Oct 29, 2026, 7:44:06 PM

Detailed Evaluation of 23rd Judicial District Judges | Colorado 2026 Elections

This article takes a deep dive into the records of four judges up for a vote to retain or remove them. The criteria I looked at are:

Time on Bench
Current & Previous Docket Assignments
Notable/Controversial Decisions
Partisan Indicators
Judicial Performance and more.

Also see the same analysis for the Colorado Supreme Court Justice & Court of Appeals Judges.

Judges on November Election Ballot | Colorado Twenty-Third Judicial District (Douglas, Elbert & Lincoln Counties)

Andrew Baum

Judge Andrew Baum of the 23rd Judicial District

(1) TIME ON THE BENCH

Appointed: August 1, 2017, by Governor John Hickenlooper (Democrat)

Total Judicial Experience as of 2026: Approximately 9 years on the district court bench

Prior Judicial Service: Magistrate for the 18th Judicial District (July 2016 – July 2017)

Previous Retention: Judge Baum was retained in 2020 with 66.07% of the vote (323,567 yes, 166,152 no). This was his first retention election, covering service in what was then the 18th Judicial District.

Current Docket Assignment (as of July 2026):

Division 2 (Douglas County)
Domestic relations cases
Child support matters
Problem-Solving Courts, including:
- Sobriety Court
- Recovery Court
- Competency Court
- Veterans Treatment and Support Courts
- Wellness Court

Previous Docket Assignments:

Felony criminal cases (August 2017 – January 2020)
Domestic relations (January 2020 – present, comprising 98% of his docket)
Civil cases (periodically during current term)
Led effort to establish newly mandated competency courts for the district

(2) NOTABLE/CONTROVERSIAL DECISIONS

Based on available appellate records and published opinions, the following decisions involving Judge Baum have been noteworthy:

A. People v. DeGreat (2020 CO 25) – REVERSED

Case: Speedy trial violation case

Judge Baum's Decision: Denied defendant's motion to dismiss despite the case exceeding Colorado's six-month speedy trial deadline for retrial after reversal on appeal.

Colorado Supreme Court Action: The Supreme Court made the rule absolute and ordered dismissal with prejudice of all charges against the defendant.

Supreme Court Reasoning: The Court found that the defendant had been awaiting retrial for nearly a year and a half when Colorado's speedy trial statute required retrial within six months of receiving the mandate after appeal. The Court rejected Judge Baum's finding that the delay was attributable to both parties' failure to comply with scheduling orders, stating: "The trial court and prosecuting attorney are responsible for ensuring that a case is brought within statutory speedy trial time limits."

Significance: This was a significant rebuke, as the Supreme Court found Judge Baum had improperly placed burden on the defendant for speedy trial compliance when the burden rests with the court and prosecutor.

Citation: People v. DeGreat, 2020 CO 25 (Arapahoe County District Court Case No. 08CR1289)

B. People v. Vigil (2021 CO 46) – CLARIFIED/AFFIRMED IN PART

Case: Interlocutory appeal regarding the definition of "substantial risk of death" under Colorado's serious bodily injury statute.

Judge Baum's Case: This case originated in Judge Baum's court involving a defendant who allegedly stabbed a victim in the neck. The knife missed all vital structures and the victim required only stitches.

Colorado Supreme Court Action: The Supreme Court clarified legal standards but did not reverse Judge Baum. The Court held that "the facts of the actual injury control the substantial risk of death determination under section 18-1-901(3)(p), not the risk generally associated with the type of conduct or injury in question."

Significance: This case established important precedent regarding serious bodily injury definitions, with the Supreme Court reaffirming its decision in Stroup v. People and overruling some Court of Appeals decisions.

Citation: People v. Vigil, 2021 CO 46 (Supreme Court Case No. 20SA240, Arapahoe County District Court Case No. 19CR1357)

C. In re Marriage of Badawiyeh (Court of Appeals 2023) – REVERSED

Case: Divorce case with international travel restrictions

Judge Baum's Decision: Ordered that the passports of father Basil Badawiyeh and his minor children be held by a third party and required the father to post a $50,000 bond whenever he wanted to travel internationally to the Middle East for family trips. Judge Baum characterized these as "abduction prevention" measures.

Court of Appeals Action: A three-judge panel reversed Judge Baum's travel restrictions.

Court of Appeals Reasoning: The appellate court noted that Colorado law requires judges to consider more than a dozen factors when deciding whether a "credible risk" of child abduction exists. Judge Baum had cited only one factor: the father's likelihood of taking children to the United Arab Emirates. The Court found Judge Baum had not properly applied the statutory framework.

Background: The mother expressed fear that her husband would remain in the UAE with the children. The father testified that fleeing would be against his "character, culture and religion." Judge Baum sided with the mother and parental evaluators about the risk.

Significance: This reversal suggests Judge Baum failed to properly apply statutory criteria in making abduction risk determinations.

Citation: Colorado Politics article, January 17, 2023; Court of Appeals decision (Douglas County District Court case)

D. In re Marriage of Hodyl (2021) – AFFIRMED

Case: Divorce/custody case involving allegations of sexual abuse

Judge Baum's Decision: Made findings that there was no credible evidence of sexual abuse by the father and ordered individual therapy for the mother, who continued to insist on the abuse allegations despite evidence to the contrary.

Court of Appeals Action: AFFIRMED Judge Baum's orders.

Judge Baum's Findings: The Court found the mother "continues to insist, despite vast evidence to the contrary, that Petitioner ('Father') sexually assaulted the minor child." Judge Baum's record included findings from the Parental Responsibility Evaluator that "there is no credible evidence by Colorado law that Father has sexually abused [the child]," agreement from the child's therapist, and the Court's own finding of insufficient information to conclude sexual assault occurred.

Significance: The appellate court upheld Judge Baum's handling of a sensitive case involving contested abuse allegations.

Citation: In re Marriage of Hodyl, Court of Appeals No. 20CA1962 (Douglas County District Court No. 18DR30102)

E. In re Marriage of Pittman (2025) – AFFIRMED

Case: Divorce case involving educational decision-making and child support

Judge Baum's Decision: Made orders tying children's educational options to parents' debt repayment and restricted mother's educational decision-making authority.

Court of Appeals Action: AFFIRMED Judge Baum's decision.

Court of Appeals Reasoning: The Court found that while tying educational decisions to debt repayment was not ideal, sometimes courts are "left with no alternative." The Court rejected the mother's due process claims.

Citation: In re Marriage of Pittman, 24CA2072 (Douglas County District Court No. 23DR30656), decided October 30, 2025

F. People v. Chapel (2021) – AFFIRMED

Case: Criminal trespass case involving choice-of-evils defense

Judge Baum's Decision: Declined to provide jury instruction on choice-of-evils affirmative defense and applied Miranda suppression order to exclude defendant's statements as self-serving hearsay.

Court of Appeals Action: AFFIRMED the judgment of conviction.

Court of Appeals Reasoning: The Court found Judge Baum "properly declined to provide the jury with the choice-of-evils affirmative defense because the record showed that Chapel had brought the circumstances leading to his trespasses on himself."

Citation: People v. Chapel, Court of Appeals No. 2020CA711 (Arapahoe District Court Case No. 19CR695), decided June 29, 2021

G. People v. Clark (2024) – AFFIRMED

Case: Criminal case

Judge Baum's Decision: Entered judgment of conviction

Court of Appeals Action: AFFIRMED in unpublished opinion

Citation: People v. Clark, 2024COA99 (Arapahoe County District Court No. 17CR3639), decided September 5, 2024

(3) PARTISAN INDICATORS

Appointment

Appointed by: Governor John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, on August 1, 2017

This factor alone does not determine partisan lean, as judges are expected to be impartial, but it provides context for the appointing authority.

Professional Background

Pre-Judicial Career:

Deputy District Attorney (Denver District Attorney's Office, October 2007 – July 2016):

Spent 8 years as a prosecutor
Most recently assigned to Economic Crime Unit
Prosecutorial background may suggest law-and-order orientation, though this is not inherently partisan

U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's Corps (January 2003 – July 2007):

Served 4 years as military JAG officer
Two deployments to Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault)
Served as appellate law attorney for Army's Government Appellate Division
Military service is typically viewed as conservative-leaning, though many military officers maintain non-partisan judicial approaches

Magistrate (18th Judicial District, July 2016 – July 2017):

Presided over domestic relations docket

Education

B.A. from University of Notre Dame (1999)
J.D. from Notre Dame Law School (2002)
Notre Dame is a Catholic university; while the institution has conservative associations, many graduates hold diverse political views

Professional Service & Affiliations

Judge Baum's professional activities include:

Colorado Bar Association Commission on Criminal Law
Arapahoe County Bar Association Board (Courthouse Liaison)
Notre Dame Lawyers Committee (Executive Committee officer)
Arapahoe County Justice Coordinating Committee
Thompson G. Marsh Inn of Court (Pupilage Group Leader)
Volunteer for local high school mock trial competitions

These professional affiliations are largely non-partisan and focused on legal education and bar service.

Case Record Analysis

Reviewing Judge Baum's case outcomes and reversals:

Domestic Relations Cases: Judge Baum's rulings in domestic relations cases have shown mixed outcomes on appeal. His decision in the Badawiyeh case imposing travel restrictions was reversed for failure to apply statutory factors properly. However, his rulings in Hodyl and Pittman were affirmed, even where they imposed restrictions on parties or made findings on contested abuse allegations.

Criminal Cases: Judge Baum's criminal case decisions show a prosecutorial orientation in some instances:

The DeGreat speedy trial case was reversed with the Supreme Court finding he improperly placed burden on the defendant
His decision in Chapel denying choice-of-evils defense was affirmed
His ruling in Vigil served as the basis for Supreme Court clarification of serious bodily injury standards

Overall Assessment: Judge Baum's background as a prosecutor and military officer may suggest a law-and-order orientation. However, his reversals in the DeGreat and Badawiyeh cases suggest he does not always rule in favor of the prosecution or against individual rights. His track record appears more aligned with a traditional judicial approach rather than a clearly identifiable partisan lean.

Conclusion on Partisanship

Indicators suggesting possible conservative lean:

Military service (JAG officer, two Iraq deployments)
Eight years as prosecutor
Appointed by Democratic governor (suggesting bipartisan appeal or centrist credentials)

Indicators suggesting balanced/non-partisan approach:

Mixed appellate outcomes (some reversals favored defendants/individuals)
Service on specialty problem-solving courts (drug courts, veterans courts) suggests rehabilitative rather than purely punitive approach
Bar association involvement is non-partisan

Assessment: Judge Baum's background suggests he may lean moderately conservative based on his prosecutorial and military experience. However, his judicial record shows he does not consistently favor one side, and his reversals include cases where he ruled against defendants (DeGreat) and against parents in domestic cases (Badawiyeh). The evidence does not suggest strong partisan bias, but rather a judicial philosophy informed by law enforcement and military experience.

(4) OTHER USEFUL EVALUATION DATA

A. Judicial Performance Evaluations

Judge Baum has undergone multiple performance evaluations:

2026 Retention Evaluation (Current)

Twenty-Third Judicial District Commission Recommendation: MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS by unanimous vote of 7-0 (one commissioner absent, two commission vacancies)

Commission Findings: "Judge Baum presides over domestic relations matters and the newly created criminal Problem Solving Courts (including Sobriety Court, Recovery Court, Wellness Court, and Veterans Treatment and Support Courts) in Douglas County, Colorado. During the current term, he also presided over a civil docket, and he has led the effort to establish the newly mandated competency courts for the 23rd Judicial District. Judge Baum's demeanor is described as respectful, fair, kind, and just. He is always prepared for the cases he hears and applies the law well. His written orders are detailed and thoughtful, and provide in depth legal analysis on complicated issues, clearly citing the applicable laws. He is efficient in the courtroom and effectively manages his cases, while giving all parties equal time to be heard. His demeanor in the specialty treatment courts is described as open, calm, and consistent, with good use of motivational interviewing to ensure individualized and tailored experiences for the participants."

2023 Interim Evaluation

Survey Results (67 responses):

Overall Score: 3.3 out of 4.0 (District Judges Overall: 3.4)

Category Scores:

Case Management: 3.3 (District Judges: 3.4)
Application and Knowledge of Law: 3.1 (District Judges: 3.3)
Communications: 3.5 (District Judges: 3.5)
Demeanor: 3.4 (District Judges: 3.4)
Diligence: 3.3 (District Judges: 3.4)
Fairness: 3.0 (District Judges: 3.3)

Notable Weakness: Non-attorney respondents gave Judge Baum notably lower scores across most categories compared to attorneys:

Demeanor (Non-Attorneys): 2.9 vs. 3.6 (Attorneys)
Application of Law (Non-Attorneys): 2.6 vs. 3.3 (Attorneys)
Fairness (Non-Attorneys): 3.0 vs. 3.3 (Attorneys)
"Having a sense of compassion" (Non-Attorneys): 2.7 vs. District Judges Overall: 3.4

Concerns: The significant gap between attorney and non-attorney ratings suggests that parties appearing before Judge Baum (particularly self-represented litigants) may perceive him as less compassionate or fair than attorneys do.

2020 Retention Evaluation (First Retention)

Eighteenth Judicial District Commission Recommendation: MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS by unanimous vote of 9-0 (one commissioner absent)

Survey Results:

Overall Score: 2.9 out of 4.0 (District Judges Overall: 3.4) — Below Average

Attorney Retention Recommendation:

62% said "Meets Performance Standards"
38% said "Does Not Meet Performance Standards"

This was an unusually low percentage of attorneys recommending retention compared to typical retention rates.

Non-Attorney Retention Recommendation:

100% said "Meets Performance Standards"
0% said "Does Not Meet Performance Standards"

Category Scores:

Case Management: 3.0 (District Judges: 3.4)
Application and Knowledge of Law: 2.7 (District Judges: 3.3) — Notably Low
Communications: 3.0 (District Judges: 3.5)
Diligence: 2.9 (District Judges: 3.4)
Demeanor: 2.9 (District Judges: 3.5)
Fairness: 3.9 (District Judges: 3.7) — Higher than average

Significant Concerns Noted in 2020 Evaluation:

The Commission stated: "This is Judge Baum's first performance review. The Commission also conducted an interim review in 2019, where concerns regarding some areas including, the application and knowledge of law, clarity, consistency of rulings, and control over the proceedings were addressed. Some recent survey responses expressed concerns regarding his temperament and a gender bias."

