1977, June, Pg. 981. Legislative Action Report.

Authorby Charles R. Roos

6 Colo.Law. 981

Colorado Lawyer

1977.

1977, June, Pg. 981.

Legislative Action Report

981Vol. 6, No. 6, Pg. 981Legislative Action Reportby Charles R. RoosCBA public relations and legislative counselMost signs at the Capitol point to change or the beginnings of change in sections of the Colorado Constitution dealing with judicial tenure and discipline.

There has also been the annual legislative urge to do something or other about the state's merit selection system of judges, but that persistent movement has again been set back.

Of the several proposed changes in the judiciary in the 1977 session, those with strongest support appear to be these two:

---To require a judge seeking retention in office to get an affirmative vote of at least 60 percent at the polls, instead of the bare majority now required.

---At some point in disciplinary proceedings, at least when a censure action reaches the Supreme Court, to provide for public disclosure of facts surrounding the action.

These proposals may or may not actually be put on the ballot as constitutional amendments in 1978, but the legislative trend clearly is running in this direction.

Still, legislators don't seem inclined at this time to go all the way and recommend a complete overhaul of the judicial article of the Constitution. Specifically, the House Judiciary Committee recently killed a proposal to return to some form of free election of Colorado judges, and the House as a whole rejected a variation of that proposal on the floor.

The House concurrent resolution (HCR 1007) calling for an extraordinary majority for judicial retention is sponsored by Rep. Robert L. Eckelberry, Littleton Republican, House Judiciary chairman, practicing lawyer and teacher of political science at the University of Denver. Eckelberry originally recommended an even higher figure---65 percent---for judicial retention, but amended his proposal in committee to 60 percent. He said at the time he felt the 60 percent proposal was a moderate reform that might well head off efforts to make much broader and possibly destructive changes in judicial selection, tenure and discipline.

Preliminary House debate tended to support Eckelberry's point. Some outright adversaries of the judiciary (who really would prefer to abolish the merit system and return to the old partisan way of election judges) supported...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT