April 6, 2026 · State, Civic, Military, & Veterans Affairs · 20,560 words · 14 speakers · 339 segments
Good to go? The State Civic Military and Veterans Affairs Committee will come to order. Ms. King, please call the roll.
Representatives, bottoms. Here. Bradley. Here. Carter. Present. Espinosa. Here. Gray. Here. Froelich. Here. Locke. Surprised to be here so early, but present. Quinn. Excused. Ricks? Excused. Clifford? Here.
Madam Chair? Here. We have two bills on the calendar for today's hearing, Senate Bill 48 and House Concurrent Resolution 1001. I do want to acknowledge that there is written testimony in your box on the first bill, and we are missing our bill sponsors.
Excellent.
Wonderful.
Okay. But he's the second bill up.
Yeah.
Can somebody pop out and see if our bill sponsors are in the hallway, please?
They're pretty darn. Thanks.
I think so. I had pants that match, and my husband told me that it looks like I'm wearing a shirt. I think I was wearing pajamas. So I'm going to wear the coat today. There's still time for the pants.
Welcome, Bill Sponsors. We are ready for you. Who would like to begin?
Representative Joseph. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. It's a pleasure to be here before you to present Senate Bill 48. I am grateful to be working on this bill with Representative Garcia. And I want to note on the record, it is by design that she's on this bill with me. Last year, I set out to introduce this very piece of legislation. And based on the way the stakeholding went, I had to basically not introduce this bill. And this bill has made it very, very far from the Senate in being before you today with an amendment based on the stakeholding that Representative Garcia has done. And I just want to commend her efforts on this particular bill. I wanted to speak to the bill and then speak to the amendment and what it does. So, again, thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm here to present Senate Bill 2648, which strengthened protection for young people in Colorado by placing a clear and more responsible guardrail around underage marriage. Under current law, individuals who are 16 or 17 years old may obtain a marriage license with judicial approval. This bill builds on that framework by ensuring in any case where a minor is permitted to marry, there are meaningful limits in place on the age difference between the parties. This is an important step forward because it helps prevent situations where there may be a significant imbalance in age, power, or influence. By aligning these protections with standards already recognized in our criminal statutes we are creating a more consistent and protective legal framework for young people Marriage is one of the most significant legal decisions a person can make It affects financial rights, legal status, and personal autonomy. While minors are generally not able to enter into most legal contracts, current law has continued to allow marriage under certain conditions. This bill strengthened those conditions to better reflect the need to protect and inform consent. We also know from data and research that child marriage, even with judicial approval, can carry serious long-term consequences. Nearly 300,000 minors were married in the United States between 2000 and 2018, and about 86% of those were individuals or girls. Those who marry before the age of 18 are more likely to leave school early, experience domestic violence, and face economic instability. By establishing limits on age differences, we provide an additional safeguard to ultimately to help identify and prevent coercion, pressure, or unlikely unequal relationships. Ultimately, Senate Bill 48 is about strengthening protection, promoting fairness, and ensuring that any marriage involving a minor is subject to meaningful and consistent safeguards. So this bill is about closing a gap in our law that puts young people at risk. Right now in Colorado, we have a contradiction. Our criminal law recognizes that certain gaps between minors and adults are inherently coercive and unlawful. But our marriage statute has allowed those same relationships to be legalized through marriage. That means in some cases, conducts that would otherwise be considered statutory rape can be shielded by marriage if you're looking at the amendment. So I'm speaking to why this amendment would be extremely important today. The original version of this bill took a bright line approach. No marriage is under 18. And that I also agree to. That is a strong policy, strong and clear policy, and one I continue to believe in. But through conversations with stakeholders, we have brought forward an amendment that still addresses core harms. This amendment ensured that a minor cannot marry someone if that relationship would otherwise violate our criminal law. In other words, if the age difference would make the relationship illegal outside of marriage, it cannot be legalized through marriage. This is about aligning our statutes. Marriage should not be used as a workaround to avoid protections we have already put in place for young people. This is not a perfect solution, but it is a meaningful one. It closes the most dangerous loophole and prevents the most egregious situation where significantly older individuals could exploit minor under the cover of marriage. And importantly, it preserves judicial oversight, ensuring that any remaining cases are carefully reviewed. As legislators, we're often faced with choices between the ideal and the achievable. Today, we have an opportunity to make real progress, to reduce harm, to close a legal gap, and to better protect young people in our state. And I ask you for a yes vote on L-002. And I know this is not a perfect solution to many of those who will testify today. But when we come to this place, we don't solve all the problems. We just at times move the ball forward just a little bit and protect young people in our state and other people in our community And I stop right there and just again thank Representative Garcia for her attempt at solving this particular problem Thank you.
I want to note for the record that Representatives Ricks and Wynn have joined us. Representative Garcia.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative Joseph, for the acknowledgement. I was really excited to be brought on to this bill with Representative Joseph. When I was approached about this bill, I thought, yes, it's a no-brainer. Like, who wants young people to get married? And as I learned more after agreeing to be on this bill and learned immediately that organizations like the Laboratory to Combat Human Trafficking was opposed and the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault was opposed, it caused me to rethink my position and learn what am I missing? Why would these groups oppose something that to me sounds like it makes sense? Understanding that the history of the work that Colorado has done in this area since 2019, having brought forward really impressive, highly negotiated regulations that get us to where we are now, which had dramatically reduced the number of child marriage and not entirely, increased and added judicial discretion. And if we were to completely eliminate a judge's intervention, we could lose a tool to combat human trafficking. I believe that where all the groups are coming forward, all of them, They're coming forward with this because of their own experiences, because of their missions, because they're coming forward in good faith to try and do what they believe is right, as I did when I joined on this bill. And what I firmly, fully believe is the right direction is to accept this amendment today so we can get this bill passed today. Thank you.
Thank you very much, bill sponsors. Committee, what questions do you have? So because they introduced both the amendment and the bill, it's okay to ask questions on both of them. We'll start with Representative Ricks, and then I think I saw Representative Luck. Did you have your hand up? Representative Espinosa. Okay. All right. Go ahead, Representative Ricks.
So with your amendment, is it still going to allow for child marriage?
Representative Garcia.
Thank you for the question, Representative Briggs. It still maintains our current laws that if you are 16 or 17, you can only be married with parental consent and judicial discretion. However, what the amendment does is it completely bans it if one of the parties is 10 years or older than the other person.
Representative Joseph.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So in the amendment, if you look at the judicial approval section that we're trying to amend, which is Code Section 18-3402.1e, in Part E, it says, at the time of the commission of the act, the victim is at least 15 years of age, but less than 17 years old, and the actor is at least 10 years older than the victim, and it is not the spouse of the victim. So this particular amendment while it doesn in child marriage itself it significantly narrows when the marriage occurs It removes the most dangerous situation and large gaps where exploitation is most likely and keep judicial oversight in place. So it preserves the status quo, but it tightens the law around child marriage.
Representative Espinoza. Okay. Any other questions? All right. Thank you so much, sponsors. We are going to move into public testimony. We'll hear from individuals who oppose, then we'll hear from folks that support, then from folks who are in an amend position. So at this time, I believe I only have one person signed up in opposition, Naya Robinson. And then if there's anybody else here today in an opposed position, please come forward at this time. Welcome. Please state your name for the record, who you represent, and then the floor is yours
for three minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Anaya Robinson. I'm the public policy director with the ACLU of Colorado. We are currently in an opposed position on the bill. With the amendment, we will move to neutral once it gets attached. But I don't want to take too much of your time today because I know you all have a lot to do. But we believe deeply in the autonomy of youth, especially when it comes to decisions about their futures. We do believe that the law currently is strong and does not necessarily need a change, but we do believe, too, that the amendment is a good middle ground and compromise, and we would be okay with that slight change to the statute.
Okay. Are there any questions for this witness?
This is the only opposed witness, yes.
Representative Espinoza.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My question would be for the witness. And I guess you say you would move to neutral, but my issue is, is this even necessary? I think your other statement that the bill, the bill that we fought hard, or the law that we fought hard to negotiate and get to a compromise, Are you aware of the statistics of how successful we've been in reducing child marriages through that legislation?
Anaya.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Rep. Yeah, I believe that outside of that 10-year age difference that the amendment would impose, there's only been, I think, five marriages for youth in Colorado since 2019 when that law was passed. I do believe that the law currently is working well.
Representative Locke.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for coming. One comment and then a question. So my comment is never feel like you're wasting our time, and this goes for everyone listening. This is our job, and we appreciate you taking the time, your time, to come in and engage with us. My question, the bill sponsor, one of the bill sponsors made note in our opening something to the effect of if the relationship would not be allowed outside of marriage, then it can not be allowed inside marriage, right? That this amendment seeks to make parallel what we have in statutory rape law and marriage law. So if you can't have sex with someone over 10 years, you know, beyond your age, you can't marry that person. My reading, though, of the statutory rape law, and I'm speaking to you as a lawyer. You're not? OK, so sorry. ACLU, I was thinking. OK. Well, in any case, perhaps you have something contribute in terms of your own interpretation. It does say that at the time of the commission of the act, so this is the statutory rape law that is being referred to, the victim is at least 15 years of age, but less than 17 years of age. And the actor is at least 10 years older than the victim and is not the spouse of the victim. So my question to you is, do you read that to cover 17-year-olds to provide any additional protection to 17-year-olds? Or are we really only looking at providing additional protection to 16-year-olds in this way.
Mr. Robinson.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Rep. I'm wondering if it would be okay if I grabbed our attorney to see if she might have a better interpretation of that.
If you'd like to phone a friend, your friend should come forward and be formally recognized as a witness, please.
Thank you.
Please introduce yourself.
Good afternoon, community members, Madam Chair. My name is Ariane Frosh. I'm policy counsel at the ACLU of Colorado. And let me pull up that statute that you were referring to, Rep.
That would be great. Representative Fluck.
Thank you. 183402.
Thank you.
Rep, would you mind repeating the question, please?
Representative Locke.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And yes, of course. So my question is, my reading of this, it does not apply. Statutory rape does not apply to 17. It's my understanding that our age of consent for sexual activity is 17. So a 17-year-old under current Colorado law could have sex with whomever they would like older than them. And so I'm just wanting to know if that's your reading of this such that this amendment will only actually provide additional layers of protection for 16-year-olds. And before you respond, can you just say your name again? Because I didn't quite catch your last name.
Totally fine.
Okay.
It's Ariane Frosh.
Frosh. Okay.
All right, Ms. Frosh.
I do think that the statute is referring to 17 years old being the age of consent. I haven't seen the amendment. I'm happy to take a look at it. Maybe phone another friend.
Oh, it ties it directly to the statute. Thanks.
We're really just trying to, like, optimize this time that we're up in front of you all. This is fun.
Welcome to State Affairs.
Thanks so much.
I'm happy to be here.
You could ask it now while I'm reading. Please.
Ms. Frosch?
Okay. I believe I agree with your statutory interpretation, Representative Luck.
You're welcome. Okay.
That's okay. Any further questions for our two witnesses? Okay, seeing none, thank you both so much for your time and participation. We'll next call up individuals in a support position. We will do this in two separate panels One two three So I will call up Frady Reese Becca Powell Michelle Hanisch and Brittany Wright All right, we will start with you right here on the end. Please state your name and the floor is yours for three minutes.
I am Frady Reese. I am a forced marriage survivor and the founder and executive director of Unchained at Last. Strongly support SB 48, but strongly oppose this amendment. You just saw it here. ACLU had not even read the amendment that they are here to support. All the opposition that you've heard is predicated on ignorance, and it is shameful. The proposed amendment would keep the marriage age at 16, not protecting girls. Instead, all it would do was limit the spousal age difference to 10 years. Ten years. Who wrote this amendment? Jeffrey Epstein? And now it's great that this amendment is intended to close, to address the issue of this huge problem we have in our marriage age laws that they create a workaround for statutory rape laws. Yay. It's great that you want to address that issue, but what about every single other harm, every single other danger in the current marriage age laws? It is shameful that legislators are even considering slapping girls in Colorado across the face and ignoring the many other harms of marriage before 18 and the current marriage age laws. What about the fact that it creates a workaround for human trafficking laws? Is everyone here okay with that? In addition to encouraging, by the way, men in their mid to late 20s to prey on high school girls, it also still, this amendment does not address the fact that there's a trafficking problem, the fact that it creates a workaround for trafficking laws, as you will hear from other people testifying today. It does nothing about the fact that minors have limited legal rights, which means marriage before 18, even at 16 and 17, creates a nightmarish legal trap, that it is all considered forced marriage according to the United Nations. It ignores the fact that marriage before 18 produces such devastating lifelong repercussions for girls, because almost all of the minors who marry here are girls married to adult men. It's bad enough that the U.S. State Department calls it a human rights abuse. It also ignores the fact that close in age limits might make sense in the context of statutory rape because studies show that when a child or a minor has sex, the greater the age difference between the partners, the more likely it is that it is coerced. No such data exists in terms of forced marriage. And I can tell you I was forced to marry someone three years older than I. And getting raped repeatedly by someone three years older is still pretty sucky. It's not any better than getting raped repeatedly by somebody 11 years older. SB 48 would solve all of these problems. It costs nothing. It harms no one. The ridiculous opposition that you have heard is from the same groups that in every other state, or almost every other state, are our allies standing up with us four girls to end child marriage. Shame on the groups that are opposed to banning child marriage, a harmful practice in Colorado, and shame on any legislator who goes along with that. If the Senate passed this bill, we can do the same in the House. Thank you very much.
Welcome. The floor is yours for three minutes. Please introduce yourself.
My name is Becca Powell and I'm the Director of Advocacy and Outreach for Unchained at Last. Another thing, another danger in the current law that the bill itself addresses but unfortunately the amendment does not address is that minors are automatically emancipated upon marriage and that's really dangerous public policy because it ends their parents' financial obligation to them, meaning they will become financially dependent on their spouse, which is a huge which is a huge risk factor for domestic violence and it one of the main reasons why domestic violence survivors have cited for staying abusive relationships We also seen it be a powerful incentive for a parent to force their own child into marriage to get out of a child support obligation or a child custody battle We worked with a woman in Idaho who's a estranged husband, paid a man money to marry their 16-year-old daughter, specifically so she would become emancipated and he'd get out of the child custody battle that was keeping him from moving out of state. And we will see this over and over and over again unless Colorado votes yes on this bill but rejects this amendment. The bill itself would fix this problem, but the amendment would not. Additionally, I want to make it very clear that banning marriage before 18 causes no detrimental impact on reproductive rights. The U.S. Supreme Court in Bilotti v. Baird pointed out that states need to treat minors' abortion differently than how they treat minors' marriage, because abortion is time-sensitive and marriage is not. If you have a 16-year-old who really wants to get married, you can say to her, wait until you're 18 to get married, and you have not denied her the right to marriage, you've simply delayed it. But if you have a 16-year-old who's pregnant who wants to get an abortion, obviously you cannot say to her, wait until you're 18 to get an abortion, you have denied her the right to an abortion. Also, Colorado's constitution was amended in 2024 to guarantee the right to abortion. Banning child marriage will not change that. In the last eight years, 16 states, two territories, and D.C. have all made the marriage age 18 no exceptions, and not a single one of those states has used their child marriage ban as a basis to undermine reproductive rights. In fact, many of those states have gone on to strengthen reproductive rights after banning child marriage, even in a post-Dobbs era. And as we hear momentarily, banning child marriage has nothing to do with maturity or saying 18 is some magical age where a minor can make a good decision. This is about a minor's lack of legal capacity to safely navigate a contract. We set different ages for different activities and they do not need to relate to one another. You can't buy alcohol until you're 21. You can't serve as president until you're 35. We can set a minimum marriage age of 18 without impacting the age at which a person can access a life-saving medical procedure. Crucially, allowing child marriage undermines reproductive rights as individuals who marry before 18 report high rates of unwanted pregnancy and many are forced to endure pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood all without other consent. And banning child marriage does not take away a minor's right. It takes away a human rights abuse. The same way that banning child rape does not take away a minor's right to be raped. And you'll hear soon that the US State Department calls marriage before 18 a human rights abuse and the UN calls it a harmful practice that hinders gender equality. Minors' marriage is not about empowering teens to choose their own life course. Minors do not have the rights to say no to marriage, which means they cannot give full and free consent to marriage. The UN considers all-child marriage to be forced marriage for these reasons. Thank you for listening to my testimony. I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you very much. Welcome the floor is yours for three minutes. Thank you.
My name is Michelle Hanash. I'm an attorney and the director of policy and women's programs at the HaF Foundation. We are a survivor-founded nonprofit working to end child marriage and we also respond to these help requests. There are three legal issues I'd like to highlight for you today. First, statutory rape, as I believe you're aware, is a criminal law. It tells adults when they will go to jail for having sex with minors. Marriage is a legal contract, two very different things. Second, Colorado is currently legalizing the trafficking of minors under the guise of marriage. In 2017, we at AHI identified a glaring loophole in the federal law. There's no minimum age specified to get a spousal or fiance visa. Accordingly, USCIS defers to the marriage law in the state where that couple will reside when deciding whether or not to approve the petition. So 16 or 17 year olds here in Colorado can be legally trafficked for their citizenship, forced to marry an adult man overseas who gets a visa, a path to citizenship, and a teen bride. On the reverse is also true that a 16 or 17 year old outside of the U.S. can be trafficked into Colorado under the guise of marriage and abused here. This is not a small problem Between 2007 and 2017 8 such petitions involving minors were granted In 95 of the cases the girls were the younger party But the good news, the only good news here is that we don't have to wait for the federal government to act. We can end this abuse right now. You all have the power to do this by making the marriage age 18 no exceptions. Third and final, child marriage is inherently dangerous because it is a legal trap. This is not about maturity. You don't wake up on your 18th birthday with some newfound wisdom, but you do wake up with the full legal rights of adulthood, which before you have this, marriage is a nightmarish legal trap even for the most mature teen. You can't easily run away from home. You can be taken into custody. You, myself, other advocates, we cannot easily help minors in this situation because we must notify the parents. As you heard, these are likely the same parents that are forcing this teen to marry. Where can they go? They can't go to a domestic violence shelter because they are routinely turned away on accompanied minors. Youth shelters are not a solution. Again, they're not like domestic violence shelters. They're not confidential. Those same parents that are forcing that teen to marry, again, will be notified. Stays are limited to 21 days, during which time reunification is what the goal is. An adult in this terrifying situation could retain an attorney, but minors don't have those rights easily. They can't just retain an attorney because contracts with minors are voidable and attorneys are hesitant to take on clients based on voidable retainer agreements. They can't independently bring a legal action, adding additional obstacles. Yes, they are emancipated upon marriage, which might seem like a good thing, but in actuality, those are only limited rights that they get. And crucially, whatever those limited rights are, arrive too late. After the trauma of the forced marriage, after being raped on your wedding night, after domestic and sexual servitude, after being pulled out of school, you cannot undo this trauma. you cannot unrape a child by stamping emancipated across her forehead. This is why organizations around the globe consider forced child marriage. Thank you very much.
Ms. Powell, welcome. The floor is yours for three minutes. I'm sorry, Ms. Wright, please.
Thank you, Madam Chair, Vice Chair, Distinguished Committee members. Here I am again. My name is Brittany, holding the place for tens of thousands of child marriage survivors. You'll have to pardon me if I come off angry. It's because I am. I came into this committee barely two months ago alongside survivors who were just 12 years old, 14 years old, and many more, where we poured our hearts out to you about the molestation, the grooming, the internet luring, the exploitation, the rape, and forced birds before our bodies have even reached the age of adulthood for many such as myself. all of this terror occurring before we married at the age of legality. My forced marriage left me on the street, and I fought against everything you could possibly imagine to get my GED while I was busy trying to feed myself so I could join the greatest military force that this world has ever known, the first woman in my family to serve, only to come home back to the Veterans and Military Affairs Committee committee and watch my years of service in the combat MOS be spat on to justify the horrors of my childhood? Do you really think two teenagers, one of which joins the military at 18 and wants to marry their 17-year-old sweetheart, would walk into this room and listen to the abhorrent abuses committed against these survivors and justify their marriage and their marriage alone as an excuse to continue this barbaric practice? I think not. Never mind the military divorce rate is higher than the national average, never mind the child marriage divorce rate is even higher than that. Not a single member of this committee has survived a child marriage of marriage in the 21st century. I have. And for the opposition to dismiss these survivors and insist that a child bride under current law come in here and testify when it has taken me 12 years. Let's do the math. A child bride of 16 years old married in 2019 would be 23 years old today. What was I doing at 23 years old? I was recovering from my third suicide attempt and finally diagnosed with PTSD. Let's add in poverty to this young person's life. Add in the children conceived from rape. Add in her stolen education. What is the sum of this equation? I'll tell you. It's silence. The way all survivors of every age have been silenced by this ignorance. I came in here last time with humility, and today I am bringing you my indignance. How dare you? Whether or not you want to believe the data, the research, the statistics, or the survivors' lived experiences, the fact still remains. when we allow child marriage under any circumstances, under any exception, we allow the grooming of children, period. Happy Child Abuse Awareness Month. Save your apologies for my story, for the children across the street touring the Capitol building. Thank you.
Committee members, do you have questions for this panel of witnesses? Representative Froehlich.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Powell, your Idaho story event where the parents were trying to get out of child support and therefore married off their child, is there any similar occurrence in Colorado after our law passed in 2019? Ms. Powell.
