In his October 4 column in The Denver Post, Al Knight distorted the arguments made by Colorado's four living current and former governors who issued statements on September 18 in opposition to Amendment 40, which would impose term limits on state Supreme Court justices and appeals court judges. In an attempt to demonstrate that “there hasn't been a really good argument advanced against” Amendment 40, Knight misleadingly wrote that in expressing their opposition, “not one of them [the governors] suggested that Colorado has a great Supreme Court or that the state would be crippled if five of the long-term members [of the Colorado Supreme Court] said bye-bye. Instead, the governors argued that the new system would somehow put partisan politics back into the court system.” In fact, in their written statements, only one of the four governors argued that Amendment 40 would put partisan politics into the court system. Moreover, former Gov. Roy Romer (D) specifically praised Colorado's judges and -- like Gov. Bill Owens (R) and former Gov. Richard Lamm (D) -- said that "[t]he consequences [of Amendment 40] are real and severe for Colorado."

Amendment 40 would limit Colorado Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges to a maximum of 10 years on the bench and has a retroactive provision that would, according to a Colorado Legislative Council summary, “require five [of the seven current] justices and seven [of the 19 current] judges to vacate office on January 13, 2009.”

From Knight's column, “The 'irritation factor' may affect the election outcome,” in the October 4 edition of The Denver Post:

Finally, there hasn't been a really good argument advanced against it.

For example, when three former governors last month joined Gov. Bill Owens in opposing the amendment, not one of them suggested that Colorado has a great Supreme Court or that the state would be crippled if five of the long-term members said bye-bye. Instead, the governors argued that the new system would somehow put partisan politics back into the court system.

Who is kidding whom? Politics never left it. Every school child knows that it very much matters if a court is dominated by Democrats or by Republicans. The issue is not whether partisan politics plays a role but rather what role it should play.

In fact, contrary to Knight's assertion, only former Gov. John D. Vanderhoof (R) argued in his written statement that "[t]he proposed constitutional amendment puts partisan politics right back into Colorado's courts." This argument is absent from the statements of Owens, Romer, and Lamm.

Moreover, contrary to Knight's claim that none of the governors suggested “the state would be crippled if five of the long-term members said bye-bye,” Owens said in his statement, “Initiative 40 would seriously impair doing business in Colorado. Swapping out the appellate courts every ten years would result in inconsistent rulings and would jeopardize the uniform application of law that is so heavily relied upon by the business community.” He also said that the amendment “would result in significant deterioration of the quality of judicial candidates.” Lamm's statement read, “The dramatic loss of judges will not only be felt in Colorado courtrooms, but also by individuals and businesses across our state. It will be felt by counties addressing environmental issues, cities tackling rights such as eminent domain, and Coloradans facing issues of livelihood, safety, security and more.”

Finally, despite Knight's assertion that none of the governors “suggested that Colorado has a great Supreme Court,” Romer stated, “Colorado's judges are highly experienced, well-respected men and women who have spent years gaining the knowledge necessary to do their jobs well.” Romer added that “our courts have been rated in the top 10 nationally for impartiality and competence by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Institute for Legal Reform."

Owens stated:

I oppose Initiative 40 because it would provide no demonstrable benefits and would, in fact, harm the judicial branch.

[...]

Initiative 40 would seriously impair doing business in Colorado. Swapping out the appellate courts every ten years would result in inconsistent rulings and would jeopardize the uniform application of law that is so heavily relied upon by the business community.

In addition, Initiative 40 would result in significant deterioration of the quality of judicial candidates. Very few qualified attorneys would choose to close a legal practice they built over the course of their career for a temporary appointment. Judicial appointments would be sought primarily by attorneys with fledgling practices or approaching retirement.

If you have a clogged drain, you don't tear out the plumbing in the entire house. The same is true with the judiciary system. If there is a problem, then we should focus on fixing it without upending the entire system.

[...]

While the Colorado judiciary could be improved by certain reform measures, Initiative 40 would do nothing to contribute to such improvements.

Romer stated:

It doesn't matter if you support or oppose term-limits; Amendment 40 goes too far. As a result of its retroactive provision, this initiative will arbitrarily force out good judges presently serving.

Colorado's judges are highly experienced, well-respected men and women who have spent years gaining the knowledge necessary to do their jobs well. Amendment 40 will force some of our state's best, most knowledgeable and independent judges off the bench for no good reason -- and all at once.

While a breath of fresh air might be needed in other settings, Amendment 40 will create a dust-devil-storm in the courtroom as bad as any seen on Colorado's eastern plains. Every 10 years, the collective wisdom of nearly half of Colorado's highest courts will be thrown out. Cases in the midst of deliberation will be put on hold, if not retried from scratch.

Interpretation of the law is firmly rooted in legal precedent and history -- not based on fleeting perspectives or temporary opinions. The decisions from Colorado's highest courts must remain impartial, not ephemeral.

Amendment 40 will force qualified individuals to choose between continuing an established career or accepting a short-term judicial appointment. Many of Colorado's best and brightest will be discouraged from applying to be a judge due to the impact it would have on their families, careers, and other future considerations. Candidates from different areas of the state may be less interested in uprooting their lives for a job they know is only a stop-over position.

[...]

Colorado judges are held accountable by voters. Like doctors, judges are subject to comprehensive performance reviews. Like pilots, judges have a mandatory retirement age. Judges face retention votes by the people, as well as discipline by a commission of citizens, lawyers and judges from across the state.

As a result, our courts have been rated in the top 10 nationally for impartiality and competence by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Institute for Legal Reform.

Amendment 40 indiscriminately sweeps out all judges without good reason -- including some of Colorado's best. The consequences are real and severe for Colorado.

Lamm stated:

The measure forces five of seven Colorado Supreme Court Justices and seven of 19 Court of Appeals judges off the bench at the same time.

That means regardless of quality of service, regardless of voter preference, nearly half the judges on Colorado's highest courts will be pushed out after the next general election and all at once. That same scenario -- replacing five of seven Supreme Court justices and seven of 19 court of Appeals judges -- will repeat every ten years. In other words, delaying justice for Coloradans.

Amendment 40 has no plan to keep our courts operating smoothly during the time it takes to fill such a large-scale vacancy. Further the measure fails to even address the serious backlog created by such a drastic void that will occur during the time it takes to replace over 70% of the Colorado Supreme Court and nearly 40% of judges on the Court of Appeals.

The dramatic loss of judges will not only be felt in Colorado courtrooms, but also by individuals and businesses across our state. It will be felt by counties addressing environmental issues, cities tackling rights such as eminent domain, and Coloradans facing issues of livelihood, safety, security and more.

Reasonable people, present company included, will disagree with rulings from time to time -- but that does not mean we dismantle an entire branch of government.

Ultimately, this measure harms individuals and businesses that rely upon our state's higher courts to operate efficiently and without burdensome delays.

[...]

Creating a revolving door of justice will only harm the well-being of Coloradans in the long run.