Newsroom

This November, Colorado voters will elect candidates ranging from our governor to local school board members. Some might run unopposed. Most offices will offer you two or more choices. But there is one group that will simply ask you to accept or decline their candidacy: Colorado judges.

In many states, judges run for election much like politicians. They campaign, raise money, and seek endorsements, just like candidates for other offices. 

Brittany Kauffman, Chief Executive Officer of IAALS, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, wants to remind people that selecting a judge is different from selecting a legislator. “Legislators, said Kauffman, “are campaigning on policy priorities or to change the law. Judges are different. We’re asking them to be neutral and apply the existing law fairly.”

Judicial races have become increasingly expensive and political. Wisconsin's 2025 Supreme Court election, for example, shattered spending records, with more than $100 million spent by candidates, political groups, and donors.

For many observers, these highly politicized elections raise an important question: Can judges remain truly independent when they must campaign for office and rely on political support and campaign funds to keep their jobs?

Colorado answered that question sixty years ago by adopting a different approach. Rather than electing judges through partisan campaigns, Colorado uses a judicial merit selection system designed to emphasize professional qualifications and judicial performance, independent of political pressure.

Denver attorney Jon Rauchway, partner at Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP, recalls handling an appeal in Montana, where judges are elected. While the case was pending, a seat on the state supreme court opened, and one of the candidates received substantial campaign support from attorneys representing the opposing side in the case.

"As it turned out," Rauchway recalled, "I argued the appeal against the lawyer who had hosted the fundraiser for the now-supreme court justice. We didn't win that appeal."

Whether the outcome was influenced by campaign contributions or was simply coincidental is impossible to know. But the situation illustrates a concern frequently raised about judicial elections: even the appearance of political influence can undermine public confidence in the courts.

Colorado's merit selection system was created to avoid precisely those concerns. Since 1966, it has sought to ensure that judges are chosen based on their qualifications rather than their political connections, while remaining accountable to the public they serve.

Merit selection, or as it is also known, “The Missouri Plan,” originated in its namesake state. The plan’s passage in 1940 was due to massive political corruption within the political machine of Thomas ‘Boss Tom’ Pendergast in Kansas City. The machine ran the city for nearly 40 years, and even helped politically boost the future 33rd President of the United States, Harry S. Truman. In the 1934 election, Pendergast’s machine was linked to the murder of four people at polling stations, with 11 additional voters shot and wounded.  In the 1936 election, it created 70,000 to 80,000 “Ghost Votes”. Pendergast’s system, famous for placing friendly candidates in partisan positions, was also notorious for placing friendly judges on the bench. Prendergast was indicted on charges of tax evasion in 1939.  After which, Missouri became the first state to constitutionally adopt a judicial merit selection system. 

The system is intended to strike a balance between judicial accountability and independence. Allowing for judges to be held accountable for their decisions and judicial conduct, while at the same time allowing them to be held separate from political campaigns and fundraising. Ensuring the only thing behind a judge's decision is legal considerations, not financial ones.

The initial attempt to implement this system in Colorado was in 1939. But it wouldn’t be successful until 27 years later, in 1966, with the passing of Amendment 3 into Colorado’s Constitution. Colorado’s system is unique, largely because state court systems vary widely, with no two states looking exactly alike. 

Even states that have chosen merit selection use different rules. In some states, the system is used only for high courts, in others, only for first-time full-term selections. In Colorado, it is used for all state trial and appellate courts and includes filling interim vacancies.

Not every judge in Colorado is subject to this system. In all of Colorado’s 23 judicial districts, magistrates are never elected but rather appointed by that district's chief judge. Also, Denver County Court judges are not subject to this system; they are selected from a separate merit system run by the city of Denver. The main difference lies in the Denver mayor's appointment of judges rather than the Governor's. In addition, municipal judges and magistrates are separate entities, and their election or nomination depends on the municipality where they preside. In Aurora, they are appointed by the city council, but in Colorado Springs, they are appointed by the mayor and then confirmed by the city council. Much like the states themselves, each municipality varies slightly. 

The system determines the Colorado Supreme, Appellate, District, and County Courts.  Senate Bill 25-024 created an additional 10 judgeships that joined the 343 current judges on the bench July 1.

When a judicial seat is vacant, the vacancy is announced to the public on Colorado’s judicial website. Attached to this announcement is an application deadline by which those qualified, willing, and able may apply for the position. 

To be qualified, a person must be 

• under 72 years old (the age limit for judges in Colorado), 
• a Colorado-licensed attorney for a minimum of five years, 
• and live in the district or county they’re hoping to preside over. 

For a county with fewer than 35,000 people, the licensed attorney requirement is waived. Applicants are instead required to have a high school diploma. 

A nominating commission, consisting of both licensed attorney and non-attorney residents, then reviews their applications. There are 24 nominating commissions: one for the Colorado Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, and one for each of the state’s 23 judicial districts. 

The appellate court commission is staffed by one person admitted to practice law in Colorado and one non-attorney member from each congressional district, plus an additional non-attorney member, for a total of 17 members. 

Each District Commission is chaired by a State Supreme Court Justice, who serves as a nonvoting member. Each commission has seven voting members, with at least one from each county in the district. The breakdown between non-attorneys and attorneys is determined by size. Among those with more than 35,000 people, the ratio is 3 attorneys to 4 non-attorneys. Districts with populations under 35,000, such as districts 22, 15, and 3, must have at least 4 non-attorney members. The Governor, Attorney General, and Chief Justice then vote on how many, if any, of the remaining positions will be lawyers. 

Former U.S. Representative for Colorado’s 7th district, Ed Perlmutter, sits on the nominating committee for the State Supreme Court. He explained why he joined, “I think it's important to be able to have some input as to who our judges are, you know, and how they look at the law, and what kind of temperament they might have.  If I have the ability to help pick good people, I want to do that.”

The governor appoints all non-lawyers, and a joint vote by the governor, attorney general, and chief justice selects the lawyer members. In addition, no commission may be dominated by a political party; thus, no more than 4 registered Democrats or Republicans may serve on any district commission. Once appointed, the commissioner serves a 6-year term and cannot succeed themselves. Commissioners are also not allowed to hold any elective or salaried public office or any position in a political party. 

In addition to being divided ideologically, commissioners agree to judge the would-be judges on these seven factors alone: integrity; legal ability/experience; intelligence/wisdom; the capacity to be deliberate and fair-minded; the capacity to be industrious and prompt; the coherence of their outside life and hobbies with the judicial office; and, finally, courtesy and consideration. Political party and decision records are not qualifications that the commissioners are required to consider.

Commissioners also conduct interviews to assess potential judges legal knowledge and more. During which Perlmutter and the other commissioners review the candidate's record to ensure there are no obvious red flags. In addition, Perlmutter says he pays close attention to their temperament,

 “You want to make sure that they have a temperament where they can get along with people that oftentimes are in conflict. Whether it might be a divorce or it might be civil litigation or a criminal case. Does this person have the ability to get along with the jury, with the lawyers in front of them, with staff, with the public?”

After review, the commission sends its top three candidates to the Governor for appointment. The governor has 15 days to select the top choice; if not, the decision is immediately referred to the Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice for a decision. 

One issue with nominating commissions becomes clear when looking at the commission’s rolls. As of January 2026, there were 27 vacancies, representing 15.1% of all seats. Of those, 44.4% are empty attorney slots, and 55.5% are non-attorney slots. This issue is not unique to Colorado; other states with nominating commissions also frequently experience vacancies. According to Arizona’s court website, none of its commissions are fully seated, and the vacancy rate is 31.2%. In Pima County, Arizona, a seat has remained vacant since its creation in 1992. In Nebraska, almost all the six state supreme court commissions, which are to be staffed by four lawyers and four laypeople, have no non-attorneys on their rosters. 

Kauffman, of IAALS, agrees that judicial commissions can be a hole in the system. Especially in rural parts of Colorado. “For judicial performance commissions and nomination commissions  to work,” said Kauffman, “It’s critical for both lawyers and the public to engage in the process. We are unique in that we have so many commissions. And sometimes not enough lawyers to fill them in rural areas.”

Many of Colorado’s vacancies are in mountain and rural judicial districts. Many of these areas are legal deserts, with too few attorneys living there to serve on the commission. 

Retired Rep. Perlmutter sees the issue as one of civic duty, “Really call on individuals' responsibility as citizens, their patriotic duty to, you know, to make sure we’ve got good judges.” 

Led by Kauffman, IAALS, along with former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, formulated the specific merit selection system that Colorado uses, also known as the O’Connor plan. IAALS also works on education surrounding the merit selection system and how it functions. In her experience, she found that many people’s perceptions of the judicial system are deeply ingrained. She said of her findings, “Some states have a real, deep, deep pride and commitment in public judicial elections. In many of those states where people feel strongly about having a voice in their judicial election process because they've had that voice for so long, and it can feel like a loss to move to a merit selection system.” 

But this principle holds in the opposite direction as well, and Kauffman posits it is why Colorado’s judicial election process has remained unchanged for over 75 years, despite attempts from outside Colorado to change it. 

Removing partisan elections frees up judges' time, allowing them to focus on their cases rather than campaigning, which has been proven to remove money and fundraising from the judicial system, eliminating a potential source of bias. Colorado’s merit selection system also ensures that the public's input is not impeded. In line with the O’Connor Plan, Colorado has created a system where judges can focus on the law and citizens have a voice but campaign contributions do not.

How long do judicial officers serve?

Colorado’s judicial officers serve fixed terms and then stand for retention elections, where voters decide whether to keep them on the bench. The length of their terms depends on which bench they are sitting on. A judge may be retained and serve additional terms until their mandatory retirement age.

Here are the term lengths after an initial two-year provisional period that every judicial officer serves: