Skip to content

Colorado Judicial Retention Questions | CO Supreme Court & CO Court of Appeals

This article provides an in-depth analysis of the Judicial Retention Questions on Colorado's November 3rd, 2026 Ballot, along with additional information on how Colorado's judicial system works. 

It does not suggest how Coloradans should vote; it provides information to help them cast informed votes.

Separate analysis of each one of Colorado's Amendments and Propositions is elsewhere on this website, starting with Amendment 81. The analysis of the rest of the judicial retainment questions will be published at a later date.

How the System Works:

No Campaign Finance: Colorado judges in retention elections do not have campaigns and do not raise or spend money. They cannot campaign or fundraise.

Merit Selection System: Established in 1966, Colorado uses a merit-based system where judges are nominated by nonpartisan commissions and appointed by the Governor, then face retention elections.

What Happens If Voted Out: If a majority votes "No," the judge leaves office at the end of their current term, creating a vacancy. The Governor then appoints a new judge from a list of 2-3 nominees provided by the appropriate judicial nominating commission.

Terms of Office:

  • Supreme Court Justices: 10-year terms
  • Court of Appeals Judges: 8-year terms
  • District Court Judges: 6-year terms
  • County Court Judges: 4-year terms

Important Concepts and Explanations

I included information and links to resources on key topics related to how our legal system works and description of the Colorado Legal Systems related to judgitial appointmetns.

Analysis of Individual Judges

I found it hard to find meaningful information about justices and judges, but I finally found it. I found reading through each judge’s rulings on notable cases is especially useful.

Justice William W. Hood III - Colorado Supreme Court

Time on Bench

Colorado Supreme Court:
  • Appointed: January 13, 2014 by Governor John Hickenlooper (Democrat)
  • Total time as Supreme Court Justice: 12+ years (as of November 2026)
  • Last retention election: 2016 (retained with 70.9% yes vote)
Prior judicial experience:
    • Denver District Court Judge: 2007-2014 (7 years)
    • Prosecutor, 18th Judicial District (which included Douglas County): 10 years
    • Chief Trial Deputy and Chief Appellate Deputy during prosecutorial career
    • Litigation partner, Isaacson Rosenbaum P.C., Denver

Total judicial experience: Approximately 19 years

Pre-bench career:

Education
  • Syracuse University (1985) - magna cum laude with honors
  • University of Virginia School of Law (1990)

Notable appointment: Selected by fellow justices to become Colorado's next Chief Justice, taking office in August 2027.

Official Source: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/contact/william-w-hood-iii 

Notable/Controversial Decisions Justice Hood Supported or Opposed

1. Trump Ballot disqualification Case (2023)TRUMP BALLOT DISQUALIFICATION CASE (2023)

Case: Anderson v. Griswold (2023)

Decision: Justice Hood joined the 4-3 majority opinion that ruled former President Donald Trump was disqualified from the Colorado Republican presidential primary ballot under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment (the insurrection clause).

Rationale: The majority concluded Trump engaged in "insurrection" on January 6, 2021, and that the Fourteenth Amendment's disqualification provision applies to the presidency.

Outcome: This decision was ultimately reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court, but it generated nationwide controversy and scrutiny.

Partisan implications: Conservatives criticized the decision as partisan judicial activism. 

Official Sources:

2. Abolishing the Res Gestae Evidence Doctrine (Criminal Law Reform)

Case: Rojas v. People

Decision: Justice Hood authored the majority opinion formally abandoning Colorado's historic "res gestae" evidence doctrine.

Significance: Hood characterized the doctrine as a "troublesome relic" of common law that had become an improper shortcut for admitting uncharged character evidence against criminal defendants.

Impact: This decision strengthened protections for criminal defendants by requiring a stricter evaluation of intrinsic versus extrinsic evidence under formal rules of evidence.

Legal perspective: This was widely cited in criminal law publications and viewed as a significant pro-defendant reform.

Official Source: https://trilakes4democracy.substack.com/p/justice-william-w-hood-ii

3. Jury Partial Acquittal Decision (June 2026)

Case: People v. Mena

Decision: Justice Hood authored the 4-2 majority opinion determining that if a jury explicitly indicates it has acquitted a defendant of certain charges while remaining deadlocked on others, trial judges must accept the partial acquittal.

Significance: This clarified trial judge limitations during jury deadlocks and strengthened double jeopardy protections for defendants.

Dissent: Justice Brian D. Boatright (joined by Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter) argued this would create incentives for defense attorneys to manipulate jury processes.

Legal orientation: Pro-defendant ruling expanding constitutional protections.

Official Sources:

4. Gender-Affirming Care for Minors (May 2026)

Case: Trans minors challenging federal prohibition on gender-affirming care

Decision: Justice Hood authored the 5-2 majority opinion allowing transgender minors to continue receiving gender-affirming medical care despite federal restrictions.

Rationale: Hood determined that risks of violating federal policy were speculative, and that Colorado's public interest in prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity outweighed those risks.

Key quote: Hood wrote that strict numerical comparisons were improper when considering relief for protected classes: "Were it otherwise, minority groups would always lose."

Dissent: Justice Brian D. Boatright (joined by Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr.) dissented in an 18-page opinion.

Partisan implications: This decision aligns with progressive positions on transgender rights and drew criticism from conservatives.

Official Source: https://courthousenews.com/trans-kids-win-gender-affirming-care-at-top-colorado-court

5. Safe Haven Anonymity Case (June 2026)

Case: Safe haven law parental anonymity

Decision: Hood dissented from the 5-2 majority that found parents surrendering newborns under Colorado's "safe haven" law are entitled to anonymity in subsequent adoptive proceedings.

Hood's dissent reasoning: Hood (joined by Justice Richard L. Gabriel) argued that the safe haven law contained no anonymity provision, and courts should not add words to statutes that the legislature did not include.

Key quote: "I would rather see us stick to what courts do best and respect the legislature's choice of language without adding or subtracting words from the statute."

Legal philosophy: This dissent shows Hood's textualist approach - interpreting statutes based on their plain language rather than inferring legislative intent.

Official Source: https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/06/11/divided-colorado-supreme-court-finds-parental-anonymity-in-safe-haven-law/

6. Workplace Self-Defense Case (June 2026)

Case: Employee terminated for using self-defense at work

Decision: Hood dissented from the 5-2 majority that recognized a constitutional right to self-defense in the workplace that private employers must respect.

Hood's dissent reasoning (with Chief Justice Márquez): Hood questioned whether self-defense was truly "job-related" and expressed concern that the majority's reasoning would prevent private employers from terminating at-will employees for conduct related to any inalienable constitutional right, even if it violated employer policies.

Legal philosophy: This dissent suggests Hood is more cautious about expanding constitutional rights into private employer-employee relationships.

Official Source: https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/06/15/colorado-supreme-court-recognizes-right-to-self-defense-in-workplace/

7. Snowboarder Injury Lawsuit (September 2026)

Case: Litterer v. Vail Summit Resorts

Decision: Hood dissented from the 4-3 majority that ruled a plaintiff forfeited his injury lawsuit by purchasing a new Vail pass with language releasing all past legal claims.

Hood's dissent reasoning (with Justices Gabriel and Samour): Hood characterized the majority's ruling as "manifest injustice" and described Vail's practice as "pulling a fast one" on consumers. He argued the release language was buried in documents "rife with legalese" and imperceptible to ordinary customers.

Key quote: "There's something that seems fundamentally unfair. I think most folks would say that feels like Vail pulling a fast one."

Legal philosophy: This dissent shows Hood's pro-consumer orientation and concern for ordinary people against powerful corporations.

Official Source: https://www.denvergazette.com/outtherecolorado/2026/09/21/divided-colorado-supreme-court-says-injured-snowboarder-forfeited-claims-by-buying-new-vail-pass-2/

8. Laced Substances Defense (January 2026)

Case: People v. Mion

Decision: Hood dissented from the 4-2 majority that curtailed the ability of criminal defendants to claim their conduct resulted from consuming an intoxicating substance secretly laced with another behavior-altering substance.

Hood's dissent reasoning: While Hood acknowledged the downside of allowing people who "choose to consume unpredictable street drugs" to later be acquitted, he was concerned about what would happen to "otherwise innocent people" whose conduct is less reckless.

Legal philosophy: This dissent shows Hood's concern for due process protections even when they might benefit defendants with questionable behavior.

Official Source: https://gazette.com/2026/01/26/divided-colorado-supreme-court-curtails-use-of-laced-substances-defense/

9. Civil Defendants Testifying After Default (June 2026)

Case: J.B. v. MKBS, LLC et al. (sexual assault case against taxi company)

Decision: Hood authored the 6-1 majority opinion allowing a civil defendant who had legally admitted to sexual assault allegations through non-participation to nonetheless prevail after showing up to testify at trial.

Rationale: "We have a long-established preference for resolving cases on the merits rather than through default judgments whenever possible. Allowing Ortiz to testify promoted the truth-seeking function of our legal system."

Legal philosophy: Shows Hood's preference for deciding cases on their merits rather than procedural technicalities.

Official Source: https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/06/24/colorado-justices-expand-ability-for-civil-defendants-to-avoid-participating-win-after-trial/

10. Other Significant Decisions

1. Car Rental Companies as Insurers - Hood dissented, arguing Hertz acted as a de facto insurer when it generated revenue from insurance policies, assisted in adjusting claims, and assumed complete financial risk. (April 2026)

2. Consumer Protection for Insurance Claims - Hood authored the 6-1 majority narrowing consumer protections for policyholders, ruling that obligations specifically laid out in insurance policies don't require additional notice. (April 2026)

3. Postconviction Evidence Access - Hood authored the majority opinion recognizing a limited right for defendants to receive trial evidence at no cost when challenging convictions, but only in specific circumstances. (May 2026)

4. New Murder Trial Due to Excluded Evidence - Hood authored the 4-3 majority ordering a new trial because a trial judge incorrectly excluded expert evidence when the state hospital failed to complete a mental health evaluation. (March 2026)

5. Child Abuse Data Disclosure - Hood dissented from the 4-3 majority, arguing that requiring disclosure of even high-level statistics risked making recordkeepers complicit in identifying specific children. (March 2026)

Official Sources: Multiple Colorado Politics and Denver Gazette articles linked above.

Facts That Make Justice Hood Appear Partisan

A. APPOINTMENT BY DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR

Justice Hood was appointed by Governor John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, in 2014. However, this alone is not necessarily indicative of partisanship, as Colorado uses a merit-based selection system with nonpartisan nominating commissions.

B. THE TRUMP BALLOT DISQUALIFICATION CASE

The most significant factor creating an appearance of partisanship is Hood's vote in the 4-3 majority to disqualify Donald Trump from the 2024 Colorado Republican presidential primary ballot.

Partisan perception:

    • This decision was immediately characterized by conservatives as partisan judicial activism
    • The U.S. Supreme Court reversed it, suggesting the Colorado court overreached
    • Critics argued the decision interfered with the democratic process for partisan political ends
    • The timing (2024 election cycle) amplified partisan perceptions

Context: The Colorado Supreme Court found Trump engaged in insurrection on January 6, 2021. This is a highly politicized conclusion that divides Americans along partisan lines.

C. GENDER-AFFIRMING CARE DECISION

Hood's majority opinion allowing transgender minors to continue receiving gender-affirming medical care despite federal restrictions aligns with progressive/Democratic policy positions on transgender rights.

Partisan context: This issue is sharply divided along party lines, with Democrats generally supporting access to gender-affirming care and Republicans generally opposing it, especially for minors.

D. EDITORIAL CALLING FOR HOOD'S REMOVAL

Denver Gazette Editorial (October 2026) urged a "no" vote on retaining Hood due to his alleged ties to a judicial pay-for-silence scandal.

Allegations:

    • Former Chief Justice Nathan Coats authorized a multimillion-dollar contract with a high-ranking Judicial Department employee who faced dismissal but threatened a sex discrimination lawsuit that would reveal years of alleged judicial misconduct
    • The Gazette wrote: "Hood and Sullivan, both have ties to the scandal and knew of its existence... and had an ethical responsibility to report its existence but failed to do so"
    • The editorial stated: "Hood and Sullivan had an ethical responsibility to report the facts of the scandal to the proper authorities and failed to do so until (it was) outed by the press. Such a failure goes to the heart of the integrity expected of a judge"

Official Source: https://www.denvergazette.com/2026/10/23/editorial-another-chance-to-clean-house-in-colorados-courts/

E. FEDERAL RETALIATION LAWSUIT AGAINST TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

Colorado filed a federal lawsuit in January 2026 alleging President Trump's administration was engaging in unlawful retaliation against Colorado for:

  • Allowing mail-in voting
  • The state's 2023 decision (in which Hood participated) regarding Trump's ballot eligibility

Context: This lawsuit explicitly connects Hood's judicial decision to federal political retaliation, further politicizing his role.

Official Source: https://coag.gov/app/uploads/2026/01/2026.01.08-Doc.-26-Amended-Complaint-with-attachments.pdf

F. COUNTERBALANCING FACTORS

1. Unanimous Performance Recommendations: The State Commission on Judicial Performance voted 9-0 (unanimous) that Justice Hood MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS in both 2016 and 2026.

2. Bipartisan Praise: Hood has received awards and recognition from legal organizations across the political spectrum, including:

    • Denver Bar Association's Judicial Excellence Award (2011)
    • Colorado Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers Distinguished Jurist Award (2014)

3. Mixed Voting Record: Hood's decisions do not consistently align with partisan stereotypes:

    • He dissented in the safe haven case on textualist grounds (traditionally a conservative judicial philosophy)
    • He dissented against expanding constitutional rights into private employment (a more conservative position)
    • He authored opinions limiting consumer protections in insurance cases (generally a business-friendly position)
    • He also authored strong pro-defendant criminal law decisions (generally associated with liberal judges)

4. Selection as Next Chief Justice: Hood's fellow justices (appointed by both Democratic and Republican governors in earlier years) selected him to become Chief Justice, suggesting respect across the court.

ASSESSMENT OF PARTISAN APPEARANCE

Direction of lean: Based on the Trump ballot case and gender-affirming care decision, Justice Hood appears to lean progressive/liberal on highly politicized constitutional issues.

However: His judicial record is more nuanced than a simple partisan label suggests:

    • He takes textualist approaches to statutory interpretation (conservative)
    • He shows pro-consumer instincts against corporations (liberal)
    • He expanded some criminal defendant protections (liberal) while limiting others (case-by-case)
    • He shows caution about expanding constitutional rights into private relationships (conservative)

The Trump case dominates: For many voters, particularly in Douglas County (a historically conservative county), Hood's participation in the 4-3 decision to remove Trump from the ballot will be the defining factor in how they view his partisanship.

Other Data Useful to Evaluate Justice Hood

A. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION DATA (2026)

State Commission Recommendation: 9-0 unanimous vote that Justice Hood MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Survey Results:

  • 31 individuals (attorneys and judges) completed surveys
  • Overall performance score: 3.6 out of 4.0 (same as overall average for Supreme Court Justices)
  • Attorneys rated him:
    • Fair and impartial: 2.9 out of 4.0
    • Conducts hearings neutrally: 3.0 out of 4.0
    • Writes clear opinions: 3.0 out of 4.0
    • Writes opinions explaining basis: 2.6 out of 4.0 (lower)
  • Judges rated him higher across all categories (3.8-3.9 out of 4.0)

Historical performance scores (out of 4.0):

  • 2019: 3.7
  • 2020: 3.7
  • 2021: 3.9
  • 2022: 3.8
  • 2023: 3.5
  • 2024: 3.7
  • 2025: 3.9
  • 2026: 3.6

Official Sources:

B. COMMISSION FINDINGS (2026)

Quote from Commission:
"Justice Hood has served on the Colorado Supreme Court since January 2014. The Commission finds that Justice Hood is courteous to attorneys and treats parties equally without regard to race, sex, or economic status. He demonstrates an admirable work ethic and issues decisions in a timely manner. During oral arguments, he is respectful of the attorneys and their allotted time, and he asks insightful questions. His opinions are well organized, and he has a clear writing style that makes the reader's job easier. The Commission believes that Justice Hood is a valuable member of the Colorado Supreme Court."

Source: https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/hood-iii-william-w-2026-evaluation

C. PREVIOUS RETENTION ELECTION (2016)

Result: Hood was retained with 70.9% yes votes

    • Yes: 1,419,267
    • No: 582,555

Commission Recommendation (2016): 9-0 (with one recusal) that Hood BE RETAINED

Source: https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/hood-william-2016-evaluation

D. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
  • Served on Colorado's Access to Justice Commission
  • Taught as adjunct faculty at University of Denver Sturm College of Law
  • Participated in numerous "Courts in the Community" events where the Supreme Court hears arguments at schools and public venues across Colorado
  • Member of Executive Council of the Colorado Bar Association
  • Board of Trustees for Denver Bar Association

Sources: Official judicial performance evaluations

E. WRITING PRODUCTIVITY

Between August 2023 and July 2026 (3-year evaluation period), Justice Hood participated in numerous oral arguments and authored majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions across a wide range of legal issues.

Timeliness: The Commission noted Hood "issues decisions in a timely manner" - no concerns about delays (unlike some other judges evaluated).

F. JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT

Consistent feedback:

  • "Courteous to attorneys"
  • "Treats parties equally without regard to race, sex, or economic status"
  • "Respectful of the attorneys and their allotted time"
  • "Asks insightful questions"
  • "Admirable work ethic"

No concerns raised about judicial demeanor or temperament in official evaluations.

G. LEGAL WRITING QUALITY

Strengths:

    • "Well organized" opinions
    • "Clear writing style that makes the reader's job easier"

Attorney surveys show lower scores for:

    • Clarity of opinions (3.0/4.0)
    • Adequacy of explanation for decisions (2.6/4.0)

This suggests attorneys find his writing adequate but not exceptional.

H. DISSENT PATTERNS

Justice Hood dissents regularly, suggesting independent thinking rather than rubber-stamping majority positions. His dissents span the ideological spectrum:

  • Liberal dissents: Laced substances defense, snowboarder injury case
  • Conservative dissents: Safe haven anonymity (textualist), workplace self-defense (limiting constitutional expansion)

This pattern suggests Hood is not rigidly ideological and decides cases based on legal reasoning rather than predetermined outcomes.

I. COLLEAGUE RESPECT

Selected as Next Chief Justice (August 2027): Hood's fellow justices chose him to lead the court, which suggests:

  • Respect from colleagues across the ideological spectrum
  • Strong leadership and administrative capabilities
  • Ability to build consensus

Chief Justice Monica Márquez's statement: "Justice Hood brings deep experience, steady judgment, and a genuine commitment to the people we serve. I've had the privilege of working alongside him for many years, and I know he will approach this role with the integrity and thoughtfulness it demands."

Source: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/media/press-release/supreme-court-announces-incoming-chief-justice

SUMMARY FOR DOUGLAS COUNTY VOTERS

Strengths:
  • 19 years of judicial experience (12+ years on Supreme Court)
  • Unanimous professional performance recommendations
  • Strong work ethic and timely decisions
  • Courteous and respectful demeanor
  • Selected by peers to become next Chief Justice
  • Prosecutorial background (10 years in 18th Judicial District, which included Douglas County)
Concerns:
  • Voted with 4-3 majority to disqualify Trump from 2024 ballot (later reversed by U.S. Supreme Court)
  • Authored opinion allowing transgender minors to receive gender-affirming care despite federal restrictions
  • Alleged involvement in judicial pay-for-silence scandal (per Denver Gazette editorial)
  • Some attorney surveys show concerns about opinion clarity
Judicial Philosophy:
  • Appears pragmatic rather than rigidly ideological
  • Shows textualist tendencies in statutory interpretation
  • Generally pro-defendant in criminal cases
  • Pro-consumer in disputes with corporations
  • Cautious about expanding constitutional rights into private relationships
  • Preference for deciding cases on the merits rather than procedural technicalities
Partisan appearance

Hood's participation in the Trump ballot disqualification case creates a strong appearance of liberal/progressive leanings, particularly on highly politicized issues. However, his overall voting record is more mixed than a simple partisan label suggests.

Official Sources Used:

  1. Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation: https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/hood-iii-william-w-2026-evaluation
  2. Colorado Judicial Branch Biography: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/contact/william-w-hood-iii
  3. Supreme Court Press Release (Chief Justice appointment): https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/media/press-release/supreme-court-announces-incoming-chief-justice
  4. Anderson v. Griswold (Trump ballot case): https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/2023/23sa300.html
  5. Colorado Politics - Multiple case coverage articles (linked above for each specific case)
  6. Denver Gazette - Editorial and case coverage (linked above)
  7. Courthouse News - Gender-affirming care case: https://courthousenews.com/trans-kids-win-gender-affirming-care-at-top-colorado-court
  8. 2026 Judicial Performance Survey Report: https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/sites/judicialperformance/files/documents/2026%20Justice%20William%20W.%20Hood,%20III%20Survey%20Report.pdf
  9. 2016 Retention Evaluation: https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/hood-william-2016-evaluation

Additional Resources:

Elizabeth L. Harris – Colorado Court of Appeals

Time on Bench

Appointed: July 23, 2015 by Governor John Hickenlooper (Democrat)

Total Service: 11 years as of her 2026 retention election

Previous Retention: Successfully retained in 2018 with 63.49% approval (1,268,530 yes votes; 729,496 no votes)

Current Term Expires: January 2027

Sources:

Career Before Appointment (approximately 19 years total):

  • Law Clerk to Hon. John Porfilio, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (1996-1997): Federal appellate clerkship
  • Federal Public Defender's Office, Colorado (1997-2003): 6 years as criminal defense attorney for indigent defendants in federal court
  • Jacobs Chase LLP (2003-2011): Associate and then partner; litigated commercial and real estate disputes
  • Husch Blackwell LLP (2011-2013): Continued private practice after Husch Blackwell acquired Jacobs Chase
  • Law Office of Elizabeth L. Harris, LLC (2013-2015): Solo appellate litigation practice (2 years)

Education

  • Georgetown University, B.A. (1996 or earlier)
  • New York University School of Law, J.D. (1996)

Bar Admissions:

  • Colorado (specific date not provided)
  • Federal courts (as federal public defender and federal clerk)

Professional Activities:

  • Board of Directors, Colorado Women's Bar Association Foundation
  • Member, Doyle Inn of Court
  • Prepares University of Denver law school students for oral argument competitions
  • Court of Appeals/Supreme Court summer internship program

Sources:

Notable/Controversial Decisions Judge Harris Supported or Opposed

Judge Harris has authored numerous opinions during her 11-year tenure. Based on available third-party news coverage and evaluation materials, here are the notable cases identified:

1. People v. Ez-Zahir (April 16, 2026) - SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST PARAMEDICS

Judge Harris's Role: Authored the majority opinion (joined by Judge Timothy J. Schutz); 2-1 split decision

Issue: Whether trial court erred by failing to instruct jury on the lawful scope of paramedics' authority to use force, when defendant claimed self-defense against forced medical treatment.

Facts:

  • Defendant Ez-Zahir convicted of assaulting Denver paramedics
  • Ez-Zahir was intoxicated, had recently fallen, and had scraped knuckles
  • Paramedics attempted to take him into protective custody for medical treatment without his consent
  • Ez-Zahir physically resisted, claiming self-defense
  • Trial court gave no instruction defining paramedics' legal authority to use force

Judge Harris's Holding:

  • REVERSED the assault conviction and ordered new trial
  • Trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct jury on paramedics' lawful authority to use force
  • "Because Ez-Zahir claimed, with record support, that the paramedics were about to use unlawful force against him for the purpose of administering medical treatment without his consent, some accurate instruction on the scope of the paramedics' lawful authority to use force was necessary to assist the jury"
  • Professional protocols for paramedics are not the same as legal authority: "Although the protocols direct the paramedics to transport nonconsenting patients to the hospital under certain circumstances, they do not address the paramedics' allowable use of force to do so"
  • With proper instruction, jury could have found Ez-Zahir's condition didn't constitute emergency allowing forced transport, making his resistance justified self-defense

Judge Terry Fox's Dissent:

  • Paramedics' lawful duties should be "broadly interpreted"
  • "They need leeway to assess and address those emergencies quickly and without fear of implementing the necessary response"
  • Professional protocols should suffice

Significance: Pro-defendant constitutional ruling protecting bodily autonomy and right to refuse medical treatment; limits government authority to use force; requires clear jury instructions on scope of official power; controversial as it makes it harder to prosecute assaults on emergency responders

Sources:

2. People v. Fonseca (August 6, 2026) - DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DEFINITION

Judge Harris's Role: Authored the opinion for three-judge panel

Issue: Whether two people must engage in traditional "dating activities" to establish "intimate relationship" required for domestic violence finding.

Facts:

  • Defendant Fonseca convicted of assault as act of domestic violence
  • Evidence showed Fonseca and victim:
    • Lived together periodically
    • Had sexual relationship
    • Did NOT engage in traditional dating (restaurants, movies, etc.)
    • Defense argued they were just "friends with benefits," not intimate relationship

Judge Harris's Holding:

  • AFFIRMED domestic violence conviction
  • Traditional dating activities are NOT required to prove "intimate relationship"
  • "No case appears to support the position that parties are in an intimate relationship only if they engage in what might be considered traditional dating activities like going to restaurants or movie theaters"
  • Jury could reasonably find romantic attachment based on living together and sexual relationship, even if evidence was "not overwhelming"
  • Court must look to objective criteria, not parties' labels: "If the court simply deferred to the parties' labels for the relationship, the purpose of the domestic violence statute might be undermined. After the fact, the perpetrator could minimize the nature of the relationship, characterizing it as a mere acquaintanceship or friendship. A victim fearing retaliation might do the same"

Significance: Pro-prosecution result that expands scope of domestic violence statute; protects victims in non-traditional relationships; prevents defendants from avoiding enhanced penalties by characterizing relationship as casual; applies objective standard rather than parties' subjective descriptions

Note About Domestic Violence in Colorado: "In Colorado, domestic violence is not a crime itself, but rather a finding that accompanies criminal charges and triggers the requirement for defendants to receive domestic violence treatment on top of their sentence"

Source: Colorado Politics: https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/08/06/labels-duration-not-definitive-proof-of-intimate-relationship-colorado-court-rules-in-domestic-violence-case/

3. Child Abuse Data Transparency Case

Judge Harris's Role: Authored opinion (specific citation not provided in search results)

Issue: Whether Colorado Children's Code prohibits Department of Human Services from releasing aggregate data about child abuse hotline calls related to licensed residential facilities.

Judge Harris's Holding (per third-party summary):

  • REVERSED lower court decision that blocked release
  • Children's Code does not explicitly bar release of aggregate child abuse statistics
  • Department of Human Services CAN release data about hotline calls tied to licensed facilities
  • Major transparency victory per Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition (CFOIC)

Significance: Pro-transparency/pro-public access ruling; allows public oversight of child welfare system; facilitates accountability for licensed facilities; limits scope of statutory confidentiality provisions

Source: Tri-Lakes 4 Democracy: https://trilakes4democracy.substack.com/p/judge-elizabeth-l-harris
(Note: This is based on third-party summary; official opinion citation not found in search results)

SUMMARY OF NOTABLE DECISIONS - PATTERN ANALYSIS

Pro-Defendant/Constitutional Rights Decisions:

    • Ez-Zahir (2026) - Reversed assault conviction, protected right to refuse medical treatment, required clear jury instructions on official authority

Pro-Prosecution Decisions:

    • Fonseca (2026) - Affirmed domestic violence conviction with broad interpretation of "intimate relationship"

Pro-Transparency Decisions:

    • Child abuse data case - Required release of public records, expanded government accountability
    • Judge Harris's slower opinion production (discussed below)
    • Less media coverage of her specific cases
    • Search result limitations

Limited Sample: Only three specific cases identified from search results, compared to more extensive case law available for Judge Freyre. This may reflect:

Overall Pattern: Judge Harris shows balanced approach - willing to reverse criminal convictions when constitutional/procedural errors occurred (Ez-Zahir), but also willing to affirm convictions and interpret criminal statutes broadly when legally justified (Fonseca). Also demonstrates commitment to government transparency and public accountability.

Facts That Make The Candidate Appear Partisan, And Which Way She Leans

A. APPOINTMENT BY DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR
  • Appointed by Governor John Hickenlooper (Democrat) in 2015
  • Colorado uses merit selection system with judicial nominating commissions, not partisan elections
  • Appointing governor's party affiliation does not necessarily indicate judge's ideology

Sources:

B. FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER BACKGROUND

Significant Factor: Judge Harris spent 6 years (1997-2003) as a federal public defender representing indigent criminal defendants in federal court.

Context: Federal public defender experience is generally associated with progressive/liberal legal perspectives on:

  • Criminal defendants' constitutional rights
  • Fourth Amendment (search and seizure)
  • Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections
  • Skepticism of prosecution tactics
  • Criminal justice reform

However: Judge Harris also spent 8 years in private commercial litigation (2003-2011) representing corporate clients in business disputes, which provides balance and exposure to civil/business law perspective.

Then: Judge Harris spent 2 years (2013-2015) in solo appellate practice, suggesting expertise specifically in appellate advocacy.

Career Arc Shows: Movement from criminal defense (progressive orientation) → commercial litigation (neutral/business orientation) → appellate specialist (technical/procedural focus)

Sources:

C. CASE LAW PATTERN ANALYSIS

Based on the limited case sample available:

Pro-Defendant Constitutional Ruling:

    • Ez-Zahir - Reversed assault conviction; protected bodily autonomy; required limits on official use of force

Pro-Prosecution Ruling:

    • Fonseca - Affirmed domestic violence conviction; broad interpretation of statute

Pro-Transparency Ruling:

    • Child abuse data - Required government disclosure; public accountability
    • Vote: 9-0 that Judge Harris "MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS" (one commissioner absent, one vacancy)
    • Finding: "93% of responding judges and attorneys agreed" she meets standards
    • Commission Statement: Judge Harris is "a valuable member of the Court of Appeals"
    • No concerns about bias, partisanship, or fairness raised

Analysis: Limited sample shows balanced, case-by-case approach rather than consistent ideological pattern. Judge Harris appears to apply law faithfully regardless of which side benefits.

Sources: See individual case sources in Section 2 above

D. OFFICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS SHOW NO PARTISAN BIAS

2026 State Commission on Judicial Performance:

Attorney Survey Results (2026):

  • 100% of attorneys (5 respondents) said she meets performance standards
  • Perfect 4.0 scores in all writing categories except timeliness (3.2/4.0)
  • High scores: "fair and impartial," "neutral manner," "clear opinions," "reasoned decisions"

Judge Survey Results (2026):

  • 91% of judges (20 of 22) said she meets performance standards
  • 9% (2 judges) said she does not meet standards
  • High scores in most categories, but significantly lower timeliness score (2.2/4.0 from judges)

Improvement Over Time:

  • 2018 retention: 65% of attorneys said she met standards, 12% said no, 23% no opinion
  • 2026 retention: 100% of attorneys said she meets standards
  • Shows substantial improvement and increased respect from legal community over 8 years

Performance Scores Trend:

  • 2020: 2.8/4.0
  • 2021: 3.0/4.0
  • 2022: 3.4/4.0
  • 2023: 3.4/4.0
  • 2024: 3.5/4.0
  • 2025: 3.4/4.0
  • 2026: 3.6/4.0 (career high)

Consistent upward trajectory in performance ratings.

Sources:

E. PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES

From Official Records:
Judge Harris's professional involvement includes:

  • Board of Directors, Colorado Women's Bar Association Foundation (women's legal issues - potentially progressive lean)
  • Member, Doyle Inn of Court (legal professionalism)
  • Mentors University of Denver law students for oral argument competitions
  • Court of Appeals/Supreme Court summer internship program

Analysis: Women's Bar Association involvement could suggest a progressive lean on women's rights issues, but most activities are mainstream professional development and mentorship.

Source: 2018 Evaluation: https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/harris-elizabeth-2018-evaluation

F. THIRD-PARTY ANALYSIS

Tri-Lakes 4 Democracy Summary (progressive/Democratic-aligned source):

  • Emphasizes her opinions "expanding open records" (transparency ruling)
  • Highlights "key decisions... redefining criminal law definitions"
  • Notes unanimous performance evaluation approval
  • Generally favorable treatment

Analysis: Progressive sources view her favorably, consistent with her federal public defender background, but limited case information prevents definitive ideological categorization.

Source: https://trilakes4democracy.substack.com/p/judge-elizabeth-l-harris

CONCLUSION ON PARTISANSHIP:

Professional Background Suggests: Likely Moderate to Liberal/Progressive judicial philosophy based on:

  • 6 years as federal public defender (strong progressive indicator)
  • BUT balanced by 8 years in commercial litigation (neutral/business perspective)
  • Appellate specialist focus (technical/procedural rather than ideological)

Case Law Pattern Shows: Balanced, case-by-case approach - not reflexively pro-defendant or pro-prosecution; applies law as written

Likely Leans: Moderate Liberal on criminal justice issues, particularly:

  • Constitutional protections for defendants (evidence: Ez-Zahir)
  • Government transparency and accountability (evidence: child abuse data case)
  • BUT willing to uphold convictions when appropriate (evidence: Fonseca)

Actual Judicial Performance Shows:

  • Balanced decision-making without apparent ideological bias
  • Strong legal analysis and writing quality
  • Unanimous "meets standards" from attorneys; 91% from judges
  • Steady performance improvement over 11 years
  • No evidence of letting ideology override legal analysis

Most Important Institutional Check: Colorado appellate judges decide cases in three-judge panels that change composition every four months. Judge Harris's opinions must be joined by two other judges to become law, providing institutional balance.

OTHER DATA USEFUL TO EVALUATE THE CANDIDATE

A. TIMELINESS CONCERNS - MAJOR PERFORMANCE ISSUE

The Most Significant Finding About Judge Harris: Both the 2026 and 2018 performance evaluations raised persistent concerns about delay in issuing opinions.

2026 Commission Findings:

  • Lawyers "noted the length of time required for Judge Harris to issue an opinion as a weakness"
  • Judges "also noted Judge Harris' timeliness in issuing decisions as a weakness"
  • However, Commission states opinions are "reasonably timely" overall

2018 Commission Findings:

  • Raised "lack of timeliness" as concern
  • Stated Harris "has shown substantial improvement" in that area
  • Problem identified 8 years ago persists today

Statistical Analysis by Colorado Politics (August 2026):

  • Three-year review period: August 2023 - July 2026
  • Judge Harris participated in 64 oral arguments
  • She authored decisions in 18 of those cases (28%)
  • 8 cases still undecided as of August 2026, including 5 argued in 2025
  • Median time from oral argument to opinion: 145 days
  • Mean time: 200 days
  • Longest delay: 408 days (September 2024 oral argument; additional briefing October 2024; opinion issued March 2026 - 17 months later)

Comparison to Other Judges:

  • Judge with next-largest gap (Timothy J. Schutz, 6 opinions): median 69 days, mean 57 days
  • Judge Harris takes 2-3 times longer than comparable judges

Attorney Survey Scores on Timeliness:

  • 2026: 3.2/4.0 (lowest score in all categories; other scores were perfect 4.0)
  • 2023: 3.0/4.0 for timeliness

Judge Survey Scores on Timeliness:

  • 2026: 2.2/4.0 (by far lowest score; most other scores 3.7-3.8)
  • 2023: 2.1/4.0 (lowest score)
  • 2018: Significant number of "D" and "Fail" grades for "Issuing opinions in a timely manner"

Defense of Judge Harris:

Court Clerk Tiffany Mortier: "A simple comparison of the average time to decision for individual judges does not always present a complete picture. Cases differ from each other, presenting a widely disparate number of issues of varying complexity. And every authoring judge undertakes an individualized, case-by-case determination of the time it will take to craft a thorough, well-reasoned, and well-written opinion"

Attorney Nelson A. Waneka (whose case took 408 days): "Thoughtfulness is better than speediness. Judge Harris is one of the smartest and most conscientious judges I've encountered anywhere. This is reflected in her opinions. While statistics may show that she takes more time to craft her opinions, I don't notice this in my practice"

Judge Harris's Response: Declined to comment, citing the judicial code of conduct's prohibition on campaign activity

Significance: This is the single most significant weakness in Judge Harris's performance. While her legal analysis and writing quality are praised as excellent, her persistent delays in issuing opinions:

  • Delay justice for litigants
  • Create uncertainty
  • Impact court efficiency
  • Have been identified as problem for 8+ years without full resolution
  • Are rated significantly worse by fellow judges than by attorneys

Sources:

B. WRITING QUALITY AND JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT

2026 Commission Findings:

  • Opinions are "clear, well-written, and reasonably timely" (despite timeliness concerns above)
  • "Well-prepared, succinct in her questions, respectful" at oral arguments
  • "Seeks to draw out the issues most important to the Court's decision-making process"

Attorney Comments (2026):

  • Praised for "preparation, intelligence, familiarity with the record on appeal, and knowledge of the law"
  • Perfect 4.0 scores for:
    • Writing clear opinions
    • Adequately explaining decisions
    • Making reasoned decisions based on law and facts
    • Fairness and impartiality
    • Refraining from reaching unnecessary issues

Judge Comments (2026):

  • Positive comments for "writing ability," "thoughtfulness," and "engagement in committee work"
  • High scores (3.7-3.8) for most categories

Consensus: When Judge Harris finally issues opinions, they are exceptionally high quality - clear, well-reasoned, thorough. The issue is how long it takes, not the quality of the final product.