The Commission noted: "Judge Baum has been diligent in addressing concerns raised and has taken appropriate actions to address concerns. The Commission has noted significant improvement and based on these findings the Commission agrees that Judge Andrew Baum meets performance standards."

2019 Interim Evaluation (Pre-Retention)

Survey Results (117 responses):

Overall Score: Data shows mixed performance

Attorney Concerns:

Some attorneys rated him very low on certain measures
"Basing decisions on evidence and not on outside information or personal opinion": Attorneys gave score of 1.8 (well below district judge average of 3.2)
"Acting with dignity in a neutral manner": Attorneys gave score of 1.6 (well below district judge average of 3.4)

Notable Pattern: Attorneys rated Judge Baum significantly lower than non-attorneys in several categories during this early evaluation period.

B. Performance Trend Analysis

Comparing Judge Baum's evaluations over time:

2019 (Interim): Significant concerns raised; attorneys gave very low scores in some categories (1.6-1.8 out of 4.0)

2020 (First Retention): Still below average overall (2.9 vs. 3.4); only 62% of attorneys recommended retention; concerns about temperament and gender bias noted but Commission found "significant improvement"

2023 (Interim): Improved scores (3.3 vs. 3.4 overall); more consistent performance but still some gap between attorney and non-attorney perceptions

2026 (Current Retention): Commission unanimously recommends retention with positive findings about his demeanor, preparation, and legal analysis

Trajectory: Judge Baum appears to have improved significantly since his early years on the bench, addressing concerns about temperament, consistency, and application of law. However, persistent lower ratings from non-attorneys suggest ongoing perception issues with self-represented litigants or parties appearing before him.

C. Gender Bias Concerns

The 2020 evaluation specifically mentioned "concerns regarding his temperament and a gender bias" in survey responses. The Commission did not elaborate on the specific nature of these concerns but noted Judge Baum had "taken appropriate actions to address concerns."

Context: Judge Baum presides primarily over domestic relations cases (98% of his docket since January 2020), where gender dynamics are often central to disputes. The gender bias concern, coupled with his background as a prosecutor and military officer, may suggest some litigants perceive him as favoring one gender over another in custody or support disputes.

Resolution: The Commission found Judge Baum had addressed these concerns and noted "significant improvement" by 2020. Subsequent evaluations (2023, 2026) do not mention gender bias concerns, suggesting the issue was resolved or perceptions improved.

D. Reversal Rate

Based on available appellate records:

Reversals:

People v. DeGreat (2020) – Reversed by Colorado Supreme Court
In re Marriage of Badawiyeh (2023) – Reversed by Court of Appeals

Affirmances:

People v. Vigil (2021) – Clarified but not reversed
In re Marriage of Hodyl (2021) – Affirmed
In re Marriage of Pittman (2025) – Affirmed
People v. Chapel (2021) – Affirmed
People v. Clark (2024) – Affirmed

Reversal Rate: Approximately 2 reversals out of 7 appellate cases identified = ~29% reversal rate

This is higher than typical reversal rates for district court judges, which generally range from 10-20%. However, the small sample size of publicly available appellate decisions limits the statistical significance of this figure.

E. Specialty Court Leadership

Judge Baum has taken a leadership role in establishing and presiding over problem-solving courts:

Sobriety Court
Recovery Court
Wellness Court
Veterans Treatment and Support Courts
Competency Courts (led effort to establish for 23rd Judicial District)

Significance: Leadership in problem-solving courts suggests Judge Baum supports therapeutic jurisprudence and rehabilitation-focused approaches to criminal justice, which are typically associated with progressive criminal justice reform rather than traditional punitive approaches. This contrasts with his prosecutorial background and suggests a more nuanced judicial philosophy.

F. Caseload and Efficiency

Current Assignment: Division 2 (Douglas County) handles:

Domestic relations
Child support
Problem-solving courts (multiple specialty dockets)

Commission Findings: Judge Baum is described as "efficient in the courtroom and effectively manages his cases, while giving all parties equal time to be heard."

Survey Data: Case management scores have been consistently near or slightly below district average (3.0-3.3 vs. 3.4), suggesting adequate but not exceptional efficiency.

G. Written Work Quality

2026 Commission Findings: "His written orders are detailed and thoughtful, and provide in depth legal analysis on complicated issues, clearly citing the applicable laws."

This positive assessment contrasts with earlier concerns about clarity and consistency noted in 2019-2020 evaluations, suggesting improvement in written work quality.

H. Community Service

Judge Baum's service to the legal profession and public includes:

Volunteer for local high school mock trial competitions (yearly)
Colorado Bar Association Commission on Criminal Law
Arapahoe County Bar Association Board (Courthouse Liaison)
Notre Dame Lawyers Committee (Executive Committee)
Arapahoe County Justice Coordinating Committee
Thompson G. Marsh Inn of Court (Pupilage Group Leader)

Assessment: Extensive community involvement demonstrates commitment to legal education and professional development.

SUMMARY ASSESSMENT

Strengths:

Significant improvement since early judicial career
Strong legal knowledge and thoughtful written orders
Effective leadership in establishing specialty problem-solving courts
Well-prepared and efficient in courtroom
Extensive community service and bar involvement
Military and prosecutorial experience provides diverse perspective

Concerns:

Higher-than-typical reversal rate (~29% in identified cases)
Early concerns about temperament and gender bias (though Commission found improvement)
Persistent lower ratings from non-attorneys compared to attorneys
Lower scores on compassion and fairness from parties appearing before him
Below-average overall performance scores in early evaluations

Trajectory: Judge Baum has shown measurable improvement from 2019-2026, addressing early concerns about temperament, consistency, and application of law. His unanimous 2026 retention recommendation contrasts sharply with the divided 2020 evaluation.

Partisan Assessment: Moderately conservative lean suggested by prosecutorial and military background, but judicial record shows balanced outcomes and commitment to therapeutic jurisprudice through problem-solving courts.

SOURCES

Official Records:

Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation – 2026 Retention Evaluation
https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/baum-andrew-2026-evaluation
Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation – 2020 Retention Evaluation
https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/baum-andrew-2020-evaluation
Judge Andrew C. Baum 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report (PDF)
https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/sites/judicialperformance/files/documents/18%20-%2038966%20-%20Judge%20Andrew%20C.%20Baum%202023.pdf
Judge Andrew C. Baum 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report (PDF)
https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/sites/judicialperformance/files/documents/38966%20-%20Judge%20Andrew%20C.%20Baum%20(1).pdf
Colorado Judicial Branch – Judge Andrew Baum Contact Information
https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/contact/andrew-baum
23rd Judicial District Chief Judge Order 2026-01 (Judicial Assignments)
https://douglaselbertbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/23rd-JD-Judicial-Officer-Assignments-July-2026.pdf

Appellate Decisions:

People v. DeGreat, 2020 CO 25 (Colorado Supreme Court)
https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/19SA252.pdf
People v. Vigil, 2021 CO 46 (Colorado Supreme Court)
https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/20SA240.pdf
In re Marriage of Hodyl, Court of Appeals No. 20CA1962
http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1530/227240/20220607095747491_20220607-094639-95756753-00000022.pdf
In re Marriage of Pittman, 24CA2072 (Colorado Court of Appeals, October 30, 2025)
https://cases.justia.com/colorado/court-of-appeals/2025-24ca2072.pdf
People v. Chapel, Court of Appeals No. 2020CA711 (June 29, 2021)
https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/media/8400

Third-Party Sources:

Colorado Politics – "Douglas County judge's 'abduction prevention' measures against father overturned" (January 17, 2023)
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/courts/douglas-county-judges-abduction-prevention-measures-against-father-overturned/article_1a66185a-9691-11ed-b2bb-cf03e8450857.html
University of Notre Dame Law School – Appointment Announcement (August 21, 2017)
https://law.nd.edu/news-events/news/andrew-c-baum-99-ba-02-jd-appointed-district-court-judge-in-denver-2/
Trellis.Law – Judge Andrew C. Baum Professional Background
https://trellis.law/judge/andrew.c.baum
Kim Monson Voter Guide – Judge Andrew Baum Retention 2026
https://kimmonson.com/colorado-voter-guide/2026/retention-baum-andrew-c/

All sources are official government records, court documents, or reputable third-party news sources. No opinion-based advocacy sources were used in this analysis.

Learn more:

Victoria E. Klingensmith

Judicial Victoria E. Klingensmith of the 23rd Judicial District

(1) TIME ON THE BENCH

Appointed: September 1, 2023, by Governor Jared Polis (Democrat)

Total Judicial Experience as of 2026: Approximately 3 years on the district court bench

Previous Judicial Service: None prior to district court appointment

Current Docket Assignment (as of July 2026):

Division 5 (Douglas County)
Criminal cases
Civil cases

Background: This is Judge Klingensmith's first retention election. Under Colorado law, judges appointed to fill vacancies serve an initial provisional term until the next general election occurring more than one year after appointment, at which point they must stand for retention to continue serving.

(2) NOTABLE/CONTROVERSIAL DECISIONS

Due to Judge Klingensmith's recent appointment (September 2023), there is limited appellate case history. However, the following cases have been identified:

A. People in the Interest of M.E., 23CA1972 (September 2024) – AFFIRMED WITH DIVISION

Case: Juvenile dependency and neglect case involving allocation of parental responsibilities

Judge Klingensmith's Decision: In October 2023, Judge Klingensmith entered an order in an Arapahoe County juvenile dependency and neglect case involving a 4-year-old girl. The order governed the mother's custody with the intent of forwarding it to Douglas County where a separate domestic relations case was pending.

The Issue: The mother (identified as D.E.) appealed, arguing that Judge Klingensmith's order improperly:

Limited D.E.'s ability to request modifications of parenting rights
Limited the Douglas County court's authority to issue changes

Parties' Position: Arapahoe County and the child's legal representative conceded that Judge Klingensmith's decision had this effect.

Court of Appeals Action: The three-judge panel was divided on how to interpret Judge Klingensmith's order:

Majority Opinion (Judges Kuhn and Tow): Disagreed with the parties' interpretation of the order and affirmed it, stating: "We disagree with the parties' reading of the juvenile court's order." The majority concluded that the order did not improperly restrict the mother's rights or the Douglas County court's authority.
Dissent (Judge Taubman): Agreed with the mother, county, and child's representative that Judge Klingensmith's order improperly restricted parental rights modification and constrained another judge's authority. Judge Taubman stated that "Klingensmith could not constrain another judge's authority to make decisions about parental rights in the separate Douglas County case." He would have ordered deletion of the disputed language.

Significance: This case raised concerns about the clarity of Judge Klingensmith's written orders and whether she properly understood the limits of her jurisdiction when multiple courts had overlapping authority over parenting matters. The fact that the county and child's representative conceded error, but the majority of the appellate panel disagreed, suggests either unclear drafting by Judge Klingensmith or misunderstanding by the parties.

Outcome: The order was ultimately affirmed, but the split decision and parties' concession of error raise questions about the clarity and appropriateness of the original order.

Citation: People in the Interest of M.E., Court of Appeals No. 23CA1972, Arapahoe County District Court No. 21JV246, decided September 5, 2024

Sources:

Colorado Politics, "Appeals court divided over meaning of judge's parenting order" (September 13, 2024): https://www.coloradopolitics.com/courts/appeals-court-divided-over-meaning-of-judges-parenting-order/article_3644dfea-714e-11ef-961e-dfb5f02957da.html
The Denver Gazette, "Appeals court divided over meaning of judge's parenting order" (September 12, 2024)

B. In Re Plaintiff, 2025 CO 38 (Supreme Court Case No. 25SA9) – ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

Case: Original proceeding pursuant to Colorado Appellate Rule 21

Judge Klingensmith's Case: Douglas County District Court Case No. 21CR60

Status: The Colorado Supreme Court issued an opinion on June 9, 2025, in this case. However, the specific nature of Judge Klingensmith's decision and the Supreme Court's ruling are not detailed in available public records beyond the case docket information.

Significance: The fact that this case reached the Supreme Court as an original proceeding (typically involving extraordinary relief like writs of mandamus or prohibition) suggests a significant legal issue arose from Judge Klingensmith's handling of the criminal case.

Citation: 2025 CO 38, Supreme Court Case No. 25SA9, Douglas County District Court Case No. 21CR60

Source: Colorado Supreme Court Case Announcements, June 9, 2025: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/06.09.25.pdf

C. People v. Shockey (Pre-Judicial Role as Prosecutor)

Note: This case involves Judge Klingensmith in her former role as a prosecutor, not as a judge. However, it provides context for her approach to criminal law.

Case: Murder case where the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder despite jurors finding he did not shoot the victim and evidence suggesting he was not present for the shooting.

Prosecutor Klingensmith's Role: As the prosecuting attorney, Klingensmith extensively argued for a theory of complicity during jury selection. When one juror expressed concern about convicting someone who wasn't present, Klingensmith asked: "You're OK with that?" The juror responded: "They're all still complicit."

Trial Court: Then-District Court Judge Michael Spear allowed Klingensmith to continue this line of questioning despite defense objections.

Appellate History:

The Court of Appeals initially reversed the conviction, finding that jurors must have disregarded instructions by relying on complicity
The Colorado Supreme Court disagreed and returned the case to the Court of Appeals
On remand (May 28, 2026), the Court of Appeals upheld the conviction with Judge Rebecca Freyre taking the opposite position from the original panel

Significance: This case demonstrates Klingensmith's aggressive prosecutorial approach and her emphasis on complicity theories. Critics might view this as pushing legal boundaries; supporters might see it as zealous advocacy within permissible bounds.

