Bill Summary for Bill Number SB08-054

Date: 02/04/2008

Final
BILL SUMMARY for SB08-054

SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Votes: View-->	Action Taken:
Moved amendment L.003 (Attachment C). The motion Moved to refer SB 08-054, as amended, to the Commi	Pass Without Objection PASS

01:52 PM -- Senate Bill 08-054

Senator Shaffer, bill sponsor, discussed the provisions of SB 08-054. He explained that the bill would establish an Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation within the Judicial Department. The primary duty of the office would be to administer the Judicial Performance Program. The bill also specifies terms for members of the state commission and district commissions on judicial performance. Senator Shaffer explained that the bill also requires that, when the judges are standing for retention election, the commission must prepare a narrative profile on each judge being evaluated. The committee discussed the provisions of the bill. He distributed Amendment L.003 (Attachment C), an overview of the legislation from the Office of the State Court Administrator (Attachment D), and a letter supporting the legislation (Attachment E). Senator Penry also distributed two amendments (L.001-Attachment F and L.002-Attachment G) which were not considered by the committee.

02:04 PM -- Scott Storey, representing the Colorado District Attorney's Council (CDAC), spoke in opposition to the bill. He stated that CDAC's opposition to the bill is because they do not think that the bill goes far enough to change the system of judicial evaluation. Mr. Storey stated that the purpose of judicial evaluation is to assure the public that judges receive fair and transparent evaluations. He indicated that the evaluations should look for patterns and not isolated incidents. Furthermore, Mr. Storey believes that judges should receive constructive criticism and feedback. He does not believe that term limits are necessary, but it is important to have more accountability for judges than in the past. Mr. Storey suggested several issues that should be covered in the legislation, that are not currently included. First, he believes that it is necessary to look for patterns in judicial behavior. Mr. Storey also stated that he believes that jurors should be surveyed immediately after their service about the judicial performance during the trial. He also does not believe that the commission should recommend or not recommend retention because that is the job of the public. Mr. Storey stated that it is the position of the CDAC that retired judges should not sit on the Commission to evaluate current judges. He also spoke in support of the idea of a system of court watchers who could help in the evaluation process.

02:19 PM -- Mark Hurlbert, representing the Colorado District Attorney's Council, spoke in opposition to the bill. Mr. Hurlbert indicated that he believes that the judicial performance evaluation system is broken. He related his experiences with serving on a judicial performance commission in a rural district. Mr. Hurlbert indicated that it is difficult for some individuals to evaluate the judges given how small the communities are, and that the evaluators are in the uncomfortable position of seeing the judges in their community. Mr. Hurlbert indicated that he agrees with Mr. Storey's position concerning looking at patterns of behavior in evaluating judges. He also believes it would be beneficial to have evaluation information on a web site.

02:26 PM

Senator Shaffer discussed the idea of placing a narrative about the judges on the ballot and the fact that it could raise perception issues about whether or not the information is biased.

02:27 PM -- Thomas McDowell, representing himself, spoke in opposition to the bill. He believes that the current law has been harmful. Mr. McDowell recommends that the bill be postponed indefinitely. He related his personal experiences with the way the commission works.

02:33 PM -- Jordan Singer, Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) at the University of Denver, spoke about the bill. Mr. Singer indicated that his organization has worked on the issue of judicial performance evaluation for two years. He spoke about judicial performance evaluation and the fact that it provides accountability for judges. Mr. Singer indicated that the IAALS supports the establishment of the office of judicial performance evaluation and the development of specific criteria for evaluation. He also supports interim evaluations of judges.

02:37 PM -- Christine Watson, representing the League of Women Voters of Colorado, spoke in support of the bill. Ms. Watson believes that the bill will improve upon a good system. She expressed reservations about putting recommendations concerning judges on the ballot because the ballot is getting longer and more complicated.

02:42 PM -- James Scarboro, representing the Colorado Judicial Institute, spoke in support of the bill. Mr. Scarboro indicated that the Colorado Judicial Institute was involved in the creation of this legislation and he asks for the committee's support of the bill. Mr. Scarboro also asked the committee to take another look at whether or not magistrates should be included in the bill.

