Hey everybody, I’m back with my opinions on our state and local judges. Please note that these are just my personal opinions, and I don't have a legal background. As always, I hope this helps you make your judge voting less onerous!
Below I've listed how I intend to vote, as well as a brief description of the cases that influenced my decision, plus a link to an article that goes into more detail about the case. When looking at cases, I’m looking specifically for things like civil rights, police/judicial accountability, corporate overreach, etc. If I can’t find any cases that made the news, I look at their evaluation scores, where the judges are evaluated on a number of things like fairness, preparedness, etc. I consider scores above a 3.0 out of 4 to be good, and anything below to be bad.
William W. Hood – This was a tough one. I am voting YES. On the one hand, I am uncomfortable with the idea that Justice Hood knew that there were allegations concerning the $2.5 million contract in 2019, and allowed it to go through anyway (see below). In earlier years, just by being this close to a scandal, I might have voted to oust him.
However, today we live in a different political climate. Hood seems like a fair, decent judge, even if I don’t always agree with his rulings (see Vail Resorts case). If Hood was removed and if Victor Marx were to win the governorship, he would select a very different kind of judge, and I’m just not willing to risk it.
2019-2023 - There was a judicial scandal in 2019 wherein senior judicial officials arranged for a $2.5 million dollar contract allegedly in order to buy the silence of Mindy Masias about misconduct in the judiciary, including sexual harassment, corruption, and favoritism. Hood was on the SC at the time and knew of the allegations concerning Masias and the contract, but allowed the contract to proceed regardless. On the other hand, it was Justice Nathan Coats who was disciplined for this, not William Hood. Please note this article is an opinion piece. https://archive.is/K09YG
And you can read more about the case here:
https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/images/lcs/220614_ccjd_interim_comm_rpt_0.pdf
2026 – Hood wrote the majority opinion ruling that Children’s Hospital Colorado had to resume gender affirming care to its transgender patients. The hospital had initially stopped treatment because of threats from the Trump administration. https://www.cpr.org/2026/05/18/colorado-supreme-court-trans-youth-gender-affirming-care/
2026 – Justice Hood, along with 3 others, voted dismissed a lawsuit challenging Vail Resorts’ Epic Pass terms, wherein a pass holder was injured by a snowmobile driven by a Vail employee, but then purchased another pass while in the middle of his lawsuit. The argument by Vail was that the pass holder signed a liability waiver when he purchased his 2nd pass, and that dismisses any existing claims against Vail Resorts. These are the same user agreements that no one reads, but we are all forced to sign if we want to use a particular product. https://www.aspentimes.com/news/colorado-supreme-court-dismisses-case-sue-vail-resorts-epic-pass/
2021 – Hood and 4 other justices ruled to make it easier for information seekers to request information related to police misconduct. https://coloradosun.com/2021/06/30/colorado-internal-affairs-records-ruling/
Rebecca Rankin Freyre – I am voting YES. Judge Freyre was a defense attorney for 25 years before she became a judge, and it seems she still votes to protect defendant and civil rights.
2025 – Appeals Court overturned a murder conviction because the defendant had been denied his constitutional right to a public trial. Certainly not an easy decision, but it shows willingness to protect a defendant’s constitutional rights. https://archive.is/bsP8e
2026 – A jury ignored a judge’s instructions and convicted a man of murder based on a theory the jury was told to disregard. Freyre initially ruled in favor of the defendant, but after the State Supreme Court struck down her ruling, she upheld the conviction. https://archive.is/2XiLX
2022 – Appeals court ruled against a prosecutor who couldn’t give a race-neutral reason for ejecting a black juror. https://archive.is/hZLNE
Elizabeth Harris – I am voting YES. She is another former public defender who works to protect defendants’ rights.
2026 – The defendant tried to argue that his assault on a woman was not domestic violence because they weren’t together long enough to be classified as in an “intimate relationship.” The Appeals Court disagreed, saying that the amount of time together is not the only determining factor. https://archive.is/8fyGR
2026 – While Judge Harris “meets performance standards” in her judicial review, “Lawyers noted the length of time required for Judge Harris to issue an opinion as a weakness.”
2026 – Harris wrote that a 96 year sentence on a 3-strikes sentence was wrong and that the defendant should be resentenced “outright to a lesser prison term.” https://archive.is/FLcQG
2019 – People vs Martinez – Harris wrote that trial judge’s description of reasonable doubt “violates the presumption of innocence and improperly shifts the burden of proof to the defendant, it also overstates the degree of doubt necessary to acquit.” https://archive.is/J20na
Katharine Lum – I am voting YES.