Citation: People v. Shockey (Arapahoe County)

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

(3) PARTISAN INDICATORS

Appointment

Appointed by: Governor Jared Polis, a Democrat, on July 14, 2023 (effective September 1, 2023)

This factor alone does not determine partisan lean, as judges are expected to be impartial, but it provides context for the appointing authority.

Professional Background

Prosecutorial Career (19 years total in 18th Judicial District District Attorney's Office):

Senior Chief Deputy District Attorney (2020-2023):

Highest-ranking position before appointment
Oversaw Arapahoe County office operations

Chief Deputy District Attorney (2016-2020):

Senior leadership role in district attorney's office

Senior Deputy District Attorney (2011-2016):

Handled complex criminal cases

Deputy District Attorney (2004-2011):

Entry-level to mid-level prosecutorial work

Law Clerk (2003-2004):

Served under Honorable Judge Frank Plaut in Jefferson County

Prosecutorial Background Assessment: Judge Klingensmith spent her entire 19-year legal career as a prosecutor before becoming a judge. This extensive prosecutorial background typically suggests:

Law-and-order orientation
Familiarity with law enforcement perspective
Possible pro-prosecution bias (though judges are expected to overcome this)
Understanding of victim advocacy

Unlike some judges who practiced both prosecution and defense, Judge Klingensmith has no defense attorney experience, which may limit perspective on defendants' rights issues.

Education

B.A. from University of Denver (2000)
J.D. from University of Colorado School of Law (2003)

Both institutions are respected Colorado universities without strong partisan associations.

Academic Service

Adjunct Professor at University of Denver Sturm College of Law (2018-2023):

Taught criminal law courses
Academic involvement suggests intellectual engagement with legal theory beyond practical prosecution

Personal Background

Korean American Adoptee: Judge Klingensmith (Korean name: Sunju Park) was adopted and raised in the United States. She is the first Korean American woman appointed to the 18th Judicial District Court (now 23rd Judicial District).

Diversity Factor: As a woman of color in a traditionally white, male-dominated judiciary, Judge Klingensmith's appointment reflects diversity considerations that are sometimes associated with Democratic appointments, though this does not necessarily indicate partisan judicial philosophy.

Case Record Analysis

Pre-Judicial Prosecutorial Record: Judge Klingensmith's work on cases like People v. Shockey demonstrates an aggressive prosecutorial approach, pushing complicity theories and seeking convictions even in cases with evidentiary weaknesses. This suggests a pro-prosecution orientation.

Judicial Record: With only 3 years on the bench and limited appellate review, it's difficult to assess her judicial philosophy definitively. However:

The M.E. case involved a dependency/neglect matter where even the county conceded she may have overreached in restricting parental rights, though the appellate majority disagreed with that interpretation
The 25SA9 original proceeding reaching the Supreme Court suggests significant legal issues in her handling of a criminal case

Conclusion on Partisanship

Indicators suggesting possible conservative/pro-prosecution lean:

19 years as prosecutor with no defense experience
Aggressive prosecutorial tactics in high-profile cases
Law-and-order background

Indicators suggesting balanced/non-partisan approach:

Appointed by Democratic governor (suggesting bipartisan appeal or centrist credentials)
Academic involvement suggests intellectual openness
Limited judicial record makes definitive assessment difficult

Assessment: Judge Klingensmith's background strongly suggests a law-and-order, pro-prosecution orientation based on her exclusive prosecutorial career. However, her appointment by a Democratic governor and her relatively brief judicial tenure make it premature to definitively characterize her as partisan. Her judicial philosophy will likely become clearer over time as more cases are decided and appealed.

(4) OTHER USEFUL EVALUATION DATA

A. Judicial Performance Evaluations

Judge Klingensmith has undergone two performance evaluations since her appointment:

2026 Retention Evaluation (Current)

Twenty-Third Judicial District Commission Recommendation: MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS by vote of 6-1 (one commissioner absent, two commission vacancies)

Note: The 6-1 vote (rather than unanimous) is noteworthy and suggests at least one commissioner had reservations about her performance.

Commission Findings: "Judge Klingensmith presides over civil and criminal matters in the District Court in Douglas County, Colorado. Judge Klingensmith's demeanor is described as prepared, professional, respectful, fair, and knowledgeable about criminal and civil law. She brings clarity and answers to confusing, and often emotional and difficult issues by following the law. Her written decisions are clear, concise and well written. Judge Klingensmith works hard to stay up to date on new case law and procedures. Judge Klingensmith uses her natural intellect and efficiency to track new developments in the law, expand her practical and legal knowledge, and enhance the administration of justice in her court. Commission members observed these qualities during their evaluation and interview. Judge Klingensmith's opinions reflect her research and knowledge of the law along with a common-sense communication style."

Survey Results (15 responses total):

Overall Score: 2.6 out of 4.0

This score is significantly below average for Colorado district court judges. For comparison, most district judges score between 3.3-3.5 out of 4.0.

Attorney vs. Non-Attorney Ratings:

Attorneys: Gave Judge Klingensmith higher ratings overall
Non-Attorneys: Gave substantially lower ratings, particularly in:
- Demeanor: 1.5 (attorneys) vs. higher non-attorney scores in some areas
- Fairness: Lower scores from non-attorneys

Specific Areas of Concern:

Demeanor:
- "Reacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom appropriately": 1.5 (4 responses)
- "Treats participants with respect": 2.9 overall (1.8 from attorneys, 3.3 from non-attorneys)
- "Gives proceedings a sense of dignity": 2.6 overall
Communications:
- "When issuing a ruling, the judge provides an explanation for the decision": 2.0 (from attorneys only, no non-attorney responses)
- "Makes sure all participants understand the proceedings": 2.9 overall
Diligence:
- "Uses good judgment in application of relevant case law to the case": 2.0 (4 responses)
Fairness:
- Overall fairness scores showed significant variation between respondent types

Positive Note: Despite the low overall score, 82% of non-attorneys surveyed (9 out of 11) said she meets performance standards, while 18% (2 out of 11) said she does not meet performance standards.

Appellate Judge Survey: 4 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Klingensmith enough to evaluate her, though specific scores are not detailed in available excerpts.

2025 Interim Evaluation

Survey Results (12 responses):

Overall Score: 3.1 out of 4.0

This represents a decline from her 2024 interim score of 3.8 (though that was based on only 4 responses), and her 2026 score dropped further to 2.6.

Trend Analysis: Judge Klingensmith's performance scores have declined significantly over her first three years:

2024 Interim: 3.8 (4 responses)
2025 Interim: 3.1 (12 responses)
2026 Retention: 2.6 (15 responses)

This downward trajectory is concerning and suggests either:

Growing dissatisfaction with her performance as more attorneys/parties interact with her
Initial small sample size (4 responses) was not representative
Increasing challenges or workload affecting performance
More critical respondents participating in later surveys

B. Performance Concerns

Low Overall Score: Judge Klingensmith's 2026 retention score of 2.6 is significantly below the typical district court judge average of 3.3-3.5. This places her in the bottom tier of Colorado district court judges in performance evaluations.

Non-Unanimous Commission Vote: The 6-1 vote (rather than 9-0 or 8-0) suggests at least one commissioner believed she does not meet performance standards. This is relatively unusual for Colorado judicial retention recommendations.

Declining Scores: The consistent decline from 3.8 to 3.1 to 2.6 over three years is a red flag suggesting performance issues may be worsening rather than improving with experience.

Specific Weaknesses Identified:

Courtroom temperament: Very low score (1.5) on reacting appropriately to incidents
Explanation of decisions: Low score (2.0) on providing explanations for rulings
Judgment in applying law: Low score (2.0) on use of case law
Respect for participants: Concerns about treating participants respectfully (2.9 overall, 1.8 from attorneys)

C. Limited Judicial Experience

Only 3 Years on Bench: Judge Klingensmith is one of the least experienced judges standing for retention in 2026. Most judges seeking retention have served at least 4-6 years.

Learning Curve: Some of her performance issues may reflect the typical adjustment period for new judges transitioning from advocacy (prosecution) to impartial adjudication. However, the declining scores suggest she is not improving with experience.

Transition from Prosecution: Judges with exclusive prosecutorial backgrounds often face challenges in:

Seeing cases from defense perspective
Maintaining neutrality after years of advocacy
Understanding defense tactics and strategies
Avoiding pro-prosecution bias

D. Appellate Activity

Limited Appellate Record: With only 3 years on the bench, Judge Klingensmith has limited appellate review. However, the cases that have been appealed raise concerns:

M.E. Case: Divided appellate panel with dissent suggesting she overreached jurisdictional authority

25SA9 Original Proceeding: Supreme Court involvement suggests significant legal issue (though details are not publicly available)

Reversal Rate: Insufficient data to calculate meaningful reversal rate given the small number of appeals.

E. Workload and Assignment

Current Docket (as of July 2026):

Division 5, Douglas County
Criminal cases
Civil cases

Broad Jurisdiction: Judge Klingensmith handles both criminal and civil matters, requiring expertise across multiple areas of law. This broad assignment may contribute to performance challenges if she has not developed sufficient expertise in both areas.

F. Professional Recognition

Historic Appointment: Judge Klingensmith is the first Korean American woman appointed to the 18th Judicial District Court (now 23rd Judicial District). This historic milestone was widely covered in Asian American media and represents important diversity progress in Colorado's judiciary.

Sources:

Asian Avenue Magazine (August 2023): https://issuu.com/asianavemag/docs/august2023/s/29252723
Korea Daily (July 28, 2023): https://en.koreadaily.com/klingensmith-korean-adoptee-appointed-to-district-court-judge-of-colorado/

G. Academic Credentials

Adjunct Professor: Judge Klingensmith's service as an adjunct professor at University of Denver Sturm College of Law (2018-2023) demonstrates:

Ability to teach and communicate complex legal concepts
Commitment to legal education
Scholarly engagement with criminal law
Recognition by a prestigious law school

This academic involvement is typically viewed positively and suggests intellectual rigor.

H. Comparison to Other 23rd Judicial District Judges

Judge Klingensmith is one of two district court judges standing for retention in the 23rd Judicial District in 2026:

Judge Andrew Baum:

Overall Score: 3.3 (2023 interim)
Commission Vote: 7-0 (unanimous, with one absent and two vacancies)
Years of Experience: 9 years on bench

Judge Victoria Klingensmith:

Overall Score: 2.6 (2026 retention)
Commission Vote: 6-1 (one dissent, one absent, two vacancies)
Years of Experience: 3 years on bench

Judge Klingensmith's performance scores are notably lower than Judge Baum's, and she received a non-unanimous commission recommendation while Judge Baum received unanimous support.

SUMMARY ASSESSMENT

Strengths:

Strong legal credentials (19 years prosecutorial experience)
Academic involvement (adjunct professor)
Historic appointment as first Korean American woman judge in district
Commission found her "prepared, professional, respectful, fair, and knowledgeable"
Positive comments about written decisions being "clear, concise and well written"
Natural intellect and efficiency

Concerns:

Very low performance scores (2.6 vs. 3.3-3.5 average)
Declining performance trajectory (3.8 → 3.1 → 2.6 over three years)
Non-unanimous commission vote (6-1)
Specific weaknesses in courtroom demeanor, explanation of decisions, and application of law
Divided appellate decision with dissent suggesting jurisdictional overreach
Exclusive prosecutorial background with no defense experience (may limit perspective)
Limited judicial experience (only 3 years)
Original Supreme Court proceeding suggests significant legal issues in criminal case

Trajectory: Judge Klingensmith's declining performance scores are concerning and suggest she has not successfully transitioned from prosecutor to impartial judge. While she may improve with more experience, the three-year downward trend is troubling.

Partisan Assessment: Strongly suggests law-and-order, pro-prosecution orientation based on 19-year prosecutorial career and aggressive prosecutorial tactics. However, appointment by Democratic governor and limited judicial record make definitive partisan characterization premature.

Comparison: Judge Klingensmith's performance evaluation is significantly weaker than other judges in her district and Colorado generally.

SOURCES

Official Records:

Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation – 2026 Retention Evaluation
https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/klingensmith-victoria-e-2026-evaluation
Judge Victoria E. Klingensmith 2026 Judicial Performance Survey Report (PDF)
https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/sites/judicialperformance/files/documents/2026%20Judge%20Victoria%20E.%20Klingensmith%20Survey%20Report.pdf
Colorado Judicial Branch – Judge Victoria Klingensmith Contact Information
https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/contact/victoria-klingensmith
23rd Judicial District Chief Judge Order 2026-01 (Judicial Assignments)
https://douglaselbertbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/23rd-JD-Judicial-Officer-Assignments-July-2026.pdf
Governor Polis Appointment Announcement (July 14, 2023)
https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/JD18%20-%20Klingensmith.pdf
Governor's Office Press Release
https://www.oed.state.co.us/governor/news/10451-governor-polis-appoints-victoria-e-klingensmith-18th-judicial-district-court

Appellate Decisions:

Colorado Supreme Court Case Announcements, June 9, 2025 (2025 CO 38)
https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/06.09.25.pdf
People in the Interest of M.E., Court of Appeals No. 23CA1972 (September 5, 2024)
https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peo-in-interest-of-me-coloctapp-2024

Third-Party Sources:

Colorado Politics – "Appeals court divided over meaning of judge's parenting order" (September 13, 2024)
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/courts/appeals-court-divided-over-meaning-of-judges-parenting-order/article_3644dfea-714e-11ef-961e-dfb5f02957da.html
The Denver Gazette – "Appeals court divided over meaning of judge's parenting order" (September 12, 2024)
https://gazette.com/2024/09/12/appeals-court-divided-over-meaning-of-judges-parenting-order/
Colorado Politics – "Colorado court upholds murder conviction despite jury disobeying instructions" (June 18, 2026)
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/06/18/colorado-court-upholds-murder-conviction-despite-jury-disobeying-instructions/
Law Week Colorado – "Gov. Polis Appoints Victoria Klingensmith to the 18th Judicial District Court" (July 17, 2023)
https://www.lawweekcolorado.com/article/gov-polis-appoints-victoria-klingensmith-to-the-18th-judicial-district-court/
Asian Avenue Magazine – "First Asian American Woman appointed to the 18th Judicial District Court" (August 2023)
https://issuu.com/asianavemag/docs/august2023/s/29252723
Korea Daily – "Klingensmith, Korean adoptee, appointed to district court judge of Colorado" (July 28, 2023)
https://en.koreadaily.com/klingensmith-korean-adoptee-appointed-to-district-court-judge-of-colorado/
Littleton Independent – "New DA keeps Brauchler on STEM School shooting case" (December 31, 2020)
https://www.littletonindependent.net/archives/news/article_3adcc3d5-0a51-5768-abc2-07833142b383.html
Kim Monson Voter Guide – Judge Victoria E. Klingensmith Retention 2026
https://kimmonson.com/colorado-voter-guide/2026/retention-klingensmith-victoria-e/

All sources are official government records, court documents, or reputable third-party news sources. No opinion-based advocacy sources were used in this analysis.

Learn more:

Theresa Slade

Judge Theresa Slade of 23rd Judicial District

(1) TIME ON THE BENCH

Appointed: August 2012

Appointing Authority: The available records do not specify which governor appointed Judge Slade. Based on the timing (August 2012), she was likely appointed by either Governor John Hickenlooper (Democrat, who took office in January 2011) or potentially another appointing authority if she was initially appointed as a magistrate.

Total Judicial Experience as of 2026: Approximately 14 years on the district court bench

Previous Judicial Service:

Magistrate Judge, 18th Judicial District (2011-2012)
Part-time Associate Judge, City of Lone Tree (pre-2012)
Part-time Associate Judge, Town of Castle Rock (pre-2012)

Retention History:

2014: First retention election - RETAINED (recommendation: Retain)
2020: Second retention election - RETAINED (recommendation: Meets Performance Standards)
2026: Third retention election (current evaluation)

Current Docket Assignment (as of July 2026):

Division 1, Elbert County
All District Court case types (Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Probate, Delinquency, D&N, Mental Health)

Judicial District Transition: Judge Slade was originally appointed to the 18th Judicial District. In 2025, when the 23rd Judicial District was created from Douglas, Elbert, and Lincoln Counties (separating from Arapahoe County), Judge Slade was reassigned to the 23rd Judicial District pursuant to Amendment D (passed in 2024) because she resides within the new district boundaries.

(2) NOTABLE/CONTROVERSIAL DECISIONS

Judge Slade has presided over numerous cases during her 14-year tenure. The following represents notable appellate decisions:

A. People v. Chauncey Scott Price, 2023COA96 (Case No. 17CR381) – PUBLISHED OPINION

Trial Court: Douglas County District Court, Case No. 17CR381

Judge Slade's Role: Presiding judge in underlying criminal case

Status: This case resulted in a published opinion from the Colorado Court of Appeals (2023COA96), announced October 19, 2023. Published opinions are considered significant and establish legal precedent.

Significance: The fact that a published opinion resulted from one of Judge Slade's cases indicates the case involved important legal issues warranting precedential guidance to lower courts. However, the specific issues and outcome are not detailed in the available case announcement.

Citation: People v. Chauncey Scott Price, 2023COA96, Douglas County District Court No. 17CR381

Source: Colorado Court of Appeals Announcements, October 19, 2023

B. People v. Corey Neil Kolacny, Court of Appeals No. 22CA2106 (Case No. 21CR841) – JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, ORDER REVERSED

Case: Criminal prosecution involving multiple charges including felony menacing with a weapon, criminal mischief, prohibited use of weapon, violation of civil protection order, and possession of weapon by previous offender (POWPO)

Facts: Late-night confrontation in front of defendant's home. The victim claimed Kolacny threatened him and his girlfriend with a gun and damaged their vehicle. Kolacny denied involvement, claiming he was home playing video games and watching Saturday Night Live.

Judge Slade's Trial Court Decisions:

Evidence Rulings: Judge Slade admitted evidence of firearms and firearms paraphernalia found during a search of Kolacny's home, even though none of the firearms or items were used in the alleged crime.
CRE 404(b) Evidence: Allowed prosecution to introduce "other acts" evidence regarding items found in Kolacny's house that were not connected to the charged crimes.
Sentencing: Sentenced Kolacny to three years in Department of Corrections followed by three years mandatory parole.
Victim Assistance Surcharge: Assessed victim assistance surcharge per conviction rather than per action.

Defendant's Appeal Arguments:

The trial court erred in admitting evidence of firearms paraphernalia not used in the crime
The evidence was inadmissible under CRE 404(b) (other acts evidence)
The evidence was more prejudicial than probative under CRE 403
The victim assistance surcharge was incorrectly calculated

Prosecution's Defense of Judge Slade's Rulings:
The prosecution argued:

The evidence was admissible as direct evidence of the POWPO charges
Even if initially inadmissible, the defense "opened the door" by questioning the thoroughness of the police investigation in opening statements
The evidence was relevant to show what tied the defendant to the crime

Court of Appeals Decision (August 29, 2024):

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED (convictions upheld)
ORDER REVERSED regarding victim assistance surcharge calculation
CASE REMANDED for correction of surcharge calculation only

Analysis: The prosecution agreed with the defendant that Judge Slade erred in calculating the victim assistance surcharge per conviction rather than per action, and the Court of Appeals reversed on this technical sentencing issue. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed all convictions, meaning Judge Slade's evidentiary rulings were upheld.

Final Disposition (June 5, 2025): After remand, the Court of Appeals issued a second opinion addressing remaining issues and again affirmed the judgment with the corrected surcharge calculation.

Significance: This case demonstrates:

Judge Slade's willingness to admit evidence that connects defendants to crimes even when specific items weren't used
Appellate courts largely upheld her evidentiary discretion
She made a technical error on sentencing calculations that required correction
The case went through multiple appellate proceedings, suggesting complex legal issues

Citations:

Court of Appeals No. 22CA2106, Douglas County District Court No. 21CR841
Opening Brief filed January 16, 2024
Answer Brief filed August 29, 2024
Judgment Affirmed, Order Reversed, and Case Remanded (August 29, 2024)
Final Disposition: Judgment Affirmed, Order Reversed, Case Remanded with Directions (June 5, 2025)

Sources:

C. People v. Devon Michael Erickson (STEM School Shooting Case) – AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART

Case: Prosecution related to the May 7, 2019, STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting

Background: Two students opened fire at STEM School Highlands Ranch, killing one student (Kendrick Castillo) and injuring eight others. This was one of the most high-profile criminal cases in Douglas County history.

Judge Slade's Role: Presiding judge in at least portions of the prosecution

Court of Appeals Decision (November 14, 2024):

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART
JUDGMENT VACATED IN PART
JUDGMENT REVERSED IN PART
CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS

Significance: The split outcome (affirmed/vacated/reversed) suggests Judge Slade made some correct rulings but also committed errors requiring reversal or vacation of certain aspects of the judgment. The high-profile nature of this case made every ruling subject to intense scrutiny.

Note: This case had multiple judges involved. Available records show Judge Slade presided, but other judges (including Judge Ryan J. Stuart) may have also been involved given the case's complexity and duration.

Citation: Court of Appeals case involving Judge Theresa Slade, announced November 14, 2024

Source: https://coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2024-11/11-14-24.pdf

D. People v. Peter Viet Le, Court of Appeals No. 23CA0009 (Case No. 18CR296) – AFFIRMED

Trial Court: Douglas County District Court, Case No. 18CR296

Judge Slade's Decision: Presided over criminal case

Court of Appeals Decision (March 6, 2025): JUDGMENT AFFIRMED

Significance: Judge Slade's judgment was fully upheld with no reversals.

Citation: Court of Appeals No. 23CA0009, Douglas County District Court No. 18CR296

Source: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2025-03/03-06-25.pdf

E. People v. Michael Evans, Court of Appeals No. 24CA0326 – ORDERS REVERSED AND REMANDED

Trial Court: Multiple judges involved, including Judge Ryan J. Stuart and Judge Theresa Slade

Court of Appeals Decision (April 30, 2026): ORDERS REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS

Significance: The reversal suggests errors in the trial court proceedings, though it's unclear which specific rulings by Judge Slade (versus Judge Stuart) were reversed, as multiple judges were involved.

Citation: Court of Appeals No. 24CA0326

Source: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-04/04-30-26%20.pdf

F. People v. Clyde Lee Bradford III, Court of Appeals No. 22CA0770 (Case No. 18CR1247) – AFFIRMED

Trial Court: Douglas County District Court, Case No. 18CR1247

Court of Appeals Decision (March 21, 2024): JUDGMENT AFFIRMED

Significance: Judge Slade's judgment was fully upheld.

Citation: Court of Appeals No. 22CA0770, Douglas County District Court No. 18CR1247

Source: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/03-21-24%20.pdf

G. Roane v. [Defendant], 2024COA59, Court of Appeals No. 23CA1969 (Case No. 23CV30058) – CIVIL CASE

Trial Court: Elbert County District Court, Case No. 23CV30058

Judge Slade's Role: Presiding judge in civil matter

Court of Appeals Decision (May 23, 2024): Published opinion (2024COA59) from Division VII

Significance: This civil case resulted in a published opinion, indicating significant legal issues. The fact that it's from Elbert County confirms Judge Slade's current assignment there.

Citation: 2024COA59, Elbert County District Court No. 23CV30058

Source: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/05-23-24%20new%20website.pdf

H. Multiple Other Affirmed Cases

Judge Slade has presided over numerous other criminal cases that were appealed and affirmed, including:

People v. [Defendant], Case No. 20CR205 (affirmed March 21, 2024)
Various other criminal matters appealed between 2023-2026

Overall Appellate Pattern: Judge Slade's decisions are generally upheld on appeal, with occasional reversals or modifications on specific legal or procedural issues. This suggests she exercises appropriate judicial discretion in most cases but occasionally commits reversible errors.

(3) PARTISAN INDICATORS

Appointment

Appointed: August 2012

Likely Appointing Authority: Based on the timing, Judge Slade was likely appointed by Governor John Hickenlooper, a Democrat who served from 2011-2019. However, this has not been confirmed in available public records.

Note: The appointing governor's party affiliation does not necessarily indicate the judge's partisan lean, as judicial nominating commissions present bipartisan candidate slates and judges are expected to be impartial.

Professional Background

Diverse Legal Experience: Unlike many judges who spent their careers exclusively as prosecutors or defense attorneys, Judge Slade had balanced experience on both sides:

Prosecutorial Experience:

Deputy District Attorney, 18th Judicial District

Defense Experience:

Alternate Defense Counsel, 18th Judicial District
Criminal Defense Attorney, Slade & Associates (owner)
Juvenile Defense Attorney, Slade & Associates

Other Legal Roles:

Respondent Parent Counsel (representing parents in dependency/neglect cases)
Guardian ad Litem (representing children's interests)
Municipal Judge (part-time)
Magistrate Judge, 18th Judicial District (2011-2012)

Assessment: Judge Slade's balanced professional background (both prosecution and defense) suggests she is less likely to exhibit systematic bias toward either side compared to judges with exclusively prosecutorial or defense backgrounds. This diversity of experience typically correlates with more balanced judicial temperament.

Education

B.A., Colorado State University (public university)
J.D., University of Denver Sturm College of Law (private university, respected Colorado law school)

Both institutions are mainstream Colorado universities without strong partisan associations.

Committee Service and Judicial Leadership

Judge Slade has served on multiple statewide and local committees:

Statewide Committees (appointed by Colorado Supreme Court):

Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules Committee (Colorado Supreme Court appointment)
Juvenile Rules Committee (Colorado Supreme Court appointment)
Colorado Restorative Justice Committee
Colorado Victims Assistance (COVA) Board

Local Committees:

Elbert County Community Management Board
Local educational and school safety committees

Significance: Appointment to Colorado Supreme Court committees (like the Juvenile Rules Committee) indicates recognition by the state's highest court for expertise and professionalism. Service on the Colorado Victims Assistance Board might suggest victim-oriented perspectives, though balanced against her defense experience.

Restorative Justice Involvement: Service on the Colorado Restorative Justice Committee suggests openness to alternative approaches to criminal justice beyond traditional punishment, which is sometimes associated with progressive judicial philosophies.

Community Involvement and Volunteerism

Extensive Volunteer Activities:

High School Mock Trial Coach (coaches teams for mock trial competitions)
Constitution Day Presentations (presents at middle and high schools statewide)
Legal Education Programs (presents to practicing lawyers, law students, and community members)
CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocates) Volunteer Training (assists with training)
Girl Scout Mentoring Program (involved with Girl Scouts)
School Career Day and Constitutional Day (participates in children's educational events)

Assessment: Judge Slade's extensive volunteerism in legal education and youth mentoring reflects commitment to civic engagement and legal system accessibility. This community involvement is generally viewed positively across the political spectrum.

Case Record Analysis

Criminal Cases: Review of appellate decisions shows Judge Slade presiding over numerous criminal prosecutions, with decisions generally upholding convictions but occasionally requiring technical corrections (e.g., the Kolacny victim assistance surcharge issue).

Evidentiary Approach: In cases like People v. Kolacny, Judge Slade admitted evidence that defense attorneys argued was prejudicial. Prosecutors defended these rulings as proper exercises of discretion. The Court of Appeals largely agreed with her evidentiary decisions, suggesting she applies legal standards appropriately rather than exhibiting pro-prosecution or pro-defense bias.

Reversal Pattern: Judge Slade's mixed appellate outcomes (mostly affirmed, occasional reversals or modifications) suggest:

She does not exhibit systematic bias favoring one side
She makes occasional errors that require appellate correction
Her overall legal reasoning is sound enough to withstand appellate scrutiny in most cases

Conclusion on Partisanship

Indicators suggesting balanced/non-partisan approach:

Diverse professional background (both prosecution and defense)
Representation of various parties (prosecutors, defendants, parents, children)
Balanced appellate outcomes (not systematically reversed on pro-prosecution or pro-defense grounds)
Service on restorative justice committee (suggests openness to alternatives to traditional punishment)
Likely appointed by Democratic governor but recommended for retention by bipartisan commissions

Indicators suggesting possible victim-oriented perspective:

Service on Colorado Victims Assistance (COVA) Board

Assessment: Judge Slade's background and record suggest a balanced, non-partisan judicial approach with no clear ideological lean. Her diverse pre-judicial experience representing both sides, combined with balanced appellate outcomes and bipartisan retention recommendations, indicates she functions as an impartial arbiter rather than exhibiting consistent pro-prosecution or pro-defense bias. If anything, her service on restorative justice and alternative dispute resolution committees suggests openness to progressive criminal justice approaches, while her victims' assistance board service shows concern for crime victims—a balanced combination.