02:43 PM -- Jerry Marroney, State Court Administrator, Colorado, spoke in support of the bill. He responded to previous questions from the committee. Mr. Marroney indicated that items for the ballot are outlined by the state constitution. He stated that the judicial branch wants the bill reauthorized because accountability to the public is important. He responded to questions from the committee about judicial performance plans. He indicated that a web site currently exists with judicial evaluations available. The web site is: www.cojudicialperformance.com.

02:55 PM -- Ethan Feldman, representing the Colorado Trial Judges Council, spoke in support of the bill. He believes that the legislation will be beneficial and meets the needs of the public. Mr. Feldman indicated that judges do support the idea of transparent evaluations. He related his personal experiences with the judicial evaluation process.

03:00 PM -- Jean Dubofsky and Brad Levin, representing the Judicial Performance Commission, spoke in support of the bill. Justice Dubofsky related her experiences with judicial performance. She indicated that the commission is beginning to do interim evaluations. Justice Dubofsky stated that the evaluation process is quite thorough, and she believes that the current process works well. She also believes that Colorado's judicial performance evaluation system is known as being one of the most sophisticated in the country. According to Justice Dubofsky, this bill strengthens and continues this system of judicial performance evaluation. Mr. Levin spoke about the benefits of having a retired judge, such as Justice Dubofsky, on the commission. He also indicated that this legislation includes a recusal provision, in case there is a situation where an individual on the commission cannot fairly evaluate a judge. Mr. Levin also provided specific comments on the details of the legislation.

03:19 PM

Justice Dubofsky and Mr. Levin continued their discussion of the legislation. Senator Penry asked about putting specific information on the ballot. Justice Dubofsky indicated that she believes that the ballot is quite long, and she does not believe that it should be longer.

03:28 PM -- Sheryl Hatter, representing herself and the Equal Justice Foundation, spoke in support of the bill. She believes that any way that the public can be notified about judges is important and beneficial. Ms. Hatter indicated that the only recourse for judges who are not performing adequately is impeachment. She related her experiences with being a court watch volunteer.

03:33 PM -- John Andrews, representing Limit the Judges, spoke in support of the bill. Mr. Andrews indicated that he has been concerned about this issue for several years and worked on it when he served in the Colorado Senate. He stated that judge dismissal rates are extremely low. Mr. Andrews indicated that he believes that the caliber of judges is quite high, but not as high as the retention rate would indicate. He believes that the public and the judges deserve a fair and transparent evaluation process. Mr. Andrews thinks that the bill does not go far enough to address judicial performance evaluations, and he agreed that putting information on the ballot would be beneficial.

03:43 PM -- Stacy Carpenter, representing the Colorado Bar Association, spoke in support of the bill. She indicated that the Colorado system for judicial performance is a strong one and this bill would strengthen it. Ms. Carpenter indicated that the Colorado Bar Association supports the bill, but they also have recommendations for further strengthening it. She believes that there should be a provision for evaluating magistrates. Ms. Carpenter also advocates for more specificity in the surveys. She stated that the bill would require interim evaluations and she supports this provision. Ms. Carpenter also advocated for public hearings to increase transparency. She stated that she believes that a standardized benchmark would be beneficial to promote consistency in the judicial performance evaluations.

03:57 PM

Senator Shaffer concluded his discussion of the bill. He discussed the process for the development of the bill. Senator Shaffer also explained the amendment that he is offering (Amendment L.003-Attachment C). He asked for the committee's support of the bill. The committee discussed the amendment and the issue of whether or not magistrates should be included in the bill.


BILL:	SB08-054
TIME:	04:02:57 PM
MOVED:	Shaffer
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.003 (Attachment C). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:
		VOTE
	Bacon
	Boyd
	Penry
	Renfroe
	Ward
	Gibbs
	Shaffer
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:	SB08-054
TIME:	04:11:01 PM
MOVED:	Shaffer
MOTION:	Moved to refer SB 08-054, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. The motion passed on a 7-0 roll call vote.
SECONDED:
		VOTE
	Bacon	Yes
	Boyd	Yes
	Penry	Yes
	Renfroe	Yes
	Ward	Yes
	Gibbs	Yes
	Shaffer	Yes
Final YES: 7 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

04:11 PM

The committee adjourned.