home

Voters Oust Colorado Judges Who Prosecuted Tim Masters

By Jeralyn, Section Colorado News
Posted on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:13:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Voters in Larimer County, Colorado have voted not to retain Judges Jolene Blair and Terry Gilmore. Both were prosecutors in the case of wrongfully convicted Tim Masters, who received a $10 million settlement after DNA evidence proved him not guilty of murder. Masters served 10 years in prison.

Blair and Gillmore were censured by the Colorado Supreme Court for misconduct in failing to comply with proper defense discovery requests and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The Blair decision is here and the Gilmore decision is here.

< Jerry Brown, Barbara Boxer Win in California | Republican House Gains >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Voters Oust Colorado Judges Who Prosecuted Tim Masters | 10 comments (10 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Voters (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:34:50 AM EST
    Also ousted three supreme court judges in Iowa who helped permit Iowa to allow same-sex marriage.  

    Here's the funny part:

    Under the voting system in Iowa, each of the three justices up for retention -- Chief Justice Marsha Ternus, David Baker and Michael Streit -- needed simply to get more "yes" votes than "no" votes in the election to be elected for another eight-year term. They faced no opponents. None of the judges raised money for the campaign.

    While all seven justices on the court ruled with Ternus, Baker and Streit, those three were the only ones whose seats were up for retention. None of them received the 50 percent "yes" vote needed to remain on the bench.

    So, they raised no money, and had no opponents, and they were still beaten.

    There is nothing "funny" at all (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Peter G on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:08:32 AM EST
    ... about judges being targeted for defeat at election based on a "popular" reaction to their well-founded constitutional decisionmaking in support of minority rights.  Particularly when "issues" like this are used as smokescreens to create open seats on the court to which reactionary, unprincipled, pro-business judges can then be appointed by politicians.  Judicial independence, without fear of partisan retaliation, is a bedrock necessity of real democracy, where the majority does not rule over questions of fundamental, equal civil rights and liberties for all.

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:23:49 AM EST
    I forgot the snark tag.

    But the fact that three incumbents could run unopposed and still lose is still something.

    Parent

    Um, they were unapposed (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 10:02:48 AM EST
    except that they were targeted by certain "pro-family" anti-gay groups for this election, from bilerico(dot)com:

    Three of Iowa's Supreme Court Justices were up for a retention vote in Iowa on Tuesday. NOM spent millions trying to oust them after their unanimous Supreme Court ruling granting Same Sex marriage equality. Sadly, the judges were punished for simply saying that all Iowans are equal under the state constitution.

    Click Me

    You really should do a little more research before you post on issues like this in the future.

    Parent

    Not to mention... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 10:20:12 AM EST
    ...that judges don't "run" for re-election in any sense of the word.  They don't campaign, they don't raise funds, they don't advertise.  

    The "Clear the Bench" campaign was very organized and very, very well funded by certain special interests.  

    Parent

    But they could (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:00:35 AM EST
    They chose not to campaign for their jobs until the final days.

    Parent
    They don't? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 02:53:23 PM EST
    Is that an Iowa law?  They sure do campaign, raise funds, advertise, etc., across the river in Wisconsin.

    Parent
    Can't be an Iowa law (none / 0) (#10)
    by Peter G on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:03:08 PM EST
    In keeping with their general view that money talks and bullsh*t walks, the Supreme Court held a few years back, by 5-4 vote, that the First Amendment disallows state laws that restricted judges, on ethical grounds, from taking positions on issues when campaigning for reelection.  Guess what interests that rule of constitutional law favors?

    Parent
    So? (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:02:12 AM EST
    Why would I "need to do more research"?  The judges chose not to campaign for their jobs, and of course, there are other organizations that could have put out their own campaigns for the judges, independent of the judges themselves if they felt it was important enough to defend them.

    Methinks you are the one who should do more research.

    Parent

    Because talking about what happened in Iowa (none / 0) (#8)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:33:21 AM EST
    without mentioning NOM and the role they played, is I dunno, ignorant, methinks.

    Parent
    Voters Oust Colorado Judges Who Prosecuted Tim Masters | 10 comments (10 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment