In an era of hyper-partisan politics, the judicial branch often serves as a critical battleground. Yet, when we look specifically at the Colorado Supreme Court, the traditional markers of political affiliation—the "R" or the "D"—are conspicuously absent.
Colorado employs a unique system designed specifically to insulate its highest court from the messy, expensive machine of partisan elections. This creates a fascinating tension: the state aims for non-partisanship, but every high-profile case is inevitably viewed through a political lens.
This post dives deep into how Colorado selects its supreme court justices, why their official political affiliation is often a secret, and the pros and cons of this distinct approach.
The core feature defining the Colorado judicial system is its commitment to the Merit Selection process, often called the Missouri Plan. This system fundamentally bypasses the need for judicial candidates to run traditional, partisan political campaigns.
The Merit Selection system is lauded by proponents for offering significant advantages over traditional election models:
In states with partisan judicial elections (like Texas or Pennsylvania), judges must raise millions of dollars, often relying on donations from the very lawyers and special interests who will appear before their court.
Partisan elections can lead to massive overturns of the court every few years, creating instability in legal precedent.
The goal is to prevent the court from becoming a rubber stamp for the current legislative or gubernatorial majority.
Despite the intentions of the selection process, the system faces significant, often valid, criticism:
| Criticism Area | Description and Impact |
|---|---|
| Lack of Transparency | Because the public doesn't know the nominee's political affiliation or philosophy, voters have little direct leverage. Critics argue the system is too "clubby," dominated by elite legal circles. |
| Accountability Deficit | Outside of the retention election (where historically, judges are almost always retained), justices face no direct public accountability. It can be difficult for the public to remove a justice who consistently makes deeply unpopular or divisive rulings. |
| "Governor's Shadow" | While officially non-partisan, a governor’s appointments almost always reflect their judicial philosophy. If a Democrat governor serves for eight years, they can shift the court’s ideological balance significantly without the public ever having a direct say on those specific leanings. |
| Perception of Bias | Even if justices are non-partisan, their decisions on highly charged issues (e.g., environmental regulation, election law, or constitutional rights) are inevitably interpreted through a partisan lens by the media and the public. |
To understand the benefits of the Colorado model, it helps to compare it to the judicial selection methods used in other states:
| Selection Method | Example States | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Merit Selection (Colorado) | MO, UT, CO | Judges are qualified; insulated from money in politics. | Low public accountability; selection process is opaque. |
| 2. Partisan Elections | TX, PA, AL | Maximum public accountability; voters know the nominee's stated political loyalty. | Requires massive fundraising; politicizes the judiciary, potentially compromising impartiality. |
| 3. Legislative Appointment | VA, SC | Legislators (who are accountable to voters) make the choice. | Highly vulnerable to political ideology; judicial appointments can become trading chips in legislative bargaining. |
Ultimately, Colorado has chosen to prioritize expertise and stability (Method 1) over direct voter accountability (Method 2).
A recent, high-profile scenario perfectly illustrates the tension between Colorado's non-partisan ideal and political reality:
The Scenario: The 14th Amendment Case (Trump V. Anderson)
In late 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in a highly divided 4-3 decision that Donald Trump was ineligible to appear on the state’s primary ballot under the 14th Amendment’s "insurrection cause."
This example highlights that even if the process of selection is designed to be apolitical, the outcomes—especially on issues of national import—cannot escape political scrutiny. The justices are non-partisan in title, but their legal philosophies (whether they are strict textualists or follow a more evolving interpretive framework) are interpreted by the public as "liberal" or "conservative."
Colorado’s Supreme Court selection system represents a deliberate effort to keep judicial decisions rooted in law, not electoral politics. By removing the need for partisan campaigning, the state ensures that its highest judges possess excellent credentials and long-term stability.
However, the system requires voters to trust the nominating commission and the governor's judgment, sacrificing the direct accountability found in a typical election. While the name tags on the robes may lack an "R" or a "D," the philosophies guiding the gavel are very much present, proving that even in the most rigorously non-partisan system, the political nature of high-stakes legal interpretation can never be fully suppressed.
When citizens head to the polls, we are hardwired to look for the familiar partisan labels—R or D. But when evaluating the justices of the Colorado Supreme Court (CSC), this approach is fundamentally flawed.
Colorado employs a unique system of judicial selection designed specifically to insulate the judiciary from raw political pressure. While the Governor’s political leanings undeniably influence the final choice, the formal party affiliation of a justice is a poor indicator of judicial performance.
This post summarizes the complex reality of CSC politics, provides essential advice for voters, and offers practical tips for making truly informed choices in retention elections.
The single most important conclusion about the political affiliation of Colorado Supreme Court justices is this: The system is designed to be non-partisan, but the appointments are inherently political.
Colorado does not elect its high court justices based on popular vote (initially). Instead, it uses a merit selection system:
While a justice may have been a registered Democrat or Republican before their appointment, their duty is to interpret the law fairly.
However, a Democratic Governor will almost certainly choose a candidate whose judicial philosophy aligns with liberal or progressive interpretations (e.g., favoring a "living constitution"). Conversely, a Republican Governor will typically select a candidate with a more conservative or textualist philosophy (e.g., favoring "originalism").
Key Takeaway: You cannot reliably judge a justice by their party registration. You must judge them by their judicial philosophy and temperament, which often follow the trajectory of the appointing Governor.
For voters evaluating the retention of a CSC justice, the most critical piece of advice is to ignore the perceived political party and focus entirely on the quality of their jurisprudence.
A supreme court justice’s job is not to represent a political constituency; it is to interpret the Colorado Constitution and state statutes impartially. When politics become the primary differentiator, the stability and independence of the court are threatened.
Instead of asking, "Is this person a Democrat or a Republican?" ask these critical questions:
The Goal: We want judges who are legally excellent, regardless of whether their personal policy preferences align with our own.
Retention elections require homework. Since justices do not campaign or advertise like politicians, voters must proactively seek information. Here are three practical tips for making an informed choice when voting on judicial retention:
The State of Colorado publishes an official "Blue Book" (Ballot Information Booklet) before every election that includes judicial retention questions. This is your starting point.
The most valuable tool Colorado voters have is the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation (OJPE). This independent commission evaluates the work of every justice standing for retention.
Understand the major cases the justice has ruled on. While you don’t need to read every 50-page opinion, a quick search of the justice’s name plus "Colorado Supreme Court" will reveal their most impactful decisions in recent years.
The conclusion is clear: When faced with judicial retention questions for the Colorado Supreme Court, voters must resist the urge to apply partisan shortcuts.
The integrity of Colorado’s judiciary rests on its independence. By studying judicial performance reports and focusing on legal temperament rather than outdated party affiliations, we ensure the courts remain a place where law, not politics, is the deciding factor.
Make the commitment this election cycle to be a judicial voter—informed, objective, and dedicated to upholding the highest standards of the bench.