Despite a resounding repudiation by Colorado voters, the author of the Amendment 40 assault on judicial independence has vowed he’ll be back in 2008 to again try to impose term limits on judges.
John Andrews’ election-night pledge surely is exasperating to the many voices who worked to expose the idiocy of this idea.
We can only hope that the out-of-state ideologues and donors who supported his unpopular effort will lose interest.
Andrews has been coy about who funded his campaign to apply 10-year term limits to the Colorado Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. Much of the $828,000 came from a Golden-based non-profit called Colorado At Its Best. The group isn’t required to reveal its donors. At least some money came from Howard Rich, a wealthy New York real estate investor who has poured funds into government-limiting causes around the country.
No state imposes term limits on its judiciary, and it’s ironic that a conservative such as Andrews would seek such radical change. The Founding Fathers understood the need for a judiciary free from partisan influences and set up protections from political institutions and interest groups.
In Colorado, voters resoundingly defeated the effort to rewrite the state constitution and have a right to know exactly who is behind the effort. That Andrews won’t say suggests he knows voters won’t be standing up to cheer. The measure would have stripped the Colorado Supreme Court of five of seven members appointed by Democratic Gov. Roy Romer, and seven members of the state Court of Appeals. Andrews is a Republican, but that isn’t pertinent in this case – his effort was opposed by every living GOP governor, every major newspaper in the state, as well as the Republican attorney general and the business community.
Pathetically, Amendment 40 supporters tried to personalize their quest by urging voters to reject the retention of Appeals Judge Jose D.L. Marquez. The cynical nature of this ploy wasn’t lost on voters, who retained Marquez by a landslide margin.
Voters elsewhere stood up to defend the judiciary too. In South Dakota, 89 percent rejected a nutty measure that would have let people seek criminal charges or file lawsuits against judges they thought violated their rights. In Oregon, voters rejected an unwarranted proposal that would have forced judges to live in certain geographic areas and would have strengthened the hand of special interests.
Efforts to undermine the judiciary seem to be a plaything for wealthy ideologues who see the petition process as easy pickings. The will of the people must really make them mad, whoever they are.
