2026 retention · District Court · 10th Judicial District
48 percentile · rank 33 of 65
composite 0100
44 percentile · rank 60 of 108
composite 0100
14 10th percentile among peers · 12th percentile statewide
1054
Composite index 49.23 among peers (45.06 statewide): the mean of the three percentiles below. Rank orders by it.
3.30 of 4 · 67.69 percentile
2.103.80
3.32 of 4 · 66.92 percentile
2.073.82
67.00% 13.08 percentile
25.00%100.00%
Attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 67.00%
Non-attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 90.00%
| Category | Score | Peer median | Peer range (dot is this judge, line is the median) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case Management | 3.40median 3.20 | 3.20 | |
| Application and Knowledge of Law | 3.00median 3.10 | 3.10 | |
| Communications | 3.30median 3.30 | 3.30 | |
| Diligence | 3.20median 3.10 | 3.10 | |
| Demeanor | 3.60median 3.30 | 3.30 | |
| Fairness | 3.40median 3.10 | 3.10 |
| Year | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade | 3.20 | 3.40 | 3.30 | 3.30 | 3.30 | 3.40 | 3.20 |
| Responses | 83 | 43 | 34 | 35 | 28 | 20 | 13 |
Commission: meets standards Split vote 8–2
The Tenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance agrees by a vote of 8-2, that Judge Allison P. Ernst MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
Judge Ernst presides over criminal cases as well as runs the Competency Court Docket in Pueblo, County which she was instrumental in implementing. Judge demonstrated a commitment to serving individuals with mental health needs, particularly through her work on competency matters. Judge Ernst’s demeanor is described as professional, respectful, compassionate, and thoughtful. She is diligent, knowledgeable, and thorough. Judge Ernst strives to make the right decisions, uphold the law, and ensure due process. Judge Ernst is very motivated and is involved in the legal community serving on numerous judicial committees and councils. Judge Ernst’s opinions reflect her knowledge of the law and are evidence of her ongoing learning by proactively educating herself and staying well informed of changes in the law. There is some concern that the judge’s sentencing practices may, at times, be more lenient than typical for comparable cases, with outcomes leaning toward the lower end of the range in certain matters. This has raised questions about consistency and proportionality, as well as whether those decisions consistently align with the seriousness of the offense, broader considerations of public safety, and public confidence in the judicial system.
The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Ernst, reviewed opinions she authored, observed her in court, and reviewed judicial performance survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who had interaction in Judge Ernst’s court. A total of four (4) attorneys and ten (10) non attorneys responded to the judicial performance surveys expressing their opinion of Judge Ernst. The Commission found the survey responses consistent with their independent evaluations. Based on these findings a majority of the Commission agreed that Judge Ernst meets performance standards.
Judge Ernst was appointed to the District Court in December 2016. She obtained both her undergraduate and law degree from Michigan State University. Directly after law school, Judge Ernst was awarded an Equal Justice Works Fellowship with Michigan State University’s Low Income Taxpayer Clinic. She then moved to Colorado and was hired by the Colorado State Public Defender’s Office in 2005 and worked as a public defender until 2011 at which time transition to private practice until she was appointed to the District Court.
2020 retention · District Court · 10th Judicial District
32 percentile · rank 40 of 59
composite 0100
37 percentile · rank 62 of 100
composite 0100
44 63rd percentile among peers · 74th percentile statewide
1488
Composite index 33.62 among peers (37.00 statewide): the mean of the three percentiles below. Rank orders by it.
3.40 of 4 · 36.44 percentile
2.203.90
3.47 of 4 · 38.14 percentile
2.423.88
80.00% 26.27 percentile
39.00%100.00%
Attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 80.00%
Non-attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 100.00%
| Category | Score | Peer median | Peer range (dot is this judge, line is the median) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case Management | 3.20median 3.60 | 3.60 | |
| Application and Knowledge of Law | 3.40median 3.40 | 3.40 | |
| Communications | 3.40median 3.50 | 3.50 | |
| Diligence | 3.20median 3.40 | 3.40 | |
| Demeanor | 3.60median 3.60 | 3.60 | |
| Fairness | 4.00median 4.00 | 4.00 |
Commission: meets standards (9–0)
The Tenth Judicial Performance Commission unanimously (9-0) agrees that Judge Allison P. Ernst MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
Judge Ernst was appointed by Governor Hickenlooper on December 17, 2016, as a District Judge for the Tenth Judicial District. Judge Ernst has presided over dockets handling probate, domestic, mental health, civil and truancy cases. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Ernst, reviewed her judicial opinions, transcript of a hearing, performed extensive courtroom observation, interviewed local agencies and reviewed the results of the 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report. On the Survey, all surveyed groups had a sufficient result rate from those who had experience with Judge Ernst. Of the attorneys responding to the survey, 80% indicated that Judge Ernst met performance standards, 10% indicated Judge Ernst did not meet performance standards and 10% had no opinion. Of the non-attorneys, 100% indicated she met performance standards. Judge Ernst indicated that the appointment to civil cases and mental health cases were challenges as they were both areas of law she had not previously practiced. However, Judge Ernst through practical experience on the bench, extensive research of statutes and caselaw, and consulting with peers has improved in these areas of law.
Judge Ernst’s areas that garnered the most negative comments were Case Management and Diligence. Judge Ernst scored a 3.2 in both categories whereas the average score for all District Judges in Colorado in both categories was 3.4. Judge Ernst agrees that she needs to improve her timeliness on issuing orders. Judge Ernst excelled in areas of Application of Knowledge of Law (3.4 whereas the average for all Judges is 3.3), Demeanor (3.6 compared to 3.5 average) and Fairness (4.0 compared to 3.7 as an average). Attorneys and Non-Attorneys commented that Judge Ernst was respectful and patient with all participants, bright, hardworking and competent. Furthermore, it was perceived that Judge Ernst truly is concerned about the cases and the parties and wants to do a good job. Several parties commented about Judge Ernst’s positive demeanor in the courtroom. During courtroom observations, Judge Ernst was observed as “thinking outside the box” especially with regard to the truancy cases. It was clear that Judge Ernst truly cares about the students and families and strives to find ways to solve the truancy issue in a way that benefits the student, family and school. Judge Ernst is very thoughtful when dealing with pro-se parties in her courtroom and explains things in a manner that are easily understood without providing legal advice.
Judge Ernst’s professional goals are to improve her case management and to rule on motions in a timely manner. Judge Ernst has implemented methods towards this goal already by reviewing all of the pleadings prior to hearing the case in order to better understand the issues before the Court and to try to rule directly from the bench rather than entering a written order at a later date. Based on the Commission’s overall evaluation, Judge Ernst meets or exceeds performance standards.