Posted by
NOTLEGALROADKILLYET on Saturday, October 07, 2006 10:51:48 AM
Because of the way it was released, I was prepared to jump all over a new study by a new Institute. Quoting from an October 3, 2006 Gazette Telegraph article, "Former Justice Criticizes term-limit amendment" that is not online:
A retired Colorado Supreme Court justice Monday blasted an amendment on November's ballot that would place term limits on judges.
Former Justice Rebecca Love Kourlis spoke after releasing a report by the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, which stated that initiatives like Colorado's Amendment 40 "are assaults on the independence of the judiciary and decimate a judges ability to protect minority interests through fair application of the law."
. . . Hopefully, this is responsive to some of the concerns that motivated proponents of Amendment 40 . . . Maybe there is a better way to go about (judicial reform) and we don't need to look at a draconian measure like this amendment represents."
When a newspaper prints a story like this, and I read it, it is almost like throwing blood in the water to a shark. It is my strong opinion that what happened to me occurred not because of a lack of judicial independence, but because of it. No mechanism exists in Colorado to force a judge to enforce attorney ethics rules (or even allow a litigant to enforce them himself), and it appears that no effective mechanism exists to enforce judicial ethics rules. I think that Amendment 40 is a beginning, but is actually too tame to solve these problems, and others. Yet, former justice Kourlis describes it as "draconian." That is a such a strong word that it leaves little room for stronger language. I wonder what she will say about what I would propose.
After having read half the study thoroughly and skimmed the remainder, I have a totally different opinion of the value of the study than the impression the Gazette Telegraph leaves. In fact, I'm not sure the reporter even opened the study, but instead relied on a press release. Justice Kourlis has a new institute with worthy goals, many of which I share. We differ only on the implementation of those goals. This first study is a professionally done history of the different State's approaches to judicial appointment, judicial retention, and judicial performance reviews. As such, I will find it a valuable resource,
If Justice Kourlis wanted to take a swing at Amendment 40, I wish she had done it independent of her institute's release of this study. In my opinion, her press release devalued what I think is a very good beginning project for her institute.
The study, "Shared Expectations:
Judicial Accountability in Context," is
available free online. It is 128 pages long and filled with footnotes.