2026 – The Appeals Court unanimously reversed a murder conviction where the defendant allegedly confessed to another unrelated crime, but in the heavily redacted video confession, it appeared that the defendant had confessed to this crime. The trial judge had ordered the jury to ignore the video altogether, but court ruled that “the unredacted statement about another shooting mistakenly gave jurors the impression that Garcia had confessed his involvement in the Aurora murder.” https://archive.is/Owa2m
2026 – The Appeals Court reversed a dismissal of a case where a woman was reprimanded and suspended without pay after she filed suit for not being paid overtime. A lower court had dismissed her case because she did not allege gender discrimination. Judge Lum wrote, “Open discussion among employees about wage rates — regardless of whether those discussions pertain to gender-based pay disparities and regardless of whether any gender-based discrimination occurred — promotes wage transparency and helps uncover discriminatory wage practices.” https://archive.is/fyCUT
2026 – The Appeals Court upheld a ruling that critical comments made by a defendant’s spouse to a judge was constitutionally protected speech and not a threat. https://archive.is/NZSc1
Pax Moultrie – I am voting YES.
2023 – The Appeals Court unanimously ruled that “that agreements between local sheriffs’ offices and federal immigration authorities to hold immigrants in custody after they’re eligible for release violate state law.” Also, “The panel also rejected the argument that officers trained to be immigration officers should be treated as federal officers, not state officers when they perform duties for ICE.” https://www.cpr.org/2024/07/08/colorado-appeals-court-teller-county-sheriff-detaining-inmates-eligible-for-ice/
2026 – The Appeals Court upheld a conviction of a man who assaulted an “at-risk” adult. The defense tried to argue that since the victim had stated she wasn’t wearing an oxygen tube at the time of the assault, that the victim shouldn’t be classified as “at-risk,” which would have decreased the severity of the charges. The court ruled that since she had a permanent breathing disability, the victim qualified as “at-risk,” whether she was wearing her oxygen tube or not. https://archive.is/C6hK0
2024 – The Appeals Court overturned the conviction of a man who was most likely not competent for trial. The original judge had misapplied the law, stating that it was the defense’s burden to prove the defendant wasn’t competent to stand trial, when it is actually the prosecution’s burden to prove competency. https://archive.is/lWJeP
Karl Schock – I am voting YES.
2026 – see description of this case above under Katharine Lum. During oral arguments, Judge Shock said, “The whole point of the statutes is so you can share with whoever you want for whatever reason you want and talk about whatever you want,” he said. “Because if everybody knows how much everybody gets paid, you might realize that there’s gender pay discrimination that you had no idea was there. And instead, if you need to have some gender-based suspicion first, doesn’t that undermine the whole point?” https://archive.is/fyCUT
2025 – Judge Schock questioned the process of defendants getting their property back after a police seizure and asked the State Supreme Court for clarification. “’So a defendant who just wants their property returned and has no legitimate basis to challenge their conviction or sentence must nevertheless file such a motion (no matter how meritless) simply to give the motion for return of property something to attach to,’ wrote Judge Karl L. Schock in an Oct. 30 concurring opinion. ‘I see no reason why a defendant’s right to seek the return of their property should hinge on whether the defendant can conjure up a (potentially meritless) direct appeal or postconviction motion.’” https://archive.is/bBY6f
2026 – The Appeals Court ordered a new trial because the defendant’s phone was searched without proper consent. https://archive.is/ejyUz
Grant Sullivan – This was another tough one. I am voting YES. I don’t see any real problematic rulings with Sullivan. While he may have had knowledge of the scandal, he wasn’t a judge at the time. And as I stated above with Hood, I’m not willing to risk losing a good judge in this political climate.
2019-2023 - See above opinion article under William Hood for a description of the scandal. At the time, Grant Sullivan was an assistant solicitor general in the Colorado AG's Office. This article talks about what is and isn’t known about Sullivan’s knowledge and involvement. https://archive.is/XOUP6
2026 – The Appeals Court ordered a new trial because the trial judge allowed a juror to serve even after he admitted his bias to believe law enforcement testimony over the testimony of others. https://archive.is/vw2CK
2025 – The Appeals Court overturned the conviction of a teenager because the trial judge blocked text messages that were evidence that the victim had allegedly threatened the defendant. Sullivan wrote, “Indeed, in self-defense cases, a threatening statement communicated by the person killed or assaulted isn’t hearsay ‘(i)f offered to show the defendant’s reasonable apprehension of danger’.” https://archive.is/tkUFv#selection-1609.0-1609.191
Michael Kotlarczyk – I am voting YES. Judge Kotlarczyk was only appointed in 2024, and as with all of the local judges, I couldn’t find a lot of articles around his rulings. His Judicial Performance Review was ok. Lawyers rated him much higher than non-lawyers, but only 7 non-lawyers responded to the survey, so I didn’t give very much weight to those scores.
2026 – Save South Boulder vs City of Boulder – This was the lawsuit about Boulder’s financing of the CU South flood mitigation project. Kotlarczyk ruled in favor of the City, but when the City wanted force the residents behind the lawsuit to pay $46,000 in attorney fees, he wouldn’t allow it. https://boulderreportinglab.org/2026/01/25/judge-rejects-boulders-bid-to-make-residents-pay-legal-fees-in-cu-south-lawsuit/
2026 - Judicial Performance Review https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/sites/judicialperformance/files/documents/2026%20Judge%20Michael%20T.%20Kotlarczyk%20Survey%20Report.pdf
Chris Larson – I am voting YES.
2026 – Judicial Performance Review https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/sites/judicialperformance/files/documents/2026%20Judge%20J.%20Chris%20Larson%20Survey%20Report.pdf
2024 – Larson prevented the City of Boulder from forcing the residents of Ash House apartments out of their homes with almost no notice. https://www.kunc.org/news/2024-09-23/judge-temporarily-blocks-boulders-attempt-to-close-ash-house
Nancy Woodruff Salomone – I am voting NO. Her performance evaluation had a couple of red flags, but was generally ok. I have a hard time putting a lot of weight on the Judicial Performance Reviews this year because there were so few responses. But I felt like the 2022 order to administer medication to a man involuntarily without even allowing him to speak for himself was really out of line. And the self-imposed 90-minute deadline to finish the hearing made me wonder where her priorities lie.
2026 – Judicial Performance Review https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/sites/judicialperformance/files/documents/2026%20Judge%20Nancy%20Woodruff%20Salomone%20Survey%20Report.pdf
2026 – Salomone ordered the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to provide the defendant access to thousands of cases that were overseen by Yvonne Woods, a forensic scientist who altered potentially thousands of DNA test results in criminal cases for decades. The defendant’s DNA results had been processed by Yvonne Woods when he was convicted. https://archive.is/jfr31
2022 – Salomone ordered the involuntary administration of psychiatric medication without allowing the defendant to first testify on his own behalf. In addition, she also imposed a seemingly arbitrary time of 90 minutes for the hearing, even though the lawyers for both sides weren’t aware of the time restriction. https://archive.is/8Mbjh
Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky – I am voting YES. I didn’t find a lot on Judge Brodsky, but what I did find was favorable and her Judicial Performance Review looked good.
2026 – Judicial Performance Review https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/sites/judicialperformance/files/documents/2026%20Judge%20Elizabeth%20House%20Moulton%20Brodsky%20Survey%20Report.pdf
2024 – Brodsky allowed a defendant to call a prosecutor as a witness because the prosecutor had heard the victim’s change account of the assault. Brodsky wrote, “Defendant must be able to explore each of the named victim’s inconsistent statements as each of the inconsistent statements impact her credibility.” Her decision was ultimately overturned in the Supreme Court. https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2024/06/04/colorado-supreme-court-clarifies-when-defendants-may-call-prosecutors-as-witnesses-eeec97b6-2295-11ef-ab89-5f6b23107f2d/
Monica Haenselman – I am voting NO. I couldn’t find any articles pertaining to cases she’s ruled on, but the non-attorneys in her Judicial Performance Review gave her abysmal scores. There were only 17 non-attorneys who participated, but here are a few examples: Under “gives participants an opportunity to be heard,” she scored 1.5. “has a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear in court” scored 1.6. And for “treats participants with respect,” she received 1.9.
2026 – Judicial Performance Review https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/sites/judicialperformance/files/documents/2026%20Judge%20Monica%20O.%20Haenselman%20Survey%20Report.pdf
Zachary Ilya Malkinson – I am voting NO. I didn’t find a lot of articles about his rulings, so the performance evaluation was all I had to go on. But note that only 16 attorneys and 13 non-attorneys participated in the evaluation. Some examples: His overall fairness score was 2.8, for “Bases decisions on evidence and arguments,” he received a 2.6, and “Treats people fairly who represent themselves” was a 2.6.
2024 – Malkinson suppressed evidence in a drunk driving case because the officer did not turn on his camera until after the car was pulled over. “’Without the unrecorded observations made by the deputy, all that the court is left with is Markusen’s observation the car was driving ‘slow,'’ Malkinson wrote, adding, ‘the statutes at issue appear to be untested and there is no case law.’” https://archive.is/Hu62c#selection-2607.0-2607.240
2026 – Judicial Performance Review https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/sites/judicialperformance/files/documents/2026%20Judge%20Zachary%20Ilya%20Malkinson%20Survey%20Report.pdf
