Elizabeth L. Harris

Commission: meets standards (9–0)

The State Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Judge Elizabeth L. Harris, by vote of 9-0 with one commissioner absent, and one commission vacancy, MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Colorado’s statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, and service to the legal profession and the public.

The Commission finds that her opinions are clear, well-written, and reasonably timely. At oral arguments, she is well-prepared, succinct in her questions, respectful, and seeks to draw out the issues most important to the Court’s decision-making process. Judge Harris received positive comments from lawyers about her preparation, intelligence, familiarity with the record on appeal, and knowledge of the law. Lawyers noted the length of time required for Judge Harris to issue an opinion as a weakness. Judge Harris received positive comments from fellow judges for her writing ability, her thoughtfulness and her engagement in committee work for Colorado Courts. Judges also noted Judge Harris’ timeliness in issuing decisions as a weakness. The Commission commends Judge Harris for her commitment to community service and the Court of Appeals/Supreme Court summer internship program. Such efforts beyond the daily work of the Court of Appeals demonstrate dedication to serving the legal profession and the public. In sum, the Commission finds Judge Harris to be a valuable member of the Court of Appeals.

To conduct our evaluation, the Commission interviewed Judge Harris, reviewed her self-evaluation, observed oral arguments, read a selection of her legal opinions, and considered survey responses from attorneys and judges. The Commission received survey responses from only 5 attorneys and 22 judges. Nevertheless, the Commission is confident in this opinion because 93% of responding judges and attorneys agreed, and all remaining sources of information available supported a finding that Judge Harris “Meets Performance Standards.”

Judge Harris is a graduate of Georgetown University and New York University School of Law. She began her legal career as a law clerk for the Honorable John Porfilio of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. After her clerkship, she spent five years at the Federal Public Defender’s Office in Colorado and then joined the law firm of Jacobs Chase, which was later acquired by Husch Blackwell. In 2013, she opened her own law firm where she focused on appellate litigation. She was appointed to the Colorado Court of Appeals in 2015.

State evaluation page · 2026 survey report (PDF)

Commission: meets standards Split vote 6–3

The State Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Judge Elizabeth L. Harris MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, by a vote of 6 to 3. The judicial performance standards are: integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Judge Harris joined the Colorado Court of Appeals in 2015. She received a B.A. from Georgetown University and her Juris Doctorate from New York University in 1996. She clerked for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, was a federal public defender from 1997 to 2003, and then worked in private practice. She is on the board of directors of the Colorado Women’s Bar Association Foundation, is a member of the Doyle Inn of Court, and prepares University of Denver law school students for oral argument competitions.

The Commission interviewed Judge Harris, read a selection of her legal opinions, observed her in court, reviewed her self-evaluation, and considered survey responses from attorneys and judges. One survey question asked whether Judge Harris met judicial performance standards. Of the attorneys who responded to that question, 65% answered yes, 12% answered no, and 23% had no opinion. Of the judges who responded to that question, 90% answered yes and 10% answered no. A total of 35 attorneys and 21 judges completed the survey. Judge Harris has been on the bench for nearly three years, and this is her first retention review. She received high scores for her preparation and equal treatment of parties regardless of background or ethnicity. She received low marks for making decisions based on the law and facts and also for reaching issues that need not be decided. The Commission agrees that Judge Harris at times reaches issues that she need not decide. Sometimes she unnecessarily reexamines facts and lower courts’ reasoning, which reduces her efficiency and which may create a perception that she is unfair. Lack of timeliness also has been a problem for Judge Harris, although she has shown substantial improvement. She recognizes these issues and is taking concrete steps to address these areas of concern. Judge Harris demonstrates strong writing skills, diligence, and a commitment to fairness.

State evaluation page · 2018 survey report (PDF)