groups filing as a committee in the state but added that the ultimate decision on how to file rests with each organization. “We provided guidance to help them make the final decision,” he said. “Obviously we wanted [Clear the Bench] to find an area where they would disclose their contributions and expenditures. In order to do that, they needed to say ‘Which way do we go?’ We said ‘Here is some guidance: It looks like this could fall on the issue committee side.’ We laid out our arguments and they made the decision to move forward on the decision.”

Coolidge explained that the office made the decision based on the fact that a question on a ballot is considered an to be an issue. Since retention appears as a yes or no question on the ballot, the Secretary of State’s office deemed Clear the Bench an issues committee.

Clear the Bench is targeting Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey and Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice for allegedly making rulings that go against the state constitution, particularly the Taxpayers Bill of Rights, in order to provide the legislature with the power to raise taxes.

So Colorado Ethics Watch believes that “Clear the Bench” should not be filed as an issue committee, but “Clear the Bench” can say in its defense that the Secretary of State advised them to do so. All fine and dandy, and as the Independent correctly points out the real decision here will be up to an administrative law judge, to decide which criteria a judicial retention election best meets.

But instead of cooperating in good faith, since there appear to be mitigating circumstances and all, maybe impressing reporters and other onlookers with their professionalism…well, we are talking about John Andrews’ bug-eyed crew, aren’t we? If you’ve got the time or inclination, you can read “Clear the Bench’s” rejoinder over at the People’s Press Collective–if you ever intend to take them seriously, however, we don’t really recommend it. The only thing we can figure is that “Clear the Bench” has a crazy uncle they keep locked away in the basement, except for occasional writing of press releases and blog posts. We think something similar could also be happening at the Pueblo Chieftain’s editorial board, but we’ll revisit that another day.

The bottom line is, you can’t convince the broader majority of people you are credible if every public utterance reads like a pamphlet from the John Birch Society. If you’re campaigning on something as serious as retention of Supreme Court justices, don’t expect serious people to be won over by weird, rambling screeds about “notorious leftist attack yap dogs.” And for God’s sake, never invoke Gandhi unless it’s really, really necessary.