Thank you. So I am not aware of any such cases. The reason we're aware of that case is because we worked on it and watched that go all the way up to the Idaho Supreme Court where that marriage unfortunately was not annulled. That was a situation where, you know, Idaho's law is different. They only needed one parent's permission. And the mother who was the custodial parent actually found out about this after it had already occurred and tried to fight to get it annulled and was unable to do that. I bring it up just because it is just another reason why the law is really flawed, that we are creating this incentive for a parent who wants to marry off their child for their own financial benefit in order to do so. And even though Colorado's laws are different, I can tell you from my personal experience working on this issue that any loophole that exists is a loophole that a parent will find a way to exploit. So I really urge you to just pass the bill as originally intended, 18 no exceptions, close every single loophole, you know, not for any other reason than preventing any bad actors who would want to exploit these loopholes to harm their own children.
Are there any other questions? Representative Bottoms.
Thank you, Chair. so the lady on the end are you saying that in your opinion the amendment is bad and the bill is good?
Yes. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. SB 48 harms no one, costs nothing, ends a human rights abuse. The amendment is a ridiculous performative piece of garbage. It does absolutely nothing. I can also tell you of the minors married recently here, since 2020 76% were married to someone less than 10 years older, this bill would do nothing. You cannot ignore all the other harms of child marriage and focus only on that one piece that it contradicts the statutory rape laws and creates a workaround You just cannot do that and call that a victory Representative Bottoms any follow Any other questions Representative Bradley Thank you Mr Chair I appreciate your
passion. I understand this is a very touchy subject. I've run multiple trafficking bills, multiple child rape bills. I am a victim of child abuse. So I think, anyway, I think that the bill sponsors have come to each of us. We are trying to get to a good place. What we're trying to do here is legislate good policy. And so what I'm trying to understand is if a 15-year-old can have sex with a 19-year-old, how does this law, we're just going to say that a 15-year-old can't marry a 19-year-old. So I'm asking you guys, like, this is the question phase, right? I've tried to pass these laws. So I'm trying to ask these questions, but I feel like there's a lot of passion, and it's a little scary to ask these questions. If there's only been five marriages, then how are we stopping over – yeah, since 2019, how are we stopping the 8,600 petitions that were granted? I'm trying to figure out how we're stopping that because 17-year-olds are still included. And coming from a southern state, I go back to my sister getting pregnant at a very young age and getting married because that's the southern thing to do, right? We don't want to get married out of wedlock. I certainly don't want to protect child traffickers. I've spent my last four years not doing that. So please don't put me in that category of protecting child rapists or child traffickers because I will get up. I'm trying to understand what you're trying to do. If a 15-year-old can consent to sex with a 19-year-old but can't marry a 19-year-old, tell me what you're trying to do with this bill. If there's only been five cases, if there's been 8,600 petitions that have been granted, what is this bill going to do to our state to stop this?
Who would like to answer? Ms. Reese.
I'll answer that. Like with almost everything else on this bill, the ACLU got that one very, very wrong. We have data from the state health department that shows that between 2000 and 2023, under the new law, after the legislature updated the marriage age laws, 139 minors were entered into marriage. So they were off by 134, no big deal, right? But to answer your question, sex is very different from marriage. And in almost every state, possibly every state, age at marriage is different from age to consent to sex. One is a contract. One is, you know, one is about a sexual experience or encounter. these are very different. So you don't need the rights of adulthood to have sex, you do need the rights of adulthood to enter into a contract, marriage is a contract. So those
are very different things and legislators need to view them very differently. I also want to be very clear, this amendment is not a middle ground. I mean you heard from the bill's sponsors that they spoke to stakeholders. Every stakeholder here today who supported SB 48 opposes this amendment. This is not a middle ground. The only ones who support this amendment are the ones who opposed banning child marriage for reasons that absolutely make no sense. And this is not a middle ground between those two positions. We could either ban child marriage, is what SB 48 does, or this amendment does nothing of the sort. It would barely even cut down on child marriage because almost all of the minors who marry in Colorado are girls married to adult men, an average of a little under four years. Of the minors married recently, only 24% We married to someone 10 or more years older This would do nothing You cannot call it a victory You cannot go home saying we took care of that problem You cannot say well we moved the needle This bill is this amendment is garbage Bradley, and there's one minute, 54 seconds remaining.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So there are some significant victims advocate groups that I have worked on with my trafficking bill, my child rape bills that are opposed to this bill because they feel like it opens up the gates to trafficking to continue. where judges say, can have that right to say no, to not allow those marriages to happen. And so this blanket-wide kind of policy will remove that. And so what do you say to those victims' advocacy groups that I have worked for four years with that are in opposition that I tend to listen to?
I don't know which advocacy groups that you're talking about. The ones that actually provide direct services to those fleeing forced marriage, are the ones here today, are the ones that strongly support SB 48 and oppose the amendment. I'm not sure what you mean about a tool against trafficking. The idea that child marriage, which creates a workaround for trafficking laws and creates, I mean, it's a trafficker's best dream is to have laws like the ones in Colorado. How banning that opens up, and this is something that you heard earlier, losing a tool to combat human trafficking. I want to be very clear about the judicial review process, the way it works in Colorado. And again, I see this as someone who has worked with hundreds of survivors. All we do with the judicial review process is put the onus on a terrified teen whose own parent is forcing them to marry to figure out how to explain their predicament to the court without facing dire repercussions when they get back home. It provides no value. All it does is introduce additional trauma into an already traumatic situation. And I can tell you every single survivor we have worked with, and I know there are other service providers here today who can tell you the same, every survivor we have worked with who was being forced to marry and went in front of a judge lied to the judge and then ended up feeling somehow complicit in their own forced marriage. They later said, if I would have just found some way to tell the judge what was happening. The judicial review process is not cutting down on human trafficking. That is absurd. Okay, we are over time, but you are still in the middle of a line of questioning. So this is the final question for this panel of witnesses. And please keep your comments and your responses with brevity so we can move today. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for that, because I'm trying to take notes and work through it all. So from 2000 to 2023, 139 minors were married. I think that's what you quoted. And I'm really trying to, because I'm trying to understand this. How is that? That doesn't seem like a trafficking issue. That seems like that would be like 8,000. Help me understand that. I'm not sure, though.
By looking at the data, you can determine whether it's a trafficking issue. The trafficking issue is what Michelle Hanash explained. Because of a loophole in federal law, spouse or fiancé visas, there's no minimum age specified in federal law. Instead, it defers to state law. So because state law allows marriage at 16 and 17 in Colorado, girls in Colorado age 16 or 17 can legally be trafficked for their citizenship, taken overseas, forced to marry adult men who get a visa and a path to citizenship, and men in Colorado can legally import child brides of age 16 or 17 from any country around the world, sex traffic them to the U.S. under the guise of marriage, and this is a known problem, as you heard, that the U.S. Senate Homeland Security Committee has issued a report about. Okay, thank you very much for this panel of witnesses. We going to call up our second panel of support Lisa Lesnik Anastasia Law Tammy McMahon and Carla Behrens I believe that the last three folks are registered remotely, so at this time if there's anybody else that wishes to provide testimony and support of this legislation, please come forward at this time. And while we wait for our folks online to join us, please kick us off. Introduce yourself and the floor is yours for three minutes.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Wilford, Vice Chair Clifford, and committee members. Thank you for letting me speak today. My name is Lisa Lesniak. I am with Zonta Foothills Club and Zonta USA. One of our pillars is to end child marriage internationally, nationally, and obviously locally. I'm here in support of SB 26048, as originally intended, no amendments. Age requirements for marriage, like those for guns or voting, only postpone, not prohibit fundamental rights. Concerns about this bill affecting minors' reproductive health care and access are unfounded, as Colorado Constitution and state law protect abortion access. Since 2019, there have been no barriers put in place to prohibit or impede access to abortion or reproductive health care or justice. Therefore, we feel that that fear is unfounded. Child marriage is driven by unequal gender norms and harms girls' health and futures. While current judicial exceptions fail to protect against coercion and do not provide real agency to minors. Child marriage is primarily driven by inequitable gender norms which deprive girls and young women of their sexual and reproductive rights and limit their life choices. A child marriage ban better safeguards those minors than existing regulations and it does not carry the risk of inadvertently leading to a curtailment of minor's access to abortion or agency in other areas. I'd like to state that if that were the case, that this bill were to be a stepping stone for an impediment, I believe that every GOP person in the legislature would be signing up to co-sponsor us and also voting yes, and they are not currently doing that. The debate surrounding the regulation of child marriage in Colorado eliminates an intricate balance between individual rights and the state's duty to safeguard minors. A flat band will do more to protect these children from the harms and dangers that are multitude, not just trafficking, of early marriage, which they've already said. There's no way at this time, as Brittany mentioned, to be able to talk to those children who have been married from 2019 to now. So we don't really know. And we may never know, or it'll be decades. Marriage is not a right for children under 18. So we're not taking anything away. There is no right. Child marriage has been referred to as captivity with legal paperwork. And finally, as far as judicial permission, it should not be blindly accepted. In the case, the fact that there's 24 marriages that were permitted that were beyond 10 years. For instance, in Larimer County, where a lot of these marriage licenses are applied for, there was a judicial law judge who permitted a young girl who was 16 to marry a 37-year-old man. Thank you so much for your testament.
Your time has expired. We're going to go online to Anastasia Law. Please come off mute. Introduce yourself. The floor is yours for three minutes.
Hi, can you hear me?
Yep, we can hear you. Please proceed.
