Dina M. Christiansen

Evaluation history

• 2026 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Kit Carson · Kit Carson

  Commission vote: 8 for · 0 against

  Meets Standards
  VotersOn the November 3, 2026 ballot· Coloradans vote on this judge’s retention on November 3, 2026; the outcome will appear here after the election.
  Retention Year: 2026Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards** **Please see evaluation narrative for additional details Reports: 2026 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2025 Interim Survey Report (PDF) The State Commission on Judicial Performance thanks the volunteers of the 13th Judicial District Commission and all Commissioners of Judicial Performance for their work evaluating Colorado Judges. We appreciate the time, diligence and concern the Commissioners put into this work. We especially appreciate the understanding of local needs and challenges courts face in districts across Colorado that the Commissioners bring to their work. However, as a result of a Rule 21 Complaint and independent review, the State Commission is taking the extraordinary step of issuing its own narrative and recommendation regarding Judge Dina M. Christiansen. The State Commission is not directing the District Commission to revise their evaluation narrative but offers this narrative to provide voters additional information to consider while voting. The 13th Judicial District Commission conducted a retention election evaluation of Judge Christiansen in the spring of 2026. The District Commission concluded that Judge Christiansen did not meet performance standards and circulated a draft narrative to the judge as required by the rules. In response, Judge Christiansen submitted a Complaint under Rule 21 of the Rules Governing Commissions on Judicial Performance. In conducting an independent review, the State Commission found the District Commission had failed to complete the required “initial interim evaluation,” which is mandated by both statute and rule. The initial evaluation is an important part of Colorado’s judicial performance system. It gives a District Commission the chance to review a judge’s early work, identify concerns, and, if needed, require the judge to take part in a Judicial Improvement Plan. A Judicial Improvement Plan gives clear feedback, support, and guidance so a judge can improve before the retention year evaluation. Judge Christiansen did not receive early feedback or the opportunity for improvement through a structured plan. This left her without a fair chance to address concerns before her retention year evaluation. This failure is considered a “serious infraction of the rules and statutes,” and it requires the State Commission to issue its own narrative under Rule 21. The State Commission understands that District Commissions operate on tight timelines, and that due to time constraints, this interim review did not occur. The State Commission cannot change or reverse the District Commission’s recommendation of “Does Not Meet Performance Standards.” The State Commission issues this narrative along with the District Commission’s to provide a clear and accurate explanation of what occurred, while at the same time recognizing the concerns raised by survey respondents and the District Commission. The State Commission on Judicial Performance agrees by a vote of 8-0 with one commissioner absent and two vacancies, that Judge Dina M. Christiansen MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The State Commission also recommends that Judge Christiansen participate in a Judicial Improvement Plan to address the issues identified by survey respondents and the District Commission. This recommendation follows the State Commission’s independent review of the Rule 21 Complaint. This included interviews with Judge Christiansen, Chief Judge McGuire, and commissioners from the 13th Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance. The State Commission also reviewed Judge Christiansen’s self evaluation, several written decisions, the Colorado Supreme Court’s published opinion in In re People in Interest of G.D.M. (June 8, 2026), the judicial performance survey report, and observed courtroom proceedings. We encourage voters to explore additional resources at: Home | Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation Home. Thirteenth Judicial DistrictDistrict Court JudgeHonorable Dina M. Christiansen The 13th Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance finds that the Honorable Judge Dina M. Christiansen Does Not Meet Performance Standards. The Commission voted 5 to 2 that Judge Christiansen does not meet performance standards. The Commission currently has two vacancies, and one member of the Commission was recused. The local commission is in support of the State Commission’s narrative regarding Judge Christiansen. The commission relied on the survey results, judicial observation, Judge Christiansen submissions, the meeting with the chief judge, and the interview to reach our decision. Commissioners recognized Judge Christiansen’s commitment to professional growth, her willingness to take on complex matters, and her efforts to expand judicial services within the district, including participation in competency court initiatives. Commissioners also noted positive feedback on her interaction with children and families, as well as her stated dedication to public service. Despite these strengths, the Commission identified significant concerns related to judicial temperament, legal analysis, and courtroom management. Multiple attorneys reported that Judge Christiansen can appear rigid, dismissive, or unnecessarily confrontational during hearings, particularly in more contentious matters. Commissioners were also concerned by reports that courtroom interactions take on a personal tone. The Commission also expressed concern regarding statements indicating Judge Christiansen may place substantial reliance on the perceived credibility or reputation of attorneys appearing before her when addressing unfamiliar areas of law. Commissioners believe judicial decision must be grounded in independent legal analysis and careful application of the law to the facts presented. The Commission additionally considered concerns raised regarding rulings that appeared rushed, insufficiently researched, or unsupported by adequate legal authority. While the Commission recognizes the demands placed on a relatively new district court judge, it remains concerned that efficiency and docket management may at times be prioritized over deliberate legal analysis, the development of a complete record, and thoughtful orders supported by the law. After meeting with Judge Christiansen and reviewing the work Judge Christiansen has done over the last year and seven months, the commission has several concerns surrounding Judge Christiansen’s performance standards. Judge Christiansen received 29 survey responses (which reflects a 5.5% response rate from attorneys and a 0.39% response rate from non-attorneys) with an overall score of 2.9 out of 4. Of the survey respondents’ attorneys and non-attorneys agreed Judge Christiansen met performance standards. Judge Christiansen’s lowest score on the survey results is her application and knowledge of the law, this score was 2.7 out of 4. Judge Christiansen received her law degree from the William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and her undergraduate degree from the University of Utah. Judge Christiansen practiced primarily in domestic relations law (some criminal and probate law) from 2004 – 2019. In 2019, Judge Christiansen was hired to be a District Court Magistrate in the 8th Judicial District. She was appointed to be a District Court Judge on October 2, 2024. Since her appointment, Judge Christiansen created a statewide mandated competency court docket. Judge Dina M. Christiansen’s Response: I respectfully disagree with the commission’s narrative as it is not based on objective data contained in my 2026 evaluation showing 93% of attorneys and 82% of non-attorneys state that I DO meet performance standards.  Surveys regarding my performance directly contradict the commission’s views.  Attorneys rated my overall demeanor a 3.3 out of 4.0.  Attorneys rated me a 3.3 for giving proceedings a sense of dignity, 3.4 for addressing individuals respectfully, 3.2 in reacting to incidents in the courtroom appropriately, and a 3.3 for doing the necessary homework and being prepared.  These results are publicly available for review at www.judicialperformance.colorado.gov.

Surveys & reports

• 2026 cycle
  • 2025 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Structured scores pending

    Full numeric extraction isn’t complete for this cycle’s layout yet. Open the source PDF above for the underlying data.

  • 2026 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Structured scores pending

    Full numeric extraction isn’t complete for this cycle’s layout yet. Open the source PDF above for the underlying data.

Score cards render where the PDF extractor found numeric fields (partial is shown with “—” for missing tiles). “Read full survey text” surfaces the complete report transcription for every survey on file. Source PDFs on OJPE are always linked above for fidelity. Coverage note on Sources.

Sources

• 2026 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Aug 5, 2026