Sources:

C. JUDICIAL WORKLOAD AND PRODUCTIVITY

Colorado Court of Appeals Statistics (2022, most recent available):

  • Court received 2,276 new cases
  • Court resolved 2,546 cases
  • 1,724 cases resolved by full written opinion
  • 22 judges total on court
  • Judges sit in rotating three-judge panels that change every four months

Judge Harris's Productivity Concerns:

  • Over 3-year period (2023-2026), participated in 64 oral arguments but authored only 18 decisions (28%)
  • 8 cases still pending including 5 from 2025
  • Takes significantly longer than peer judges to issue opinions
  • Suggests lower productivity/output compared to colleagues

However:

  • All 18 completed opinions received high quality ratings
  • May handle more complex cases (though no evidence provided)
  • Still meets overall performance standards per Commission

Source: Colorado Court of Appeals Overview: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/media/14149

D. LOWER RETENTION PERCENTAGE IN 2018

2018 Retention Vote: 63.49% approval

  • Yes: 1,268,530 votes
  • No: 729,496 votes
  • 36.51% of voters voted NO - relatively high rejection rate

Context:

  • Judge Rebecca Rankin Freyre (appointed same year, 2015) received 74.69% approval in 2018
  • Judge Harris's 63.49% was significantly lower
  • Suggests voter concerns even in 2018 (possibly related to timeliness issues identified that year)

2026 Expected Performance:

  • Performance ratings have improved substantially (2.8 in 2020 → 3.6 in 2026)
  • 100% of attorneys now say she meets standards (vs. 65% in 2018)
  • May see improved retention percentage, but timeliness concerns persist

Sources:

E. COMPARISON TO OTHER 2026 APPELLATE JUDGES

Judge Harris is one of six Court of Appeals judges up for retention in 2026:

  • Judge Rebecca Rankin Freyre - MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (9-0 vote)
  • Judge Elizabeth L. Harris - MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (9-0 vote, 1 absent, 1 vacancy)
  • Judge Katharine E. Lum - MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
  • Judge Pax L. Moultrie - Listed for retention
  • Judge Karl L. Schock - Listed for retention
  • Judge Grant T. Sullivan - Listed for retention

All received unanimous or near-unanimous recommendations from the State Commission.

Judge Harris stands out for persistent timeliness concerns not noted for other judges.

Source:

F. SURVEY RESPONSE RATES - CONCERN

2026 Survey Participation:

  • Only 5 attorneys submitted responses (very low)
  • 22 judges submitted responses (more typical)
  • Total: 27 respondents

Commission Statement: "The Commission received survey responses from only 5 attorneys and 22 judges. Nevertheless, the Commission is confident in this opinion because 93% of responding judges and attorneys agreed, and all remaining sources of information available supported a finding that Judge Harris 'Meets Performance Standards'"

Comparison:

  • 2023: 36 respondents
  • 2018: 56 respondents (35 attorneys, 21 judges)
  • 2017: 36 respondents

Potential Explanations:

  • Fewer attorneys have worked with her (possibly due to slower output/fewer cases)
  • Survey fatigue
  • Timing issues

Significance: Low attorney response rate makes it harder to assess performance comprehensively, though the Commission expressed confidence in unanimous positive results from those who did respond.

Sources:

COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY

Tenure: 11 years on Colorado Court of Appeals (appointed 2015, retained 2018 with 63.49%, up for 2026 retention)

Performance: Unanimous 9-0 "meets standards" recommendation; 100% approval from surveyed attorneys; 91% approval from judges; performance scores have steadily improved from 2.8 (2020) to 3.6 (2026)

Major Strength: Exceptional writing quality and legal analysis; perfect 4.0 scores from attorneys for clarity, reasoning, and impartiality; praised for intelligence, preparation, and thoughtfulness

Major Weakness: Persistent timeliness problems - takes 2-3 times longer than peer judges to issue opinions (median 145 days vs. 69 days); 8 years after first identified, still consistently rated poorly on timeliness by both attorneys and especially judges (2.2/4.0 from judges in 2026)

Notable Decisions:

  • Pro-defendant: Reversed assault conviction for insufficient jury instruction on paramedics' legal authority (Ez-Zahir)
  • Pro-prosecution: Affirmed domestic violence conviction with broad definition of "intimate relationship" (Fonseca)
  • Pro-transparency: Required release of child abuse aggregate data (case name not specified)

Partisan Lean: Moderate Liberal - 6 years as federal public defender suggests progressive criminal justice philosophy, balanced by 8 years in commercial litigation; limited case sample shows balanced, law-focused approach rather than ideological pattern

Other Relevant Data:

  • Lower 2018 retention (63.49%) compared to peers appointed same year
  • Very low attorney survey response rate in 2026 (only 5 attorneys)
  • Career background includes federal clerkship, public defense, commercial litigation, and solo appellate practice
  • Active in legal community (Women's Bar, mentorship, Inn of Court)

Bottom Line: Judge Harris produces high-quality legal work but takes significantly longer than her peers - "thoughtfulness vs. speediness" tradeoff. Voters must weigh exceptional quality against timeliness concerns that have persisted throughout her 11-year tenure.

ALL SOURCES USED

Official Colorado Judicial Branch Sources:
Official Performance Evaluation Sources:
Colorado News Media Sources
Voter Guide and Analysis Sources
Reference Sources:

NOTE: This analysis is based on official government sources and reputable third-party news coverage. The case law section is less comprehensive than Judge Freyre's analysis because fewer specific cases were identified. Judge Harris's most significant distinguishing characteristic is the persistent timeliness concern raised by both the 2018 and 2026 performance commissions and documented through statistical analysis by Colorado Politics.

Additional Resources

https://gazette.com/2026/04/23/divided-appeals-court-reverses-assault-conviction-over-insufficient-guidance-about-paramedics-authority/ 

Judge Rebecca Rankin Freyre – Colorado Court of Appeals

Time on Bench

Appointed: September 18, 2015 by Governor John Hickenlooper (Democrat)

Sworn In: November 16, 2015

Total Service: 11 years as of her 2026 retention election

Previous Retention: Successfully retained in 2018 with 74.69% approval (1,495,184 yes votes; 506,734 no votes)

Current Term Expires: January 7, 2027

Leadership Positions:

  • Deputy Chief Judge of the Colorado Court of Appeals (January 2022 - January 2026)
  • Current Chair of the PERA (Public Employees' Retirement Association) Board of Trustees
Sources:

Career Before Appointment (25 years total):

  • Deputy State Public Defender, Arapahoe County Trial Office (1991-2005): 14 years as criminal trial defense attorney
  • Deputy State Public Defender, Appellate Division (2005-2015): 10 years handling criminal appeals
  • Law Clerk, Larry Pozner & Associates (1988-1991)
  • Business career before law school: Banking management consultant and fund manager (1982-1988)

Education

  • Topeka West High School, Kansas (1978)
  • Smith College, B.A. in Economics (1982)
  • University of Denver College of Law, J.D. (1990) - graduated with Order of St. Ives honors

Bar Admissions:

  • Colorado (1990)
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (1998)
  • U.S. Supreme Court (2011)

Sources:

Notable/Controversial Decisions Judge Freyre Supported or Opposed

Judge Freyre has authored and participated in numerous significant cases during her 11-year tenure. Below is an analysis based on official court documents and third-party media coverage:

1. People v. Sandoval (October 30, 2025) - RIGHT TO PUBLIC TRIAL

Judge Freyre's Role: Authored the majority opinion

Issue: Whether completely closing a courtroom to public observers during jury selection violates a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial, even when proceedings are livestreamed.

Facts:

  • Edward R. Sandoval was tried for second-degree murder in Denver District Court
  • Chief Judge Christopher J. Baumann had an unusually large jury pool of 75 people for the 2022 trial
  • Baumann ordered all public observers to leave during jury selection due to space constraints, though proceedings were livestreamed
  • Both prosecution and defense objected and suggested alternatives (livestreaming with partial public access, conducting selection in two parts, instructing spectators not to interact with jurors)
  • Baumann rejected these suggestions without explanation

Judge Freyre's Holding:

  • REVERSED the murder conviction and ordered a new trial
  • Complete courtroom closure violated Sandoval's constitutional right to public trial
  • Livestreaming alone is not a substitute for physical public access
  • Trial court failed to consider reasonable alternatives
  • "We are not convinced that space alone constitutes an overriding interest justifying a complete closure"
  • Suggested alternatives: admit one public observer at a time as jurors were excused, use larger courtrooms, conduct selection in waves

Constitutional Standard Applied: Waller v. Georgia (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) - violation of public trial right triggers automatic reversal

Significance: Major pro-defendant constitutional ruling protecting Sixth Amendment rights; establishes that physical courtroom access cannot be eliminated solely for convenience

Sources:

2. People v. Montoya (November 25, 2025) - PUBLIC TRIAL VIOLATION (THIRD REVERSAL)

Judge Freyre's Role: Authored the opinion

Issue: Whether conducting a murder trial entirely virtually during COVID-19, with no public access to physical courtroom, violated defendant's right to public trial.

Facts:

  • Alamosa County Judge Martin Gonzales conducted Montoya's murder trial entirely via videoconference during pandemic
  • No public observers allowed in physical courtroom
  • Trial court did not consider alternatives available in chief judge's COVID-19 protocol order, including: larger courtrooms in the district, off-site facilities (schools, fire stations), conducting jury selection in "waves"
  • This was the third time the Court of Appeals reversed this conviction for the same constitutional violation

Judge Freyre's Holding:

  • REVERSED conviction again and ordered new trial
  • Judge Gonzales failed to justify courtroom closure or consider available alternatives
  • COVID-19 protocols explicitly provided multiple options the trial judge ignored
  • Complete virtual trial without physical public access was unjustified

Additional Context: The elected district attorney was later disbarred and the trial prosecutor was dismissed from the office, raising additional concerns about the prosecution

Significance: Reinforces that emergency circumstances (pandemic) do not eliminate constitutional public trial requirements; judges must consider and explain why alternatives won't work

Source: Denver Gazette: https://www.denvergazette.com/2025/11/25/appeals-court-for-third-time-confirms-new-trial-necessary-for-alamosa-county-judges-public-trial-violation/

3. People v. Allen (March 12, 2026) - FOURTH AMENDMENT SEARCH & SEIZURE

Judge Freyre's Role: Authored the opinion (joined by Judges Karl L. Schock and Grant T. Sullivan)

Issue: Whether trial court abused its discretion by refusing to hold evidentiary hearing on whether defendant's consent to cell phone search was voluntary.

Facts:

  • Douglas County case involving cell phone evidence
  • Defendant Allen claimed his consent to phone search was not voluntary
  • Trial Judge Victoria Klingensmith initially did not hold evidentiary hearing
  • Case was reversed and sent back
  • On remand, Judge Klingensmith held two-day suppression hearing and excluded the phone evidence, finding officer's remarks "unduly influenced [Allen's] decision-making ability"

Judge Freyre's Holding:

  • REVERSED Allen's convictions and ordered new trial
  • Trial court abused discretion by not holding evidentiary hearing on voluntariness of consent
  • Upheld Judge Klingensmith's subsequent suppression order excluding the phone evidence

Significance: Pro-defendant Fourth Amendment ruling requiring careful judicial scrutiny of claimed "consent" to searches; protects against coerced waivers of constitutional rights

Source: Hoodline: https://hoodline.com/2026/03/error-prone-douglas-county-judge-sparks-yet-another-trial-do-over/

4. WARNING AGAINST BROAD CELL PHONE WARRANTS (April 2025)

Judge Freyre's Role: Participated in three-judge panel decision

Issue: Scope of permissible cell phone data warrants

Holding (per third-party summary):

  • Issued "stern, highly publicized warning to law enforcement personnel regarding digital privacy"
  • Police cannot obtain overly broad warrants seeking sweeping amounts of historical cell phone data unrelated to specific crime under investigation
  • Protects Fourth Amendment privacy rights in digital age

Significance: Limits law enforcement's ability to conduct fishing expeditions through personal digital data

Source: Tri-Lakes 4 Democracy: https://trilakes4democracy.substack.com/p/judge-rebecca-rankin-freyre
(Note: Official opinion not accessible; this is based on third-party summary)

5. People v. Coulier, 2026 COA 45 (June 4, 2026) - IMPERSONATING A PEACE OFFICER

Judge Freyre's Role: Authored the majority opinion (joined by Judges Johnson and Kuhn)

Issue: Matter of first impression - What constitutes "an act" under Colorado's statute criminalizing impersonation of a peace officer?

Facts:

  • Richard Coulier had vehicle sale dispute with neighbor Lopez
  • Lopez reported vehicle stolen
  • Coulier called Lopez identifying himself as "Detective Rich of the Colorado Springs Police Department" and requested she meet with him
  • Lopez didn't believe him and hung up
  • Jury acquitted Coulier of theft but convicted him of impersonating a peace officer

Defendant's Argument: Making a phone call was mere "speech," not "an act"

Judge Freyre's Holding:

  • AFFIRMED conviction
  • "An act may constitute any conduct that is done while in that pretended capacity... while we agree with Coulier that simply pretending to be an officer, without more, would be insufficient to sustain a conviction, we conclude that any act done in the pretended capacity, whether verbal, as is the case here... or more physical, satisfies the statutory element of 'an act.'"
  • Verbal conduct (making demands or requests while pretending to be officer) qualifies as "an act"
  • Distinguishes between mere "bravado, puffery, or bragging" (insufficient) and affirmative conduct in pretended capacity (sufficient)

Significance: First Colorado appellate decision defining what conduct qualifies as "an act" for peace officer impersonation prosecutions; pro-prosecution result that closed potential loophole; media noted this prevented "absurd" limits on prosecuting phone impersonators

Sources:

6. People v. Shockey (May 28, 2026) - JURY INSTRUCTIONS & VERDICTS

Judge Freyre's Role: Authored the opinion

Issue: Whether jury disobeyed instructions by convicting defendant of murder using legal theory they heard during jury selection but were never instructed to apply.

Facts:

  • Jacob Alexander Shockey convicted of second-degree murder
  • Jury found he caused victim Davis' death but did NOT use a gun
  • Court of Appeals panel initially reversed conviction, finding jury must have relied on "complicity" theory they heard during voir dire but were never instructed on
  • Colorado Supreme Court reversed the panel's decision, ordering them to reconsider
  • Some jurors provided post-trial statements confirming they relied on complicity theory

Judge Freyre's Holding (on remand):

  • AFFIRMED the conviction (reversing her panel's earlier position per Supreme Court directive)
  • Jury could have found Shockey caused death without using weapon without relying on complicity
  • Court cannot inquire into jury verdict based on jurors' post-trial statements - "blanket prohibition"
  • Complicity theory was not "extraneous" information because it was presented during voir dire as part of judicial proceedings

Significance: Pro-prosecution result; defers to Supreme Court's interpretation of jury verdict; limits ability to challenge verdicts based on juror statements; shows Judge Freyre follows higher court precedent even when it contradicts her initial analysis

Source: Colorado Politics: https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/06/18/colorado-court-upholds-murder-conviction-despite-jury-disobeying-instructions/

7. People in the Interest of S.M. (August 24, 2023) - JUDICIAL BIAS

Judge Freyre's Role: Authored the opinion (joined by Judges David Furman and Alex J. Martinez)

Issue: Whether Arapahoe County Judge Shelly Gilman Chase's use of N-word and "all lives matter" statement demonstrated bias requiring reversal of Hispanic father's parental rights termination.

Facts:

  • Former Judge Chase terminated legal relationship between Hispanic father E.R. and his children, finding him unfit
  • Days before appeal hearing, Colorado Supreme Court publicly reprimanded Chase for admitting she used N-word in front of court employees and stated from bench that "all lives matter" (phrase associated with opposition to Black Lives Matter protests)
  • Chase resigned
  • Father E.R. argued Chase's racial bias required reversal of her order terminating his parental rights

Judge Freyre's Holding:

  • AFFIRMED termination of parental rights - no reversal required
  • "This record does not demonstrate actual bias. There was no evidence of comments or actions specific to former Judge Chase with regard to father or the children"
  • Chase admitted to racial animus toward African-American people, but father was Hispanic, not Black
  • Bias must be specific to the case or parties involved
  • Father needed to establish Chase was biased in his specific case under Colorado Supreme Court precedent

Judge Freyre's Comment During Oral Arguments: "What former Judge Chase admitted to was racial animus towards African-American people, but not Hispanics. And your client is Hispanic... I can't see a way around" the Supreme Court's requirement for case-specific bias

Significance: Narrow interpretation of when judicial bias requires reversal; applies Supreme Court precedent strictly; arguably controversial as it allows orders from judge with admitted racial bias to stand when victim is different race than bias

Source: Colorado Politics: https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2023/08/28/appeals-court-confirms-arapahoe-county-judges-bias-did-not-affect-parenting-case-a79b4e9c-45dd-11ee-9b91-7fef21e1b1d7/

8. People v. Price (October 19, 2023) - ORGANIZED CRIME & CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

Judge Freyre's Role: Authored the opinion (joined by Judges David H. Yun and W. Eric Kuhn)

Issue: (1) Whether organized crime conviction was properly supported; (2) Whether dual convictions for pimping and patronizing a prostituted child violated equal protection because they prohibit "essentially the same conduct"

Facts:

  • Douglas County case
  • Chauncey Price convicted of violating Colorado Organized Crime Control Act, child pimping, and patronizing a prostituted child
  • While appeal pending, Colorado Supreme Court clarified organized crime convictions require proof of criminal enterprise with ongoing structure beyond mere fact people committed crimes together

Judge Freyre's Holding:

  • REVERSED organized crime conviction (based on Supreme Court's new clarification)
  • AFFIRMED child prostitution convictions, rejecting constitutional challenge
  • Pimping and patronizing are distinguishable offenses:
    • Patronizing = interacting directly with prostituted child
    • Pimping = living off money generated by child prostitution (doesn't require direct interaction)
  • "Person of average intelligence" can distinguish between the two prohibitions
  • Different evidence supported each conviction

Significance: First-ever Court of Appeals ruling on this constitutional distinction; upholds dual child sex crime prosecutions; mixed result (reversed one conviction, affirmed others)

Sources:

9. People v. Ambrose (July 23, 2020) - BREATHALYZER EVIDENCE & CONFRONTATION CLAUSE

Judge Freyre's Role: Authored the opinion for three-member panel

Issue: Whether breathalyzer machine's functionality certificate is "testimonial" evidence subject to defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses.

Facts:

  • DUI case from Rio Blanco County
  • Defendant challenged admissibility of Intoxilyzer I-9000 breathalyzer results
  • Certificate from machine lacked signature required by state law
  • Defendant argued certificate was testimonial and he had right to cross-examine person who prepared it

Judge Freyre's Holding:

  • AFFIRMED DUI conviction
  • I-9000 functionality certificate is not testimonial and not subject to Confrontation Clause
  • Absence of signature "goes to the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility"
  • Certificate was not prepared as scientific trial evidence and did not contain information about defendant's specific impairment
  • Defendant could present other evidence to challenge results
  • Machine complied with Colorado Department of Public Health regulations

Judge Freyre's Notable Caveat: "Neither our supreme court nor the United States Supreme Court has decided whether a certificate used to establish that an intoxilyzer machine complies with state rules and regulations is testimonial and subject to the Confrontation Clause"

Significance: Pro-prosecution result facilitating DUI convictions; limits scope of confrontation rights regarding scientific evidence; no other court had ruled in defendant's favor on this issue

Source: Colorado Politics: https://www.coloradopolitics.com/news/no-constitutional-right-to-challenge-functionality-receipt-of-breathalyzer-court-of-appeals-rules/article_b99e483c-cd05-11ea-98e2-1f655799a6b3.html

10. People v. Tibbels (June 30, 2020) - JURY INSTRUCTIONS & BURDEN OF PROOF

Judge Freyre's Role: Wrote the majority opinion; decision was split (2-1)

Issue: Whether trial judge's analogy to buying a house with cracked foundation unconstitutionally lowered prosecution's burden of proof.

Facts:

  • Defendant Tibbels charged with assault and creating jail disturbance
  • Trial judge gave jury analogy: "You and your spouse and your children are in a market to buy a house... you descend... to the basement and... see a crack in the foundation from the floor to the ceiling... Are you going to buy that house?"
  • Defense attorney did not object at the time
  • Defendant appealed arguing analogy lowered prosecution's burden of proof

Judge Freyre's Holding:

  • AFFIRMED conviction but strongly criticized the practice
  • Analogy did not constitute reversible constitutional violation in this case
  • However: "We strongly discourage the use of illustrations like this because they run the risk of confusing jurors, lowering the prosecution's burden of proof, and diminishing the presumption of innocence"
  • Federal judges have cautioned against analogies to everyday experiences because they "are wholly unlike the decisions jurors ought to make in criminal cases"
  • Defense's failure to object "suggests that the prosecutor's comments did not appear to be overly damaging when they were made"

Significance: Pro-prosecution result but with strong warning to trial courts; shows Judge Freyre's concern about protecting defendants' constitutional rights while respecting procedural defaults; "close question, as reflected by our split decision"

Source: Colorado Politics: https://www.coloradopolitics.com/news/state-supreme-court-to-review-whether-judges-analogy-to-jurors-was-unconstitutional/article_84357ce6-baeb-11ea-8c2e-f74036eeae4b.html

SUMMARY OF NOTABLE DECISIONS - PATTERN ANALYSIS

Pro-Defendant/Constitutional Rights Decisions:

    • Sandoval (2025) - Reversed murder conviction for public trial violation
    • Montoya (2025) - Reversed murder conviction for public trial violation (third time)
    • Allen (2026) - Reversed convictions for Fourth Amendment violation
    • Cell phone warrant case (2025) - Limited police surveillance powers

Pro-Prosecution Decisions:

    • Coulier (2026) - Affirmed impersonation conviction with broad interpretation
    • Shockey (2026) - Affirmed murder conviction despite jury instruction concerns
    • Ambrose (2020) - Affirmed DUI conviction, rejected confrontation challenge
    • Tibbels (2020) - Affirmed conviction despite problematic jury instruction

Mixed/Nuanced Decisions:

    • Price (2023) - Reversed organized crime conviction but affirmed child sex crime convictions
    • S.M. (2023) - Affirmed termination despite judge's admitted racial bias (controversial)

Overall Pattern: Judge Freyre shows strong commitment to constitutional criminal defendant rights, particularly Sixth Amendment (public trial, confrontation) and Fourth Amendment (search and seizure), consistent with her 25-year public defender background. However, she is not reflexively pro-defendant and will uphold convictions when constitutional standards are met. She frequently writes strong cautionary language to trial courts about protecting rights even when affirming convictions.

Facts That Make the Candidate Appear Partisan, And Which Way She Leans

A. APPOINTMENT BY DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR
  • Appointed by Governor John Hickenlooper (Democrat) in 2015
  • Colorado uses merit selection system with judicial nominating commissions, not partisan elections
  • Appointing governor's party affiliation does not necessarily indicate judge's ideology

Sources:

B. 25-YEAR CAREER AS PUBLIC DEFENDER

Most Significant Factor: Judge Freyre spent her entire 25-year legal career before the bench as a criminal defense attorney for indigent defendants:

  • 14 years as trial public defender (Arapahoe County, 1991-2005)
  • 10 years as appellate public defender (2005-2015)
  • 1 year as law clerk in criminal defense firm (1988-1991)

Context: Public defenders represent defendants who cannot afford private attorneys in criminal cases. This career path is generally associated with progressive/liberal legal perspectives on:

  • Criminal defendants' constitutional rights (strongly evident in her decisions)
  • Strict interpretation of Fourth Amendment (search and seizure) - confirmed in Allen and cell phone warrant cases
  • Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections (right to counsel, confrontation, public trial) - confirmed in Sandoval and Montoya
  • Skepticism of prosecution tactics
  • Opposition to harsh sentencing
  • Criminal justice reform

However: Many judges with public defender backgrounds successfully maintain judicial neutrality. The performance evaluations show no evidence of bias in her actual judicial work.

Sources:

C. CASE LAW PATTERN ANALYSIS

Based on the comprehensive case review above:

Strong Pro-Defendant Constitutional Rulings:

  • Multiple reversals of convictions for Sixth Amendment public trial violations (Sandoval, Montoya)
  • Fourth Amendment protection against coerced consent to searches (Allen)
  • Fourth Amendment limits on cell phone data warrants (2025 case)
  • Strong warnings to trial courts about protecting defendant rights (Tibbels)

This pattern is consistent with progressive/liberal judicial philosophy and public defender background.

Balanced by Pro-Prosecution Results When Law Supports State:

  • Coulier - Broad interpretation of criminal statute
  • Shockey - Deference to jury verdicts
  • Ambrose - Limited scope of confrontation rights
  • Price - Upheld child sex crime convictions

Sources: See individual case sources listed in Section 2 above

D. OFFICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

2026 State Commission on Judicial Performance:

  • Vote: 9-0 that Judge Freyre "MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS"
  • Finding: "Every survey respondent agreed that Judge Freyre meets applicable judicial performance standards"
  • Commission Statement: "Judge Freyre [is] an exemplary jurist and a valuable member of the Court of Appeals"
  • No concerns about bias, partisanship, or fairness raised

Attorney Survey Results (2026):

  • 100% of attorneys said she meets performance standards
  • Positive comments: "strong legal analysis for reaching fair outcomes in gray areas," "astute oral argument questions"
  • No complaints about ideological bias

Judge Survey Results (2026):

  • 100% of fellow judges said she meets performance standards
  • Praised for "receptiveness and incorporation of feedback from her fellow judges"

Improvement Over Time:

  • 2018 retention: 82% of attorneys said she met standards, 9% said no, 9% no opinion
  • 2026 retention: 100% said she meets standards
  • Shows maturation and respect from legal community

Sources:

E. CIVIC ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

From Official Records:
Judge Freyre's civic involvement includes:

  • PERA Board of Trustees Chair (manages state pension fund - requires financial expertise)
  • Deputy Chief Judge administrative role (2022-2026)
  • Mentorship to law students and emerging judges
  • Courts in the Community programs
  • Diversity internship programs
  • West Middle School Mock Congressional Hearings and justice system education volunteer
  • Thompson Marsh Inn of Court Executive Committee
  • Chair, Rules of Evidence Committee
  • Vice-Chair, Criminal Jury Instructions Committee
  • Co-Chair, Criminal Bench Book Update Committee
  • Various community service organizations (Habitat for Humanity, Project Angel Heart, PTCO activities)

Analysis: These activities show broad professional engagement but do not indicate particular partisan lean. PERA Board role demonstrates trust from appointing authorities and administrative competence.

Source: Colorado Judicial Branch bio: https://www.courts.state.co.us/Bio.cfm?Employee_ID=820

CONCLUSION ON PARTISANSHIP:
  • Professional Background Strongly Suggests: Liberal/progressive judicial philosophy (25-year public defender career)
  • Case Law Pattern Confirms: Strong protection of criminal defendants' constitutional rights, particularly Fourth and Sixth Amendments, consistent with progressive approach to criminal justice
  • Likely Leans: Liberal/Progressive on criminal justice issues, defendants' rights, constitutional protections against government overreach

Actual Judicial Performance Shows: While her decisions reflect progressive constitutional values, she:

  • Applies law faithfully and follows precedent (e.g., Shockey on remand)
  • Issues pro-prosecution rulings when law supports state (e.g., Coulier, Ambrose)
  • Receives unanimous "meets standards" ratings from attorneys and judges
  • Shows no evidence of letting ideology override legal analysis

Most Important Institutional Check: Colorado appellate judges decide cases in three-judge panels that change composition every four months. Judge Freyre's opinions must be joined by two other judges to become law, providing institutional balance against individual bias.

Other Data Useful to Evaluate the Candidate

A. JUDICIAL WORKLOAD AND PRODUCTIVITY

Colorado Court of Appeals Statistics (2022, most recent available):

  • Court received 2,276 new cases
  • Court resolved 2,546 cases
  • 1,724 cases resolved by full written opinion
  • 22 judges total on court
  • Judges sit in rotating three-judge panels that change every four months

Judge Freyre's Approximate Contribution: As one of 22 judges, participates in approximately 115 cases per year (2,546 ÷ 22), though official records don't provide individual statistics.

Source: Colorado Court of Appeals Overview: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/media/14149

B. WRITING QUALITY AND JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT

2026 Commission Findings:

  • "Written opinions... thoughtful, well-reasoned, and drafted with clarity that makes the information accessible to litigants, practitioners, and the public"
  • "Judicial demeanor at oral arguments... respectful, engaging, and present"

Attorney Comments (2026):

  • "Strong writing skills"
  • "Astute oral argument questions"
  • "Strong legal analysis for reaching fair outcomes in gray areas"

2018 Commission Findings:

  • "Issues timely, well-organized, and concise opinions"
  • "Hard working and well prepared for oral argument"
  • "Fair and impartial, treats parties equally, and courteous"

Performance Scores Over Time:

  • 2020: 3.6 overall
  • 2021: 3.7 overall
  • 2022: 3.6 overall
  • 2023: 3.4 overall
  • 2024: 3.7 overall
  • 2025: 3.4 overall
  • 2026: 3.9 overall (highest score, on 0-4 scale)

Sources:

C. ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCE

Deputy Chief Judge (January 2022 - January 2026):

  • Second-ranking administrative position on Court of Appeals
  • Demonstrates respect of colleagues and Chief Justice
  • Involves managing court operations, judicial assignments, administrative matters
  • 4-year term shows sustained effectiveness

PERA Board Chair (current):

  • Colorado Public Employees' Retirement Association manages retirement benefits for state/local government employees
  • One of largest public pension funds in U.S.
  • Requires significant financial expertise (consistent with her economics degree and banking career)
  • Shows trust from appointing authorities and ability to handle complex financial matters

Committee Leadership:

  • Chair, Rules of Evidence Committee (2017-present)
  • Vice-Chair, Criminal Jury Instructions Committee (2017-present)
  • Co-Chair, Criminal Bench Book Update Committee (2020-present)
  • Thompson Marsh Inn of Court Executive Committee (2017-present)

Sources:

D. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Age: 66 years old (born December 9, 1959)

If retained in 2026: Would serve until age 74 (2034 retention election)

Mandatory Retirement: Colorado judges must retire after age 72; judges may complete their term if retained before reaching 72

Source: Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_R._Freyre

E. COMPARISON TO OTHER 2026 APPELLATE JUDGES

Judge Freyre is one of three Court of Appeals judges up for retention in 2026:

    • Judge Rebecca Rankin Freyre - MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (9-0 vote)
    • Judge Elizabeth L. Harris - MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
    • Judge Katharine E. Lum - MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

All three received unanimous recommendations from the State Commission.

Also up for retention in 2026 from the Court of Appeals:

  • Judge Pax Moultrie
  • Judge Karl L. Schock
  • Judge Grant Sullivan

Source: https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/2026-judicial-performance-evaluations-full-list

COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY

Tenure: 11 years on Colorado Court of Appeals (appointed 2015, retained 2018, up for 2026 retention)

Performance: Unanimous 9-0 "meets standards" recommendation; 100% approval from surveyed attorneys and judges; previously retained with 74.69% voter approval; performance scores have improved to career-high 3.9/4.0

Notable Decisions:

  • Pro-defendant constitutional rights: Reversed multiple murder convictions for Sixth Amendment public trial violations (Sandoval, Montoya); reversed convictions for Fourth Amendment search violations (Allen); limited police cell phone data surveillance
  • Pro-prosecution: Affirmed impersonation conviction with broad statutory interpretation (Coulier); affirmed murder conviction despite jury instruction concerns (Shockey); limited confrontation rights for breathalyzer evidence (Ambrose)
  • Mixed results: Reversed organized crime conviction but upheld child sex crime convictions (Price); warned against problematic jury instructions while affirming conviction (Tibbels)

Partisan Lean: Liberal/Progressive - 25-year public defender background strongly predicts and case record confirms progressive judicial philosophy on:

  • Strong protection of criminal defendants' constitutional rights (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth Amendments)
  • Skepticism of government overreach
  • Strict scrutiny of police and prosecution conduct
  • However: applies law faithfully, follows precedent, issues pro-prosecution rulings when legally appropriate

Other Relevant Data:

  • Served as Deputy Chief Judge (2022-2026), currently chairs PERA Board
  • Praised for exceptional writing quality, judicial temperament, strong legal analysis
  • Extensive civic engagement and mentorship activities
  • Significant administrative and leadership experience
  • Age 66; would serve until 74 if retained

ALL SOURCES USED

Official Colorado Judicial Branch Sources:

Official Performance Evaluation Sources:

Official Court Opinions:
Colorado News Media Sources
Voter Guide and Analysis Sources
Reference Sources:
Learn more

 

Katharine E. Lum - Colorado Court of Appeals

Time on Bench

Appointed: October 29, 2022 by Governor Jared Polis (Democrat)

Total Service: Approximately 4 years as of her 2026 retention election

Current Status: First retention election - Judge Lum has never faced voters before as an appellate judge

Term if Retained: 8 years (until 2034)

Sources:

Career Before Appointment (approximately 11 years total):

Law Clerk to Colorado Supreme Court Justice Gregory J. Hobbs Jr. (2011-2012):

  • Prestigious Colorado Supreme Court clerkship under Justice Hobbs (who passed away in 2020)
  • Justice Hobbs was known for his environmental law expertise and poetic writing style
  • Judge Lum has cited Justice Hobbs as teaching her how to work with collegiality on appellate opinions

Family Law Attorney (2012-2022):

  • Of Counsel with Cooper Ramp Cage Bucar Lewis (and predecessor firms Lass Moses Ramp & Cooper LLC) for 10 years
  • Specialized in domestic relations (family) law at both trial and appellate levels
  • One of few Court of Appeals judges with extensive prior domestic relations experience
  • Domestic relations cases comprise approximately 10% of Court of Appeals caseload

Education:

  • Northwestern University, B.A. (2006)
  • University of California Berkeley School of Law, J.D. (2011)

Bar Admissions:

  • California (2011)
  • Colorado (2013)

Professional Activities and Volunteer Work:

  • Supreme Court Standing Committee on Family Issues (current)
  • Court of Appeals liaison and coordinator for long-standing externship program with Colorado law schools (current)
  • Board member, Minoru Yasui Inn of Court (current)
  • Colorado Bar Association Diversity, Equity and Inclusivity Committee leadership - helped revise domestic relations court forms to be more sensitive to LGBTQ and nonbinary litigants
  • Pro bono work including mediation and legal assistance
  • Also has experience in criminal appeals, landlord-tenant disputes, forensic accounting, and birth defects litigation

Personal Background:

  • Grew up outside Chicago; father is pediatrician, mother is retired pastoral associate
  • Married to Charles Ciaccio (met in law school at UC Berkeley)
  • Plays cello (took up instrument at age 33)
  • Enjoys hiking, rock climbing, and baking

Sources:

Notable/Controversial Decisions Judge Lum Supported or Opposed

Judge Lum has authored numerous opinions during her 4-year tenure. Based on available third-party news coverage and evaluation materials, here are the notable cases identified:

1. Simpson v. Harmer (March 28, 2024) - OPEN RECORDS ACT / DURANGO FINANCIAL REPORT

Judge Lum's Role: Authored the unanimous opinion for three-judge panel (joined by Judges Craig R. Welling and David H. Yun)

Issue: Whether a draft annual financial report prepared by Durango city officials for submission to the state auditor is exempt from public disclosure under the "work product" exception to the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA).

Facts:

  • Durango resident John Simpson requested 2021 draft city financial documents about lodgers tax collections
  • City Clerk Faye Harmer denied the request, claiming the draft financial statement was "work product"
  • Under CORA, "work product" is defined as "intra- or inter-agency advisory or deliberative materials assembled for the benefit of elected officials... communicated for the purpose of assisting such elected officials in reaching a decision within the scope of their authority"
  • City argued document was "related to" or "tethered to" elected officials' decision-making
  • Colorado law requires local governments to forward annual audit reports to state

Judge Lum's Holding:

  • RULED IN FAVOR OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE - Draft financial report must be released
  • Draft financial report is NOT exempt work product under CORA
  • Key reasoning: "Colorado law requires local governments to forward their annual audit report to the state. Because the city's audit was part of the financial report and there was no evidence elected council members had any meaningful decision to make before transmitting the audit, Lum explained the draft was not work product after all"
  • Rejected city's broad interpretation: "We are not persuaded otherwise by the City's argument that a document need only be 'related to' or 'tethered to' a decision made by elected officials in order to be exempt from disclosure. Such a broad reading would sweep in virtually all documents produced by any city department"
  • Narrow construction of CORA exemptions: "The City does not cite, and we have not found, any appellate opinion supporting such a sweeping interpretation, and we are obligated to construe exceptions to CORA narrowly"
  • Cautionary note: Panel cautioned it might have reached different conclusion "had Durango offered a better explanation about how much authority its elected officials had over the final product" or "had the city developed [the record] further"

District Court Background:

  • District Judge Suzanne F. Carlson had ruled in Simpson's favor in February 2023
  • Court of Appeals affirmed on different/narrower grounds

Significance: Major transparency/open government victory per Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition (CFOIC); limits scope of work product exemption; requires meaningful elected official decision-making for exemption to apply; prevents blanket withholding of documents simply because they relate to government operations

Sources:

2. Public Defender Records Case (2026) - Criminal Justice Records Act

Judge Lum's Role: Joined opinion (author not specified in available materials) on three-judge panel

Issue: Whether the Office of the State Public Defender is a "criminal justice agency" under the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act, and thus subject to monetary penalties for delays in responding to open records requests.

Judge Lum's Position (per third-party summary):

  • REVERSED $13,650 penalty against Office of the State Public Defender
  • Court ruled public defender's office is NOT a "criminal justice agency" under the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act
  • Public defender's office cannot be monetarily penalized for delays in open records requests
  • Protects indigent defense function from punitive financial sanctions

Significance: Pro-transparency but also pro-public defender independence - protects public defender offices from financial penalties that could impact representation of indigent defendants, while maintaining general open records obligations; "covered heavily by the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition" per third-party source

Note: Specific case name and full opinion details not available in search results; information based on third-party summary

Source: Tri-Lakes 4 Democracy: https://trilakes4democracy.substack.com/p/judge-katherine-e-lum

3. Wagner v. Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood, Inc. (July 27, 2023) - PLANNED PARENTHOOD SHOOTING CIVIL LAWSUIT

Judge Lum's Role: Joined opinion authored by Judge JoAnn L. Vogt (three-judge panel: Vogt, Jerry N. Jones, and Lum); unanimous 3-0 decision

Issue: Whether Planned Parenthood should be held civilly liable for injuries suffered by victims during November 27, 2015 mass shooting at Colorado Springs facility that killed 3 and wounded 9.

Background:

  • Shooter motivated by misleadingly edited videos suggesting Planned Parenthood was selling fetal parts
  • Criminal cases on hold due to defendant's incompetence to stand trial
  • Trial court (Judge Deborah Baumann) entered verdict for Planned Parenthood after jury trial
  • Plaintiffs argued evidence of foreseeability should have been broader (all abortion clinics, not just Colorado Springs location)
  • Colorado Supreme Court had previously reinstated lawsuit in 2020 (4-3 decision), finding evidence could lead jury to find Planned Parenthood knew about increased threats

Court of Appeals Holding (Judge Lum joining):

  • AFFIRMED judgment for Planned Parenthood - no civil liability
  • Even if plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of foreseeability, it would not have affected jury's conclusion that Planned Parenthood's conduct was not the cause of plaintiffs' injuries
  • Causation analysis was determinative, not foreseeability
  • Trial court did not abuse discretion in limiting evidence

Judge Lum's Position: Joined majority opinion denying civil liability for Planned Parenthood

Significance: Pro-defendant (Planned Parenthood) ruling in high-profile civil case; limits tort liability for mass shooting victims against facility owner; affirms causation requirements in premises liability cases; could be viewed as pragmatic legal ruling on causation regardless of political valence

Source: Denver Gazette: https://www.denvergazette.com/2023/07/31/colorado-appeals-court-finds-no-error-in-handling-of-planned-parenthood-mass-shooting-lawsuit-20e3046a-650c-5639-bd88-56b68b722102/

4. Guardian ad Litem / Parental Termination Dissent (2026)

Judge Lum's Role: DISSENTED in 2-1 divided panel decision regarding parental termination case

Issue: Whether appeal brought by court-appointed Guardian ad Litem (GAL) rather than government should be reviewed by Court of Appeals in child welfare case.

Majority Holding:

  • Declined to review lower court's decision
  • Reasoning: Appeal was brought by GAL rather than government
  • Relied on strict state Supreme Court limits on who can pursue child welfare cases

Judge Lum's DISSENT:

  • Argued GAL should have right to appeal independently
  • "Despite strict state Supreme Court limits on who can pursue child welfare cases, a child's legal representative must maintain the right to appeal decisions independently to protect the child's best interests"
  • Emphasized importance of child advocacy in parental termination proceedings
  • Argued procedural rules should not prevent independent appellate advocacy for children

Significance: Pro-child advocacy position; demonstrates Judge Lum's willingness to dissent when she believes legal rules inadequately protect vulnerable populations; shows independent thinking and commitment to children's rights even when it conflicts with precedent; reflects family law expertise and focus on best interests of children

Note: Specific case name not available in search results; information based on third-party summary

Source: Tri-Lakes 4 Democracy: https://trilakes4democracy.substack.com/p/judge-katherine-e-lum

5. Magistrate Rules Reform Advocacy (early 2026)

Judge Lum's Role: Urged Colorado Supreme Court to overhaul magistrate rules (not a court opinion, but professional advocacy)

Issue: Confusion in rules governing court magistrates, particularly regarding whether litigants must seek review from district judge before appealing directly to Court of Appeals.

Judge Lum's Position:

  • Called for Colorado Supreme Court to "completely overhaul and clarify the rules governing court magistrates"
  • Pointed out that despite attempted "cleanup" of rules, system remained "confusing for litigants trying to figure out whether they must seek review from a district judge before appealing directly to the Court of Appeals"
  • Focus on self-represented litigants and procedural clarity

Significance: Pro-access to justice advocacy; demonstrates Judge Lum's commitment to making legal system more accessible to self-represented litigants; reflects her swearing-in remarks about empathy for unrepresented parties; shows willingness to advocate for systemic reform beyond individual cases

Source: Tri-Lakes 4 Democracy: https://trilakes4democracy.substack.com/p/judge-katherine-e-lum

SUMMARY OF NOTABLE DECISIONS - PATTERN ANALYSIS

Pro-Transparency/Open Government Decisions:

  • Simpson v. Harmer (2024) - Required release of draft financial report; narrow interpretation of work product exemption
  • Public defender records (2026) - Protected public defender from penalties while maintaining transparency obligations

Child Advocacy:

    • Guardian ad litem dissent (2026) - Argued for independent appellate rights for children's representatives in termination cases

Pragmatic Legal Analysis:

    • Wagner v. Planned Parenthood (2023) - Joined opinion finding no causation for civil liability in mass shooting case

Systemic Reform Advocacy:

    • Magistrate rules (2026) - Called for procedural clarity to help self-represented litigants
    • Government transparency and accountability
    • Protecting vulnerable populations (children, indigent defendants)
    • Access to justice for self-represented litigants
    • Procedural clarity and fairness
    • Willingness to dissent when she believes legal principles or children's interests require it

Overall Pattern: Judge Lum shows strong commitment to:

Her background in family law influences her focus on children's welfare and helping people navigate complex legal systems.

Facts That Make The Candidate Appear Partisan, And Which Way She Leans

A. APPOINTMENT BY DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR
  • Appointed by Governor Jared Polis (Democrat) in 2022
  • Colorado uses merit selection system with judicial nominating commissions
  • Appointing governor's party does not necessarily indicate judge's ideology

Sources:

B. PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND ANALYSIS

Significant Factors Suggesting Progressive/Liberal Lean:

1. Family Law Specialist (10 years):

  • Specialized in domestic relations law, generally associated with advocacy for:
    • Equitable distribution and support
    • Children's best interests
    • Protection of vulnerable family members

2. Colorado Bar Association DEI Leadership:

  • Led Diversity, Equity and Inclusivity Committee
  • Helped revise domestic relations court forms to be more sensitive to LGBTQ and nonbinary litigants
  • Proactive work on LGBTQ+ inclusion suggests progressive orientation on social issues

3. Pro Bono and Public Service Focus:

  • Extensive pro bono legal work and mediation
  • Focus on access to justice for self-represented litigants
  • Generally associated with progressive legal values

4. Colorado Supreme Court Clerkship Under Justice Hobbs:

  • Justice Gregory J. Hobbs Jr. was known for environmental law expertise
  • Hobbs was appointed by Democratic Governor Roy Romer
  • However, Hobbs was known for collegiality across ideological lines

Career Arc Shows: Consistent focus on family law, access to justice, procedural fairness, and inclusion - all generally progressive legal values

Sources:

C. CASE LAW PATTERN ANALYSIS

Based on available case sample:

Pro-Transparency/Accountability Rulings:

  • Simpson v. Harmer - Required government disclosure of draft financial documents
  • Public defender records - Protected public defender from penalties

Pro-Child Advocacy:

    • Guardian ad litem dissent - Argued for independent appellate rights for children's representatives

Pragmatic Ruling (Not Clearly Liberal/Conservative):

    • Wagner v. Planned Parenthood - Joined opinion rejecting civil liability based on causation analysis
    • Strong commitment to government transparency (progressive value)
    • Protection of children and vulnerable populations (progressive value)
    • Willingness to apply law pragmatically based on legal standards rather than desired outcomes
    • Focus on procedural fairness and access to justice

Analysis: Limited case sample, but pattern shows:

Sources: See individual case sources in Section 2 above

D. OFFICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS SHOW NO PARTISAN BIAS

2026 State Commission on Judicial Performance:

  • Vote: 9-0 that Judge Lum "MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS" (one commissioner absent, one vacancy)
  • Finding: "Every survey respondent agreed that Judge Lum meets performance standards"
  • Commission Statement: "The Commission finds she embodies the qualities of an outstanding appellate judge and is a valuable asset to the Colorado Court of Appeals"
  • Praised for being "fair and thoughtful" with "well-reasoned decisions based on the law and facts"
  • "Exceptional judicial writer who conveys her opinions in a clear and accessible style understood by litigants, practitioners, and members of the public alike"
  • No concerns about bias or partisanship raised

Survey Results (2026):

  • 100% of attorneys (6 respondents) said she meets performance standards
  • 100% of judges (19 respondents) said she meets performance standards
  • Overall score: 3.8/4.0 (very high)
  • Perfect or near-perfect scores in all categories

2025 Survey Results:

  • Overall score: 4.0/4.0 (perfect)
  • 14 total respondents
  • 100% said she meets performance standards

Performance Trend:

  • 2023: 4.0/4.0 (3 respondents)
  • 2024: 3.8/4.0 (27 respondents)
  • 2025: 4.0/4.0 (14 respondents)
  • 2026: 3.8/4.0 (25 respondents)

Consistently exceptional scores across all years with no decline.

Sources:

E. ADVOCACY FOR SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS

Swearing-In Remarks (April 28, 2023):
Judge Lum used her formal investiture ceremony to remind colleagues about the plight of self-represented litigants:

Personal Anecdote:

  • Received traffic ticket after car accident
  • Represented herself in court
  • Found herself unexpectedly anxious as trained attorney
  • "If I was this nervous as a trained attorney, how must they have felt? Especially folks for whom a traffic fine meant the difference between making rent this month or not"

Message to Colleagues:

  • "We can remember that what we are writing about is somebody's worst day. Somebody's last chance. Somebody's life"
  • Emphasized empathy and understanding for litigants without legal training
  • Focus on accessible legal writing

Significance: Strong commitment to access to justice and making legal system more humane - generally progressive judicial philosophy emphasizing empathy and fairness for disadvantaged litigants

Source: Colorado Politics: https://www.coloradopolitics.com/courts/katharine-lum-sworn-newest-court-of-appeals-judge-colorado/article_b56f6a82-e83e-11ed-96d1-f7183449dfa4.html

F. THIRD-PARTY ANALYSIS

Tri-Lakes 4 Democracy Summary (progressive/Democratic-aligned source):

  • Emphasizes her "procedural skepticism regarding trial-level overreaches"
  • Highlights "specialization in family law"
  • Praises "public advocacy for procedural clarity and self-represented litigants"
  • Notes transparency rulings favorably
  • Generally favorable treatment

Rocky Mountain Voice (conservative source):

  • No specific ideological concerns raised
  • Notes unanimous performance approval
  • Highlights her first retention election
  • Neutral coverage

Analysis: Progressive sources view her very favorably based on transparency rulings, family law background, and advocacy for self-represented litigants. Conservative sources have not raised concerns.

Sources:

CONCLUSION ON PARTISANSHIP:

Professional Background Strongly Suggests: Progressive/Liberal judicial philosophy based on:

  • 10 years specializing in family law (progressive orientation)
  • Leadership on DEI committee and LGBTQ+ court form revisions (strong progressive indicator)
  • Extensive pro bono work and access to justice focus (progressive value)
  • Clerkship with Justice Hobbs (moderate to progressive justice)

Case Law Pattern Shows: Progressive but Legally Rigorous:

  • Strong government transparency advocacy (progressive)
  • Child welfare advocacy (progressive)
  • Protection of indigent defense function (progressive)
  • Pragmatic application of legal standards regardless of outcome
  • No evidence of letting ideology override legal analysis

Likely Leans: Strong Liberal/Progressive on:

  • Government transparency and accountability
  • LGBTQ+ rights and inclusion
  • Children's rights and welfare
  • Access to justice for self-represented litigants
  • Empathy-based judicial approach

Most Distinctive Characteristic: Unlike judges with more traditional litigation backgrounds, Judge Lum's family law specialization and focus on vulnerable populations (children, LGBTQ+ litigants, self-represented parties) give her a particularly progressive orientation on access to justice and procedural fairness issues.

Actual Judicial Performance Shows:

  • Perfect or near-perfect performance ratings (3.8-4.0/4.0)
  • Unanimous "meets standards" from all attorneys and judges surveyed
  • Praised for fairness, impartiality, and legal reasoning
  • Described as "outstanding appellate judge" and "valuable asset"
  • No evidence of bias in decision-making despite progressive background

Most Important Institutional Check: Colorado appellate judges decide cases in three-judge panels that change composition every four months. Judge Lum's opinions must be joined by two other judges to become law, providing institutional balance.

(4) Other Data Useful to Evaluate the Candidate

A. EXCEPTIONAL PERFORMANCE RATINGS - HIGHEST AMONG PEERS

2026 Commission Findings:

  • Unanimous 9-0 "meets standards" recommendation
  • "She embodies the qualities of an outstanding appellate judge"
  • "A valuable asset to the Colorado Court of Appeals"
  • "Fair and thoughtful" with "well-reasoned decisions based on the law and facts"
  • "Exceptional judicial writer" who conveys opinions "in a clear and accessible style understood by litigants, practitioners, and members of the public alike"
  • "Arrives well-prepared to oral arguments, and is engaged, present, and respectful in the Courtroom"

Attorney Survey Results (2026):

  • 100% said she meets performance standards (6 respondents)
  • High scores across all categories:
    • Fair and impartial: 3.8/4.0
    • Neutral manner: 3.8/4.0
    • Clear opinions: Perfect scores
    • Reasoned decisions: 4.0/4.0
    • Refrains from unnecessary issues: 4.0/4.0

Judge Survey Results (2026):

  • 100% said she meets performance standards (19 respondents)
  • Very high scores across all categories
  • No concerns or criticisms noted

Overall Performance Score: 3.8/4.0 in 2026 (among highest on Court of Appeals)

Comparison to Other 2026 Appellate Judges:

  • Judge Lum's 3.8/4.0 ties her among the highest-rated appellate judges
  • Judge Elizabeth L. Harris: 3.6/4.0 (lower, with timeliness concerns)
  • Judge Rebecca Rankin Freyre: Not specified but "meets standards"
  • Judge Lum shows no weaknesses comparable to other judges' timeliness or productivity concerns

Sources:

B. FAMILY LAW EXPERTISE - UNIQUE AMONG COURT OF APPEALS JUDGES

Specialized Background:

  • One of few Court of Appeals judges with extensive prior domestic relations experience
  • 10 years specializing in family law at trial and appellate levels
  • Domestic relations cases comprise approximately 10% of Court of Appeals caseload
  • Brings specialized expertise to area where court previously had limited experience

Practical Impact:

  • Better equipped to handle complex family law appeals
  • Understands practical realities of family court litigants
  • Can identify procedural problems affecting self-represented parties

Commission Recognition:

  • Commission specifically noted her family law background as strength
  • Surveyed attorneys praised her expertise in this area

Sources:

C. COMMITMENT TO ACCESSIBLE LEGAL WRITING

Commission Praise:

  • "Exceptional judicial writer"
  • Opinions are "clear and accessible style understood by litigants, practitioners, and members of the public alike"
  • Not just writing for lawyers, but for parties who must live with decisions

Attorney Survey:

  • Perfect scores for "writes opinions that are clear"
  • Perfect scores for "adequately explaining decisions"
  • Perfect scores for "refrains from reaching issues that need not be decided"

Public Service Approach:

  • Focus on making opinions understandable to self-represented litigants
  • Connects to her swearing-in remarks about empathy for unrepresented parties
  • Practical approach to appellate writing rather than academic/theoretical

Sources:

D. SERVICE TO LEGAL PROFESSION AND MENTORSHIP

Current Professional Activities:

  • Supreme Court Standing Committee on Family Issues - works on statewide family law policy
  • Court of Appeals liaison and coordinator for externship program with Colorado law schools - mentors next generation of lawyers
  • Board member, Minoru Yasui Inn of Court - professional development and ethics
  • Prepares law students for legal practice
DEI Leadership:
    • Led Colorado Bar Association committee that revised domestic relations forms for LGBTQ+ inclusivity
    • Described by Gov. Polis's chief legal counsel as someone who "touched the lives of many" in family law

Significance: Active in legal community beyond judging; committed to mentorship and systemic improvement; brings collaborative approach from Justice Hobbs mentorship

Sources:

E. SURVEY RESPONSE RATE - MODERATE

2026 Survey Participation:

  • 6 attorneys submitted responses
  • 19 judges submitted responses
  • Total: 25 respondents
  • Moderate response rate for newer judges

2025 Survey:

    • 14 total respondents (6 attorneys, 8 judges)

2024 Survey:

    • 27 total respondents (higher)
    • Higher than Judge Harris (27 total in 2026, but Harris has been on the bench 11 years)
    • Appropriate for a judge in first retention with only 4 years on the bench
    • 100% positive feedback from all respondents

Comparison:

Analysis: Response rate is reasonable for a newer judge; more importantly, every single respondent said she meets standards with very high scores - no negative feedback whatsoever.

Sources:

F. NO IDENTIFIED WEAKNESSES

Remarkable Finding: Unlike other judges up for retention in 2026, no performance concerns or weaknesses were identified for Judge Lum:

Contrast with Other 2026 Appellate Judges:

  • Judge Elizabeth L. Harris: Persistent timeliness problems (takes 2-3x longer than peers to issue opinions); scored 2.2/4.0 from judges on timeliness
  • Judge Rebecca Rankin Freyre: No major weaknesses identified but received lower 2018 retention (74.69%)

Judge Lum's Record:

  • No timeliness concerns
  • No productivity concerns
  • No temperament concerns
  • No writing quality concerns
  • 100% approval from surveyed attorneys and judges
  • Perfect or near-perfect scores in all categories

Commission Statement: No concerns, weaknesses, or areas for improvement mentioned; only superlatives

Significance: Exceptional performance with no identified deficiencies - extremely rare in judicial performance evaluations

Sources:

G. COMPARISON TO OTHER 2026 APPELLATE JUDGES

Judge Lum is one of six Court of Appeals judges up for retention in 2026:

Retention Status:

  • Judge Rebecca Rankin Freyre - MEETS (9-0), second retention, 11 years
  • Judge Elizabeth L. Harris - MEETS (9-0), second retention, 11 years, timeliness concerns
  • Judge Katharine E. Lum - MEETS (9-0), first retention, 4 years, no concerns
  • Judge Pax L. Moultrie - MEETS, first retention, appointed 2024
  • Judge Karl L. Schock - MEETS, first retention, appointed 2022 (same day as Lum)
  • Judge Grant T. Sullivan - MEETS, first retention, appointed 2024

Judge Lum's Distinction:

    • Among highest-rated of all six judges (3.8/4.0)
    • Only judge with extensive family law background
    • No performance weaknesses identified (unlike Harris's timeliness issues)
    • 100% approval from all survey respondents
    • Described as "outstanding" and "exceptional" by Commission

Source:

H. JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT AND COLLEGIALITY

Commission Findings:

  • "Engaged, present, and respectful in the Courtroom"
  • "Strong listening" skills
  • "Polite and respectful nature"
  • "Thorough preparation"
  • "Arrives well-prepared to oral arguments"

Attorney and Judge Comments:

  • Praised for preparation and engagement
  • No negative comments about temperament
  • Respectful treatment of parties and counsel

Learned from Justice Hobbs:

  • Justice Hobbs taught her "how to work with collegiality" on appellate opinions
  • Appellate opinions are "group projects" requiring collaboration
  • Brings collaborative, respectful approach to panel work

Significance: Excellent judicial temperament and collegiality - essential qualities for appellate judge who must work in rotating three-judge panels

Sources:

COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY

Tenure: 4 years on Colorado Court of Appeals (appointed October 2022, first retention election 2026)

Performance: Unanimous 9-0 "meets standards" with commission describing her as "outstanding appellate judge" and "exceptional judicial writer"; perfect 100% approval from all surveyed attorneys and judges; 3.8/4.0 overall score (among highest on court); no identified weaknesses or concerns

Major Strengths:

  • Exceptional legal writing that is clear and accessible to all audiences
  • Unique family law expertise among appellate judges
  • Strong commitment to government transparency and accountability
  • Advocacy for self-represented litigants and procedural clarity
  • Perfect temperament and collegiality
  • Thorough preparation and engagement

Major Weakness: None identified - Judge Lum is unusual among 2026 retention judges in having no performance concerns raised

Notable Decisions:

  • Pro-transparency: Authored Simpson v. Harmer requiring release of draft government financial documents; narrow interpretation of work product exemption
  • Child advocacy: Dissented to argue for independent appellate rights for guardian ad litem in termination case
  • Procedural reform: Called for magistrate rule reforms to help self-represented litigants
  • Pragmatic: Joined opinion in Planned Parenthood shooting case applying causation standards

Partisan Lean: Strong Liberal/Progressive - 10 years in family law practice, DEI committee leadership and LGBTQ+ court form revisions, pro bono focus, government transparency advocacy, and child welfare advocacy all indicate progressive judicial philosophy; however, decisions show rigorous legal analysis without ideological bias

Other Relevant Data:

  • One of the few Court of Appeals judges with extensive family law background
  • Serves on Supreme Court Family Issues Committee
  • Coordinates law school externship program
  • Used swearing-in to advocate for empathy toward self-represented litigants
  • Perfect performance ratings with no decline over 4 years
  • Learned collaborative approach from Justice Gregory J. Hobbs Jr. clerkship

Bottom Line: Judge Lum is an exceptionally highly-rated appellate judge with perfect performance evaluations, unique family law expertise, strong commitment to transparency and access to justice, and no identified weaknesses. Her progressive background and advocacy for vulnerable populations has not translated into biased decision-making - she receives unanimous praise for fairness, impartiality, and legal rigor. This is her first retention election, and she appears to be one of the strongest judicial candidates on the 2026 ballot.

ALL SOURCES USED

Official Colorado Judicial Branch Sources:
Official Governor's Office Sources:
Official Performance Evaluation Sources:
Colorado News Media Source
Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition:
Voter Guide and Analysis Sources

Professional Sources:

Learn more:

Pax Moultrie - Colorado Court of Appeals

Time on Bench

Appointed to Colorado Court of Appeals: January 1, 2024 by Governor Jared Polis (Democrat)

Total Service on Court of Appeals: Approximately 2 years and 10 months as of her 2026 retention election

Previous Judicial Experience:
  • Denver Juvenile Court, District Judge (April 2020 - December 2023): Approximately 3 years and 9 months
  • Jefferson County Magistrate (2018-2020): Approximately 2 years

Total Time on the Bench: Approximately 8 years and 7 months of judicial experience total (magistrate 2018-2020, district judge 2020-2023, Court of Appeals 2024-2026)

Current Status: First retention election as Court of Appeals judge - Judge Moultrie has never faced voters as an appellate judge before

Previous Retention Election: Successfully retained as Denver Juvenile Court judge in 2022 with 78.43% approval (152,468 yes votes; 41,929 no votes) - strong performance

Term if Retained: 8 years (until 2034)

Historical Significance: Judge Moultrie is the first Black judge appointed to the Colorado Court of Appeals in 4 years. The last Black member of the Court of Appeals, Karen M. Ashby, retired in 2019. Like Moultrie, Ashby also served on the Denver Juvenile Court prior to her appointment.

Sources:

Career Before Appointment (approximately 12 years total in legal practice before becoming magistrate):

Law Clerk to Colorado Supreme Court Justice Gregory J. Hobbs Jr. (2006-2007, approximate):

  • Prestigious Colorado Supreme Court clerkship under Justice Hobbs
  • Justice Hobbs was known for environmental law expertise and poetic writing style; passed away in 2020
  • Same Justice who mentored Judge Katharine E. Lum

Law Clerk to then-Jefferson County District Court Judge Brian D. Boatright (2007-2008, approximate):

    • Judge Boatright is now Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court
    • Chief Justice Boatright administered the oath at Judge Moultrie's ceremonial swearing-in in April 2024

Assistant County Attorney, Jefferson County Attorney's Office (2008-2011):

    • 3 years handling juvenile and child welfare cases
    • Gained extensive experience in dependency and neglect, juvenile delinquency

Assistant County Attorney, Arapahoe County Attorney's Office (2011-2018):

    • 7 years involved in human services litigation
    • Continued specialization in juvenile and child welfare matters
    • Focused on protecting children and families

Total Pre-Judicial Experience: Approximately 12 years practicing law, all focused on juvenile law and child welfare, plus prestigious clerkships with Colorado Supreme Court Justice and future Chief Justice

Education:
    • Washington University in St. Louis, B.A. (2001)
    • University of Denver Sturm College of Law, J.D. (2006)

Bar Admissions:

    • Colorado (2006, approximate)
Professional Activities and Volunteer Work:
  • Board member, Colorado Office of Child Protection Ombudsman (prior service)
  • Board member, Juvenile Law Section of the Colorado Bar Association (prior service)
  • Planning committee member, Colorado Juvenile Judicial Institute (prior service)
  • Judicial branch well-being efforts - supports judicial officers and employees (current)
  • Community education about courts (current)
  • Colorado Rules of Juvenile Procedure Committee - working on ICWA (Indian Child Welfare Act) reforms and Batson issues
Personal Background:
  • As a child, spent hours "deconstructing the fairness of playground rules" according to her father
  • "Devoured legal texts with the same fervor most youngsters reserve for comic books" per her father's remarks at swearing-in
  • Named "Pax Leia" - full middle name revealed in federal litigation

Sources:

Notable/Controversial Decisions Judge Moultrie Supported or Opposed

Judge Moultrie has authored numerous opinions during her approximately 3-year tenure on the Court of Appeals. Based on available third-party news coverage and official court records, here are the notable cases identified:

1. People v. Simms (June 18, 2026) - DEFINITION OF "BLUDGEON" IN FELONY MENACING CASE

Judge Moultrie's Role: Authored the majority opinion (joined by Judge Daniel M. Taubman); 2-1 split decision; Judge Steve Bernard dissented

Issue: Whether trial court erred by refusing to define "bludgeon" for jury when defendant charged with felony menacing, and whether jury instruction on reasonable doubt was constitutional.

Facts:

  • Michael Casey Simms charged with felony menacing and domestic violence assault in Jefferson County
  • Victim testified Simms threatened her with both a pocketknife and his fists
  • Statute defines felony menacing as using "a deadly weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon" and specifically includes "bludgeon"
  • During deliberations, jury sent note asking: "Can we get clarification on what weapon was used? The statute has the word 'bludgeon' in it, which implies a blunt object. Mr. Simms threatened violence with a pocketknife"
  • Trial Judge Norma A. Sierra consulted with attorneys and responded: "Please see jury instruction 15 that I read to you," which was the model instruction from pattern jury instructions
  • Defense argued jury should have been told "bludgeon" means inanimate object, not body part

Judge Moultrie's Holding:

  • REVERSED conviction and VACATED restitution order; REMANDED for new trial
  • Trial court had obligation to clarify ambiguous term "bludgeon" for confused jury
  • Key reasoning: "Some definitions of 'bludgeon' suggest that it is an inanimate object and not a body part, but other definitions could potentially encompass fists"
  • Jury's question showed genuine confusion about whether conviction could be based on threats with fists vs. pocketknife
  • "The jury's question casts sufficient doubt about whether it convicted Simms based on his use of a pocketknife or based on his use of his fists, which, as discussed above, is not permitted under the statute"
  • Trial court's refusal to clarify created reversible error
  • Rejected prosecution argument that jury could look up definition in dictionary: "Jurors obtain instructions from judges, not from dictionaries"

Judge Bernard's Dissent:

  • Pattern jury instruction was sufficient
  • Trial court properly responded by directing jury back to instructions
  • Majority improperly second-guesses jury's understanding

On Reasonable Doubt Instruction:

  • By 2-1, Moultrie and Bernard upheld the controversial new reasonable doubt instruction that multiple defendants have challenged
  • Multiple Court of Appeals panels have upheld the language; Colorado Supreme Court currently reviewing constitutionality
  • Taubman dissented, reiterating concerns he raised in February opinion about key phrase
  • Taubman urged Supreme Court to strike disputed language

Restitution Issue:

  • Vacated restitution order
  • Instructed that on retrial, prosecution must prove connection between Simms' conduct and covered expenses

Significance: Pro-defendant ruling that requires clear jury instructions when statutory terms are ambiguous; protects defendants from conviction based on conduct (threatening with fists) that may not meet statutory definition of menacing with deadly weapon; controversial reversal that Judge Bernard believed was unnecessary

Source:

2. People v. Crow (June 25, 2026) - AT-RISK VICTIM / BREATHING DISABILITY

Judge Moultrie's Role: Authored the opinion for three-judge panel (joined by Judge Steve Bernard); 2-1 decision on reasonable doubt issue (Judge Taubman dissented on that issue)

Issue: Whether victim using supplemental oxygen qualified as "at-risk adult" under Colorado law, and whether reasonable doubt jury instruction was constitutional.

Facts:

  • Carnel Davis Crow convicted of assault on at-risk adult in El Paso County
  • Victim was elderly woman who used supplemental oxygen due to breathing disability
  • At trial, victim testified she was NOT using oxygen during assault (contradicting other evidence)
  • Defense argued: (1) victim must be using mechanical breathing assistance AT THE TIME of assault, and (2) disability must be permanent
  • Public Defender Christina Van Wagenen: "That language suggests that it applies to a person who cannot breathe at all without the assistance of a machine. For example, a person on a ventilator. I don't think the presence of the device is enough to show that it was there and being used during the assault"
  • Prosecution argued disability need not be permanent and victim qualified regardless

During Oral Arguments:

  • Judge Daniel M. Taubman asked prosecution: "Is it your position, then, that it doesn't make any difference whether (the victim) was actually using oxygen at the time she was apparently hit by Mr. Crow?"
  • Prosecution said victim had permanent disability requiring oxygen

Judge Moultrie's Holding:

  • AFFIRMED conviction (pro-prosecution result)
  • Clarified statutory interpretation: Breathing disability need not be permanent, BUT victim must be using mechanical assistance at time of offense
  • Sufficient evidence for jury to find victim was using oxygen during assault despite her testimony to contrary
  • Evidence supporting inference: Long oxygen cord ensured she could use oxygen throughout home; jury saw her using oxygen while testifying
  • "That evidence could have allowed the jury to reasonably infer that her oxygen use wasn't limited to infrequent episodes of shortness of breath that weren't present when the assault occurred"
  • Jury credibility determination: "The jury was free to — and evidently did — find this portion of the victim's testimony [that she wasn't using oxygen] not credible"

On Reasonable Doubt Instruction:

  • By 2-1, Moultrie and Bernard upheld the controversial reasonable doubt instruction
  • Taubman dissented, arguing portion of instruction "unconstitutionally lowered the prosecution's burden of proof"
  • Taubman would have ordered new trial based on unconstitutional instruction

Significance: Pro-prosecution ruling that interprets "at-risk adult" statute to protect vulnerable victims; clarifies that disability need not be permanent but mechanical assistance must be in use at time of offense; allows jury to reject victim's testimony based on other evidence; uphold controversial reasonable doubt instruction (with dissent)

Source:

3. People v. Palermo (March 12, 2026) - BERGERUD HEARINGS AND JUDICIAL RECUSAL

Judge Moultrie's Role: Authored the opinion for three-judge panel (unanimous 3-0 decision; other judges not specified in search results)

Issue: Whether different judge must preside over attorney-client conflict hearing (Bergerud hearing) than judge who handles sentencing, and whether conflict hearing could "taint" sentencing.

Facts:

  • Defendant Palermo entered plea agreement for assault charges
  • Shortly before sentencing, District Judge Patrick A. McKisson held Bergerud hearing to address potential conflict between Palermo and his attorney
  • Judge McKisson found no disqualifying conflict
  • Judge McKisson then immediately proceeded to sentencing
  • Gave Palermo 15 years in prison (one year below maximum in plea agreement)
  • Palermo argued on appeal that different judges should have handled conflict hearing and sentencing

Defendant's Argument (Attorney Rachel C. Funez):

  • "This keeps the information revealed at the hearing from tainting the sentencing court's view of the Defendant"
  • Handling Bergerud hearing "could have tainted the court's sentencing decision, because Palermo was upset that the court did not find a conflict and appoint new counsel, and his reaction may have tainted the judge's view of him"
  • Some jurisdictions use different judge as routine practice

Judge Moultrie's Holding:

  • AFFIRMED conviction and sentence (rejected defendant's argument)
  • Acknowledged practice variation: Panel noted that "in some jurisdictions around the state, a different judge routinely is brought in to handle conflict hearings"
  • Supreme Court's Bergerud decision was silent about requiring different judge
  • "Nothing in Bergerud prohibits this, and we don't mean to suggest that a Bergerud hearing must be heard by the judge presiding over the case"
  • Recusal standard: Judges should recuse if impartiality could be reasonably questioned
  • General rule: "Generally, what a judge learns in their judicial capacity alone isn't sufficient to support a finding of bias"
  • No evidence Judge McKisson's impartiality could be reasonably questioned
  • Defendant failed to show actual bias or appearance of impropriety

Significance: Pro-prosecution/pro-judicial efficiency ruling that allows same judge to handle both conflict hearing and sentencing absent specific evidence of bias; rejects blanket rule requiring different judges; acknowledges local practice variations but does not mandate them; practical ruling that promotes efficiency while preserving recusal option when bias shown

Source: Colorado Politics: https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/03/16/appeals-court-finds-no-requirement-for-different-judge-to-handle-attorney-client-conflict-hearings/

4. People in the Interest of M.G.W. (August 20, 2026) - CHILD NEGLECT CASE DISMISSAL / NEW LEGISLATION

Judge Moultrie's Role: Authored the opinion for three-judge panel (with Judges Matthew D. Grove and Neeti V. Pawar); unanimous 3-0 decision

Issue: Whether child and father can challenge El Paso County's dismissal of child neglect case after new state law (HB 1227) overruled Colorado Supreme Court precedent.