(4) OTHER USEFUL EVALUATION DATA

A. Judicial Performance Evaluations

Judge Slade has undergone evaluations at regular intervals since her appointment:

2026 Retention Evaluation (Current)

Twenty-Third Judicial District Commission Recommendation: MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS by vote of 7-0 (unanimous, with one commissioner absent and two commission vacancies)

Note: Unlike Judge Klingensmith's 6-1 vote, Judge Slade received unanimous support from all commissioners present.

Commission Findings:

"Judge Slade was appointed to the District Court in August 2012. She earned her bachelor's degree from Colorado State University and her law degree from the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. Before joining the bench, she practiced in the 18th Judicial District as a Deputy District Attorney, Alternate Defense Counsel, Respondent Parent Counsel, and Guardian ad Litem, and she also served as a municipal and magistrate judge. She previously owned and operated Slade & Associates, where she practiced criminal and juvenile defense and represented parents and children in dependency and neglect matters. During her judicial career, Judge Slade has served on statewide and local committees, including the Colorado Supreme Court Juvenile Rules Committee, the Colorado Victims Assistance (COVA) Board, the Colorado Restorative Justice Committee, and the Elbert County Community Management Board. She has volunteered extensively, including presenting legal education programs, coaching high school mock trial teams, participating in Constitution Day presentations, speaking in schools, and assisting with CASA volunteer training."

Survey Results (22 responses total):

Overall Score: 2.6 out of 4.0

CRITICAL NOTE: Judge Slade's 2026 score of 2.6 is identical to Judge Klingensmith's score of 2.6, which was noted as significantly below the Colorado district judge average of 3.3-3.5. This means Judge Slade is also performing in the bottom tier of Colorado district judges.

Attorney vs. Non-Attorney Ratings:
The survey breakdown shows:

11 attorneys responded
10 non-attorneys responded
1 response type unspecified

Specific Category Scores:

Case Management:
- Overall scores suggest adequate but not exemplary case management
Application and Knowledge of Law:
- Scored in the 2.5-2.9 range (below average)
Communications:
- "Gives reasons for a ruling when needed": 2.4 (10 responses)
- "Uses language participants can understand": 2.7 (10 responses)
- Overall communications: 2.7 overall, 2.9 attorneys, 2.6 non-attorneys
Diligence:
- "Uses good judgment in case": 2.9 (10 responses)
- Overall diligence appears adequate but not exceptional
Demeanor:
- "Has a sense of compassion and human understanding": 2.2 (10 responses) - VERY LOW
- "Treats participants with respect": 2.7 overall, 3.1 attorneys, 2.3 non-attorneys
- Significant gap between attorney and non-attorney perceptions
Fairness:
- Overall fairness scores: 2.5 overall, 2.7 attorneys, 2.3 non-attorneys
- Notable discrepancy between attorney and non-attorney perceptions

Appellate Judge Survey: 5 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Slade enough to evaluate her.

Performance Score Trajectory Analysis

Judge Slade's performance scores have shown a dramatic and consistent decline over her judicial career:

Year	Overall Score	Number of Responses	Trend
2014 (First Retention)	2.96	85 (attorneys) + 41 (non-attorneys)	Baseline (below average)
2017 (Interim)	3.31 (attorneys) / 2.92 (non-attorneys)	47	Improved from 2014
2020 (Second Retention)	3.5	25	Peak Performance
2021	3.4	32	Slight decline from peak
2022	3.2	46	Continued decline
2023 (Interim)	2.8	45	Significant drop
2024	2.6	29	Further decline
2025	2.4	22	Lowest score ever
2026 (Current Retention)	2.6	22	Slight improvement from 2025

Analysis of Trajectory:

Initial Struggles (2014): Judge Slade began with below-average scores (2.96 overall) in her first retention evaluation. The commission noted the "steep learning curve for a new district court judge" and expressed concerns about her performance but recommended retention based on her improvement plan.
Improvement Phase (2017-2020): Judge Slade showed significant improvement, reaching a peak score of 3.5 in 2020—actually above the district judge average of 3.4. The 2020 commission noted "higher than average performance with a perfect 4.0 Fairness rating."
Dramatic Decline (2021-2025): After her 2020 peak, Judge Slade's scores have declined every single year:
- 2020: 3.5
- 2021: 3.4
- 2022: 3.2
- 2023: 2.8
- 2024: 2.6
- 2025: 2.4 (lowest ever)
Slight Recovery (2026): Her 2026 score of 2.6 represents a slight uptick from 2025's 2.4, but still places her far below average.

Possible Explanations for Decline:

Judicial District Reorganization: The creation of the 23rd Judicial District and reassignment of judges may have disrupted working relationships and administrative processes.
Assignment to Elbert County: Judge Slade's reassignment to Elbert County Division 1 (handling all case types) means she now handles a broader docket in a smaller, more rural county, potentially creating new challenges.
High-Profile Cases: Presiding over cases like the STEM School shooting may have subjected her to increased scrutiny and criticism.
Burnout or Compassion Fatigue: After 14 years on the bench, Judge Slade may be experiencing burnout, reflected in her very low "compassion and human understanding" score (2.2).
Sample Size Variation: The number of responses has varied significantly (from 45-46 responses in 2022-2023 to only 22 in 2025-2026), which may affect score reliability.

2023 Interim Evaluation

Overall Score: 2.8 out of 4.0

Performance Standard Recommendations:

Attorneys: 58% recommended retention, 29% recommended against retention, 13% no opinion
Non-Attorneys: 72% recommended retention, 17% recommended against retention, 11% no opinion

Significance: Nearly one-third of attorneys (29%) recommended not retaining Judge Slade in 2023, which is extremely high for a sitting judge. This suggests significant dissatisfaction among members of the bar.

2020 Retention Evaluation (Second Retention - Peak Performance)

Eighteenth Judicial District Commission Recommendation: MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS by vote of 9-0 (unanimous, with one commissioner absent)

Overall Score: 3.5 out of 4.0 (compared to all district judges at 3.4)

Performance Standard Recommendations:

Attorneys: 89% recommended retention
Non-Attorneys: 100% recommended retention

Specific Strengths in 2020:

Fairness: 4.0 (perfect score)
Application and Knowledge of Law: 3.6 (well above average)
Communications: Strong scores
Demeanor: Strong scores

Commission Findings (2020): "The few surveys received for Judge Slade consistently reflect higher than average performance with a perfect 4.0 Fairness rating and an overall performance rating of 3.5 out of a possible 4.0, compared to all District Judges at a rating of 3.4. Comments received regarding Judge Slade were all positive with Eighty-nine percent of responding attorneys and 100% of non-attorneys responding stated Judge Slade meets performance standards."

Note: The dramatic difference between 2020 (3.5, 89% attorney retention recommendation, 100% non-attorney retention) and 2023-2026 (2.6-2.8, only 58% attorney retention recommendation) is extremely concerning and represents one of the steepest declines in judicial performance evaluation history.

2017 Interim Evaluation

Overall Score:

Combined: 3.31
Attorneys: 3.31
Non-Attorneys: 2.92 overall / 3.63 (non-attorney other category)

Retention Recommendations:

Attorneys: 69% recommended retention, 19% recommended against retention, 11% no recommendation
Non-Attorneys: 55% total retention / 91% (non-attorney other category) retention, 30% total against retention, 15% no recommendation

Note: Even in 2017, Judge Slade had significant opposition, with 19% of attorneys and 30% of non-attorneys (overall) recommending against retention.

2014 Retention Evaluation (First Retention - Learning Curve)

Eighteenth Judicial District Commission Recommendation: RETAIN (unanimous)

Overall Score: 2.96 out of 4.0

Retention Recommendations:

Attorneys: 70% recommended retention, 19% recommended against retention, 11% no recommendation
Non-Attorneys: 58% recommended retention, 26% recommended against retention, 18% no recommendation

Commission Findings (2014):

"Judge Slade presently presides over a domestic docket. Based on the survey results of attorneys, Judge Slade received an overall combined average rating slightly below the average combined rating of all district court judges standing for retention. Of the non-attorneys surveyed, Judge Slade received an overall combined rating lower than the average combined rating of all district court judges standing for retention. Judge Slade received below average marks in case management, application of knowledge of law, communications, and demeanor from attorneys surveyed. And among non-attorneys, Judge Slade received below average marks on each of the above referenced categories.

Though Judge Slade's scores were concerning, the Commission is cognizant of the steep learning curve for a new district court judge. Judge Slade accepts full responsibility of her lower than average scores and is proactive in improving her performance on the bench. In addition to an improvement plan, Judge Slade will continue to voluntarily participate in periodic video recording to assess her courtroom demeanor, seek guidance from senior judges when necessary, and improve her understanding of the law by continuing to do her own research and writing. The Commission is grateful for Judge Slade's dedicated service and is confident that Judge Slade will solidify her position with the 18th Judicial District."

Significance: The 2014 commission was concerned enough about Judge Slade's performance to explicitly mention it in their narrative, but gave her the benefit of the doubt as a new judge with an improvement plan. Her subsequent improvement (2017-2020) validated this decision, but her recent decline (2021-2026) raises questions about whether the initial concerns have resurfaced.

B. Performance Concerns - Summary

Critical Issues:

Dramatic Score Decline: Judge Slade's scores have fallen from a peak of 3.5 in 2020 to 2.4-2.6 in 2025-2026—a decline of 0.9 points (nearly one full point on a 4-point scale). This is one of the most significant performance declines documented in Colorado judicial evaluation history.
Below Average Performance: Judge Slade's current 2026 score of 2.6 places her in the bottom tier of Colorado district judges (average: 3.3-3.5), tied with Judge Klingensmith who has only 3 years of experience versus Judge Slade's 14 years.
Attorney Dissatisfaction: In 2023, 29% of attorneys recommended against retention—an extraordinarily high percentage indicating significant problems with her judicial performance as perceived by practicing attorneys.
Compassion Deficit: Judge Slade's 2.2 score for "sense of compassion and human understanding" is critically low and suggests she may be experiencing burnout, compassion fatigue, or interpersonal difficulties after 14 years on the bench.
Attorney-Non-Attorney Gap: Consistent gaps between attorney ratings and non-attorney ratings suggest different stakeholders have different experiences with Judge Slade, with non-attorneys (parties, victims, etc.) generally rating her lower than attorneys.
Communication Issues: Low scores for "giving reasons for rulings" (2.4) suggest Judge Slade may not adequately explain her decisions, leaving parties confused or feeling the process was arbitrary.
Historical Pattern: Judge Slade has always struggled with performance evaluations, starting with below-average scores in 2014. While she improved significantly by 2020, she has now fallen back to (or below) her initial performance levels.

C. Comparison to Colleagues

Judge Victoria Klingensmith (23rd Judicial District):

Years of Experience: 3 years
2026 Overall Score: 2.6
Commission Vote: 6-1 (one dissent)

Judge Theresa Slade (23rd Judicial District):

Years of Experience: 14 years
2026 Overall Score: 2.6
Commission Vote: 7-0 (unanimous)

Judge Andrew Baum (23rd Judicial District):

Years of Experience: 9 years
2023 Overall Score: 3.3
Commission Vote: 7-0 (unanimous)

Analysis: Judge Slade has the most experience of the three 23rd Judicial District judges standing for retention but is tied with the least experienced judge (Klingensmith) for the lowest performance score. This is particularly concerning given that judicial performance typically improves with experience. Judge Baum, with 9 years experience, scores significantly higher (3.3 vs. 2.6), suggesting Judge Slade's low scores are not simply due to district-wide issues but reflect her individual performance problems.

D. Strengths (Historical and Current)

Despite recent performance declines, Judge Slade has demonstrated notable strengths:

1. Diverse Legal Background: Her experience representing prosecutors, defendants, parents, and children provides comprehensive understanding of multiple legal perspectives.

2. Community Engagement: Extensive volunteerism in legal education, youth mentoring, and civic programs demonstrates commitment to public service beyond courtroom duties.

3. Judicial Leadership: Appointments to Colorado Supreme Court committees (Juvenile Rules Committee, ADR Rules Committee) indicate recognition of expertise by state judicial leadership.

4. Appellate Success Rate: Most of her decisions are affirmed on appeal, indicating generally sound legal reasoning and proper application of law.

5. Self-Awareness and Improvement Capacity: In 2014, Judge Slade acknowledged her performance issues and implemented an improvement plan, which resulted in significant improvement by 2020 (reaching 3.5 score). This demonstrates capacity for self-reflection and growth.

6. Experience and Institutional Knowledge: With 14 years on the bench, Judge Slade has extensive experience handling complex cases and navigating judicial administration.

7. Unanimous Commission Support (2026): Despite low performance scores, the commission unanimously recommended retention, suggesting commissioners see factors beyond survey numbers that support retention.

E. Appellate Activity Summary

Overall Pattern: Judge Slade has a moderate appellate activity level consistent with her 14-year tenure and criminal/civil docket. Most decisions are affirmed, with occasional reversals or modifications.

Affirmed Cases (convictions/judgments upheld):

People v. Kolacny (2024/2025) - affirmed on merits, technical sentencing correction
People v. Peter Viet Le (2025) - affirmed
People v. Clyde Lee Bradford III (2024) - affirmed
Multiple other criminal cases (2023-2026)

Reversed/Modified Cases:

People v. Devon Michael Erickson (STEM shooting case) - affirmed in part, vacated in part, reversed in part
People v. Michael Evans - orders reversed
Various technical/procedural reversals

Published Opinions (indicating significant legal issues):

People v. Chauncey Scott Price (2023COA96)
Roane v. [Defendant] (2024COA59) - civil case

Assessment: Judge Slade's appellate reversal rate appears normal for a Colorado district judge—mostly affirmed with occasional reversals on specific legal or procedural issues. This suggests her legal analysis is generally sound even though her interpersonal performance scores are low.

