PRIMARY OR CAUCUS? There has been much discussion about this issue during this presidential primary season.

Transcription

1 LEGISLATIVE LETTER LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF COLORADO 1410 Grant St., B-204, Denver, CO, May January 2, , 2012 LL#1:1 LL#8:94 PRIMARY OR CAUCUS? There has been much discussion about this issue during this presidential primary season. Colorado chose to eliminate the Primary form of selecting a presidential candidate in 2003 for budgetary purposes as much as anything. The caucus system is the responsibility of the party and thus their expense, whereas a primary election is a public expense. Due to the increased interest generated by Bernie Sanders, many new, first time voters came out to caucus in the Democratic Party. As a result, many caucus sites were surprised at the number of attendees and were unprepared. Lines were extraordinarily long, and in some cases folks simply turned around and went home without registering their choice. Often, the delays also meant that people who did get through the registration process still didn t get to express preference on matters of platform or other races. On the other hand, Republicans had chosen not to have a straw poll this year, which in this very emotional and controversial year left many in the Republican Party frustrated that they were unable to express their preference. According to Rep. Dominick Moreno, these events caused him to become a co-prime sponsor of HB 1454, the Primary Participation Act, which proposes that Colorado have a presidential primary in Rep. Dore is a co-sponsor, making it a bipartisan bill. Sen. Guzman is the Senate Sponsor. In the background are two initiative proposals (98 and 99) that would also allow for a presidential primary, open to all voters, and potentially covering other races where there is a primary. This would mean that voters in our all-mail ballot state would receive one ballot with all candidates listed confusion just waiting to happen. League supports this expansion of access to the ballot for all voters, previously affiliated or not. The bill specifically notes that caucuses could/would still be held to choose delegates to party conventions, to decide platform, and to determine preferences in other races, as the parties choose to do. It is true that both political parties are like clubs, with declared membership. In our state the breakdown of affiliating with a party is roughly 1/3 Republican, 1/3 Democrat and 1/3 unaffiliated. HB 1454 would allow a voter wishing to vote in a Legislative Letter is a publication of the League of Women Voters of Colorado for the benefit of members and subscribers. Reproduction of any kind, in whole or in part, is prohibited without written permission of the League of Women Voters of Colorado. Copyright LL#8, p. 94

2 party to temporarily declare affiliation, which would automatically revert to unaffiliated status thirty days after the Primary. Those voters would receive the ballot with the names of candidates for that specific party only. The bill also stipulates that the cost of conducting these elections would be reimbursed to the counties out of the state general fund. Granted, the issue of handling the presidential election process will not occur again for nearly three years. However, should there be a ballot issue in November, would the general public understand the ramifications of open balloting? The proposed ballot issues change statutes (not the Constitution), which allows the General Assembly to make corrections if needed, at least theoretically. But changing voter initiated measures is politically difficult (as it should be!). Having worked closely with clerks, the Secretary of State, and other elections advocates and experts for some time, we have confidence that our state elections professionals will be able to competently produce an inclusive presidential primary, should HB 1454 pass. Carol Tone Chris Watson GOVERNMENT CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES ADVANCE Three concurrent resolutions are making progress through the legislature. Concurrent resolutions refer changes in the State Constitution to the ballot in the next election. They require a 2/3 majority vote by both chambers. NEW SCR 006 No Exemption from Involuntary Servitude Prohibition (Sen. Ulibarri; Reps. Melton & Salazar) (support) The state Constitution currently prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude except for people who have been convicted of crimes and whose punishment involves work that is involuntary in other words, chain gangs. We support removing this exception so that our state Constitution would prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude without exception. The measure specifically notes that employment of prisoners which is paid (albeit very little) is not the objective of the measure. Since that work is paid, it is voluntary, and it helps prisoners to build both work and interpersonal skills that help with reentry into society upon their release. The measure passed the Senate State Affairs Committee and the Senate Floor unanimously. It has been assigned to House State Affairs Committee. NEW SCR 002 Property Tax Exemption Real Property Possessory Interests (Sen. Baumgartner; Rep. Vigil) (support) This seeks to exempt from property taxes real property valued at less than $6000 (inflation adjustments would apply going forward). League supported the measure when it lost at the ballot in 2010 based on promoting efficiency in government. The tax collected is less than the cost of collecting it. LL#8, p. 95 Both the Senate Finance and Appropriations Committees passed the measure unanimously, as did the full Senate (with Ulibarri Absent). It now heads to the House. SCR 005 Allow Counties to Appoint County Surveyors (Sen. Martinez-Humenik; Reps. Priola and Court) (support) This measure also addresses efficiency in government. The position of County Surveyor may not be needed in all counties. If it is, County Commissioners should be able to determine the need and appoint someone who has the requisite skills. In Senate Local Government Committee, testimony in favor noted that counties have different needs and must address those needs in different ways, often involving hiring a professional as deputy surveyor. Thus, the ability of counties to determine what is best, including electing surveyors, is efficient. Testimony in opposition noted that not many people understand the issues, including the voters who would vote on changing the Constitution. A vote of sent SCR 005 to the floor. Voting Yes: Martinez-Humenik, Tate, Crowder, and Marble. Voting No: Donovan and Kefalas. Excused: Ulibarri. All reported by Christine Watson ELECTIONS TRANSPARENCY IN SCHOOL BOARD CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS While the effort to put caps on school board campaign funding (HB 1140 Campaign Cont. Limits for School Dist. Dir. Elections sponsored by Reps. Court & Pabon; None) died a quick death in the House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee, the other attempt to at least provide transparency in the funding of school board elections, has had a less difficult path. HB

3 1282 Align Regular Biennial School Elections & FCPA (Reps. K. Becker & Pettersen; Sens. Todd & Tate) (support) passed through Senate State, Military, and Veterans Affairs on April 25 on a vote (Ulibarri excused) to Senate Appropriations, where it passed unanimously on to the Senate on April 29. In the State Affairs hearing, Suzanne Staiert, Deputy Secretary of State, stated that no one imagined the amounts of money that have in recent years come into local school board races. Because the deadlines for reporting campaign contributions from independent expenditures committees in odd year elections only require quarterly reports, final report deadlines fall after elections are over. Although the major concern has been in large districts like Denver and Jefferson County, there are issues elsewhere. School board member Roger Good testified that in Steamboat Springs, while the average amount spent on school board elections has been around $2,000, a recent election brought in a $40,000 out-ofdistrict donation that was not reported until 73 days after the election. The bill will be heard on 3 rd Reading in the Senate on Monday, May 2. Previously reported: LL#6, p. 68; LL#7, p. 83. Sally Augden HB 1300 Mail Ballot Return Options Reqmnts & Procedure (Rep. Ryden; Sen. Ulibarri and Donovan) (support) would have given counties authority to determine the placement of additional stand-alone drop boxes and would have required the Secretary of State s office to provide HAVA funds to purchase one secure 24-hour drop box for each county, unless a county requested not to receive a 24-hour box. In addition, the bill would have removed the requirement that voters pay for postage when returning their mail ballots. It would have allowed each county to work with the United State Postal Service to determine efficient procedures for the delivery of mail ballot return envelopes, including those with insufficient or no postage. The bill passed the House on a vote of on April 18 th but was Postponed Indefinitely by Senate State Affairs on April 27. Those voting to PI the bill were Scott, Hill and Sonnenberg. Those opposed were Ulibarri and Jones. Previously reported: LL#4, p. 39; LL#7, p. 82. Both reported by Elizabeth Steele House Vote on HB 1300 MORE ELECTION BILLS SB 142 Miscellaneous Updates to Elections Laws (Sen. Scott, Rep. Ryden) (support) was passed unanimously by the House State Affairs committee on April 20. As Rep. Ryden summed it up, Good bill, vote yes. And so the committee did. The Appropriations Committee passed the bill 11-2 (Everett and Joshi voting No). The bill passed Third Reading on April 29 th 58-7 and is on its way to the Governor. Previously reported: LL#5, p. 54; LL#7, p. 83. House Vote on SB 142 CUTBACK ON POLLING CENTERS PI D SB 112 Voter Service & Polling Centers for Early Voting (Sen. Tate; Rep. Wist) (oppose) Originally the League was in favor of the bill, as we support the concept of cutting back on VSPCs in the first week of early voting. In the last election the centers were underutilized during that early period, rendering them expensive for the counties both from the standpoint of personnel and space rental. We are aware, however, that this system has not been in effect through a presidential election. With what appears to be an increased interest in voting in the upcoming election and the problems in other states during this primary season, the League does not support cutting LL#8, p. 96

4 back VSPCs until this election cycle is evaluated. Therefore, we changed our position on this bill for It was heard in House State Affairs on April 20 th with Foote, Lontine, Primavera, Ryden and Tyler voting to defeat the bill while Humphrey, Leonard, Neville, and Wist were in support. Previously reported: LL#2, p. 15; LL#3, p. 28; LL#4 p. 40. Carol Tone Leonard, P. Neville, and Wist. On April 22, House Appropriations moved the bill to the House Committee of the Whole on a vote of 7-6, with Yes votes from McCann, Pabon, Pettersen, Singer, Winter, Hamner, and Young. Voting No: J. Becker, Dore, Everett, Joshi, Rankin, and Wilson. The bill passed the full House on Third Reading on April 25 by a vote of In the Senate, the bill has been assigned to State Affairs with a hearing scheduled on May 2, House Vote JUDGES IN CAMPAIGN FINANCE CASES SB 106 Administration of Laws Governing Campaign Finance (Sen. Holbert; Rep. Salazar) (support) With amendments stating more precisely the education requirements for ALJ s appointed by the Secretary of State to handle campaign finance cases, this bill arrived in House State Affairs with no opposition. At a hearing of April 20, those testifying in favor of the amended bill included Colorado Ethics Watch and Common Cause. The vote to move the measure to House Appropriations was 8-1 with only Humphrey voting No. The vote in House Appropriations on April 26 was 12-1, with Everett voting No. On April 29, the bill passed the House on Third Reading by a vote of Voting No: Buck, Everett, Humphrey, Lundeen, Ransom, and Saine. Because of House amendments, the bill will return to the Senate for concurrence. Previously reported: LL#6, p. 67. ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATION NEW HB 1434 Disclosure Political Party Communication Activity (Rep. K. Becker & Kagan; None) (support) defines in the Fair Campaign Practices Act a type of electioneering communication aimed at political parties and requiring the same disclosure at the same level of expenditure as similar communications on behalf of candidates or issues. If such a party communication activity is coordinated with a political party, both the ad sponsor and the party must disclose the expenditure. The bill is characterized as expanding disclosure and transparency regarding campaign spending beyond current law, always favored by League. With an amendment to clarify the requirement that the payer be named in the communication, the bill moved from House State Affairs to House Appropriations on a vote of 5-4. Voting Yes were Foote, Lontine, Primavera, Ryden, and Tyler. Voting No: Humphrey, SMALL ISSUE COMMITTEES REVISITED NEW SB 186 Small-scale Issue Committees (Sen. Tate; Rep. Lontine) (support) In response to a federal court case and specific remarks by a federal judge in a written opinion promising an award of attorney s fees in future similar cases, this bill provides an interim solution to reporting requirements for certain issue committees. The bill defines a small-scale issue committee as one that has accepted or made contributions or expenditures not exceeding $5,000 during an election cycle. If such a committee collects or spends not more than $200, no disclosure is required. Between $200 and $5000, only registration is required, but when the amount exceeds $5,000, full disclosure is required, including the names of contributors for amounts between $200 and $5,000. Additional provisions group committees on the same issue together to prevent a number of committees spending $4,999. As an interim solution, the law will sunset in June, A hearing in Senate State Affairs resulted in a vote of 3-1 to advance the measure to Appropriations. With Senator Ulibarri excused and Jones voting No, the Yes votes were Hill, Sonnenberg, and Scott. On April 29, the amended bill passed from Senate Appropriations to the Senate Committee of the Whole on a unanimous vote, 7-0. All three reported by Fern Black LL#8, p. 97

5 FISCAL POLICY House Vote on 1450 USING FUNDS EFFICIENTLY A month after passing out of House Appropriations Committee, HB 1420, the CHASE Act, Colorado Healthcare Affordability and Sustainability Enterprise (Rep. Hullinghorst; Sen. Crowder) (support) passed Third Reading in the House on April 20. The vote was This bill would establish the hospital provider fee as an enterprise, allowing it to be a sustained source of funds for health care for the indigent (as it pulls down federal funds), and removing those funds from TABOR revenue cap. Previously reported: LL#6, p. 66. House Vote on 1420 NEW An accompanying bill also passed Third Reading: HB 1450 Allocate Additional Available State Revenues (Rep. Hullinghorst; Sens. Steadman and Guzman) (watch). If HB 1420 passes, and if there might otherwise have been a TABOR refund in , HB 1450 allocates about $157 million to the Highway Users Trust Fund, the Severance Tax Trust Fund, Reduction of Negative Factor in School Finance, and the College Opportunity Fund to offset tuition at state schools. The transfers are dependent upon the December, 2016, revenue estimate and will be adjusted with funding prioritized as listed. Subsequent years will have different allocations. This bill essentially replaces HB 1421 Allocate Addition FY Gen Fund Revenue (Rep. Hullinghorst) (support) as a vehicle for directing potential additional funds if HB 1420 passes. HB 1421 passed Second Reading in the House on April 28, but cannot go forward without a Senate sponsor. HB 1450 passed Third Reading in the House on April 29 by a vote of Carol Pace Chris Watson ONE YEAR STOP-GAP SB 167 Reduction in Severance Tax Operational Fund Reserve (Sen. Grantham; Rep. Rankin) (watch) has passed the House with no amendments. It is the means by which a portion of the severance tax reserve fund will be used for the General Fund, by reducing the reserve fund by $2.98 million during the fiscal year. The Tier 1 programs support ongoing operational expenses for agencies in the Department of Natural Resources and Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. This is a way to finance projects that are beneficial to the state and its residents. It passed the House on 3 rd Reading on April 18, Previously reported: LL#7, p. 83. House Vote RETAINING SEVERANCE TAX REVENUES DIES HB 1433 Retain & Spend Severance Tax Revenues for Reserve Fund (Reps. Hamner & Rankin; Sen. Steadman) (watch) would have asked the voters to allow the creation of a new Severance Tax Reserve Fund that would cap the total amount of severance tax receipts presently deposited in the Severance Tax Trust Fund. It LL#8, p. 98

6 was heard in House Finance on April 27, and Rep. Rankin asked the committee to PI the bill as more work needed to be done to address the allotments given to the counties with severance tax monies. It is becoming more obvious that there are limitations in the budget and a need for resources to address the needs of Colorado citizens. The committee was glad this was brought forward and looks forward to it next session. The sponsors promised to bring such a bill forward for the next session. Upon the sponsor s request, the bill was unanimously PI d. Previously reported: LL #7, p. 83. SB 176 No Governor s Authority Over Firearms in Emergencies (Sen. T. Neville; Rep P. Neville) (oppose) The bill, now a six-time loser, was passed in the Senate on April 19 by an vote (one excused) and sent to House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs to be heard on April 25. Voting to PI: Ryden, Lontine, Foote, Primavera, and Tyler. Voting No: Humphrey, Leonard, P. Neville, and Wist. Previously reported LL#7, p. 84. All reported by Jean Grattet Senate Vote on SB 144 Both reported by Jeannette Hillery GUN SAFETY GUN BILLS DEFEATED The following firearms bills were scheduled 6, 7, and 8 on the agenda for House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs on Monday, April 25. On Tuesday by 12:20 A.M., the committee had voted to Postpone Indefinitely all the bills and adjourned. SB 144 CCW Permits for Military Personnel (Sen. Cooke; Rep Sias) (oppose) allowed 18 year olds serving in the military or National Guard to receive permits for concealed carry. After passing the Senate, SB 144 was assigned to House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs where a similar bill had already been defeated once this session to be defeated 5-4 again. Voting to PI: Ryden, and Lontine, Foote, Primavera, Tyler. Voting No: Humphrey, Leonard, P. Neville, and Wist Previously reported: LL#5, p. 56; LL#6, p. 68, LL#7, p. 84. SB 113 Repeal Large Ammo Magazine Ban (Sen. Marble; Reps. Saine & Humphrey) (oppose) Having passed the Senate (two excused), was sent to House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs where the identical bill, HB 1024, had already been PI d this session. Voting to PI: Ryden, Lontine, Foote, Primavera, and Tyler. Voting No: Humphrey, Leonard, P. Neville, and Wist Previously reported: LL#2, p, 17; LL#6, p. 68; LL#7, p. 84. Senate Vote on SB 113 Senate Vote on SB 176 JUSTICE SYSTEM RESTITUTION SLIGHTLY IMPROVED SB 065 Restitution in Criminal Cases (Sen. Steadman; Rep. Lee) (support) This bill would have reduced the interest on unpaid criminal restitution from 12% to 3% and also stated that interest would not accrue while a defendant is incarcerated or is current on a payment plan. This is supported by the Colorado League position to promote redirection by providing incentives to cope with societal demands. It was amended in the Senate Judiciary Committee by a strike below to make the interest rate 8% and retain the accrual while the offender was incarcerated. After passing the Senate, it was sent to the House Judiciary Committee where it was amended to allow the restitution obligation to be canceled upon proof of the death of the offender. The vote was with Lawrence being the only No vote and Kagan being absent. This amended LL#8, p. 99

7 bill then passed the House and was sent back to the Senate where they concurred with the amendment and then re-passed it. It awaits the Governor's signature. Previously reported: LL#6, p. 69; LL#7, p. 86. Jean Fredlund SPECIAL D.O.C. PROGRAM MOVES FORWARD SB 180 DOC Program for Juvenile Offenders (Sens. Woods & Jahn; Reps. Kagan & Dore) (support) requires the Department of Corrections to create and implement a program for offenders who were sentenced to adult prison for a felony offense they committed while a juvenile. It was heard in Senate Judiciary on April 20 and passed out of committee to Appropriations by a vote of 3-2 in spite of opposition from the District Attorneys. Voting Yes: Sens. Aguilar, Lundberg, and Merrifield. Voting No: Sens. Cooke and Roberts. In committee, the bill was amended to make sex offenders and seriously mentally ill offenders ineligible for the program. In addition, there were amendments to: Allow DOC to make restorative justice practices available to any victim of any offender who applies to the program but only at the victim s request. Require an offender to complete at least 3 years in the program before petitioning for early parole. Not allow an offender who was terminated from the program to re-petition for placement in the program sooner than 3 years from the date of termination. Give victims the right to be heard at the hearing regarding granting of early parole for an offender. On April 29, the bill passed out of Senate Appropriations to the floor by a vote of 6-1. Voting Yes: Sens. Garcia, Hodge, Steadman, Woods, Lambert, and Grantham. Voting No: Sen. Sonnenberg. It has a fiscal impact of $110,161 and.8 FTE for F/Y and $226,725 and 2.7 FTE for F/Y Previously reported: LL#7, p. 85. Carla Bennett JUVENILE JUSTICE JUVENILE LIFE SENTENCE REFORM SB 181 Sentencing Juveniles Convicted of Class 1 Felonies (Sens. Woods & Jahn; Reps. Kagan & Dore) (support) creates a procedure for resentencing the 47 offenders who are currently serving the unconstitutional sentence of mandatory life in prison without the possibility of parole. The bill passed out of Senate Judiciary on April 20 by a vote of 3-2 after being amended. Voting Yes: Sens. Aguilar, Lundberg, and Merrifield. Voting No: Sens. Cooke and Roberts. The hearing was lengthy with passionate testimony from both opponents and supporters. The District Attorneys and many family members who had lost loved ones testified against the bill. Those speaking in support of the bill included juvenile defense attorneys, family members of some of the offenders, and one mother whose three year old son had been killed by one of the 47 offenders. She participated in the restorative justice process and met with the young man who killed her son. She now advocates on behalf of the offenders who have turned their lives around while in prison. The bill was amended to try to address the concerns of the DAs and the victim s families. As originally written, the bill offered two resentencing options. The first was life in prison with the possibility of parole after 40 years less any earned time. The other was a determinate sentence within the range of 24 to 48 years less any earned time. In choosing between these options the judge was to consider certain mitigating factors. The bill was amended to increase the determinate sentence range to 30 to 50 years and to limit eligibility for that sentence to only those offenders who were convicted of felony murder or of being complicit in the murder. These are offenders who did not actually commit the murderous act but were involved in the crime. Those offenders who actually committed the murder would be sentenced to mandatory life with the possibility of parole after 40 years less earned time. It was also amended to require the judge to consider the impact of the crime on the victim and the immediate family when choosing between the two sentencing options. The bill now awaits 2 nd Reading in the Senate, and there are ongoing negotiations to try to arrive at a compromise that everyone can live with. However, that is proving to be difficult. LL#8, p. 100 If this bill does not pass, the current unconstitutional sentence will by default be changed to mandatory life in

8 prison with the possibility of parole after 40 years. That will leave us with a sentence that keeps those offenders who have taken responsibility for their actions, have worked to turn their lives around, and have grown up to be a different person from who they were when they committed their crime and are no longer a danger to the community in prison at great expense to the community. It also deprives us of what they can contribute to the community they harmed. There was testimony that some would like to work with young people to encourage them to stay on a positive life path. Previously reported: LL#7, p. 84. RESTRAINT AND SECLUSION HB 1328 Use of Restraint and Seclusion on Individuals (Reps. Lee & McCann; None) (support) was finally heard in House Judiciary on April on April 1. It was amended and then passed out of Judiciary to Appropriations where it is waiting to be scheduled. The vote was 6-5. Voting Yes: Reps. Court, Foote, Melton, Salazar, Lee, and Kagan. Voting No: Reps. Carver, Dore, Lawrence, Lundeen, and Willett. The bill was amended to remove some of the prescriptive language that drove a large fiscal impact. For example, a mental health professional no longer needs to see a youth within one hour of being placed in seclusion. The original fiscal impact was $1,220,820 for FY and $1,119,900 for FY The revised fiscal note is $105,820 for FY and $4,900 for FY As amended, the bill still imposes requirements for reporting and documenting each case of a youth being placed in seclusion even when the seclusion is for administrative purposes such as shift changes and shower time. Representatives from the Department of Human Services and the Division of Youth Corrections (DYC) spoke in opposition to the bill, and their objections seemed to be focused on the reporting requirements. They claim all the reporting and documentation requirements create an undue burden. They also appear to believe that because DYC has already significantly reduced the use of seclusion as a matter of policy, a statutory change is not necessary. However, we would argue that transparency is important particularly in situations where the state takes over the parental role as happens when a youth is placed in the custody of DYC. We applaud DYC for the changes it has made regarding seclusion; however, we believe the changes in statute are necessary so that the progress that has been made cannot be reversed in the future. Previously reported: LL#4, p. 41. ANTI-SHACKLING BILL DEFEATED HB 1331 Policies on Juvenile Shackling in Court (Rep. Lontine; Sen. Merrifield) (support) created a presumption that youth would not be shackled in juvenile court unless the court determined that it was necessary. It passed 3 rd Reading in the House on April 7 by a vote of It was heard in Senate Judiciary on April 18 where it was PI d. The bill had been amended on 2 nd Reading in the House and by another amendment in Senate Judiciary to require that shackles be used if the juvenile is being held for a class 1 or class 2 felony, a crime of violence, or escape, or attempted escape unless the court determines that the shackles are unnecessary. These amendments addressed the concerns of the sheriffs, and they took a neutral position on the bill as amended. No one spoke in opposition to the bill. Nevertheless, the bill was PI d by a vote of 3 to 2. Voting to PI: Sens. Cooke, Lundberg, and Roberts. Voting No: Sens. Aguilar and Merrifield. It is unfortunate that the bill did not go forward. While much progress has been made and fewer youth are being shackled thanks to a directive from the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, we continue to have inconsistent policies across the state. Whether or not a youth is shackled, who makes the decision, and whether or not the youth and/or their lawyer has a right to be heard regarding the decision depends on where the case is being heard. The League supports a juvenile justice system that is fair, and this inconsistency does not promote fairness. Continued work is needed. Previously reported: LL#5, p. 57; LL#6, p. 70; LL#7, p. 86. All reported by Carla Bennett VOTING RIGHTS PHOTO ID DID NOT DEVELOP SB 83 Government-issued Photo ID for Voting (Sen. Baumgardner, Rep. Joshi) (oppose) was finally Postponed Indefinitely on April 20 by the House State Affairs committee. Those voting to Postpone Indefinitely were Ryden, Lontine, Foote, Primavera and Tyler, while those opposing were Humphrey, Leonard, Neville and Wist. This was the last pending bill of the session that would have required photo ID, and it has now been defeated. Previously reported: LL#2, p. 18; LL#4, p. 42; LL#5, p. 58. Elizabeth Steele LL#8, p. 101

9 ENERGY NATURAL RESOURCES CONSIDERING THE COST OF CARBON NEW HB 1441 PUC Consider Full Cost Carbon for Elec Generation (Rep. Tyler; Sen. Jones) (support) requires the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to consider the costs of greenhouse gas emissions and the present and future costs associated with the emission of greenhouse gases based on the cost of carbon when considering the authorization of an electric resource plan (ERP). The requirement will apply to the two rateregulated utilities, Xcel and Black Hills Colorado Electric. The current statute states that the when considering a utility proposal for electric resource planning, the PUC may give consideration to the likelihood of new environmental regulations concerning greenhouse gas emissions and both the present and future costs associated with the emission of greenhouse gases. The bill changes the may to shall. The bill further requires the PUC to annually determine the cost per ton of greenhouse gas emissions based on a review of the most appropriate national and regional carbon markets for Colorado. ERPs must then take into account the cost of greenhouse gas emissions based on this determination. The bill was heard on April 27 in the House Transportation and Energy Committee and passed to Appropriations on a 7-6 vote. (Voting Yes: Esgar, Kraft-Tharp, Melton, Moreno, Winter, Mitsch Bush, and Tyler. Voting No: J. Becker, Buck, Carver, Coram, P Neville, and Nordberg.) Sigrid Higdon ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TAX CREDITS FOR CLEAN VEHICLES HB 1332 Alternative Motor Vehicle Income Tax Credits (Reps. Duran & Rankin; Sens. Scott & Johnston) (support) This bill contains tax credits by years for , for new low emission vehicles purchased in Colorado. This bill passed the House Appropriations Committee unanimously on April 22. It passed Third Reading in the House on April 25 with only Rep. Klingenschmitt voting No. It was introduced in the Senate, assigned to Finance & Appropriations on April 25. The bill was then heard in the Senate Finance Committee where it passed with a 5-0 vote and was amended on April 28. It was referred to Appropriations and awaits a hearing not yet scheduled. Previously reported: LL#5, p. 58; LL#6, p. 70; LL#7, p. 87. RATEPAYER PROTECTION KILLED SB 61 Ratepayer Protection Carbon Dioxide Increased Cost (Sen. Cooke & Sonnenberg; Rep. Dore) (oppose) This bill would have established a new fund called the Ratepayer Protection Program. State funds would have covered electricity cost-differences to energy customers in the event rates rose due to greenhouse gas emission reductions. The bill was heard April 27 in House Transportation and Energy and was Postponed Indefinitely on a vote of 7-6. Previously reported: LL#5, p. 58; LL#6, p. 71; LL#7, p. 87. CLEAN POWER SUPPORTED SB 157 Don't Implement the Clean Power Plan Until the Stay is Lifted. (Sen. Cooke & Sonnenberg; Rep. Dore) (oppose) This bill would have required the Air Quality Control Commission and the Division of Administration in the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to suspend work on the Colorado Clean Power Plan. The budget for the AQCC has already been trimmed a bit (in the Long Bill) to reflect a somewhat reduced workload for not having to develop Colorado s plan. Fortunately, Colorado has a robust air quality program, so these challenges will should not be harmful to the Division s core work. The bill was heard on April 27 in the House Transportation & Energy Committee. It was Postponed Indefinitely with a 7-6 vote. Voting to PI: Esgar, Kraft- Tharp, Melton, Moreno, Winter, Mitsch Bush, and Tyler. Voting Not to PI: J. Becker, Buck, Carver, Coram, P. Neville, and Nordberg. Previously reported: LL#6, p. 70. All reported by Amy Sherwood LL#8, p. 102

10 SOCIAL POLICY CHILDREN S ISSUES TASK FORCE BILL ADVANCES HB 1377 Task Force Digital Images of Child Abuse Neglect (Rep. Primavera; Sen. Lambert) (support) creates a task force to examine our current system for collecting, documenting, and securing digital images taken as evidence of child abuse/neglect. On April 20, the bill passed unanimously out of Senate Health and Human Services. It was amended to specify some specific issues that the task force should study and make recommendations for. The bill is scheduled for 2 nd Reading on April 28. Previously reported: LL#5, p. 59; LL#6, p. 72. A FOUR-YEAR PROCESS For four years, Colorado legislators have been working to modify the definition of child abuse or neglect in ways that recognize the behavioral changes that have occurred relating to the use of substances. The legalization of the use of marijuana in our state was the impetus for this work which has involved a large and varied group of stakeholders. This issue has turned out to be very complicated. The goal has been to define when substance use or exposure rises to the level of child abuse or neglect and to strike a balance between protecting children and not unnecessarily interfering in families lives. NEW HB 1385 Definition Child Abuse Substance Exposure (Rep. Singer; Sen. Newell) (support) is another attempt to address this issue. The bill was heard in House Public Health Care and Human Services on April 26 where it was amended by a strike-below amendment and then passed out of committee to Appropriations where it is waiting to be scheduled for a hearing. Voting Yes: Reps. Danielson, Ginal, Moreno, Pettersen, Tyler, Singer, and Primavera. Voting No: Reps. Conti, Everett, Joshi, Landgraf, Leonard, and Windholz. The bill as amended: Defines child abuse or neglect as any case in which substance use or exposure threatens or results in harm to the child s health or welfare under specified circumstances. Defines child abuse or neglect as any case in which a child tests positive at birth for an exposure to alcohol or for a controlled substance unless the mother is taking the substance lawfully and is being monitored by a LL#8, p. 103 licensed health care provider who is aware of her substance use. Specifies that a county department shall not determine a child to be abused or neglected based solely on the child testing positive at birth for a substance that is legal under Colorado law. Requires the State Department of Human Services to promulgate and adopt rules to improve the consistent implementation of the new definition of abuse; to collect and report data on the use of the new definition and include the data as part of its State Measurement for Accountable, Responsive, and Transparent (SMART ACT) Government Act. There is a fiscal impact of $16,600 for F/Y and an ongoing workload increase and potential expenditure increase in future years. Rep. Singer worked hard with all the stakeholders to come up with a bill that is an improvement over our current definition. There was opposition to the bill from some who felt the bill was still not where it should be. However, though this bill may not give everyone everything they want, it is definitely an improvement over our current statute that is not specific enough and has led to caseworkers overreacting in some situations and underreacting in others. Although this is complex, it may be best to pass an imperfect bill and tweak it later rather than continue on with our current statute that is even more imperfect. Both reported by Carla Bennett EDUCATION SCHOOL FINANCE; NEVER ENOUGH The school finance act, HB 1422 Financing Public Schools (Reps. Hamner & Rankin; Sens. Lambert & Steadman) (watch), finally got its hearing in Senate Education on April 28. The bill was passed to Senate Appropriations on a 7-2 vote (Sens. Neville and Woods voting No). Testimony and discussion in committee centered on rural districts and their continuing issues with scant resources. Douglas Bisonet, Superintendent of Elizabeth schools, pointed out that rural teachers salaries rank in the bottom 10% of state teacher salaries and they have a 22% turnover rate in staff. Also at issue are districts with heavy oil and gas revenues and their ups and downs related to the fluctuations of the industry. The good news is that increases in the negative factor are being held at bay for at least another year. The bill is not yet calendared for Senate Appropriations. Previously reported: LL#6, p. 73; LL#7, p. 88.

11 SEEKING & KEEPING RURAL TEACHERS SB 104 Incentives to Build Number of Rural Teachers (Sen. Todd; Rep. J. Becker) (support) passed out of Senate Appropriations on April 27 on a unanimous vote and on April 29 passed the Senate on Second Reading. It is scheduled for 3 rd Reading in the Senate on Monday, May 2. Amendments to the bill included charter schools and Institute Charter Schools within rural districts and placed a cap on stipends for teachers (40 yearly not to exceed $2,800). Total yearly cost of the program will be $441,095. Previously reported: LL#3, p. 32; LL#4, p. 45; LL#5, p. 60. TAX CREDITS FOR PRIVATE SCHOOLS SB 154 Tax Credits for Nonpublic Education (Sen. Lundberg; Rep. Ransom) (oppose) will be heard in House Education Committee on Monday, May 2. It passed Senate Appropriations on April 15 on a 4-3 vote with no discussion. Voting Yes: Sonnenberg, Woods, Lambert, and Grantham. Voting No: Garcia, Hodge, and Steadman. The Senate vote on April 26 was Previously reported: LL#5, p. 59; LL#6, p. 74; LL#7, p. 88. Senate Vote transparency and oversight. These schools like to claim they are public (and certainly take public funds), but want to behave as though private. Virtually no testimony has focused on 187, for or against, leaving legislators with little information upon which to base their votes on these issues. It is simply too late in the session to insert a bill with so many moving parts and expect effective results. The number of bills still to be resolved makes it very difficult to give serious consideration to new, complex policy. Testimony supporting SB 188 (which would require districts to share mill levy overrides) in Senate Education on April 21 came largely from charter schools in districts that already share mill levy revenues with charters. The objections came from district superintendents and school board members concerned about flexibility and local control. Senator Merrifield highlighted the equity issues with multiple amendments: one was to require Charter School Institute schools receiving these funds to be required to hire only licensed teachers as are district schools; another would have eliminated the 17 automatic waivers from district and contract rules that charter schools receive; and another would have required charter schools to post on their websites the funds they receive in gifts, grants and donations and require that the charters share with district schools. (Since 2010, $82 million in federal funds have gone to Colorado charter schools, along with millions of dollars in donations from groups like the Gates Foundation.) The latter amendment (all failed) initiated a debate about equity vs. equality and some comments about socialism. CHARTER SCHOOLS CHANGES The tandem charter school bills SB 188 Access to Resources for Charter Schools (Sen. Hill; Reps. Williams and Sias)(oppose) and NEW SB 187 Measures Affecting Charter Schools (Sen. Hill; Reps. Williams and Sias) (oppose) will finally be heard in 2 nd Reading in the Senate on Monday, May 2. The League opposes SB 187 on largely technical grounds. Both bills have been heard together throughout the process so far. SB 188 has attracted the most attention, overshadowing the multiple elements in 187. We have concerns about SB 187 s features limiting the time the state board has to consider applications to regain exclusive chartering authority, allowing governing boards of institute charter schools to evade the open meetings law, and grouping all schools in a network to be audited together rather than individually. On the surface, it appears to be an attempt to evade LL#8, p. 104 There is question about the timing of this bill in accordance with having enough accurate information. According to Chalkbeat Colorado: A 2014 law required the Department of Education to compile a detailed report on sharing of override revenues. The department is in the final stages of compiling that study. But Associate Commissioner Leanne Emm said last week that the document won t be ready until mid-may. Lawmakers have to adjourn no later than May 11. SB 188 seems a bit premature, given that important data is not yet available. Previously reported (SB 188): LL#7, p. 89. All reported by Sally Augden

12 HIGHER EDUCATION PILOT PROGRAM SUPPORTED HB 1196 Aspire to College Colorado Pilot Program (Reps. Pettersen & Rankin; Sen. Johnston) (support) This bill creates the Aspire to College pilot program within the Department of Human Services (DHS). DHS would make the initial donation of $50 for each student into the college savings account for up to 2,000 lowincome, pre-school-age children for one year. State expenditures of the program would be up to $100,000 for with the moneys not spent returned to the General Fund at the end of the year. The bill passed the House on Third Reading on April 18 by a vote of The bill was then introduced in the Senate on April 18 and assigned to State, Veterans, & Military Affairs. The Committee will hear the bill on May 2 at 1:30 p.m. Previously reported: LL#3, p. 27; LL#4, p. 48; LL#7, p. 90. Barbara Whinery House Vote against it, and the bill failed. Interestingly, opposition came from the Colorado Association of School Boards, the Northern Colorado Legislative Alliance, and the Colorado Bankers Association. The vote: Previously Reported LL#2, p. 21; LL# 5, p. 74; LL#7, p. 89. Christine Watson Senate Vote INCOME ASSISTANCE PROTECTING VICTIMS HB 1227 Exemptions Child Support Reqmnts Child Care Assist (Reps. Kagan and DelGrosso; Sens. Hill and Crowder) (support) allows victims of abuse and rape to receive Child Care Assistance without pursuing child support from the perpetrator. It also exempts teen parents, since the extra burden has been shown to cause higher dropout rates. The Senate Health and Human Services Committee voted unanimously to send the bill to Appropriations with no amendments. The Appropriations Committee voted 5-2 to send it unamended to the full Senate. Voting No: Sonnenberg and Lambert. The bill passed Third Reading in the Senate on April 29 unanimously, with Ulibarri absent. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PAY REMAINS OPAQUE HB 1156 Extend Pay Transparency Protection All Employees (Reps. Danielson and Salazar; Sens. Donovan and Heath) (support) Colorado s wage transparency law prohibits employers from taking adverse actions against employees who discuss their wages with others. Currently, the law does not cover government employees, agricultural laborers, independent contractors, and supervisors (with limited exceptions). That will have to be the case for now. After the Senate State Affairs Committee passed the bill unanimously and after it passed Second Reading in the Senate, the majority members of the State Affairs Committee, who had supported this harmless bill, voted Previously reported: LL #2, p. 24; LL #6, p. 75, LL #7, p. 90. ARRESTS AND EMPLOYMENT HB 1388 Employer Hiring Criminal History Employee (Rep. McCann; Merrifield & Guzman) (support) is part of the reentry effort for people with criminal records to establish stable living situations with jobs, housing, and behavioral health care if needed. Job announcements could not say that a person with a criminal history may not apply, and initial job application forms could not ask about arrests or convictions. The question could be raised once an applicant has been determined to be qualified and offered an interview or conditional offer of employment. Many organizations representing business object to the bill, although it doesn t say businesses have to hire LL#8, p. 105

13 people with criminal records, it just asks them to take an extra minute to look at people s qualifications and experience. Previously reported: LL#1, p. 12; LL#2, p. 23. House Vote The Judiciary committee voted 6-5 to send the bill on to Appropriations. Voting Yes: Court, Foote, Melton, Salazar, Lee, and Kagan. Voting No: Carver, Dore, Lawrence, Lundeen, and Willett. The Appropriations committee sent the bill to the full House on a vote of 7-6. Voting Yes: McCann, Pabon, Pettersen, Singer, Winter, Hamner and Young. Voting No: Becker J, Dore, Everett, Joshi, Rankin, Wilson. It passed the House on Third Reading on April 27, on a vote of 35-29, with 1 excused. The bill has been assigned to the State, Veterans and Military Affairs committee, where a hearing is scheduled on May 4. Previously reported: LL#5, p. 62. House Vote All reported by Julie Leonard REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM ULTRASOUND BILL PI'D HB 1218 A Woman's Right to Accurate Health Care Info (Rep. Saine; Sen. T. Neville) (oppose) would have required ultrasound and a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking abortions. For doctors, the bill contained a long list of specific requirements, including a patient consent form, descriptions of gestational stage, and risks of and alternatives to abortion. One curious stipulation was that any facility that did not offer ultrasound would have been required to supply a list of nearby places where a patient could receive a free image and post a sign that it was "not a medical facility." EDUCATE PARENTS & IMPROVE EARNING HB 1050 Low-income Parents Ed Child Care (Rep. Pettersen; Sen. Merrifield) (support) would create a task force of state agencies and stakeholders to reduce barriers faced by low-income families who want assistance with child care while the parents pursue education or training. The Appropriations committee added an appropriation of about $20,000 to cover some staff time in the Dept. of Labor and Employment and sent the bill to the House on a vote of 7-6. Voting Yes: McCann, Pabon, Pettersen, Singer, Winter, Hamner and Young. Voting No: Becker J, Dore, Everett, Joshi, Rankin, Wilson. It passed the House on Third Reading on April 18 with no further amendments, on a vote of with 1 excused. The Senate State Affairs Committee PI d the bill by a vote of 3-2 on April 27. Voting to PI: Hill, Sonnenberg, Scott. Voting No: Ulibarri and Jones. In House Health, Insurance & Environment Committee April 21, bill supporters included representatives of two nation-wide pregnancy resource centers (Life Choices and CareNet), plus a member-scholar of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, an anti-abortion think tank. Interestingly, Colorado Right to Life weighed in against the bill, on the grounds that any kind of regulation legitimizes, rather than ends, abortion. Other witnesses against the bill spoke of obstacles, intrusion into both private matters and the doctor-patient relationship, and the lack of a problem to address. The bill went down on a vote of 7-6. Voting against the bill: Buckner, Esgar, Lontine, Primavera, Ryden, Ginal, and McCann. For the bill: Brown, Humphrey, Joshi, Klingenschmitt, Landgraf, and Ransom. Leslie Chomic LL#8, p. 106

14 STATUS SHEET The Status Sheet is a constantly updated list of bills being followed by Legislative Action Committee members. New bills are in boldface. S=Support O=Oppose SIP=Support in Part OIP=Oppose in Part W=Watch or Monitor F=Follow POLICY AREA S/H BILL # BILL TITLE S/O PAGE STATUS Administration SCR 5 Allow Counties To Appoint County Surveyors S 95 S-2nd Rdg Administration SB 37 Public Access Digitally Stored Data Under CORA S 15,39 PI'd Administration SB 183 Clarify Portion Of 911 Call Subject To PUC Regul O 82 To House Administration HCR 1001 Modify Operations Of The General Assembly O 67,81 PI'd Administration HB 1077 Recreate Statutory Revision Committee S 7 H-2nd Rdg Administration HB 1216 Facilitate Administration IEC W 28,53 H-App Administration HB 1376 Expand Authority Office Of Consumer Counsel S 81 H-3rd Rdg Behavioral Health SB 38 Transparency Of Community-centered Boards S 87 H-HIE Behavioral Health SB 39 Mental Health And Collaborative Management Teams S 9,32,44 PI'd Behavioral Health SB 77 Employment First For Persons With Disabilities S 9,31,88 To House Behavioral Health SB 147 Suicide Prevention Through Zero Suicide Model S 88 H-2nd Rdg Behavioral Health HB 1063 Mental Hlth Professional Disclosure School Safety S 9,31,44,72,88 To Gov Children's Issues SB 13 Clean-up Office Of The Child Protection Ombudsman S 9,44,73 Signed Children's Issues SB 118 Screening to Identify Prenatal Substance Abuse W 19,45 PI'd Children's Issues HB 1110 Parent s Bill of Rights O 18,72 PI'd Children's Issues HB 1224 Treat Trafficking Of Children As Child Abuse W 32,45,72 Signed Children's Issues HB 1377 Task Force Digital Images Of Child Abuse Neglect S 59,72,103 S-2nd Rdg Children's Issues HB 1385 Definition Child Abuse Substance Exposure S 103 H-App Education SB 101 School Board Education Ethics Commission W 20,45 PI'd Education SB 104 Incentives To Build Number Of Rural Teachers S 32,45,60,104 S-3rd Rdg Education SB 105 Adjustments to Educator Evaluation System S 20,33 PI'd Education SB 154 Tax Credits For Nonpublic Education O 59,74,88,104 H-Ed Education SB 187 Measures Affecting Charter Schools O 104 S-2nd Rdg Education SB 188 Access To Resources For Charter Schools O 89,104 S-2nd Rdg Education HB 1002 Employee Leave Attend Child's Academic Activities S 9,60 PI'd Education HB 1422 Financing Public Schools W 73,88,103 S-2nd Rdg Elections SB 107 Regulation of Voter Registration Drive Circulators S 16,29,39 Signed Elections SB 186 Small-scale Issue Committees S 97 S-2nd Rdg Elections SB 74 Mail Ballots Opt-out & Provide 24-hour Drop Boxes SIP 15,40,83 PI'd Elections SB 106 Administration Of Laws Governing Campaign Finance S 67,97 Concur. Elections SB 112 Voter Service & Polling Centers For Early Voting S 15,28,40,96 PI'd Elections SB 142 Miscellaneous Updates To Elections Laws S 54,83,96 To Gov Elections HB 1012 Clerk File Copy Of Mun Election Results With DOLA S 7,16,29,39 Signed Elections HB 1070 Signature Verification In Mun Mail Ballot Election S 7,16,28,39,54,68,82 Signed Elections HB 1093 Election List Maintenance Procedures S 7,54,68 Signed Elections HB 1282 Align Regular Biennial School Elections & FCPA S 68,83,95 S-3rd Rdg Elections HB 1300 Mail Ballot Return Options Reqmnts & Procedure S 39,82,96 PI'd Elections HB 1434 Disclosure Political Party Communication Activity S 97 S-SVM Elections HB 1454 Primary Participation Act W 94 H-3rd Rdg Energy SB 7 Biomass Renewable Energy Wildfire High Risk Areas W 43 PI'd Energy SB 61 Ratepayer Protection Carbon Dioxide Increased Cost O 58,71,87,102 PI'd Energy SB 129 Neutral Oversight of Oil and Gas Activities S 43 PI'd LL#8, p. 107