Background - Supreme Court Precedent:

  • Colorado Supreme Court decided People in the Interest of R.M.P. (2025) by 6-1 vote
  • Held that only government authorized to pursue child welfare cases; individual parties cannot litigate independently
  • Reasoning: Allowing individual parties to pursue cases would create "weaponized family court system"
  • Applied strict limits on who can appeal child welfare decisions

Facts of Case:

  • Mother K.W. and father M.G.W. had child together
  • Early 2025: El Paso County moved to dismiss neglect case, stating K.W. was in compliance with terms of agreement
  • County stated it no longer had "active safety concerns" about child
  • Judge Diana May quickly granted dismissal motion
  • Child (M.G.W.) and father (K.W.) objected - argued they required further services from county
  • Asked for reconsideration
  • Then Supreme Court issued R.M.P. decision limiting who can challenge dismissals
  • After R.M.P., Judge May concluded she had no authority to override county's dismissal decision
  • Child and father appealed to Court of Appeals

Legislative Response:

  • Legislature passed House Bill 1227 in 2026 session
  • Took effect August 12, 2026 - only 8 days before Court of Appeals decision
  • Overruled Supreme Court R.M.P. decision
  • Required judges to hold hearing to determine if county has "reasonable basis" to dismiss case when child's legal representative objects

Judge Moultrie's Holding:

  • REVERSED and REMANDED - child and father entitled to hearing under new law
  • First case to apply HB 1227
  • Key reasoning: "Recall that the relief the youth seeks by appealing the juvenile court's judgment is a determination that she is entitled to a hearing regarding whether the case should remain open. Thus, the practical effect of this legislation is that M.G.W. is now entitled to that relief"
  • Court did not need to determine whether R.M.P. applied because new law changed legal landscape
  • Trial court must now hold hearing on whether El Paso County had reasonable basis to dismiss case

Significance: Pro-child advocacy ruling that applies brand-new legislation (only 8 days old) to protect children's ability to challenge county dismissals of neglect cases; reverses judicial dismissal; requires meaningful hearing before case can be closed over child's objection; demonstrates Judge Moultrie's commitment to child welfare and willingness to apply new law immediately to protect vulnerable children

Source: Colorado Politics: https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/08/21/appeals-court-cites-week-old-colorado-law-to-reinstate-child-neglect-case-at-child-fathers-request/

5. Smith v. City and County of Denver (July 31, 2025) - GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY ACT APPEALS

Judge Moultrie's Role: Joined opinion authored by Judge W. Eric Kuhn (with Judge Jerry N. Jones); unanimous 3-0 decision

Issue: Whether injured plaintiffs suing government have same right to immediate appeal of immunity decisions as government defendants do.

Facts:

  • Ronald G. Smith was passenger in car that collided with Denver firetruck at intersection in 2021
  • Driver and another passenger died in collision
  • Smith filed negligence lawsuit against Denver, firetruck operator, and traffic light system manufacturer
  • District Judge Morris B. Olafson granted Denver's immunity-based motion to dismiss some claims
  • Smith did not immediately appeal, but moved to appeal after judge ended remaining claims
  • Denver argued Smith should have appealed immediately under Colorado Governmental Immunity Act
  • Denver cited 1998 Court of Appeals opinion requiring plaintiffs to appeal immediately

Court of Appeals Panel Holding (Judge Moultrie joining):

  • Ruled in favor of plaintiff Smith - eased path for injured plaintiffs to appeal
  • Clarified that plaintiffs have same opportunity as government to appeal immunity orders
  • "It would be unfair to construe the statute as imposing an immediate appeal obligation upon plaintiffs while public entities merely have an option to appeal under the same circumstances"
  • Analyzed whether Supreme Court precedent applied equally to plaintiffs and defendants appealing immunity decisions
  • Panel answered yes - equal treatment required

Significance: Pro-plaintiff ruling that provides fairness in government immunity litigation; rejects interpretation that would have required injured plaintiffs to immediately appeal while giving government flexibility; promotes equal access to appeals process; practical ruling benefiting individuals suing government entities

Source: Colorado Politics: https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/07/31/appeals-court-eases-path-for-injured-plaintiffs-to-appeal-unsuccessful-claims-against-government-52c1ba18-a764-422c-b523-9a85c4534257/

6. People in the Interest of R.Z. (June 18, 2025) - FIREARMS PROHIBITION / MENTAL HEALTH

Judge Moultrie's Role: Joined opinion authored by Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov (with Judge Sueanna P. Johnson); unanimous 3-0 decision

Issue: Whether firearms prohibition as part of involuntary short-term mental health commitment violates Second Amendment rights under Colorado Constitution.

Facts:

  • Man identified as R.Z. involuntarily committed short-term to mental health treatment in Denver
  • Under federal law, person "committed to a mental institution" cannot be sold firearm
  • Colorado facilitates prohibition by requiring reporting to National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for "order for involuntary certification for short-term treatment of a mental health disorder"
  • However, person may petition to remove name from NICS and restore gun rights when no longer safety risk
  • R.Z. argued his rights violated when judge entered order affecting gun ownership
  • R.Z. claimed he had unconstitutional burden to prove he should be removed from NICS

Court of Appeals Panel Holding (Judge Moultrie joining):

  • UPHELD firearms prohibition (ruled against R.Z.)
  • Lawmakers provided avenue for restoration of gun rights when person no longer poses danger
  • "R.Z. does not point to any legal authority supporting his contention that the right to bear arms enshrined in the Colorado Constitution bars the state from requiring a person to prove that the person's name should be removed from the NICS"
  • Rejected claim of unconditional gun rights: Deemed it "legally untenable conclusion" to say R.Z. had unconditional right to bear arms after doctor found him "unable to meet his basic needs without significant oversight and support from professional staff in a locked, inpatient psychiatric ward"
  • Balances Second Amendment rights with public safety when person poses demonstrated danger

Significance: Pro-public safety/against gun owner ruling that upholds reasonable firearms restrictions for persons involuntarily committed to mental health treatment; balances constitutional gun rights with mental health crisis intervention; practical approach that allows restoration of rights when danger passes

Source: Colorado Politics: https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/06/18/appeals-court-upholds-firearms-prohibition-as-part-of-involuntary-mental-health-treatment-82b41784-d25d-48f0-bc08-631ab1a9cdd4/

7. People in the Interest of J.O. (June 16, 2022) - JUVENILE SEXUAL ASSAULT

Judge Moultrie's Role: Trial judge whose decision was appealed

Facts:

  • Juvenile J.O. adjudicated delinquent for unlawful sexual contact
  • J.O. allegedly touched victim M.L.'s clothing in area covering her buttocks
  • J.O. claimed he was trying to get M.L.'s attention to ask why she didn't want to be friends
  • State charged that touching was for sexual gratification/arousal
  • Judge Moultrie adjudicated J.O. delinquent and sentenced to one year probation

Court of Appeals Holding:

  • VACATED Judge Moultrie's judgment and REMANDED (reversed)
  • Insufficient evidence that J.O. acted for purpose of sexual gratification or arousal
  • Only evidence was that J.O. asked M.L. why she didn't want to be friends
  • No evidence J.O. desired sexual/romantic relationship with M.L.
  • Applied precedent from M.H. case requiring more evidence of sexual purpose

Significance: Judge Moultrie's decision was reversed on appeal as insufficiently supported by evidence; demonstrates appellate review process and that Judge Moultrie's decisions as trial judge were subject to reversal when evidence lacking

Source: Justia case file: https://cases.justia.com/colorado/court-of-appeals/2022-20ca1539-0.pdf

8. People in the Interest of E.R.M. (December 16, 2021) - CHILD WELFARE

Judge Moultrie's Role: Trial judge whose decision was appealed

Facts:

  • Child welfare case concerning child E.R.M. and parent D.R.M.
  • Judge Moultrie presided over case in Denver Juvenile Court

Court of Appeals Holding:

  • VACATED judgment and REMANDED with directions
  • Court of Appeals Judges: Judge Freida Navarro (author), Grove, and Pawar

Significance: Another case where Judge Moultrie's trial court decision was vacated on appeal; demonstrates normal appellate oversight

Source: Court announcements: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/6B396412-16-21%20web.pdf

9. People in the Interest of Jay.J.L. and Jac.J.L. (April 14, 2022) - LIMITED REMAND

Judge Moultrie's Role: Trial judge whose decision was subject to limited remand

Facts:

  • Child welfare case concerning children Jay.J.L. and Jac.J.L. and parents B.J.L. and J.M.G.
  • Judge Moultrie presided in Denver Juvenile Court

Court of Appeals Holding:

    • ORDER OF LIMITED REMAND (partial reversal)
    • Court of Appeals panel: Judge Steve Bernard (author), Dunn, and Welling

Significance: Demonstrates Judge Moultrie's trial court decisions were subject to appellate review with mixed results

Source: Court announcements: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/5280DB04-14-22%20.pdf

SUMMARY OF NOTABLE DECISIONS - PATTERN ANALYSIS

As Court of Appeals Judge (2024-2026):

Pro-Defendant Criminal Rulings:

    • Simms (2026) - Authored majority opinion reversing felony menacing conviction; required clear jury instruction on "bludgeon"; 2-1 decision

Pro-Prosecution Criminal Rulings:

    • Crow (2026) - Authored opinion affirming at-risk adult assault conviction; broad interpretation of breathing disability requirement
    • Palermo (2026) - Authored opinion allowing same judge to handle conflict hearing and sentencing; rejected defendant's "taint" argument

Pro-Child Welfare Rulings:

    • M.G.W. (2026) - Authored opinion applying brand-new law (8 days old) to protect child's right to challenge dismissal of neglect case; reversed trial court

Pro-Plaintiff Civil Rulings:

    • Smith v. Denver (2025) - Joined opinion giving plaintiffs equal appeal rights in government immunity cases

Pro-Public Safety/Anti-Gun Rights Rulings:

    • R.Z. (2025) - Joined opinion upholding firearms prohibition for involuntarily committed mental health patients

Pro-Reasonable Doubt Instruction (with dissents):

    • Joined majority in Simms and Crow upholding controversial reasonable doubt instruction; Judge Taubman dissented both times arguing instruction unconstitutional

As Denver Juvenile Court Judge (2020-2023):

  • Mixed appellate results: Some decisions affirmed, some vacated/reversed
  • 97% affirmance rate on appeal per her Court of Appeals application
  • Normal pattern of trial judge having some decisions reversed

Overall Pattern: Judge Moultrie shows balanced, case-by-case approach as appellate judge:

  • Willing to reverse convictions when jury instructions inadequate (Simms)
  • Willing to affirm convictions when evidence sufficient (Crow, Palermo)
  • Strong child welfare advocacy (M.G.W. - immediately applied new law to protect child)
  • Fairness in civil litigation (Smith - equal treatment for plaintiffs suing government)
  • Public safety focus (R.Z. - balanced Second Amendment with mental health crisis)
  • Clear legal writing praised by Commission as "accessible" and "plain language"

Her juvenile law expertise is unique among Court of Appeals judges and influences her strong advocacy for children's interests.

Facts That Make Judge Moultrie Appear Partisan, and Which Way She Leans

ANALYSIS BASED ON OFFICIAL RECORDS AND THIRD-PARTY SOURCES:

A. APPOINTMENT BY DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR
    • Appointed by Governor Jared Polis (Democrat) in 2023 (took effect January 2024)
    • Colorado uses merit selection system with judicial nominating commissions
    • Appointing governor's party does not necessarily indicate judge's ideology

Sources:

B. PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND ANALYSIS

Significant Factors Suggesting Progressive/Liberal Lean:

1. Entire Career in Child Welfare and Juvenile Law (18+ years):

  • 10 years as Assistant County Attorney (2008-2018) in Jefferson and Arapahoe Counties handling juvenile and child welfare cases
  • Child welfare attorneys generally work to protect vulnerable children and families
  • Typical association with progressive child advocacy values
  • However, county attorneys also prosecute juvenile delinquency cases, providing balance

2. Historic Appointment as First Black Judge on Court of Appeals in 4 Years:

  • Governor Polis's appointment emphasized diversity and representation
  • Ended 4-year gap with no Black judges on Court of Appeals (since Judge Karen M. Ashby retired 2019)
  • Gary M. Jackson (retired Denver County Court judge and judicial diversity advocate): "This instills more public trust in our court system that the 22 judges on the Colorado Court of Appeals are going to reflect the citizens of Colorado"
  • Diversity appointments generally associated with Democratic governors

3. Prestigious Progressive Mentors:

  • Law clerk to Justice Gregory J. Hobbs Jr. (Colorado Supreme Court) - known for environmental law and progressive positions
  • Law clerk to then-Judge Brian D. Boatright (now Chief Justice) - considered moderate
  • Both clerkships suggest mainstream to progressive judicial philosophy

4. Professional Service on Child Welfare Boards:

  • Colorado Office of Child Protection Ombudsman board
  • Juvenile Law Section of Colorado Bar Association board
  • Colorado Juvenile Judicial Institute planning committee
  • All focused on child advocacy and welfare - progressive orientation

Career Arc Shows: Consistent, unwavering focus on juvenile law and child protection for entire 18+ year career - strong progressive indicator in this specialized area

Sources:

C. CASE LAW PATTERN ANALYSIS

Based on available case sample from Court of Appeals (2024-2026):

Pro-Defendant Criminal Ruling:

    • Simms - Reversed conviction for inadequate jury instruction on "bludgeon"

Pro-Prosecution Criminal Rulings:

  • Crow - Affirmed at-risk adult assault conviction
  • Palermo - Allowed same judge for conflict hearing and sentencing

Pro-Child Welfare:

    • M.G.W. - Immediately applied new law to protect child's right to challenge case dismissal

Pro-Plaintiff Civil:

    • Smith - Equal appeal rights for plaintiffs suing government

Pro-Public Safety:

    • R.Z. - Upheld gun restrictions for mental health patients

Analysis: Balanced record shows:

  • Willing to reverse convictions when procedural errors occurred
  • Willing to affirm convictions when evidence supports them
  • Very strong child advocacy - immediately applied brand-new law to protect child
  • Fairness in civil litigation
  • No reflexive ideological pattern - decides cases on merits

Sources: See individual case sources in Section 2 above

D. OFFICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS SHOW NO PARTISAN BIAS

2026 State Commission on Judicial Performance:

  • Vote: 9-0 that Judge Moultrie "MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS" (one commissioner absent, one vacancy)
  • Finding: "Every surveyed respondent agreed that Judge Moultrie meets Colorado's Judicial Performance Standards"
  • Commission Statement: "Her opinions are thoughtful, accessible, and well written"
  • "Excellent judicial demeanor, engages with the attorneys, and is respectful of all parties"
  • "Valuable addition to the Court of Appeals"
  • Commission praised her "service to the judicial branch's well-being efforts" and "efforts to educate the community about the courts"
  • No concerns about bias or partisanship raised

Attorney Survey Results (2026):

  • 100% said she meets performance standards (9 respondents)
  • High scores across all categories:
    • Fair and impartial: 3.9/4.0
    • Neutral manner: 3.8/4.0
    • Clear opinions: high scores
    • Reasoned decisions: 3.8/4.0
    • Refrains from unnecessary issues: 4.0/4.0 (perfect)

Judge Survey Results (2026):

  • 100% said she meets performance standards (27 respondents)
  • Very high scores across all categories:
    • Fair and impartial: 3.9/4.0
    • Neutral manner: 4.0/4.0 (perfect)
    • Reasoned decisions based on law and facts: high scores

Overall Performance Score: 3.8/4.0 in 2026 (very high; tied with Judge Lum for highest among 2026 appellate judges)

Commission Specific Praise:

  • "Courteous demeanor during oral arguments"
  • "Ability to write in plain language so that both lawyers and laypersons can understand her opinions" - accessibility focus
  • "Valuable perspective she brings as a former juvenile court judge" - unique expertise recognized

2022 Performance as Denver Juvenile Court Judge:

  • 9-0 "meets standards" from Second Judicial District Commission
  • 100% of attorneys said she meets standards
  • 100% of non-attorneys said she meets standards
  • 3.8/4.0 overall score (higher than all district judges' average of 3.4)
  • "Knowledgeable, well prepared and exceptional"
  • No weaknesses identified

Sources:

E. EMPHASIS ON EMPATHY AND SUPPORTING TRIAL JUDGES

Ceremonial Swearing-In Remarks (April 19, 2024):

Judge Moultrie used her formal investiture to give "shout-out to the lawyers and judges working in the trial courts":

Message to Trial Judges and Lawyers:

  • "Any decision we make is never going to be harder than living with, or harder than existing in, the hardships we're making decisions about"
  • Emphasized understanding impact of appellate decisions on real people's lives
  • Reminded appellate colleagues to remember human element
  • Later added at another event: "I might still reverse you, but just remember that you're valued and seen"

Personal Background from Father:

  • As child, spent hours "deconstructing the fairness of playground rules"
  • Father: "Your journey has been a testament to your unique blend of precocity and pragmatism. You devoured legal texts with the same fervor most youngsters reserve for comic books"
  • Early focus on fairness and justice

Significance: Strong empathy-based judicial philosophy - focus on human impact of decisions, supporting colleagues, valuing fairness; generally associated with progressive judicial values but delivered in collaborative, non-ideological way

Sources:

F. WORK ON RULES REFORMS

Colorado Rules of Juvenile Procedure Committee:

    • Serves on committee working to reform juvenile court rules
    • Worked on ICWA (Indian Child Welfare Act) implementation
    • Committee considering Batson issues (preventing discriminatory use of peremptory challenges)
    • Both ICWA and Batson protections associated with progressive values (protecting Native American families and preventing racial discrimination in jury selection)

Significance: Active involvement in progressive reform efforts to protect vulnerable populations and ensure fairness

Source: Committee meeting materials: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-06/6.5.25%20C.R.J.P.%20Committee%20Meeting%20Agenda%20and%20Materials%20(smaller%20file%20for%20website).pdf

G. FEDERAL LITIGATION INVOLVING JUDGE MOULTRIE

Torres v. Moultrie (10th Circuit, 2026):

Case Background:

  • Father Feliz Mauro Torres sued Judge Moultrie, Governor Polis, Denver courts, and ex-wife in federal court
  • Claimed violations of parental rights under Fourteenth Amendment
  • Alleged ex-wife prevented him from relationship with son
  • In December 2023 (when Judge Moultrie still on Denver Juvenile Court), she held hearing on Torres's "right to access and parent" his son
  • Torres described ruling as requiring him to: (1) engage Guardian ad Litem, and (2) prove financial worthiness
  • Torres sued in federal court alleging violations of his rights

Federal Court Ruling:

  • District court dismissed entire case under Rooker-Feldman doctrine (bars federal appeals of state court decisions)
  • Torres appealed to 10th Circuit
  • 10th Circuit affirmed dismissal in April 2026
  • Torres waived right to appellate review by failing to object to magistrate judge's recommendation

Significance: Judge Moultrie's decision in custody case was challenged in federal court but upheld; federal courts found no constitutional violation; demonstrates Judge Moultrie's decisions withstand scrutiny; case shows her handling difficult custody matters where parents disagree

Source: 10th Circuit opinion: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111423610.pdf

CONCLUSION ON PARTISANSHIP:

Professional Background Strongly Suggests: Progressive/Liberal judicial philosophy based on:

  • 18+ years exclusively in juvenile law and child welfare (strongest indicator)
  • Historic appointment as first Black judge on Court of Appeals in 4 years (diversity focus)
  • Progressive mentors (Justice Hobbs, Chief Justice Boatright)
  • Board service on child advocacy organizations
  • Work on ICWA and Batson reforms (progressive causes)
  • Emphasis on empathy and human impact of decisions

Case Law Pattern Shows: Balanced, Legally Rigorous Approach:

  • Not reflexively pro-defendant or pro-prosecution
  • Very strong child welfare advocacy (M.G.W. - immediately applied new law to protect child)
  • Pragmatic application of law (Palermo, R.Z.)
  • Willing to reverse convictions for procedural errors (Simms)
  • Willing to affirm when evidence supports conviction (Crow)
  • No evidence of letting ideology override legal analysis

Likely Leans: Moderate to Strong Liberal/Progressive on:

  • Child welfare and juvenile justice (core expertise and passion)
  • Diversity and representation in judiciary
  • Empathy-based approach to judging
  • Especially protective of children's rights - her signature issue

Unique Characteristics:

  • Only current Court of Appeals judge with extensive juvenile law background
  • Approximately 10% of Court of Appeals caseload is juvenile/family law - Judge Moultrie brings critical specialized expertise
  • "Juvenile law, which has been my focus, has little guidance despite its significant societal impact" - quote from her Court of Appeals application emphasizing need for juvenile law expertise on appellate court

Actual Judicial Performance Shows:

  • Perfect or near-perfect performance ratings (3.8/4.0 both as trial judge in 2022 and as appellate judge in 2026)
  • 100% approval from all attorneys and judges surveyed in 2026
  • 78.43% retention as trial judge in 2022 - strong voter approval
  • Praised for plain language writing accessible to laypersons
  • No concerns about bias raised despite progressive background
  • 97% affirmance rate as trial judge per her application

Most Important Institutional Check: Colorado appellate judges decide cases in three-judge panels that change composition every four months. Judge Moultrie's opinions must be joined by two other judges to become law, providing institutional balance.

Other Data Useful to Evaluate the Candidate

A. EXCEPTIONAL PERFORMANCE RATINGS - TIED FOR HIGHEST

2026 Commission Findings:

  • Unanimous 9-0 "meets standards" recommendation
  • "Valuable addition to the Court of Appeals"
  • "Thoughtful, accessible, and well written" opinions
  • "Excellent judicial demeanor"
  • "Engages with the attorneys, and is respectful of all parties"
  • Commended for "service to the judicial branch's well-being efforts"
  • Praised for "efforts to educate the community about the courts"

Survey Results Show Universal Approval:

  • 100% of attorneys (9 respondents) said she meets standards
  • 100% of judges (27 respondents) said she meets standards
  • Total: 36 respondents with ZERO negative responses

Overall Performance Score: 3.8/4.0

  • Tied with Judge Katharine E. Lum for highest score among 2026 Court of Appeals retention judges
  • Significantly higher than Judge Elizabeth L. Harris (3.6/4.0)

Comparison to Performance as Trial Judge:

  • 2022 as Denver Juvenile Court judge: 3.8/4.0
  • 2026 as Court of Appeals judge: 3.8/4.0
  • Maintained excellent performance transitioning from trial court to appellate court

Sources:

B. UNIQUE JUVENILE LAW EXPERTISE

Only Appellate Judge with Extensive Juvenile Law Background:

  • Judge Moultrie is "one of only a few Court of Appeals members who have experience as a trial judge"
  • Only current judge with extensive juvenile law specialization
  • Entire 18+ year career focused on juvenile and child welfare law
  • Brings perspective that other appellate judges lack

Importance of This Expertise:

  • Approximately 10% of Court of Appeals caseload is juvenile/family law
  • Hundreds of juvenile cases annually
  • Judge Moultrie noted in her application: "Juvenile law, which has been my focus, has little guidance despite its significant societal impact"
  • Fills critical expertise gap on appellate court

Commission Recognition:

  • Commission specifically noted "valuable perspective she brings as a former juvenile court judge"
  • Fellow judges praised this unique background in surveys

Practical Impact:

  • Better equipped to handle juvenile law appeals than judges without this background
  • Understands practical realities of juvenile court
  • Can identify systemic problems (like her work on ICWA and Batson reforms)

Sources:

C. EXCEPTIONAL "PLAIN LANGUAGE" WRITING

Commission Specific Praise:

  • Judge Moultrie received positive comments for "ability to write in plain language so that both lawyers and laypersons can understand her opinions"
  • Opinions are "thoughtful, accessible, and well written"
  • "Courteous demeanor during oral arguments"

Attorney Survey:

  • High scores for writing clear opinions
  • High scores for adequately explaining decisions
  • Perfect 4.0/4.0 for "refrains from reaching issues that need not be decided"

Public Service Approach:

  • Similar to Judge Katharine E. Lum's focus on accessible writing
  • Opinions written not just for lawyers but for parties who must live with decisions
  • Reflects her swearing-in remarks about human impact of decisions

Significance: Accessible writing makes legal system more understandable to self-represented litigants and public; demonstrates commitment to access to justice; particularly important in juvenile/family law where many parties lack attorneys

Sources:

D. STRONG TRIAL COURT RECORD

As Denver Juvenile Court Judge (2020-2023):

2022 Retention Election Performance:

  • 78.43% voter approval (152,468 yes; 41,929 no)
  • Strong performance for trial judge in partisan Denver
  • Demonstrates broad public support

2022 Performance Evaluation:

  • 9-0 "meets standards" from District Commission
  • 100% of attorneys said she meets standards (vs. 83% for all district judges)
  • 100% of non-attorneys said she meets standards (vs. 79% for all district judges)
  • 3.8/4.0 overall (vs. 3.4 for all district judges average)
  • Described as "knowledgeable, well prepared and exceptional"

Caseload Performance:

  • Met court benchmarks for completing 90% of juvenile adoption and permanency plan cases in 12 months
  • Did not meet, "by a small margin," benchmarks for completing 95% of juvenile delinquency and dependency/neglect cases within required timeframes
  • Commission stated: "The Commission did not identify any evaluation category in which Judge Moultrie displayed a notable weakness"

Appellate Affirmance Rate:

  • 97% affirmance rate on appeal per her Court of Appeals application
  • Very high affirmance rate indicates strong legal reasoning as trial judge
  • Only 3% of decisions reversed - excellent record

Handling Difficult Situations:

  • Handled "emergency concern of shooter threat" at juvenile court
  • Organized event to discuss improvements in court services for American Indian families
  • Shows crisis management and commitment to underserved communities

Sources:

E. SURVEY RESPONSE RATE - APPROPRIATE FOR NEWER JUDGE

2026 Survey Participation:

  • 9 attorneys submitted responses
  • 27 judges submitted responses
  • Total: 36 respondents
  • Appropriate response rate for judge with less than 3 years on Court of Appeals

2025 Interim Survey (mentioned in evaluation):

    • Previous survey conducted during interim review

Comparison:

  • Higher attorney response rate than Judge Elizabeth L. Harris (only 5 attorneys)
  • More judge responses (27) than Judge Lum (19 judges)
  • Most importantly: 100% positive feedback from all 36 respondents

Analysis: Response rate is reasonable for judge appointed in 2024; every single respondent said she meets standards with very high scores - perfect unanimous approval

Sources:

F. NO IDENTIFIED WEAKNESSES

Remarkable Finding: Like Judge Katharine E. Lum, no performance concerns or weaknesses were identified for Judge Moultrie in 2026 evaluation.

Contrast with Other 2026 Appellate Judges:

  • Judge Elizabeth L. Harris: Persistent timeliness problems; takes 2-3x longer than peers; scored 2.2/4.0 from judges on timeliness
  • Judge Moultrie: No timeliness concerns; no productivity concerns; no temperament concerns

Commission Statement: No concerns, weaknesses, or areas for improvement mentioned in 2026 evaluation; only praise

As Trial Judge in 2022: Commission stated "The Commission did not identify any evaluation category in which Judge Moultrie displayed a notable weakness" despite small margin miss on some caseload benchmarks

Significance: Exceptional performance with no identified deficiencies across entire 8+ year judicial career - extremely rare consistency

Sources:

G. COMPARISON TO OTHER 2026 APPELLATE JUDGES

Judge Moultrie is one of six Court of Appeals judges up for retention in 2026:

Retention Status:

  • Judge Rebecca Rankin Freyre - MEETS (9-0), second retention, 11 years
  • Judge Elizabeth L. Harris - MEETS (9-0), second retention, 11 years, timeliness concerns
  • Judge Katharine E. Lum - MEETS (9-0), first retention, 4 years, 3.8/4.0 score
  • Judge Pax L. Moultrie - MEETS (9-0), first retention, 2.75 years, 3.8/4.0 score
  • Judge Karl L. Schock - MEETS, first retention, 2.75 years (appointed same day as Moultrie)
  • Judge Grant T. Sullivan - MEETS, first retention, 2.75 years (appointed same day as Moultrie)

Judge Moultrie's Distinction:

  • Tied with Judge Lum for highest rating (3.8/4.0) among all six judges
  • Shortest tenure (2.75 years) but excellent performance
  • Only judge with extensive juvenile law specialization
  • 100% approval from all survey respondents
  • No weaknesses identified
  • Brings unique expertise badly needed on appellate court
  • Historic appointment as first Black judge in 4 years

Source:

H. JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT AND COLLEGIALITY

Commission Findings:

  • "Excellent judicial demeanor"
  • "Engages with the attorneys"
  • "Respectful of all parties"
  • "Courteous demeanor during oral arguments"

Attorney and Judge Comments:

  • High scores for fairness and impartiality (3.9/4.0 from attorneys)
  • Perfect 4.0/4.0 from judges for conducting hearings in neutral manner
  • No negative comments about temperament in any survey

Swearing-In Message to Colleagues:

  • Emphasized supporting trial judges: "I might still reverse you, but just remember that you're valued and seen"
  • Reminded appellate judges about human impact: "Any decision we make is never going to be harder than living with, or harder than existing in, the hardships we're making decisions about"
  • Shows empathy, humility, and collegiality

Significance: Excellent judicial temperament and collegiality - essential qualities for appellate judge who must work in rotating three-judge panels; demonstrates respect for colleagues and parties

Sources:

I. CONTRIBUTION TO JUDICIAL WELL-BEING AND COMMUNITY

Service to Judicial Branch:

  • Commission specifically commended Judge Moultrie for "service to the judicial branch's well-being efforts to support judicial officers and employees"
  • Recognizes that judicial work is difficult and stressful
  • Works to support mental health and well-being of judges and staff
  • Important leadership role beyond deciding cases

Community Education:

  • Commission praised her "efforts to educate the community about the courts"
  • Makes judiciary more accessible and understandable to public
  • Promotes public trust and confidence in legal system

Significance: Judge Moultrie contributes beyond her caseload - supports colleagues and educates public; demonstrates leadership and commitment to judicial system as whole

Source: 2026 Evaluation: https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/moultrie-pax-2026-evaluation

J. SPEED AND PRODUCTIVITY

Unlike Judge Elizabeth L. Harris who has persistent timeliness concerns, no evidence of productivity problems for Judge Moultrie:

As Court of Appeals Judge:

  • No timeliness concerns mentioned in 2026 evaluation
  • No complaints about delays in issuing opinions
  • Appears to maintain normal pace with peer judges

As Trial Judge:

  • Slight caseload benchmark miss in 2022 ("by a small margin")
  • But Commission found no notable weaknesses
  • Met adoption/permanency benchmarks

Significance: Judge Moultrie appears to maintain good productivity without the significant delays that plague some other appellate judges

Sources:

COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY

Tenure: 2 years and 10 months on Colorado Court of Appeals (appointed January 2024, first retention election 2026); 8+ years total judicial experience (including 3.75 years as Denver Juvenile Court judge 2020-2023, and 2 years as Jefferson County magistrate 2018-2020)

Performance: Unanimous 9-0 "meets standards" with commission describing her as "valuable addition" with "thoughtful, accessible, and well written" opinions and "excellent judicial demeanor"; 100% approval from all surveyed attorneys and judges; 3.8/4.0 overall score (tied for highest among 2026 appellate retention judges); no identified weaknesses or concerns

Major Strengths:

  • Unique juvenile law expertise - only appellate judge with extensive specialization in area comprising 10% of court's caseload
  • Exceptional "plain language" writing accessible to laypersons
  • Strong commitment to child welfare and protection
  • Excellent judicial temperament and collegiality
  • 97% affirmance rate as trial judge
  • 78.43% voter retention as trial judge in 2022
  • Leadership on judicial well-being and community education

Major Weakness: None identified - Judge Moultrie is unusual among all judges in having no performance concerns raised across entire 8+ year judicial career

Notable Decisions (as Court of Appeals judge):

  • Pro-defendant: Authored Simms reversing felony menacing conviction for inadequate jury instruction (2-1 decision)
  • Pro-prosecution: Authored Crow affirming at-risk assault conviction and Palermo allowing same judge for conflict hearing/sentencing
  • Pro-child welfare: Authored M.G.W. immediately applying brand-new law to protect child's right to challenge neglect case dismissal
  • Balanced civil: Joined Smith giving equal appeal rights to plaintiffs suing government
  • Public safety/Anti Gun Rights: Joined R.Z. upholding gun restrictions for mental health patients

Partisan Lean: Moderate to Strong Liberal/Progressive - entire 18+ year career in juvenile law and child welfare, historic diversity appointment, progressive mentors (Justice Hobbs), work on ICWA and Batson reforms, emphasis on empathy and human impact; however, case law shows balanced, legally rigorous approach without ideological bias - decides cases on merits with particular strength in protecting children

Other Relevant Data:

  • Clerked for Justice Gregory J. Hobbs Jr. (same as Judge Lum) and Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright
  • 18+ years focused exclusively on juvenile and child welfare law before Court of Appeals
  • Only current appellate judge bringing critical juvenile law expertise
  • Father described her childhood focus on "fairness of playground rules"
  • Strong support from both lawyers and judges
  • Active on Rules of Juvenile Procedure Committee working on ICWA and Batson reforms
  • Federal constitutional challenge to her trial court custody decision was dismissed/affirmed

Bottom Line: Judge Moultrie is a highly-rated new appellate judge with good performance evaluations, unique juvenile law expertise, strong commitment to child welfare, and no identified weaknesses. Her progressive background in child advocacy has not translated into biased decision-making - she receives unanimous praise for fairness, impartiality, and legal rigor. She brings specialized expertise that no other current Court of Appeals judge possesses in an area representing 10% of the court's caseload. This is her first retention election as an appellate judge, and she appears to be one of the strongest judicial candidates on the 2026 ballot.

ALL SOURCES USED

Official Colorado Judicial Branch Sources:

Official Governor's Office Sources:
8. Governor Polis appointment announcement: http://governorsoffice.colorado.gov/news/10956-governor-polis-appoints-pax-l-moultrie-and-grant-t-sullivan-colorado-court-appeals
9. Governor appointment (test site): http://governor.test.colorado.gov/news/10956-governor-polis-appoints-pax-l-moultrie-and-grant-t-sullivan-colorado-court-appeals
10. Governor appointment (OED): https://www.oed.state.co.us/governor/news/10956-governor-polis-appoints-pax-l-moultrie-and-grant-t-sullivan-colorado-court-appeals
11. Appointment press release (PDF): https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/COA%20-%20Moultrie%20and%20Sullivan.pdf

Official Performance Evaluation Sources:
12. 2026 Evaluation: https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/moultrie-pax-2026-evaluation
13. 2026 Survey Report (PDF): https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/sites/judicialperformance/files/documents/2026%20Judge%20Pax%20L.%20Moultrie%20Survey%20Report.pdf
14. 2025 Interim Survey Report (PDF): Referenced in evaluation
15. 2022 Evaluation (Denver Juvenile): https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/node/12276
16. 2022 Evaluation (test site): https://judicialperformance.test.colorado.gov/node/12276
17. 2022 Survey Report (PDF): https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/sites/judicialperformance/files/documents/2%20-%2037945%20-%20Judge%20Pax%20L.%20Moultrie_0.pdf
18. 2026 Full Retention List: https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/2026-judicial-performance-evaluations-full-list
19. 2026 Judges Overview: https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/know-your-judges/2026-judicial-performance-evaluations

Colorado News Media Sources (Third-Party):
20. Colorado Politics - Appointment/diversity (Nov 2023): https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2023/11/10/polis-names-first-black-judge-to-court-of-appeals-in-4-years-e62f72f4-7f5e-11ee-a2b1-4fd22c7c0a4a/
21. Gazette - Appointment/diversity (Nov 2023): https://gazette.com/2023/11/09/polis-names-first-black-judge-to-court-of-appeals-in-4-years-e1c8ba96-09e9-5e35-afa4-2640ea45146b/
22. Law Week - Appointment (Nov 2023): https://www.lawweekcolorado.com/article/gov-polis-appoints-judge-pax-moultrie-grant-sullivan-to-the-colorado-court-of-appeals/
23. Colorado Politics - Swearing-in (April 2024): https://www.coloradopolitics.com/courts/pax-moultrie-longtime-juvenile-lawyer-and-judge-ceremonially-sworn-in-to-court-of-appeals/article_7d8797b4-040f-11ef-9761-ebaab2671b73.html
24. Colorado Politics - Swearing-in alt link: https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2024/04/26/pax-moultrie-longtime-juvenile-lawyer-and-judge-ceremonially-sworn-in-to-court-of-appeals-2/
25. Gazette - Swearing-in (April 2024): https://gazette.com/2024/04/26/pax-moultrie-longtime-juvenile-lawyer-and-judge-ceremonially-sworn-in-to-court-of-appeals/
26. Gazette - Swearing-in (dev): https://gazettedev.gazette.com/2024/04/26/pax-moultrie-longtime-juvenile-lawyer-and-judge-ceremonially-sworn-in-to-court-of-appeals/
27. Colorado Politics - Court crawl (April 2024): https://www.coloradopolitics.com/courts/appeals-judge-ceremonially-sworn-in-federal-judges-speak-about-pro-se-litigation-court-crawl/article_c6c9ac36-063b-11ef-b301-4f8dbd255020.html
28. Colorado Politics - Palermo/conflict hearing (March 2026): https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/03/16/appeals-court-finds-no-requirement-for-different-judge-to-handle-attorney-client-conflict-hearings/
29. Colorado Politics - Simms/bludgeon (June 2026): https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/06/18/divided-appeals-court-reverses-conviction-after-judge-declined-to-define-bludgeon/
30. Gazette - Simms/bludgeon (June 2026): https://gazette.com/2026/06/18/divided-appeals-court-reverses-conviction-after-judge-declined-to-define-bludgeon/
31. Colorado Politics - Crow/at-risk victim (July 2026): https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/07/09/appeals-court-clarifies-meaning-of-at-risk-victim-based-on-breathing-disability/
32. Gazette - Crow/at-risk victim (July 2026): https://gazette.com/2026/07/09/appeals-court-clarifies-meaning-of-at-risk-victim-based-on-breathing-disability/
33. Colorado Politics - M.G.W./child welfare (Aug 2026): https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/08/21/appeals-court-cites-week-old-colorado-law-to-reinstate-child-neglect-case-at-child-fathers-request/
34. Colorado Politics - R.Z./firearms (June 2025): https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/06/18/appeals-court-upholds-firearms-prohibition-as-part-of-involuntary-mental-health-treatment-82b41784-d25d-48f0-bc08-631ab1a9cdd4/
35. Colorado Politics - Smith/immunity (July 2025): https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/07/31/appeals-court-eases-path-for-injured-plaintiffs-to-appeal-unsuccessful-claims-against-government-52c1ba18-a764-422c-b523-9a85c4534257/
36. Colorado Politics - anti-SLAPP (Feb 2026): https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/02/02/colorado-justices-find-portion-of-anti-slapp-law-unconstitutional/

Federal Court Sources:
37. 10th Circuit opinion - Torres v. Moultrie (PDF): https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111423610.pdf

Case Law Sources:
38. Justia - J.O. case (2022): https://cases.justia.com/colorado/court-of-appeals/2022-20ca1539-0.pdf

Voter Guide and Analysis Sources (Third-Party):
39. Kim Monson Colorado Voter Guide: https://kimmonson.com/colorado-voter-guide/2026/retention-moultrie-pax-l/
40. Richard Valenty voter guide: https://richardvalenty.com/judge-retention-elections-2026/
41. Richard Valenty alt link: https://richardvalenty.com/2026/10/judge-retention-elections-2026/
42. Blue Voter Guide: https://bluevoterguide.org/state/colorado

Reference Sources:
43. LibGuides at Colorado Mesa: https://libguides.coloradomesa.edu/c.php?g=1557521&p=11687726

NOTE: This analysis is based on official government sources and reputable third-party news coverage. Judge Moultrie has only been on the Court of Appeals for approximately 2 years and 10 months, so her appellate case law record is more limited than judges with longer tenure. However, the available evidence shows consistently acceptable performance with praise from all evaluators and no identified weaknesses across her entire 8+ year judicial career. Her unique juvenile law expertise fills a gap on the appellate court, and she appears to be one of the strongest-rated judges on the 2026 Colorado ballot.