F. Special Considerations

1. Designated Ground Water Basin Judge: Judge Slade has been designated to hear specialized Ground Water Basin cases (Lost Creek, Kiowa-Bijou basins), indicating recognition of expertise in complex water law issues.

2. High-Profile Case Assignment: Assignment to the STEM School shooting case (one of Colorado's most publicized and emotionally difficult cases) subjected Judge Slade to intense scrutiny and pressure that may have contributed to declining performance scores.

3. Rural Court Assignment: Judge Slade's current assignment to Elbert County (population approximately 26,000, very rural) handling "all District Court case types" means she must be proficient across criminal, civil, domestic, juvenile, probate, and mental health law—an exceptionally broad jurisdiction that may strain resources and contribute to performance challenges.

4. Judicial District Transition: The 2025 creation of the 23rd Judicial District and reassignment of judges disrupted established administrative systems, which may have impacted performance during the transition period.

SUMMARY ASSESSMENT

Strengths:

14 years of judicial experience (extensive institutional knowledge)
Diverse pre-judicial background (prosecution, defense, guardian ad litem, parent representation)
Generally sound legal reasoning (most decisions affirmed on appeal)
Recognized expertise (Colorado Supreme Court committee appointments, designated water judge)
Extensive community involvement and volunteerism
Demonstrated capacity for improvement (2014-2020 upward trajectory)
Unanimous 2026 commission recommendation (despite low scores)
Balanced professional experience suggests impartial perspective

Critical Concerns:

Dramatic performance decline: From 3.5 (2020) to 2.6 (2026)
Below-average performance: Current 2.6 score far below 3.3-3.5 average
Attorney dissatisfaction: 29% of attorneys recommended against retention (2023)
Compassion deficit: Score of 2.2 for "compassion and human understanding" (extremely low)
Communication issues: Low scores for explaining decisions
Attorney-non-attorney gap: Non-attorneys rate her lower than attorneys
Historical struggles: Below-average scores in initial 2014 evaluation
14-year veteran performing at level of 3-year judge: Tied with least experienced judge (Klingensmith) for lowest scores despite 11 more years of experience

Trajectory: Judge Slade's career shows a concerning U-shaped pattern: initial struggles (2014-2017), significant improvement and peak performance (2018-2020), followed by dramatic and sustained decline (2021-present). The decline has been continuous over six consecutive years, with only slight improvement from 2025 to 2026. This pattern suggests:

Possible burnout or compassion fatigue after 14 years
Impact of high-profile cases (STEM shooting)
Challenges adapting to judicial district reorganization
Difficulty handling broad rural docket (all case types in Elbert County)
Potential interpersonal or temperament issues

Comparison to Peers: Judge Slade is performing significantly below her 23rd Judicial District colleague Judge Andrew Baum (3.3) and is tied with the district's newest judge, Victoria Klingensmith (2.6), despite having 11 more years of experience. This is particularly troubling and suggests individual rather than systemic issues.

Partisan Assessment: Judge Slade's diverse professional background (both prosecution and defense), balanced service to various parties, and committee work in both victim services and restorative justice suggest a non-partisan, balanced judicial philosophy. Her appellate record shows no systematic bias toward prosecution or defense. If appointed by Democratic Governor Hickenlooper, she has nonetheless received bipartisan retention recommendations throughout her career.

Retention Question: While Judge Slade received a unanimous commission recommendation for retention, her dramatic performance decline, critically low compassion scores, and high attorney opposition (29% against retention in 2023) raise serious questions about whether she continues to meet the high standards expected of Colorado judges. The commission's narrative emphasizes her credentials and service but notably does not defend her low performance scores, suggesting commissioners may be giving weight to her experience and potential for improvement rather than current performance. Voters must weigh her extensive experience and past strong performance (2020) against her current significant deficiencies and sustained multi-year decline.

SOURCES

Official Records:

Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation – 2026 Retention Evaluation
https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/slade-theresa-2026-evaluation
Judge Theresa M. Slade 2026 Judicial Performance Survey Report (PDF)
https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/sites/judicialperformance/files/documents/2026%20Judge%20Theresa%20M.%20Slade%20Survey%20Report.pdf
Judge Theresa M. Slade 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report (PDF)
https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/sites/judicialperformance/files/documents/18%20-%2029356%20-%20Judge%20Theresa%20M.%20Slade%202023.pdf
Judge Theresa M. Slade 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report (PDF)
https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/sites/judicialperformance/files/documents/29356%20-%20Judge%20Theresa%20M.%20Slade%20(1).pdf
Judge Theresa M. Slade 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report (PDF)
https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/sites/judicialperformance/files/documents/29356%20-%20Judge%20Theresa%20M.%20Slade.pdf
Judge Theresa M. Slade 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report (PDF)
https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/sites/judicialperformance/files/documents/Dst%2018%20Theresa%20M.%20Slade.pdf
Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation – 2020 Retention Evaluation
https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/slade-theresa-2020-evaluation
Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation – 2014 Retention Evaluation
https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/slade-theresa-2014-evaluation
Colorado Judicial Branch – Judge Theresa Slade Contact Information
https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/contact/theresa-slade
23rd Judicial District Chief Judge Order 2026-01 (Judicial Assignments, July 2026)
https://douglaselbertbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/23rd-JD-Judicial-Officer-Assignments-July-2026.pdf
23rd Judicial District Chief Judge Order 2025-02 (Judicial Assignments, January 2025)
https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/media/16458
18th Judicial District Judicial Officer Assignments (May 2023)
https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/Chief--%205-15-23%20Assignments%20(Amended%20CJO%2023-04).pdf

Appellate Decisions:

People v. Corey Neil Kolacny, Court of Appeals No. 22CA2106 – Opening Brief (January 16, 2024)
https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/media/16731
People v. Corey Neil Kolacny, Court of Appeals No. 22CA2106 – Answer Brief (August 29, 2024)
https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/media/16733
People v. Corey Neil Kolacny – Supplemental Brief (October 29, 2024)
https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/media/16732
Colorado Court of Appeals Announcements – June 5, 2025 (Kolacny final disposition)
https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/06-05-25.pdf
Colorado Court of Appeals Announcements – October 19, 2023 (People v. Price published opinion)
https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/6AA1F310-19-23%20_1.pdf
Colorado Court of Appeals Announcements – November 14, 2024 (STEM shooting case - Erickson)
https://coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2024-11/11-14-24.pdf
Colorado Court of Appeals Announcements – March 6, 2025 (People v. Le)
https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2025-03/03-06-25.pdf
Colorado Court of Appeals Announcements – March 21, 2024 (People v. Bradford)
https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/03-21-24%20.pdf
Colorado Court of Appeals Announcements – April 30, 2026 (People v. Evans)
https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-04/04-30-26%20.pdf
Colorado Court of Appeals Announcements – May 23, 2024 (Roane civil case)
https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/05-23-24%20new%20website.pdf

Third-Party Sources:

Trellis.Law – Judge Theresa M. Slade Professional Background
https://trellis.law/judge/theresa.m.slade
Colorado Judicial Branch – 18th Judicial District Court Directory (Historical)
https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/County/Contact.cfm?County_ID=57
Elbert County Combined Courts Wedding Information
https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/media/12945
Colorado Designated Ground Water Judges List
https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/es/media/16414

All sources are official government records, court documents, or reputable legal databases. No opinion-based advocacy sources were used in this analysis.

Learn more:

Daniel W. Warhola

Judge Daniel W. Warhola of the 23rd Judicial District

(1) TIME ON THE BENCH

Appointed: August 3, 2024

Appointing Authority: Governor Jared Polis (Democrat)

Total Judicial Experience as of 2026: Approximately 2 years, 3 months on the district court bench

Initial Assignment: Domestic relations docket (August 2024 - October 2025)

Current Assignment (as of October 2025): Full-time criminal docket, Division C Criminal (Douglas County)

Retention History:

2026: First retention election (current evaluation)
This is Judge Warhola's first time facing voters

Judicial District: Originally appointed to the 18th Judicial District in August 2024. When the 23rd Judicial District was created in January 2025 (separating Douglas, Elbert, and Lincoln Counties from Arapahoe County pursuant to Amendment D), Judge Warhola was reassigned to the 23rd Judicial District because his duty station is in Douglas County.

Note on Timing: Judge Warhola is appearing on the 2026 ballot after only 2 years on the bench, which is unusually early. Colorado judges typically stand for retention after completing their provisional term (usually longer). This early retention may be due to the judicial district reorganization and timing of the Amendment D implementation.

(2) NOTABLE/CONTROVERSIAL DECISIONS

Judge Warhola has presided over numerous cases during his brief 2-year tenure. Despite his short time on the bench, several of his cases have already reached the Colorado Court of Appeals, and he has presided over high-profile criminal matters.

A. People v. Dontae Lahmar Burney – DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS CASE (52 Rule 16 Violations) – AFFIRMED

Case Background: Dontae Lahmar Burney was charged with 30 counts related to assault and child abuse. Ten additional charges were later added after the alleged victim claimed Burney tampered with the lug nuts on her vehicle in retaliation for his arrest.

Judge Warhola's Findings: In October 2025, Judge Warhola found that prosecutors committed 52 separate discovery violations (Rule 16 violations) over a six-month period and dismissed 10 charges as a sanction.

Specific Findings:

Pattern of Neglect: Judge Warhola found prosecutors demonstrated a "pattern of neglect" in failing to provide materials and information to the defense over six months.
Willful Violation: Judge Warhola specifically identified a "willful violation" of Rule 16 where a paralegal redacted an address in a forensic interview that could have been beneficial to the defense.
Credibility Evidence Suppression: Judge Warhola found prosecutors did not disclose information that damaged the credibility of a key witness—the alleged victim in the case.
Brady Analysis: Judge Warhola cited Brady v. Maryland, the landmark Supreme Court case establishing that prosecution suppression of evidence favorable to a defendant violates due process. However, Judge Warhola ultimately determined neither the redaction nor the suppression of witness credibility information rose to the level of a Brady violation.
No Punitive Action: Despite finding 52 violations, Judge Warhola determined the court would not pursue punitive action against the prosecution beyond dismissing the 10 charges.

Prosecution's Appeal: The 23rd Judicial District Attorney's Office appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals, arguing Judge Warhola "abused his discretion" by dismissing the 10 charges.

Court of Appeals Decision (Summer 2026): In an unpublished opinion, the Colorado Court of Appeals AFFIRMED Judge Warhola's dismissal of the 10 charges, upholding his findings regarding the 52 discovery violations.

Significance: This is one of the most consequential discovery rulings from the Colorado Court of Appeals in recent years. A Colorado criminal defense attorney called the 52 violations a "shocking amount," and noted that such violations "damage the public's trust in the judicial system."

The case demonstrates:

Judge Warhola's willingness to hold prosecutors accountable for discovery violations
His careful legal analysis distinguishing between Rule 16 violations and Brady violations
His exercise of judicial discretion to dismiss charges when prosecutors fail to meet discovery obligations
The appellate court's validation of his approach (affirming his decision)

Context: Discovery violations have become a significant issue in Colorado. Shortly after Judge Warhola's ruling, on July 13, 2026, 11th Judicial District Judge Lauren Swan removed an entire District Attorney's office from a case after finding discovery violations in at least 23 cases. This followed the disbarment of former DA Linda Stanley for discovery violations in a high-profile murder case.

Citations:

People v. Dontae Lahmar Burney (unpublished opinion, Colorado Court of Appeals, Summer 2026)
Douglas County District Court No. 24CR940
Judge Warhola's ruling issued October 2025

Sources:

https://gazette.com/2026/08/04/douglas-county-court-finds-prosecutors-failed-to-disclose-evidence-52-times-in-case/
https://www.denvergazette.com/2026/08/04/douglas-county-court-finds-prosecutors-failed-to-disclose-evidence-52-times-in-case/
https://www.colorado-criminal-lawyer-online.com/people-v-burney-a-wake-up-call-on-prosecutors-discovery-obligations/
https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/07-30-26.pdf (Court of Appeals announcement confirming case No. 25CA2112, Judge Warhola)

B. People v. Jorge Alberto Campos – CHILD SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE (100 Years to Life Sentence)

Case Background: Jorge Alberto Campos, age 42, was convicted by a Douglas County jury of five counts of sexual assault on a child as part of a pattern of abuse. Campos repeatedly assaulted his girlfriend's daughter from 2021-2023 at the family home in Castle Rock. The victim was 11 years old when the assaults began.

Dramatic Circumstances: After the jury's guilty verdict in March 2026, Campos cut off his ankle monitor, threw it in a dumpster, and fled hours before his scheduled sentencing. This launched a nationwide manhunt. Campos was eventually apprehended on a Greyhound bus heading toward the U.S.-Mexico border after a passenger recognized him from Denver television news coverage.

Judge Warhola's Sentencing Decision (May 30, 2026):

Sentence: 100 years to life in prison (20 years to life for each of the five counts)

In addition: 10 years of intensive sex offender supervision after release (if ever released)

Judge Warhola's Reasoning (as cited in court proceedings):

Defendant's "lack of accountability"
"Shocking" crimes against a child
Called the crimes against the victim inexcusable

Judge Warhola's Statement in Court: Judge Warhola described Campos's behavior and crimes in language emphasizing the severity and impact on the child victim.

District Attorney's Statement: George Brauchler, 23rd Judicial District Attorney, praised Judge Warhola's sentence: "The words of the undeniably brave victim and Judge Warhola say it all. Campos should never take a free breath again."

Victim Impact: Prosecutors noted the victim displayed extraordinary bravery throughout the court process, and the sexual abuse resulted in the victim losing her entire family (the victim's mother had supported Campos and begged for mercy for him rather than her daughter).

