(The Center Square) – A Colorado Supreme Court justice and another state appellate judge, both appearing on the Nov. 3 ballot, are facing criticism over a former official’s allegations of their failure to report a so-called “hush money” contract.
The state’s Judicial Performance Commission in August published evaluations for Justice William Hood’s and Court of Appeals Judge Grant Sullivan. The evaluations said they met the performance standards. Hood and Sullivan will appear on the general election ballot for retention – a process in which voters decide “yes” or “no” on whether a judge continues at the bench.
The former executive director of the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline, Christopher Gregory, claims the two judges knew about a controversial 2019 contract within the judicial branch and failed to report it to oversight authorities, deliberately withheld information and did not meet their professional obligations.
The Center Square requested comments from Hood and Sullivan, but did not receive a response before publication.
The contract scandal, which was previously reported in an exclusive story by The Center Square, occurred in 2019 when the former chief of staff for the state’s Judicial Administrator’s Office, Mindy Masias, was awarded a $2.66 million contract that was later rescinded due to media criticism. Christopher Ryan, the state’s chief court administrator who resigned in July 2019, alleged Masias was awarded the contract in exchange for not filing a tell-all sexual discrimination lawsuit.
Independent investigations in 2022 identified serious improprieties surrounding the contract, but they did not report evidence showing did it was a “hush money” agreement to conceal judicial misconduct.
And the judge who signed off on the contract, then-Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan Coats, was publicly censured in 2023.
In an attempt to hold officials accountable, Gregory filed a complaint on July 22, 2026 against the Judicial Performance Commission because, he said, the commission was preparing to publish judicial retention evaluations without meaningfully examining the judges’ integrity, as required by Colorado law relating to judicial performance evaluations.
Denver District Judge Bruce Jones denied the requested relief less than two weeks later, but the ruling did not determine the merits of the underlying allegations in Gregory’s verified complaint.
Former 10th Judicial District Chief Judge Dennis Maes similarly criticized Hood and Sullivan in an opinion piece, alleging they knew of the contract and failed to report misconduct to oversight authorities.
An independent investigation by Robert Troyer and Nicholas Mitchell in June 2022 found that the other justices were informed about the potential arrangement in October 2018. As well, the report confirms that the attorney general’s office received Human Resources Director Eric Brown’s memo about Masias in July 2019, nearly two years before its public release. In his memo, Brown, who worked for the Colorado Judicial Branch, said the contract shouldn’t have been rewarded because of its potential to silence Masias’ allegations of sexual discrimination.
Gregory alleged in a separate attorney misconduct complaint on Oct. 23, 2025, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for Colorado and named state Attorney General Phil Weiser and Gov. Jared Polis as respondents, that Hood was included in multiple discussions with the Colorado Supreme Court.
The 2023 disciplinary opinion from the Colorado Supreme Court concerning former Chief Justice Nathan Coats independently noted that Hood was among the Supreme Court justices who were kept informed about the proposed Masias contract, received allegations of misconduct in April 2019, and knew when the contract was publicly signed in June 2019. Whether Hood personally knew of the alleged concealment or violated an individual reporting obligation remains disputed.
Gregory’s filing also states that the 1st Assistant Attorney General LeeAnn Morrill and then-Assistant Solicitor General Grant Sullivan discussed and turned over Ryan’s copy of the Masias memo. Ryan testified against the awarding of Masias’ contract.
The Center Square reached out to the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline, to request June 2023 meeting materials from the panel’s hearing with the Supreme Court justices and inquired about whether Hood was included in any email exchanges or was aware of the meeting materials.
Anne Mangiardi, the commission’s executive director, responded to The Center Square in an email saying that the documents were confidential because they relate to the commission’s internal records. Mangiardi declined to answer The Center Square’s questions.
“The Commission can neither confirm nor deny the existence of such records or the accuracy of the information you’ve received,” Mangiardi said.
The Center Square also reached out to the Judicial Performance Commission to confirm if Hood and Sullivan knew anything about the alleged misconduct and whether those allegations were considered in their evaluation.
Bill DeLisio, the performance commission’s deputy director, told The Center Square in an email that evaluations must focus on statutory performance criteria, including integrity and on judges’ conduct during their current terms.
Justice Hood began his 10-year term in 2017, and the contract scandal occurred in 2019.
And Judge Sullivan began his term in 2024. He worked as a trial and appellate litigator for the Colorado Attorney General’s Office from 2011 to 2023. The Masias memo was published on Feb. 8, 2021, but Gregory alleges that Sullivan knew about it in 2019 while he was working in the attorney general’s office.
DeLisio confirmed that the 2022 contracting investigation and subsequent disciplinary proceedings were not considered in the judges’ 2026 evaluations, describing them as “department-level administrative matters.”
During a follow-up phone interview, DeLisio told The Center Square that the Judicial Performance Commission lacks statutory authority to independently investigate misconduct. However, he did not explain why the commission excluded findings from an already completed investigation or whether it considered their potential relevance to the judges’ individual integrity. When asked by The Center Square about those matters, DeLisio said the information was confidential under Colorado law.
The law permits performance commission to review any case management data and statistics provided by the state court administrator or the state commission. They can also interview justices and judges and accept any information or documentation from related or interested persons when necessary.
Gregory argued the two commissions failed to adequately evaluate judicial integrity.
DeLisio said the performance commission was unable to disclose whether it separately considered Gregory’s specific allegations, namely the October 2025 federal complaint against Hood and Sullivan, against the two judges’ because that information remains confidential.
This story originally appeared in The Center Square.
Continue reading...
[ H/T WorldNetDaily ]