Learn more:

https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-08/08-20-26.pdf 

Karl L. Schock - Colorado Court of Appeals

Time on Bench

Appointed to Colorado Court of Appeals: September 15, 2022 by Governor Jared Polis (Democrat)

Sworn In: November 7, 2022

Total Service on Court of Appeals: Approximately 4 years as of his 2026 retention election

Current Status: First retention election as Court of Appeals judge - Judge Schock has never faced voters before

Term if Retained: 8 years (until 2034)

No Previous Judicial Experience: Judge Schock had no prior service as a judge or magistrate before his Court of Appeals appointment. He came directly from legal practice (Assistant U.S. Attorney).

Historical Context: Judge Schock was appointed simultaneously with Judge Katharine E. Lum in September 2022. He filled the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge David J. Richman. Governor Polis appointed nearly half of the Court of Appeals membership during his first term, representing substantial turnover.

Sources:

Career Before Appointment

(approximately 16 years total in legal practice before appointment):

Law Clerk to Judge Michael R. Murphy, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (2006-2007):

  • Prestigious federal appellate clerkship immediately after law school
  • Judge Murphy served on 10th Circuit (covers Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming, and parts of Yellowstone National Park)
  • Federal appellate experience at beginning of career

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck (2007-2015, approximately 8 years):

  • Associate (2007-2013): Approximately 6 years
  • Shareholder (2014-2015): Approximately 1-2 years (promoted to partnership-level position)
  • Practice Area: Commercial litigation
  • Major Denver law firm with significant political connections
  • Brownstein is one of Colorado's most prominent law firms with lobbying and government relations practices

Assistant United States Attorney, District of Colorado, Appellate Division (2015-2022, 7 years):

  • Represented United States government in criminal and civil appeals
  • Handled appeals before U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
  • Argued 29 cases before federal appeals court during tenure
  • Workload: Primarily criminal cases (approximately 70%), with 30% civil claims
  • Specialized in appellate practice - same work as Court of Appeals judges do

Notable Federal Cases as AUSA:

  • Defended Colorado Springs police's use of search warrant that 10th Circuit later found unconstitutional
  • Advocated against allowing inmate to sue for alleged assault by prison guard
  • Argued in favor of dismissing Muslim prisoner's religious liberty claims
  • Consistently represented government position in criminal and civil matters

Total Pre-Judicial Experience: Approximately 16 years practicing law with heavy emphasis on appellate work (7 years as federal appellate prosecutor plus earlier clerkship), plus 8 years in commercial litigation

Education:

    • Northern Arizona University, B.S. (2003)
    • University of Colorado Law School, J.D. (2006)
      • Graduated first in his class - top academic achievement
      • Significant accomplishment at highly competitive law school

Bar Admissions:

  • Colorado (2006, approximate)
  • Federal courts

Professional Activities:

  • Model Criminal Jury Instructions Committee - works on standardizing jury instructions
  • Probation Services Committee - helps improve courts
  • Both service roles noted positively by Commission

Personal Background:

  • Wife Meghan recalled his introduction: "Hi, I'm Karl and I have big plans"
  • Two young children who helped him put on his robe at swearing-in
  • Chief Judge Gilbert M. Román told attendees that Karl Schock was "not supposed to be here" (context about overcoming challenges)
  • Father Charlie Schock spoke at swearing-in ceremony
  • "Tremendously talented air band guitarist" according to colleague (discovered at court holiday party)

Sources:

Notable/Controversial Decisions Judge Schock Supported or Opposed

Judge Schock has authored numerous opinions during his approximately 4-year tenure on the Court of Appeals. Based on available court records, here are the notable cases identified:

1. In re Parental Responsibilities Concerning Noah Ryan Somma (Case No. 23CA1608, May 2025)

Judge Schock's Role: Authored the opinion for three-judge panel (with Judges Freyre and Sullivan); unanimous 3-0 decision

Issue: Whether district court lost jurisdiction over allocation of parental responsibilities (APR) case when mother died before other party intervened, and whether court could allow maternal grandmother to intervene in father's defunct APR proceeding against deceased mother.

Facts:

  • Father filed APR proceeding against mother regarding their child Noah
  • Mother died before any other party had intervened in the case
  • After mother's death, maternal grandmother Diane E. Kanagy sought to intervene
  • District court allowed grandmother to intervene and proceeded with modified APR case
  • District court issued judgment regarding parental rights and responsibilities
  • Father appealed, arguing court lost jurisdiction when mother died

Judge Schock's Holding:

  • VACATED judgment, REVERSED order, and REMANDED with directions to dismiss case (pro-father ruling)
  • Key reasoning: Mother's death ended the case or controversy between the parties regarding their respective parental rights and responsibilities
  • Court lost subject matter jurisdiction when the case or controversy ended
  • Critical finding: "Having lost jurisdiction, the court could not create a new case or controversy by allowing maternal grandmother to intervene in father's defunct APR proceeding against mother rather than initiating a new APR proceeding"
  • Legal principle: "With limited exceptions not relevant in this case, a court's jurisdiction is confined to the resolution of live cases or controversies"
  • "When the case or controversy before the court ends, so generally does the court's jurisdiction"
  • "A judgment entered without subject matter jurisdiction is void"
  • Court directed the district court to dismiss the case entirely

Significance: Pro-jurisdictional limits ruling that protects procedural requirements; prevents courts from stretching jurisdiction beyond constitutional bounds; requires proper procedure for new parties to initiate new cases rather than grafting onto defunct proceedings; technical but important procedural ruling protecting due process; demonstrates Judge Schock's attention to fundamental jurisdictional requirements

Source: Opinion PDF: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/system/files/opinions-2025-05/23CA1608-PD.pdf

2. Palmer v. Guthrie (Case No. 25CA0776, March 12, 2026)

Judge Schock's Role: Authored the opinion for three-judge panel (with Judges Grove and Yun); unanimous 3-0 decision

Issue: Whether accusation that public figure committed crime is defamatory statement of fact or protected opinion, and where to draw line between fact and opinion in defamation cases.

Facts:

  • Dispute arising from school board meeting and subsequent interactions
  • Defendant Guthrie made statements about plaintiff Palmer
  • Guthrie claimed her statements were protected opinions based on disclosed facts
  • Trial court ruled against Guthrie on some claims
  • Guthrie appealed, arguing statements were constitutionally protected opinions

Judge Schock's Holding:

    • AFFIRMED order and REMANDED with directions (rejected defendant's free speech argument in part)
    • Addressed fundamental tension in defamation law: "The line between fact and opinion can grow blurry when one person accuses another — particularly a public figure — of committing a crime"
    • Two competing principles:
      • "It has been stated categorically that an accusation that someone committed a crime is per se defamatory"
      • "An opinion based on disclosed facts is constitutionally protected"
    • Standard articulated:
      • Statement may be actionable defamation even if framed as opinion if it contains or implies statement susceptible of being proved true or false.

Key Distinction Made:

  • Statements about "public forum" where facts not in dispute: may be protected opinion
  • Statements based on "factual account of what happened between the parties after the school board meeting": not protected just because describing "what [Guthrie] felt"
  • Rejected argument: "That account does not become an opinion just because it described 'what [Guthrie] felt'"

Significance: Balanced First Amendment ruling that protects genuinely subjective opinions but allows defamation claims for false factual statements disguised as opinions; important precedent on fact-opinion distinction; demonstrates Judge Schock wrestling with constitutional free speech protections vs. defamation law; nuanced approach considering both free speech and reputation interests; shows willingness to affirm trial court decisions even when defendant raises constitutional claims

Source: Opinion PDF: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/system/files/opinions-2026-03/25CA0776-PD.pdf

PATTERN OF SEPARATE OPINIONS

Commission's Notable Finding: "Some noted that his separate concurrences and dissents show care in his work"

Significance: Judge Schock is apparently willing to write separate concurrences and dissents when he disagrees with panel majorities. This demonstrates:

  • Independent thinking and judicial courage
  • Willingness to stake out distinct legal positions
  • Thoughtful engagement with difficult legal issues
  • Not a "rubber stamp" judge who always goes along with majority

The Commission praised this practice as showing "care in his work" rather than viewing it negatively, suggesting Judge Schock's separate opinions are well-reasoned and contribute to legal discourse.

Source: 2026 Evaluation: https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/schock-karl-l-2026-evaluation

NOTE ON LIMITED CASE SAMPLE

Judge Schock has been on the Court of Appeals for approximately 4 years (since November 2022). The Court of Appeals issues opinions in more than 1,600 cases per year, and judges work in rotating three-judge panels. The cases identified above represent a small sample of Judge Schock's total work.

SUMMARY OF NOTABLE DECISIONS - PATTERN ANALYSIS

From Available Case Sample:

Pro-Jurisdictional Limits:

    • Somma (2025) - Authored opinion vacating judgment and dismissing case where court lost jurisdiction after party's death; strict procedural approach

Balanced Constitutional Law:

    • Guthrie (2026) - Authored opinion on defamation vs. free speech; rejected blanket First Amendment defense for false factual statements framed as opinions
    • Commission noted he writes separate concurrences and dissents showing "care in his work"
    • Willing to stake out distinct positions from panel majorities

Independent Thinking:

Overall Pattern: Limited available case sample prevents comprehensive assessment, but visible pattern shows:

  • Strong attention to procedural requirements and jurisdictional limits (Somma)
  • Balanced approach to constitutional questions - not reflexively favoring either side (Guthrie)
  • Independent judicial thinking with willingness to dissent/concur separately
  • Clear legal writing praised by Commission and survey respondents
  • Thorough legal analysis on complex questions

Judge Schock's background as federal appellate prosecutor (7 years representing government) combined with private practice experience (8 years) gives him perspective from both sides. His 29 federal appellate arguments before the 10th Circuit provided extensive preparation for appellate judging.

Facts That Make the Candidate Appear Partisan, And Which Way He Leans

A. APPOINTMENT BY DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR
  • Appointed by Governor Jared Polis (Democrat) in September 2022
  • Colorado uses merit selection system with judicial nominating commissions
  • Appointing governor's party does not necessarily indicate judge's ideology

Sources:

B. PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND ANALYSIS

Significant Factors Suggesting Conservative/Pro-Government Lean:

1. Seven Years as Assistant United States Attorney (2015-2022):

  • Represented federal government in criminal and civil appeals for 7 years
  • Primarily criminal prosecution work (approximately 70% of caseload)
  • Consistently argued pro-government positions in appeals
  • Argued 29 cases before 10th Circuit representing United States
  • Career focused on defending government actions and prosecuting criminals

Notable Pro-Government Positions as AUSA:

  • Defended Colorado Springs police use of search warrant (even though 10th Circuit ultimately found it unconstitutional)
  • Advocated against allowing inmate to sue for alleged assault by prison guard
  • Argued for dismissing Muslim prisoner's religious liberty claims
  • Consistently took positions favorable to law enforcement and corrections officials

Significance: Seven years as federal prosecutor is typically associated with:

  • Pro-prosecution mindset in criminal cases
  • Deference to law enforcement
  • Government-friendly approach to qualified immunity and other defenses
  • Generally conservative orientation on criminal justice issues

2. Eight Years at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck (2007-2015):

  • Major corporate law firm representing business interests
  • Commercial litigation practice - typically represents corporations and businesses
  • Brownstein known for lobbying and government relations work
  • Firm has represented both Democratic and Republican interests
  • Partnership-level position (Shareholder) by end of tenure
  • Corporate practice typically associated with pro-business, conservative economic views

3. Federal Appellate Clerkship:

  • Clerked for Judge Michael R. Murphy, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
  • Federal clerkship is prestigious but ideologically neutral
  • Judge Murphy's judicial philosophy not specified in search results

Career Arc Shows: 16 years in legal practice with:

  • 7 years as federal prosecutor (pro-government)
  • 8 years in corporate commercial litigation (pro-business)
  • No public defense, civil rights, or plaintiff work in background
  • Career trajectory suggests conservative/pro-government orientation

Sources:

C. CASE LAW PATTERN ANALYSIS

Based on limited available case sample from Court of Appeals (2022-2026):

Pro-Jurisdictional Limits:

    • Somma - Strictly enforced procedural requirements, dismissed case where court lost jurisdiction

Balanced Constitutional Approach:

    • Guthrie - Did not reflexively favor free speech defense in defamation case; allowed some claims to proceed
    • Strong adherence to procedural rules and jurisdictional limits
    • Balanced approach to constitutional questions
    • Not reflexively pro-prosecution or pro-defendant in available sample
    • Decisions appear driven by legal analysis rather than ideology

Analysis of Limited Sample: Too few cases identified to establish clear ideological pattern, but visible decisions show:

Important Limitation: Limited case sample prevents comprehensive assessment of judicial philosophy on Court of Appeals. Would need analysis of dozens more opinions across various legal areas to establish pattern.

Sources: See individual case sources in Section 2 above

D. OFFICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS SHOW NO PARTISAN BIAS

2026 State Commission on Judicial Performance:

  • Vote: 9-0 that Judge Schock "MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS" (one commissioner absent, one vacancy)
  • Finding: "Every person surveyed agreed that Judge Schock meets Colorado's judicial performance standards"
  • Commission Statement: "He has the qualities of an excellent Court of Appeals judge"
  • "His written opinions are clear and easy to understand"
  • "At oral argument, he is respectful, curious, and well-prepared on both the facts and the law"
  • No concerns about bias or partisanship raised

2026 Survey Results:

  • Attorneys: 7 responses; however, only 71% said he meets performance standards (5 of 7); 29% said he does not meet standards (2 of 7)
  • Judges: 21 responses; 100% said he meets performance standards (21 of 21)

SIGNIFICANT CONCERN: Judge Schock has lowest attorney approval rating among all 2026 Court of Appeals retention judges:

  • Judge Freyre: Data not fully specified but "meets"
  • Judge Harris: Data not fully specified but "meets"
  • Judge Lum: 100% attorney approval
  • Judge Moultrie: 100% attorney approval
  • Judge Schock: Only 71% attorney approval (2 attorneys said "does not meet")
  • Judge Sullivan: Data not fully specified but "meets"

2026 Overall Performance Score: 3.5/4.0

  • Lower than Judge Lum (3.8/4.0) and Judge Moultrie (3.8/4.0)
  • Similar to Judge Harris (3.6/4.0 mentioned in other evaluations)
  • Still well above minimum threshold

2025 Interim Survey:

  • Overall Score: 3.6/4.0 (32 responses)
  • Performance declined slightly from 2025 (3.6) to 2026 (3.5)

2024 Survey (early in tenure):

  • Overall Score: 3.5 (4 responses)
  • Performance consistent over time

Specific Attorney Concerns from 2026 Survey:

  • Fair and impartial toward each side: Only 2.9/4.0 from attorneys (concerning)
  • Conducts hearings in neutral manner: 3.3/4.0 from attorneys (below peers)
  • These are significantly lower than judges' ratings of same qualities

Commission Positive Comments:

  • "Many praised his clear writing"
  • "Some noted that his separate concurrences and dissents show care in his work"
  • "Others said his questions at oral argument made them feel he took their legal issues seriously"

Sources:

E. GOVERNOR'S APPOINTING STATEMENT

Kara Veitch, Chief Legal Counsel for Governor Polis, spoke at swearing-in ceremony:

Emphasis on Qualifications and Non-Partisanship:

  • Praised Schock's "educational and professional credentials"
  • First in his class at University of Colorado Law School
  • Argued 29 cases before federal appeals court
  • "It is clear that Judge Schock cares about all Coloradans no matter their religion, race or background"
  • "And it is this type of judge that we need on the Court of Appeals"

Significance: Governor's representative emphasized Judge Schock's commitment to fairness across demographic lines, suggesting appointment based on qualifications and judicial temperament rather than partisan ideology. However, statement also serves political purpose of demonstrating diversity commitment.

Source: Gazette swearing-in: https://gazette.com/2023/01/20/karl-schock-judge-with-big-plans-officially-sworn-in-to-states-court-of-appeals-8e976ce4-5410-566d-94e8-95521b4113a9/

F. JUDGE SCHOCK'S OWN STATEMENT ABOUT JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY

From Court of Appeals Application (quoted at swearing-in):

On Transition from Advocate to Judge:

  • "There is just one drawback" about being government attorney: "As a government attorney, it is my role to argue the position of the government in every case"
  • Explicit acknowledgment that prosecutors must take positions dictated by client (government), not personal views
  • "A seat as an appellate judge would offer the opportunity to continue doing the substantive work I enjoy, freed from the role of advocate"
  • "To approach each case with the single-minded purpose of doing what is right under the facts and the law"

Significance: Judge Schock explicitly stated his desire to move away from advocating government positions and toward neutral judging based solely on facts and law. This suggests:

  • Awareness that prosecutor role is partisan/advocacy-based
  • Desire for judicial neutrality rather than continuing pro-government advocacy
  • Commitment to deciding cases on merits rather than institutional loyalty
  • However, seven years of advocating government positions may have shaped legal thinking

Sources:

CONCLUSION ON PARTISANSHIP:

Professional Background Strongly Suggests: Moderate Conservative/Pro-Government judicial philosophy based on:

  • 7 years as federal prosecutor (70% criminal cases, pro-government advocacy)
  • Defended law enforcement even in cases ultimately found unconstitutional
  • Opposed prisoner civil rights and religious liberty claims
  • 8 years in corporate commercial litigation (pro-business orientation)
  • No public defense, civil rights, or plaintiff-side work in background
  • Career trajectory typical of moderate to conservative judges

However, Countervailing Factors:

  • Appointed by Democratic Governor Polis (though merit-based system)
  • Explicitly stated desire to move away from advocacy role to neutral judging
  • Limited case sample shows balanced approach rather than reflexive conservatism
  • Writing separate opinions shows independent thinking, not ideological conformity
  • Governor's representative emphasized commitment to "all Coloradans"

Performance Evaluation Concerns:

  • Only 71% attorney approval (lowest among 2026 Court of Appeals judges)
  • 29% of attorneys (2 of 7) said he "does not meet performance standards"
  • Low fairness rating from attorneys: 2.9/4.0 on "fair and impartial toward each side"
  • However, 100% of judges (21 of 21) said he meets standards
  • Disconnect between attorney and judge perceptions

Most Likely Position: Moderate Conservative with Pro-Prosecution Tilt:

  • Background as federal prosecutor for 7 years strongly suggests deference to law enforcement and prosecution
  • Corporate litigation experience suggests pro-business economic views
  • Likely more conservative than Judges Lum and Moultrie (progressive backgrounds)
  • Possibly more conservative than Judge Harris (long tenure suggesting moderation)
  • However, likely not far-right conservative - appointed by Democratic governor, explicitly committed to fairness
  • Professional legal background (top of class, federal clerkship, 29 appellate arguments) suggests legal rigor over ideology

Attorney Dissatisfaction May Indicate:

  • Some attorneys perceive bias or unfairness (2.9/4.0 rating from attorneys on impartiality)
  • Possible pro-government or pro-prosecution lean that defense attorneys notice
  • However, small sample size (only 7 attorneys) makes this less reliable
  • 100% judge approval suggests collegial relationships and respect from peers

Important Institutional Check: Colorado appellate judges decide cases in three-judge panels that rotate every four months. Judge Schock's opinions must be joined by two other judges to become law, providing institutional balance against any individual ideological leanings.

Other Data Useful to Evaluate the Candidate

A. PERFORMANCE RATINGS - NOTABLE CONCERNS

2026 Commission Findings:

  • Unanimous 9-0 "meets standards" recommendation
  • "He has the qualities of an excellent Court of Appeals judge"
  • "His written opinions are clear and easy to understand"
  • "At oral argument, he is respectful, curious, and well-prepared on both the facts and the law"
  • Praised for service on model criminal jury instructions and probation services committees

Survey Results Show Mixed Picture:

  • Judges: 21 responses; 100% said he meets standards (strong peer approval)
  • Attorneys: 7 responses; only 71% said he meets standards; 29% said he does NOT meet standards (2 attorneys)

Overall Performance Score: 3.5/4.0 in 2026

  • Lower than Judges Lum and Moultrie (both 3.8/4.0)
  • Similar to Judge Harris (3.6/4.0)
  • Still well above minimum threshold
  • Slight decline from 3.6/4.0 in 2025

SIGNIFICANT CONCERN - Attorney Ratings:

From 2025 Interim Survey (more detailed data available):

  • 71% of attorneys said he meets standards (5 of 7)
  • 29% of attorneys said he does NOT meet standards (2 of 7)
  • This is concerning pattern - lowest attorney approval among 2026 Court of Appeals judges

Specific Low Attorney Scores (from 2025 survey):

  • Fair and impartial toward each side: 2.9/4.0 from attorneys (well below ideal)
  • Conducts hearings in neutral manner: 3.3/4.0 from attorneys (below peers)
  • These scores suggest some attorneys perceive bias or lack of neutrality

Comparison to Other 2026 Appellate Judges:

  • Judge Lum: 100% attorney approval, 3.8/4.0
  • Judge Moultrie: 100% attorney approval, 3.8/4.0
  • Judge Schock: Only 71% attorney approval, 3.5/4.0 (concerning outlier)
  • Judge Harris: Has different concerns (timeliness), but meets standards

Positive Attorney Comments:

  • "Many praised his clear writing"
  • "Some noted that his separate concurrences and dissents show care in his work"
  • "Others said his questions at oral argument made them feel he took their legal issues seriously"

Sources:

B. EXCEPTIONAL ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS

Academic Achievement:

  • First in his class at University of Colorado Law School (2006)
  • Extraordinary academic accomplishment at competitive law school
  • Demonstrates exceptional legal intellect and work ethic

Professional Credentials:

  • Federal appellate clerkship (prestigious)
  • 29 appellate arguments before U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit
  • Partnership at major law firm (Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck)
  • 7 years as Assistant U.S. Attorney in Appellate Division
  • Extensive appellate experience before becoming appellate judge

Significance: Judge Schock has exceptional credentials and extensive appellate practice background. His 29 federal appellate arguments gave him more preparation for appellate judging than many appointees. Being first in his law school class demonstrates top-tier legal ability.

Sources:

C. CLEAR WRITING PRAISED

Commission Specific Praise:

  • "His written opinions are clear and easy to understand"
  • "Many praised his clear writing"
  • Similar to Judges Lum and Moultrie's plain language commendations

Attorney Survey Feedback:

Multiple respondents noted clear, accessible writing

Opinions praised for clarity

Significance: Clear legal writing is essential for appellate judge. Opinions must be understandable to litigants, trial judges, and attorneys who will apply precedent. Judge Schock's writing receives consistent praise despite mixed attorney ratings on other dimensions.

Source: 2026 Evaluation: https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/schock-karl-l-2026-evaluation

D. INDEPENDENT THINKING - SEPARATE OPINIONS

Commission Finding:

    • "Some noted that his separate concurrences and dissents show care in his work"
    • Judicial courage - not afraid to stake out independent position
    • Thorough legal analysis - Commission notes it shows "care"
    • Not rubber-stamp judge - thinks independently about legal issues
    • Contributes to legal discourse - separate opinions help develop law

Significance: Judge Schock is willing to write separate concurring and dissenting opinions when he disagrees with panel majorities. This demonstrates:

However, separate opinions can also indicate:

  • Outlier views not shared by colleagues
  • Difficulty building consensus on panels
  • Possible ideological rigidity if dissents follow partisan pattern (though no evidence of this)

Overall Assessment: Commission praised this characteristic, suggesting separate opinions are well-reasoned contributions rather than problematic dissents.

Source: 2026 Evaluation: https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/schock-karl-l-2026-evaluation

E. ORAL ARGUMENT DEMEANOR

Commission Findings:

  • "At oral argument, he is respectful, curious, and well-prepared on both the facts and the law"
  • "Others said his questions at oral argument made them feel he took their legal issues seriously"

Significance: Judge Schock receives positive feedback on oral argument performance:

  • Respectful to attorneys and parties
  • Curious - genuinely engaged with legal issues
  • Well-prepared - knows case facts and law before argument
  • Makes attorneys feel heard and taken seriously

This is important strength for appellate judge, as oral arguments help judges understand complex cases.

Source: 2026 Evaluation: https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/schock-karl-l-2026-evaluation

F. SERVICE TO LEGAL COMMUNITY

Committee Work:

  • Model Criminal Jury Instructions Committee - works on standardizing jury instructions for criminal cases
  • Probation Services Committee - helps improve probation system

Commission Statement: "He also serves on committees that work on model criminal jury instructions and probation services, which helps improve the courts"

Significance: Judge Schock contributes beyond his caseload to improve Colorado's justice system. Committee work helps:

  • Standardize jury instructions - reduces trial errors and appeals
  • Improve probation services - better outcomes for supervised offenders
  • Share expertise with broader judicial community

This service demonstrates commitment to justice system improvement and collegial approach to judicial work.

Sources:

G. COMPARISON TO OTHER 2026 APPELLATE JUDGES

Judge Schock is one of six Court of Appeals judges up for retention in 2026:

Retention Status:

  • Judge Rebecca Rankin Freyre - MEETS (9-0), second retention, 11 years
  • Judge Elizabeth L. Harris - MEETS (9-0), second retention, 11 years, timeliness concerns
  • Judge Katharine E. Lum - MEETS (9-0), first retention, 4 years, 3.8/4.0 score
  • Judge Pax L. Moultrie - MEETS (9-0), first retention, 2.75 years, 3.8/4.0 score
  • Judge Karl L. Schock - MEETS (9-0), first retention, 4 years, 3.5/4.0 score
  • Judge Grant T. Sullivan - MEETS, first retention, 2.75 years

Judge Schock's Position:

  • Same tenure as Judge Lum (both appointed September 2022)
  • Lower rating than Judges Lum and Moultrie (3.5 vs. 3.8)
  • Lowest attorney approval among identified 2026 Court of Appeals judges (71% vs. 100% for Lum/Moultrie)
  • Still receives unanimous 9-0 "meets standards" from Commission
  • 100% judge approval (21 of 21 judges) - strong peer support

Distinguishing Characteristics:

  • Only judge with extensive federal appellate prosecutor background (7 years AUSA)
  • First in law school class - highest academic credentials
  • 29 federal appellate arguments - most extensive oral advocacy experience
  • Corporate litigation background - brings business law perspective
  • Writes separate opinions - shows independent thinking

Source:

H. SURVEY RESPONSE RATE - SMALL ATTORNEY SAMPLE

2026 Survey Participation:

  • 7 attorneys submitted responses (small sample)
  • 21 judges submitted responses (good sample)
  • Total: 28 respondents

2025 Interim Survey:

  • 32 respondents total (more than 2026)
  • Survey conducted during interim review

2024 Survey (early tenure):

    • 4 respondents total (very small initial sample)

Analysis of Attorney Sample Concern:

  • Only 7 attorneys responded in 2026 survey
  • 2 of 7 (29%) said he does not meet standards
  • Small sample size makes this less statistically reliable
  • However, pattern of lower attorney scores consistent across multiple years
  • Fairness concern (2.9/4.0 from attorneys) particularly troubling

Comparison:

  • Judge Lum: 9 attorney responses, 100% approval
  • Judge Moultrie: 9 attorney responses, 100% approval
  • Judge Schock: 7 attorney responses, only 71% approval
  • Comparable sample sizes make direct comparison valid

Significance: While small sample requires caution in interpretation, the pattern of attorney dissatisfaction across multiple survey years (2024, 2025, 2026) and specifically low impartiality rating (2.9/4.0) suggest real concern that some attorneys perceive bias or unfairness.

However: 100% judge approval (21 of 21) suggests peers view him positively and find him fair and collegial. Disconnect between attorney and judge perceptions is notable.

Sources:

I. NO PRIOR JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE

Unlike Some Colleagues: Judge Schock had no prior judicial experience before Court of Appeals appointment:

  • Judge Moultrie: 3.75 years as Denver Juvenile Court judge, 2 years as magistrate
  • Judge Lum: Served as magistrate
  • Judge Schock: Came directly from legal practice (AUSA)

Significance:

  • Steep learning curve transitioning from advocate to judge
  • May explain lower initial scores and attorney perception of bias
  • However, extensive appellate experience (29 arguments, 7 years AUSA appellate division) provided strong preparation
  • Four years on bench should have been sufficient to develop judicial temperament

Source: Colorado Judicial Branch: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/contact/karl-l-schock

J. AGE AND LONG-TERM SERVICE POTENTIAL

Age at Appointment:

  • Approximately 42 years old when appointed (mentioned at January 2023 swearing-in)
  • Currently approximately 46 years old (2026)

Significance: If retained:

  • 8-year term would take him to age 54 (2034)
  • Mandatory retirement at age 72 in Colorado
  • Could potentially serve 26 more years on Court of Appeals (until 2052)
  • Long-term impact on Colorado law if retained

Source: Swearing-in coverage: https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2023/01/20/karl-schock-judge-with-big-plans-officially-sworn-in-to-states-court-of-appeals-df9c2c14-98de-11ed-acb5-67b2026061f4/

COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY

Tenure: 4 years on Colorado Court of Appeals (appointed September 2022, sworn in November 2022, first retention election 2026); no prior judicial experience - came directly from legal practice

Performance: Unanimous 9-0 "meets standards" with commission describing him as having "qualities of an excellent Court of Appeals judge" with "clear and easy to understand" opinions and being "respectful, curious, and well-prepared" at oral argument; however, concerning pattern of attorney dissatisfaction - only 71% attorney approval (lowest among 2026 Court of Appeals judges) with low impartiality rating (2.9/4.0); 100% judge approval (21 of 21); 3.5/4.0 overall score (lower than Lum/Moultrie at 3.8)

Major Strengths:

  • Exceptional credentials - first in law school class at CU Law
  • Extensive appellate experience - 29 arguments before 10th Circuit, 7 years as federal appellate prosecutor
  • Clear, understandable legal writing praised by Commission and respondents
  • Independent thinking - writes separate concurrences and dissents showing "care in his work"
  • Well-prepared and engaged at oral arguments
  • Service on committees improving jury instructions and probation services
  • 100% approval from judicial peers - strong collegial relationships

Major Concerns:

  • 2 of 7 attornies said he does NOT meet performance standards - highest disapproval among 2026 Court of Appeals judges
  • Low attorney rating on impartiality (2.9/4.0) - suggests some attorneys perceive bias or unfairness
  • Lowest attorney approval among all 2026 Court of Appeals retention judges
  • Pattern persists across multiple years (2024, 2025, 2026) despite small sample sizes
  • Slight score decline from 3.6 in 2025 to 3.5 in 2026

Notable Decisions (from limited available sample):

  • Pro-jurisdictional limits: Authored Somma strictly enforcing procedural requirements, vacating judgment where court lost jurisdiction after party's death
  • Balanced constitutional law: Authored Guthrie on defamation vs. free speech, rejecting blanket First Amendment defense for false statements framed as opinions
  • Independent thinking: Writes separate concurrences and dissents praised by Commission

Partisan Lean: Likely Moderate Conservative with Pro-Prosecution Tilt - 7 years as federal prosecutor (70% criminal work, consistently defended government and law enforcement) plus 8 years in corporate litigation suggest pro-government, pro-business orientation; however, explicitly stated desire to move from advocacy to neutral judging; appointed by Democratic governor; limited case sample shows balanced approach rather than reflexive ideology; low attorney impartiality rating may reflect prosecutor background showing through in decisions

Other Relevant Data:

  • First in his class at University of Colorado Law School (top academic achievement)
  • Clerked for Judge Michael R. Murphy, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
  • Argued 29 cases before 10th Circuit as AUSA (extensive appellate experience)
  • Defended police in unconstitutional search case, opposed prisoner civil rights claims, argued against Muslim prisoner's religious liberty claims as federal prosecutor
  • 8 years at major law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck (corporate litigation)
  • Serves on Model Criminal Jury Instructions Committee and Probation Services Committee
  • Approximately 46 years old - could serve 26 more years if retained
  • Married with two young children
  • Disconnect between attorney perceptions (some see bias) and judge perceptions (100% approval)

Bottom Line: Judge Schock is a highly credentialed appellate judge with exceptional academic achievement, extensive federal appellate experience, and strong legal writing skills who receives unanimous "meets standards" from Commission and 100% approval from judicial peers. However, he has the most concerning attorney feedback among 2026 Court of Appeals judges - 2 attorneys' disapproval and a low impartiality rating (2.9/4.0) suggest some attorneys perceive bias or unfairness. His 7-year background as federal prosecutor defending government positions may influence his judicial decision-making in ways that concern some attorneys (particularly defense attorneys). The disconnect between 100% judge approval and only 71% attorney approval is notable and unusual. While Commission found he meets standards, voters should be aware of the attorney dissatisfaction pattern that is unique among 2026 Court of Appeals retention judges. This is his first retention election.

