Proponents of Amendment H believe that making it more difficult to discipline judges, which Amendment H would do, would strengthen Colorado courts. I, and many others, disagree. The op-ed piece published in The Post alleged that a board created by H would have final authority over disciplinary matters. This claim is not correct. Under H, the Supreme Court would have much more authority in discipline cases than it has now, and it would have the final authority. At present, the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline has the power to privately discipline a judge independently. If discipline occurs, which is rare, it is almost always private. H would take this independence away from the discipline commission and create a private appeal process for judges to challenge private discipline. Provided that a judge appeals discipline, the Supreme Court would always have the final say in a discipline case. You see, H would provide the Supreme Court with appellate authority over the board H would create. The Supreme Court would have “de novo” review of issues of law. That means the Supreme Court would interpret the Code of Judicial Conduct, which is loosely worded. Facts would not constitute a violation of the Code unless the Supreme Court says so. And H would allow the Supreme Court to rule on any disciplinary case. What about the adjudicatory board that is touted by the proponents of H? You would not have access to it. No member of the public could appeal to the board that H wants you to place in the state constitution. Only judges could appeal a discipline commission’s determination regarding private discipline to the adjudicatory board. The discipline commission’s annual reports show that it dismissed more than 97% of complaints filed by the public over the last 40 years. Nothing in H changes the dismissal process. And nothing in H creates an appeal process for complaints dismissed by the commission. The discipline commission has handled 99.8% of complaints in private over the last 40 years. Nothing in H would change this privacy. H would create a board that would have different functions depending on whether private or public discipline is requested by the discipline commission. It would serve an intermediate appellate function in cases involving private discipline. In the last 40 years, private discipline has been issued 182 times. When the discipline commission desires public discipline, the new board would serve as a trial court. Over the last 40 years, only 10 judges have received public discipline. Only two of those cases involved a hearing. The rest were stipulations. But if the board acted regarding public discipline its actions would be public. H creates a lot more secrecy than it does transparency. Most often, a panel of the board would convene in private when a judge attempts to overcome the issuance of private discipline. Those secret appeals would reduce public confidence in the system. People have been misled by the proponents of H who have continued with the claim in the op-ed piece that the new board would have the authority to conduct its own investigations. That’s not in the language H would place in the state constitution. The claim is not consistent with the board’s functions as stated in H. And, again, the public would not have access to the board. Related Articles Opinion Columnists | Letters: Readers’ takes on Proposition KK — The tax erodes gun rights. It’s essential for Colorado’s crime victims. Opinion Columnists | Opinion: Márquez’s support of the Trump insurrection ruling should disqualify her from office Opinion Columnists | Opinion: Amendment H will strengthen Colorado courts Opinion Columnists | Can municipal courts jail people longer for minor crimes than state courts? Colorado Supreme Court will decide Opinion Columnists | Feds’ approval of Gross Reservoir dam expansion violated environmental law, judge rules H proponents want you to think H does things that it doesn’t do. They know the truth isn’t on their side. H would not improve Colorado’s troubled judicial discipline system. H would make it harder to discipline judges, increase the Supreme Court’s power in judicial discipline, decrease transparency, and decrease accountability. H preys on the desperation of Coloradans who justifiably desire judicial reform. It would not, however, provide reform. The judicial scandal isn’t over. It continues, as evidenced by the fact that H is on your ballot. The judiciary’s overwhelming influence over the legislature must stop. Please vote NO on H. Chris Forsyth is an attorney who has practiced law in Colorado for 30 years and is Executive Director of The Judicial Integrity Project (judicialintegrity.org). Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more. To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.