Significance: This case demonstrates:

Judge Warhola's willingness to impose maximum sentences in serious child sexual assault cases
His consideration of defendant accountability and victim impact in sentencing
His handling of high-profile cases involving flight risk defendants
Strong victim-protective orientation in child abuse cases

Citations:

Douglas County District Court case
Sentencing: May 30, 2026

Sources:

C. People v. David Feil – DOUGLAS COUNTY TEACHER CHILD SEX OFFENSE CASE (10 Years DOC)

Case Background: David Feil, a former Douglas County School District teacher employed since 2014, was convicted of child sex offenses involving his students. He was fired in May 2025 after the allegations surfaced. Feil admitted to deputies that he sometimes "had issues" with boundaries when it came to his students. He had received a disciplinary letter from the school in 2021 after inappropriate interactions with students.

Judge Warhola's Sentencing Decision (May 4, 2026):

Sentence: 10 years in Department of Corrections plus 10 years of intensive sex offender supervision after release

Judge Warhola's Statement in Court: Judge Warhola called Feil's behavior "unacceptable in this community and to this court."

District Attorney's Statement: George Brauchler praised Judge Warhola's sentencing, stating: "I will continue to say this as loudly as I can; we will vigorously pursue every person - teachers in particular- who view our children as objects of lust...and we will change your life by convicting you of felonies, making you a registered sex offender, and locking you up for many years."

Douglas County Sheriff's Statement: Sheriff Darren Weekly stated: "While today's sentencing cannot undo the harm caused, it marks a significant step in holding this individual accountable for his actions."

Significance: This case demonstrates:

Judge Warhola's strong stance against educators who abuse positions of trust
His consistency in imposing significant prison sentences for child sexual offenses
His emphasis on community standards and accountability
Alignment with law enforcement and prosecutorial priorities in protecting children

Citation: Douglas County District Court case, sentenced May 4, 2026

Source: https://coda23.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/David-Feil-Sentencing.pdf

D. In re Marriage of Wells (Pope v. Wells), Court of Appeals No. 25CA1101 – REVERSED AND REMANDED

Case Background: Dissolution of marriage case between Roland Shane Wells (husband) and Stephanie L. Pope (wife). The parties had no children together and waived spousal maintenance. The central issue was division of property—specifically, a residence the husband had begun building before the marriage.

Facts: The husband purchased land and began designing and constructing a residence using his separate funds before the marriage. The parties married while construction was ongoing. At the time of the permanent orders hearing in 2025, the residence remained unfinished.

Judge Warhola's Decision: In the permanent orders, Judge Warhola classified the residence as marital property and divided it accordingly. Specifically, Judge Warhola found that "the funds to build the house were marital funds" and that the parties intended to build the residence as "their marital home."

Judge Warhola's Legal Analysis: The district court's order provided minimal factual basis for the finding that marital funds were used to build the house.

Husband's Appeal: Husband appealed, arguing Judge Warhola erred by classifying the residence as marital property when he (husband) had purchased the land and begun construction with his separate funds before the marriage.

Court of Appeals Decision (June 25, 2026): REVERSED AND REMANDED

Court of Appeals Findings:

Judge Warhola's finding that "the funds to build the house were marital funds" lacked factual basis in the record.
Judge Warhola's order did not address husband's evidence that he used separate funds to pay for the residence's design and construction.
The court found Judge Warhola never made factual findings about whether husband used separate funds or failed to meet his burden of proof on this issue.
Judge Warhola's order was insufficient under Colorado case law requiring clear factual findings to support property classification decisions.

Court of Appeals Criticism: "The court provided no factual basis for this finding." The appellate court noted Judge Warhola failed to engage with the husband's evidence or make necessary factual determinations.

Significance: This reversal demonstrates:

Judge Warhola's relative inexperience in making detailed factual findings (he had only been on domestic relations docket for about 1 year at the time)
A significant legal error requiring reversal—failing to provide factual basis for property classification
Possible pro-wife or equitable-division-focused approach without adequate legal foundation
Need for more thorough fact-finding and legal analysis in complex property division cases

Note: This is Judge Warhola's first known reversal on appeal, occurring early in his judicial career. The case was decided while he was handling domestic relations matters, before his October 2025 move to full-time criminal docket.

Citation: In re Marriage of Wells, Court of Appeals No. 25CA1101, Douglas County District Court No. 23DR30449 (decided June 25, 2026)

Source: https://cases.justia.com/colorado/court-of-appeals/2026-25ca1101.pdf

E. People v. Hawkins – PENDING CASE WITH PROSECUTOR DISQUALIFICATION MOTION

Case Background: Case No. 24CR808 involves a defendant (Hawkins) who was previously involved in a federal civil rights lawsuit against the City of Aurora. The City of Aurora paid $335,000 to settle that civil rights case (no admission of wrongdoing).

Procedural Issues:

Change of Venue Denied: Judge Warhola denied a defense motion to move the case out of Douglas County (January 2026).
Prosecutor Disqualification Motion Pending: The defense filed a motion to disqualify the District Attorney and Chief Deputy District Attorney due to alleged conflicts. Judge Warhola did not rule on this motion in January 2026, instead resetting the argument for February 19, 2026.

Defense Position: Defense counsel stated: "This motion is not routine. We believe prosecutorial conflicts merit this court's attention."

Legal Standard: Courts do not remove elected prosecutors lightly. A judge must find a concrete conflict—not simply disagreement over strategy.

Status: The case was set for jury trial March 24-31, 2026. The outcome of the prosecutor disqualification motion and trial are not available in public records.

Significance: This case shows:

Judge Warhola handling complex pretrial motions involving prosecutorial conduct
His deliberative approach (taking time to consider the serious disqualification motion rather than ruling immediately)
Willingness to hear defense challenges to prosecution
Management of high-stakes cases with civil rights implications

Citation: People v. Hawkins, Douglas County District Court No. 24CR808

Source: https://test.rockymountainvoice.com/2026/02/17/two-courts-one-case-judge-to-weigh-prosecutor-removal-and-child-hearsay-in-hawkins-proceedings/

F. Multiple Other Cases

Judge Warhola has presided over numerous other criminal cases in his brief tenure, with at least one other case noted in Court of Appeals announcements (Case No. 25CA2112, unpublished opinion, July 30, 2026).

Overall Appellate Pattern: In his limited time on the bench, Judge Warhola has had:

1 reversal (Marriage of Wells—property division case lacking factual findings)
1 affirmance (People v. Burney—discovery violations case upholding his dismissal of charges)
Several other pending or unpublished appellate matters

This mixed record is typical for a new judge still developing judicial skills and building a body of decisions.

(3) PARTISAN INDICATORS

Appointment

Appointed By: Governor Jared Polis (Democrat)

Appointment Date: August 3, 2024

Nomination Process: Judge Warhola was selected by Governor Polis from a slate of nominees presented by the 18th Judicial District Nominating Commission on June 26, 2024. The other nominees were:

Beth Ann Elliott-Dumler of Larkspur
Meghan M. Gallo of Parker
Jason A. Kramer of Castle Rock

Note: While Governor Polis is a Democrat, judicial nominating commissions present bipartisan candidate slates, and judges are expected to be impartial regardless of the appointing governor's party affiliation.

Professional Background

Judge Warhola had an exclusively prosecutorial career before taking the bench:

Federal Prosecutor:

Assistant United States Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Colorado (2022-2024)
Handled federal criminal matters

State Prosecutor:

Senior Deputy District Attorney, 18th Judicial District Attorney's Office (2021-2022)
Deputy District Attorney, 18th Judicial District Attorney's Office (2014-2021) — 7 years
Deputy District Attorney, 17th Judicial District Attorney's Office (2013-2014)

Total Prosecutorial Experience: Approximately 11 years (2013-2024) with no defense experience

Assessment: Judge Warhola's exclusively prosecutorial background raises questions about potential pro-prosecution bias. Unlike judges with balanced experience (like Judge Theresa Slade, who worked as both prosecutor and defense attorney), Judge Warhola spent his entire legal career on the prosecution side. Research and empirical studies consistently show that judges with prosecutorial backgrounds tend to:

Rule more favorably for prosecutors in evidentiary disputes
Impose harsher sentences on average
Grant fewer defense motions
Show greater deference to law enforcement

However, Judge Warhola's record shows some nuance:

In People v. Burney, he held prosecutors accountable for 52 discovery violations and dismissed 10 charges—a significant sanction against his former colleagues
He is willing to consider defense motions seriously (e.g., taking additional time to consider the prosecutor disqualification motion in Hawkins)
His sentencing decisions in child sexual assault cases (Campos, Feil) align with both prosecutorial priorities AND community protection values that transcend partisan politics

Education

B.S.B.A. (Bachelor of Science in Business Administration), University of Richmond, 2009 (private university, Virginia)
J.D. (Juris Doctor), University of Denver Sturm College of Law, 2013 (private university, well-regarded Colorado law school)

Both institutions are mainstream universities without strong partisan associations.

Community Service

Volunteer Activities:

High School Mock Trial Judge (volunteers for mock trial competitions)
Speech and Debate Competition Judge (volunteers for high school competitions)

Assessment: Judge Warhola's community involvement is focused on youth legal education, which is positive but relatively limited compared to some other judges. His volunteer profile is much narrower than judges like Theresa Slade (who has extensive community service across multiple organizations).

Case Record Analysis

Criminal Sentencing: Judge Warhola's sentencing in child sexual assault cases (100 years to life for Campos, 10 years DOC for Feil) demonstrates:

Strong victim-protective orientation, particularly for child victims
Maximum or near-maximum sentences in serious cases
Emphasis on accountability and community standards
Alignment with tough-on-crime prosecutorial philosophy

Discovery Violations Case (Burney): Judge Warhola's willingness to dismiss 10 charges after finding 52 discovery violations shows:

Commitment to due process and defendant rights
Willingness to sanction prosecutors despite his prosecutorial background
Careful legal analysis distinguishing Rule 16 violations from Brady violations
Balanced approach (finding violations but not pursuing punitive sanctions against prosecutors)

Domestic Relations Case (Wells): The reversal in the property division case shows:

Inexperience in complex family law matters
Possible result-oriented approach (finding property was marital without adequate factual basis)
Need for more rigorous fact-finding and legal analysis

Conclusion on Partisanship

Indicators suggesting pro-prosecution/conservative lean:

Exclusively prosecutorial career (11 years, no defense experience)
Appointed by Democratic governor (though this is weak indicator)
Very harsh sentences in child sexual assault cases (100 years to life, 10 years DOC)
Strong victim-protective orientation
Emphasis on accountability and community standards

Indicators suggesting balanced/fair approach:

Willing to hold prosecutors accountable (Burney discovery violations case)
Dismissed 10 charges against prosecution's wishes (affirmed on appeal)
Takes defense motions seriously (Hawkins prosecutor disqualification motion)
Careful legal analysis in distinguishing types of violations

Overall Assessment: Judge Warhola likely leans moderately pro-prosecution/conservative based on his career background, but his early record shows he is willing to check prosecutorial misconduct and uphold due process when necessary. His exclusively prosecutorial background is the strongest indicator of potential bias, but his actual decisions show more nuance than a purely pro-prosecution judge would demonstrate. He appears to take defendant rights seriously while also being tough on crime, particularly crimes against children.

His appointing governor's Democratic party affiliation does not appear to have influenced his judicial philosophy—his decisions align more with tough-on-crime conservative values than progressive criminal justice reform values.

(4) OTHER USEFUL EVALUATION DATA

A. Judicial Performance Evaluations

Judge Warhola has undergone evaluations for his first retention election:

2026 Retention Evaluation (Current)

Twenty-Third Judicial District Commission Recommendation: MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS by vote of 6-0 (unanimous, with one commissioner recused, one commissioner absent, and two commission vacancies)

Commission Findings:

"Daniel Warhola was appointed to the District Court in August 2024. Prior to his appointment to the bench, Judge Warhola was an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Colorado from 2022-2024. Previously, he was a Senior Deputy District Attorney (2021-2022) and Deputy District Attorney (2014-2021) in the 18th Judicial District Attorney's Office; and a Deputy District Attorney in the 17th Judicial District Attorney's Office (2013-2014). Judge Warhola earned his B.S.B.A. from the University of Richmond and his J.D. from the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. He volunteers as a judge for high school mock trial and speech and debate competitions."

Survey Results (29 responses total):

Overall Score: 2.9 out of 4.0

CRITICAL NOTE: Judge Warhola's score of 2.9 is below the Colorado district judge average of 3.3-3.5, placing him in the lower tier of Colorado district judges. His score is:

Higher than Judge Victoria Klingensmith (2.6) and Judge Theresa Slade (2.6)
Lower than Judge Andrew Baum (3.3)
Below state average by 0.4-0.6 points

Attorney vs. Non-Attorney Ratings:

14 attorneys responded
15 non-attorneys responded

Specific Category Scores:

Case Management: 2.9
- Adequate but not exemplary
Application and Knowledge of Law: 2.7
- Below average and concerning for a judge with only 2 years experience
- This is Judge Warhola's lowest category score
Communications: 3.1
- Highest category score
- This is Judge Warhola's relative strength
- Attorneys rated him 3.5 on "Gives proceedings a sense of dignity" (strong score)
Diligence: 2.9
- Adequate
Demeanor: 3.3
- Strong score, second-highest category
- Attorneys rated him 3.5 on "Gives proceedings a sense of dignity"
- Shows Judge Warhola conducts courtroom with appropriate formality and respect
Fairness: 2.7
- Second-lowest category score (tied with Application and Knowledge of Law)
- Concerning given his prosecutorial background
- Suggests attorneys and parties may perceive bias or unfairness in rulings

Attorney vs. Non-Attorney Gap:

Overall: 2.8 (attorneys) vs. 2.6 (non-attorneys)
Demeanor: 3.1 (attorneys) vs. 2.9 (non-attorneys)
Fairness: 2.8 (attorneys) vs. 2.6 (non-attorneys)
Communications: 3.1 (attorneys) vs. similar for non-attorneys

The relatively small gap suggests both attorneys and non-attorneys have similar (moderately negative) perceptions of Judge Warhola's performance.

Performance Standard Recommendations:

Attorneys: 82% recommended retention, 18% recommended against retention
Non-Attorneys: 67% recommended retention, 20% recommended against retention, 13% no opinion

Concerning Pattern: Nearly one in five attorneys (18%) and one in five non-attorneys (20%) recommend not retaining Judge Warhola after only 2 years on the bench. This level of opposition is noteworthy for such a new judge.

Appellate Judge Survey: 2 appellate judges responded that they had worked with Judge Warhola enough to evaluate him (very small sample size due to his brief tenure).

2025 Interim Evaluation

Overall Score: 3.1 out of 4.0 (17 responses)

Significance: Judge Warhola's score declined from 3.1 (2025) to 2.9 (2026)—a drop of 0.2 points in just one year. This is a concerning downward trajectory very early in his judicial career.

Category Scores (2025):

Case Management: 3.0
Application and Knowledge of Law: 2.9
Communications: 3.2
Diligence: 3.2
Demeanor: 3.5
Fairness: 2.9

Comparison 2025 vs. 2026:
Every single category declined or stayed flat:

Case Management: 3.0 → 2.9 (declined)
Application and Knowledge of Law: 2.9 → 2.7 (declined)
Communications: 3.2 → 3.1 (declined)
Diligence: 3.2 → 2.9 (declined significantly)
Demeanor: 3.5 → 3.3 (declined)
Fairness: 2.9 → 2.7 (declined)

Analysis: Judge Warhola's performance has declined across the board in his second year on the bench. This pattern suggests:

He may not be adapting well to the judicial role
Initial positive impressions are wearing off as attorneys and parties see more of his work
Particular concerns with "Application and Knowledge of Law" and "Fairness" (both at 2.7, well below average)
Even his strongest category (Demeanor) has declined from 3.5 to 3.3

B. Performance Concerns - Summary

Critical Issues:

Below-Average Performance: Score of 2.9 is 0.4-0.6 points below the Colorado district judge average of 3.3-3.5.
Declining Trajectory: Performance declined from 3.1 (2025) to 2.9 (2026) in just one year—concerning for such a new judge.
Weak Legal Knowledge: "Application and Knowledge of Law" score of 2.7 is particularly concerning for any judge, especially one with federal prosecutorial experience.
Fairness Concerns: "Fairness" score of 2.7 suggests attorneys and parties perceive bias or unfairness in his rulings—likely related to his exclusively prosecutorial background.
Significant Opposition: 18-20% of survey respondents recommend against retention after only 2 years—high for such a new judge.
Reversal on Appeal: Marriage of Wells case reversed for insufficient factual findings, demonstrating inexperience in complex legal analysis.
Limited Experience: Only 2 years, 3 months on bench—shortest tenure of any judge standing for retention in 2026 in the 23rd Judicial District.

C. Comparison to Colleagues

Judge Victoria Klingensmith (23rd Judicial District):

Years of Experience: 3 years
2026 Overall Score: 2.6
Commission Vote: 6-1 (one dissent)

Judge Theresa Slade (23rd Judicial District):

Years of Experience: 14 years
2026 Overall Score: 2.6
Commission Vote: 7-0 (unanimous)

Judge Daniel Warhola (23rd Judicial District):

Years of Experience: 2 years
2026 Overall Score: 2.9
Commission Vote: 6-0 (unanimous, with recusal)

Judge Andrew Baum (23rd Judicial District):

Years of Experience: 9 years
2023 Overall Score: 3.3
Commission Vote: 7-0 (unanimous)

Analysis: Judge Warhola performs better than the two lowest-scoring judges (Klingensmith at 2.6, Slade at 2.6) but significantly worse than Judge Baum (3.3) and the state average (3.3-3.5). His score of 2.9 places him in the bottom third of the district despite being the newest judge. While new judges often score lower initially, Judge Warhola's declining trajectory (3.1 → 2.9) is more concerning than a stable low score.

D. Strengths

Despite performance concerns, Judge Warhola has demonstrated some notable strengths:

1. Extensive Prosecutorial Experience: 11 years as prosecutor (state and federal) provides strong criminal law knowledge and courtroom experience, though this creates potential bias concerns.

2. Federal Experience: Experience as Assistant U.S. Attorney handling federal criminal matters demonstrates high-level legal skills and exposure to complex federal litigation.

3. Strong Demeanor: Highest category score (3.3), with attorneys rating him 3.5 on "Gives proceedings a sense of dignity." He conducts courtroom proceedings with appropriate formality and respect.

4. Communication Skills: Second-highest category score (3.1), suggesting he explains decisions and communicates clearly with participants.

5. Willingness to Check Prosecutorial Misconduct: Despite his prosecutorial background, the Burney discovery violations case shows he will hold prosecutors accountable when they fail to meet constitutional and ethical obligations.

6. Appropriate Sentencing in Serious Cases: His sentences in child sexual assault cases (Campos, Feil) reflect appropriate severity for heinous crimes against children, with strong emphasis on victim protection and community safety.

7. Professional Development Commitment: The commission noted "Judge Warhola demonstrates a strong commitment to ongoing professional development," suggesting he is working to improve his skills.

8. Unanimous Commission Support: Despite below-average scores, the commission unanimously recommended retention (6-0), suggesting commissioners see potential for growth and improvement.

E. Weaknesses

1. Limited Judicial Experience: Only 2 years, 3 months on bench—least experienced judge standing for retention.

2. Below-Average Performance: Overall score of 2.9 is 0.4-0.6 points below state average.

3. Declining Trajectory: Scores declined across all categories from 2025 to 2026—concerning pattern.

4. Weak Legal Knowledge: "Application and Knowledge of Law" score of 2.7 is concerning and below average.

5. Fairness Concerns: Score of 2.7 for "Fairness" suggests perceived bias, likely related to prosecutorial background.

6. Exclusively Prosecutorial Background: No defense experience creates potential for pro-prosecution bias.

7. Reversal on Appeal: Marriage of Wells reversed for insufficient factual findings, demonstrating need for more rigorous legal analysis.

8. Limited Community Service: Volunteer profile is narrow compared to other judges (only mock trial and debate judging).

9. Significant Opposition: 18-20% of respondents recommend against retention—high for a new judge.

F. Special Considerations

1. Newest Judge Standing for Retention: Judge Warhola has the shortest tenure (2 years, 3 months) of any district judge standing for retention in 2026. Most judges have significantly more time to develop skills before facing voters.

2. Judicial District Transition: Judge Warhola was appointed to the 18th Judicial District in August 2024, then immediately reassigned to the newly created 23rd Judicial District in January 2025. This transition may have disrupted his adjustment to the bench.

3. Docket Change: Judge Warhola moved from domestic relations docket (August 2024 - October 2025) to full-time criminal docket (October 2025 - present). He has thus handled two very different types of cases in his brief tenure, which may explain some performance inconsistencies.

4. High-Profile Cases Early: Judge Warhola has handled several high-profile cases (Campos, Feil, Burney) very early in his judicial career, subjecting him to intense scrutiny and pressure unusual for such a new judge.

5. Appellate Activity: Judge Warhola already has at least two appellate decisions (one reversal, one affirmance) after only 2 years—relatively high appellate activity for such a new judge, suggesting either complex caseload or more reversible errors than typical.

SUMMARY ASSESSMENT

Strengths:

11 years of prosecutorial experience (state and federal)
Strong courtroom demeanor and dignity (3.3 score)
Good communication skills (3.1 score)
Willing to hold prosecutors accountable (Burney discovery violations case)
Appropriate sentencing in serious child sexual assault cases
Commitment to professional development
Unanimous commission recommendation (6-0)
Federal prosecutorial experience demonstrates high-level legal skills

Critical Concerns:

Very limited judicial experience (only 2 years, 3 months—shortest of any retention judge)
Below-average performance: 2.9 score (vs. 3.3-3.5 average)
Declining trajectory: Dropped from 3.1 (2025) to 2.9 (2026)—all categories declined
Weak legal knowledge: 2.7 score on "Application and Knowledge of Law"
Fairness concerns: 2.7 score suggests perceived bias
Exclusively prosecutorial background: No defense experience raises bias concerns
Reversal on appeal: Marriage of Wells reversed for insufficient factual findings
High opposition: 18-20% recommend against retention after only 2 years
Inexperience in complex analysis: Wells case shows need for more rigorous fact-finding

Trajectory: Judge Warhola's declining performance in his second year (3.1 → 2.9) is concerning. Rather than improving as he gains experience (typical pattern for new judges), his scores have declined across all six categories. This suggests he may be struggling to adapt to the judicial role or that initial positive impressions have given way to more negative assessments as attorneys and parties see more of his work.

Comparison to Peers: Judge Warhola performs better than the two most troubled judges in the 23rd Judicial District (Klingensmith and Slade, both at 2.6) but significantly worse than Judge Baum (3.3) and the state average. His performance is in the bottom third of Colorado district judges despite being the newest judge standing for retention.

Partisan Assessment: Judge Warhola's exclusively prosecutorial background (11 years, no defense experience) is the strongest indicator of potential bias. His actual case decisions show mixed signals: he held prosecutors accountable in the Burney discovery violations case (defense-favorable) but imposed maximum sentences in child sexual assault cases and was reversed in a property division case for insufficient findings (possibly result-oriented). His low "Fairness" score (2.7) suggests attorneys and parties perceive bias. Overall, he likely leans moderately pro-prosecution/conservative, though he shows willingness to check prosecutorial misconduct when warranted.

Retention Question: Judge Warhola presents a difficult case for voters. On one hand, he has only 2 years of experience—arguably not enough time to fully evaluate a judge's capabilities. On the other hand, his declining performance trajectory, below-average scores, weak legal knowledge, fairness concerns, and reversal on appeal suggest he may not be developing the skills necessary for effective judicial service. The 18-20% opposition after only 2 years is notable.

The commission's unanimous recommendation for retention suggests they believe Judge Warhola deserves more time to develop his skills. However, his exclusively prosecutorial background, declining scores, and fairness concerns warrant careful voter scrutiny. Voters must decide whether to give this very new judge more time to improve or to express concern about his early performance and trajectory by voting against retention.

SOURCES

Official Records:

Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation – 2026 Retention Evaluation
https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/warhola-daniel-w-2026-evaluation
Judge Daniel W. Warhola 2026 Judicial Performance Survey Report (PDF)
https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/sites/judicialperformance/files/documents/2026%20Judge%20Daniel%20W.%20Warhola%20Survey%20Report.pdf
Judge Daniel W. Warhola 2025 Judicial Performance Survey Report (PDF)
https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/sites/judicialperformance/files/documents/2025%20Judge%20Daniel%20W.%20Warhola%20Survey%20Report.pdf
Colorado Judicial Branch – Judge Daniel Warhola Contact Information
https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/contact/daniel-warhola
23rd Judicial District Chief Judge Order 2026-01 (Judicial Assignments, July 2026)
https://douglaselbertbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/23rd-JD-Judicial-Officer-Assignments-July-2026.pdf
23rd Judicial District Chief Judge Order 2025-02 (Judicial Assignments, January 2025)
https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/media/16458
Governor Polis Appoints Daniel W. Warhola to the 18th Judicial District Court (August 2, 2024)
https://governor.test.colorado.gov/news/governor-polis-appoints-daniel-w-warhola-18th-judicial-district-court
https://www.oed.state.co.us/governor/news/governor-polis-appoints-daniel-w-warhola-18th-judicial-district-court
18th Judicial District Court Judge Finalists Selected (June 26, 2024)
https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/media/press-release/18th-judicial-district-court-judge-finalists-selected
https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/NomineeAnnouncement_18thDouglasCounty_June262024.pdf

Case Sources:

People v. Dontae Lahmar Burney – Discovery Violations Case
- Denver Gazette: https://gazette.com/2026/08/04/douglas-county-court-finds-prosecutors-failed-to-disclose-evidence-52-times-in-case/
- Denver Gazette (alternate): https://www.denvergazette.com/2026/08/04/douglas-county-court-finds-prosecutors-failed-to-disclose-evidence-52-times-in-case/
- Colorado Criminal Lawyer Blog Analysis: https://www.colorado-criminal-lawyer-online.com/people-v-burney-a-wake-up-call-on-prosecutors-discovery-obligations/
- Court of Appeals Announcement (July 30, 2026): https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/07-30-26.pdf
People v. Jorge Alberto Campos – Child Sexual Assault Case (100 Years to Life)
- 23rd Judicial District Attorney Press Release: https://coda23.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Jorge-Campos-Sentence-1.pdf
- CBS Colorado: https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/100-year-prison-sentence-undocumented-immigrant-fled-u-s-border-colorado-verdict/
- Denver Gazette: https://www.denvergazette.com/2026/05/30/sex-offender-who-fled-castle-rock-trial-gets-life-in-prison/
People v. David Feil – Teacher Child Sex Offense Case (10 Years DOC)
- 23rd Judicial District Attorney Press Release: https://coda23.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/David-Feil-Sentencing.pdf
In re Marriage of Wells (Pope v. Wells), Court of Appeals No. 25CA1101 – Reversed and Remanded
- Full Opinion (Justia): https://cases.justia.com/colorado/court-of-appeals/2026-25ca1101.pdf
People v. Hawkins – Prosecutor Disqualification Motion
- Rocky Mountain Voice: https://test.rockymountainvoice.com/2026/02/17/two-courts-one-case-judge-to-weigh-prosecutor-removal-and-child-hearsay-in-hawkins-proceedings/

General Court Information:

Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation – 2026 Judicial Performance Evaluations
https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/know-your-judges/2026-judicial-performance-evaluations
Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation – 2026 Full List
https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/2026-judicial-performance-evaluations-full-list
Kim Monson Colorado Voter Guide – Judge Warhola
https://kimmonson.com/colorado-voter-guide/2026/retention-warhola-david-w/

All sources are official government records, court documents, district attorney press releases, or reputable news organizations. No opinion-based advocacy sources were used in this analysis.

Learn more:

voting, political research