On August 16, Norm Mueller addressed the CCDB Executive Committee on behalf of the CBA and asked the CCDB to join in opposition to 40.  The Executive Committee unanimously voted to support opposition to 40, and as President of the CCDB, I convened a special meeting of the CDDB Board of Directors on August 24 for the single purpose of obtaining a vote by the Board on the issue.  The Board unanimously voted to support opposition to ballot issue 40. 

I personally urge all of you to unite in opposition to 40 and tell everyone you know to vote against this proposed amendment.  Ballot issue 40 is politically motivated and the clearest proof lies in the fact that the proposed term limits may be enforced retroactively.  If the measure passes and is interpreted as retroactive, Justices Mullarkey (1987), Martinez (1996), Hobbs (1996) and Bender (1997), and could be gone as early as 2007.  Think about it.  Think about the possibility that in 2009 the only two justices with seniority would be Justice Coats and Justice Eid.

There is general consensus that Mr. Andrews has pushed 40 after the Supreme Court upheld a trial court ruling on re-districting.  That ruling, overturning then Senate President Andrews’ plan (described as gerrymandering by Denver Post columnist Bob Ewegen), was upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court and Tenth Circuit.  The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.  Mr. Andrews is not happy.

There is also a general consensus that term limits for appellate judges is only the first round for Mr. Andrews & company.  If Ballot Issue 90 is successful, they intend to term limit trial judges.  Of course, Mr. Andrews has declared that 40 is necessary to stop “activist judges.”  You should visit his website and go to the “why it’s needed” section.  The trial court and appellate court decisions in People v. Auman and People v. Harlan are cited as examples.

Ballot Issue 40 is dangerous.  It is a direct assault against one of the most important foundations of our government, namely an independent judiciary.  Mr. Andrews has declared that Coloradans favor term limits for all public officials, and that the judiciary is the only branch not included.  His position is misleading, because term limits really apply to elected officials, that is, politicians.  Colorado judges are not elected, and they are not supposed to be politicians.  In fact, Coloradans are celebrating the fact that judges have not campaigned for office for forty years.  Since 1966, Colorado’s judges have been appointed by the governor and retained by popular vote.  This is important.  Anyone familiar with a system of elected judges (e.g., Texas) can tell you about the nightmares involved - - money goes into the till just to get your case called up, more money is required to fund the election and re-election campaign, “justice” is served more effectively to those who are willing and able to pay for it.  Can you imagine what happens to a poor person’s right to a fair trial?

Personally, I have always been against term limits.  I believe the way to limit the terms of elected officials is to vote them out of office.  I am looking forward to voting.  I have voted against retention of a judge; I have also voted for retention.  That is my right, and frankly, I don’t like anyone taking any of my rights away from me, no matter how popular it appears to some. 

I prefer experienced judges over inexperienced judges.  I prefer trial judges who were trial lawyers.  I like a judge who knows how to get through a daily docket efficiently and with civility.  I like to believe that appellate judges are appointed based upon their experience with legal issues, not because they have a political agenda.  I prefer a system in which judges bring experience and years of continuing training to the bench over a system that favors mediocrity and politics.

Earlier this year, I had an opportunity to listen to constitutional law students from a local high school discuss the concept of “activist judges.”  The students were asked to analyze the issue in the context of Federalist No. 78, which was written by Alexander Hamilton and delivered to New Yorkers on June 14, 1778.  Hamilton wrote on the subject of the judiciary, advocating life tenure for federal judges.  Every American should read Federalist No. 78.  It is difficult to imagine that Alexander Hamilton and John Andrews hail from the same party.  I have included quotes from Federalist 78 at the end of this letter for those who would like to read what a different kind of patriot wrote and thought.

If you are really in doubt as to whether ballot issue 40 is based purely on politics, look at the two websites.  The protectcoloradocourts.org website names persons and organizations united against the measure.  In contrast, Mr. Andrews website, limitthejudges.com, names only himself, although he does purport to provide comments from a few unnamed lawyers.

The Founding Fathers were right.  The judiciary must be independent. 

Thanks for your time.  Remember to vote.  And vote NO on 40.       

Tom Hammond

CCDB President