Candidates answer

What we asked, and whom

On October 17, 2026 we e-mailed the same open question to every candidate on Colorado’s November 3 ballot for statewide office and the U.S. House whose campaign published an e-mail address: 40 candidates directly, and five party offices for the candidates without a published address. The e-mail is reproduced below as sent. We promised to publish, before November 3, the questions as sent, every answer we receive in full and unedited, and who did not answer. The reply deadline we gave was Monday, October 26.

Statuses as of October 27, 2026, the day after the reply deadline; they are updated as replies arrive. “No reply yet” means the e-mail went out and nothing came back. “Not reached” means we found no published e-mail; those candidates are listed so the gap is visible, not as a judgment.

U.S. Senate

Governor

Lieutenant Governor

Secretary of State

State Treasurer

Attorney General

U.S. House — District 1

U.S. House — District 2

U.S. House — District 3

U.S. House — District 4

U.S. House — District 5

U.S. House — District 6

U.S. House — District 7

U.S. House — District 8

Answers, in full and unedited

Adam Withrow, Unity Party, U.S. Senate. Received October 18, 2026 by e-mail. Reproduced exactly as written.

I'm actually really happy you sent this out.

Quastion 1. I just filled out my ballot two days ago, and I ended up voting not to retain all but one of the judges that were on it. I did so because the process has zero transparency and the judges themselves are not held to any standard. The only judge that I was able to confidently vote to retain was one that my wife had sat before in her time as a property manager. Because she had to bring multiple cases to the court, we had a barometer for the judge's fairness and impartiality.

In the case of all of the rest, they only allowed the bare minimum of transparency to make a truly informed decision, and that absence was sufficient data in its own right. We know that in general, the courts will side with those who appear to have the most money. I'd rather vote to remove them all than make a guess about who is truly unbiased.

Question 2. We need to either amend the state constitution or change the Colorado Revised Statutes to require absolute transparency and full disclosure of everything in any judge's life that may weigh on their rulings. The transparency section must be included in every judge's basic profile and every ruling they make. Ultimately, we need to understand fully exactly why the rulings are what they are, and we need not only the ostensible reason, but what connections, pressures, and benefits they may have weighing on their decision making processes.

Question 3. I am absolutely willing to continue this conversation in my public platform, but we need to be careful about one thing. This is not a matter that should fall under the discretion of the federal government. I am not interested in preventing Alabama from being Alabama, and I have zero interest in allowing them to prevent us from being us. We have to remember that in general, the legislative and executive branches are the meat grinder of reason. The bribery chain is too long, and the policies that emanate from it are too tainted by that. This is a matter that needs to be resolved within the State of Colorado so that it is not subject to the excessive influence of campaign donors for the major parties.

Thank you,

Adam Withrow Unity Party Candidate United States Senate

The e-mail as sent

Dear [candidate],

On Nov. 3, Colorado voters decide whether to keep 123 judges, and the state tells them to rely on its official judicial performance evaluations. The state's own 2026 reports show how little public input those evaluations rest on: - The survey goes out by email, as a link. Each judge's 2026 Survey Report lists how many people were invited and how many answered. Across seven reports we checked, 40 of 2,423 non-attorneys answered (1.7%), and they are the people who actually stood in the courtroom. Attorneys: 78 of 2,162 (3.6%). - One judge on the ballot was evaluated on 12 responses in all. Another drew no answers from the 142 non-attorneys invited. For a third, the state published no survey report at all ("Insufficient Response to Publish 2026 Survey Report"), and the commission made its recommendation without survey results. - The state publishes response counts only inside each judge's separate PDF report. We found no statewide summary of how many people took part. - In the public documents we checked, we could not find how the invitation lists are built or how many responses an evaluation needs before it goes to voters. - The surveys are run by a private firm based in Portland, Maine. The program costs about $800,000 a year (Joint Budget Committee, FY2025-26). - In the state's own 2024 voter survey, 33% said most voters have enough information to decide retention questions.

Our questions: 1. What do you think of how Colorado evaluates its judges today? 2. What, if anything, would you change? 3. Would you be willing to talk about this openly on your own channels before the election?

The same questions go to every candidate in your race. Before Nov. 3 we will publish on rateyourjudgecolorado.com, and share on our YouTube, TikTok and X channels, the questions as sent, every answer we receive in full and unedited, and the names of the candidates who did not answer. Please reply by Monday, Oct. 26 to be included.

Sources - Every 2026 evaluation and Survey Report: https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/2026-judicial-performance-evaluations-full-list - 2024 Voter Survey: https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/sites/judicialperformance/files/documents/CO%20Judicial%20Voter%20Survey%20%282024%20Election%29%20Report%20FINAL%201%208%202025.pdf

Rate Your Judge Colorado A Colorado community project — free, independent, open-source: rate judges and prosecutors, see each trial judge's appeals record hello@rateyourjudgecolorado.com · rateyourjudgecolorado.com

Every 2026 evaluation and Survey Report2024 Voter Survey (PDF)