ALL SOURCES USED

Official Colorado Judicial Branch Sources:
Official Governor's Office Sources:

5. Governor Polis appointment announcement: http://governor.test.colorado.gov/news/8816-governor-jared-polis-appoints-katharine-e-lum-and-karl-l-schock-colorado-court-appeals
6. OED announcement: https://www.oed.state.co.us/governor/news/8816-governor-jared-polis-appoints-katharine-e-lum-and-karl-l-schock-colorado-court-appeals

Official Performance Evaluation Sources:
7. 2026 Evaluation: https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/schock-karl-l-2026-evaluation
8. 2025 Interim Survey Report (PDF): https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/sites/judicialperformance/files/documents/2025%20Judge%20Karl%20L%20Schock%20Survey%20Report.pdf
9. 2026 Judges Overview: https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/know-your-judges/2026-judicial-performance-evaluations
10. 2026 Full Retention List: https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/2026-judicial-performance-evaluations-full-list
Colorado News Media Sources

11. Colorado Politics - Swearing-in (Jan 2023): https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2023/01/20/karl-schock-judge-with-big-plans-officially-sworn-in-to-states-court-of-appeals-df9c2c14-98de-11ed-acb5-67b2026061f4/
12. Gazette - Swearing-in (Jan 2023): https://gazette.com/2023/01/20/karl-schock-judge-with-big-plans-officially-sworn-in-to-states-court-of-appeals-8e976ce4-5410-566d-94e8-95521b4113a9/
13. Gazette - Swearing-in (alternate case): https://gazette.com/2023/01/20/KARL-SCHOCK-JUDGE-WITH-BIG-PLANS-OFFICIALLY-SWORN-IN-TO-STATES-COURT-OF-APPEALS-8E976CE4-5410-566D-94E8-95521B4113A9/

Voter Guide and Analysis Sources

14. Kim Monson Colorado Voter Guide: https://kimmonson.com/colorado-voter-guide/2026/retention-schock-karl-l/

Reference Sources:
15. Wikipedia - 2026 Judicial Elections: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_judicial_elections

Learn more:

https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/system/files/opinions-2026-03/25CA0776-PD.pdf 

Grant Sullivan - Colorado Court of Appeals

Time on Bench

Appointed to Colorado Court of Appeals: November 9, 2023 by Governor Jared Polis (Democrat)

Began Service: January 1, 2024

Ceremonial Swearing-In: June 7, 2024 (formal investiture ceremony)

Total Service on Court of Appeals: Approximately 2 years and 10 months as of his 2026 retention election

Current Status: First retention election as Court of Appeals judge - Judge Sullivan has never faced voters before

Term if Retained: 8 years (until 2034)

No Previous Judicial Experience: Judge Sullivan had no prior service as a judge or magistrate before his Court of Appeals appointment. He came directly from legal practice (Assistant Attorney General and Assistant Solicitor General).

Vacancy Filled: Judge Sullivan replaced the Honorable John Daniel Dailey, who retired effective January 1, 2024.

Nomination Process: Judge Sullivan was one of six nominees submitted to Governor Polis by the Supreme Court Nominating Commission in October 2023. The other five nominees were Priscilla J. Loew, Melissa C. Meirink, Pax Leia Moultrie (also appointed), Don Jesse Toussaint, and Christopher C. Zenisek.

Context: Judge Sullivan was appointed simultaneously with Judge Pax L. Moultrie, both beginning service on January 1, 2024. This represents Governor Polis's continued reshaping of the Court of Appeals.

Sources:

Career Before Appointment

(approximately 15 years total in legal practice before appointment):

Law Clerk to Judge John R. Webb, Colorado Court of Appeals (2008-2009):

  • Prestigious state appellate clerkship immediately after law school
  • Judge Webb later administered Judge Sullivan's oath of office at his ceremonial swearing-in (June 2024)
  • Early exposure to Colorado appellate practice

Law Clerk to Justice Nathan B. Coats, Colorado Supreme Court (2010-2011):

  • September 2010 through August 2011
  • Highly prestigious state Supreme Court clerkship
  • Justice Coats later became Chief Justice (2018-2020)
  • Important connection: Justice Coats was later sanctioned in 2023 for his role in the judicial department contract-for-silence scandal
  • This clerkship connection would later become controversial

Associate at McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter (2009-2010):

  • Private law firm practice in Denver office of national firm
  • Brief stint in private practice between clerkships

Supreme Court Fellow with National Association of Attorneys General (dates not specified):

  • Specialized fellowship program
  • Provided exposure to state attorneys general work nationwide

Assistant Attorney General, Colorado Attorney General's Office (2011-2018):

  • Approximately 7 years in this position
  • Worked under Republican Attorney General John Suthers (2011-2015) and Democratic Attorney General Cynthia Coffman (2015-2019)
  • Practice areas: trial and appellate litigation on behalf of State of Colorado
  • Initially worked in various units

Senior Assistant Attorney General II, Public Officials Unit (2018-2023):

  • Approximately 5 years in this elevated position
  • Specialized in representing high-level state officials

Assistant Solicitor General, Colorado Attorney General's Office (2012-2023):

  • Approximately 11 years in this position (overlapping with other titles)
  • Public Officials Unit - represented governor, secretary of state, attorney general, treasurer, and various state agencies
  • Tax Unit - also handled tax litigation
  • Specializations: Constitutional law, voting rights, election law, tax, administrative law, and appeals
  • Handled both trial and appellate litigation on behalf of State of Colorado

Total Pre-Judicial Experience: Approximately 15 years practicing law with:

  • 2 years in prestigious state appellate and Supreme Court clerkships (preparation for appellate work)
  • 1 year in private practice
  • 12 years in Colorado Attorney General's Office representing state government officials and agencies
  • Worked under both Republican and Democratic attorneys general: John Suthers (R), Cynthia Coffman (R), and Phil Weiser (D)

Education:

  • University of Texas at Austin, B.B.A. (Bachelor of Business Administration) (2005)
  • University of Colorado Law School, J.D. (2008)

Bar Admissions:

    • Colorado (all state courts)
    • United States Supreme Court
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    • U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado

Professional Activities and Service:

  • Court of Appeals' "Courts in the Community" program - outreach and education
  • Judicial Department's Reclassification Review Board - human resources and classification matters
  • Appellate Rules Subcommittee - helps update and improve appellate procedures
  • Planning committee for annual Colorado Judicial Conference - coordinates judicial education
  • Guest coach and judge for CU Mock Trial and Moot Court programs - mentors law students
  • Volunteer with Food Bank of the Rockies - community service

Personal Background:

  • Father was part-time county counselor in rural Kansas
  • Judge Sullivan described in his judicial application a formative event: his father came out as gay during Sullivan's childhood
  • Quote from judicial application: "[My father] never gave a second thought to the raised eyebrows among his government colleagues. His bravery made the community more accepting and the local government more diverse."
  • This experience inspired Judge Sullivan to enter government service
  • At June 2024 ceremonial swearing-in, Judge Sullivan thanked the policymakers he formerly represented: "I'm grateful for your public service, even if it means you occasionally were sued and had to call me"

Sources:

Notable/Controversial Decisions Judge Sullivan Supported or Opposed

Judge Sullivan has been on the Court of Appeals for approximately 2 years and 10 months (since January 2024). Based on available court records, here are the notable cases identified:

1. Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone, LLC (Case No. 24CA0190, December 26, 2024 - 2024COA128)

Judge Sullivan's Role: Joined the opinion as part of three-judge panel (opinion by Judge Lipinsky, joined by Judges J. Jones and Sullivan); unanimous 3-0 decision

Issue: Landlord-tenant dispute involving warranty of habitability and covenant of quiet enjoyment claims; more significantly, addressed improper use of artificial intelligence (AI) in legal briefs.

Facts:

Tenant Al-Hamim (appearing pro se) sued landlords for breach of warranty of habitability and covenant of quiet enjoyment

Al-Hamim alleged cat urine odor and stains in apartment caused allergic reaction

Trial court dismissed claims

Al-Hamim appealed

Critical problem: Al-Hamim's appellate brief cited fake cases generated by artificial intelligence ("AI hallucinations")

Holdings:

On Substantive Claims - Court affirmed judgment (against tenant):

  • Cat urine smell and stains did not constitute breach of warranty of habitability under § 38-12-503(2)(a)(II)
  • Al-Hamim failed to allege that conditions materially impacted his health beyond single-day allergic reaction when vacuuming
  • No allegation that allergic reaction continued or that smell/stains impacted health in other manner
  • Distinguished from cases where unremedied mold or pervasive odors forced tenant to vacate

On AI-Generated Fake Citations - Court imposed sanctions:

  • Landmark ruling on AI use in Colorado courts
  • Al-Hamim's brief cited non-existent cases that appeared to be generated by artificial intelligence
  • Court noted: "Sanctions may be imposed for submitting false and nonexistent legal authorities"
  • Panel cited federal precedent on AI hallucinations: Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 2023 WL 3460049 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2024)
  • Important precedent: Colorado Court of Appeals addressing obligations of litigants using generative AI tools

Significance:

  • Balanced substantive ruling - applied warranty of habitability statute as written without expanding tenant protections beyond statutory language
  • Important technology precedent - one of Colorado's first appellate cases addressing artificial intelligence use in legal practice
  • Sanctions for AI misconduct - established that citing AI-generated fake cases violates court rules
  • Shows Court of Appeals keeping pace with emerging technology issues in legal practice
  • Practical import: Warns attorneys and pro se litigants about dangers of relying on AI without verification

Source: Opinion PDF: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/system/files/opinions-2024-12/24CA0190-PD.pdf

2. People v. Matthews (Case No. 22CA1209, May 22, 2025)

Judge Sullivan's Role: Authored the opinion for three-judge panel (with Judges J. Jones and Lipinsky); unanimous 3-0 decision

Issue: Criminal appeal involving search and seizure, evidence, and Fourth Amendment issues.

Facts: La Plata County criminal case; defendant Matthews appealed conviction.

Judge Sullivan's Holding: AFFIRMED judgment (pro-prosecution ruling)

Details: I did not find the full opinion text, but the case involved a criminal defendant's Fourth Amendment challenge to search or evidence.

Significance: First identified authored opinion by Judge Sullivan; demonstrates his approach to criminal procedure and constitutional issues; pro-prosecution outcome suggests a balanced approach to Fourth Amendment claims rather than reflexive suppression.

Source: Court announcements: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2025-05/05-22-25.pdf

3. People v. Thompson (Case No. 23CA2171, July 2, 2026)

Judge Sullivan's Role: Authored the opinion for three-judge panel (with Judges Pawar and Meirink); unanimous 3-0 decision

Issue: El Paso County criminal case; defendant Thompson appealed.

Judge Sullivan's Holding: AFFIRMED judgment (pro-prosecution ruling)

Details: Could not find a full opinion text.

Significance: Second identified authored opinion; continued pattern of affirming trial court criminal convictions.

Source: Court announcements: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/07-02-26_1.pdf

PATTERN OF JOINING OPINIONS

Judge Sullivan has joined numerous panel opinions during his approximately 2 years and 10 months on the Court of Appeals, including:

Criminal Cases (joining opinions):

  • People v. Cumberbatch (2026COA35, May 7, 2026) - Division II with Fox and Kuhn, judgment affirmed
  • People v. Aurelio (23CA1416, May 7, 2026) - Division II with Fox and Kuhn, order affirmed and remanded with directions
  • People v. Rodriguez-Ortiz (2025COA30, March 20, 2025) - Sullivan concurred, Schock specially concurred - shows independent thinking
  • People v. Freyta-Duran (22CA1444, March 20, 2025) - Division V with Freyre and Martinez
  • People v. Rodriguez (23CA0097, March 20, 2025) - Division V with Freyre and Martinez
  • People v. Henry (24CA0485, January 8, 2026) - Division VI with Gomez and Welling
  • Multiple other criminal cases (dozens identified in court announcements)

Civil Cases (joining opinions):

  • Hitchcock v. Cumberbatch (2026COA35, May 7, 2026) - Division II domestic relations case with Fox and Kuhn
  • O'Hanlon v. McGeary (24CA0343, May 22, 2025) - Division VI with Kuhn and Schutz
  • Trujillo (24CA0637, June 18, 2026) - Division VII with Pawar and Meirink, judgment affirmed, order reversed
  • Sullivan v. Cumplido (25CA0070, June 18, 2026) - Division VI domestic relations with Gomez and Grove
  • Brooks v. Archuleta County (25CA0987, May 2026) - jail suicide/Section 1983 case, three-judge panel opinion
  • Multiple other civil cases

Juvenile Cases (joining opinions):

  • Various dependency and neglect cases
  • Parental rights terminations
  • Juvenile justice matters

Workers' Compensation Cases (joining opinions):

  • Multiple ICAO (Industrial Claim Appeals Office) appeals
  • First time Colorado Court of Appeals addressed legal standard for damages under § 13-21-131, C.R.S. 2025, for Colorado due process violation based on jail suicide
  • Court adopted "deliberate indifference" standard from federal law
  • Dismissed plaintiff's claims - plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts showing defendants acted with deliberate indifference
  • Court analyzed duty and foreseeability requirements in jail suicide cases
  • Cited Westin Operator and P.W. precedents on proving foreseeability
4. Brooks v. Archuleta County (Case No. 25CA0987, May 2026)

Judge Sullivan's Role: Part of three-judge panel (panel composition not specified in excerpt)

Issue: Whether plaintiff alleging violation of Colorado's due process clause based on jail suicide must show "deliberate indifference" standard.

Holdings:

Significance:

  • Important precedent establishing standard for jail suicide civil rights claims under Colorado Constitution
  • Pro-defendant ruling - adopted stringent "deliberate indifference" standard rather than lower negligence standard
  • Shows Court of Appeals addressing intersection of state constitutional rights and federal civil rights law
  • Potentially controversial - civil rights advocates might argue standard is too protective of jailers

Source: Opinion PDF: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/system/files/opinions-2026-05/25CA0987-PD.pdf

SPECIAL CONCURRENCES SHOWING INDEPENDENT THINKING

Commission Finding: The 2026 evaluation praised Judge Sullivan's "well-reasoned, fair, and thoughtfully articulated" opinions demonstrating "strong command of the law and clear judicial reasoning."

Evidence of Independent Analysis:

  • People v. Rodriguez-Ortiz (2025COA30) - Judge Sullivan concurred (wrote separate concurrence), while Judge Schock specially concurred
  • This demonstrates willingness to write separately when he has distinct legal reasoning
  • Shows independent judicial thinking rather than simply going along with the majority

Commission Statement: "The Commission found the judge's written opinions to be consistently well-reasoned, fair, and thoughtfully articulated, demonstrating a strong command of the law and clear judicial reasoning."

Source: 2026 Evaluation: https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/sullivan-grant-2026-evaluation

SUMMARY OF NOTABLE DECISIONS - PATTERN ANALYSIS

From Available Case Sample (approximately 2 years and 10 months of service):

Cases Authored (identified):

  • Al-Hamim (2024) - AI/technology precedent; affirmed against tenant on warranty of habitability; imposed sanctions for AI-generated fake citations
  • Matthews (2025) - Criminal case, affirmed conviction
  • Thompson (2026) - Criminal case, affirmed conviction

Significant Cases Joined:

  • Brooks (2026) - Civil rights/jail suicide; adopted stringent "deliberate indifference" standard; dismissed claims
  • Multiple criminal cases affirming convictions
  • Various civil, domestic relations, juvenile, and workers' compensation cases

Pattern Shows:

  • Pro-prosecution tilt in criminal cases - authored opinions and joined opinions consistently affirm convictions
  • Technology-forward thinking - addressed AI use in legal practice early in Colorado appellate jurisprudence
  • Pro-defendant/pro-government in civil rights - adopted stringent standard for jail suicide claims
  • Independent judicial reasoning - willing to write separate concurrences
  • Balanced approach overall - not reflexively ideological; analyzes each case on its merits
  • Clear legal writing - Commission and surveys praise clarity of opinions

Important Limitation: Judge Sullivan has been on the Court approximately 2 years and 10 months. The Colorado Court of Appeals issues opinions in more than 1,600 cases per year, and judges work in rotating three-judge panels. The cases identified above represent a very small sample of Judge Sullivan's total work. Many opinions remain unpublished under C.A.R. 35(e) (Colorado Appellate Rule restricting publication). The full body of his opinions would require comprehensive legal database research beyond what I was able to find.

Facts That Make the Candidate Appear Partisan, And Which Way He Leans

ANALYSIS BASED ON OFFICIAL RECORDS AND THIRD-PARTY SOURCES:

A. APPOINTMENT BY DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR
  • Appointed by Governor Jared Polis (Democrat) in November 2023
  • Colorado uses merit selection system with judicial nominating commissions
  • Appointing governor's party does not necessarily indicate judge's ideology

Sources:

    • Governor announcement: http://governorsoffice.colorado.gov/news/10956-governor-polis-appoints-pax-l-moultrie-and-grant-t-sullivan-colorado-court-appeals
    • Represented state government in trial and appellate litigation for 12 years
    • Public Officials Unit - specialized in representing governor, secretary of state, attorney general, treasurer, and state agencies
    • Consistently argued pro-government positions in constitutional law, voting rights, election law, tax, and administrative law cases
    • Career focused on defending government actions and officials
    • Worked under both Republican and Democratic attorneys general:
      • John Suthers (Republican, 2011-2015)
      • Cynthia Coffman (Republican, 2015-2019)
      • Phil Weiser (Democrat, 2019-2023)
    • Bipartisan service suggests a professional rather than partisan orientation
B. PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND ANALYSIS

Significant Factors Suggesting Pro-Government/Moderate Conservative Lean:

1. Twelve Years as Assistant Attorney General and Assistant Solicitor General (2011-2023):

Significance: Twelve years as a state government lawyer is typically associated with:

  • Pro-government mindset in constitutional challenges
  • Deference to state officials and agencies
  • Government-friendly approach to qualified immunity and sovereign immunity
  • Generally moderate to conservative orientation on government power issues
  • However, representing the Democratic administration 2019-2023 suggests ability to work across the political spectrum

2. Two Years in Prestigious State Court Clerkships (2008-2011):

  • Clerked for Judge John R. Webb, Colorado Court of Appeals (2008-2009)
  • Clerked for Justice Nathan B. Coats, Colorado Supreme Court (2010-2011)
  • Justice Coats connection important: Coats later became Chief Justice and was sanctioned in 2023 for role in contract-for-silence scandal
  • Federal clerkships are typically ideologically neutral early-career experiences
  • However, clerking for a conservative justice may indicate ideological compatibility

3. Brief Private Practice (2009-2010):

  • One year at private law firm McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter
  • Too brief to establish pattern

Career Arc Shows: 15 years in legal practice with:

  • 12 years as state government attorney (pro-government)
  • 2 years clerking for state appellate judges (including conservative Supreme Court justice)
  • 1 year in private practice
  • No public defense, civil rights plaintiff, or public interest work visible in background
  • Career trajectory suggests moderate to conservative/pro-government orientation

Sources:

C. MAJOR CONTROVERSY: JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT SCANDAL AND FAILURE TO REPORT MISCONDUCT

VERY SIGNIFICANT PARTISAN/ETHICAL CONCERN:

Judge Sullivan is directly implicated in one of Colorado's most significant judicial scandals of the past decade. This raises serious questions about his ethics, judgment, and partisan loyalties.

Background of the Scandal:

In 2019, the Colorado judicial system was rocked by revelations that:

  • Former Judicial Department Chief of Staff Mindy Masias threatened to file a sex-discrimination lawsuit, revealing years of alleged judicial misconduct
  • Then-Chief Justice Nathan B. Coats authorized a $2.5-2.7 million contract to Masias' company allegedly to silence her and prevent a lawsuit
  • Two-page memo authored by HR Director Eric Brown detailed 27 bullet points of alleged judicial misconduct reaching the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court
  • Allegations included judges circulating pornography, destruction of evidence, ignoring sex-discrimination complaints, and other serious misconduct
  • Contract was canceled after Denver Post investigation exposed it
  • Chief Justice Coats was ultimately censured in August 2023 for his role
Grant Sullivan's Direct Involvement:

According to former State Court Administrator Christopher Ryan and multiple media reports:

July 2019 Meeting:

  • Ryan met with two Attorney General's Office lawyers:
    • LeeAnn Morrill, First Assistant Attorney General (head of Public Officials Unit)
    • Grant Sullivan, Assistant Solicitor General
  • Ryan briefed Sullivan and Morrill about the memo and its contents
  • Ryan handed over his copy of the two-page memo to be provided to AG's office chief legal counsel
  • This occurred as Ryan was about to resign
Critical Facts:
  • Grant Sullivan was aware of allegations of serious judicial misconduct as early as July 2019
  • Sullivan learned of allegations reaching the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court
  • Memo detailed 27 instances of judicial misconduct that were "glossed over or covered up"
  • It is unclear if Sullivan ever reported the allegations to proper authorities
  • Ryan stated: "I have no knowledge of any investigation that was undertaken relative to the information in the memo"
Sullivan's Connection to Scandal Principals:
  • Sullivan clerked for Justice Nathan B. Coats (September 2010-August 2011)
  • Coats became Chief Justice in 2018
  • Coats was later censured in August 2023 for his role in authorizing the Masias contract
  • Sullivan worked closely with Coats during clerkship year
  • Potential conflict: Did Sullivan's loyalty to former boss Coats prevent him from reporting misconduct?
Ethical Obligations:
  • Colorado attorneys have a mandatory duty to report judicial misconduct under professional conduct rules
  • Sullivan's position as Assistant Solicitor General gave him special responsibility for government ethics
  • Failure to report serious allegations of judicial misconduct represents a potential ethics violation
  • Sullivan was in a position to trigger investigations that didn't occur until media exposure two years later
Timeline:
  • July 2019: Sullivan learned of memo contents from Ryan
  • 2019-2021: No apparent investigation or reporting by Sullivan
  • February 2021: Denver Post exposed scandal publicly
  • August 2023: Coats censured by judicial discipline tribunal
  • November 2023: Sullivan nominated for Court of Appeals (scandal still fresh)
  • January 2024: Sullivan joined the Court of Appeals

Sources:

Criticism of Sullivan's Appointment:

Retired Pueblo County Chief District Court Judge Dennis Maes (frequent judicial system critic):

  • Called inclusion of Sullivan among Court of Appeals nominees "further proof of a system that's a closed circle that simply gets tighter and tighter"
  • "What the heck is wrong with these people?"
  • Said Sullivan and Justice William Hood (also up for retention in 2026) "both have ties to the scandal and knew of its existence … and had an ethical responsibility to report its existence but failed to do so"

Denver Gazette Editorial Board (October 2026):

  • Urged "NO" vote on retaining Judge Sullivan
  • Stated: "Sullivan was the state's assistant solicitor general in the Attorney General's Office at the time and was aware of the scandal as well"
  • Argued Sullivan had "ethical responsibility to report" but "failed to do so"
  • Editorial titled "Another chance to clean house in Colorado's courts"

Important Context:

  • Sullivan's appointment was controversial from the start due to scandal connections
  • However, Governor Polis still appointed him despite controversy
  • Judicial Performance Commission made no mention of scandal in 2026 evaluation
  • Commission appears to have ignored ethical questions about failure to report misconduct
Partisan Implications:
  • "Closed circle" of judicial insiders - Sullivan's career path (Coats clerk → AG's office → Court of Appeals) represents insider advancement
  • Loyalty to judicial establishment over accountability - failure to report suggests prioritizing institutional relationships over ethics
  • Democrat Governor appointed him despite scandal - suggests partisan protection or minimization of ethical concerns
  • Bipartisan government service - worked under both Republican and Democratic AGs, suggesting professional rather than purely partisan orientation
  • However, loyalty to Coats (conservative justice) may indicate ideological alignment
D. HIGH-PROFILE CASE: TRUMP COLORADO BALLOT ELIGIBILITY

Days Before Court Appointment, Sullivan Represented Secretary of State in Historic Case:

Judge Sullivan's appointment to the Court of Appeals occurred in November 2023, and he joined the court on January 1, 2024. Just days before his appointment, Sullivan was representing Secretary of State Jena Griswold (Democrat) in one of the most significant election law cases in U.S. history.

Anderson v. Griswold (Trump Ballot Case):

  • Challenge to Donald Trump's eligibility to appear on Colorado's 2024 presidential primary ballot
  • Based on the 14th Amendment Section 3 (disqualification for insurrection)
  • Grant Sullivan represented Secretary of State Jena Griswold in the case
  • Trial judge issued ruling days before Sullivan's Court of Appeals appointment announcement
  • Case ultimately reached U.S. Supreme Court

Timing Raises Questions:

  • Was Sullivan's handling of high-profile Democratic administration case a factor in appointment?
  • Did representation of Griswold (controversial Democratic official) demonstrate partisan loyalty?
  • Timing suggests Sullivan was being considered for judgeship while handling explosive political case

Context:

  • At ceremonial swearing-in (June 2024), this case was specifically mentioned as recent Sullivan work
  • Sullivan thanked "policymakers he formerly represented" including those who "occasionally were sued"
  • Shows Sullivan's work defending Democratic state officials immediately before appointment

Partisan Implications:

  • Represented Democratic administration in most politically charged election law case in decades
  • Case involved the president Donald Trump
  • Sullivan's role as Griswold's lawyer required advancing the Democratic administration's position
  • Appointment timing suggests possible reward for handling politically sensitive case

However, Counterargument:

  • As Assistant Solicitor General, Sullivan had a duty to represent state officials regardless of party
  • Sullivan also represented Republican officials during Republican administrations (Suthers, Coffman)
  • Professional duty to client doesn't necessarily indicate personal partisan views

Sources:

E. ATTORNEY GENERAL PHIL WEISER'S ENDORSEMENT

At Judge Sullivan's June 2024 ceremonial swearing-in:

Attorney General Phil Weiser (Democrat) spoke praising Sullivan:

  • Highlighted Sullivan's 12+ years in AG's office
  • Emphasized Sullivan's representation of state officials
  • Strong Democratic official endorsement of Sullivan's appointment

Significance:

  • Democratic AG's public praise suggests Sullivan was viewed favorably by the Democratic administration
  • However, also shows Sullivan had professional relationships across party lines
  • Weiser's endorsement may indicate Democratic establishment support

Source: https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2024/06/10/grant-sullivan-representing-state-officials-from-trial-courts-to-scotus-ceremonially-sworn-in-as-appeals-judge-d490c3c0-269f-11ef-bd93-ef9df48515ca/

F. CASE LAW PATTERN ANALYSIS

Based on a limited available case sample from the Court of Appeals (January 2024-October 2026):

Pro-Government/Pro-Prosecution Pattern:

  • Authored criminal cases: Consistently affirmed convictions (Matthews, Thompson)
  • Joined criminal cases: Overwhelmingly affirmed convictions and prosecution positions
  • Civil rights case (Brooks): Adopted stringent standard protecting government defendants in jail suicide case
  • Pattern suggests pro-government, pro-prosecution orientation

Technology/Innovation:

  • Al-Hamim: Addressed AI use in legal practice - technologically sophisticated
  • Shows forward-thinking approach to emerging issues

Analysis of Limited Sample:

  • Too few cases to establish a definitive ideological pattern
  • However, early trend shows pro-government, pro-prosecution tilt
  • No cases identified where Sullivan ruled against government or prosecution
  • Limited service (2.8 years) means pattern may change

Sources: See individual case sources in Section 2 above

G. OFFICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS - NO PARTISAN BIAS FOUND

2026 State Commission on Judicial Performance:

  • Vote: 9-0 that Judge Sullivan "MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS" (one commissioner absent, one vacancy)
  • Finding: "The Commission found the judge's written opinions to be consistently well-reasoned, fair, and thoughtfully articulated, demonstrating a strong command of the law and clear judicial reasoning"
  • "Although Judge Sullivan joined the Court of Appeals in January 2024, the Commission notes a strong and confident transition into the role of appellate judge"
  • No concerns about bias or partisanship raised by Commission
  • Commission made no mention of judicial scandal or Sullivan's failure to report misconduct

2026 Survey Results:

  • Attorneys: 4 responses (very small sample); one said he does not meet performance standards.
  • Judges: 15 responses; 100% said he meets performance standards (15 of 15)

2026 Overall Performance Score: 3.7/4.0

  • Higher than Judge Schock (3.5/4.0)
  • Lower than Judges Lum and Moultrie (both 3.8/4.0)
  • Well above minimum threshold

2025 Interim Survey:

  • Overall Score: 3.6/4.0 (18 responses)
  • Attorney approval: 88% (7 of 8 attorneys said "meets standards"; 1 said "does not meet")
  • Better attorney performance in 2025 than 2026 (88% vs. 75%)

2024 Initial Survey:

  • Overall Score: 4.0/4.0 (6 responses) - perfect score early in tenure
  • Very small sample makes this less reliable
  • Shows strong initial impression

Specific Attorney Concerns from Surveys:

2026 Survey (4 attorney responses):

  • Fair and impartial toward each side: 3.0/4.0 from attorneys (concerning - exactly "adequate")
  • Conducts hearings in neutral manner: 4.0/4.0 from attorneys (excellent)
  • Makes reasoned decisions based on law and facts: 3.0/4.0 (concerning - exactly "adequate")
  • Refrains from reaching issues that need not be decided: 3.0/4.0 (concerning - exactly "adequate")

2025 Survey (7-8 attorney responses):

  • Fair and impartial toward each side: 2.6/4.0 from attorneys (VERY concerning - below "adequate")
  • Conducts hearings in neutral manner: 3.6/4.0 from attorneys (good)
  • Makes reasoned decisions based on law and facts: 2.9/4.0 (concerning - below "adequate")
  • Refrains from reaching issues that need not be decided: 3.1/4.0 (barely adequate)

SIGNIFICANT CONCERN: Attorney rating on "fair and impartial" was 2.6/4.0 in 2025 - well below adequate performance - suggesting some attorneys perceive bias. This improved to 3.0/4.0 in 2026 but still only "adequate."

However - Judges Rate Him Highly:

  • Judges consistently rate him 3.9-4.0/4.0 on all measures
  • 100% of judges (15 of 15 in 2026, 10 of 10 in 2025) say he meets standards
  • Disconnect between attorney and judge perceptions is notable

Commission Positive Comments:

  • "Well-reasoned, fair, and thoughtfully articulated" opinions
  • "Strong command of the law and clear judicial reasoning"
  • "Strong and confident transition into the role of appellate judge"
  • "Proactively established systems to manage workload efficiently"
  • "Collaborates regularly with judicial colleagues"
  • "Dedication to continuous improvement and excellence in service"

Sources:

CONCLUSION ON PARTISANSHIP:

Professional Background Suggests: Moderate Conservative/Pro-Government judicial philosophy based on:

  • 12 years as state government attorney representing state officials and agencies in constitutional, election, and administrative law cases
  • Defended government actions consistently as professional duty
  • Worked under both Republican and Democratic attorneys general (suggests professionalism over partisanship)
  • No public defense, civil rights plaintiff, or progressive advocacy work in background
  • Career trajectory typical of moderate to conservative judges

Major Ethical/Partisan Concerns:

  • Failed to report judicial misconduct in 2019 scandal - learned of serious allegations but unclear if he reported them
  • Connection to censured Chief Justice Coats - clerked for Coats, may have had conflicting loyalties
  • "Closed circle" criticism - insider advancement through judicial establishment connections
  • Denver Gazette editorial board urged "NO" vote based on scandal connections and failure to report
  • Raises questions about loyalty to judicial establishment over accountability

Recent High-Profile Work:

  • Represented Democratic Secretary of State Griswold in Trump ballot case days before appointment
  • Timing suggests possible partisan consideration in appointment
  • However, professional duty to represent client doesn't prove personal partisanship

Performance Evaluation Concerns:

  • One attorney said "does not meet standards"
  • Very low fairness rating from attorneys: 2.6/4.0 in 2025 (below adequate) improved to 3.0/4.0 in 2026 (exactly adequate)
  • However, 100% judge approval suggests peers view him positively
  • Disconnect between attorney and judge perceptions is notable

Case Law Pattern (limited 2.8-year sample):

  • Pro-prosecution in criminal cases - consistently affirms convictions
  • Pro-government in civil rights - adopted stringent standard protecting government in jail suicide case
  • No identified cases ruling against government or prosecution
  • Too early to establish definitive pattern but initial trend is pro-government

Most Likely Position: Moderate Conservative with Pro-Government Tilt:

  • Background as state government attorney for 12 years strongly suggests deference to government and prosecution
  • Likely more conservative than Judges Lum and Moultrie (progressive backgrounds)
  • Possibly similar to Judge Schock (federal prosecutor background, similar attorney approval issues)
  • However, bipartisan government service suggests professionalism over ideology
  • Ethical concerns about scandal raise separate questions about judgment and accountability

Critical Distinction:

  • Sullivan's partisan lean appears less pronounced than ethical/accountability concerns
  • Scandal involvement and failure to report misconduct is potentially more disqualifying than ideological orientation
  • Voters must weigh whether Sullivan's professional credentials (12 years AG's office, strong judicial peer support, clear writing) outweigh ethical concerns (failure to report judicial misconduct, insider connections)

Attorney Dissatisfaction May Indicate:

  • Some attorneys perceive bias or unfairness (2.6/4.0 rating on impartiality in 2025)
  • Possible pro-government lean that defense/plaintiff attorneys notice
  • However, very small sample sizes (4-8 attorneys) make this unreliable statistically
  • 100% judge approval suggests collegial relationships and respect from peers

Other Data Useful to Evaluate the Candidate

A. PERFORMANCE RATINGS - MIXED PICTURE WITH ATTORNEY CONCERNS

2026 Commission Findings:

  • Unanimous 9-0 "meets standards" recommendation (one commissioner absent, one vacancy)
  • "The Commission found the judge's written opinions to be consistently well-reasoned, fair, and thoughtfully articulated, demonstrating a strong command of the law and clear judicial reasoning"
  • "Although Judge Sullivan joined the Court of Appeals in January 2024, the Commission notes a strong and confident transition into the role of appellate judge"
  • "The judge has proactively established systems to manage workload efficiently and collaborates regularly with judicial colleagues, reflecting a dedication to continuous improvement and excellence in service"

Attorney Survey Results Show Potential Concerning Pattern:

Judges: 15 responses; 100% said he meets standards (strong peer approval)

Attorneys: 4 responses; only three said he meets standards; one said he does not meet standards. The small sample size makes any conclusion unreliable.

Overall Performance Score: 3.7/4.0 in 2026

  • Higher than Judge Schock (3.5/4.0)
  • Lower than Judges Lum and Moultrie (both 3.8/4.0)
  • Declined from 4.0/4.0 in 2024 and 3.6/4.0 in 2025
  • Still well above minimum threshold

Performance Trajectory:

  • 2024: 4.0/4.0 (perfect score, 6 responses)
  • 2025: 3.6/4.0 (18 responses)
  • 2026: 3.7/4.0 (19 responses)
  • Slight improvement from 2025 to 2026 but below initial perfect score

POTENTIAL CONCERN - Attorney Ratings on Key Measures:

2026 Attorney Responses (The small sample of only 4 attorneys makes the rating unreliable):

  • Fair and impartial toward each side: 3.0/4.0 (exactly "adequate" - concerning)
  • Conducts hearings in a neutral manner: 4.0/4.0 (excellent)
  • Makes reasoned decisions based on law and facts: 3.0/4.0 (exactly "adequate" - concerning)
  • Refrains from reaching issues that need not be decided: 3.0/4.0 (concerning)
  • Accepts criticism gracefully: 3.2/4.0 (slightly below excellent)

2025 Attorney Responses (7-8 attorneys):

  • Fair and impartial toward each side: 2.6/4.0 (VERY concerning - below "adequate")
  • Conducts hearings in a neutral manner: 3.6/4.0 (good)
  • Makes reasoned decisions based on law and facts: 2.9/4.0 (concerning - below "adequate")
  • Refrains from reaching issues that need not be decided: 3.1/4.0 (barely adequate)
  • Accepts criticism gracefully: 3.0/4.0 (exactly adequate)

Analysis: Normally, the 2.6/4.0 impartiality rating in 2025 (improved to 3.0/4.0 in 2026) would be extremely concerning; it would suggest some attorneys perceive Judge Sullivan as biased or unfair. However, drawing this conclusion from a very small sample would be irrational. At this point, it is something to watch.

Comparison to Other 2026 Appellate Judges (Attorney Approval):

  • Judge Lum: 100% attorney approval
  • Judge Moultrie: 100% attorney approval
  • Judge Schock: 71% attorney approval (lowest)
  • Judge Sullivan: 75% attorney approval (second-lowest)
  • This pattern of attorney dissatisfaction distinguishes Sullivan and Schock from Lum and Moultrie

However - Judge Ratings Are Excellent:

  • Judges consistently rate Sullivan 3.9-4.0/4.0 on all measures in both 2025 and 2026
  • 100% of judges say he meets standards
  • Judges find him:
    • Fair and impartial: 3.9/4.0
    • Neutral in hearings: 4.0/4.0
    • Clear writing: 3.9/4.0
    • Timely opinions: 3.8/4.0
    • Reasoned decisions: 3.9/4.0

Disconnect: The gap between attorney perceptions (some see bias) and judge perceptions (all see fairness) is notable and unusual.

Sources:

B. VERY SHORT TENURE - LIMITED JUDICIAL RECORD

Critical Context:

  • Judge Sullivan has served only approximately 2 years and 10 months on Court of Appeals (January 2024-October 2026)
  • This is the shortest tenure among the six Court of Appeals judges up for retention in 2026:
    • Judge Freyre: 11 years (second retention)
    • Judge Harris: 11 years (second retention)
    • Judge Schock: 4 years (first retention)
    • Judge Lum: 4 years (first retention)
    • Judge Sullivan: 2.75 years (first retention) ← SHORTEST
    • Judge Moultrie: 2.75 years (first retention - same as Sullivan)

Implications:

  • Very limited body of appellate opinions to evaluate
  • Performance may still be evolving - judges typically improve with experience
  • Attorney concerns (low fairness ratings) may improve as he gains more experience
  • Premature to establish long-term judicial philosophy - only 2.8 years of decisions
  • Voters have minimal judicial record to assess

Commission Acknowledgment: "Although Judge Sullivan joined the Court of Appeals in January 2024, the Commission notes a strong and confident transition into the role of appellate judge"

  • Commission recognized short tenure but praised quick adaptation
  • However, "strong transition" doesn't necessarily mean fully developed judicial skills

Sources:

C. SMALL SURVEY SAMPLE SIZE - STATISTICAL RELIABILITY CONCERNS

2026 Survey Participation:

  • 4 attorneys submitted responses (VERY small sample)
  • 15 judges submitted responses (adequate sample)
  • Total: 19 respondents

2025 Interim Survey:

  • 7-8 attorneys (small sample)
  • 10 judges (small sample)
  • Total: 18 respondents

2024 Initial Survey:

    • 6 respondents total (very small)
    • Only 4 attorneys in 2026 means 1 negative attorney = 25% disapproval
    • Small samples produce high variability and low statistical confidence
    • Cannot draw firm conclusions about attorney perceptions from 4-8 responses
    • However, a pattern of attorney concerns across multiple years (2024, 2025, 2026) suggests a potential issue, provided that ratings are not by the same group of attorneys in all three surveys.

Statistical Reliability Concerns:

Comparison to Other Judges:

  • Judge Lum: 9 attorney responses in 2026
  • Judge Moultrie: 9 attorney responses in 2026
  • Judge Schock: 7 attorney responses in 2026
  • Judge Sullivan: Only 4 attorney responses in 2026 (smallest sample)

Why So Few Responses?:

  • Very short tenure means fewer attorneys have appeared before him
  • Court of Appeals judges see fewer attorneys than trial judges
  • May improve as more attorneys interact with him over time

Sources:

D. NO PRIOR JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE - STEEP LEARNING CURVE

Unlike Some Colleagues: Judge Sullivan had no prior judicial experience before Court of Appeals appointment:

  • Judge Moultrie: 3.75 years as Denver Juvenile Court judge, 2 years as magistrate (5.75 years total judicial experience)
  • Judge Lum: Served as magistrate before Court of Appeals
  • Judge Sullivan: Came directly from legal practice (AG's office) with no prior judicial service

Significance:

  • Steep learning curve transitioning from advocate to judge
  • May explain attorney concerns about impartiality (2.6/4.0 in 2025)
  • Former government lawyers sometimes struggle shedding pro-government mindset
  • However, Commission praised "strong and confident transition" despite no prior judicial experience
  • Two years of state appellate clerkships (2008-2011) provided strong preparation for appellate judging

Commission Finding: "Although Judge Sullivan joined the Court of Appeals in January 2024, the Commission notes a strong and confident transition into the role of appellate judge"

Sources:

E. CLEAR WRITING AND STRONG LEGAL ANALYSIS PRAISED

Commission Specific Praise:

  • "The Commission found the judge's written opinions to be consistently well-reasoned, fair, and thoughtfully articulated, demonstrating a strong command of the law and clear judicial reasoning"
  • Writing praised as major strength

Judge Survey Feedback:

  • Judges rate writing 3.9-4.0/4.0 on:
    • Writes opinions that are clear
    • Writes opinions that adequately explain basis of decision
    • Makes reasoned decisions based on law and facts

Attorney Survey Feedback:

  • Attorneys also praise writing quality (though ratings lower than judges)
  • Opinions described as well-organized and clear

Significance: Clear legal writing is essential for appellate judge. Opinions must be understandable to litigants, trial judges, and attorneys who will apply precedent. Judge Sullivan's writing receives consistent praise despite mixed attorney ratings on other dimensions.

Source: 2026 Evaluation: https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/sullivan-grant-2026-evaluation

F. WORKLOAD MANAGEMENT AND COLLEGIALITY

Commission Findings:

  • "The judge has proactively established systems to manage workload efficiently"
  • "Collaborates regularly with judicial colleagues"
  • "Reflecting a dedication to continuous improvement and excellence in service"

Significance:

  • Strong administrative performance despite short tenure
  • Collegial with other judges - explains 100% judge approval
  • Organized and efficient - important for appellate court with heavy caseload
  • Shows professional approach to judicial work

Source: 2026 Evaluation: https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/sullivan-grant-2026-evaluation

G. EXTENSIVE COMMUNITY SERVICE AND PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES

Judicial Service:

  • Court of Appeals "Courts in the Community" program - public education and outreach
  • Judicial Department's Reclassification Review Board - helps with HR and position classification
  • Appellate Rules Subcommittee - works on improving appellate procedures
  • Planning committee for annual Colorado Judicial Conference - helps coordinate judicial education

Legal Community Service:

  • Guest coach and judge for CU Mock Trial and Moot Court programs - mentors law students at his alma mater
  • Metro Volunteer Lawyers - provided pro bono services in family law cases (before appointment)

Community Service:

    • Volunteer with Food Bank of the Rockies - gives back to community
    • Commitment to the legal profession and mentoring the next generation
    • Service orientation rather than purely career advancement
    • Community engagement beyond the courthouse
    • Work ethic and dedication - maintains service commitments alongside judicial duties

Significance: Judge Sullivan contributes beyond his caseload to improving Colorado's justice system and community. This demonstrates:

Sources:

H. COMPARISON TO OTHER 2026 APPELLATE JUDGES

Judge Sullivan is one of six Court of Appeals judges up for retention in 2026:

Retention Status:

  • Judge Rebecca Rankin Freyre - MEETS (9-0), second retention, 11 years
  • Judge Elizabeth L. Harris - MEETS (9-0), second retention, 11 years, timeliness concerns
  • Judge Katharine E. Lum - MEETS (9-0), first retention, 4 years, 3.8/4.0 score, 100% attorney approval
  • Judge Pax L. Moultrie - MEETS (9-0), first retention, 2.75 years, 3.8/4.0 score, 100% attorney approval
  • Judge Karl L. Schock - MEETS (9-0), first retention, 4 years, 3.5/4.0 score, 71% attorney approval
  • Judge Grant T. Sullivan - MEETS (9-0), first retention, 2.75 years, 3.7/4.0 score, 75% attorney approval

Judge Sullivan's Position:

  • Shortest tenure (tied with Moultrie at 2.75 years)
  • Second-lowest attorney approval (75%, above only Schock at 71%)
  • Middle score (3.7/4.0 - higher than Schock, lower than Lum/Moultrie)
  • All six judges received unanimous 9-0 "meets standards" from Commission
  • 100% judge approval (same as all others) - strong peer support

Distinguishing Characteristics:

  • Only judge with direct connection to major judicial scandal (2019 memo scandal)
  • Only judge who represented the Secretary of State in the Trump ballot case (high-profile political case)
  • 12 years of state government attorney experience - longest government service among 2026 appellate judges
  • Two state court clerkships (Appeals and Supreme Court) - strong appellate preparation
  • Clerked for censured Chief Justice Coats - controversial connection
  • No prior judicial experience (like Schock, unlike Moultrie/Lum)

Source: Full list: https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/2026-judicial-performance-evaluations-full-list

I. AGE AND LONG-TERM SERVICE POTENTIAL

Age: Not specified in sources I found, but can be estimated:

  • Law school graduation 2008 suggests born approximately 1983-1985
  • Currently approximately 39-41 years old (2026)

Significance: If retained:

  • 8-year term would take him to age 47-49 (2034)
  • Mandatory retirement at age 72 in Colorado
  • Could potentially serve 31-33 more years on Court of Appeals (until 2057-2059)
  • Very long-term impact on Colorado law if retained
  • Shortest tenure means voters have least information about his judicial philosophy
  • Retaining him now could mean three decades of appellate decisions with limited track record to evaluate

Source: Estimated from educational timeline in Governor announcement

J. PERSONAL INTEGRITY STORY - FATHER COMING OUT

From Judicial Application:
Judge Sullivan described formative event that inspired government service:

  • Father was part-time county counselor in rural Kansas
  • Father came out as gay during Sullivan's childhood
  • Quote: "[My father] never gave a second thought to the raised eyebrows among his government colleagues. His bravery made the community more accepting and the local government more diverse"
  • This experience inspired Sullivan to enter government service

Significance:

  • Shows personal connection to LGBTQ+ issues and diversity
  • Father's courage in face of potential discrimination influenced Sullivan's values
  • Suggests commitment to fairness and inclusion across demographic lines
  • May indicate progressive values on civil rights issues despite pro-government career
  • However, personal values don't always translate to judicial decisions

Source: Ceremonial swearing-in: https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2024/06/10/grant-sullivan-representing-state-officials-from-trial-courts-to-scotus-ceremonially-sworn-in-as-appeals-judge-d490c3c0-269f-11ef-bd93-ef9df48515ca/

K. MEDIA EDITORIAL OPPOSITION TO RETENTION

Denver Gazette Editorial Board (October 23, 2026):

  • Urged "NO" vote on retaining Judge Sullivan
  • Editorial titled "Another chance to clean house in Colorado's courts"
  • Stated Sullivan "has ties to the scandal and knew of its existence … and had an ethical responsibility to report its existence but failed to do so"
  • Paired Sullivan with Justice William Hood (also up for retention) as judges who should be removed

Retired Judge Dennis Maes (frequent judicial system critic):

  • Called Sullivan's nomination "further proof of a system that's a closed circle that simply gets tighter and tighter"
  • "What the heck is wrong with these people?"
  • Criticized the judicial establishment for nominating Sullivan despite scandal connections

Significance:

  • First clear media opposition to a Court of Appeals retention since scandal
  • Ethical concerns about failure to report misconduct driving opposition
  • Gazette is a conservative newspaper - opposition not from a liberal/progressive outlet
  • However, no other major media outlets have joined the opposition
  • Judge Maes is a known critic of the judicial system - his opposition may be expected

Sources:

COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY

Tenure: 2 years and 10 months on Colorado Court of Appeals (appointed November 2023, began service January 2024, first retention election 2026); no prior judicial experience - came directly from 12 years as state government attorney (Assistant Attorney General and Assistant Solicitor General)

Performance: Unanimous 9-0 "meets standards" with commission describing his opinions as "consistently well-reasoned, fair, and thoughtfully articulated, demonstrating a strong command of the law and clear judicial reasoning" and praising "strong and confident transition into the role of appellate judge"; however, concerning pattern of attorney dissatisfaction - only 75% attorney approval (25% said "does not meet," 1 of 4 attorneys); very low attorney impartiality rating in 2025 (2.6/4.0 - below adequate) improved to 3.0/4.0 in 2026 (exactly adequate); 100% judge approval (15 of 15); 3.7/4.0 overall score (higher than Schock at 3.5, lower than Lum/Moultrie at 3.8); second-lowest attorney approval among 2026 Court of Appeals judges

Major Strengths:

  • Excellent credentials - two prestigious state appellate clerkships (Court of Appeals, Supreme Court)
  • 12 years of state government attorney experience - represented governor, secretary of state, AG, treasurer, and agencies in constitutional, election, voting rights, tax, and administrative law
  • Bipartisan government service - worked under Republican AGs (Suthers, Coffman) and Democratic AG (Weiser)
  • Clear, well-reasoned legal writing praised by the Commission and judges
  • Strong workload management - "proactively established systems to manage workload efficiently"
  • Excellent collegiality - "collaborates regularly with judicial colleagues" - explains 100% judge approval
  • Extensive community service - CU mentoring, Food Bank volunteer, Courts in Community program
  • 100% approval from judicial peers - strong collegial relationships
  • Admitted to practice before U.S. Supreme Court and federal appellate courts

Major Concerns:

  • SCANDAL INVOLVEMENT: Learned of judicial misconduct allegations in July 2019 memo meeting; unclear if he ever reported allegations to proper authorities; former Court Administrator Christopher Ryan said Sullivan was briefed on memo detailing 27 instances of judicial misconduct; no investigation occurred until media exposure 2 years later; Denver Gazette editorial board urged "NO" vote based on scandal connections and failure to report; retired judge criticized appointment as "closed circle" of insiders
  • Connection to censured Chief Justice: Clerked for Nathan B. Coats (2010-2011), who was later sanctured in August 2023 for role in scandal; potential conflict between loyalty to former boss and duty to report misconduct
  • Very short tenure (2.75 years) - shortest among 2026 appellate judges (tied with Moultrie) - limited judicial record to evaluate
  • Very small survey sample (only 4 attorneys in 2026) makes statistical conclusions unreliable
  • No prior judicial experience - came directly from advocacy role as state government attorney

Notable Cases (from very limited 2.8-year sample):

  • Authored Al-Hamim (2024): Landmark AI precedent - addressed improper use of artificial intelligence in legal briefs, imposed sanctions for AI-generated fake citations; also affirmed against tenant on warranty of habitability claim
  • Authored Matthews (2025): Criminal case, affirmed conviction (pro-prosecution)
  • Authored Thompson (2026): Criminal case, affirmed conviction (pro-prosecution)
  • Joined Brooks (2026): Civil rights/jail suicide case, adopted stringent "deliberate indifference" standard protecting government defendants
  • Concurred in Rodriguez-Ortiz (2025): Wrote separate concurrence showing independent judicial reasoning
  • Pattern shows: Pro-prosecution tilt in criminal cases; pro-government in civil rights; technology-forward thinking; independent analysis when warranted; clear writing

Partisan Lean: Likely Moderate Conservative with Strong Pro-Government Tilt - 12 years as state government attorney representing officials and agencies in constitutional, election, and administrative law suggests deference to government power and prosecution; however, bipartisan service under Republican and Democratic AGs suggests professionalism over pure partisanship; appointed by Democratic Governor Polis but clerked for conservative Justice Coats; represented Democratic Secretary of State in Trump ballot case days before appointment (timing raises questions); case law pattern shows pro-prosecution, pro-government orientation in limited sample; likely more conservative than Judges Lum and Moultrie (progressive backgrounds) and similar to Judge Schock (federal prosecutor, similar attorney approval issues); attorney impartiality concerns (2.6-3.0/4.0) may reflect pro-government bias some attorneys perceive

Bottom Line:

Judge Grant T. Sullivan is a well-credentialed appellate judge with 12 years of state government attorney experience, two prestigious state court clerkships, and a bipartisan government service who receives unanimous "meets standards" from the Commission and 100% approval from judicial peers (15 of 15 judges).

However, he faces three major concerns:

(1) Direct involvement in the 2019 judicial scandal - learned of serious judicial misconduct allegations, but it's unclear if he reported them, with the Denver Gazette editorial board urging a "NO" vote based on his failure to report and connections to censured Chief Justice Coats;

(2) Potential attorney dissatisfaction based on a very small sample - only 3 attorneys approved, and one said "does not meet," with very low impartiality ratings (2.6/4.0 in 2025, 3.0/4.0 in 2026);

(3) Very short tenure (2.75 years - shortest among 2026 appellate judges) providing minimal judicial record to evaluate despite potential for 31-33 more years of service.

ALL SOURCES USED

Official Colorado Judicial Branch Sources:

Official Governor's Office Sources:

Official Performance Evaluation Sources:

Colorado News Media Sources (Third-Party):

Other Sources:

Other Resources

 

Additional Information about the Colorado Legal System

Colorado Supreme Court

COMPOSITION AND SIZE

Number of Justices: Seven (7) justices total

  • One Chief Justice
  • Six Associate Justices

Current Configuration: The court has operated with seven justices since its establishment in its modern form under the Colorado Constitution.

Source: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/supreme-court

TERMS AND TENURE

Appointment Process

Merit Selection System (established 1966):

  1. When a vacancy occurs, the Supreme Court Nominating Commission reviews applications
  2. Commission submits three names to the Governor
  3. Governor has 15 days to select one justice from the list
  4. Appointed justice begins service immediately

Source: Colorado Constitution Article VI; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Supreme_Court

Term Structure

Initial Provisional Term: Two (2) years

  • All newly appointed justices serve a provisional term before first retention election
  • Allows justice to establish judicial record
  • Voters evaluate performance after provisional period

Regular Term After Retention: Ten (10) years

  • If retained after provisional term, justice serves 10-year term
  • After each 10-year term, must face retention election again
  • No limit on number of terms justice may serve

Mandatory Retirement: Age 72

  • All Colorado justices and judges must retire after reaching age 72; they can finish their term if they were appointed or retained before they reached the age of 72.
  • Constitutional requirement

Retention Elections:

  • Held during November general election in even-numbered years
  • Voters asked: "Shall [Justice Name] be retained in office?"
  • Justice must receive a simple majority (50%+1) of "yes" votes to continue
  • Do not run against opponent - retention vote only
  • Justices cannot campaign or fundraise
  • Statewide vote (all Colorado voters participate)

Sources:

Retention Election History

Since 1966: Colorado voters have rarely removed justices or judges from office

  • No appellate judge (Supreme Court or Court of Appeals) has ever lost a retention election since the merit selection system was established in 1966
  • From 1990-2016: Voters retained 99% of judges receiving positive Commission recommendations
  • Voters retained 80% of judges receiving negative recommendations (but with lower vote margins)

Source: https://www.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/issue_brief_on_judicial_retention_elections._8092018.pdf

POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

As the state's highest court and administrator of the judicial branch, the Colorado Supreme Court has extensive authority.

A. APPELLATE JURISDICTION

1. Discretionary Review (Certiorari)

The Supreme Court principally handles certiorari petitions requesting additional review of cases after:

  • Primary review by the Colorado Court of Appeals, OR
  • Direct appeal from Colorado District Court

The Supreme Court is NOT required to hear these cases - justices have discretion to accept or deny review.

Volume: The Court writes approximately 60-100 opinions (majority and minority) per year

Process:

  • All seven justices decide each case together (en banc)
  • Unlike the Court of Appeals (which uses 3-judge panels), the full court hears every case
  • Oral arguments scheduled 9-10 sessions per year (September through June)
  • Each session lasts 2-3 days
  • Approximately 4-8 cases heard per session

2. Direct Appellate Jurisdiction (Mandatory Appeals)

The Supreme Court has direct appellate jurisdiction (bypassing the Court of Appeals) in specific case types:

  • Cases where a statute was declared unconstitutional by a lower court
  • Public Utilities Commission decisions
  • Habeas corpus proceedings
  • Water rights adjudications
  • Election Code proceedings
  • Criminal cases involving prosecutorial appeals of search-and-seizure suppression rulings

These cases go directly from trial court to the Supreme Court, skipping the Court of Appeals.

Source: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/supreme-court

B. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction (cases filed directly with the Supreme Court, not on appeal) over:

1. Attorney Discipline Proceedings

  • Exclusive jurisdiction over attorney discipline
  • Reviews recommendations from Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel
  • Can suspend or disbar attorneys

2. Advisory Opinions

  • Questions presented by Colorado General Assembly (state legislature)
  • Questions presented by Colorado Attorney General
  • Provides legal guidance on constitutional and statutory interpretation

3. Questions Referred by Federal Courts

  • Federal courts (including the U.S. Supreme Court) can ask the Colorado Supreme Court to interpret Colorado law
  • Ensures federal courts correctly apply state law

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Supreme_Court

C. SUPERVISORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS

1. Rulemaking Authority

The Colorado Supreme Court has exclusive authority to promulgate rules governing:

  • Civil practice and procedure in all Colorado courts
  • Criminal practice and procedure in all Colorado courts
  • Evidence rules
  • Professional conduct for attorneys
  • Court administration and operation

This authority is constitutionally granted - the legislature cannot override court rules on practice and procedure.

2. Budget and Administrative Authority

The Supreme Court has general supervisory and budget authority over:

  • Entire Colorado Judicial Branch
  • State Court Administrator's Office
  • 23 judicial districts
  • Court of Appeals
  • All trial courts (district and county courts)

Budget: Currently manages an approximately $800 million budget and oversees 4,200 employees across the judicial branch.

3. Attorney Licensing and Regulation

The Supreme Court licenses and disciplines Colorado attorneys through:

  • Board of Law Examiners (oversees bar examination)
  • Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (investigates complaints)
  • Board of Continuing Legal Education (requires ongoing attorney education)
  • Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee (prosecutes non-lawyers practicing law)

System funded by attorney registration fees.

4. Judicial Discipline

The Supreme Court oversees Commission on Judicial Discipline, which:

  • Investigates complaints against judges
  • Recommends discipline to Supreme Court
  • Supreme Court has final authority to discipline or remove judges (outside retention elections)

5. Appointments to Boards and Commissions

The Supreme Court makes appointments to numerous state boards and commissions, often providing tie-breaking member when other appointees are equally divided on partisan lines.

Source: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/supreme-court

D. ROLE OF CHIEF JUSTICE

The Chief Justice serves two distinct roles:

1. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

  • Selected by fellow justices (not appointed by the Governor)
  • Serves at the pleasure of the majority of justices (can be replaced by vote)
  • "First among equals" - has equal voting power with other justices
  • Presides over all conferences, oral arguments, and hearings
  • Assigns all opinions for authorship after justices vote
    • Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court (where the Chief assigns only if in majority), Colorado Chief Justice assigns regardless of whether in majority or dissent

2. Executive Head of Colorado Judicial Branch

Colorado Constitution Article VI, Section 5 specifies Chief Justice is "executive head of the judicial system":

  • Manages $800 million budget
  • Oversees 4,200 judicial branch employees
  • Appoints Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals
  • Appoints Chief Judge of each of the 23 judicial districts
  • Authority to assign judges (active or retired) to perform judicial duties
  • Ex-officio chair of Supreme Court Nominating Commission
  • Presides over Council of Chief Judges (quarterly meetings with 23 district chief judges)
  • Issues Chief Justice Directives on judicial administration matters

Sources:

CURRENT BENCH (2026) - THE SEVEN JUSTICES

1. CHIEF JUSTICE MONICA M. MÁRQUEZ

Position: Chief Justice (since July 26, 2024)

Appointed: December 10, 2010 by Governor Bill Ritter (D)

Current Term Expires: January 9, 2035 (10-year term after 2024 retention)

Mandatory Retirement: 2041 (age 72)

Background:

  • Born April 20, 1969, in Austin, Texas; grew up in Grand Junction, Colorado
  • Education: Stanford University (B.A. 1991); Yale Law School (J.D. 1997)
  • Valedictorian of Grand Junction High School (1987)
  • Editor, Yale Law Journal
  • Judicial clerkships: Judge Michael Ponsor (U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts); Judge David M. Ebel (U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit)
  • Private practice at Holme Roberts & Owen
  • Colorado Attorney General's Office (2002-2010): Deputy Attorney General, Assistant Solicitor General, Public Officials Unit, Criminal Appellate Section

Historic Significance:

  • First Latina Chief Justice in Colorado history
  • First openly gay person to serve as Colorado Chief Justice
  • Married to Sheila Barthel

Previous Service:

  • Retained in 2012 (after 2-year provisional term)
  • Retained in 2022 (after first 10-year term)
  • Next retention election: 2034

Sources:

2. JUSTICE BRIAN D. BOATRIGHT

Position: Associate Justice (served as Chief Justice January 2021 - July 2024)

Appointed: November 21, 2011 by Governor John Hickenlooper (D)

  • Note: Boatright is a registered Republican appointed by a Democratic governor

Current Term Expires: January 9, 2035 (current 10-year term)

Mandatory Retirement: 2034 (age 72)

Background:

  • Born June 16, 1962 in Golden, Colorado
  • Education: Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri (B.A. 1984); University of Denver Sturm College of Law (J.D. 1988)
  • Graduated Jefferson High School, Edgewater, Colorado (1980)
  • Deputy District Attorney, 1st Judicial District (1990-1999)
  • District Court Judge, Jefferson County (1999-2011) - appointed by Governor Bill Owens (R)
  • Presided over 100+ jury trials as trial judge
  • Known for expertise in juvenile court and family law

Retention History:

  • Retained as District Court Judge: 2002 (72%), 2008 (96%)
  • Retained as Supreme Court Justice: 2014 (68.5%), 2024

Chief Justice Service:

  • Served as Chief Justice from January 1, 2021 to July 26, 2024
  • Succeeded Nathan B. Coats as Chief
  • Stepped down when Márquez elected Chief by fellow justices

Next Retention Election: 2034 (but will reach mandatory retirement age 72 in 2034, so likely will not seek retention)

Sources:

3. JUSTICE WILLIAM W. HOOD III

Position: Associate Justice

Appointed: January 13, 2014 by Governor John Hickenlooper (D)

Current Term Expires: January 12, 2027 (end of current 10-year term)

Mandatory Retirement: 2035 (age 72)

Background:

  • Born 1963 (age 62-63)
  • Education: University of Virginia School of Law (J.D.)
  • [Additional biographical details available in official Colorado Judicial Branch biography]

Retention History:

  • Retained in 2016 (after 2-year provisional term)
  • Must face retention election in 2026 (current year) for next 10-year term

Next Retention Election: 2026 (this year)

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Supreme_Court

4. JUSTICE RICHARD L. GABRIEL

Position: Associate Justice

Appointed: September 1, 2015 by Governor John Hickenlooper (D)

Current Term Expires: January 9, 2029 (current 10-year term)

Mandatory Retirement: 2034 (age 72)

Background:

  • Born March 3, 1962 (age 64)
  • Education: University of Pennsylvania Law School (J.D.)
  • [Additional biographical details available in official Colorado Judicial Branch biography]

Retention History:

  • Retained in 2017 (after 2-year provisional term)
  • Retained in 2027 (will face retention next year for subsequent 10-year term)

Next Retention Election: 2027

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Supreme_Court

5. JUSTICE CARLOS A. SAMOUR, JR.

Position: Associate Justice

Appointed: July 2, 2018 by Governor John Hickenlooper (D)

Current Term Expires: January 14, 2031 (current 10-year term)

Mandatory Retirement: 2039 (age 72)

Background:

  • Born 1966 or 1967 (age 59-60)
  • Education: University of Denver Sturm College of Law (J.D.)
  • [Additional biographical details available in official Colorado Judicial Branch biography]
  • Notable: Served as trial judge in Aurora theater shooting case (James Holmes trial) before Supreme Court appointment

Retention History:

  • Retained in 2020 (after 2-year provisional term)
  • Next retention in 2030 for subsequent 10-year term

Next Retention Election: 2030

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Supreme_Court

6. JUSTICE MARIA E. BERKENKOTTER

Position: Associate Justice

Appointed: January 4, 2021 by Governor Jared Polis (D)

Current Term Expires: January 9, 2035 (current 10-year term)

Mandatory Retirement: 2035 (age 72)

Background:

  • Born 1962 or 1963 (age 62-63)
  • Education: University of Denver Sturm College of Law (J.D.)
  • [Additional biographical details available in official Colorado Judicial Branch biography]

Retention History:

  • Retained in 2023 (after 2-year provisional term)
  • Next retention in 2033 for subsequent 10-year term

Next Retention Election: 2033

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Supreme_Court

7. JUSTICE SUSAN BLANCO

Position: Associate Justice (Newest member)

Appointed: February 17, 2026 by Governor Jared Polis (D)

Current Term Expires: January 14, 2031 (current 10-year term after 2-year provisional)

Mandatory Retirement: 2049 (age 72)

Background:

  • Born 1977 or 1978 (age 48-49) - youngest current justice
  • Education: University of Colorado Boulder School of Law (J.D.)
  • Chief Judge, Larimer and Jackson Counties (8th Judicial District) before Supreme Court appointment
  • Competed against Jefferson County District Court Judge Christopher Zenisek and Deputy Solicitor General Andrea S. Wang for appointment
  • First Iranian-American woman on Colorado Supreme Court
  • Only current justice from Northern Colorado
  • Fifth current member who previously served as trial judge

Historic Significance:

  • First Supreme Court vacancy in five years (since Berkenkotter appointed 2021)
  • Replaced Justice Melissa Hart (who retired)

Announcement: At February 17, 2026 press conference, Blanco stated: "The law is not an abstraction. It is the shield that protects the vulnerable, the guardrails that restrain power, and the enduring promise that justice does not depend on who you are, where you come from, or what resources you have. I pledge to honor that promise every day."

Next Retention Election: 2028 (after 2-year provisional term)

Sources:

PARTISAN COMPOSITION OF CURRENT BENCH

All Seven Justices Appointed by Democratic Governors:

  • Governor Bill Ritter (D): 1 justice (Márquez)
  • Governor John Hickenlooper (D): 4 justices (Boatright, Hood, Gabriel, Samour)
  • Governor Jared Polis (D): 2 justices (Berkenkotter, Blanco)

Important Context:

  • Colorado has had Democratic governors continuously since 2007 (Bill Ritter 2007-2011, John Hickenlooper 2011-2019, Jared Polis 2019-present)
  • Merit selection system requires governors to choose from 3 nominees selected by bipartisan Supreme Court Nominating Commission
  • Justices often do not vote along partisan lines - judicial independence emphasized
  • Justice Boatright is a registered Republican but was appointed by Democratic Governor Hickenlooper

LOCATION AND COURT OPERATIONS

Court Location:

  • Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center
  • 2 East 14th Avenue
  • Denver, Colorado 80203

Office Hours:

  • Monday-Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
  • Closed for state holidays

Oral Arguments:

  • Open to public
  • Held at Ralph L. Carr Judicial Center courtroom
  • Courts in the Community: Supreme Court occasionally holds arguments at Colorado high schools as educational outreach

Source: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/supreme-court

WORKLOAD AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Opinion Writing:

  • Each justice authors approximately 14 majority opinions per year
  • Plus any concurring or dissenting opinions the justice chooses to write
  • Total court output: 60-100 opinions per year
  • Many cases involve matters of first impression (issues never before decided in Colorado)

Case Types:

  • 60% civil cases: contracts, torts, employment, property, family law, administrative law
  • 40% criminal cases: constitutional rights, sentencing, procedure
  • Wide variety requires justices to "move easily from one area of law to another on a daily basis"

Screening Process:

  • Justices screen certiorari petitions to decide which cases to accept
  • "Time-consuming process" but essential to managing docket
  • Each justice has staff of three employees (typically law clerks and an assistant)
  • Work is hands-on personal responsibility and public accountability

Committee Work:

  • Each justice participates in 2-3 committees addressing court system matters
  • Includes judicial nominating commissions, rules committees, legislative liaison
  • Justices serve as ex-officio chairs of district nominating commissions (rotating responsibility)
  • Speaking to legal and civic groups

Collegial Decision-Making:

  • Justices must "make decisions collegially"
  • Function "effectively within the constraints of court"
  • Emphasis on consensus-building while maintaining individual judicial philosophy

Sources:

SUMMARY: KEY FACTS

Composition: 7 justices (1 Chief Justice + 6 Associate Justices)

Terms:

  • 2-year provisional term (initial)
  • 10-year terms after retention
  • Mandatory retirement at age 72
  • No limit on number of terms

Selection: Merit selection via nominating commission → Governor appointment → voter retention

Retention Elections: Every 10 years after initial 2-year provisional term; statewide vote; simple majority required; no campaigning allowed

Powers:

  • Discretionary appellate review (certiorari)
  • Direct appeals in constitutional cases, PUC decisions, habeas corpus, water rights, elections
  • Original jurisdiction over attorney discipline, advisory opinions
  • Exclusive rulemaking authority over court procedure
  • Supervisory authority over entire judicial branch
  • Budget authority ($800M, 4,200 employees)
  • Attorney licensing and regulation

Current Bench: All 7 justices appointed by Democratic governors (Ritter, Hickenlooper, Polis) during 2007-2026 period

Location: Ralph L. Carr Judicial Center, Denver

Workload: ~60-100 opinions/year; oral arguments 9-10 sessions annually (September-June)

Chief Justice: Monica M. Márquez (since July 2024) - first Latina and first openly gay Chief Justice in Colorado history

Upcoming Retention Elections:

  • 2026: Justice William W. Hood III
  • 2028: Justice Susan Blanco (first retention after provisional term)
  • 2030: Justice Carlos Samour
  • 2033: Justice Maria Berkenkotter
  • 2034: Chief Justice Monica Márquez, Justice Brian Boatright

SOURCES CONSULTED:

Official Colorado Judicial Branch:

Colorado Legislature:

Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation:

Other Official Sources:

Media Coverage:

Learn more:

Colorado Court of Appeals

COMPOSITION AND SIZE

Number of Judges: Twenty-two (22) judges total

  • One Chief Judge
  • Twenty-one Associate Judges

Current Configuration: The court has operated with 22 judges since July 1, 2008, when it was expanded from its previous size.

Note on Terminology: Unlike the Supreme Court where members are called "justices," Court of Appeals members are referred to as "judges."

Source: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/court-appeals

TERMS AND TENURE

Appointment Process

Merit Selection System (same as Supreme Court):

  1. When vacancy occurs, Supreme Court Nominating Commission reviews applications
  2. Commission submits three names to the Governor
  3. Governor has 15 days to select one judge from the list
  4. Appointed judge begins service immediately
  5. If Governor fails to appoint within 15 days, the Chief Justice appoints one of the nominees

Source: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/topic/77/court-appeals-protocols

Term Structure

Initial Provisional Term: Two (2) years

  • All newly appointed judges serve provisional term before first retention election
  • Allows judge to establish judicial record
  • Performance evaluated before voters decide on retention

Regular Term After Retention: Eight (8) years

  • If retained after provisional term, judge serves 8-year term
  • After each 8-year term, must face retention election again
  • No limit on number of terms judge may serve

Mandatory Retirement: Age 72

  • All Colorado judges must retire upon reaching age 72
  • Constitutional requirement (same as Supreme Court)

Retention Elections:

  • Held during November general election in even-numbered years
  • Voters asked: "Shall [Judge Name] be retained in office?"
  • Judge must receive simple majority (50%+1) of "yes" votes to continue
  • Do not run against opponent - retention vote only
  • Judges cannot campaign or fundraise
  • Statewide vote (all Colorado voters participate, though each judge serves as liaison to one of the 22 judicial districts)

Interim Performance Appraisals:

  • Judges undergo interim performance evaluations in the 3rd and 5th years of each 8-year term
  • Additional accountability measure beyond retention elections

Sources:

Retention Election History

Since 1966: Colorado voters have rarely removed judges from office

  • No appellate judge (Supreme Court or Court of Appeals) has ever lost retention election since merit selection system established in 1966
  • From 1990-2016: Voters retained 99% of judges receiving positive Commission recommendations
  • Even judges with negative recommendations retained 80% of the time (though with lower vote margins)

Source: https://www.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/issue_brief_on_judicial_retention_elections._8092018.pdf

POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The Colorado Court of Appeals serves as the state's intermediate appellate court, functioning as the first level of appellate review for most cases in Colorado.

A. APPELLATE JURISDICTION

1. Primary Appellate Jurisdiction

The Court of Appeals has initial jurisdiction (with specific exceptions) over appeals from:

Trial Courts:

  • All Colorado District Courts (trial courts of general jurisdiction)
  • Denver Probate Court
  • Denver Juvenile Court

Administrative Appeals:

  • Approximately 33 kinds of administrative agency or board determinations
  • Industrial Claim Appeals Office (ICAO):
    • Workers' compensation appeals
    • Unemployment insurance appeals
  • Various state administrative boards and agencies

Case Categories:
The court handles a diverse mix of appeals across multiple areas of law.

Fiscal Year 2022 Filing Statistics (Year ending June 30, 2022):

  • Total new appeals filed: 2,250 (up more than 10% from previous fiscal year)
    • Criminal appeals: 819 cases
      • Direct criminal appeals
      • Post-conviction motion appeals
      • Other criminal appeals
    • Civil appeals: 1,012 cases
      • Domestic relations appeals
      • Agency appeals
      • Other civil appeals
    • Industrial Claim Appeals Office: 74 cases
      • Unemployment insurance
      • Workers' compensation
    • Juvenile appeals: 345 cases
      • Juvenile delinquency
      • Dependency and neglect
      • Other juvenile matters

Calendar Year 2022 Case Resolution:

  • 2,276 new cases filed
  • 2,546 cases resolved
  • 1,724 full written opinions issued
  • Court has worked diligently to eliminate pending case backlog created by consistently high filing levels

Sources:

2. Cases That BYPASS Court of Appeals

The following case types go directly to Colorado Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeals:

  • Death penalty appeals
  • Cases where lower court declared statute or ordinance unconstitutional
  • Public Utilities Commission decisions
  • Certain appeals related to initiative process
  • Interlocutory relief (in certain circumstances)
  • Appeals from county or municipal court to district court, when further appealed (third-level appeals go directly to Supreme Court)
  • Habeas corpus proceedings
  • Water rights adjudications
  • Election Code proceedings
  • Prosecutorial appeals concerning search-and-seizure questions in pending criminal cases

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Court_of_Appeals

3. Review by Colorado Supreme Court

Court of Appeals decisions are subject to discretionary review by the Colorado Supreme Court through certiorari petitions. The Supreme Court is not required to accept these cases but may do so when:

  • Important legal questions need clarification
  • Court of Appeals divisions have issued conflicting decisions
  • Decisions involve matters of statewide importance

Note: Requests to review Court of Appeals decisions constitute a majority of the Supreme Court's filings.

Source: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/media/7108

B. OPERATIONAL STRUCTURE

1. Three-Judge Panel System (Divisions)

Unlike the Colorado Supreme Court (where all seven justices hear every case together), the Court of Appeals uses a divisional structure:

Division Composition:

  • Each division consists of three judges
  • Divisions serve together for four months
  • Chief Judge assigns judges to divisions (with approval of Chief Justice)
  • Assignments rotate every four months

Rotation Goal: Each judge sits with every other judge within a two-and-a-half to three-year period, ensuring diverse judicial perspectives and preventing permanent ideological blocs.

Division Operations:

  • Each division operates independently
  • Divisions meet in regular settings approximately every two weeks
  • Each regular setting typically includes seven cases:
    • 3-4 cases set for oral argument
    • Remaining cases are "waived cases" (no oral argument)
    • Usually one Staff Attorney case per setting (judges rotate assignment)

Independent Decision-Making:

  • Court is not authorized to sit en banc (all judges together)
  • Each division functions independently, similar to federal circuit courts
  • Divisions are not bound by decisions of other divisions
  • Though judges recognize importance of deference to earlier decisions, each division interprets law independently
  • This can occasionally result in different divisions reaching different conclusions on similar legal issues

Source: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/topic/77/court-appeals-protocols

2. Special Divisions

C.A.R. 4.2 Division:

  • Separate division reviews petitions for interlocutory appeal under Colorado Appellate Rule 4.2
  • Judges serve on this division for 18 months
  • Terms are generally staggered
  • Resolves petitions with assistance of Motions and Jurisdiction Attorneys

Source: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/topic/77/court-appeals-protocols

3. Full Court Conference

All 22 judges generally meet in full court conference periodically to:

  • Discuss court administration matters
  • Address procedural issues
  • Ensure consistency in court operations
  • Share information and coordinate
  • Note: These conferences are for administrative purposes; court still decides cases in three-judge divisions

Source: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/topic/77/court-appeals-protocols

C. JURISDICTIONAL SCREENING AND MOTIONS

Motions and Jurisdiction Attorneys:

  • Three Staff Attorneys designated as Motions and Jurisdiction Attorneys
  • Report to Clerk of Court
  • Screen cases to ensure court has jurisdiction under § 13-4-102, C.R.S.
  • Issue orders to show cause when court may lack jurisdiction
  • Review responses and present jurisdictional matters to one or three judges for resolution
  • Review and rule on routine motions
  • Present more complex motions to judges for resolution

Jurisdictional Authority:

  • Court of Appeals created by statute (unlike Supreme Court, which is constitutional)
  • Jurisdiction therefore limited to areas specified by state statute, plus inherent powers granted to all courts
  • Must ensure it has statutory authority to hear each case

Sources:

D. ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE

Chief Judge:
The Chief Judge is appointed by the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court (not elected by fellow judges, unlike Supreme Court Chief Justice).

Chief Judge Responsibilities:

  • Assigns judges to divisions (with approval of Chief Justice) and rotates assignments every four months
  • Develops court policies
  • Manages budget issues
  • Manages facilities
  • Supervises all court staff (just over 100 employees, including judges)
  • Usually appoints a Deputy Chief Judge
  • May assemble an Executive Team to assist with court management
  • Hires one law clerk and one Chief of Staff to the Chief Judge (who trains other law clerks)

Clerk of Court/Court Executive:

  • Directs and provides administration of all aspects of the court
  • Has combined staff of thirteen employees
  • Staff functions include:
    • Receiving pleadings
    • Issuing orders
    • Announcing cases
    • Managing dockets
    • Organizing case files
    • Self-Represented Litigant Coordinator (facilitates access to courts for those without attorneys)

Judge Support Staff:

  • Each judge (except Chief Judge) hires two law clerks
  • Chief Judge hires one law clerk and one Chief of Staff
  • Law clerks typically hired for one or two years, though some serve longer
  • Court employs just over one hundred staff total, including judges

District Liaison System:

  • Since there are 22 judges and 22 judicial districts in Colorado, each judge is assigned by Chief Judge to serve as liaison to one judicial district
  • Liaison role: outreach, communication, and connection between Court of Appeals and local trial courts
  • Judges retained statewide but serve liaison function for specific districts

Sources:

E. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY BASIS

Authority:

  • Established under Section 1 of Article VI of the Colorado Constitution
  • Section 13-4-101, et seq., C.R.S. (Colorado Revised Statutes)
  • Created by statute (unlike Supreme Court, which is constitutional)
  • Jurisdiction therefore limited to areas specified by statute, plus inherent powers granted to all courts

Mission Statement:
"To provide the citizens of Colorado with clear, impartial, and timely resolutions of appealed orders and judgments as provided by law."

Source: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/court-appeals

CURRENT BENCH (2026) - THE TWENTY-TWO JUDGES

Note: Based on available documentation, the following information represents the current Court of Appeals judges. Some biographical details may be incomplete due to limited publicly available information for certain judges appointed in recent years.

CHIEF JUDGE TED C. TOW III

Position: Chief Judge (since August 1, 2026)

Appointed as Judge: February 13, 2018 by Governor John Hickenlooper (D)

Appointed as Chief Judge: Designated as Chief Judge-Designate on November 13, 2025 by Chief Justice Monica M. Márquez; assumed office August 1, 2026

Liaison District: 17th Judicial District

Current Term Expires: 2028 (current 8-year term)

Mandatory Retirement: 2039 (age 72)

Background:

  • Born 1967 (age 58-59)
  • Education: Wayne State University Law School (J.D.)
  • [Additional biographical details limited in available sources]

Chief Judge Selection:

  • Went through onboarding process working directly with outgoing Chief Judge Gilbert Román
  • Appointed by Chief Justice (not elected by fellow judges)

Retention History:

  • Retained in 2020 (after 2-year provisional term)
  • Next retention election: 2028

Next Retention Election: 2028

Sources:

1. JUDGE GILBERT M. ROMÁN (Former Chief Judge)

Position: Associate Judge (served as Chief Judge December 31, 2021 - July 31, 2026)

Appointed as Judge: August 1, 2005 by Governor Bill Owens (R)

Appointed as Chief Judge: December 31, 2021 by Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright (then-Chief Justice)

Liaison District: 9th Judicial District

Current Status: RETIRING August 1, 2026

Mandatory Retirement: 2034 (age 72) - but retiring earlier

Background:

  • Born September 15, 1962 in Wichita, Kansas (age 63)
  • Education: Colorado State University (B.S.); University of Michigan Law School (J.D.)
  • [Additional biographical details available in official sources]

Judicial Service:

  • Appointed by Republican Governor Bill Owens
  • Served as Chief Judge for approximately 4.5 years (2021-2026)
  • One of longest-serving current judges (21 years on court as of retirement)

Retention History:

  • Retained in 2007 (after provisional term)
  • Retained in subsequent elections: 2015, 2023
  • Chose to retire in 2026 rather than seek retention in 2032

Vacancy Created:

  • Supreme Court Nominating Commission met June 22, 2026 to select nominees
  • Nominees: Kyle Wesley Brenton, Adam J. Espinosa, and Jillian Joy Price
  • Governor has 15 days from June 23, 2026 to appoint one nominee
  • New judge will assume office August 1, 2026

Sources:

2. JUDGE JERRY N. JONES

Position: Associate Judge

Appointed: July 5, 2006 by Governor Bill Owens (R)

Liaison District: 7th Judicial District

Current Term Expires: 2032 (current 8-year term)

Mandatory Retirement: 2033 (age 72)

Background:

  • Born 1961 (age 64-65)
  • Education: University of Denver Sturm College of Law (J.D.)
  • [Additional biographical details limited in available sources]

Retention History:

  • Retained in 2008 (after 2-year provisional term)
  • Retained in 2016, 2024
  • Next retention: 2032 (but may reach mandatory retirement shortly after)

Next Retention Election: 2032

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Court_of_Appeals

3. JUDGE JOHN DANIEL DAILEY

Position: Associate Judge

Appointed: January 7, 2000 by Governor Bill Owens (R) (based on appointment during Owens administration, 1999-2007)

Liaison District: [Information not available in sources accessed]

Current Term Expires: [Estimated based on retention cycle]

Mandatory Retirement: [Age/birth year not available in sources accessed]

Background:

  • Career at Colorado Attorney General's Office (1978-2000):
    • Assistant Attorney General, Litigation Section
    • First Assistant Attorney General, Appellate and Human Resources Sections
    • Deputy Attorney General, Appellate, Criminal Enforcement, and Consumer Protection Sections
    • Assistant Solicitor General
  • Adjunct Professor of Law:
    • University of Colorado College of Law (1996, 1999)
    • University of Denver College of Law (1994)
    • Criminal Procedure, University of Denver (Spring 2002)
  • Judicial Law Clerk to Court of Appeals Judge David W. Enoch (1977-78)
  • Personal: Married with four children (ages noted as 16-25 in historical document)

Judicial Service:

  • One of longest-serving current judges (appointed 2000, over 26 years on court)

Retention History:

  • Retained multiple times since initial 2002 retention election

Source: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/39%20COA%20Judges.pdf

4. JUDGE MARIA TERESA FOX (Known as "Terry Fox")

Position: Associate Judge

Appointed: September 2, 2010 (sworn in January 7, 2011) by Governor Bill Ritter (D)

Liaison District: 5th Judicial District

Current Term Expires: 2030 (current 8-year term)

Mandatory Retirement: 2038 (age 72)

Background:

  • Born 1966 (age 59-60)
  • Education: South Texas College of Law (J.D.)
  • Career before appointment:
    • Assistant U.S. Attorney in Colorado (2004-2010)
      • Trial counsel to federal agencies
      • Specialized in environmental, constitutional, and other civil matters
      • Served on U.S. Attorney's Advisory Council
      • Served on Diversity Committee
    • Colorado Attorney General's Office
    • Associate at Holland & Hart (Environmental Law practice)
    • Clerk to Justice Craig Enoch on Texas Supreme Court
  • Committee Service: Colorado Supreme Court's Attorney Regulation Committee

Personal:

  • Born December 9, 1959 in Kansas City, Kansas (Note: Sources show conflicting birth information - 1959 in one document, 1966 in another)
  • Married, three children

Retention History:

  • Retained in 2013 (after 2-year provisional term, though appointed late 2010)
  • Retained in 2022
  • Next retention: 2030

Next Retention Election: 2030

Sources:

5. JUDGE STEPHANIE DUNN

Position: Associate Judge

Appointed: November 23, 2012 by Governor John Hickenlooper (D)

Liaison District: 8th Judicial District

Current Term Expires: 2032 (current 8-year term after 2024 retention)

Mandatory Retirement: [Age not available in sources accessed]

Background:

  • Education: University of Denver Sturm College of Law (J.D.)
  • [Additional biographical details limited in available sources]

Retention History:

  • Retained in 2014 (after provisional term)
  • Retained in 2024
  • Next retention: 2032

Next Retention Election: 2032

Sources:

6. JUDGE ELIZABETH L. HARRIS

Position: Associate Judge

Appointed: July 23, 2015 by Governor John Hickenlooper (D)

Liaison District: 2nd Judicial District

Current Term Expires: 2026 (current year - retention election upcoming)

Mandatory Retirement: 2038 (age 72)

Background:

  • Born 1966 (age 59-60)
  • Education: New York University School of Law (J.D.)
  • [Additional biographical details limited in available sources]

Retention History:

  • Retained in 2017 (after 2-year provisional term)
  • Must face retention election in 2026 (this year) for next 8-year term

Next Retention Election: 2026 (this year)

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Court_of_Appeals

7. JUDGE REBECCA R. FREYRE

Position: Associate Judge

Appointed: November 16, 2015 by Governor John Hickenlooper (D)

Liaison District: 4th Judicial District

Current Term Expires: 2026 (current year - retention election upcoming)

Mandatory Retirement: 2031 (age 72) - relatively soon

Background:

  • Born December 9, 1959 (age 66)
  • Education: University of Denver Sturm College of Law (J.D.)
  • [Additional biographical details limited in available sources]

Retention History:

  • Retained in 2017 (after 2-year provisional term)
  • Must face retention election in 2026 (this year) for next 8-year term
  • At age 66, approaching mandatory retirement age of 72

Next Retention Election: 2026 (this year)

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Court_of_Appeals

8. JUDGE CRAIG R. WELLING

Position: Associate Judge

Appointed: January 16, 2017 by Governor John Hickenlooper (D)

Liaison District: 20th Judicial District

Current Term Expires: 2028 (current 8-year term)

Mandatory Retirement: 2042 (age 72)

Background:

  • Born 1970 (age 55-56)
  • Education: University of Colorado Law School (J.D.)
  • [Additional biographical details limited in available sources]

Retention History:

  • Retained in 2019 (after 2-year provisional term)
  • Next retention: 2028

Next Retention Election: 2028

Sources:

9. JUDGE LINO S. LIPINSKY DE ORLOV

Position: Associate Judge

Appointed: 2019 by Governor Jared Polis (D) (exact date not specified in sources accessed)

Liaison District: 14th Judicial District

Current Term Expires: 2030 (current 8-year term after 2022 retention)

Mandatory Retirement: 2030 (age 72) - reaches mandatory retirement same year as term expiration

Background:

  • Born 1958 (age 67-68)
  • [Additional biographical details limited in available sources]

Retention History:

  • Retained in 2021 or 2022 (after 2-year provisional term)
  • Retained in 2022
  • Next retention: 2030 (but will reach mandatory retirement age 72 in 2030)

Next Retention Election: 2030 (will reach mandatory retirement age same year)

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Court_of_Appeals

10. JUDGE CHRISTINA GOMEZ

Position: Associate Judge

Appointed: 2020 by Governor Jared Polis (D) (exact date not specified in sources accessed)

Liaison District: [Information not available in sources accessed]

Current Term Expires: 2030 (current 8-year term after retention)

Mandatory Retirement: [Age not available in sources accessed]

Background:

  • [Biographical details limited in available sources]

Retention History:

  • Retained in 2022 (after 2-year provisional term)
  • Next retention: 2030

Next Retention Election: 2030

Source: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/media/14149

11. JUDGE DAVID H. YUN

Position: Associate Judge

Appointed: 2020 by Governor Jared Polis (D) (exact date not specified in sources accessed)

Liaison District: 18th and 23rd Judicial Districts (serves as liaison to two districts)

Current Term Expires: 2030 (current 8-year term after retention)

Mandatory Retirement: [Age not available in sources accessed]

Background:

  • [Biographical details limited in available sources]

Retention History:

  • Retained in 2022 (after 2-year provisional term)
  • Next retention: 2030

Next Retention Election: 2030

Sources:

12. JUDGE W. ERIC KUHN

Position: Associate Judge

Appointed: 2021 by Governor Jared Polis (D) (exact date not specified in sources accessed)

Liaison District: [Information not available in sources accessed]

Current Term Expires: 2032 (current 8-year term after 2024 retention)

Mandatory Retirement: [Age not available in sources accessed]

Background:

  • [Biographical details limited in available sources]

Retention History:

  • Retained in 2024 (after 2-year provisional term - appointed 2021, provisional term expired 2023, retention election 2024)
  • Next retention: 2032

Next Retention Election: 2032

Source: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/media/14149

13. JUDGE TIMOTHY J. SCHUTZ

Position: Associate Judge

Appointed: 2022 by Governor Jared Polis (D) (exact date not specified in sources accessed)

Liaison District: [Information not available in sources accessed]

Current Term Expires: 2032 (current 8-year term after 2024 retention)

Mandatory Retirement: [Age not available in sources accessed]

Background:

  • [Biographical details limited in available sources]

Retention History:

  • Retained in 2024 (after 2-year provisional term)
  • Next retention: 2032

Next Retention Election: 2032

Source: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/media/14149

ADDITIONAL JUDGES (14-22)

Note: The sources accessed contained information about 13 judges. Given that the court has 22 judges and documentation shows historical roster information, there are nine additional judges currently serving whose detailed information was not fully captured in the sources accessed. The Colorado Judicial Branch website maintains complete contact information and biographical details for all judges.

Based on the document dated 2023 showing Court of Appeals roster, the court includes additional judges appointed in recent years, but comprehensive biographical details for all 22 current judges were not available in the web search results obtained.

PARTISAN COMPOSITION OF CURRENT BENCH

Appointing Governors:
Based on judges with confirmed information:

Republican Governors:

  • Governor Bill Owens (R): At least 3 judges (Román - retiring 2026, Jones, Dailey)

Democratic Governors:

  • Governor Bill Ritter (D): 1 judge (Fox)
  • Governor John Hickenlooper (D): At least 5 judges (Dunn, Harris, Freyre, Welling, Tow - now Chief Judge)
  • Governor Jared Polis (D): At least 5 judges (Lipinsky de Orlov, Gomez, Yun, Kuhn, Schutz)

Important Context:

  • Colorado had Republican governors through January 2007 (Bill Owens served 1999-2007)
  • Colorado has had Democratic governors continuously since January 2007 (Bill Ritter 2007-2011, John Hickenlooper 2011-2019, Jared Polis 2019-present)
  • Merit selection system requires governors to choose from 3 nominees selected by bipartisan Supreme Court Nominating Commission
  • Judges often do not vote along partisan lines - judicial independence emphasized
  • Since 2007, natural attrition has resulted in Democratic appointees becoming majority of court

LOCATION AND COURT OPERATIONS

Court Location:

  • Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center
  • 2 East 14th Avenue
  • Denver, Colorado 80203

Office Hours:

  • Monday-Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. (general)
  • Clerk's Office: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
  • Closed for state holidays

Contact:

  • Clerk's Office: 720-625-5150

Self-Represented Litigant Coordinator:

  • Walk-in hours (Monday-Thursday):
    • 10:00-11:00 AM
    • 1:00-3:00 PM (after lunch 12:00-1:00 PM)
  • Call 720-625-5107 to confirm coordinator availability
  • Email: appeals.selfhelp@judicial.state.co.us
  • Appointments available outside walk-in hours

Oral Arguments:

  • Open to public
  • Held at Ralph L. Carr Judicial Center courtrooms
  • Multiple divisions hold arguments throughout the year

Sources:

WORKLOAD AND CASE PROCESSING

Case Volume:

  • Fiscal Year 2022: 2,250 new appeals filed
  • Calendar Year 2022: 2,276 new cases filed, 2,546 cases resolved
  • 1,724 full written opinions issued in 2022
  • Filing volume up more than 10% from previous fiscal year
  • Court has worked to eliminate pending case backlog

Division Operations:

  • Three-judge panels decide cases
  • Each division meets approximately every two weeks
  • Typically seven cases per setting:
    • 3-4 with oral argument
    • Remaining cases decided on briefs (waived oral argument)
    • Usually one Staff Attorney case

Opinion Writing:

  • Each judge authors numerous opinions per year
  • Plus any concurring or dissenting opinions judge chooses to write
  • Court produces 1,700+ written opinions annually

Case Processing:
After notice of appeal filed:

  1. Jurisdictional screening by Motions and Jurisdiction Attorneys
  2. Motions practice (routine motions ruled on by staff attorneys; complex motions by judges)
  3. Briefing by parties
  4. Random assignment to division by Clerk's Office
  5. Oral argument (for most cases) or submission on briefs
  6. Division conference and decision
  7. Opinion drafting and circulation
  8. Opinion issuance

Sources:

SALARY

Current Salary: $212,535.14 per year (as of 2026)

Comparison:

  • Lower than Colorado Supreme Court justices
  • Higher than district court judges

Source: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-04/RomanRetirement_COAVacancy_PressRelease_04152026.pdf

SUMMARY: KEY FACTS

Composition: 22 judges (1 Chief Judge + 21 Associate Judges)

Terms:

  • 2-year provisional term (initial)
  • 8-year terms after retention
  • Mandatory retirement at age 72
  • No limit on number of terms
  • Interim performance appraisals in 3rd and 5th years of each 8-year term

Selection: Merit selection via Supreme Court Nominating Commission → Governor appointment → voter retention

Retention Elections: Every 8 years after initial 2-year provisional term; statewide vote; simple majority required; no campaigning allowed

Chief Judge: Appointed by Chief Justice of Colorado Supreme Court (not elected by fellow judges)

Jurisdiction:

  • Primary appellate jurisdiction over district court trial decisions
  • Appeals from Denver Probate and Juvenile Courts
  • Appeals from approximately 33 administrative agencies/boards
  • Does NOT hear death penalty, constitutional challenges, PUC decisions, water rights, elections (those go directly to Supreme Court)

Decision Structure:

  • Three-judge panels (divisions)
  • Divisions rotate every 4 months
  • NOT authorized to sit en banc
  • Divisions operate independently

Location: Ralph L. Carr Judicial Center, Denver

Workload: ~2,250 new appeals/year; ~1,700 written opinions/year; court resolved more cases than filed in 2022 to reduce backlog

Salary: $212,535.14/year (as of 2026)

Current Chief Judge: Ted C. Tow III (since August 1, 2026) - appointed by Chief Justice Monica M. Márquez

Upcoming Retention Elections:

  • 2026 (this year): Judge Elizabeth L. Harris, Judge Rebecca R. Freyre
  • 2028: Chief Judge Ted C. Tow III, Judge Craig R. Welling
  • 2030: Judge Maria Teresa Fox, Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov, Judge Christina Gomez, Judge David H. Yun
  • 2032: Judge Jerry N. Jones, Judge Stephanie Dunn, Judge W. Eric Kuhn, Judge Timothy J. Schutz

Recent Vacancy:

  • Judge Gilbert M. Román retiring August 1, 2026
  • Nominees selected June 22, 2026: Kyle Wesley Brenton, Adam J. Espinosa, Jillian Joy Price
  • Governor appointment pending (must appoint by July 8, 2026)

SOURCES CONSULTED:

Official Colorado Judicial Branch:

Colorado Legislature:

Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation:

Other Official Sources:

State Documents:

Learn more:

Additional Information about Topics Mentioned in The Article

 

PERA Board (Public Employees' Retirement Association)

WHAT IS PERA?

PERA stands for the Public Employees' Retirement Association of Colorado. It's the state's public pension system that provides retirement and other benefits to Colorado's public employees.

Established: 1931 by the Colorado state legislature (predating the federal Social Security Act of 1935 by four years)

Purpose: To provide pension benefits to state and local government employees. For most PERA members, PERA serves as a substitute for Social Security.

Legal Authority: Article 51 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes

Size and Scope:

  • Serves over 620,000-700,000 current and former public employees
  • Covers employees from more than 400-500 government agencies and public entities
  • Manages approximately $65-68 billion in assets (as of 2025-2026)
  • One of Colorado's largest institutional investors
  • About 300 employees who invest money and deliver benefits

Mission: To provide retirement security for members while ensuring the long-term sustainability of the fund.

WHO DOES PERA COVER?

PERA is organized into five separate divisions:

1. State Division: Most state employees, including Judicial Department employees and independent judicial agencies (judges are in separate division)

2. School Division: Employees of all Colorado school districts (except Denver Public Schools, which has separate division)

3. Local Government Division: Employees of many municipalities and other local government entities

4. Judicial Division: Judges in Colorado's judicial system

5. Denver Public Schools (DPS) Division: Employees of Denver Public Schools (merged with PERA in 2010)

Each division's assets are held in separate trust funds.

THE PERA BOARD OF TRUSTEES

COMPOSITION

Total Members: 16 Trustees (as of June 1, 2026, following Senate Bill 26-151)

The Board consists of:

Elected Trustees (13 voting members):

  • 4 trustees from the School Division (elected by School Division members)
  • 3 trustees from the State Division (elected by State Division members)
    • At least one must be an employee of a state institution of higher education
    • At least one must NOT be an employee of a state institution of higher education
  • 1 trustee from the Local Government Division (elected by Local Government members)
  • 1 trustee from the Judicial Division (elected by Judicial Division members)
  • 2 retiree trustees (elected by PERA retirees)
    • One elected by retirees from Local Government, Judicial, or State divisions
    • One elected by retirees from Local Government, Judicial, or School divisions
  • 1 trustee from the Denver Public Schools Division (elected by DPS Division members and retirees) - NEW as of June 1, 2026
    • Previously was non-voting ex officio member
    • Senate Bill 26-151 made this a voting position effective June 1, 2026

Appointed Trustees (3 voting members):

  • 3 trustees appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the State Senate
  • Must be "public representatives" - NOT PERA members, inactive members, or retirees
  • Must have significant experience and competence in:
    • Investment management
    • Finance
    • Banking
    • Economics
    • Accounting
    • Pension administration
    • Actuarial analysis

Ex Officio Member (1 voting member):

  • Colorado State Treasurer (or his/her appointee)

Recent Change: As of June 1, 2026, the DPS Division representative changed from a non-voting ex officio member to a full voting member under Senate Bill 26-151.

TERMS AND COMPENSATION

Term Length: Four (4) years

Compensation: Trustees serve without salary but are reimbursed for necessary expenses incurred in carrying out their duties

Elections: Elected trustees are chosen by members and retirees of their respective divisions

Officers: Trustees elect a Chairman and any other officers necessary for the Board to carry out its duties

CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS (2026)

Based on available information, current trustees include:

Chairman: Marcus A. Pennell (School Division)

  • First elected 2003
  • Elected as Chairman in 2020
  • Term expires: June 30, 2025

Other Members (partial list from available sources):

  • Julie Friedemann (Retiree representative) - Term expires June 30, 2025
  • Amy Grant (DPS Division) - Now voting member as of June 1, 2026; Term expires June 30, 2028
  • Timothy M. O'Brien (Retiree representative) - Term expires June 30, 2027
  • Hon. Rebecca Freyre (serves on multiple committees)
  • Eunice Botchway
  • Nate Geroche
  • Lisa Landis
  • State Treasurer (ex officio)

Note: Complete current roster with all 16 members' details available at copera.org/board-members

FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITIES

The PERA Board serves as the administrators and fiduciaries of PERA. This is a legally binding role with significant responsibilities.

Legal Obligation: Under Colorado law, Board members are legally obligated to act solely in the interests of PERA beneficiaries to:

  1. Provide pension benefits
  2. Defray reasonable expenses of pension administration

Fiduciary Duty: Trustees must carry out their functions solely in the interest of the members and benefit recipients and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits and defraying reasonable expenses.

Three Basic Fiduciary Principles:

  1. Duty of Loyalty: Fiduciaries must act solely in the best interest of all PERA members and retirees, not their own interests or political considerations
  2. Duty of Care: Fiduciaries have an obligation to act prudently with the care, skill, and diligence that a prudent person would exercise
  3. Duty of Diversification: Fiduciaries must prudently diversify investments to minimize risk of large losses

Key Point: As fiduciaries, Trustees must pursue policies and make investment decisions that exclusively benefit all participants in the fund. They cannot favor one group over another or consider political or personal interests.

POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The PERA Board has extensive governance and oversight responsibilities:

A. RULEMAKING AND ADMINISTRATION

Required Duties:

  • Adopt and promulgate rules for the administration of PERA
  • Specify factors to be used in actuarial determinations or calculations
  • Develop PERA's strategic plan
  • Oversee benefits administration

Governance Structure:

  • Board establishes policy
  • PERA management staff implements policy and handles day-to-day operations
  • PERA is an instrumentality of the state but is not subject to administrative direction by any state department, commission, board, bureau, or agency
B. INVESTMENT OVERSIGHT

Investment Responsibility: State law gives the Board responsibility for the investment of PERA's funds and to establish policy guidelines for operations.

Investment Program Structure:

The Board:

  • Approves asset allocation across diverse public and private markets
  • Approves Statement of Investment Policy
  • Selects consultants and investment advisors
  • Oversees investment management structure and delegations made to PERA staff
  • Appoints and evaluates the Chief Investment Officer
  • Conducts asset/liability studies every 4-5 years to determine optimal investment mix

Asset Classes:

  • Global Equities (public stocks, both U.S. and international)
  • Fixed Income (bonds and debt instruments)
  • Private Equity (PERA has invested since early 1980s)
  • Real Estate (commercial properties including data centers, apartments, offices, retail, hotels)
  • Opportunity Fund (special situations)

Internal Management: PERA manages approximately 61-75% of assets internally (particularly Global Equity and Fixed Income), saving approximately $65-70 million annually compared to external management costs.

Investment Income: Over the past 30 years, PERA's investments have generated more than $82-88 billion in investment income, making it the largest source of funding to the pension (larger than employee and employer contributions combined).

Recent Performance: 7.8% annualized 10-year net return (as of recent reports)

C. ACTUARIAL OVERSIGHT

Board Responsibilities:

  • Approve funding policies
  • Approve actuarial assumptions and methodologies
  • Appoint, evaluate, and terminate the pension actuary
  • Perform annual sensitivity analysis to determine whether actuarial assumptions are meeting targets (codified by Senate Bill 18-200)
  • Report findings annually to:
    • Governor
    • Joint Budget Committee
    • Legislative Audit Committee
    • House and Senate Finance Committees
D. WHAT THE BOARD DOES NOT DO

Important Limitation: The PERA Board does NOT set:

  • Contribution rates (how much employees and employers pay into the system)
  • Benefit amounts (how much retirees receive)

Why: PERA is established in state law, so only the Colorado Legislature with the Governor's approval can make changes to contribution rates, benefits, or other structural requirements for any PERA division.

The Legislature sets the benefit structure; the Board administers it and invests the assets.

E. BOARD COMMITTEES

The Board operates through several standing committees:

Standing Committees (as of January 2026):

  • Audit Committee
  • Benefits Committee
  • Compensation and Budget Committee
  • Governance Committee
  • Investment Committee

Each trustee serves on multiple committees, ensuring comprehensive oversight.

F. OVERSIGHT OF STAFF

Chief Executive Officer/Executive Director:

  • Board selects and oversees the Executive Director
  • Executive Director reports to the Board
  • Executive Director responsible for implementing Board policy and managing day-to-day operations

Chief Investment Officer:

  • Reports regularly to Board on investment matters
  • Leads in-house investment team of over 50 investment professionals
  • Manages portfolio and supports entire investment program

Staff: PERA employs approximately 300 people total who invest money and deliver benefits

GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

PERA's Independence

PERA is an instrumentality of the state of Colorado but operates with significant independence:

  • Not subject to administrative direction by any state department, commission, board, bureau, or agency
  • Board governs PERA by establishing policy
  • Management implements policy and manages operations
Legislative Oversight

While PERA operates independently, it remains accountable to the Colorado Legislature:

Reporting Requirements:

  • PERA regularly reports to various legislative committees
  • State Auditor conducts annual financial audit
  • Board must provide annual sensitivity analysis report (per SB 18-200)

Pension Review Commission:

  • Standing legislative interim committee
  • Reviews PERA's operations and finances
  • Can receive investment information from PERA Board during executive session

Legislative Authority:

  • Only Legislature can change benefits, contribution rates, and certain investment parameters
  • Legislature passed major reforms in 2010, 2018, and other years
Internal Controls and Auditing

Internal Controls:

  • Internal auditor employed by the PERA Board
  • Reports directly to Board (not management)

External Controls:

  • Independent auditor overseen by Office of the State Auditor
  • Joint Finance Committee oversight pursuant to SMART Act

RECENT REFORMS AND CHANGES

Senate Bill 18-200 (2018)

Major pension reform legislation that:

  • Increased contribution rates
  • Adjusted benefit calculations
  • Codified annual sensitivity analysis requirement for Board
  • Enhanced reporting requirements
  • Created Pension Review Subcommittee
Senate Bill 26-151 (2026)

Signed into law May 28, 2026; most provisions effective July 1, 2026:

  • Changed DPS Division board member from non-voting to voting (effective June 1, 2026)
  • Affiliated DSST Public Schools with PERA's DPS Division
  • Maintains 16-member board size

BENEFITS ADMINISTERED BY PERA

Under Board oversight, PERA provides:

Primary Benefit: Defined Benefit (DB) Plan - hybrid plan where benefits are based on a formula set by law

  • Lifetime retirement benefits
  • Based on years of service and final average salary

Additional Benefits:

  • Survivor benefits
  • Disability benefits
  • Good portability provisions between divisions

Optional Plans:

  • PERAPlus 401(k) Plan (voluntary savings)
  • 457 Deferred Compensation Plan
  • PERACare (health benefits for retirees)
  • Life insurance programs

Defined Contribution Option: Some newer members have access to a Defined Contribution plan option

QUALIFIED STATUS

PERA is a "qualified" retirement plan under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 401(a), providing tax advantages to participants.

KEY STATISTICS (2025-2026)

  • Total assets under management: ~$65-68 billion
  • Members and beneficiaries served: 620,000-700,000
  • Contributing employers: 400-500 government agencies and entities
  • PERA employees: ~300
  • Investment professionals: 50+
  • 30-year investment income: $82-88 billion
  • 30-year benefit distributions: $97+ billion
  • Internal management savings: $65-70 million annually
  • Colorado investments: ~$789 million invested in Colorado economy

CONTACT INFORMATION

Colorado PERA

SUMMARY

The PERA Board of Trustees is a 16-member governing body with fiduciary responsibility for managing Colorado's largest public pension system. The Board consists primarily of elected members representing different PERA divisions, plus gubernatorial appointees with investment expertise and the State Treasurer. While the Colorado Legislature sets contribution rates and benefit levels, the Board has full authority over investments (managing ~$67 billion), administration, and actuarial assumptions. Board members serve four-year terms without compensation and must act solely in the interest of PERA's 620,000+ members and retirees. The Board's investment program has generated over $88 billion in the past 30 years, making investment income the largest source of pension funding.

Sources Consulted:

  • Colorado PERA official website (copera.org)
  • Colorado Legislature documents and fiscal notes
  • PERA Governance Manual
  • Investment Stewardship Reports
  • Senate Bill 26-151 (2026)
  • Senate Bill 18-200 (2018)
  • Colorado Revised Statutes Article 51 of Title 24

Learn more:

Res Gestate

Res gestae (Latin for "things done") was a common law evidentiary doctrine that allowed prosecutors to introduce evidence of a defendant's other acts, crimes, or misconduct that were not charged in the case, as long as those acts were considered "incidental to" or "part of the transaction" of the charged crime.

The doctrine was based on the idea that criminal events don't occur in a vacuum on a "sterile stage," and that jurors needed context to fully understand what happened. The theory was that certain uncharged acts were so closely connected in time and circumstances to the charged crime that they formed part of the same criminal episode and were necessary to tell the complete story.

The res gestae doctrine has deep roots in American and English common law:

In its more modern form in Colorado, res gestae had been part of Colorado jurisprudence for over 90 years:

  • Early 20th century: Abshier v. People, 289 P. 1081, 1088 (Colo. 1930) held that evidence of a defendant's other crimes was admissible because the offenses were "indivisibly connected"

By the late 20th and early 21st centuries, Colorado courts defined res gestae evidence as:

"Matter incidental to the main fact and explanatory of it, including acts and words which are so closely connected therewith as to constitute a part of the transaction, and without knowledge of which the main fact might not be properly understood." (Woertman v. People, 804 P.2d 188 (Colo. 1991))

More specifically, courts held that res gestae evidence:

  1. Is generally linked in time and circumstances with the charged crime
  2. Forms an integral and natural part of an account of the crime
  3. Is necessary to complete the story of the crime for the jury
  4. Helps provide "a full and complete understanding of the events surrounding the crime and the context in which the charged crime occurred"

(People v. Quintana, 882 P.2d 1366, 1373 (Colo. 1994))

Colorado adopted the Colorado Rules of Evidence (CRE) in the 1970s, including:

  • CRE 404(b): Prohibits the prosecution from introducing evidence of a defendant's "other crimes, wrongs, or acts" to prove the defendant has bad character or a propensity to commit crimes (with certain exceptions for proving motive, opportunity, intent, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake)
  • CRE 401-403: General rules governing relevance and balancing probative value against prejudice
,