The LWVBC March 2025 Consensus Meetings for the Proposed LWVCO Religious Freedom Position and the LWVUS Judiciary Study were held on Thursday, March 13th and Sunday, March 16th. They were hybrid meetings and there were 23 members in attendance, not counting members at both meetings twice.
Holly Monkman introduced the purpose of the meeting, reviewed League terminology, and presented the proposed religious freedom position. Jennifer Bales and Louisa Young led the discussion for the 12 consensus statements for the judiciary study.
Proposed Religious Freedom Position: Members at both meetings agreed that “religious nationalism” was not well-defined and that it could be difficult to have a widely accepted definition into the future. Members broadly agreed that the phrase “religious nationalism” distracts from the proposed position on the separation of church & state and religious freedom. Three members felt that the proposed position was not necessary & would not add to LWVCO’s ability to advocate on the issues however some of these members weren’t entirely opposed to adopting the position.
While most members generally approved of the proposed position, some edits were suggested and raised the level of member support for the position statement.
The League of Women Voters of Colorado stands for the separation of church and state, and for religious freedom founded upon individual conscience, free of social or political influence by any state or religious body; these fundamental civil rights are threatened by religious nationalism.
The First Amendment of the US Constitution reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The League of Women Voters of Colorado believes that the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment are cornerstones of our democracy.
Holly submitted LWVBC’s response to adopt the position to LWVCO on March 21st, including an email to LWVCO Advocacy Chairs with the suggested edits. The email was forwarded to the study team and their response was “The committee also wrestled with the use of the words ‘religious nationalism’. We chose to keep the language because religious nationalism is the why of the position. Without those words we really don’t have a good reason why we made this study and position.”
Judiciary Study: LWVUS provided 12 consensus statements for Local Leagues to weigh-in on. Members could express levels for consensus from strongly agree, moderately agree, moderately disagree, strongly disagree, or no consensus. Additionally, comments & feedback were recorded and were submitted to LWVUS via the survey form on March 24th.
Consensus Statements:
(1) Transparency is essential to an effective Federal Judiciary.
Strongly agree, provided that some exceptions will be necessary.
(2) Accountability is essential to an effective Federal Judiciary.
Strongly agree.
(3) Independence is essential to an effective Federal Judiciary.
Strongly agree.
(4) Ethics is essential to an effective Federal Judiciary.
Strongly agree.
(5) There should be binding universal standards of conduct for judges and Justices at all levels of the Federal courts.
Strongly agree. It was suggested that the standards should be stronger for higher courts.
(6) Court hearings, documents filed in the court, and rulings for all federal cases should be open and available to the public.
Primarily strongly agree, some members moderately agree. It was noted that the statement says “should be open,” not must be open. Members said that narrow and well-defined exceptions will be needed for sensitive information, trade secrets, national security, etc.
(7) There should be an effective enforcement mechanism for the Federal Judiciary code of ethics at all levels.
Strongly agree.
(8) An enforcement mechanism should include a process to require a judge or Justice to recuse him or herself when a reasonable litigant would believe that the judge or Justice has a bias against any party or an issue raised in the case.
Strongly agree. A revision was proposed: “...the judge or Justice has a bias for or against any party or an issue raised in the case.”
(9) A judge or Justice’s decision and rationale to recuse or not recuse should be publicly disclosed in writing.
Most strongly agree, some moderately agree.
First, it was noted that statement #9 should not result in judges or justices being required to provide non-recusal rationale for every case before the court, but rather only when recusal has been suggested. Second, an option to file rationale under seal may be necessary. Finally, there should be general principles for recusal. Principles relating to why a judge or justice decides to not recuse themselves may be more important.
(10) Federal judges and Justices should be subject to rigorous financial disclosure requirements, enforcement, and penalties for all financial benefits, including but not limited to income, gifts, paid speaking engagements, and book deals.
Strongly agree.
The statement should clarify that the penalties are not for the financial benefits, but that the penalties are for failing to disclose the financial benefits.
(11) Stability of law (stare decisis) is a value that contributes to a strong democracy.
Moderate agreement with some mild disagreement.
If the phrase “stare decisis” is removed from the statement, then members strongly agreed with the statement. For the members that are attorneys, the phrase has specific meaning while for those that aren’t attorneys that phrase is distracting. Members generally agreed that while laws may need to change as society evolves, that democracy would suffer if laws were repeatedly put in place & repealed.
(12) Public perception of the Supreme Court’s legitimacy contributes to a strong democracy.
Strongly agree.
Various revisions to the statement were suggested:
“Positive public perception of the Supreme Court’s legitimacy contributes to a strong democracy.”
“Public perception of a corruption-free, politics-free Supreme Court contributes to a strong democracy.”
“Public perception of the Supreme Court’s legitimacy or illegitimacy strongly impacts democracy.”
A thirteenth statement was suggested at the 2nd meeting:
(13) Standards for a fair process for nominating & approving judges & justices contributes to a strong democracy.
Strongly agree.
There should be guidelines for time frames to consider and vote on nominations.