Thank you so much for this opportunity. My name is Anastasia Law. I'm the legal advisor for North America at Equality Now, an international human rights organization established in 1992, working to protect and promote the rights of all women and girls around the world. Child marriage is recognized internationally as a violation of human rights, a form of violence against women and girls, and a harmful cultural practice that threatens the lives, well-being and futures of girls and adolescents around the world. Studies show that child marriage can harm nearly every aspect of a girl's life, including in the United States, disrupting her health, education, economic opportunities, and physical safety. She is more likely to experience intimate partner violence, lose reproductive and sexual rights, and be forced to ensure pregnancy, childbirth, and parenthood, all without her consent. For those reasons, the U.S. State Department calls marriage before 18 a human rights abuse. International law, including the International covenant on civil and political rights which the united states has ratified requires the free and full consent of both parties to marriage since minors lack the capacity to provide free and full consent child marriage is incompatible with the united states obligations under international law in october 2023 the human rights committee the body which oversees compliance with the iccpr treaty urged the united states to further adopt measures at all levels in order to prohibit marriage under the age of 18. Banting child marriage is a global movement. Under the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, 193 countries, including the U.S., promised to end child marriage by the year 2030. Countries around the world are already keeping that promise by making the marriage age 18 no exceptions. By passing SB48, the state of Colorado has the opportunity to position itself as a leader in the United States and aligning local laws with human rights standards. This is also a national movement. In the last eight years, 16 states, two territories, and D.C. have banned child marriage. The most recent victories were Missouri, Oregon, and Maine. There are currently bills advancing in Ohio and Oklahoma and bills pending in six other states, including Kansas and Arizona. Because Colorado does not have a residency requirement for marriage, if this legislation does not pass, Colorado risks becoming a destination site for child marriage. The only foolproof way to protect children from the lifelong negative effects of child marriage is to ban, is to prohibit all marriages below the age of 18 without exceptions. Equality Now strongly supports the passage of SB 48. Thank you. Thank you so much
for your testimony. Let's go to Carla Behrens. Please come off mute. And the floor is yours for
three minutes. Welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm in support of SB 048. My name is Carla Behrens. I was 14 years old when a judge approved my marriage, not because I understood love, not because I was ready for it, but simply because I was pregnant. My mother stood in that courtroom and insisted it was the right thing for me. Becoming pregnant was life-changing, of course, but marriage was something I didn't understand and I didn't want it. But my mother said, this is something that you need to do. And because I respected her as a single parent of my single as my single parent, she was all I had. And it felt that I needed to do that. And so at 15, I married my then 18 year old husband that followed with eight years that felt like a lifetime. Eight years of emotional physical financial control and constant manipulation There were nights filled with bruises strangulation threats and moments where I wasn sure I would survive Although the bruises eventually faded the emotional and mental wounds did not The financial abuse was his own prison. He kept my tax return, my child claiming it was the right thing for him to do as my husband. While he bought himself everything he wanted with that money, I depended on government assistance and with my family as well for diapers, food, transportation, and basic needs that every child needs. Through it all, I was a teenager trying to finish school and raise a baby. When I began college, something he told me I would never be capable of, he tried everything to stop me. He said I wasn't smart enough. He said I would fail. Once he even threw my textbooks out of a moving car because he hated that I was trying to build a future. But his control didn't end there. I also struggled with legal status, something I needed to continue to school and support myself, him being a legal citizen. But he refused to help me. He had the power to support my process, but he chose not to. It was just another way to keep me dependent of him. When I found the strength to divorce him, his control was gone. I discovered he was wrong. I stayed in school. I worked hard. I pushed through every barrier, and I graduated with a bachelor's degree. And today I can say with pride I am unstoppable. I survived what was meant to break me. I built the life he said I would never have. And I am here today not as a young girl forced into marriage, not as a woman who endured years of abuse, But as a survivor who refused to let her pass to find her future, I would never do that again. And I would never allow my children to ever be married under 18 at all because that is not correct. And even 14, 18, I was not ready. And I was ready. I got married again at the age of 30. And I feel like I was finally ready.
Thank you so much for your testimony. We really appreciate it. Members, do you have any questions for this panel? Representative Luck and then Representative Froelich.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to, I think, just direct my questions to you, ma'am. It may not be the best, so if you don't know. I'll do my best. Okay. So I am just struggling here with a few things as relates to Colorado specifically, right? So we've heard data that is pre the change in Colorado law in 2019. We have heard stories of other states that have other systems. But I'm wondering, do you have specific information that points to abuses in Colorado since 2019's law became effective? Ms. Lesniak.
I'm sorry, it's Lesniak? Lesniak, yes. Okay, perfect. Thank you.
So that data is either hard to find or I have not found it because, as we said, these girls do not come forward until much later.
And so it's hard to determine whether any of those from 2019, for instance, who would now be if they were 16, now they're 24, 25. We don't know exactly the data on that. The issue is that there are risks and it puts them behind the eight ball, so to speak, when in their education and then therefore their long term earning capacity. And as women, we're already behind the ball on that. So when you look at where your Social Security is going to be when you retire if it there it going to be even lower because they in low jobs They end up in poverty and that a hard fight to get out of So we just feel that the ban regardless is what protects them And marriages that are child marriages end in a rate of divorce at 70% to 80%. In Colorado, the overall divorce rate is 3 in 1,000. I'm not a mathematician, so I have no idea what the correlation is there, but it sounds very small compared to 70% to 80%. the national average of divorce rates is 34 to 42%. So instead of letting those children have to go through a whole divorce and starting that process when they can finally get to it, if ever, we can protect them and wait because once they're at age, those marriage divorces rates go down.
Representative Luck, a follow-up?
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for that answer. I'm wondering if with the data that you do have, if there's correlation with harm in other states that have a similar structure. So for the listening audience that doesn't know the history,
prior to the 2019 law, 16- and 17-year-olds could get married if they had their parents' consent or if they had a judicial order. In the 2019 law, it became a both-and, right? They had to get both of their parents' consent as well as a judicial order, and that the judicial order required a guardian ad litem to be appointed who would look at a variety of factors. There's five categories of factors that are very broad that they would look into and then report back to the court on that minor's behalf and say whether or not they think that the court could find that the minor was capable of assuming the responsibilities of marriage and that the marriage would serve the underage party's best interests. So that seems, as legal matters go, to be a pretty high bar and process by which to vet. And we've seen a marked decrease in the amount of these marriages. Right at the time that the 2019 law passed, we were looking at about 80 marriages a year. And since the 20, according to our fiscal note, since the 2021 fiscal year, we have seen 16 guardian ad litems be appointed, which is a requirement under this structure each year. So that's a total of 80 over the last five years versus 80 per year. So it seems to me that this law may be doing what it's supposed to be doing and vetting out some of these issues that are being seen in other states. All of that being said, I'm just wondering if you can point to other states that have a similar structure as ours and to any harms that they might see because maybe their law has been on the books longer than ours and people have come forward.
Ms. Lesniak.
I do not. I am not aware of any of the other laws. I live in Colorado, and I've been only trying to focus on the Colorado aspect of it, and so I cannot speak to another state.
Representative Froelich.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the previous panel and to this panel for sharing your personal experiences. We do appreciate it, and we are happy to devote the time to it. I guess, Ms. Lesniak, because you mentioned the reproductive rights aspect of it, I support the full range of decision-making. And would not a pregnant teen be prohibited from marrying the father of her child should she choose to keep her baby under the 18 ban?
Ms. Lesniak.
Yes that is correct She would not be allowed to marry the father until she turned 18 And we believe that a protection that necessary They don have to be you know the world is different today The Catholic Church does not consider a child that's born out of wedlock to be a bastard. You don't have to, you know, the social norms are different. And the important part is to have the support. And usually the families are doing that support, and marriage is not required. If they are still ready to be married and willing at age 18, go for it. And it does not impede having sex. That was a conversation earlier. They can have sex as long as it's legal. Additionally, I'd like to make a comment about the use of the statutory rape language as not clear, which was part of why I was opposing it, because it seems to me now we're going backwards and allowing 17-year-olds to not need judicial approval based on what the language is. so we just feel that the ban makes it simple it's clean, no exceptions, no human error in judges or guardian ad items so that's why we prefer the ban
Representative Carter and then Representative Bradley for the last question
Thank you Madam Chair and I just want to clarify an individual can through consent, a 16-year-old can have a child with another individual, but with an absolute ban, while they can consent to having the child and consent to the intercourse, but with a universal ban, they cannot consent to a marriage. Is that correct?
Ms. Lesniak.
That is correct, Representative Carter, because sex is treated as a relationship and marriage is a legal contract.
Representative Bradley, last question.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted clarity again. So teeing off on the representative here. So a 17-year-old with their significant other can go have an abortion of their baby but cannot get married and raise their baby at 17.
Ms. Lesniak.
Correct.
Okay, thank you all so much for your time and your testimony. We're going to move now to individuals in an amend position, and we'll call Elizabeth Newman and Vanessa Martinez. Also, if there's anybody else here today that wishes to provide testimony in an amend position, please come forward at this time. Welcome. Welcome to both of you, Ms. Martinez.
do you want to begin? Do you want to begin? Okay. The floor is yours for three minutes. And actually, before you begin, can my starburst friends on this side of the room? Nope. Nope. Nope. Those over there.
Okay. All right. We are ready.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. My name is Vanessa Martinez. I'm here on behalf of COLORD, the Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and reproductive rights. We are in an amend position for Senate Bill 48. We agree that a young person or a person of any age being forced or coerced into marriage is of grave concern. The testimony that you've heard today leaves no doubt about that. And we also are hearing the web of issues that proponents of the bill hope to address, trafficking, including how it relates to immigration status, rape, domestic violence, abusive parental relationships, income inequities, these are all very real issues, but this would not address them. Changing the law to ban people under 18 from marrying in Colorado does not support youth who are often more vulnerable to exploitation, including immigrant youth with whom we work closely with at Collord. SB 2648 will not address issues of domestic violence, of trafficking, or lack of access to legal resources for youth, and partner organizations with expertise in these areas who work closest with those Coloradans most impacted agree that this bill is not the change that is needed in our state. We at Colour would welcome ongoing conversations on these issues and we would commit our time, our expertise, our community knowledge and relationships to discuss how to develop possible policy solutions together for Colorado on that range of very important issues. We are grateful to House sponsors for engaging in conversation as much as time has allowed for now. And at this point, we feel the only thing this bill could address, if amended, is marital exceptions for statutory rape in our state. We do urge you to support an amendment to align this bill with the statutory rape law. And then we would urge you to also support meaningful stakeholding in the interim to truly make strides to prevent exploitation of young people in Colorado and the list of issues that we have been discussing today. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Welcome Ms. Newman.
Good afternoon Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Elizabeth Newman. I am the Director of Public Policy for the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault. CCASA is a statewide membership organization working to promote healing and prevent sexual harm. As a leading voice for survivors and the professionals who serve them, we are testifying in an amend position today on Senate Bill 48. CCASA cares deeply about preventing the exploitation and sexual abuse of young people. We know that Colorado's youth are most at risk for sexual violence compared to any other population. CCASA also has worked for many years to address sexual violence in marriage. In fact, one of our first policy efforts was to outlaw marital rape in Colorado a decade before it became a crime nationwide. And we've addressed marital exceptions to other laws around sexual harm and exploitation. But we are in an amend position today because marriage for young people in and of itself is not abusive. At CECASA, one of our primary values is respecting the autonomy and agency of any person to decide what's best for themselves, and that doesn't start at 18. Young people may have reasons for getting married, for wanting to get married before 18, and there are already safeguards to these marriages for 16 and 17-year-olds that require a judicial review and a guardian ad litem process to prevent exploitation and abuse. We do not believe that a blanket ban on young people getting married is needed. Preventing someone from getting married does not end the potential for their exploitation and abuse. We know what does prevent sexual violence. Comprehensive sexual education, including teaching about consent and healthy relationships. Family economic security, gender equality, and social norms that promote accountability for people who cause sexual harm. And inclusive environments that support all people in pursuing the pathways that are best for them. However, we do understand the concerns raised by the proponents and we do believe that applying limits based on the age of consent would address the imbalance of power from brain development and life experience between a young person and someone much older I hope that the proponents in this body will also advocate for funding for community-based sexual violence advocacy programs and prevention education, which has just been eliminated, because those do address sexual exploitation and abuse for people of every age. Thank you for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
you both so much. Representative Froelich and then Espinosa.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you both for being here. Thank you for working on the amendment. The amendment, if passed, gets you to neutral or stoked? I mean, what's the range there?
Ms. Newman and then Ms. Martinez. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Froelich, and thank you, Madam Chair. We're very comfortable with the amendment as it's proposed and think that that is a reasonable change to this. We have not talked about where our position would it be neutral or support at this time. Ms. Martinez?
It would get Kolar to neutral. We would not be in a support position.
All right. Representative Espinoza.
Sorry. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess my question is, given reproductive justice principles that Calora normally is very strongly supporting, and that includes the right to carry children and have families and make choices, I guess my concern about the amendment that you said you're comfortable with is it doesn't do anything for 17-year-olds. As we've heard earlier, I think the ACLU had the same interpretation that Representative Luck and myself both had, that it would only apply to 16-year-olds the way it's written, and so it doesn't do anything for those other individuals, nor does it address any disparity except for 10 years of age and older. And so it just seems that this isn't consistent with the reproductive justice norms that I'm familiar with with your agency. Plus, one of the concerns that I've had from this bill from the beginning is it seems to be somewhat lacking in cultural sensitivity. I know I have a history in my own family of young marriages that have been very successful for 30 years because there's sexual activity and awareness and capability. They make a choice. They get married. They've stayed married. Could you comment on that, please?
Ms. Martinez. Yes, thank you for the question. this isn't a solution that the original bill or the bill as amended isn't a solution that Collord would advocate for from our reproductive justice lens and so that is why it would get us to a neutral position the original bill we see is very harmful to reproductive justice values including young people's agency and those different cultural considerations. For all of the reasons that have been stated here, we have a lot of the same questions that have also been raised by committee members. We would really welcome the opportunity to try and answer those questions together and come up with a policy that would address some of those issues. We also believe that a lot of the issues that folks are most concerned about in this room are not ones that will be solved with policy alone. And I think a lot of international organizations that work on these issues would also agree. And so we would also be interested in talking about what is a more holistic approach that includes some of those cultural conversations to these different issues depending on which you prioritize to solve Are there any further questions for this panel Okay seeing none thank you both so much
for your time and your testimony. With that, the witness testimony phase is now closed. Bill's sponsors, come on back up. All right. I understand you have Amendment L2. Are you ready to proceed with that? Vice Chair Clifford, can you move Amendment L2?
Madam Chair, thank you. I move Amendment L2 to Senate Bill 48.
Wow. He didn't even finish. All right. Representative Carter was the second on that. Who would like to continue? Representative Garcia.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I want to clarify, this does actually impact 17-year-olds. The key part of this is when we were talking about what's on line 12 of the amendment that says parties to the marriage is not more than the age difference described in section. It's the age difference described in that particular section, coupled with what is written above already in law on line 10, certificate form for a person 16 or 17 years old. So because of that, this is referencing the age limit. We were asked, why don't you just write 10 years? The reason why we didn't just write 10 years here and make it simple for everybody is, let's say we do come sometime in the future and we change statutory rape law to be 8 years or 6 years, then there is still the opportunity to skirt statutory rape laws to marry up to 10 years. So that is why it is important for us as sponsors that we attach this to the age as described in Section 18.3402.1e. We want to make sure that if that changes, the age range in that, that this part changes as well.
Members, do you have any questions for bill sponsors? Okay. Does anyone? Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Representative Rolick.
I really want to commend the bill sponsors on the, we've all had difficult bills or some of us have been lucky not to maybe. But, you know, I really appreciate the effort that has gone into this. Is it, what are your feelings about the amendment, the response to the amendment from the witnesses?
Representative Garcia.
I think, you know, I'm actually pretty disappointed, especially hearing that supporting 24% of minors is not worth it. That was pretty hard to hear. I think if we are supporting one or two people, it's worth it. This, as we heard in testimony, this would only support a certain group of minors getting married, but why would we not then want to do that?
Representative Joseph.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Froelich, for your question. Yes, it is disappointing when you hear from our allies in the repro space are not in support of the bill as drafted from the Senate. But we've had a lot of stakeholding and conversations with them, and I grateful that they in a position now of neutral because of the amendment It shows that we were willing to listen and have conversation with them and to me that very important to have or quote natural allies at the table and to be part of the solution as the bill is moving forward. And also to, I just wanted to note, and maybe that might be my only opportunity, I hear every conversation from those who are in opposition to the amendment as well. It pains me to hear their testimony today because it is valid. Their perspective is valid. And the lived experience that they've had is valid as well because we know, I as a legislator, I've not experienced child marriage. So they come here before us and express what they've endured. And to me, that's powerful to be able to do that. And I was born in another country, and there had been conversations in my family around child marriage. And I could have been someone who was married off because of family reasons. So I hear all these testimonies, and I just wanted to say that I'm grateful for the testimonies that I've heard today. And yes, it does pain me to know that some of our allies are not in support, but some of them are willing to go to neutral on the bill based on the amendment. Thank you.
Are there any further questions? Representative Espinoza and then Representative Carter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I guess it's interesting to me to hear that the original proponents of the bill, who I assume were the drafters involved in the drafting that went through the Senate and the original bill, are so opposed to the amendment. And I guess one of my, in some of the discussions I've had, there was a sense that this amendment was to bring the parties who were more in the Colorado space to the neutral position. With an understanding that maybe there would not be this issue coming back before us in the future. My hearing of the testimony today leads me to believe that's not going to be the case. That the proponents of the bill would be back. And so my question would be, what is the value in adopting the amendment if it's not going to change the proponents coming back next year?
Representative Garcia.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The intention of the amendment is to make sure that we are addressing a subsect, an egregious portion of child marriage when you have a 16-year-old that's marrying a 42-year-old. That's the purpose of this amendment. If we can't control what opponents or proponents do in the future, what we're trying to do is address a certain group that has this experience that I believe many of us, at least some of us who might vote yes or not or whatever, like believe shouldn't be occurring. We shouldn't be having somebody who's 45, 50 marrying a 16-year-old. That's what this amendment is about.
Representative Espinoza.
Thank you. So my question would be, since we passed the 2019 law, how many of those marriages at that egregious level you just described have actually happened in the state of Colorado? And isn't it easier for us to amend the judicial requirements than to go down the path of this other bill?
Representative Garcia.
Representative Espinoza, we've had five marriages that are beyond the 10-year scope. Since 2019, that's according to CDPH. data. Outside of that, if you have ideas around amending the judicial approval scope, be happy to hear what that would look like. This is the first I'm hearing about this idea.
Representative Carter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two questions, I guess. you can answer offline and we can have that conversation. Does this have any impact the amendment or the bill on last year's Senate Bill 2514? And then what I'll also say is I don't think I can get to yes on the bill without this amendment.
Okay. Members, I'm not seeing any other questions, so I do want to ask, is there any objection to adopting the amendment? Okay, seeing objection, Ms. King, please poll the committee. Representatives Bottoms.
No.
Bradley.
Pass.
Carter.
Yes.
Espinoza.
No.
Hooray.
Yes.
Brolich.
Yes.
Block.
Wynn.
Yes.
Ricks.
Yes.
Bradley.
Yes.
Luck.
No.
Clifford.
Yes.
Madam Chair.
Yes. All right. The amendment passes on a vote of 8 to 3. Are there any further amendments, bill sponsors? No. Okay. Committee, any amendments? Seeing none, the amendment phase is now closed. Bill wrap-up. Who would like to begin? Representative Joseph.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. We ask for a yes vote on this particular bill as amended. I know it doesn't go as far as some of our stakeholders would have hoped for, but you've also heard from some of the testimonies here that this bill is a small step forward. And because of that, they're willing to go into neutral and to monitor. And this is a conversation we need to have. We need to have more conversation around exploitation of young people. And I look forward to having that conversation with some of the stakeholders, if not all of the stakeholders who have testified here today, because I know this particular bill, as you've heard and as you've noted, will not end child exploitation in itself. So we definitely have to do more work in that space, and I look forward to continuing that conversation with the stakeholders. And ask for a yes vote, and thank you to my co-prime and the Senate sponsors who brought this bill forward.
Representative Garcia.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, thank you for listening intently, for engaging with the witnesses, for your questions, your comments. I want to thank all the witnesses for testifying today. This is strange. I mean, for me, it's strange. This is probably one of the hardest bills I've ever done in this session, well, in my time here in the last four years. THE REASON WHY THIS HAS BEEN SO DIFFICULT IS BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THAT MOVING FORWARD WITH THE BILL AS IT The reason why this has been so difficult is because I do believe that moving forward with the bill as is would have completely devalidated certain perspectives Moving forward with this amendment is, as we've heard, making others feel like their experiences aren't valid. And this is one of these bills where I feel like we are making nobody happy. that's what this is this is a bill where no one is going to be happy here and does that mean we should still move forward from my perspective yes because if we can still address that small percentage of minors that could be thrusted into a marriage with somebody who they can't even legally have sex with and no marriage isn't only about that but if we can't even protect for that my goodness I would love to hear from anyone who has brilliant ideas of how we can make this clearer that this is encompassing of 17 year olds as well we can fix that on seconds or if there's alternative ideas that we just heard from the representative from Denver, I'd love to hear what that is. But for today, let's help some minors. Please vote yes.
Vice Chair Clifford.
Madam Chair, I move Senate Bill 48 as amended to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.
Oh, my goodness. I take it back.
Madam Chair, I move Senate Bill 48 as amended to the Committee on Appropriations with a favorable recommendation.
Second. Seconded by Representative Frey. Members, any closing comments? We're just going to go Froelich down the line. Go ahead, Rhett Froelich.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I think you both know I respect you very, very much, and I really do respect the work that's gone into this. I think the Epstein files show and my work with domestic violence survivors show that control and violence and abuse don't always come with a marriage certificate. I do believe 17-year-olds are unprotected in the amendment, and I understand that that can be fixed, but I think this is a matter of judicial education, which I've run several bills on, and I know it's incredibly difficult. But if this system is yielding about one marriage with that age gap a year, and I would point out that the Prime Minister of France has a 24-year age gap in his marriage, so age gaps don't always equal coercion and control either. I think the system, the hard-fought negotiations in 2018, 2019, the system is working. it's not that this bill isn't a step in the right direction, it's that it's unnecessary. So while having respect for you and the work that you've done, I will be a no today, as I told you before.
Representative Luck.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I, too, appreciate the conversations that we have had offline and just the wrestling through this issue. there is another legislator for those in the audience who often talks about when a bill doesn make anyone happy it probably in the right direction Because the reality is that we as legislators have to balance a lot of interests. And it's not just one particular group that we have to uphold. We have to look across the board. and today I am looking at this and I didn't hear things as relate specifically to Colorado from 2019 forward in terms of harm I didn't hear that when we look at the five total marriages with an age gap of 10 years or more as I've been like really mulling over this whole amendment in the 17-year-olds, it is possible that the five people were 17 and that that isn't against statutory rape, that the judge in the court decided that those 17-year-olds, there was no crime there, there would be no issue there because 17-year-olds can, under our law, have sex with whoever they want to have sex with. And so I look at this and I say, where are the facts to show us that the system that was so finely negotiated in 2019 is not working. Where is that? Where are the facts that show that having the parents both consent as well as the judge in consultation with the guardian ad litem who has to look at all of these different factors? I'm just going to steal. They're looking at the wishes of the underage party, the view of the parents or legal guardians of the underage party, the view of the ability of the underage party to assume the responsibilities of marriage, the circumstances surrounding the marriage, which obviously would include a visa application, the ability of the underage party to manage the underage party's financial, personal, social, educational, and non-financial affairs independent of the underage party's intended spouse, both during the marriage or upon dissolution of the marriage, all of those within the larger question of is this person capable of assuming the responsibilities of marriage and the marriage would serve that person's best interest. That's a lot for the court to review. And when you look at the stats and you see that we had in Colorado in one year prior to 2019's law, the same number of marriages that we have had across the board since 2021, total, 21 to 2025, to me that's saying that this works, that that decrease from 80 down to 16 and those other review processes, it has more than likely brought out of the system those folks who were being coerced or those situations that were dishonorable to that minor party. But we also have to recognize that there are minors who are fully capable of making this decision and entering into this lifelong covenantal relationship. In fact, there is a legislator in the room I know who wouldn't be here today unless their mom got married at 17, right? Like it wouldn't have happened. And so there are a lot of other stories that could be pointed to, to say that these young marriages are very much beneficial in certain circumstances. And so I think Colorado has met that balance. And I didn't hear anything today that told me that Colorado specifically has failed to meet that balance if that information does come forth and we can actually get those stats and understand how in Colorado since 2019 this has caused these harms then I'm open to reexamining this question but for today I will be a respectful no Representative Espinoza Thank you Madam Chair Thank you sponsors I too have great respect for the purpose for which you bringing this bill forward
I know that Representative Joseph has been working on this issue for several years.
And Representative Garcia, I appreciate your coming to the table and trying to find a solution to this problem. However, I agree with much of what my colleague from Penrose just stated. In addition, I would note just for the record and for the importance of people understanding that not only must the judge do an evaluation of all those factors, this is after an appointment of a guardian ad litem to make sure that the coercion of the parents that were described in the witness testimony also can be shielded and there will be a place for the minor who is seeking to get that marriage to have a safety and a third party independent of any of those other actors to make that determination. So I do think that the 2019 law puts us in a place that's different than other states and other places that are looking at this issue. I don't know how many have done the hard negotiation we had done before they're moving to simply outlawing the age issue. As I noted in my questions, I also find from a reproductive justice point of view, the right of an underage individual who can get pregnant to decide to raise that child with their partner is undermined by this prohibition and notwithstanding this other distinction, and that's a concern for me. Finally, I would just note that in terms of what we heard today, the final note I want to make is in the immigration point context, and I will say I do understand the loophole very well. As you all know, I was a judge on the Board of Immigration Appeals, and I've been an immigration attorney for 40 years. So I will tell you that the process of getting a K-1 visa or the process of getting a marriage, a visa through the marriage process is extensive and there's huge amounts of questions that go on in terms of those issues prior to those visas being issued or the marriages being valid. I also believe there's relief for the individuals who might have been trafficked or who are using the green card process as coercion to obtain relief under both the immigration status because they can file for themselves as a for special spousal spousal visa and there are Recourses for those issues which I do believe exist and that we must be careful of and ensure that we're continuing to process But I don't think the 18 year old band per se Eliminates that issue as well and so for those reasons. I will be respectful now
Representative Bradley.
I also want to state on the record, I appreciate Calora and ACLU coming and testifying. We never really see eye to eye, and they laugh. But that's why I need you guys to come testify, because I like to ask you questions from a different side of the aisle. When you stand for reproductive justice, for me, it's standing for the women that want to have babies, too. And that includes my sister, and that includes my best friend, both of Steele, or which they're married today. that's reproductive justice for me it's my sister having a baby and my best friend having a baby at the age of 17 so to protect a few means that we're not protecting some others I get where we're coming You guys, I'm in a state also where I want to protect children from child trafficking and rape and all of those things. But I've had to have very hard conversations when my bills got killed, too. And we've had those conversations. So I don't believe in a one size fits all. It's been very hard for me to digest as well. I've had a lot of sleepless nights, too. I've cried a lot. And so these are hard bills for me to listen to as well, because I have to think, am I doing the right thing for my constituents, too? And that blanket requirement is what's hard for me. I think that we can get to a place. I think that we were all talking. You know, there's got to be a coercive control piece that I think we're missing that allows 17-year-olds still to be able to, like my sister and my best friend, but also helps target the kids that are getting trafficked or something. I think the 2019 law does it, but I hear what you're saying. There's still five that we need to protect, right? And so I don't think that this one does it, but I think that there's something that we can come to the table in the interim and try to figure out. There's a lot of great minds, and there's been a lot of great comments. So today, respectfully, I'm a no, but I think we can get there. So I appreciate you working until the last minute, and I hope the people that brought the bill to you can understand that, that you literally, until 1.20 when we had to walk over here, you were trying to come up with a solution. And that is good democracy, and that is good governance, and I appreciate those conversations. So thank you.
Representative Carter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to thank the sponsors. This was a heavy lift and impressed that it's gotten this far. I will point out that I am also speaking to the sponsors. My original concerns, they addressed the concerns with the amendment. And I can even attest to there were, even during our conversations this morning during our huddle, I believe Representative Froelich brought in some examples that I had not even thought of that were literally on point with my life and my life choices. I believe there's more meat on this bone, for lack of a better word, for you guys to work on. I believe there has to be some conversations regarding Senate Bill 2514. I want to be a part of those conversations. And I'm going to be a yes, so I can hear those conversations. But I appreciate you working with us or working with me, and I appreciate you bringing that amendment.
I'm not seeing any other hands. So with that, Ms. King, please poll the committee. Representatives Bottoms.
No.
Bradley.
No.
Carter.
Yes.
Espinoza.
No.
Yes.
Respectfully, no.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Senate Bill 048, as amended, passes on a vote of 625. Thank you both so much. Okay, next up we have House Concurrent Resolution 1001 with Representatives Ricks and Sucla. And I want to remind folks that this is for action only. So we are going to move directly into the amendment phase and then we'll not have any testimony. Ms King is going to go ahead and circulate amendments
Thank you. All right.
Welcome back, bill sponsors. Where do you two want to begin on amendments? Members. Let's get this show on the road. Representative Ricks.
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. We do have three amendments, and I also have our bill drafts here here because there was some conversation around whether or not the amendment that we proposed in L001 spoke to the actual intent of this bill which is to limit and restrict it to bingo lottos and raffles. So there's questions about certain things and I think he might be able to expand on the explanation. But with that I'm going to move L001. Is there a second?
Seconded by Representative Carter. And this bill, this amendment basically went through page three and struck a lot of the language.
There was a lot of conversation during our previous committee, and it struck through all those different lines, all of those things, leaving everything as it was in the Constitution, but basically specifying that we're substituting gaming for bingo, lotto, and raffles. And we said that again. And with that, did you have anything to add on that?
Members, do you have any questions? Okay, just to bring everybody up to speed, Amendment L-001 has been moved to the introduced version of the bill. Yes, that's correct. Okay, Representative Bradley.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So page three, Mr. Payne, so we're unstriking now lines 22 through 27?
Jerry Payne, Office of Legislative Legal Service. That's correct. By unstriking, by taking them out of the bill, that means we're not changing them, which means it remains in the Constitution. So those subsection three, which does a couple of things, one of which limits games of chance to sell to quote selling of rights to participate and ordering of prizes. The specific kinds of games of chance commonly known as bingo or lotto, which prizes were on the basis of designate numbers or symbols on a card conforming to numbers or symbols. Selected a random in the specific games of chance commonly known as raffles conducted by the drawing of prizes or the allotment of prizes by chances So by taking that out of the bill that means that language would remain in the Constitution which means that it would be restricted to those forms of games of chance.
Representative Bradley. Thank you. So we're striking gaming, and now instead of it being conduct games of chance, it will now just be bingo, lotto, and raffles.
Mr. Payne, that's just to line up the question with what we're doing in the bill
by putting in the part that restricts it to those three.
Representative Froelich. Thank you very much.
either bill sponsors or drafter, there is no language about the delivery mechanism for the bingo lotto or raffles could be electronic or at the moment in the bill. That's something the legislature would tackle. Is that what's contemplated? Representative Rex.
Yeah, thank you, Rep. Froelich.
Currently, the bingo is done manually, and it would be the same game that's been played. It's traditional bingo. There's nothing changing about it. We're saying that we're restricting this language in gaming, which is described as bingo, lotto, and raffles. That's basically it. So there's nothing about it being electronic. And if you're referring to slot machines, please note that the Constitution prohibits any type of slot machines, period, in charitable gaming. or bingo-like slot machines, as was described. So that remains in the Constitution and is still prohibited in Colorado.
Any other questions on this amendment? Is there any objection to the amendment? I'm pausing because I see that you two are looking at the bill, and I want to give you a minute to do that. Representative Froelich.
We received a big, long amendment ahead of time on Thursday. Is that not being offered?
Representative Ricks.
Apparently, that was the pre-amended bill. There is no big, long amendment. Oh, I see. Just the pre-amend that includes these three? Yes.
Mr. Payne.
No, I wrote it. We, it only includes L001.
Oh, okay.
Sorry. Thank you.
All right. Is there any objection to this amendment? Okay. I'm not hearing any objection to the amendment. So amendment L001 is adopted. Representative Sucla.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to move HR...
Respectfully, Representative Sucla, you're not a member of the committee, so you can't move anything. We'll have Representative Ricks do that, okay? Thank you for playing. Representative Ricks.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L002. Second.
Seconded by Representative Frey. Tell us about the amendment.
It just Representative Sucla thinking Madam Chair It just strikes over site and substitutes it regulation
Members, what questions do you have about this amendment? Okay. Representative Bottoms.
So it seems to be just tightening it up a little bit.
Representative Ricks? Representative Zuzma?
Yes.
Okay. Is there any objection to Amendment L-002? Okay. Seeing none, Amendment L-002 is adopted. Representative Ricks?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll move L-003. Second.
Seconded by Representative Frey. Tell us about Amendment 3.
So in Amendment 3, after some more conversations with, after we presented L-001, there were still questions. People felt like they were not comfortable with the language, whether or not this indeed kind of closed the loop on presenting electronic gaming or slot machines. And so basically we are adding language in there that says restricted the bingo, lotto, or raffle in accordance with subsection 3. And subsection 3 referred here is the Constitution. And I'm going to ask if our bill drafter could talk a little bit about that.
Mr. Payne.
It ties it back to the subsection 3 we talked back to just to make sure that no one could construe the use of the game of words, game of chance, and subsection 2 is not being limited by subsection 3. It's kind of a belt suspenders amendment.
Members, do you have any questions? I think I saw Representative Carter. You had your hand up.
One of the issues that, and does this address the issue we were having where it appears that this section specifically would open up these, the ones that are enumerated, the religious, charitable, the nonprofit. to allow those nonprofits to do more than just bingo, lotto, or raffle? Is this the purpose of, or is that the purpose of Amendment 3, to address the issue that we were having, or to address the issue of whether or not this would allow those nonprofits to be a part of more games of chance than the ones that are already enumerated. Is that the purpose of Amendment 3?
Representative Ricks.
Yes, absolutely, Rep. Carter. This addresses the issue to close any loopholes or ambiguity around the consideration that they could open up any types of other games besides bingo, lotto, and raffle. And again, I keep saying that it's constitutionalized that they cannot offer those games in charitable gaming. That is not part of what was approved by the voters.
Representative Bottoms and then Vice Chair Clifford.
Okay, so as I see this, you're going to insert restricted to bingo, lotto, or raffle in accordance with subsection 3, which is no longer going to be crossed out, it's no longer taken away, so that it refers to that section as a legitimate section. Okay.
He nodded his head yes. Thank you for putting that on the record. Vice Chair Clifford.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I dialogue with Mr. Payne?
Yes, please.
Thank you. I've just got, I'm going to bounce around. So this L3 is the first time that I've seen it. And it might move my position on this bill. So I've got a few questions just very directly about what we're doing here. I am adamant that I do not want to see bingo turned into something that looks like electronic gaming here. From what I understand, the Colorado Constitution currently limits it. They do have the allowable use of using a bingo marking device so that you can mark more cards, but that's to the extent of it. You can't move to fully electronic bingo. This narrowing with Amendment L3 especially would then protect it so that we're not seeing gaming-style devices, that what we're still talking about here is good old-fashioned bingo. Is that your understanding?
Sure.
We're in dialogue, Mr. Payne. Well, I mean, I can't always promise how a court will construe something,
but the current law does say which prizes are awarded on the basis of designated numbers of symbols on a card conforming to numbers of symbols selected at random. So the current law seems to require a card. So that would seem to limit it to some degree. Whether you could get away with doing that with electronic with a card, I don't know. But that is the current law, and that's what limits it now. And so putting it back, taking it out of the bill would put it back to what we're doing.
So let's just get the nuts and bolts. So the primary objectives here are that they can at least pay some nominal fee to people that are working these games. This would allow that. And then the other pieces – could you just give me the – with the amendments, could you describe what this changes fundamentally as far as our current bingo statute – or current bingo what we have in the Constitution?
Well, I mean, you can see that by looking at subsection two primarily and subsection four where it has the limitation that you have to be in existence for five years.
So we're taking that out.
You don't have to be in existence for five years.
Got it.
That's getting taken out.
So a new charitable interest, let's say, for instance, a 501c3 gets approved by the IRS and the state tomorrow, and they're now in a new 501c3 and they want to go into the charitable bingo business. This would remove the five-year statute that would require them to wait.
They could go ahead and do that. Correct I mean it is the constitutional change So the statute that implements this and there also the Constitution What this does is allow the General Assembly to determine what that period is going to be
Got it. Is it inappropriate at this time to include in a bill what the General Assembly would so desire so that we wouldn't have to go back and make that change should this pass? so let's say for instance we put this on the ballot is it wouldn't it be prudent for us to go ahead and put the statutory framework or what that would look like now or you can't
we would have to come back and do the enactments of that after the ballot measure passes
this is a house concurrent resolution got it fair enough that makes sense
representative Ricks
thank you madam chair So to your question, this only takes this to the ballot, right? And after, if this was to pass, everything regarding whether or not is three years, two years, that would be determined through a bill through the General Assembly. So nothing changes as of this. It just says that, okay, General Assembly, you cannot pass bill for those particular administrative issues. And everything, again, will have to come through us. So it doesn't mean that a nonprofit can get their 501c3 and say, boom, we're in the bingo business. So that would not happen or any of these other measures. It has to come through us.
Representative La...
Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Thank you. Some of that is an issue for me. So help me see my way through it. And I understand that the General Assembly could come back. I don't, I, it is related to the amendment because, yes, because this amendment, when we go back to this restriction, changes my understanding of some things that we were doing earlier. And I had, it was a solid no before that. And this amendment changes something for me. So I'm trying to stay here just a little bit to make sure that I'm clear about what we've done. So I understand that we're leaving things in the section the way that they exist. I understand that what we're now doing is giving the General Assembly a wide range of ability to make additional changes to this thing. I'm not sure, and I know that we're using bingo, lotto, or raffle. I don't understand how this impacts lotto specifically. Can this constitutional amendment that we're making or make a change to this make anything that changes with our existing lottery laws?
Mr. Payne.
I think you're thinking of like the Colorado lottery? Yes.
Yeah, that's not – this is limited to the – as you see up here, it's limited to the nonprofit organizations.
So this has to do with a bona fide charge. There's a clear firewall between gaming and what we're talking about here.
Correct. That is one of my largest concerns is where that line gets blurred in any way. Do you feel like what we're doing here gives us access to blurring that line in any way? I mean, I know I'm putting you on the spot, Mr. Payne, but you're who I'm asking.
That doesn that I suppose I don think that a clear legal question This is much a policy question so I not entirely comfortable answering it If you ask me a clear legal question, I can answer it, but what the purpose is or those kinds of things or the effects of it, that's a policy question for you guys to decide.
I get that. One of the reasons that this is tricky for me because we have it in the Constitution, I believe, so that that line does not get blurred, so that we have clear stipulations for what is gaming in this state and what is not, and how those exist and how they do not. And then this is something that has always existed totally separate and constitutionally regulated, like a serious divider here. that's my concern here is that we're starting to erase that line or move into a direction, and I'm not even interested in giving the General Assembly a lot of latitude in making a change here.
So he does not want to answer that question if one of you two would like to. Representative Sucla.
It's my understanding that it is doing two things. It is leaving it the way that it was, and it's letting somebody pay out the poll tabs that is not the game member of the Elves Club or the Legion. That's the only reason I want to be on the bill is for those two things. If it was to expand gaming, I would be totally against that.
Representative Ricks.
Oh, yeah, thank you. So, yeah, Rep. Clifford. So, yeah, there's nothing here expanding anything. I also want to see this in the Constitution as far as not interested in seeing slot machines in bingo halls. Okay, this is traditional bingo, and that's where it stays. But these are just for administrative things. There's oversight. All those other things are locked in the Constitution. only these particular issues can be addressed by the General Assembly. Because imagine, if any changes need to be done administratively, they have to keep going to the ballot. It stops them from being able to go to the ballot and come to us to request a bill that will do something. And that's easier. I've heard a lot of comments from members of this committee, oh, we don't want to give them access to the ballot. So then how do they administer or make changes to be in line with what's going on right now? You still have to react for every business. Everything was done in 1954. Here we are in 2026. So, you know, things are going to change, and you are going to have to go to the ballot from time to time, and this really just takes those particular pieces out for us to address. So it makes it easier to maneuver.
Thank you. No further questions. Thank you. Representative Luck, did you want to ask a question?
Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. So I've pulled up the Constitution, and I'm just wondering if any of you know what is still left, because I see Section 2 has seven sections. we look to be cutting one two three in full doing some sizable changes to one and two as well so are there other things that beyond just that section 2 of article 18 that is applicable to this conversation?
Mr. Payne.
One second. I don't think so. Section 2, Article 18. Right. My computer isn't playing nice. Let me see. Let's see. The part that's not changed is Section 1. Oh, darn it. And it says, Section 1 says, The General Assembly shall have no power to authorize lotteries for any purpose except that the conducting of such games of chance as provided in subsection 2 to 4 of this section shall be lawful. And so there's also a subsection 7 which is an exception. And if the bill has amended passed then 3 would obviously correctly remain in there also. Oh, so subsection 7 says any provision of this Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding the General Assembly may establish a state-supervised lottery unless otherwise prohibited by statute. All proceeds from the lottery after deduction of prizes and expenses shall be allocated the Conservation Trust Fund of the state for distribution to municipalities and counties for park recreation and open space. So there's subsection one, which prohibits lotteries, and then the rest basically are exceptions to that. But seven is the Colorado lottery, and then two through six have to do with the games of chance.
Representative Luck.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for that. So if I can summarize, the fullness of the Constitution as relates to charitable gambling is found in Section 2 of Article 18, specifically subsections 2 through 6. If passed, this resolution, bypassed, I mean, goes from this body to the people, the people pass it by 55% or more, then the Constitution would be limited really to just sections 2 and 3 moving forward as relates to charitable gambling.
So you'd have one has the general prohibition, two through six are right now the charitable, seven is general lottery that the state administers.
So narrowing it to just this focus, it would eliminate four, five, and six, and there's no other regulation that is in existence. Is that fair?
That's fair for Colorado. Yeah, yeah, I mean you didn't mention it and it's not really part of this conversation, but there is the Constitution provisions allow for Black Hawk and Cripple Creek, but that's a different, yeah, that's not charitable, it's a different thing.
Representative Espinosa.
Okay, just follow, thank you, Madam Chair. Just following up on that question, In terms of what's remaining of Section 2, we're striking a substantial portion of Section 2 as well. Is that correct?
Correct.
And I guess I want to focus on what we're striking in Section 2 because this is part of the concern that I have, and that is that currently, as been delegated to the entity, the Secretary of State issues a license to allow for these games. Is that correct?
That's correct.
And section, oh, I'm sorry, Madam Chair, may I dialogue? Please.
And section two, what we're striking, will take away that designation of who's going to issue licenses for the purposes of these games. That's not quite right. If, as amended, we leave section three, and section three then does do two things. it requires the Secretary of State to license games of chance, and it restricts the games of chance to the ones we mentioned. So if Section 3 stays in, then the Secretary of State would still be named as a regulatory body in the Constitution.
I guess, but I'm reading Section 2. We're striking pursuant to this Section 2 and Sections 3 and 4, as in that's not being taken out. and then that designates who may get the licenses. So how do we retain the issue in Section 3 if we're striking 2, 3, and 4 in subsection 2? Do you see what I'm saying?
Yeah, I'm not quite following.
Lines 2 and 3 at page 3, you're striking, pursuant to this subsection 2 and subsection 3 and 4, the games can be produced. But you're striking subsection, then you're striking underneath that, who can get those licenses?
Jerry Payne, if you're talking about charitable gain,
meaning that it's not the, the, um, it's not struck the part that says a bona fide chartered branch or chapter of a national state organization or bona fide religious charitable labor fraternal educational voluntary firefighters, veterans organization that operates without profits members. So that's still remaining in the constitution. Yes, but the part above that is not remaining in the Constitution, which talks about the authority for the Secretary of State to act in subsection 3. Issue the fee and describe the license.
So, yeah, that's struck out.
so that the applications, the Constitution doesn't require that the application be upon forms prescribed by the Secretary of State.
Secretary of State could still promulgate rules or the General Assembly could still create laws. But yeah, the Constitution doesn't require the application to be made a secretary straight, though obviously you would have to apply the Secretary of State if they're the ones issued
the license under subsection three Okay So just wanted to get clarity that though we striking that out of the Constitution So at a minimum that would need the statutory fix that we just described with Representative Clifford in that time period So I just want to also be clear that from the time if the voters were to approve this measure which they've rejected twice already, the opportunity options to do this, but if their time's charm maybe decided they wanted to adopt this, it's correct that until this legislature acts, there are no provisions that are in effect.
until we enact statute. It's not self-executing, except to say these provisions no longer exist.
Chair Payne, there is actually,
it would take me a minute to find it, but there is actually an article of law that sets out the regulations currently now, and it's regulated. In fact, much of the, repeats the constitutional provisions, so much of that would still remain in law. It just wouldn't be mandated by the Constitution. If you give me a little bit of time, I can find that. Of course, my computer is fighting me on this.
And while you're looking, I just want to be clear that the other thing we're eliminating is the requirement of members to actually be licensed or be trained to supervise these provisions. So organizations that are allowed in Section 2 to conduct these lottos, bingos, and raffles could have third parties now administering those bingos, lottos, and raffles by what you're striking on lines 14 through 18.
Yeah, yeah. Yeah, it does allow for a broader ability. and if the General Assembly agrees, if they've changed how the statutes are done.
Thank you.
Is there any further discussion? Is there any objection to the amendment? Okay. Seeing none, Amendment L3 is adopted. Are there any further amendments? Okay. Committee, any further amendments? Seeing none, the amendment phase is now closed. We'll wrap up. Representative Sucla.
Well, this is the first time I've ever said it at the will, and I had questions that I wanted to ask. I say vote your conscience. What I was trying to do as a sponsor of the bill was allow somebody that works there for the organization to do the payouts. That is the crux of what I wanted to do. I did not want to expand the gaming. One question that was asked by a representative from Denver, which caught my attention, is when she said that it wouldn't be the Secretary of State, that there would be a gray area until the General Assembly approved the rules of the game. I don't know how I feel about the bill. Just vote your own conscience.
Representative Ricks.
Okay. Currently, charitable gaming is regulated by the Secretary of State Office. What we've heard here is that Section 3 is intact. Everything still goes through the Secretary of State Office the gray area that Rep Sucla was talking about is whether or not a person can get a gaming license a charitable gaming license. There's no way to get one unless you go through the Secretary of State Office. They're the ones who are the arbiters of those licenses. They're the ones who regulate them and come and do the audits at the gaming hall. So it doesn't take anything away. You heard from the bill drafter, Mr. Payne, that there are laws and regulations also that are intact and continue to remain intact unless the General Assembly acts and passes a bill that does something different. There's been concern, I think it was brought up about the, you know, whether it's going to be a five-year or one-year. But that is something that we can, as a General Assembly, make a decision of. There's two things that this bill does, really, is looking at remuneration of people who work in a gambling hall and also, you know, the license. How long do you have to wait to partake in charitable gaming? It doesn't change anything outside of, it's all nonprofits. Nobody for profit can get into this. And so I think as we look at how we're running games and things like that, there's, you know, some people feel like, well, they should be volunteers. Some people feel like we should be able to pay them a little bit of money for their gas. But all in all, as Colorado shrinks, the budget is $1.5 billion in the hole, there aren't many grants for charitable organizations. These organizations need to fund. Bingo has been a long-term thing that funds a lot of things that we enjoy in our community. baseball teams, churches, fraternal orders, all of these different things, and they serve a purpose. We see that they're shrinking. We see that it's taking too long to do things. Even though the bingo has been locked in the Constitution, it makes it really difficult to, you know, run your day-to-day operations. You can't make any decisions without going to the ballot, and then you also have people who resent you trying to go to the ballot. So it's kind of like you're caught between a rock and a hard place. And I think this bill will make it easy. It goes to the ballot, and the voters of Colorado are going to decide. Nothing that happens here today is going to change anything in Bingo except for the fact that the voters get to decide what happens to Bingo and the future of Bingo basically rests in the hands of the voters of Colorado. I ask for your yes vote.
Representative Ricks, do you want to go ahead and move your bill to the Appropriations Committee as amended?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Concurrent Resolution 101-1001 to the Committee of Appropriations with a favorable recommendation.
Can you restate that so that it's House Concurrent Resolution 1001 as amended?
Okay. Thank you. House concurrent resolution 1001 to as amended, sorry, to the Committee of Appropriations with a favorable recommendation.
Second. Thank you very much. Seconded by Representative Wyn. Members, do you have any closing comments? Representative Espinoza. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you especially to our representative from Arapaho, I believe, for all the work that you've done to try to make this bill something that makes sense. However notwithstanding all your efforts the critical parts of this bill that concern me are the elimination of the five years for the establishment of the organization which opens the door to a lot of non-potentially to nonprofits establishing themselves for the purposes of becoming eligible to engage in this charitable gaming. And then secondarily, the elimination of the members having to staff that purpose. One of the things that was critical in the testimony that we heard,
and the look on the Rotary representative's witness face when he heard that several of the charitable organizations are using these funds to actually engage in doing their operational for their club and not putting all this money into the charitable purposes for which this Constitution amended and allowed for the establishment of these gamings for these charities. Yes, there's a portion of that that can be taken for operational expenses. I'm not saying any of the individuals or organizations that do that are doing anything inappropriate. But there was a big contrast between the Rotary Club who indicated they have a foundation that they pour all of this money into that ensures that it all goes to those charitable purposes that you described and that are so admirable. But if organizations are using this to supplement their own operational expenses because of a decline in membership or other issues, and now they further want to eliminate their responsibility to run these charitable games, I have deep concerns of this being a perversion of what the purpose of the charitable organization gaming constitutional provisions are about. And so my concern is that in opening up those two elements, which are still in the resolution, that we create a situation where that could be abused by bad actors, not by the actors that are currently utilizing this, hopefully, but I do think that that exists under the amendments and under the resolution as proposed. And finally, I do think it's significant that the voters and the organizations twice were able to get this onto the ballot themselves, and the voters rejected it twice, and they're asking us as a legislature to now step in and try a third time. I don't think, especially in light of all of the things that are going to be on the ballot this next year, that this is the time to be adding a resolution from the legislature to bypass what I believe the voters have already told us twice. And for those reasons, I'll be a respectful no today. Representative Bottoms.
Yeah, thank you, guys. I'm sorry for you doing all this. You're working like crazy. And I appreciate that. I'm a lot in line with what Representative Espinosa is saying. So being in the nonprofit 501c3 category as pastor of a church, our church does things like this. Not really, but sort of like this. But the fact you're doing two things, and they seem innocuous if you only have one of them. taken away the five years now you can be paid the administrators can be paid when you tie those two together that's where that's where your brokenness is that's where your corruption comes in because now you're going to have people that are going to be uh jumping into the 501c3 status so they can get paid that's where the problem is going to be and um and here's here's another way look at it that nobody's really talked about is all most of these charitable i would All of these charitable organizations have already had their 501c3 status for a very, very long time. So the only reason to change it from five years or less is to prepare. I'm not saying you guys are doing this, but it does prepare the foundation for bad actors to step into an arena that they have not before because of that five years. But now they can step in and immediately start paying somebody, maybe even themselves, to run these games. And so now your money for these games, the gaming, all of the money that's included in the gaming is now going to support somebody with a salary first. That's going to be off the top. And so to me, and we have no criteria as to what they would get paid. So if you put those two together, that just sets this up for a very bad situation, in my opinion. There's some other issues that I would have, but they're not majored like those two. When those two hit together, you've got a problem.
Representative Luck.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you both. I will be a respectful no on this bill There is in my mind a distinction between as was mentioned before the spirit of this constitutional amendment from 70 plus years ago and what will likely be created as a system here In my mind, the spirit of the constitutional provision just providing this exception was likely to help support in these one-offs an organization. And let me say it in a different way. The Constitution prohibits this kind of gaming just as a general rule. It recognizes the dangers of gaming and the dangers that that poses to communities and to families and to individuals. And it says we don't want to incentivize that particular type of behavior here. However, we recognize that it's important that nonprofits have vehicles open to them to raise money in different fashions. And having a bingo night once a month in order to help the organization throw toys for tots or something of that nature to focus in so that you know you going to bingo not because of a desire to increase the amount of gambling in your community but simply having just these different activities that can help raise money for fun for good and charitable purposes I can understand where they were going for that. But as has been stated by both of the representatives who have spoken previously, What this really is going to do in my mind is open the door for gambling to take place in a much greater way, in a greater measure, and not specifically for those purposes. And I am concerned about having that expansion of gambling across our state in light of the data that I have seen related to gambling addictions and other such things. And so I think that the requirements and the restrictions that are being erased here, as has been mentioned, the five years and the fact that, you know, you're you're not you are tied to the organization and to those charitable purposes. you're not being hired as someone else to provide those services. I think that those are necessary protections to allow for the raising of money, but also not to create an environment where nonprofits pop up all over the place and we just have gambling expanded in all kinds of communities So I will be a respectful no Is there any further closing comments Okay Seeing none Ms King please poll the committee
Representatives Bottoms?
No.
Bradley?
No.
Carter?
Yes.
Espinosa?
No.
Bray?
No.
Krolik?
No.
Luck?
No.
Wynn?
Yes.
Ricks?
Yes. Clifford? No. Madam Chair? No. House concurrent resolution 10-0-1 fails on a vote of 8-3. Vice Chair Clifford? Madam Chair, I move to postpone indefinitely House concurrent resolution 26-1-0-0-1 with a reverse roll call vote. Second.
Is there any objection to postponing indefinitely House Concurrent Resolution 1001 with reverse roll call? Okay, seeing no objection, House Concurrent Resolution 1001 is postponed indefinitely. Members, we will not be meeting on Thursday, so we will ask you to stay tuned in the event that there are any further bills directed to our committee, and with that, the committee will stand adjourned. Thank you.